Posted on 08/16/2006 5:00:49 PM PDT by wagglebee
Didn't mince words, did he?
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
WHOA!! Don't hold back now Bishop Doran, tell us how you really feel, LOL! Good for Bishop Doran for telling it like it is.
Wow! Well BE, I pinged you to this simply to bring us to common ground for a bit. Enjoy it while it lasts.
He's 100% correct on this one.
Homosexual agenda too.
A bishop who is....CATHOLIC!!
(breath of fresh air)
WOW!
Mahoney with brass nucks? More like a sliken glove.
By criticizing "no fault" divorce, the bishop is 100% SPOT ON: this is a criticism of a state granting a divorce for no other reason other than one person wants out of the marriage.
No-Fault Divorce = disposable marriage
The state, up until the 1950s, had always considered marriage to be an incredibly important institution that provided stability to society.
Today marriage is on par with the relationship between a pet and its owner.
ROTFL!! Don't hold back, Bishop Doran. Tell us what you REALLY think!
Outstanding column. Thanks for posting it.
Amen and God bless Bishop Doran.
Bravo! Pleasantly surprised.
Yes, it certainly is good. But I think he may have made a lot of other bishops unhappy. Let's keep Bishop Doran in our prayers, for the Enemy is sure to attack him now.
What a man! In Boston, we are blighted with clergy of "sophistication", "nuance" & "finesse".
There are reasonable secular arguments to allowing a marriage to be dissolved without declaration of fault by either party, if both parties seek dissolution on such terms.
On the other hand, I think the law should be written so that a party who seeks to leave a marriage without some reasonable showing of fault by the other party should be considered to be 100% at fault, and be treated as such.
Since a spouse is not a slave, it may not be possible to force someone not to leave because they get "bored", but there's no reason why a spouse who does so should be entitled to a house, car, alimony, children, child support, etc.
And for the party that embraced divorce and contraception, two of the evils he complained about. How can he condemn one party for those and not the other? One party just isn't quite as evil as the other I guess.
Tell me, why do you expect the Grand Old Party to be the Grand Old 100% Vatican Compliant Party? What mandate is there for that? Can you cite church law or Scripture to back your view up?
So is the GOP 80% compliant? 70%? 40%?
As I said, "the lesser evil" is an expression for children in an election year where we may get Speaker Pelosi.
If support for divorce and contraception make the Democrats evil then they must make the GOP evil as well. Otherwise why mention them in the same breath as abortion?
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.