Author Topic: Marriage, divorce, and human nature (Read 1838 times)

Kephapaulos · « **on:** April 07, 2024, 10:33:30 PM »

Same old news, but it just gets so upsetting to me inside that the institution of marriage is so disrespected by modern man today. This was already going on even before Amoris laetitia, but many cannot even be told they are committing adultery without taking or thinking about seriously what they have done by thinking they are validly marrying another person when they are not.

The issue cannot even be brought up at all or rarely if at all. I remember I brought it up a few years as a general topic at a dinner outing after Saturday Mass, and some I could tell did not like it since they were in those kinds of situations (although with annulment probably received from the Novus Ordo) I found out at that time.

I had gathered from one pre-1968 ordained priest several years ago (God rest his soul and that of his fellow member of his order) that many have the minds of children or seven or ten year-olds (something like that) and could not actually decide well and maturely when getting married "for the first time." How can that be measured or determined though? It has to be assumed that most were aware of what marriage entailed and that it is intended till death. Intention has to be strictly disproven, but if there is no actual authority in Rome right now, it seems that cannot even be tried, although I wonder if supplied jurisdiction can actually enter the picture as practiced by the SSPX today.

Openness to children is a whole other topic, of course, but there is that too. The promotion of the habitual usage of the rhythm method or natural family planning or advice given to delay childbearing in whatever way is a contraceptive mentality in spite of no usage of artificial means.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2024, 10:38:20 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos on April 07, 2024, 10:33:30 PM

I had gathered from one pre-1968 ordained priest several years ago (God rest his soul and that of his fellow member of his order) that many have the minds of children or seven or ten year-olds (something like that) and could not actually decide well and maturely when getting married "for the first time." How can that be measured or determined though? It has to be assumed that most were aware of what marriage entailed and that it is intended till death. Intention has to be strictly disproven, but if there is no actual authority in Rome right now, it seems that cannot even be tried, although I wonder if supplied jurisdiction can actually enter the picture as practiced by the SSPX today.

The Church used to do marriage prep PRECISELY in order to preclude any "mulligan" or "get out of jail free" card later -- a.k.a. an annulment.
If the priest makes sure you're sane, not being forced by anyone to enter this marriage, and tells you what marriage entails -- it's hard to claim ignorance later.

And although "marriage for life" and being stuck single if your spouse leaves you is a hard lot for some, I praise God and His Holy Church for wanting what is best for us. I don't think people realize how bad it is, even in this life, when you have "ex wives" and "ex husbands" walking around. I couldn't imagine knowing more than one living person carnally. That would be so weird. And especially awkward if they were still around, for example at childrens' birthday parties and what not.

As Our Lord said, "from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 19:8

I've seen divorces up close and personal, in my extended family and my wife's family. And often the ex-wife is "friendly" with the new wife. Insane! Imagine being some kind of twisted "sister wives", both having full carnal knowledge of the same guy -- sitting across from them both. That is so unnatural and bizarre.

Yes, the Church is wise and good to "spoil our fun" and forbid us divorce in all cases.

P.S. And yes, many individuals know very well what they're doing. They can fool the Church, their priest, the marriage tribunal. Know who they can't fool? God. They will answer to God, and they know it. So it instinctively bothers them whenever the topic comes up.

Seraphina · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2024, 11:08:14 PM »

Young people need counseling. If you are not ready for marriage and its responsibilities, do not court, date, or keep company with those of the opposite sex. If that means never marrying or delaying it until late in life, so be it. What good is it to marry young, have lots of children, only to have them grow up in a broken or dysfunctional home? I know there are exceptions, but one shouldn’t depend upon that.
If you’ve explored a religious vocation and found, for women especially, no suitable foundation, then go for “single in the world.” If what the Church normally teaches is best is not available, realize these aren’t normal times. Take what’s second, third, fourth, or not normally considered appropriate, so long as it’s not sinful, and save your soul in that. One of my friend’s daughters tried the sisterhood twice and neither worked out. She took three years of coursework at community college while looking actively for a spouse. Nothing came of that, either. (Except she can advise other women as to red flags!) She’s since acquired a health condition that seriously affects her ability to have children. She moved in with her aunt and uncle who have a ranch type farm and run a commercial rifle range. Turns out she’s an excellent shot. She’s also become interested and knowledgeable about antique firearms, collecting, researching their history, and restoring then.
She’s now living in a rustic style home built on a portion of her uncle's land. She owns the home, the land, three horses, runs the range, and goes to gun shows, lectures at universities, gun clubs, and participates in various reenactments across the US and Canada.
It’s not at all what she or her parents envisioned for her as a teen and young adult. She still keeps the traditional faith despite the disapproval of a fair number of people at her chapel.

Vanguard · « **Reply #3 on:** April 08, 2024, 08:03:17 AM »

I think the problem lies with being open to having as many children as God sends during the marriage. While I know people should have faith, I have seen families without sufficient income to afford such large families - such as living in cars and hotel rooms. It isn't conducive to great family life. Many times the children do not remain Catholic, and divorce is an outcome. You need a lot of money to raise children today. I don't know what the answer is, but I would agree with Seraphina that counseling prior to marriage is a good idea.

Soubirous · « **Reply #4 on:** April 08, 2024, 09:53:34 AM »

This topic meshes with some mulling that came to mind a few days ago.

There is a point to this, please bear with me.

Being springtime, I was looking for information about poke salat. (IYKYK.) That led to the old song Poke Salat Annie, and its lyrics about a poor mean switchblade-carrying woman and her good-for-nothing menfolk and her momma on a chain gang. That led to various covers of this song, which led to Elvis, which led to the proliferation of various forms of music and entertainment inescapable from around the early 60s onwards.

There have always been Poke Salat Annies going back to before the days of Noah; such women and their menfolk warranted the destruction of the Flood. The trouble in recent decades is the unrelenting and purposeful effort (again, IYKYK) to unsettle the old understandings of right and wrong, especially among women. Elvis, Tom Jones, the Beatles, the British rockers, the Doors, all the way to Guns n Roses and whatever the latest iteration is of all this spawn.

Women see it and decide that too much is never enough. A small number begin to ask why they can't do the same as these strutting men, and we now see the so-called weaker sex debase herself publicly in every possible manner. And we see the majority of men toss their own restraint away too. This becomes the societal default, and folks who call it out for what it is are labeled as unhealthy, rigid, and repressed. How not, if the accepted norm is to do what thou wilt. As with the originator of that slogan, it is less about mindless pleasure-seeking and more about willful insubordination.

Was a time when sinners acknowledged their sinfulness even if they didn't intend to change their ways. Now very few people even concede the definition of sin and if they do, they gleefully wallow in it.

Fatima? "They will come for the family." Marriage is the first bulwark for them to destroy.

Seraphina · « **Reply #5 on:** April 08, 2024, 11:19:27 AM »

Quote from: Soubirous on April 08, 2024, 09:53:34 AM

Women see it and decide that too much is never enough. A small number begin to ask why they can't do the same as these strutting men, and we now see the so-called weaker sex debase herself publicly in every possible manner. And we see the majority of men toss their own restraint away too. This becomes the societal default, and folks who call it out for what it is are labeled as unhealthy, rigid, and repressed. How not, if the accepted norm is to do what thou wilt. As with the originator of that slogan, it is less about mindless pleasure-seeking and more about willful insubordination.

So, what do you suggest for the person, Catholic male, but especially Catholic female, who finds herself alone in the world as it is today? If she has no suitable family or friends who can be relied upon for at least partial support, an education insufficient to make a living wage in a traditionally female job? Live in a homeless encampment among drug addicts, mentally ill, rapists and murderers, being just another down-and-outer who falls prey to the latter sort? Yes, she can still save her soul, but it’ll be extremely difficult without Mass, Sacraments, or other Catholics. Such a life to maintain itself is necessarily taken up the tasks of staying alive. The more society disintegrates, the more such abandoned persons will fill the streets, fields, parks, and hidden places, the more souls fall into hell.
Be careful before you condemn women who don’t fit into a mold that is increasingly shattered and in most places, no longer exists.
Self proclaimed feminists may enjoy lording it over the men, but not all women are feminists. Many a Catholic woman would much prefer to have a family, children, a loving husband, a support network of grandparents, in-laws, cousins, etc. than to go to a worldly job among worldly and often Christ hating people and come home to an empty studio apartment each night. There are men in the same predicament, but not as many because most have long ago left the Faith.
I've never heard too Poke Salat Annie, but I guarantee I’m not one, and neither is my friend’s daughter. They shoot at targets, not men! Because of their niece’s income, the old couple have full-time nurses to care for them in their own home. They’d otherwise be in a Medicaid funded nursing home.

Soubirous · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2024, 12:46:39 PM »

Quote from: Seraphina on April 08, 2024, 11:19:27 AM

So, what do you suggest for the person, Catholic male, but especially Catholic female, who finds herself alone in the world as it is today? If she has no suitable family or friends who can be relied upon for at least partial support, an education insufficient to make a living wage in a traditionally female job? Live in a homeless encampment among drug addicts, mentally ill, rapists and murderers, being just another down-and-outer who falls prey to the latter sort? Yes, she can still save her soul, but it’ll be extremely difficult without Mass, Sacraments, or other Catholics. Such a life to maintain itself is necessarily taken up the tasks of staying alive. The more society disintegrates, the more such abandoned persons will fill the streets, fields, parks, and hidden places, the more souls fall into hell.
Be careful before you condemn women who don’t fit into a mold that is increasingly shattered and in most places, no longer exists.
Self proclaimed feminists may enjoy lording it over the men, but not all women are feminists. Many a Catholic woman would much prefer to have a family, children, a loving husband, a support network of grandparents, in-laws, cousins, etc. than to go to a worldly job among worldly and often Christ hating people and come home to an empty studio apartment each night. There are men in the same predicament, but not as many because most have long ago left the Faith.
I've never heard too Poke Salat Annie, but I guarantee I’m not one, and neither is my friend’s daughter. They shoot at targets, not men! Because of their niece’s income, the old couple have full-time nurses to care for them in their own home. They’d otherwise be in a Medicaid funded nursing home.

What I wrote wasn't about women alone in the world. The most dangerous examples are in comfortable homes with active social lives, with little missing in the materialist eyes of a secular observer.

True, "not all women are feminists", but even the self-declared ones can't agree what "feminism" is. More importantly, a significant number of those comfortable-dangerous women in that second sentence (who'd shriek in denial if labeled as the f-word) nonetheless habitually "lord over men" and hardly shy from enjoying the rotten fruits of feminism. Were Jezebel and Herodias feminists?

I didn't condemn women, much less single traditional Catholic women who, despite their hopes and efforts, end up alone. That's a whole other topic. Each of us has a cross to carry. At the end of the day, you, me, your friend's daughter, we still have a lot to be thankful for, yes?

I condemned the conscious and willful capitulation to sin, especially sins of the flesh. The fictional Poke Salat Annie could have taken the path of the real Saint Mary of Egypt. The fictional Poke Salat Annie (so named because foraging this weed used to be a sign of dire poverty, see lyrics excerpt below) had her own tribulations as do all the real-life poor souls with strikes against them since infancy. But plenty other women born into relative ease choose to throw it all away, not materially, but spiritually.

And that is why I think that modern marriage (the topic line of this thread) has become what it is.

Quote

Lyrics (partial)

Now some of y'all never been down South too much
I'm gonna tell you a little bit about this
So that you'll understand what I'm talking about

Down there we have a plant that grows out in the woods and the fields
Looks somethin' like a turnip green. Everybody calls it poke salad

Used to know a girl that lived down there
And she'd go out in the evenings and pick her a mess of it
Carry it home and cook it for supper
'Cause that's about all they had to eat.
They did alright

Down in Louisiana where the alligators grow so mean
There lived a girl that I swear to the world
Made the alligators look tame

Everybody said it was a shame
'Cause her mama was working on a chain gang
A mean vicious woman, huh.

Yeti · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2024, 05:54:42 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos on April 07, 2024, 10:33:30 PM

I had gathered from one pre-1968 ordained priest several years ago (God rest his soul and that of his fellow member of his order) that many have the minds of children or seven or ten year-olds (something like that) and could not actually decide well and maturely when getting married "for the first time." How can that be measured or determined though? It has to be assumed that most were aware of what marriage entailed and that it is intended till death. Intention has to be strictly disproven, but if there is no actual authority in Rome right now, it seems that cannot even be tried, although I wonder if supplied jurisdiction can actually enter the picture as practiced by the SSPX today.

.

This is pure modernism. The whole concept that people can't validly get married is a heresy of modernists who want to grant divorce under the absurd name of "annulment".

Everyone knows the Catholic Church teaches that marriage lasts until death. It even says that in the vow that people say, "till death do us part". So it's just a lie for people to pretend they didn't know this beforehand, and for these heretical "priests" to pretend to believe it.

People tried this before Vatican 2, and the Church always responded that first of all it's not required for validity of matrimony for people to know that marriage lasts until death; they only need to know that they are entering a basically permanent situation. This was asked and answered by the Church before Vatican 2. And everybody even still today, even outside the Church, knows that marriage is a basically permanent institution. And explicitly the Church says that people are assumed to agree to this if they agree to enter into the state of marriage in the manner in which it currently exists.

Furthermore, everyone older than the age of puberty is presumed, in the eyes of Church law, to know all of what is in the previous paragraph.

Quote

Openness to children is a whole other topic, of course, but there is that too. The promotion of the habitual usage of the rhythm method or natural family planning or advice given to delay childbearing in whatever way is a contraceptive mentality in spite of no usage of artificial means.

This was also asked and answered before Vatican 2, and no, intention to use contraception does not invalidate marriage. I've posted links on this question with scans from pre-Vatican 2 books before, mostly for epiphany's "benefit", who constantly attacked the sacrament of matrimony. But what pre-Vatican 2 theology books teach is that the sacrament is only invalid if there is some unlawful restriction placed on the "use of matrimony" (which is a polite term for ...), and that the marriage would only be invalid if one person only intended to convey the rights of marriage (another polite term for the same thing mentioned previously) if they were done using contraception. But a simple intention to use contraception does not invalidate matrimony. And the presumption is always that they intended to perform their marital rights in the proper manner, so the people would have to prove somehow (good luck) that they never intended to convey an open-ended right to the use of marriage, but only intended to confer the right to intercourse if contraception was used.

The whole "annulment" thing is pure hypocrisy, both for the people applying for these absurdities and the heretics granting them. It's just a fig leaf to cover the adultery of the new church.

Seraphina · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2024, 11:42:53 PM »

I don’t think I’ll be needing Maria Schwartz’s services. Besides, the surname Schwartz in NYC is highly unlikely to be Catholic, if you get my drift.

I’m signing off now as I apparently don’t understand the point of this thread.

ElwinRansom1970 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2024, 06:45:44 AM »

Unless one has actually worked on formal tribunal cases (and I have as a procurator), it is challenging to understand the depth of the crisis of matrimony amongst Catholics. The real scandal with decrees of nullity is not that so many are being declared by tribunals but that so many putative marriages are found to have been indeed void from the beginning. Three things I most often encountered (and why I stopped doing tribunal cases nearly 15 years ago) were couples where one or both persons came to their wedding day: a) not intending fidelity to their spouse, already engaging in habitual cheating during courtship and up through the end of their engagement; b) approaching the wedding with the notion that should "things not work out" or if "we fall out of love", then a divorce will just be sought and move on to someone else for a "spouse"; and, most prevalent, c) no openeness to or intention for children, including the explicit -- usually publicly known -- intention to employ artificial birth control from the very beginning of their putative marriage, either habitually or periodically.

The Church requires a man have four to eight years of formation before ordaining him to the priesthood. Whilst that amount of time would be inappropriate for matrimony, a six month period where a couple is only catechised and formated through maybe two or three brief sessions is wholly insufficient formation. The real root of the anullment scandal is to be found in a Church that no longer provides for the sanctification of her children.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2024, 06:56:05 AM »

If I were a priest preparing a couple for marriage, I'd have them sign docuмents attesting publicly to their intentions regarding the marriage, that they're in conformity with the requirements for a valid marriage.

It gets very hazy with the old excuse, "I didn't really intend for it be be permanent." Good luck proving that to have been the case.

ElwinRansom1970 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2024, 07:36:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 09, 2024, 06:56:05 AM

It gets very hazy with the old excuse, "I didn't really intend for it be be permanent." Good luck proving that to have been the case.

Since the advent of social media, that has actually become easier to prove. Some persons actually post on their accounts before a wedding that they will get divorced "if things don't work out" or that they will not be having children until X time in the future or ever.

Freaking crazy the world is today, and erstaz Catholics lead the mob.

😥

Comrade · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2024, 12:08:24 PM »

Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on April 09, 2024, 07:36:18 AM

Since the advent of social media, that has actually become easier to prove. Some persons actually post on their accounts before a wedding that they will get divorced "if things don't work out" or that they will not be having children until X time in the future or ever.

Freaking crazy the world is today, and erstaz Catholics lead the mob.

😥

It is my understanding that holding off having kids until a predetermined milestone or date, does not make the marriage invalid. Because, technically, you are open to having children. However, not to be open for kids would definitely make it invalid.

Everlast22 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 09, 2024, 12:17:33 PM »

Quote from: Comrade on April 09, 2024, 12:08:24 PM

It is my understanding that holding off having kids until a predetermined milestone or date, does not make the marriage invalid. Because, technically, you are open to having children. However, not to be open for kids would definitely make it invalid.

uh, huh?

Yeti · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2024, 02:07:38 PM »

I went over all this with epiphany a year or two ago. Long story short: Catholic teaching is that ignorance that marriage lasts until death does not invalidate a marriage, nor does infidelity either before or after marriage, nor does saying later that one "simulated consent", or that a person withheld information about themselves. Saying those things invalidate marriage is against Catholic teaching.

As far as the issue of contraception, that is a bit more complex, and I'd have to dig to find in what circuмstances that could make marriage invalid, but the Novus Ordo open-ended idea that "intending to use contraception" renders the marriage invalid is completely false.

Elwin, if you worked in one of these so-called tribunals and cooperated with handing out "annulments" on these fake grounds, you should probably discuss this with your priest, as this is very serious matter.

Author Topic: Marriage, divorce, and human nature (Read 1838 times)

Kephapaulos

Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Matthew

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Seraphina

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Vanguard

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Soubirous

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Seraphina

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Soubirous

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Yeti

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Seraphina

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

ElwinRansom1970

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Ladislaus

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

ElwinRansom1970

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Comrade

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Everlast22

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature

Yeti

Re: Marriage, divorce, and human nature