Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
OOPs! What a way to get 900. Sorry. Wrong thread lol
I imagine the Colts now want the league to change the rules so that they don't have to play in the snow.
LOL! How is this different from what appears every night on NBA courts during the regular season? ;o)
Same to you and yours.
While it is perfectly understandable that the RC has the right to terminate its employees based upon their own behavior criteria ... it's a bit beyond the pale to say that this woman could not control her own sexuality.
We don't know her motives, that is true. But it is also true that Catholics are to believe marriage is an important thing, the only proper place for sexual expression.
She controlled herself in a perfectly God-given way ... by getting married (though I know the RC has problems with that).
Had she gotten married, there would be no problem. But she did not get married. Catholics (and no one is forced to be one) have their own set of obligations and rules they must abide by. One of them is that marriage is a sacrament, and that only Catholic-approved marriages are valid for Catholics. A Catholic who thumbs her nose at the Church in this manner has effectively announced her dissent.
If you franchise a KFC it says in your agreement that you need to buy "secret herbs and spices" from the company. If you contract with a local foodservice supplier for "fried chicken spice" and don't buy the real stuff from KFC, you are in violation of your agreement.
Same thing here. A Catholic agrees that marriage is something over which the Church has dominion. To go "outside" for marriage-like services is to breach both her employment contract and her faith-committment.
And I think that she was more desperate than anything really (what with a dying boyfriend and all). Pretty heartless to refer to her as 'stupid'.
We don't know all the facts. If there was no impediment to her getting a Catholic marriage and she didn't, then she's stupid. If she did what she did cause she or the boyfriend had unresolved past-marriage issues (that is, they were not free to marry each other according to the Church), then she has declared her protest to the faith. Maybe that's not "stupid," but it's disingenuous to claim victim status based on an illness when one is really faced with other impediments to marriage.
SD
Check this out: World's oldest recorded mother, 66, gives birth ;o)
Instead of throwing it away tonight we put a scoop in Cindy's nightcap. Yall think it might be too rich for her once a day?
I'm not sure about that, but I did see a commercial for a new product last night: Iams Savory Sauce comes in three juicy, lip-smacking flavors
Heheh, I didn't notice anything. :o)
It was interesting reading the responses on that thread. Someone suggested that one or the other of the parties in question might have had an impediment to a Catholic marriage, such as a previous marriage that had not been annulled. If true, that would explain a lot. It was unclear whether or not the diocese had given her an opportunity to make her marriage licit. I would hope so.
There was a post way back from you though that in some circumstances marriage outside of your church was accepted. Why is this case different?
True to form for today's journalism, there are certainly more questions than answers after reading that article.
SD
The basic gist is that Catholics need to have Catholic Church-approved marriages. Usually this is in the Church, but permission can be obtained to have the wedding at a Protestant Church.
A Catholic who marries either at a J-P or in another Church without permission is not considered to be in a valid marriage.
Non-Catholics can marry however they please and the Church generally accepts these as valid.
SD
Yup, no question that since d-backs can't even breathe on his receivers that its a definate advantage. His stats are inflated. The NFL equivilant of playing at Coors Field.
Awfully kind of us. And you still have all of these NCs acting like we're overbearing.... :)
So have you converted to being a Panthers fan, or do you still root for the Redskins?
And then there are those that don't give a rats rearend whether you accept them or not. :-)
To paraphrase: "I wonder what's going on in their locker room right now - - - probably talking about a rule change so they won't have to play in the snow."
"Bruschi" is a great football name. Pronounced "Brew-ski," of course.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.