SPLIT: Meaning of divorce in Matthew's Gospel

[jcrichton]

You do tend to think in all or nothing scenarios. Just because societies encourage or permit unethical actions in some areas does not mean they do not encourage them in others. Furthermore some people such as Buddhists refuse to commit human abortions as well as refraining from killing animals especially for food. Now Catholics do not discourage the killing of animals for food but they do encourage people not to lie and steal. Does this mean they do not promote selflessness in any area of life? Of course not. Admittedly it is self centered to disregard the suffering of an animal for the pleasure of eating such especially if one can afford to nourish oneself otherwise but does that mean that person never tries to be selfless in other areas? I am sure that many meat eating Catholics practice selflessness. They just draw the line at animal suffering where their taste buds are concerned. Likewise some people draw the line at where killing is permissible to include human fetuses. You and I would not agree with them though.

…but that’s just it; I cannot call a human child an it while knocking someone’s head off because he/she called my dog it (check movies and shows); Buddist seem to be great people… but I hear that killing Catholics its a new practice that is being adopted by them–cause they are Catholics seems a good enough reason to void their peace-loving teachings!

The point is that if you Believed and adhered to God’s Commandments (Love Yahweh God above all and your neighbor as yourself) you would not commit yourself to any acts that would harm/kill others; as far as taking a life… if you eat tomatoes, potatoes, beans, corn… you are actively engaged in terminating a life in order to sustain yours… ditto if you do not drink water from a 100% naturally esteril source!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

But, as I was pointing out earlier – He is being asked the question maliciously in the territory of Herodias and Herod; (Eg: incest and or adultery; cf. John the Baptist)
The particular exception clause only occurs in this particular geographic place, with those as contemporaries; In other places in Matthew, and the other Gospels the exception is not mentioned.

I find it difficult to accept that this is mere coincidence;
Deute 24:1 εαν δε τις λαβη γυναικα και συνοικηση αυτη και εσται εαν μη ευρη χαριν εναντιον αυτου οτι ευρεν εν αυτη ασχημον πραγμα και γραψει αυτη βιβλιον αποστασιου και δωσει εις τας χειρας αυτης και εξαποστελει αυτην εκ της οικιας αυτου
Deute 24:1 If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce (biblon apostacy), and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

The specific terms in the Greek for divorce is “book(let) of apostacy”; which being the term for divorce is also the term for disparity of cult. The particular word for “uncleanness” carries the idea of “deed” (Pragma) and the other part shows up in Deute 25:3; Ezekiel 23:29; and carries the sense of confusion/shame/disgrace.

So Deute says,
if a man take a wife, and she find not grace (a reciprocal relationship) in his eyes which find in her shameful deed(s), and [a man] write to her [a] booklet of apostacy and give-it into the hand of-her and send her out of his house.

So that it is for the “action” of the wife that divorce is permitted;

Ezeki 23:29 And they shall deal with thee in hatred, and they shall take away all thy labours, and shall let thee go naked, and full of disgrace, and the disgrace of thy fornication (pornea) shall be discovered, thy wickedness, and thy fornications.
Ezeki 23:30 They have done these things to thee, because thou hast played the harlot with the nations among which thou wast defiled with their idols.
…

Which is identical to that used in Matthew. The fornication is something which is “unveiled”; and the reference to naked also refers to sexual sin in Jewish idiom; so much so – that I think Moses clearly is indicating some kind of Sexual sin that the husband can’t tolerate; not mere lack of beauty or some such but shameful behavior.

Given that, I don’t think it makes much sense that Jesus would be setting aside moses’ grounds for “divorce”; any truly “shameful practice” of the wife would necessitate a man getting rid of her. Moses allowed you divorce because of your hardness of heart then, would seem to be applicable to the wife’s unwillingness to change idolatrous/adulterous practices as well as an unforgiving husband.

The interpretation of the Scribes in Jesus’ day may not coincide with that which Moses actually proposed; But the issue is, if Moses actually meant an idolatrous or disparity of cult wife (apostate); then it isn’t Moses’ law which needs set aside – but the interpretation of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Otherwise, setting aside – would seem to sanction a man staying married to a woman who refused normal sexual relations without perversion of some kind.

The “setting aside” interpretation appears risky apologetically speaking; when comparing to the teaching of the Catholic Church and her practice throughout the centuries. It may rest on a misinterpretation of Moses and Jesus; (I’m not certain it is, but the potential is visible in a cursory reading of the Greek.)

One has to show that Moses’ grounds for divorce aren’t in fact those of a null Jewish marriage (disparity of cult). It might be possible that the woman repent in the future, and in marrying another they have the same religious understanding of sexuality; but refuse it to her first husband for unknown reasons; (Some wives taken by Moses’ Jewish peers were captives from other religions, so refusal to be a slave wife or contraceptive practice also seems possible…)

Without being certain of Moses reasoning for divorce being erroneous, it is difficult to say why Jesus would refuse to talk about it. “Hardness of Heart” refers to disobeying of God’s law, therefore – divorce is given for disobeying God’s law is another way to understand Jesus’ statement.

What do you think?

I think that we must take into consideration all of the others circumventions (give tithing on the less lucrative items while withholding it on the more lucrative; slither of responsibility to parents by claiming moneys are tied up for Temple business, load up the Commandments with over 600 regulations that the people had to observe while the religious elite could void, legalistic aplication of the Law as with no swearing on the money but it’s OK to swear on the Altar…); when Jesus refers to them as a religious unity He cautions His Disciples that they must head what they Teach since they are Israel Teachers (Written and Oral Scriptures) but that they must not imitate/emulate them for they actually transgress the Law for personal gains (as, I suspect, the practice of only bringing adulterous women to justice and not their lovers nor the adulterous husbands).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The laws of Moses regarding divorce favor men over women regarding initiating of proceedings which set precedence for other religions to do similar things.

In today’s modern world, people tend to divorce over the smallest things. I would say things like adultery, desertion, domestic violence, etc would be grounds for divorce then seeking an annulment. Not all things can be fixed by counseling and/or rehabilitation.

Issues with communication, family, and money are things that people should be able to compromise on and seek help with, and should have discussed even before the wedding day of how they should be handled.

…but did you noticed that Jesus was not correcting Moses; I suspect that, as with other elements of the Law, there came a time when that “male” preference took hold and was abused to the max!

I cuncur with you in that there are cases (domestic violence, adultery) where divorce may be the only recouse… yet, there’s that nagging issue of re-marriage…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Well, I suggest you read your own scriptures. It is fairly obvious that laws and rules come in to change things that actually happen. So if there is a law saying “Don’t beat your slave to death” then it is in response to a slave being beaten to death. If the Bible claims God says it is OK to beat a slave unconscious but not to death and a Pope says God says slavery is wrong then there has been a change in commandments. If the Chinese government starts up private enterprises and claims it is still communist and no change has taken place and we believe it. How sad are we. It is like the sheep in George Orwell’s Animal Farm who believe Squealer when he says there has been no change in the commandments. What the sheep thought they remembered as “No animal shall sleep in a bed” was actually " No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property". Exodus 21:20

“We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery (in servitutem redigere) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.” Pope Gregory, In Supremo.

That seems quite a change in the commandments that some men claim come from God.

I think that you are a little confused… Moses never told the people not to steal their neighbor’s internet/cable signal… but the Commandment not to steal meant the same then as now!

Why did Yahweh God not create a full comprehensive and all inclusive modal for the Hebrews to follow? I truly have no idea… but you are arguing for God when you state that the Church put in place by Jesus began to address those issues as human sexuality and human rights… why does it take God so much time to correct issues? …again, I truly do not know… but perhaps it has something to do with our short-comings… some places in the world still treat women as domestic things that can be tortured, abused and even killed at whim… go ahead and try to convince them of how wrong it is (bring the US Marines with you or expect your body/parts to be in the news… or tell the new european union how much the West owes to Christianity–you will be read the new historical revision of “secular only” brave new world order!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yes but which changes. The change of the commandment that Israelites could no longer enslave their own or the the Popes who said all slavery was wrong?

…again, no Commandment has been changed!

Though shall not kill has a wide range of levels as the other 9 of the 10–the problem lies in how we observe or ignore them; once I conclude that smoking is harmful and is in violation of that Commandment, does that mean that I have changed the Commandment or that I have come to a fuller understanding of it?

If you are seeking a God that has full control over our actions, then you should not hold on to the fallacy of beig atheist since you would not have the right to claim to be anything but a citizen who worships Yahweh God!

The fact that we can claim what is, in essense, an anti-Christian behavior shows how Patient, Loving and Righteous Yahweh is that allows us to have self-determination… conversely, when things to not go 100% as we’ve determined, we cannot fault God for not keeping us from those things that upset/harm us.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The verse Mt 19:9, taken from the New American Bible (which is a Catholic version) is given below for quick reference:

9
**I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries commits adultery." **

The marriage being un-lawful just means that which is not accepted by the Law. My opinion is that Jesus being a Jew was not referring to the Civil law of that time which was the Roman Law. He must be referring to the Jewish Law. A marriage would not be lawful then only if it does not have a marriage certificate from a valid Jewish authority.

For us Catholics it would mean that the marriage would be un-lawful if it does not have a certificate of marriage from the church.

Mt 5:32 from the NAB is given below for quick reference:
32
**But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. **

Here the context is different; here it says that if the marriage is lawful and a person divorces his wife then he causes her to commit adultery. The reason here is that in Jewish background, for a woman to remain un-married is not an option at all (single woman concept did not exist then).

I don’t think that’s correct; although it may have been uncommon, the Law of Moses shows that women could inherit property; and depending on whom and if they re-marry determines the tribe that the property remains in the custody of in future generations. In Roman law – and many Jews were also Roman citizens, Cf. St. Paul, women could divorce their husbands and it wasn’t one sided.

In such a case if a man divorces his wife even though the marriage is lawful then he forces her to re-marry. So she has to re-marry though as far as she is concerned the earlier marriage was lawful, hence she has been caused to commit adultery by her previous husband by forcing her into another marriage. So the husband is in sin, since he has caused his wife to enter into another marriage when his marriage with her was lawful.

Adultery is generally understood as the sin of a woman against the man in the popular opinion of the day; For a dowry was involved and on this basis, a family which “pays” for a wife also invokes the levirate law to insure that the family into which she marries gets to keep the property; eg: See Judah in the OT as an example; He wanted her burned, but had to yield once it was proven that the child was in the family.

Although I have thought along your lines of reasoning in the past, I am more convinced that Jesus words reflect that a woman in a failed marriage – who succeeds in another one – essentially allows the public to look down on the man as a failure; Further – Moses shows the same connection when he states – re-marriage of the divorced wife to the first husband is called “abomination” because it shows that the divorce was for no legitimate reason. I think It is the man’s reputation which makes it “abomination”.

I don’t know whether I have made my points clear. It is such a difficult topic. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I have just interpreted the verse based on what it gramatically wants to say, not trying to read too much or too little from it.

You’re in good company. It is, indeed, a difficult topic.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

…I’m kind of slow sometimes… are you stating that Catholic Priests are teaching that if a spouse is murdered by the other spouse than he/she can marry another woman/man with the Church’s Blessings?

Maran atha!

Angel

Fr. Luan Tran, of Oregon, (St. Birgittas, OR at the moment) pointed out that St. Thomas taught that murder was not an impediment to another marriage. I wouldn’t extend this teaching to priests in general; but yes – you are correct.

Imagine a man, nearly psychotic, with a wife sending one of his children to a Seventh Day Adventist school – and being generally beligerant, making various threats, and using sexualtiy as a weapon; etc. And talking to the local priest, he flippiantly says ‘there murder, but no divorce’. We’ll leave it at that… (She’s still alive … I left… and we’re still married on paper… but she won’t listen to sound advice from the church and continues to divide us to this day. I gave her my ring back after she sued me for child support while I was taking care of the kids to help her work…)

 

[bmonk]

…I’m kind of slow sometimes… are you stating that Catholic Priests are teaching that if a spouse is murdered by the other spouse than he/she can marry another woman/man with the Church’s Blessings?

Maran atha!

Angel

Actually, killing someone to be free to marry is an impediment to marriage–and so the marriage would not be allowed.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Actually, killing someone to be free to marry is an impediment to marriage–and so the marriage would not be allowed.

That’s an interesting point; do you happen to have a reference? I’d love to forward it to someone. :newidea: But, on the other hand, He would probably just say something along the lines that Andrew wouldn’t have murdered her in order to remarry; that’s just an afterthought…

You’d have to have been there to appreciate the intense irony of the situation; I unfortunately couldn’t at the time, because I was sleep deprived to the point of … well, foggy thinking… I guess, I don’t really remember what I don’t want to remember.

I do remember the Catechism verse I quoted to him over the sexuality issue which led to his comment: I had just been jumped by two police while I tried to** talk** my wife out of** streaking in front of the kids** after a strange incident in which she said the words “You can have my body but not my soul … Tony” ( The tone of this comment is impossible to convey and I doubt I could recall it accurately; it’s one of those tdrauma type memories. real, but dangerous to recall. )

We had been discussing faith, and the meaning of marriage (eg: are you my wife still?), and the like… and one of the things I had begun to discuss with her is the meaning of: 2349 “There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins.”
#1 was imprecisely the accurate topic.

I was very confused by her response; and so Talking to Fr. Luan, later, after the police left us laughing and asking me to take the kids on an outing … I pointed out #2360 – right at the head of “The Love of Husband and Wife”; “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the** physical intimacy** of the spouses becomes a sign and a pledge of spiritual communion.”

That’s when he decided to drop the murder bomb comment.

Later, when talking to a Father Anthony, Patalano (An OP! YAY) – he gave me a story about how he had “seen everything”; it’s a quote that is almost like telepathy between Fr. Luan and Him – where Fr. Luan’s absolute confusion became some kind of Fact in Fr. Anthony’s mind; (BTW: Fr. Anthony is an extremely respectable priest to me.)

But here I was, and he was, and he was doing the talking preceding the talk with an unrelated story about how he had “seen everything” in marriage; There was the MAN who told him: “Fr. The Sex is great, but I just don’t love her.” etc,

It made me feel like dirt, and extremely angry inside (depressed…). He went on and on like this until I showed him a video of one of my most depressing encounters (no sex even involved) with my wife; His story halted as he looked at the screen, the jaw dropped, and only TWO WORDS came out “Oh, My!”

He couldn’t help us – but I tell you, those two words gave me more comfort than his entire deranged story and six months of Fr. Luan.

It took Fr. Luan Seven months to have a conversation with me, after parading every wrong thing every substitute priest might have done in front of my face that I didn’t complain about. In the Seventh month, a puzzled expression was on his face for the first time ever, and he said “You just like to follow the rules, don’t you?” …
and THEN it dawned on me what he was doing; He had been baiting me to pick on these priests, and I didn’t because I’m not responsible for what THEY DO – just what I DO. :bowdown2: GEE Father – { mental parade: “Yes I do…, I DID Swear an Oath on my wedding day. Sorry she tried to act like your wife in mass…That wasn’t my fault…!@?!@#” }

But I shut my mouth and said nothing. Yoda’s – RESPECT The collar I did – the man know, I don’t. So, please, if you have a reference ---- find it! :extrahappy::bounce:

 

[jcrichton]

Fr. Luan Tran, of Oregon, (St. Birgittas, OR at the moment) pointed out that St. Thomas taught that murder was not an impediment to another marriage. I wouldn’t extend this teaching to priests in general; but yes – you are correct.

Imagine a man, nearly psychotic, with a wife sending one of his children to a Seventh Day Adventist school – and being generally beligerant, making various threats, and using sexualtiy as a weapon; etc. And talking to the local priest, he flippiantly says ‘there murder, but no divorce’. We’ll leave it at that… (She’s still alive … I left… and we’re still married on paper… but she won’t listen to sound advice from the church and continues to divide us to this day. I gave her my ring back after she sued me for child support while I was taking care of the kids to help her work…)

I wonder if those who teach such perplexing theologies are aware that Satan disguises himself as an angel of Light and that what to their mind may seem reasonable and sound may be twisted about to the detriment of our spiritual and temporal wellbeing? I suspect that what St. Thomas was attempting to convey was the insolubility of the Sacrament of Matrimony and not that mariticide is an acceptable recourse to marital/domestic problems. I am so glad that you, and most Catholics throughout time, did not resort to such recourse!

My heart goes to you… it is said that reality is stranger than fiction! I Praise the Holy Spirit for Giving you so much valord, patience, and humility (in the manner of Job) to have determined to stay close to Yahweh God even in the deepest and darkest moments; you, my friend, have shown me that, though the battle seems futile at times, the Holy Spirit does come to our aide as He helps us grow beyond our finite abilities… you are demonstrating that we can find our “new man” hidden in Christ if we are true to our Lord’s Command to abide in Him so that He may Abide in us!

You are also a hero to both the married and unmarried men who chose to prescribe to the Catholic Christian Faith!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Actually, killing someone to be free to marry is an impediment to marriage–and so the marriage would not be allowed.

I concur… but at times many of the ancient expressions allow for seeming errors to be thought of as flawed Doctrine; I am sure that the gravity of the Sacrament was the focus point of St. Thomas… but a novice as myself, as well as those seeking to defame the Church or those seeking quick fixes, can misconstrue the meaning of the expression while holding on to the face-value of the text (much as it happens with Sacred Scriptures); while one cannot fulfill one Commandment by violating another, Jesus clearly states that, in a misguided attempt to serve Yahweh God, there will be those who will do exactly that.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… I suspect that what St. Thomas was attempting to convey was the insolubility of the Sacrament of Matrimony and not that mariticide is an acceptable recourse to marital/domestic problems. I am so glad that you, and most Catholics throughout time, did not resort to such recourse!

I read it at one point, and I don’t remember St. Thomas’ reasoning – along with many other things that happened in that time period (That’s a good thing, as it helps me let go). I do remember that I wasn’t impressed with Fr. Luan for equating my situation with whatever it was that Thomas said.

My heart goes to you… it is said that reality is stranger than fiction! I Praise the Holy Spirit for Giving you so much valord, patience, and humility (in the manner of Job) to have determined to stay close to Yahweh God even in the deepest and darkest moments;

maran atha! Indeed, Angel; I look forward to the day when he explains what all these twists and turns were really all about and why they were allowed.
Not only is reality stranger than fiction; I have found myself wondering time and again why it couldn’t just BE fiction; PLEASE!

The temptation/reasonable action of divorce has definitely crossed my mind, but I haven’t been forced to do it yet – and I don’t see that it will actually help my situation or that of the kids now that I am already reasonably stable.

The only thing enjoyable about it is that I can express these stories, and most people will forever think they are just dramatic exaggerations – but I don’t have to exaggerate; and if called on the mat about it – I can prove what needs to be; so that even atheists/hecklers who want to retort that I am the one with specious arguments, I am easily able to show that it is they who are truly being specious.

In one of the medical journals I was reading, about histrionic personality disorder (HPD) which has the symptoms dividing my wife and I (and which isn’t a crime, and is generally unresponsive to treatment) I came across a comment that said “women with this disorder were often thought to be possessed in the past.”;

It was stunning to me; for I had wondered about that exact thing during the most dramatic and erratic period of our relationship melt-down. She seemed to have this eerie ability to do exactly the thing that I feared the most. Now I realize that it was a “small” sin by today’s standards in her life as a younger child that has just grown and consumed her conscience like an obsession. The ingrained attitude is practically impossible for her to let go of now but even I could have become twisted like that if my family had treated me differently (and I’m not saying there is anything to take my in-laws to court over!).

Jesus said of Adam and Eve, that lust and “Domination” were to happen after the fall (Genes 3:16) because of the sin; The true purpose of being king is to serve, but not be a walking mat for those one is called to love. The destruction of marriage is a look-alike contest where all the love is hollow, and the motions specious. Even a good hearted person can be deceived.

Fr. Jim Stenge, several years ago in his usual crass style, commented to my mother in law that our marriage could be annuled; although it is forbidden to judge before the divorce. And looking at the requirements to enter into marriage, later, I think it possible he is right. Though what he said, at the time, was just more fuel for my wife’s drama; however, over time I have begun to appreciate that he wasn’t necessarily speaking about me when he made the comment to my interfering mother in law. His own illnesses undoubtedly made him rash for we both know what it is like not to sleep for days on end.

He is a very limited priest in knowledge and apologetics, but I tell you! HE was the one who thought to give me annointing of the sick when I first broke down and had to leave my wife.

I know you pray for people like me, Angel, pray also for my wife; she doesn’t know what she is doing.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

refs:
healthguideinfo.com/personality-disorders/p88850/
minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Histrionic-personality-disorder.html

 

[Warrior1979]

That’s an interesting point; do you happen to have a reference?

See Canon 1090.

This impediment can be dispensed of, but it is reserved to the Apostolic See.

 

[Nimeniton]

…but that’s just it; I cannot call a human child an it while knocking someone’s head off because he/she called my dog it (check movies and shows); Buddist seem to be great people… but I hear that killing Catholics its a new practice that is being adopted by them–cause they are Catholics seems a good enough reason to void their peace-loving teachings!

The point is that if you Believed and adhered to God’s Commandments (Love Yahweh God above all and your neighbor as yourself) you would not commit yourself to any acts that would harm/kill others; as far as taking a life… if you eat tomatoes, potatoes, beans, corn… you are actively engaged in terminating a life in order to sustain yours… ditto if you do not drink water from a 100% naturally esteril source!

Maran atha!

Angel

I have been in London a few days visiting family. so apologies for the delay in replying. Of course killing Catholics cannot be condoned or for that matter Hindhu Tamils by Buddhists or anyone else just as killing non Catholics cannot be condoned whether by Catholics or anyone else. And let’s face it neither Buddhists not Catholics are innocents here.

With regard to non human lives whether animal or plant - this is the world we find ourselves in - a world where we have to cause pain, kill and consume each other to survive. For the compassionate that leaves a dilemma. Christians and Buddhists resolve this by creating a hierarchy of life putting humans at the top. This is why I do not believe in a “good” god (though and evil and/or indifferent one is possible) simply because of a creation that is red in tooth and claw.

 

[Nimeniton]

I think that you are a little confused… Moses never told the people not to steal their neighbor’s internet/cable signal… but the Commandment not to steal meant the same then as now!

Why did Yahweh God not create a full comprehensive and all inclusive modal for the Hebrews to follow? I truly have no idea… but you are arguing for God when you state that the Church put in place by Jesus began to address those issues as human sexuality and human rights… why does it take God so much time to correct issues? …again, I truly do not know… but perhaps it has something to do with our short-comings… some places in the world still treat women as domestic things that can be tortured, abused and even killed at whim… go ahead and try to convince them of how wrong it is (bring the US Marines with you or expect your body/parts to be in the news… or tell the new european union how much the West owes to Christianity–you will be read the new historical revision of “secular only” brave new world order!

Maran atha!

Angel

Let’s be clear here. The issue is not what you do not know but what you claim to know. You claimed that God does not change his commandments. Now I simply pointed out that this was not true with regard to his commandments on slavery. I made no mention about stealing!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

See Canon 1090.

This impediment can be dispensed of, but it is reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.

But, alas, as I mentioned already (quoting myself):

But, on the other hand, He would probably just say something along the lines that Andrew wouldn’t have murdered her in order to remarry; that’s just an afterthought…

This would appear to apply to King Henry VIII; So, The church HAS seen just about everything… !

If I had known that canon when he made the comment, I would have been sure to ask him if he were offering moral support to be sure I never remarried … or what other malicious purpose could he have for saying such a thing?

I just wonder how long it will be until someone pops him one right in the mouth and says, “That’s not an impediment for me going to mass, Fr., either… It’s not even murder.” If he did it once, he may do it again !

But in all honesty, his replacement in St. Helens – a Fr. Barita – is exactly what that parish needs; For my wife isn’t the only trouble maker out that direction ! And Fr. Barita is far better able to deal with the rabid female issues probably because Fr. Barita’s home home country has its share of women issues (tribal) and he shows a lot better grasp of how to deal with hysterics! I have never seen him blame a husband for what the wife did, or vice versa.

Thanks for the pointer to the Law;
–Andrew.

 

[jcrichton]

maran atha! Indeed, Angel; I look forward to the day when he explains what all these twists and turns were really all about and why they were allowed.
Not only is reality stranger than fiction; I have found myself wondering time and again why it couldn’t just BE fiction; PLEASE!

…I recently shared a similar exchange with a young woman (the tacit “why me?”) where I proposed that if I traveled back in time to keep her from every painful experience she would not be the person that she is today; St. Paul puts it something like this: “for He is stronger when I am weak…”

I believe that it is in our greater need that we seek God the most; and I suspect that, though not woven in the fabric of Life, God allows us to experience these sometimes awful encounters to allow us to want to be closer to Him (“Peter, do you love Me more than these…?”); when we engage the world on our own (merits, abilities, wisdom) even the slightest blocks can cause us to stumble beyond recovery; conversely, in the measure that we become dependent on Christ our vision (reason for hope) and abilities (reason and understanding) deepen: “I can do all things in He that strengthens me…”

The only thing enjoyable about it is that I can express these stories… In one of the medical journals I was reading, about histrionic personality disorder (HPD) which has the symptoms dividing my wife and I (and which isn’t a crime, and is generally unresponsive to treatment) I came across a comment that said “women with this disorder were often thought to be possessed in the past.”;

It was stunning to me; for I had wondered about that exact thing during the most dramatic and erratic period of our relationship melt-down. She seemed to have this eerie ability to do exactly the thing that I feared the most. Now I realize that it was a “small” sin by today’s standards in her life as a younger child that has just grown and consumed her conscience like an obsession. The ingrained attitude is practically impossible for her to let go of now but even I could have become twisted like that if my family had treated me differently (and I’m not saying there is anything to take my in-laws to court over!).

Jesus said of Adam and Eve, that lust and “Domination” were to happen after the fall (Genes 3:16) because of the sin; The true purpose of being king is to serve, but not be a walking mat for those one is called to love. The destruction of marriage is a look-alike contest where all the love is hollow, and the motions specious. Even a good hearted person can be deceived.

I’ve learned, from experience, that we (humans) are a twisted bunch… we repay kindness/love with apathy/loathing as our ego becomes obsessed and we lose all sense of charity, even for ouselves… romantic relationships can fall prey to this convoluted reasoning… to the point that we destroy that which we claim to love: family, spouse, relative, friend, self-respect, self-determination…

Fr. Jim Stenge, several years ago in his usual crass style, commented to my mother in law that our marriage could be annuled; although it is forbidden to judge before the divorce. And looking at the requirements to enter into marriage, later, I think it possible he is right. Though what he said, at the time, was just more fuel for my wife’s drama; however, over time I have begun to appreciate that he wasn’t necessarily speaking about me when he made the comment to my interfering mother in law. His own illnesses undoubtedly made him rash for we both know what it is like not to sleep for days on end.

He is a very limited priest in knowledge and apologetics, but I tell you! HE was the one who thought to give me annointing of the sick when I first broke down and had to leave my wife.]

…as with many vocations, not all who serve are naturally gifted to serve in their chosen field… some have even lost their ways and are too stubborn to admit failure and too proud to improve on their limited capacities… :banghead:

I know you pray for people like me, Angel, pray also for my wife; she doesn’t know what she is doing.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

refs:
healthguideinfo.com/personality-disorders/p88850/
minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Histrionic-personality-disorder.html

Andrew, be asured that I have you and your wife in my prayers–it is God’s greatest Mercy (the Communion of the Saints), so we must be generous in asking for Graces and Blessings for ourselves, the Members of Christ’s Body and even for the world that exists in darkness and ignorance…

In brother, in Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: I will check your links promptly–my computer is about to crash again…

 

[jcrichton]

I have been in London a few days visiting family. so apologies for the delay in replying. Of course killing Catholics cannot be condoned or for that matter Hindhu Tamils by Buddhists or anyone else just as killing non Catholics cannot be condoned whether by Catholics or anyone else. And let’s face it neither Buddhists not Catholics are innocents here.

With regard to non human lives whether animal or plant - this is the world we find ourselves in - a world where we have to cause pain, kill and consume each other to survive. For the compassionate that leaves a dilemma. Christians and Buddhists resolve this by creating a hierarchy of life putting humans at the top. This is why I do not believe in a “good” god (though and evil and/or indifferent one is possible) simply because of a creation that is red in tooth and claw.

I am not a historian (nor revisionist) but I cannot recall an episode when the Church condoned killing those who opposed her (you cannot blame the Church for the hitlers of the world just because they were born in the Faith)–the same cannot be said of those religious groups (including atheists with their own brand of ethos) who, as an entity, have actively persecuted and killed millions of Believers for the only reason that they Believe differently…

…as for the “good” God vs. evil and/or indifferent, it is easy to prescribe to a non-existing Good in preference of an evil/indifferent entity since the evil/indifferent would support wanton destruction and eradication of anything and everything… when one subscribes to a Good there are dire ramifications to engaging in evil and apathy.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s be clear here. The issue is not what you do not know but what you claim to know. You claimed that God does not change his commandments. Now I simply pointed out that this was not true with regard to his commandments on slavery. I made no mention about stealing!

…but that’s just it… there’s no Commandment on slavery… just as there’s no Commandment on how much you earn/pay for labor, number of houses you can own, number of food items you can eat in a day, the amount of travel you do in a life time… slavery was a condition (which is still practiced today); the Commandment dealing with murder/killing was applied in Scriptures to magnify the Commandment (thou shall not kill is constant when dealing with slaves); the Mosaic Law expanded on the Ten Commandments, and the Catholic Church expanded on the existing Sacred Tradition pushing to eliminate th detremental human behavior that would subjugate a person while elevating another… the Commandments are still intact!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nimeniton]

…but that’s just it… there’s no Commandment on slavery… just as there’s no Commandment on how much you earn/pay for labor, number of houses you can own, number of food items you can eat in a day, the amount of travel you do in a life time… slavery was a condition (which is still practiced today); the Commandment dealing with murder/killing was applied in Scriptures to magnify the Commandment (thou shall not kill is constant when dealing with slaves); the Mosaic Law expanded on the Ten Commandments, and the Catholic Church expanded on the existing Sacred Tradition pushing to eliminate th detremental human behavior that would subjugate a person while elevating another… the Commandments are still intact!

Maran atha!

Angel

You seem to be limiting God’s commandments to the traditional ten! God commands on numerous occasions in the Bible not just the ten! There are numerous commands about slavery. I have already quoted some to you. Commands may also be in the positive as in the negative. You must worship God is a positive command whilst thou must not steal is a negative. You must not kill your slave is a negative command but you may beat him is a positive command, as he is your property. Exodus 21:20-21 The words in Exodus put into the mouth of God that one man has property rights over another. These rights they claim, have been given by God. The church who also puts words into the mouth of God and this time it says that one man is not the property of another. Clearly one group of men put into God’s mouth that slavery is OK and another group that it is not. I think there is a contradiction, agreed?