[sinkspur]

The traditional way the Church handled this type of situation was to strongly condemn sinner (in this case, the wife-beater), not by altering doctrine.

Like others here, you just wash your hands of the problem.

So, a guy who's not Catholic or even Christian is gonna CARE that you condemn him?

No thought or concern for the woman here? She's the one begging for some help.

[johnb2004]

Wash hands? Give me a break. You are so secular. Passing out condoms will save her life? Hardly. How about sweeping cultural changes and a committment to Christ. There is a radical idea.

[Antoninus]

Like others here, you just wash your hands of the problem.

Stop it. We know what your agenda is here and it has nothing to do with saving these poor women from spousal abuse for refusing intercourse. It has everything to do with your simmering animus toward Humanae Vitae. That's all this is and for you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

So, a guy who's not Catholic or even Christian is gonna CARE that you condemn him?

Do some reading as to how missionaries, priests, and bishops have traditionally dealt with unChristian sexual and cultural mores, then get back to me, ok? Hint: there was never a question of changing Christian moral teaching to accomodate cultural oddities.

No thought or concern for the woman here? She's the one begging for some help.

No, you're using her plight to callously advance a disgraceful political agenda within the Church. You're only interested in her insofar as she can provide an emotional component to your completely specious argument.