Monday, June 20, 2022

Divorcing Marriage And Morality

 

With the family under attack like never before, one of the first major attacks on the sacred institution of Holy Matrimony came from Vatican II. The sect which the Robber Council spawned has destroyed the very permanence of marriage by giving out  phony "annulments" for almost any cause, and permitting those who get them to "remarry." Under Bergoglio, it is taught that a person who is divorced and "remarried" (without even a phony annulment) and is living in an active sexual partnership might not be responsible or culpable for the mortal sin of adultery. This post will examine the true teaching of the Church on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and what the Vatican II sect has done to destroy it.  

1917 v. 1983 Code of Canon Law on Matrimony
Vatican II has changed a de fide (infallible) teaching of the Church on marriage:

 The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence. The latter are entirely subordinate to the former. 

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared this statement of Church teaching as de fide in 1944. (See AAS 36, 1944, 103). This teaching was already in the 1917 Code. Here's what the Church's canons say about Matrimony:

Canon 1013 - section 1
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence.

Canon 1012 section 1
Christ our Lord elevated the very contract of marriage between baptized persons to the dignity of a sacrament. (Emphasis mine)

Compare the 1983 Vatican II sect definition:
Canon 1055 - section 1.
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this [covenant] between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. (Emphasis mine). 

Two egregious errors become apparent. The first is that the primary and secondary ends of marriage are put forth on equal footing with the secondary end mentioned first.   I do not hesitate to call the definition heretical. It comes as a logical corollary of the second error; marriage is a covenant and not a contract. What's the difference? In a contract, both parties must freely enter and accept the terms of said contract. The form of the sacrament creates a contract. After the bride and groom pronounce their vows, they cannot withdraw their consent. A covenant implies an ongoing consent, and if either party at any time withdraws consent, the marriage is over. Welcome to no-fault divorce under the guise of "Catholicism." 

Once again, the 1917 Code:
Canon 1081 -  section 2
Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body, for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children.

Notice the primary end of marriage is the reason for the right over the body of the spouse. 

Compare the Vatican II sect's 1983 Code:
Canon 1057 - section 2
Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage.

No longer is the primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, even mentioned. It's all about the spouses and "giving and accepting" each other. To those who object the canon says the covenant is "irrevocable," the revised code permits psychological immaturity as grounds for annulment. As "psychological immaturity" is not defined, it can mean virtually anything modern psychologists want it to mean, and "annulments" are given as the "covenant of love" was not truly present. 

The Mother of All Heresy: Vatican II
The heretical definition of marriage given in the 1983 Vatican II sect Code comes from...you guessed it...the Robber Council, Vatican II. In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes [hereinafter GS], the married state is deemed as "the intimate partnership of life and love which...has been established by the creator..." (GS para. #48), whose proper end is procreation:

By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory (GS para. #48).

Note that it does not find its "reason for being" in the procreation and education of children, but its "crown." This leads one to believe that the end of the state of matrimony is mutual perfection of the spouses, that is, the secondary end becomes the first, since the true end (the procreative one), becomes secondary because it is proposed as a consequence (or "crowning glory") of the Modernist value of marriage.

Again, Vatican II teaches:
But God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning "male and female he created them" (Gen. 1: 27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons (GS para. #12).

This is a correct, yet incomplete, and leads to serious error. Its incompleteness is due to the fact that it doesn't quote what is written in Genesis 2:18-23:

 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.  So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

GS creates the false impression that God created man and woman at the same time, rendering them totally equal. Men and women are similar, but not in complete equality, as St. Paul explains, speaking in the name of the Lord in the famous passage of  1 Corinthians 11:3:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

Vatican II's entire teaching on marriage (GS para. # 47-52) is completely silent on the natural difference between the sexes established by God. From the premise of a non-Catholic idea, it advances to a natural and total equality between the spouses (considered in the abstract as "persons") as beings who express themselves freely in the "community of [matrimonial] love," completely ignoring the teaching of St. Paul and the Church throughout the ages, according to which, as we have seen, man is the natural head over the woman and, thus, over the family. This ignores the principle of nature that a woman's fundamental vocation is as spouse and mother, of bringing children into the world and educating them in a Catholic way. That's not to say women are to be bossed around and mistreated by their husbands, nor does it mean women can't be professionals (my wife is a highly educated professional). It means that the vocation of spouse and mother is more sublime. Many women now scoff at the idea of being a mother, or "just want one" child to be raised by a child care service.

Vatican II thus opened the way to feminism, that particularly perverse idea which, in the name of false equality, exalts false liberty. In the name of false liberty we now have sodomite "marriage" and the destruction of true marriage and family. Compare the words of Pope Pius XI:

 Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church." (See Casti Connubii, para. #26; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II Sect Marriage: Fostering Religious Indifferentism and Adultery
The Church has always forbidden Her faithful to marry non-Catholics. The hierarchy sometimes gave dispensations, but on very precise conditions: (1) the Church required the non-Catholic to promise to avoid any danger of corrupting the Catholic spouse and (2) She also asked that the engaged couple make a written promise to baptize all their children in the One True Church and give them an exclusively Catholic education. 

1917 Canon 1061
The Church does not dispense from the impediment of mixed religion unless:
1. justifying grave reasons require it;
2. the non-Catholic party gives a guaranty to remove from the Catholic party the danger of perversion [of the Faith] and both parties give a guaranty that all offspring will be baptized and reared only in the Catholic Faith;
3. there is moral certainty these guaranties will be fulfilled 

In addition, the Catholic spouse was obliged to work prudently for the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse. This all ended in the Vatican II sect when Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) issued the Motu proprio entitled Matrimonia Mixta on March 31, 1970. The non-Catholic spouse no longer has to make any promises. Instead, the so-called Catholic party promises to "try" and raise any/all children as "Catholic" (Vatican II sect). By placing the faith of the allegedly Catholic spouse and the children in grave danger of corruption, it goes against the Divine-positive Law and is immoral. It therefore could not come from the One True Church.

Not to be outdone, Bergoglio published the "Apostolic Exhortation" Amoris Laetitia on March 19, 2016. Chapter 8 discusses the issue of people who are divorced and civilly “remarried.” In paragraph 305, the Argentinian apostate explains that certain divorced and civilly “remarried” persons, while living their new and purely civil union as if they were married, can be in the state of grace. They can therefore benefit from the help of the Sect. He declared in note 351:

In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber (!), but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy. I would also point out that the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.  

Translation: Those living in open and unrepentant adultery, which constitutes continual mortal sin, can somehow be in the state of grace and receive "communion." This flies in the face of all Church teaching from 33 AD to 1958 on the subject. Furthermore, the Eucharist is indeed a help for those striving to be perfect "even as Thy Heavenly Father is Perfect" (St. Matthew 5:48) and not to those who have deliberately banished God from their souls through mortal sin--"Do not give that which is Holy to the dogs..." (St. Matthew 7:6).  All of this is against the Divine-positive Law. 

Conclusion
We live in a wicked world where sodomites can "marry," divorce is both acceptable and easy, divorce and "remarriage" is not considered adultery, and the procreation of children is not as important as self-fulfillment. All of this is having a devastating effect upon society. It began in earnest, as almost all modern day ills, with the heretical teachings of Vatican II and the counterfeit sect it spawned. 

28 comments:

  1. I think it was said that the devil's last battle would be against the family. It seems to be happening now. There are almost no more traditional families that remain united until death. The media often report tragic cases of husbands who kill their wives (and sometimes their children) and then commit suicide. It's awful ! And on the other side, politicians and media praise sodomites who "marry" and raise children under the pretext that children need love. Of course, they need it, but they also need a father and a mother. What a sick society ! Blessed are those who know how to recognize the signs of the times !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      The signs of the times are evil. The only signs that can save us now are "STOP" and the Sign of the Cross!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Women file for 75%-80% of all divorces.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  2. The fact that anybody would defend no-fault divorce is beyond me. All my school peers who had divorced parents later experienced problems. If you separate because your relationships is *seriously* untenable, your kids may have issues anyway, but please don't create a problem that doesn't exist.

    Nobody speaks positively about marriage at all. It is fine to say the bad things, but good couples should be encouraged. I feel that in general, men are encouraged to treat their wives as discardable items and women to treat their husbands like if they were idiotic money machines. On the contrary, men must love their wives as "Christ Loves the Church" and viceversa. It's all about charity.

    Now, I believe some of this situations can be traced back to mixed education. The rate of maturation within sexes is different, and mixed education can cause pre-marital sex which later can lead to
    marriage problems. You would expect that being together since childhood, they would understand each other better, but somehow it is not happening! 🤔 I would like to know everyone's thoughts on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:52
      You make salient points. I do believe that same sex education is more beneficial. Being together brings the latency period--when girls and boys are not attracted to each other--to a premature end. Instead of concentrating on their development as boys or girls, they start being attracted earlier and that causes problems.

      Development is also very different. When I graduated high school in 1983, the guys (myself included) still looked like boys and the girls were not very developed. I attended a graduation of a friend's child in 2018, and the boys looked like men in their late 20s (some with beards) and the girls were developed like women in their mid-20s.

      Bring back same sex education! (However, where do we put the boys who identify as girls and vice-versa? Sick).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. One thing I don’t understand is if the primary reason for marriage is procreation then why is a Josephite marriage moral?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:07
      The reason for Josephite marriages is to serve a greater spiritual good. Primary reason doesn't mean "absolutely necessary in all cases." As long as a man and woman are joined and reflect the nature of marriage, being open to procreation, the marriage is holy. It is in the nature of an apple to be edible for humans, but some are rotted and cannot be eaten yet the nature of being a true apple remains. A rock is never edible by nature. Hence, sodomite "marriages" are contrary to nature--they are never good for people.

      Likewise, the Church allows widows and widowers in their 60s and older to marry, even though they cannot have children.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. To My Readers:
    As of today, Twitter will not allow me to tweet out the link to this blog as it "violates the rules"! This site is considered "promoting hate" because it gives the traditional teaching of the One True Church. I'll take that as a compliment, and hope Elon Musk makes good on his promise.

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This world is hypocritical. He speaks of tolerance and open-mindedness but if you denounce the current perversions and heresies, you are the victim of hatred and intolerance on the part of so-called "tolerant" and "open-minded" people. I was myself so I stand in solidarity with you.

      Delete
  5. A golden oldie showing statistics from the beginning of the Church during Vatican II in 1965 compared to it in 2002: https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/stats.pdf

    Annulments:
    1965 - 338
    2002 - 50,000

    I'm sure the number has increased.

    A good follow up to this article would be how would annulments work in the time of apostasy (today's time). The CMRI looks into them but all the other groups don't even give a chance. It's a sensitive subject among some trads.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      It is very difficult. If the marriage is obviously defective (e.g., a Traditionalist married a civilly divorced woman before a justice of the peace) that's just stating the obvious. For anything else, lacking Ordinary Jurisdiction, I don't see how annulments are possible.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. So,if someone who's never been married ends up marrying someone previously married by justice of the peace,that aforementioned previously unmarried person can receive annulment?

      Delete
    3. @anon9:41
      If someone who's never been married ends up marrying someone previously married IN CHURCH BY A PRIEST (real or putative in the V2 sect) and they then marry before a justice of the peace, the aforementioned previously unmarried person can receive an annulment.

      It was enough, pre-Vatican II, if the Catholic party had married before a justice of the peace alone, as you described. However, V2 sect members are not Catholic, hence they need not follow the canonical forum in my opinion.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Happy Feast of the Sacred Heart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:11
      To you as well! On this day, the recognition of unborn children as subhuman was reversed! Praise be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Congratulations to the American people, and especially to the American traditional Catholics who fought for God and Life on yesterday’s great victory. God bless you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, I almost didn't believe my ears when I heard yesterday about the Supreme Court having overruled Roe vs. Wade! Was listening online to a sermon by Bp. McGuire yesterday for the Feast of the Sacred Heart when he mentioned the happy news, saying how all of these Rosaries and works of reparations must have yielded good fruit!
      What blessed news in the midst of all the wickedness!

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  8. Gresni carinik and Joanna,
    As someone involved deeply in the right-to-life movement since 1981, June 24th was a glorious day! It was a day that I often thought would never come to pass. The United States no longer considers the unborn as subhuman---Deo gratias!!!

    God Bless,

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a victory for the fundamental right to life because if there is no right to life, what other rights do we have? Here in Canada, we are not about to see the end of abortion, according to Liberal politicians who have reaffirmed their support for the murder of unborn children, and the Conservative Party refuses to fight for life... what a bunch of cowards!

      Other countries don't want to protect unborn children either. The world is in the power of the devil and he has henchmen among feminist groups, sodomites and fake Catholics like Sleepy Joe and Crazy Nancy. Here in the province of Quebec, where I live, leftists call the period before the 1960s "Great Darkness". I would rather say that we are there right now. People have stopped following Christ, the Light of the world, and they are plunged into darkness.

      Delete
    2. If you attend 1 of Father Roi's missions in Quebec,have a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for the conversion of Canada + a separate one for an end to Abortion. The Resistance-SSPX chapel I sometimes attend prays for the conversion of Canada & USA after the Leonine Prayers.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew, I think Fr. Roy left the SSPX. Yes, our country needs conversion! I read that 89% of people of Quebec support abortion. It is a consequence of apostasy and feminism...

      Simon

      Delete
    4. Fr.Roy is with the Resistance-SSPX yet openly holds the Sedevacantist opinion + offers the pre-1955 Missal.
      He's still in Quebec + New Brunswick areas.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  9. Can this nun be qualified as a martyr?
    https://www.acistampa.com/amp/story/uccisione-suor-luisa-dellorto-cei-la-sua-morte-sia-fonte-di-riconciliazione-per-haiti-20197

    Sorry for my ignorance.

    Manel Bonet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manel Bonet,
      Is there an English translation of this article?

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Manel,
      this modernist nun does not meet any criteria for a Catholic martyr. First of all, she was a full-fledged Novus Ordo (short hair, no habit, teaching Philosophy at the Notre Dame Seminary in Haiti, and performing other ecclesial functions, whatever these might be - at least, this is what press releases say about her + photos of her available on the Internet).
      Secondly, she died as a result of being shot with four bullets, probably in the course of a robbery, thus simply being an unfortunate victim of some armed thugs.

      To sum up, juding from the externals she had no Catholic Faith to begin with, and she did not die in odium fidei (suffering death at the hands of persecutors of the Catholic Faith as a result of having professed the One True Faith) which is the crucial factor in determining martyrdom.

      Please see these great posts by Introibo on true martyrdom:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-false-martyr.html

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/03/are-aborted-babies-martyrs.html

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    3. Thank you very much Johanna S.; Introibo, this article is in English here:

      https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251644/nun-in-haiti-gave-her-life-even-to-martyrdom-pope-francis-says

      Manel Bonet

      Delete
    4. Manel,
      I agree 100% with Joanna's assessment!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete