Replies

Are you insinuating that I'm going to hell for criticizing a policy that on its face has many cruelties? If the church wants to "forgive" the cruelties of divorce and conduct the sacraments, that is one thing. That is in fact what many conservative Protestants have to do, and the congregations have to wrestle with the consequences of that, good or bad. But to engage in some kind of theatre of "annulment", to wave a hand and declare that a marriage is not worthy before God, particularly a marriage that has produced children--

Jesus confronted divorce without metaphor and wishful thinking in the gospels, and the bottom line was, God allowed divorce in the OT because humans were so fallen, and had such "hard hearts." Jesus said remarriage after divorce is adultery. To deal with divorce is one thing, to engage in such fatuous conceits is quite another.

Gossip? The divorce happened, did it not? Children are born of a man and a woman joined together, did it not? The present adulterous man is now traveling the world, trying to "buy" babies to give his wife, who is infertile--the illusion that she is

as good as the True Wife. And in the clear common sense of Jesus Christ, the Church is disobedient to his Word. Not that we don't have to face the harshness of divorce in every congregation, but to add these layers of hocus pocus, is, I contend, cruel. I'm hoping Francis will deal with the histrionics and come back to plain sense. The temptation to escape reality is truly the temptation to escape conscience.

This True Family continues, I contend, to have a righteous issue against a church that puts them away for the convenience of an immoral woman. The Church should be ashamed of this.

I couldn't get past the first 6 words. What a jaw-dropper.

I'm speechless. "Textless".

In all sincerity --- where did I insinuate you were going to hell?

This True Family continues, I contend, to have a righteous issue against a church that puts them away for the convenience of an immoral woman.

Why is your venom reserved for the Church? The state granted both of them a divorce first, didn't it? Why is the state not guilty of "putting them away"?