Posted on 06/17/2006 9:41:41 AM PDT by found_one
That's not entirely accurate. It happened to my mother in the 60's after my dad left her. And it happened to other Catholic women who got divorced.
Maybe it was a regional thing, depending on the Bishop, but I can assure you, it did happen.
ping to the list
What Christian conservatives cause(s) the GOP promised to support are you not seeing support on?
Thanks for the ping.
Maybe it was a regional thing, depending on the Bishop, but I can assure you, it did happen.
I don't know how widespread it was, but this practice was not sanctioned by Church teaching.
Of course, that was back in the days when a Catholic who married a non-Catholic had their marriage witnessed in the rectory.
I doubt the reliability of this article, if they get the O'Reilly thing wrong. Bill calls himself a 'traditionalist'. This puts him often, but not always on the same side as conservatives. O'Reilly opposes the death penalty, he support environmentalism, he thinks oil companies control the price of gasoline among many non-conservative views he holds.
"However, I could use the same arguments against allowing divorced and remarried (adulterous) married people adopting. The Catholic church at least once was against divorce and once didn't allow divorced people to take part in Communion.
You mentioned Mark was a man who believed in absolutes. Does he or you stand behind God on what I mention above?"
As a divorced guy, I understand that divorce was the biggest mistake of my life, and it is the reason I finally gave up my atheism. A harsh court system forced me to consider the metaphysical aspects of my life above the physical. Jesus said there is no excuse for divorce. I agree. I'd do it differently if I had had the enightenment I now have.
"I doubt the reliability of this article, if they get the O'Reilly thing wrong."
If you doubt the reliability of the part written by Michael Marcavage's group, just click on the link to the video. That will tell the story. As for Laigle's part, it is just an opinion, and I am sure no one will deny that. Semantically, I suppose it may be true that O'Reilly doesn't call himself a conservative, but he is one of the most respected commentators on the most conservative TV channel. And he does generally represent conservative views enough to provide himself with an aura of conservatism. Yet that aura is shattered when he opines on homosexual marriage and adoption.
"Because ye are neither hot nor cold...."
I can not say I am happy with where we are on getting vouchers in place and or banning abortion; however, I do not feel the GOP has abandoned the issues. I see incorporation of school vouchers as primarily a State issue -I would suggest you research just what your State executive and or legislative GOP members are doing on this.
As to abortion -I see only one way the "Stare Decisis" moral relative argument premising maintaining abortion on demand (due to privacy rights) the law of the land is getting kicked to the curb. That one way is a Supreme Court ruling that sets aside Roe. The GOP via President Bush has put in two Supreme Court Justices, Alito & Roberts, that would have no problem at minimum setting aside Roe and sending the issue back to the States or at maximum declaring the right to life of a developing human being (fetus) to be unalienable ...
Let me ask you then... What benefit do evangelicals get from all their support of the GOP?
And another -- Why does the GOP Keep promising what, you say, they can't deliver anyway?
As a Catholic, I do not know exactly what evangelicals want or get -I would suspect they get more of what they want from the GOP than they would from the left...
And another -- Why does the GOP Keep promising what, you say, they can't deliver anyway?
Politics is all about making promises -identifying goals that align with and identify a principle based ideology... I do not say the GOP can not deliver goals; what I say is that delivery takes time, e.g. it took 40 years to get where we are on abortion -turning abortion around is not going to happen over night...
As such, it is about the direction and journey (principle) more than it is about a destination (goal) OTHERWISE a political party would cease to exist or change drastically when "goals" were met. e.g. we were not promised a war on terror; however, we got one AND we had a GOP idealogical response to it rather that whatever the left would have done... AGAIN, principles -direction...
So what it comes down to as far as realistic support is political support of principles -support of principles AND staying the course regardless the day to day or year to year ups and downs with regard to goals...
Politics is also dealing the power you have, in order to get what you want. The only reason to be part of a political party, is to multiply the influence you have. Social conservatives, catholics AND evangelicals have elected this group of republicans. I think it's time to play.
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.