R
Rau
Guest
Sure does. I’ll bet it gets some priceless looks in response.
- Status
P
Peter_M
Guest
The point that edwest211 was apparently making - that he could not tell who is LGBT when he sees people in the mall - puzzles me. I’m not sure why that is important. That LGBT people are not identifiable while strolling through the mall does not mean that it is impossible to tolerate the existence of SSM… the two things seem unrelated.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
To the OP. The Church will never change the meaning of marriage.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Though the Church will learn to accept the States right to allow Civil Unions (even if they are called “marriage”) as it has decriminilisation of sodomy, adultery, divorce, prostitution and many other vices.
E
edwest211
Guest
Not going to happen.
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t think the Church denies the State’s right to make laws as they have done. I’m not sure what you think needs to be “learned”. The Church even acknowledges that the State may legislate to require Priests to reveal the contents of confessions in various circumstances, and has admitted that Priests would indeed become subject to such laws. Meaning they would bear the lawful consequences of refusing to reveal the contents of confession.
Believing a course is “wrong” is not the same as denying the right of the one who took it to take it.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Divorce was never a “crime” in USA to my knowledge, and therefore it has not been “decriminalized”. It was simply made easier to obtain. It is even questionable whether divorce is a “vice”, given that there may be a good reason for getting one (if your spouse physically abuses you, for example) and the divorced person may not be planning to remarry without an annulment.
E
edwest211
Guest
Regarding Divorce. In the past, it had to be “for cause.” After “No-Fault Divorce” was created out of thin air, all you had to have was “irreconcilable differences” which could literally be anything. “It got too easy,” this from a married acquaintance of mine, and it caused huge problems for children (I’m not referring to abuse.).
I watched people get a divorce because it was easier than working things out. No, not in all cases. I’ve seen the other side of the coin as well. I’ve just met a lot of people who are on marriage number 2, or sort-of marriage number 3. In the past, divorce without cause was considered a scandal. Celebrities with money would get big divorce dollars. As one female celebrity put it, “He didn’t divorce me. I divorced him.” Growing up in the 1960s, divorce was rare. Stable homes were more common.
I watched people get a divorce because it was easier than working things out. No, not in all cases. I’ve seen the other side of the coin as well. I’ve just met a lot of people who are on marriage number 2, or sort-of marriage number 3. In the past, divorce without cause was considered a scandal. Celebrities with money would get big divorce dollars. As one female celebrity put it, “He didn’t divorce me. I divorced him.” Growing up in the 1960s, divorce was rare. Stable homes were more common.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yes, I don’t disagree with anything you said, but divorce still is not a “crime” and has never been a “crime” to my knowledge under the laws of the United States. A crime is an offense against society punishable under the criminal law. Divorce has never been considered such an offense - in fact it has been explicitly permitted under the law, albeit with more limitations in the past.
A “vice” is defined as an immoral or wicked behavior. Divorces “for cause” are arguably neither immoral nor wicked, as long as the cause is not somehow contrived by the parties and the divorced party does not remarry without an annulment.
A “vice” is defined as an immoral or wicked behavior. Divorces “for cause” are arguably neither immoral nor wicked, as long as the cause is not somehow contrived by the parties and the divorced party does not remarry without an annulment.
R
Rau
Guest
It was a blessing for many not to have the obligation to face a court case and subject each other to the ignominy and the unedifying spectacle of Spouse A vs Spouse B as the children await the verdict. Yes, there is also a downside to “no fault” divorce.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
The Church regularly mobilises Catholic voters and politicians in various ways to oppose the inevitable on these matters. Such misguided political effort could be better spent strategizing different ways to leaven society.
P
poche
Guest
Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts. The state can civilly do what it wants with how marriage is defined. The Catholic Church however hasn’t changed the meaning of marriage even from the beginning. Even today, Henry XIII’s "marriage to Anne Bolyn is still an adulterous union since his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
Civil law can change but the Law of God remains the same.
Civil law can change but the Law of God remains the same.
R
Rau
Guest
While ‘waving through’ the misguided acts of the State?
Euthanasia will likely be the next in a line of inevitable developments in my neck of the woods.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you for posting this.
Ed
Ed
Well that’s a ridiculous comment. Seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the Church’s place in society and authority to teach on such matters.
In Ireland we will likely be having a vote on the abortion issue in a few months. If the church was silent on that, there wouldn’t be many other institutions that would take a strong stand. It’s better to be percieved to be on the “wrong side of History” than to say nothing while evil laws are passed.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Amen brother.
If that’s the wrong side of history, then I have never been more proud to be on it. As the meme that went around, I’d rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world, and be judged by God. I would hate to be in the shoes of those who advocate and enable the mass murder of the most innocent come judgment.
A Catholic cannot be pro-choice, I don’t know who the pro-choice heretics worship, but it’s certainly not Catholicism.
God Bless You
Thank you for reading.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
By all means provide a rationale…other than you disagree because you are Irish and its good to put a lot of effort into political strategies that we know will fail. Failure usually suggests there are better ways to influence people other than through blunt force of majority voting.BlackFriar:
Well that’s a ridiculous comment…
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Yes divorce was once criminalised in some Christian countries, amounting to a form of shariah type law it would seem.
Consumption of alcohol is a vice for many people, that doesnt make all drinking wrong. Divorce is worse than drinking though, as Jesus indicated.
Consumption of alcohol is a vice for many people, that doesnt make all drinking wrong. Divorce is worse than drinking though, as Jesus indicated.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
By all means, let’s hear and work on the better strategies. But the matter that has confronted various countries at various times is a democratic vote on a subject of moral importance. The Church has options of course:
- Express no opinion on the matter;
- Identify the course it considers best aligns with the moral good, eg.:
- vote YES for SSM, or vote NO for SSM.
Last edited:
The rationale seems easy enough to understand. Because you can’t stay silent in the face of great evil. It’s got nothing to do with being Irish. It just happens that we are having a referendum on the abortion issue next year.
I honestly don’t understand Catholics who give this line that “the Church shouldn’t interfere in politics or whatever”. The Church absolutely should interefere in politics! It shouldn’t make the laws, but the if the Church is really set up by Christ then we would do well to listen to what it says on matters of morality.
Just because people don’t follow what the Church says doesn’t mean it should stop saying it.
- Status