- Status
E
expectthebest
Guest
So Christians should take comfort in that some people will go to hell? This is a sad thing. Not a comfortable thing.
You cut off what I said in your quote. I didn’t say the Church taught that they could not leave. I said the Church taught that they could not leave and find true love with a good person rather than a bad person. Please be careful about quoting out of context.
I understand. This just does not seem to be reasonable in light of the Christian teacings of love, understanding, and forgiveness. I know that in the past it wasn’t all that uncommon for a priest to counsel a woman to try and be a “better” wife in order to now receive the beatings.
1
1ke
Guest
At the same time Christ established the Sacraments.
1
1ke
Guest
The comfort I was referring to was the comfort that they can have in knowing the faithful will inherit the Kingdom.
They can also remain hopeful that their spouse will repent.
“True love” is romantic junk taught to people by the media. The love spoken of by Christ is a virtue– and an act of the will.
Of course it is reasonable. There is no power on earth that can dissolve the Sacramental bond. Period.
In the past, this was sound counsel.
E
expectthebest
Guest
I disagree. One cannot make ones self love, at least in an affectionate way. We are all called to love our neighbor, but this is not the same love that should be between husband and wife. Does anyone else reading this agree with 1ke that true love is junk?
Oh really? Please expand how it was ever sound councel to tell a woman to hang in there and try to be a better wife in order to not recieve beatings.
1
1ke
Guest
The two faculties of the soul are intellect and will. Love is an act of the will. The love of husband and wife comes from the virtue of charity.
In places and times where the economic, cultural, and legal climate does not provide an alternative, advising a woman in such a manner is certainly prudent.
M
marietta
Guest
1ke:
You tell us:
“In places and times where the economic, cultural, and legal climate does not provide an alternative, advising a woman in such a manner is certainly prudent.”
When discussing this economic, cultural and legal climate you place your observation in the present tense. Are you referring to the entire world population here, or are you making your judgment strictly about men and women in the United States, right this moment? Are you referring to people in this country who are being told that it is “prudent” to lie low, be quiet, try to be a “better person” and maybe the beatings will stop? That is utterly outrageous, archaic and dangerous thinking.
If you had a daughter and her husband was pummeling her on a nightly basis, is this what you would tell her?
There is always a way to get out, a place to go, a safe haven. If anyone is suffering this sort of anguish, you don’t need a car, you don’t need stacks of cash, you don’t need anything but courage (fear that has prayed) and the means to make one phone call: to 911, to a center for battered women, to a friend’s house, to a church - make arrangements and go. Get out.
In my opinion, any marriage that takes place between one person and a batterer was never a marriage to begin with.
Regarding “true love”: I, for one, have gone way past the saturation point on the idea that there is any such thing as a “soul mate”. Even the sound of the phrase causes me a GI upset. Madison Avenue, Hollywood, Oprah - they’ve all weighed in. The fantasy is engaging until one realizes that behind the cardboard cut-outs there exist bills, illnesses, deceits, disagreements over everything from parenting to money to what’s for dinner. I believe the idea of “true love” is what Americans love. My idea of love is that it is action: quiet demonstration of consideration, protection, empowerment, choosing to be honest and candid, choosing to be present in the moment with one’s partner.
Twice I’ve thought I had it in the palm of my hand. I was wrong. So today I choose not to pursue it. I can’t take the hits anymore. My old therapist, Rosemary, once said, “m, your picker’s broke!” Man, was she right. I couldn’t pick an appropriate partner if he were gift wrapped from God. Some of us are better just letting the world go by. It’ll all be over soon enough.
marietta
You tell us:
“In places and times where the economic, cultural, and legal climate does not provide an alternative, advising a woman in such a manner is certainly prudent.”
When discussing this economic, cultural and legal climate you place your observation in the present tense. Are you referring to the entire world population here, or are you making your judgment strictly about men and women in the United States, right this moment? Are you referring to people in this country who are being told that it is “prudent” to lie low, be quiet, try to be a “better person” and maybe the beatings will stop? That is utterly outrageous, archaic and dangerous thinking.
If you had a daughter and her husband was pummeling her on a nightly basis, is this what you would tell her?
There is always a way to get out, a place to go, a safe haven. If anyone is suffering this sort of anguish, you don’t need a car, you don’t need stacks of cash, you don’t need anything but courage (fear that has prayed) and the means to make one phone call: to 911, to a center for battered women, to a friend’s house, to a church - make arrangements and go. Get out.
In my opinion, any marriage that takes place between one person and a batterer was never a marriage to begin with.
Regarding “true love”: I, for one, have gone way past the saturation point on the idea that there is any such thing as a “soul mate”. Even the sound of the phrase causes me a GI upset. Madison Avenue, Hollywood, Oprah - they’ve all weighed in. The fantasy is engaging until one realizes that behind the cardboard cut-outs there exist bills, illnesses, deceits, disagreements over everything from parenting to money to what’s for dinner. I believe the idea of “true love” is what Americans love. My idea of love is that it is action: quiet demonstration of consideration, protection, empowerment, choosing to be honest and candid, choosing to be present in the moment with one’s partner.
Twice I’ve thought I had it in the palm of my hand. I was wrong. So today I choose not to pursue it. I can’t take the hits anymore. My old therapist, Rosemary, once said, “m, your picker’s broke!” Man, was she right. I couldn’t pick an appropriate partner if he were gift wrapped from God. Some of us are better just letting the world go by. It’ll all be over soon enough.
marietta
1
1ke
Guest
Past, present, and future.
Certainly.
No.
This is not universally true.
It is the determination of the Tribunal that is relevant to the validity of a marriage. In many cases, certainly the marriage is invalid. But, not in all. That is the subject of the original post-- those marriages that have been through the tribunal process and were determined to be valid.
Yes, precisely. Love is an act of the will, and we hold it in our hand-- choosing to love or choosing not to. It is unfortunate when one chooses to love and the other chooses not to. In that circumstance, it is certainly a trying circumstance for the faithful one, but it does not change their freedom to contract another marriage.
I am sorry that this happened to you.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Well, that’s good to know!
What doesn’t make logical sense? If you make a vow to God, and that vow has certain conditions (like for better, for worse, till death), isn’t it logical that you should keep it?
I think all of us tend to get tainted by secular society, which says divorce is A-OK. But we should prefer to undergo torture and death rather than break a vow made to God Almighty.
Since I’m not an expert on that, I’ll leave this question for someone else to answer.
E
expectthebest
Guest
Love is, at least initially, an emotion. To say it is a 100% act of the will is like saying a person can absolutely control crying, surprise, and fear in all circumstances. There are times when emotions are not a free act of the will. In fact, if an emotion is strong enough, one can go out of their mind for a time and not even know what they are doing.
E
expectthebest
Guest
For better or for worse, at least in my mind, meant you couldn’t divorce just because you didn’t love someone any more. But, there is a huge difference between that and adultury or disertion. If a spouse leaves you and remarries, there is practically no chance of reconcilliation. Therefore, wouldn’t the marriage be void in the eyes of God?Well, that’s good to know!
What doesn’t make logical sense? If you make a vow to God, and that vow has certain conditions (like for better, for worse, till death), isn’t it logical that you should keep it?
I think all of us tend to get tainted by secular society, which says divorce is A-OK. But we should prefer to undergo torture and death rather than break a vow made to God Almighty.
Since I’m not an expert on that, I’ll leave this question for someone else to answer.
1
1ke
Guest
For better or worse means “in **all **circumstances”.
No, the marriage is not void in the eyes of God. It is a convenant that can never be revoked.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
If it were void, then sin can void what God has joined together. I’ll ask the question again: Is sin more powerful than God? I would think the answer is obvious.
Besides, when you take wedding vows, you don’t qualify “for worse” to mean adultery or desertion. If you did qualify it that way when you took the vow, if you actually spoke that out loud, you would have a case.
If we were to allow unspoken qualifications, why not qualify “for better”? What if one spouse says, “I vowed ‘for better’ but it’s not getting ‘better’ under my unspoken definition. Therefore, I should be allowed to divorce.”
Naw, I don’t think so.
- Status