St Josemaria's advice on marraige - this shocked me!


#21

When was that written?


#22

Josemaria Escriva died in 1975.


#23

What does that have to do with this topic? It’s difficult for anyone, male or female, to confront objective truth.

Surely you do not mean to suggest that it is in any way accurate or just to claim that women are responsible for 80% of their husbands’ infidelities?

I do respect St. Josemaria Escriva; he was certainly far holier while on earth than I am now, and it is for that reason that I am willing to give him *personally *the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, accepting or even tolerating the notion *itself *that it may be just or accurate to claim that women may be responsible for 80% of their husbands’ infidelities is asinine and perverse. To accept or tolerate this notion simply because a holy man happened to say it at some point is sort of a reverse genetic fallacy.

More importantly, few sentiments so reek of “secular” thinking as that suggestion. Isn’t the love of a husband and wife to be an icon of the love between Christ and His Church? Our Lord loves us and seeks our good even when we’re at our most foul.

Any husband with an ounce of virtue should strive to do likewise at all times and not make excuses. If one day I am ever blessed to be a husband, I hope I will love my wife with great devotion and fidelity all my life.

(Note, I am not talking about always feeling happy or pleased with one’s spouse. Obviously that would be ridiculous and unrealistic. Feelings come and go. I am talking about what actions we choose, with our will.)


#24

I think most people on this thread are reading with some feminist lens. His ‘survey’ figures may seem exagerated today but his advise is very practical.
Ubenedictus


#25

I think that you are highly confused about the concepts of luck and of canonization.


#26

I don’t agree and his writing show little ‘wisdom’. And as for the sainthood well…


#27

No I’m not. But thanks for the condescending put down


#28

:popcorn:
I’m not gonna touch this one.


#29

What are you trying to imply with that statement?


#30

you readjust the figures and tell me the pecentage.

I do respect St. Josemaria Escriva; he was certainly far holier while on earth than I am now, and it is for that reason that I am willing to give him *personally *the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, accepting or even tolerating the notion *itself *that it may be just or accurate to claim that women may be responsible for 80% of their husbands’ infidelities is asinine and perverse. To accept or tolerate this notion simply because a holy man happened to say it at some point is sort of a reverse genetic fallacy.

i thought it is generally accepted that everything has a cause, in his days as a priest this may be very true his is talking from personal experience. He isnt just making some rules.

More importantly, few sentiments so reek of “secular” thinking as that suggestion. Isn’t the love of a husband and wife to be an icon of the love between Christ and His Church? Our Lord loves us and seeks our good even when we’re at our most foul.

be careful you are walking on the air. He didnt deny anything, im sure if you asked him the same question he will answer in the affirmative. He didnt justify it he gave factors that he thinks plays a role. Lost of hope causes 90% of violence, this isnt a justification, im simply identifying factors that i believe are responsible.

Any husband with an ounce of virtue should strive to do likewise at all times and not make excuses. If one day I am ever blessed to be a husband, I hope I will love my wife with great devotion and fidelity all my life.

the saint didnt say otherwise. A husband should love at all times, this doesnt even touch his point. It seems you think he is giving the husband a reason to leave his wife.

(Note, I am not talking about always feeling happy or pleased with one’s spouse. Obviously that would be ridiculous and unrealistic. Feelings come and go. I am talking about what actions we choose, with our will.)

and a marriage becomes almost impossible when it has no joy.
Ubenedictus


#31

I’m saying that it wouldn’t have happened during the reign of either Pope John, Pope Paul (most definitely not) or Pope John Paul I


#32

Well of course it would have not happened because it did not happen. Canonization is driven by the Holy Spirit and that why it is also a dogmatic statement, it does not happen at the whim of a pope.


#33

so you say. I hope you change your mind. Im more surprised that you are talking about his sainthood with 3 dots.
Ubenedictus
Ubenedictus


#34

it happened when it did, why are you so concerned about the timing? The pope didnt make him a saint God did. The pope simply declear Gods’ work, his canonisation was for us not for him. He is already enjoying the beatific vision.
Ubenedictus


#35

Because I believe that his personal vanity, blind support for brutal right wing regimes and his views on the Shoah are not saintly


#36

peace.
ubenedictus


#37

I think the issue is not whether facial hair is good or bad (it’s neither, it’s a matter of preference) but more that it was a bait-and-switch. If you ever plan on growing facial hair for great lengths of time, you may want to express that to your future spouse. Some women find it adds to attractiveness, while others find it physically repulsive, as is their prerogative.


#38

wow tell me about his views on the holocaust please give his words and the right context. As for vanity, who made you judge over that? What scale do you use when measuring it?
Ubenedictus


#39

It can be done on the collective ‘whim’ of the people actually


#40

Indeed.
Personally, I would want to have a long mustache, a long beard and a bald head. :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.