J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
It would be turned over and trashed without anyone there with it.
Not true. I was involved in protests over an effort to open an adult bookstore, and I have seen very similar efforts elsewhere.You’re talking about political and legal recourse, not protesting. I’m asking what Catholics protest. We hardly ever protest sexual immorality or divorce, perhaps because we don’t want to offend straight people
Why are you wanting to set up a booth at this event? You are located across the street from it.The event will happen on the green across the road from our church.
My Catholic school had a pride dayWhenever I see anything “pride” like school pride, proud parent bumper sticker, pride parade, etc. I think, “Now isn’t pride one of those pesky deadly sins?”
Talk about what you are for: Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one women. That isn’t opposed to the council’s request, but it isn’t sacrificing your beliefs. I would be really prepared to answer an onslaught of opposing views, and maybe even verbal abuse, but you wouldn’t be choosing to do this if you were unaware of that potential.We would be allowed to talk about the benefits of marriage for life, but we would not be allowed to talk about what we are against.
“Hardly ever” is consistent with “sometimes”.Not true. I was involved in protests over an effort to open an adult bookstore, and I have seen very similar efforts elsewhere.
That’s not the way I understand it, at all. I understand that legal divorce is a very serious sin in most cases, which may nevertheless in rare cases be permissible.As far as divorce, that itself is not contradictory to the Catholic Faith. What IS contradictory is attempts at remarriage.
It is abnorrent actually, just like killing or appropriating the property of another.As far as divorce, that itself is not contradictory to the Catholic Faith.
Nope, I mean civil divorce. The severing of civil legal connections between two married persons. Of course, this does not sever a true marriage bond, but rather, the civil effects of marriage. It is not intrinsically immoral.It is abnorrent actually, just like killing or appropriating the property of another.
Though there are rarish circumstances where choosing these abhorrent things is tolerable.
Surely you mean “separation”.
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.174
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."175
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176
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.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.177
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178