Why I converted from Orthodoxy, by Gideon Lazar, Catholic University of America.

Started by Xavier, November 25, 2019, 03:45:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: james03 on December 03, 2019, 05:43:46 PM
As I stated BOTH words (fornication and adultery) were used in the same sentence.  So this defense fails.

Okay. Let's recapitulate. You stated that fornication is sex between unmarried people. If the people, or one of them, were married, we'd call it adultery. And note, both words "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the cite. While fornication has acquired the specific meaning of sex between unmarried people in English, this was a recent development. Both fornication and adultery generally meant illicit or unlawful sexual immorality.

More importantly, though, the NT Greek text in Matthew 19:9 reads: ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????????. The words in question are porneia, that means sexual immorality of all kinds in Greek according to reputable lexicons, and moichatai which is the 3rd person singular of moichaomai that means to commit adultery. So the meaning is pretty straightforward: to divorce one's wife and to marry another is to commit adultery (moichatai), except in the case of sexual immorality of any kind (porneia), since sexual immorality obviously defiles the marital bed.

By the way, since you quoted the Vulgate, keep in mind that fornicatio in Latin has the general meaning of whoredom, to consort with protistutes, sexual immorality, etc. In translating porneia as fornication, St. Jerome was not giving it a more specific meaning than it has in Greek.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

christulsa

Not to mention that the Orthodox also frequently grant divorce (up to 3 times!) for non-sexual reasons besides fornication or adultery, which is absurd since there is nothing in Scripture, whether in Greek, Latin, or English, to justify that.   I don't recall Christ saying "whoever divorces his wife--except if your wife gains weight, develops a mood disorder, or just gets on your nerves--commits adultery??   Is that in the Orthodox bible???    :o    This same pattern actually plays out with the other Orthodox heresies, like birth control.  Except maybe in the rare Old Calendar Orthodox churches (we actually have one here in the Tulsa area that meets in a priest's tiny house chapel), the mainstream Orthodox churches tolerate even unbridled birth control. 

TheReturnofLive

Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:31:42 PM
Not to mention that the Orthodox also frequently grant divorce (up to 3 times!) for non-sexual reasons besides fornication or adultery, which is absurd since there is nothing in Scripture, whether in Greek, Latin, or English, to justify that.   I don't recall Christ saying "whoever divorces his wife--except if your wife gains weight, develops a mood disorder, or just gets on your nerves--commits adultery??   Is that in the Orthodox bible???    :o    This same pattern actually plays out with the other Orthodox heresies, like birth control.  Except maybe in the rare Old Calendar Orthodox churches (we actually have one here in the Tulsa area that meets in a priest's tiny house chapel), the mainstream Orthodox churches tolerate even unbridled birth control.

https://archatl.com/offices/metropolitan-tribunal/grounds-of-marriage-nullity/

https://www.hbgdiocese.org/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/myths-and-realities-about-nfp/

Which includes these wonderful quotes:

"Myth #5: Couples who use NFP have less sex than the average American.

REALITY: Most people most of the time are not engaged in sexual activity (see table). If couples who practice NFP were to engage in intercourse on all the days when abstinence is not required for spacing births, they would be doing so at a rate almost twice the national average!"


"Myth #8: The Church does not want couples to have sex for pleasure's sake.

REALITY: The Church wants married couples to have the best sex possible! Remember, there is a difference between simply "having sex," which includes actions directed towards the self, and "making love," which requires the giving of self to the other. Only in a lifelong, committed, loving relationship, centered in Christ, can couples hope to fully experience the sacrament of life and love, i.e., marriage.
Current studies confirm what the Church has always taught: married sex is more fulfilling and enjoyable than uncommitted sex. People who "use" sex only for their own pleasure end up using other people–and they lose the real joy of sexuality. Unconditional love is what marriage is all about. That love is a real source of joy in the lives of married couples!"




Is there a real, substantive moral difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy on this issue, when the substantive means and ends are the same (just with different methodologies)?

Both are looked down upon as immoral, there are exceptions in some form due to pastoral reasons, and these exceptions become normative due to compromisers who don't actually believe in God or the Bible, but are just there because they are Italian or Greek.

My mother's friend wanted to get an annulment, and the Priest said "No." So she just went to a more Liberal priest and got an annulment anyway.


Eastern Orthodoxy uses "economy" to justify these exceptions, which are sometimes necessary. Roman Catholicism uses other means like "natural means" or "invalidity of the Sacrament" to justify these exceptions.

And these exceptions are certainly morally justified, insofar as they are exceptions, not the norm.
"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but irrigate deserts." - C.S. Lewis

christulsa

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 03, 2019, 06:26:54 PM
Quote from: james03 on December 03, 2019, 05:43:46 PM
As I stated BOTH words (fornication and adultery) were used in the same sentence.  So this defense fails.

Okay. Let's recapitulate. You stated that fornication is sex between unmarried people. If the people, or one of them, were married, we'd call it adultery. And note, both words "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the cite. While fornication has acquired the specific meaning of sex between unmarried people in English, this was a recent development. Both fornication and adultery generally meant illicit or unlawful sexual immorality.

More importantly, though, the NT Greek text in Matthew 19:9 reads: ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????????. The words in question are porneia, that means sexual immorality of all kinds in Greek according to reputable lexicons, and moichatai which is the 3rd person singular of moichaomai that means to commit adultery. So the meaning is pretty straightforward: to divorce one's wife and to marry another is to commit adultery (moichatai), except in the case of sexual immorality of any kind (porneia), since sexual immorality obviously defiles the marital bed.

By the way, since you quoted the Vulgate, keep in mind that fornicatio in Latin has the general meaning of whoredom, to consort with protistutes, sexual immorality, etc. In translating porneia as fornication, St. Jerome was not giving it a more specific meaning than it has in Greek.

Christ did not allow divorce for "sexual immorality of all kinds."  If He did, then if a man glanced at a porn site his wife would have grounds to divorce him.  If a woman dressed sexually immodest by showing some cleavage, her husband could divorce her.  That is an absurd interpretation.  Otherwise there is no point for the Son of God to become man and change Old Testament teaching on divorce.  Otherwise you'd have to limit your interpretation of "porneia" to adultery inside a valid marriage.  This isn't rocket science.   It's as plain as the fact that marriage validly contracted, even according to the Natural Law, is absolutely indissoluble except by death.  Reason alone proves that.

christulsa

Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 03, 2019, 07:56:53 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:31:42 PM
Not to mention that the Orthodox also frequently grant divorce (up to 3 times!) for non-sexual reasons besides fornication or adultery, which is absurd since there is nothing in Scripture, whether in Greek, Latin, or English, to justify that.   I don't recall Christ saying "whoever divorces his wife--except if your wife gains weight, develops a mood disorder, or just gets on your nerves--commits adultery??   Is that in the Orthodox bible???    :o    This same pattern actually plays out with the other Orthodox heresies, like birth control.  Except maybe in the rare Old Calendar Orthodox churches (we actually have one here in the Tulsa area that meets in a priest's tiny house chapel), the mainstream Orthodox churches tolerate even unbridled birth control.

https://archatl.com/offices/metropolitan-tribunal/grounds-of-marriage-nullity/

https://www.hbgdiocese.org/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/myths-and-realities-about-nfp/

Which includes these wonderful quotes:

"Myth #5: Couples who use NFP have less sex than the average American.

REALITY: Most people most of the time are not engaged in sexual activity (see table). If couples who practice NFP were to engage in intercourse on all the days when abstinence is not required for spacing births, they would be doing so at a rate almost twice the national average!"


"Myth #8: The Church does not want couples to have sex for pleasure's sake.

REALITY: The Church wants married couples to have the best sex possible! Remember, there is a difference between simply "having sex," which includes actions directed towards the self, and "making love," which requires the giving of self to the other. Only in a lifelong, committed, loving relationship, centered in Christ, can couples hope to fully experience the sacrament of life and love, i.e., marriage.
Current studies confirm what the Church has always taught: married sex is more fulfilling and enjoyable than uncommitted sex. People who "use" sex only for their own pleasure end up using other people–and they lose the real joy of sexuality. Unconditional love is what marriage is all about. That love is a real source of joy in the lives of married couples!"


You got that? Sex is always good as long as it's about "love," and the more sex the better!

Yes, I got that.  Thanks.  But that, I'm afraid, is what logicians call a red herring.  No one here is suggesting the Orthodox do not teach the use of NFP.  Different subject.

Do you get that the Orthodox allow unbridled ARTIFICIAL birth control?  Condoms, abortifacients, etc.   The average Orthodox priest (and bishop) personally and institutionally actively permits their parishioners using birth control.  Not just tolerates it.  PERMITS it.  There are very few RC diocese's that go even that far.  Think about it, there are millions of embryos being killed by Eastern Orthodox women alone, through the PILL, with the full, public support of their hierarchy!   Show me otherwise and I'll edit this.   Unless you are okay with abortion by means of the pill?? 

TheReturnofLive

Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 08:06:23 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 03, 2019, 07:56:53 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:31:42 PM
Not to mention that the Orthodox also frequently grant divorce (up to 3 times!) for non-sexual reasons besides fornication or adultery, which is absurd since there is nothing in Scripture, whether in Greek, Latin, or English, to justify that.   I don't recall Christ saying "whoever divorces his wife--except if your wife gains weight, develops a mood disorder, or just gets on your nerves--commits adultery??   Is that in the Orthodox bible???    :o    This same pattern actually plays out with the other Orthodox heresies, like birth control.  Except maybe in the rare Old Calendar Orthodox churches (we actually have one here in the Tulsa area that meets in a priest's tiny house chapel), the mainstream Orthodox churches tolerate even unbridled birth control.

https://archatl.com/offices/metropolitan-tribunal/grounds-of-marriage-nullity/

https://www.hbgdiocese.org/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/myths-and-realities-about-nfp/

Which includes these wonderful quotes:

"Myth #5: Couples who use NFP have less sex than the average American.

REALITY: Most people most of the time are not engaged in sexual activity (see table). If couples who practice NFP were to engage in intercourse on all the days when abstinence is not required for spacing births, they would be doing so at a rate almost twice the national average!"


"Myth #8: The Church does not want couples to have sex for pleasure's sake.

REALITY: The Church wants married couples to have the best sex possible! Remember, there is a difference between simply "having sex," which includes actions directed towards the self, and "making love," which requires the giving of self to the other. Only in a lifelong, committed, loving relationship, centered in Christ, can couples hope to fully experience the sacrament of life and love, i.e., marriage.
Current studies confirm what the Church has always taught: married sex is more fulfilling and enjoyable than uncommitted sex. People who "use" sex only for their own pleasure end up using other people–and they lose the real joy of sexuality. Unconditional love is what marriage is all about. That love is a real source of joy in the lives of married couples!"


You got that? Sex is always good as long as it's about "love," and the more sex the better!

Yes, I got that.  Thanks.  But that, I'm afraid, is what logicians call a red herring.  No one here is suggesting the Orthodox do not teach the use of NFP.  Different subject.

Do you get that the Orthodox allow unbridled ARTIFICIAL birth control?  Condoms, abortifacients, etc.   The average Orthodox priest (and bishop) personally and institutionally actively permits with their parishioners using birth control.  Not just tolerates it.  PERMITS it.  There are very few RC diocese's that go that even go that far.  Think about it, there are millions of embryos being killed by Eastern Orthodox women alone, through the PILL, with the full, public support of their hierarchy!   Show me otherwise and I'll edit this.   Unless you are okay with abortion by means of the pill??

No Orthodox Priest would allow abortifacients, because Orthodox believe life begins at conception.

But what is the difference between using NFP to have sex for fun, and using non-abortifacient birth control? Nothing really, which is why Saint Clement of Alexandria and Saint Augustine condemned it.

Saint Clement:
"Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: 'Put away your fornications' [Eze. 43:9]. Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor"

Saint Augustine to the Manicheans:
"Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time...?"


I know I've distrusted "Orthodox Wiki" in the past, but here, there are actual citations:

"The dominant view, represented by the Church of Moscow[3], the Greek Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America[4], and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and Stanley S. Harakas, may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons."

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Birth_Control_and_Contraception


Now, I'm not saying that a Priest allowing NFP or even artificial contraception in certain circumstances is a bad thing. But for it to be used for purely selfish reasons is clearly wrong. And the methodology to have sex for purely selfish reasons isn't relevant if the mental intent is identical.
"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but irrigate deserts." - C.S. Lewis

christulsa

OrthodoxWiki?  Really??  Therein lies the problem with Orthodoxy.  There is no central authority to even explain the definitive teaching to be held by all Orthodox Christians about the use of abortifacient contraception.  Sure you may find publications condemning it, in this or that diocese, but if you can show where the main EO Churches have come out condemning it, where most or all Orthodox are taught this is the binding policy, I'll correct myself and literally do a somersault in my living room, which would be quite the site considering my size and that we have wooden floors.  It's a common sense conclusion. Either the EOC as a whole condemns the use of the pill or it doesn't.  If it does, show me.  If it doesn't, and surely most EO bishops know by now after decades of research that the pill will cause abortion, then they too share the blame for mass abortion!  By not condemning abortificatients.   

The plain fact is most if not all Orthodox priests and bishops in the last several decades have NOW officially said in publication and from the pulpit that believers can contracept, WITHOUT laying out the distinction between condoms and baby-killing pills.  If they were, there would be an official record of that policy.  So the average couple in the pew, who already are following the contraceptive culture not to mention the active permission to contracept, are of course using the PILL.  Why wouldn't they?   In large part because the EOC has not taught them it is illicit.   Most married couples contracept, and most who do will use the PILL.  Millions of Eastern Orthodox babies down the toilet.  Just stating facts, unless it can be shown otherwise.

TheReturnofLive

Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 08:42:43 PM
The plain fact is most if not all Orthodox priests and bishops have officially said in publication and from the pulpit that believers can contracept, WITHOUT laying out the distinction between condoms and baby-killing pills.  If they were, there would be an official record of that policy.  So the average couple in the pew, who already are following the contraceptive culture not to mention the active permission to contracept, are of course using the PILL.  In large part because the EOC has not taught them it is illicit.   Most married couples contracept, and most who do will use the PILL.  Millions of Eastern Orthodox babies down the toilet.  Just stating facts, unless it can be shown otherwise.

You can't argue that an institution secretly teaches something based on silence. By that logic, we could agree with the Protestants that Catholics are secretly pagan worshippers who worship the sun god.

Even then, all of these articles are from canonical Orthodox websites, that all say that life begins at conception, with all except the Greek Orthodox explicitly saying that abortifacient drugs are immoral.   

https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues
https://www.oca.org/the-hub/the-church-on-current-issues/orthodox-christians-and-abortion
http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/16945
https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/
"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but irrigate deserts." - C.S. Lewis

christulsa

Quote from: TheReturnofLive on December 03, 2019, 09:00:04 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 08:42:43 PM
The plain fact is most if not all Orthodox priests and bishops have officially said in publication and from the pulpit that believers can contracept, WITHOUT laying out the distinction between condoms and baby-killing pills.  If they were, there would be an official record of that policy.  So the average couple in the pew, who already are following the contraceptive culture not to mention the active permission to contracept, are of course using the PILL.  In large part because the EOC has not taught them it is illicit.   Most married couples contracept, and most who do will use the PILL.  Millions of Eastern Orthodox babies down the toilet.  Just stating facts, unless it can be shown otherwise.

You can't argue that an institution secretly teaches something based on silence. By that logic, we could agree with the Protestants that Catholics are secretly pagan worshippers who worship the sun god.

Even then, all of these articles are from canonical Orthodox websites, that all say that life begins at conception, with all except the Greek Orthodox explicitly saying that abortifacient drugs are immoral.   

https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues
https://www.oca.org/the-hub/the-church-on-current-issues/orthodox-christians-and-abortion
http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/16945
https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/

I can argue that an institution PUBLICLY teaches something based on facts, common sense, and simple deduction.  Looking at your links, none except the last even mentions abortifacients, and that is just by one particular EOC so, according to the standards explained in the first link, that would not be binding on the rest of the EO throughout the world, besides that last link does not specifically forbid the use of abortifacients directly. 

Therefore, from these "canonical" sources themselves, the EOC as an institution a) allows birth control, but b) does not forbid the pill. 

Follow the logic.  The EOC PUBLICLY teaches that its members can use artificial birth control, without making any distinction in any universally binding way about whether or not it is licit to use ABORTIFACIENT birth control.  Therefore, on a practical level, most of their bishops by remaining silent without making the distinction, are complicit.   We are talking about laws binding church members, and there are three forms of law:  to command, forbid, and permit.  Permission itself is either be passive or active.  A bishop who permits birth control publicly is ACTIVELY permitting it.  It becomes effectively the law.  If he gives a blanket, general permission without restricting the use of the pill, that is at least passive permission if not active permission.   And most if not all EO bishops are doing this, except maybe some ultra-conservative bishop in the forests of Siberia who really cares enough that the pill causes abortion to condemn it outright.

Let me know when you find the citation, and I'll up it to two somersaults.......

TheReturnofLive

This makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't betoken to common sense.

1. You haven't established by fact that a single bishop has ever proclaimed that abortifacients are morally acceptable, and I have produced two documents from two different Orthodox jurisdictions that have all demonstrated that the use of abortifacients is murder, with one implicitly suggesting that it is - Even though you pretended not to read it, it doesn't change the fact that it's still there, and four documents which say life begins at conception.

2. If a Church professes that begins at conception, how would it ever be logically moral to use contraception which destroys life after conception?

3. Even if there was a single bishop who was heretical and taught from the pulpit heresy, why would this mean that that single bishop would be a binding, mandatory authority that the rest of the Church follows? Certainly Nestorius didn't render the Church back then as a Nestorian institution.

It's also a backwards paradigm, because if what a single Bishop speaks and does is betoken to what the institution actually believes in, you should set up a shrine to Pachamama because the Pope, your source of authority, has done so.

Yet you won't.
"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but irrigate deserts." - C.S. Lewis

Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:58:57 PMIt's as plain as the fact that marriage validly contracted, even according to the Natural Law, is absolutely indissoluble except by death.  Reason alone proves that.

Let's see you "prove" it then.

Gardener

Natural law marriages can be dissolved by Pauline privilege (2 non-baptized, one converting) or Petrine privilege (1 baptized and one not at the time of the marriage).

"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Kreuzritter

Quote from: james03 on December 03, 2019, 05:43:46 PM
Furthermore I'll take St. Jerome, who had all the texts and understood these languages far better than anyone today's translation:

Jerome lost every right to speak on anything concerning marriage by calling it and the sexual act evil. That is diabolical. Blasphemous, even.

QuoteWhen you are discussing continence and virginity you say, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." And, "It is good for them if they abide even as I." And, "I think that this is good by reason of the present distress." And, "That it is good for a man so to be." When you come to marriage, you do not say it is good to marry, because you cannot then add "than to burn;" but you say, "It is better to marry than to burn." If marriage in itself be good, do not compare it with fire, but simply say" It is good to marry." I suspect the goodness of that thing which is forced into the position of being only the lesser of two evils. What I want is not a smaller evil, but a thing absolutely good.

Quote"It is good," he (Paul) says, "for a man not to touch a woman." If it is not good for a man not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. But surely a which is allowed because there may be something worse has only a slight degree of goodness."

Quote
And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married.

QuoteThe truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean.

Kreuzritter

Quote from:  Sex, Law and Christian Society In Medieval EuropeSince sex was a usual (and, in his view, a regrettable) feature of most marriages, Jerome and like-minded writers argued that couples had a moral obligation to limit marital relations to an absolute minimum. Jerome was bitterly critical of married men who loved their wives excessively. This was a "deformity," Jerome believed, and he cited with approval the Stoic writers Seneca and Sextus, who had declared that "A man who loves his wife too much is an adulterer." There can be little doubt in this context that Jerome identified love with sexual relations and that what he attacked so fiercely was immoderate indulgence in sex by married persons. Marital sex, Jerome thought, should be indulged in only very infrequently and then with sober calculation, not with hot desire. "Nothing," he asserted at one point, "is filthier than to have sex with your wife as you might do with another woman."

Men like Lactantius, Jerome and even Augustine infected theology at a very early date with Stoicism. Remember both Jerome and Augustine believed in the forged correspondences between St. Paul and Seneca. To take them as representing Apostolic teaching on these questions is tenuous when we know how much they were influenced by and regurgitated Stoic ideology.

however, here is Jerome on St. Fabiola:

Quote"And because at the very outset there is a rock in the path and she is overwhelmed by a storm of censure, for having forsaken her first husband and having taken a second, I will not praise her for her conversion till I have first cleared her of this charge. So terrible then were the faults imputed to her former husband that not even a prostitute or a common slave could have put up with them. If I were to recount them, I should undo the heroism of the wife who chose to bear the blame of a separation rather than to blacken the character and expose the stains of him who was one body with her. I will only urge this one plea which is sufficient to exonerate a chaste matron and a Christian woman. The Lord has given commandment that a wife must not be put away except it be for fornication, and that, if put away, she must remain unmarried. Now a commandment which is given to men logically applies to women also. For it cannot be that, while an adulterous wife is to be put away, an incontinent husband is to be retained. The apostle says: he which is joined to an harlot is one body. Therefore she also who is joined to a whoremonger and unchaste person is made one body with him. The laws of Cæsar are different, it is true, from the laws of Christ: Papinianus commands one thing; our own Paul another. Earthly laws give a free rein to the unchastity of men, merely condemning seduction and adultery; lust is allowed to range unrestrained among brothels and slave girls, as if the guilt were constituted by the rank of the person assailed and not by the purpose of the assailant. But with us Christians what is unlawful for women is equally unlawful for men, and as both serve the same God both are bound by the same obligations. Fabiola then has put away — they are quite right — a husband that was a sinner, guilty of this and that crime, sins— I have almost mentioned their names (i.e. adultery/fornication)— with which the whole neighbourhood resounded but which the wife alone refused to disclose"

he goes on

Quote"If however it is made a charge against her that after repudiating her husband she did not continue unmarried, I readily admit this to have been a fault, but at the same time declare that it may have been a case of necessity. It is better, the apostle tells us, to marry than to burn. She was quite a young woman, she was not able to continue in widowhood. In the words of the apostle she saw another law in her members warring against the law of her mind;  she felt herself dragged in chains as a captive towards the indulgences of wedlock. Therefore she thought it better openly to confess her weakness and to accept the semblance of an unhappy marriage than, with the name of a monogamist, to ply the trade of a courtesan. The same apostle wills that the younger widows should marry, bear children, and give no occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. And he at once goes on to explain his wish: for some are already turned aside after Satan.  Fabiola therefore was fully persuaded in her own mind: she thought she had acted legitimately in putting away her husband, and that when she had done so she was free to marry again. She did not know that the rigor of the gospel takes away from women all pretexts for re-marriage so long as their former husbands are alive; and not knowing this, though she contrived to evade other assaults of the devil, she at this point unwittingly exposed herself to a wound from him."

Remember this woman is a saint.

christulsa

Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:58:57 PMIt's as plain as the fact that marriage validly contracted, even according to the Natural Law, is absolutely indissoluble except by death.  Reason alone proves that.

Let's see you "prove" it then.

1. The pope's have taught that marriage is of the natural law, including its permanence and indissolubility, of course if you are a member of this forum who is doubting the Catholic faith you wouldn't accept this "proof from church authority."  Usually for Catholics, proof in a theological argument begins with the authority.

2. Children by nature need two parents committed for life, to each other and to them, for the good of their soul, the family which is the foundation of society, and for social order.

3. Male and female are by biological and psychological design sexual and monogamous, with exceptions deviations from that law of nature found in polygamous or promiscuous cultures.  It is an undeniable fact that according to nature itself human beings are driven to marry for life.  It is social custom, religion, and law that ratifies that.

But none of that may make sense to you if you are a skeptic about Catholicism in the first place, because it is Catholicism that makes these natural law arguments in the first place.