Posted on 11/20/2012 9:21:01 PM PST by John Leland 1789
To be quite blunt, they used to acknowledge you need a husband and bride to raise well adjusted kids.
It was also a check on such behavior for the next generation.
Did it punish the innocent party? Very much so. Did it serve as a check on such activity? Somewhat. Did it look at the reality of human nature? Definitely.
If they reached the age of sixty without attaining a level of trust and communication, then they deserve to end it asexual.
And why are they talking about this? Bad sign there too.
Thank you tax-chick.
Let's say a corrupt cop in a little town sits at an intersection, just waiting. He lets his friends and family blow through the stop sign with impunity. If he doesn't like you or recognize you, he pulls you over and writes you a ticket for running the stop sign even if you came to a complete stop.
Does this make having a stop sign at an intersection is a bad idea?
I wonder if General Patraeus thinks his roll in the hay was worth the destruction of his reputation
You’re welcome. If people disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that’s their business, but I believe it’s my business as a Catholic to explain the teaching accurately, in appropriate situations.
Many commentators, including some of the Bishops, have observed that it’s difficult in our society for people truly to give consent to a sacramental marriage, because they can always have the reservation in mind, “... but I’ll divorce you if ...” you get fat, you get old, you get sick, I don’t get all the sex I want, I develop new interests, etc.
In that sense, a declaration of nullity might recognize that a spouse’s consent to the marriage was conditional, “as long as I get sex when I want it,” and therefore there was no sacramental bond.
my question as always. what happens when one partner won’t offer any sort of sex for years upon years? Divorce? Even the Catholic church allows annulments under such conditions.
I would suggest rephrasing it to “if I don’t get the support when I need it”. Most divorces these days are initiated by women, not the men fwiw.
I believe it’s the duty of the husband to care for his wife and ensure that her needs are met, and the same for the wife. Begging off because, “you have a headache”, isn’t any less hurtful than if the husband were to say, “you’re fat”. The more women who learn this, the happier their marriages.
You have to get over or around the seeming popular, gutter-ized use of the word.
See post number 5 in this thread.
When anyone chooses to be a public figure, their trustworthiness, by default, is judged by their actions.
Any failure of reasonable care for your spouse is a sin against charity and should be repented and corrected. However, no matter what the failure is - and every spouse will fail, often, because we are all sinners - a “marriage vow that has conditions,” stated or unstated, is not a marriage vow. If either spouse says out the outset, “We can get divorced if ...” or “I consider adultery justified when ...”, there is no marriage, period. Also if either spouse says, “We will not have children,” or “We will have only ## children.”
This is simply the definition of Christian matrimony, straight from the Catechism.
More people need to hear these words. Thanks again!
You’re welcome ... I’ll be here all week, please tip your server!
Around 10% of children are born to a father other than the one who is told he is the father.
There can be no annulment of a valid marriage, because an annulment is a finding of nullity, that is, a finding that there never was a valid sacramental bond to begin with. Refusal to have intercourse later on down the line may be a monumental injustice, but it is not grounds for annulment.
(A civil divorce is possible, but this does not imply a right to remarry while the spouse is still living.)
Viagra is perfectly legitimate for the treatment of impotence. Impotence needs therapeutic intervention. It is not grounds for annulment.
BTW the word "bastard" does not exist in canon law. Such a child is just called one's "natural child."
The unreasonable refusal of either spouse to have intercourse, is a sin against marriage. The word “unreasonable” should be considered seriously. Under “normal conditions,” the spouses ought to accommodate each other’s reasonable sexual desires. It goes right along with love, respect, kindness, peace, and justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.