My husband, Jesus and original sin
#91
(01-13-2011, 06:17 PM)Iolanthe Wrote:
(01-13-2011, 06:04 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: If you want, defend them.  I'll pick an easy one.  I say no one was "aiming at enabling an abuser" either consciously or unconsciously.

I already showed you these. Only one of them was made after I brought up the topic of divorce. These were their initial reactions.

Yes, you did quote those, and my response was you left out some context.  I will now add the context.

Quote:
(01-08-2011, 10:11 AM)Stubborn Wrote: God expects spouses to put up with each other till death - that is what they vowed is it not? 

Two sentences later:
Stubborn Wrote:I'm not saying she does not have grounds for so drastic a measure as divorce, I am merely saying one absolutely must exhaust all other options first - and then, after getting proper council, try some more for the sake of the sanctity of the marriage bond and for the sake of the children.

She really needs to figure out how to see a trad priest about this situation.

(01-06-2011, 10:06 PM)JayneK Wrote: Make a point to be as obedient, sweet and cheerful as possible in all matters in which you can obey him, but he does not have an absolute right over you. 

Which statement also had:

JayneK Wrote:She is not obliged to obey a command to sin or too violate her own dignity.  If your husband commands you to follow him into heresy, that is not a legitimate order because he commands you to sin.

(01-04-2011, 08:37 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The best possible advice I can give you is this: "We ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29).  You are responsible for your own soul, and in the order of charity, you must love God above all else, then yourself, and then your neighbor (which includes your husband and children).  

Which also had:

SouthpawLink Wrote:With this in mind, you must save your own soul in preference to obeying your husband, who wishes you not to convert.  Your loyalty to God and to what He has revealed (i.e. the Catholic Faith) must come before your loyalty to your husband.

(01-07-2011, 07:32 PM)JayneK Wrote: The conditions under which it is moral to get a divorce are quite rare and there is no indication in what you have said so far that it applies to your situation.
Followed by:

JayneK Wrote:Nobody is capable of giving this kind of advice based on online information.  Talk to a priest.

Quote:No one said, "you're husband is an abuser" until I came along, and I got told to shush.

You weren't told to hush because you said he was an abuser, which, I suspect most people agree with - I do.  You weren't told to hush for telling her to call the police, which is a great idea.  You were told to "hush" for saying it's all a foregone conclusion and recommending divorce as soon as possible.

Iolanthe Wrote:You need to divorce him.  ... Please do this as soon as possible, before he physically harms you.

In fact, can you cite anyone saying "do NOT get divorced"?  Maybe it's there, I don't remember for sure.  But I doubt it because divorce is an option, albeit an extreme one.

Quote:The problem is that all of this advice will allow the husband to keep acting the way he's acting. That is why it's enabling. Obviously, no one came along and said, "he's doing the right thing and should continue."

You might notice she asked this question in "Theological Debate" which seems to me, at least, to imply she wanted information on how to counter his theological arguments, which is exactly how I and a bunch of others answered it.  If you want to offer additional suggestions, great, but if someone asks a theological question in a theological subforum and is given theological answers including the theological answer that she should convert now and disobey him, it seems unjust to me that you come to the conclusion that we're somehow condoning or enabling abuse.

Those were, in fact, the exact answers given before you even brought up divorce.  Theological answers to a theological question.

Quote:And again, I might be wrong that separation and/or divorce is the right answer. But to me, you get one chance in life not to be an abuser. He's already used his. Personally I wouldn't be able to continue spending my life with a person who had ever treated me in a such a way, but the OP may feel different.

Fair enough, but that's kind of irrelevant to what I'm asking you about, which is saying that people either condone or enable abuse.

You still haven't told me what possible solution you would say isn't "aimed at enabling abuse" besides your solution: telling her to get divorced.  My belief that you will not come up with anything that hasn't been mentioned and rejected by you as "useless" and/or "harmful" is why I characterized your position the way I did.

Reply
#92
???

The only thing you're having all this reaction to is that you think I said divorce is the only option.

I never said that, so you're reacting to nothing.

Except maybe to the fact that you think there's only one use for the word "condone."

There are some suggestions being made now which seem reasonable...better than the "sit and be sweet and pray" ones that were coming up regularly before, which were the problem.

Nobody got angry about this until people started getting angry at me. Why is that a woman posting about an abusive husband doesn't bring out any anger in people? Something is wrong with the people here. Something doesn't connect.
Reply
#93
(01-13-2011, 07:00 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: ???

The only thing you're having all this reaction to is that you think I said divorce is the only option.

I never said that, so you're reacting to nothing.

No, that's how I am characterizing your position.  My reaction, for the third time now, is being called a condoner of abuse.  I resent that.

Quote:Except maybe to the fact that you think there's only one use for the word "condone."

Well, there's the dictionary definition.  That's the one I'm going by.

Quote:There are some suggestions being made now which seem reasonable...better than the "sit and be sweet and pray" ones that were coming up regularly before, which were the problem.

Nobody got angry about this until people started getting angry at me. Why is that a woman posting about an abusive husband doesn't bring out any anger in people? Something is wrong with the people here. Something doesn't connect.

What doesn't connect is you fixated on the abuse and everyone else answered a theological question both about Scripture and her conversion.

The problem is she asked a theological question, and that's what people were answering; she didn't ask "What do I do with an abusive husband?"  The fact that people didn't address the abuse does not mean they condone it or are enabling it.  That is a false and unfair conclusion on your part.  For my part, if she said her husband were beating her, that would be different because there is a clear and immediate danger, and my first response would be "get out and call the police."  What she said was much different, including saying that this theological problem was the only thing they really argue about.  Berating is certainly abuse, but the berating is rooted in a theological question.  She seems to imply that if she doesn't argue about religion with him, he doesn't berate her, so she wants to know how to deal with the theology so he will STFU, and I can't blame her.

I'm tired of trying to get you to understand that phrases like "condoning abuse" and "enabling abuse" are offensive and unjust charges.  If you think I'm guilty of that, fine, whatever.  I'm a condonerer and enablerer of abuse.  I'll put it in my signature.
Reply
#94
(01-13-2011, 07:00 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Why is that a woman posting about an abusive husband doesn't bring out any anger in people? Something is wrong with the people here. Something doesn't connect.

There are people here who think before they type, Iolanthe.

Strange, I know.
Reply
#95
(01-13-2011, 07:17 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: What doesn't connect is you fixated on the abuse and everyone else answered a theological question both about Scripture and her conversion.

The problem is she asked a theological question, and that's what people were answering; she didn't ask "What do I do with an abusive husband?"  The fact that people didn't address the abuse does not mean they condone it or are enabling it.  That is a false and unfair conclusion on your part.  For my part, if she said her husband were beating her, that would be different because there is a clear and immediate danger, and my first response would be "get out and call the police."  What she said was much different, including saying that this theological problem was the only thing they really argue about.  Berating is certainly abuse, but the berating is rooted in a theological question.  She seems to imply that if she doesn't argue about religion with him, he doesn't berate her, so she wants to know how to deal with the theology so he will STFU, and I can't blame her.

I'm tired of trying to get you to understand that phrases like "condoning abuse" and "enabling abuse" are offensive and unjust charges. 

Everything that Quis has said about this correct.  I do not expect Iolanthe to see it, but most likely anyone else can.
Reply
#96
My greatest mistake in this thread was posting this:

Quote:I'm definitely not going to give marriage advice; someone else can comment on that.

Instead of this:

Quote:I'm definitely not going to give marriage advice; no one else should either, except by PM, unless you specifically ask for it.

And then enforcing it.
Reply
#97
Look, Iolanthe.  If I somehow insulted you or hurt your feelings, I apologize.  But, I think you should see why I resent being called a "condoner of abuse" and so forth.

I'm going back on vacation from theological discussion, a place where I should have stayed to begin with.

:tiphat:
Reply
#98
10 pages in and all I can think when I read this title is that the OP is married to Jesus.
Reply
#99
LOL
Reply
(01-13-2011, 10:47 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Look, Iolanthe.  If I somehow insulted you or hurt your feelings, I apologize.  But, I think you should see why I resent being called a "condoner of abuse" and so forth.

I'm going back on vacation from theological discussion, a place where I should have stayed to begin with.

:tiphat:

So we lose sensible reasonable posts by Quis and get left with Iolanthe's emotional outburts.  That is not a good deal. :(

Quis, I get that you need to protect your sanity (it's like an endangered species  ;D ) but keep in mind the people who appreciate your posts and benefit from them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)