The Sexual State. How a rolling revolution is destroying Lives

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my opinion the slide began with the contraceptive mentality when people started thinking that sex did not have to necessarily result in babies because of the pill.
 
I think the deep seated issue here is Chastity. People have forgotten (or ignore) the fact that leading a chaste life (whether single or married) is pleasing to God. Our most fundamental relationship must be re-established and ordered to God, and to God alone. Then, and only then, will our relationship to each other be properly ordered and pleasing to God. This eliminates all sins of the sexual revolution:
  • the right ordering of marriage and sex: to bear children generously as God sees fit and to raise them for God (even if unable to bear children, to accept it as God wills)
  • chastity in the single life (no sex/acts outside of marriage; chastity in thought, word and act); living a chaste life for God and choosing to remain single for Him is very pleasing to God
  • all this fuss about SSA and SSM is eliminated - if one is truly ordered to God, putting Him as their first Love, then loving others in such a disordered way is out of the question
Chastity people! Love God, and for love of Him, suffer if necessary and give up inordinate desires. It is worth it. Peace.
 
I’m just at my wits end sometimes at the reasoning people give to continue sinning in this department. His Love far outweigh any temporal “benefits” that are perceived in the sins against chastity, so why entertain rejecting that Love?

They must either 1) have never experienced His Love, something infinitely superior to anything that can be found in this life, upon which, one is willing to ‘give up everything, and follow Him’, or 2) they HAVE experienced that Love, but willingly reject it by remaining in their ‘old ways’

Only one thing is necessary: keep your eyes on the prize :).
 
I don’t care about st Monica and quite frankly if she said women should stay in abusive marriages she’s wrong.

Women that stay can die. Are you seriously saying that God wants a woman to die before leaving an abusive situation?
 
If I was being physically abused, I would leave even if you say my risk of dying from being beaten is rare. Why? Because I’m still being beaten. There is no good reason why this should be a part of being a good Catholic wife.

No reason whatsoever.
 
I agree. Pray to God that husbands obey God’s command to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. The Church allows separation in extreme cases, so the woman is not obligated to live under those conditions. She just won’t be able to re-marry… Women, discern your vocation well, and choose loving husbands before marrying!!!
 
You don’t need to divorce in order to separate yourself from an abusive person.
 
Very true. But someone can take advantage of you financially if you don’t divorce legally
 
Last edited:
There might some other way to achieve the same results in that area.
 
Usually it’s called divorce. It’s not a sin to divorce if you need to protect yourself
 
I didn’t mean divorce, I meant, just leaving the husband (in God’s eye’s still married). I can see how that can be messy - it’s really just not a good situation and best be avoided in the first place
 
If someone is abusive there’s a good chance that they didn’t intend to live out their sacramental marriage and therefore there’s grounds for annulment
 
FloridaCatholic said:
If someone is abusive there’s a good chance that they didn’t intend to live out their sacramental marriage
Click to expand...
Too bad for Thomas Moore and John Fischer. If only they’d lived today, the annulment would have been granted no problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top