C
catharina
Guest
Good night to you.
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your very welcomeThanks Bookcat
E
Edward_H
Guest
Well, the Catechism doesn’t quite say what you claim. Divorce is a disorder, it goes against the natural law, but:
C
catharina
Guest
Thank you. That’s my point.
A limited statement that “it is a sin to get a divorce”
cannot stand alone as a teaching of the Catholic Church.
Stating that alone is a distortion of actual teaching,
a distortion of the truth.
D
Debora123
Guest
He never said all divorce is a sin.
He said it is a sin sometimes, and stated the Catechism to back up his correct claim.
What he said (divorce is a sin sometimes but not always) is precisely on par with Church teaching.
So what is the problem?? And why are you accusing him of “distorting the truth?” What he is saying is absolutely correct.
C
catharina
Guest
Good morning to you too, Debora.
He never said all divorce is a sin.
He said it is a sin sometimes, and stated the Catechism to back up his correct claim.
What he said (divorce is a sin sometimes but not always) is precisely on par with Church teaching.
So what is the problem?? And why are you accusing him of “distorting the truth?” What he is saying is absolutely correct.
I addressed and quoted Post #9.
Perhaps you should read it.
The statement (post) was limited and specific.
Such a statement should not stand alone.
Making that singular statement is
a distortion of the truth of Church teaching.
D
Debora123
Guest
His post #9:
…If you look at only the first sentence, then yes, his statement would be incorrect. But doing so would be taking his claims out of context, because he immediately follows it with saying that it isn’t always a sin.
C
catharina
Guest
Post # 9 was an attempt to “correct” Post # 6.
I objected to the limitaions of Post # 9.
I still object to the limitations of Post #9.
D
Debora123
Guest
Post #6 says that divorce is not a sin. This isn’t true, because divorce IS a sin sometimes. I find post #9 to be way more accurate than #6.
One states divorce is not a sin, period. The other states divorce is not ALWAYS a sin, but can be.
C
catharina
Guest
Just goes to show that we can have our own preferences in expression.Post #6 says that divorce is not a sin. This isn’t true, because divorce IS a sin sometimes. I find post #9 to be way more accurate than #6.
One states divorce is not a sin, period. The other states divorce is not ALWAYS a sin, but can be.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The thread did not start with #6 …Post #6 says that divorce is not a sin. This isn’t true, because divorce IS a sin sometimes. I find post #9 to be way more accurate than #6.
One states divorce is not a sin, period. The other states divorce is not ALWAYS a sin, but can be.
My posting started with #2 where among other things I noted that “It is not always a sin to divorce”
Then in post #3 --which I posted right after…I posted the text from the Catechism (that you later suggested I post…I had already done so…) I posted it 3 minutes after (I had to find the text)…in order to give a fuller understanding of the whole matter…including where it is not a sin.
Later a person posted the line “Divorce is not a sin”.
So I posted in response to that single post:
Perhaps that single post could be worded better…but I thought the CCC would fill out all needed info (there is a lot there)
What I posted in response to that one post was in the context of what was already posted. I had already posted the full text of the Catechism above and had stated that it is not always a sin. I was responding to his post.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The thread did not start with #6 …
My posting started with #2 where among other things I noted that “It is not always a sin to divorce”
Then in post #3 --which I posted right after…I posted the text from the Catechism (that you later suggested I post…I had already done so…) I posted it 3 minutes after (I had to find the text)…in order to give a fuller understanding of the whole matter…including where it is not a sin.
Later a person posted the line “Divorce is not a sin”.
So I posted in response to that single post:
Perhaps that single post could be worded better…but I thought the CCC would fill out all needed info (there is a lot there)
What I posted in response to that one post was in the context of what was already posted. I had already posted the full text of the Catechism above and had stated that it is not always a sin. I was responding to his post.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The full rich text is very good and covers both where it is sinful…and where it is tolerated.
On the one hand:
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law = sinful…(noting that it is indeed an offense against the natural law even turning up the heat…for those without the benefit of Divine Revelation can discover that it is immoral via reason etc)
2385 Divorce is immoral = sinful (the very meaning of immoral)
The text you quote is referring to when it is can be done …and note it says:
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense
Thus then…civil divorce does not constitute a moral offense…whereas otherwise it can be a “moral offense”…
I of course understand that many have had to get civil divorces in ways that were not sinful (I refer to the act of getting a civil divorce)…as described above.
I understand where some can be as aware of the reality of divorce…for their own civil divorces fit under what is described above in the Catechism…or they have friends or family in such situations (fitting the above quote).
(and of course I pointed out it has been found by the Church that they were not married in the first place…then they were never married to begin with before God.)
And that being their personal experience with the idea of civil divorce …where it was “tolerated” as the only possible way of XYZ (see CCC quote above etc) in their married but separated state…they may not realize when it is sinful…
B
Bookcat
Guest
I did not give a limited statement…nor did I state that alone…read the following…
The thread did not start with #6 …
My posting started with #2 where among other things I noted that “It is not always a sin to divorce”
Then in post #3 --which I posted right after…I posted the text from the Catechism (that you later suggested I post…I had already done so…) I posted it 3 minutes after (I had to find the text)…in order to give a fuller understanding of the whole matter…including where it is not a sin.
Later a person posted the line “Divorce is not a sin”.
(PS I should note that the person who I responded to in that post …did make the good point that they were still married…etc…I was just responding to the one line…)
So I posted in response to that single post:
Perhaps that single post could be worded better…but I thought the CCC would fill out all needed info (there is a lot there)
What I posted in response to that one post was in the context of what was already posted. I had already posted the full text of the Catechism above and had stated that it is not always a sin. I was responding to his post.
I had already given the full text and context (and I even referred to it again with the link…)
C
catharina
Guest
Excellent, accurate and full response.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I did not give a limited statement…nor did I state that alone…read the following…
The thread did not start with #6 …
My posting started with #2 where among other things I noted that “It is not always a sin to divorce”
Then in post #3 --which I posted right after…I posted the text from the Catechism (that you later suggested I post…I had already done so…) I posted it 3 minutes after (I had to find the text)…in order to give a fuller understanding of the whole matter…including where it is not a sin.
Later a person posted the line “Divorce is not a sin”.
(PS I should note that the person who I responded to in that post …did make the good point that they were still married…etc…I was just responding to the one line…)
So I posted in response to that single post:
Perhaps that single post could be worded better…but I thought the CCC would fill out all needed info (there is a lot there)
What I posted in response to that one post was in the context of what was already posted. I had already posted the full text of the Catechism above and had stated that it is not always a sin. I was responding to his post.
I had already given the full text and context (and I even referred to it again with the link…)
C
catharina
Guest
See Post # 33.
A response in “shorthand” in an ongoing thread can be very unwise.
Glad to see your fuller, more significant response.
Of course that "single post could be worded better"
and that was and is my actual point. Glad we agree on that.
B
Bookcat
Guest
At the time…the thread actually consisted of only a single page.
And I did explicitly give again (this time via a link…so as not to quote a big text again…it had just been quoted by me a few posts just above) the full text of the Catechism.
C
catharina
Guest
Yes?
B
Bookcat
Guest
- Status