Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on January 10, 2024, 10:46:40 AM
-
The post could possibly be fake (bait) but this sort of thing does happen.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AITAH/comments/192dyqp/wibta_if_i_abandoned_my_child/
Hello Reddit this a a throwaway account. I am 37m and my wife is 39f. We had been married for 10 years and we have a daughter who is 9f going on 10. Me and my wife had a fight and she said something about my daughter not being mine I kept a straight face but after she realized what she said she left and went to bed. I had never thought about my daughter not being mine, but I had to know if she was or wasn't. Long story short I got a paternity test and I wasn't her father. I showed it to my wife who begged and pleaded with me not to get a divorce, but I told her that I was. I told my family and friends what happened and they said I should cut them out of my life including my daughter. I don't want to raise a child that's not mine nor do I wanna pay for her either. My wife keeps calling me telling me not to make her and our child homeless, but I don't care if she is homeless or not she shouldn't have cheated. for people wondering where her real dad is he's dead, he died a few years ago. so WIBTA if i did just cut her out of my life?
Edit: A lot of people keep asking the same question. Why can't you love her? Or why are you punishing her? If her mother had gotten sa'd then by all means yes I would keep her and love her, but she didn't her father may be dead but he has living relatives who would be more than happy to know a piece of there son is still alive. I'm not punishing her I just don't really feel I can look at her the same. Those who are saying get full custody I will not I would have no help to raise her.
This has got to be one of my biggest fears, I do not like betrayal and don't know how I would deal with such a situation, or what advice to give to to others if it happened to them. Personally I would just not marry any women that isn't a God fearing virgin, lest I end up in a similar situation, easier to avoid a bad situation than to fix one. But alas many men do not understand the dangers of marrying an older woman who disregards virginity/chastity. And while I cannot speak for other traditional catholics I have heard and seen that many trad women are quite worldly which has it's own set of risks.
Though I am sure there a similar situations where the male as been the problem it is much worse when woman are the issue as a women knows whos child she has, while a man cannot be 'certain'.
-
It would make sense for a virgin man to desire a virgin woman for marriage.
-
It appears be an invalid marriage. Child's age and years married. Before the marriage, thoughts/lust for someone else.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=73060.msg921767#msg921767)
Personally I would just not marry any women that isn't a God fearing virgin, lest I end up in a similar situation, easier to avoid a bad situation than to fix one. But alas many men do not understand the dangers of marrying an older woman who disregards virginity/chastity.
Definitely better to be single than marry some random non-Trad woman with a "past". I couldn't imagine being with a woman whom several other living men have "experienced" as well. That's insane to me. Insane and unnatural.
Then again, I'm assuming a man who has kept his purity HIMSELF. A man with "a past" deserves a woman "with a past", don't you think?
And of course that situation, while just and fair, will still be fraught with problems on a natural level. God designed one-man-for-one-woman. That design was built into our bodies, our psychology, our minds, and our emotions.
-
The post could possibly be fake (bait) but this sort of thing does happen.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AITAH/comments/192dyqp/wibta_if_i_abandoned_my_child/
...I showed it to my wife who begged and pleaded with me not to get a divorce, but I told her that I was...
Whether fake or not, if they were both free to marry when they married, then the best thing he could do for all involved is to stay together and work it out.
-
It appears be an invalid marriage. Child's age and years married. Before the marriage, thoughts/lust for someone else.
OP is only using that story as an example. It's not his story. The actual question is that he's worried for himself if he tries to get married.
OP, simple biology lesson first. Unless the couple is completely estranged, it can happen that an unfaithful wife doesn't know for sure which one is the father.
Second thing is that character is a much bigger indicator for marital virtue than age. Good old-fashioned CHARACTER, both hers and his. The man and the woman should both have their own souls in order before looking to get married. All things equal, two virgins will be better than two non-virgins, but a virgin with a weak character is inviting problems even with a body count of zero.
-
But what about the daughter? For 10 years he thought he was her Father.
-
The post could possibly be fake (bait) but this sort of thing does happen.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AITAH/comments/192dyqp/wibta_if_i_abandoned_my_child/
This has got to be one of my biggest fears, I do not like betrayal and don't know how I would deal with such a situation, or what advice to give to to others if it happened to them. Personally I would just not marry any women that isn't a God fearing virgin, lest I end up in a similar situation, easier to avoid a bad situation than to fix one. But alas many men do not understand the dangers of marrying an older woman who disregards virginity/chastity. And while I cannot speak for other traditional Catholics I have heard and seen that many trad women are quite worldly which has it's own set of risks.
Though I am sure there a similar situations where the male as been the problem it is much worse when woman are the issue as a women knows whos child she has, while a man cannot be 'certain'.
No man would or should like being cuckolded, nor the pain of betrayal, but when he said "till death do us part" the deal was sealed.
While painful, difficult, and nothing I would wish on anyone, it really isn't a difficult question for a Catholic man to answer.
If he's a Catholic, the only question that really matters is , "what is God's will". From the limited information given, I would guess that he's supposed to love and raise the child.
For that matter, a non-Catholic of my acquaintance faced the same situation as described in the OP. He made the right choice. Today he and his now adult son are good friends and closer than any of his "real" children.
-
But what about the daughter? For 10 years he thought he was her Father.
Reading comprehension. :facepalm:
The daughter is in the quote from Reddit. The daughter has nothing to do with the CI member who posted. Go back and read it again. He wrote, "This has got to be one of my biggest fears, I do not like betrayal and don't know how I would deal with such a situation, or what advice to give to to others if it happened to them."
-
Reading comprehension. :facepalm:
The daughter is in the quote from Reddit. The daughter has nothing to do with the CI member who posted. Go back and read it again. He wrote, "This has got to be one of my biggest fears, I do not like betrayal and don't know how I would deal with such a situation, or what advice to give to to others if it happened to them."
I'm not anon #6
But what about the daughter? For 10 years he thought he was her Father.
But most likely they were expressing that the man should consider the wellbeing of the child and not just himself in such a scenario.
-
No man would or should like being cuckolded, nor the pain of betrayal, but when he said "till death do us part" the deal was sealed.
While painful, difficult, and nothing I would wish on anyone, it really isn't a difficult question for a Catholic man to answer.
Strictly speaking, a man is only obligated to raise his own children. He could at least "pull back" a bit, not withdraw completely, from his non-daughter's life.
But here's the real issue: the man doesn't have to forgive the adultery. He can refuse to live as husband-and-wife with his unfaithful spouse, and have separate bed & board until one of them dies, if that is his choice. That would often involve a civil divorce, for legal and financial reasons. But he can't get married again, as he's already married.
So YES, marriage is permanent, but NO a jilted spouse is not required to forgive the adultery. But one must not make this decision lightly: giving up on your unfaithful spouse is a more grave decision for a Catholic. Because it's not like you can just get divorced and "try again for love/happiness" in another marriage. Those in the world operate this way, but for a Catholic in a valid marriage that is simply not an option.
-
But what about the daughter? For 10 years she thought he was her Father.
Didn't mean to strikethrough the above, merely to correct the first "he" into "she"
-
Strictly speaking, a man is only obligated to raise his own children. He could at least "pull back" a bit, not withdraw completely, from his non-daughter's life.
But here's the real issue: the man doesn't have to forgive the adultery. He can refuse to live as husband-and-wife with his unfaithful spouse, and have separate bed & board until one of them dies, if that is his choice. That would often involve a civil divorce, for legal and financial reasons. But he can't get married again, as he's already married.
So YES, marriage is permanent, but NO a jilted spouse is not required to forgive the adultery. But one must not make this decision lightly: giving up on your unfaithful spouse is a more grave decision for a Catholic. Because it's not like you can just get divorced and "try again for love/happiness" in another marriage. Those in the world operate this way, but for a Catholic in a valid marriage that is simply not an option.
"Strictly speaking" is correct; one can choose to separate without violating the letter of the law. And in some relatively rare scenarios that might be best choice.
But in real life I've known a few too many people who were bitter and old-before-their-time to not recommend forgiving and seeking God's grace to make the best of it.
I've never yet met an elderly person who was at peace who wasn't at the same time quick to forgive.
-
Well, I don't see this as a question of "forgiveness". Charity requires taking care of the daughter, since her entire life she believed the man was her father, and charity would probably require keeping the mother around (again, for the sake of the daughter). Problem with the "forgiveness" aspect is that the woman doesn't appear contrite ... especially if she threw that in his face during an argument, as if she relished having wronged him that way. Also, given that they were married for 10 years and the daughter is 9 going on 10, she was cheating on him "right out of the gate", which does question her motivations in getting into the marriage. Until she shows actual sincere contrition, it's not a question of forgiveness, and she should be relegated to the couch for the rest of the time she's permitted to stay in the home that the man is paying for. Also, the question comes up about how often she may have been unfaithful over the entire 10 years. Perhaps for the future ones she was more "careful" not to conceive. Also makes me wonder why the married pair don't have a child between them over the course of 10 years.
-
Wow! As a formal nullity case before a Tribunal, this would be an EASY annulment on grounds of fraud since the female failed to disclose her past in order to secure consent of the male. Canon 1098 of the 1983 Code. I would need to look-up the corresponding canon in the 1917 Code as I cannot remember it.
-
Wow! As a formal nullity case before a Tribunal, this would be an EASY annulment on grounds of fraud since the female failed to disclose her past in order to secure consent of the male. Canon 1098 of the 1983 Code. I would need to look-up the corresponding canon in the 1917 Code as I cannot remember it.
.
No, this is definitely not grounds for annulment according to Catholic standards. Lying about oneself does not invalidate the marriage. The only type of lie that would invalidate it would be a lie of person, such as someone impersonating someone else; for example, Peter intends to marry Bertha, but Matilda disguises herself as Bertha in such a way to deceive Peter, and goes through the marriage ceremony.
Obviously such a scenario is borderline impossible, which is why there were only a few dozen marriage annulments handed out worldwide before Vatican 2. If not telling one's spouse that their child was not theirs, or whatever it is that happened here, were grounds for annulment, the annulment factory would have been running just as hard before Vatican 2 as it has since.
After Vatican 2, the false church invented a lot of new grounds that would make the sacrament of matrimony invalid so that people could get divorced and remarried without admitting that that's what they were doing. Obviously those grounds were designed in such a way that they could be handed out to basically anyone, since otherwise how does this allow everyone to get divorced? So the idea that concealing information about oneself would invalidate the marriage was one of many things that were invented to this end.
But obviously the sacrament of matrimony is instituted by God Himself, so only God can determine what makes it valid or not. And the rules the Church laid down for matrimony were those received from God. No one has the power to add to or change the conditions on which sacramental validity rests, especially not modernist heretics.
-
Wow! As a formal nullity case before a Tribunal, this would be an EASY annulment on grounds of fraud since the female failed to disclose her past in order to secure consent of the male. Canon 1098 of the 1983 Code. I would need to look-up the corresponding canon in the 1917 Code as I cannot remember it.
Whether it was fraud would depend on if she knew with certainty that the husband wasn't the father before they married. Obviously her and the husband, or future husband as it were, must have been having relations in that time frame if he thought the child was his for all those years.
-
My heart goes out to that child. What this man chooses to do/not do will have far reaching effects on her.
-
It would make sense for a virgin man to desire a virgin woman for marriage.
Definitely better to be single than marry some random non-Trad woman with a "past". I couldn't imagine being with a woman whom several other living men have "experienced" as well. That's insane to me. Insane and unnatural.
Then again, I'm assuming a man who has kept his purity HIMSELF. A man with "a past" deserves a woman "with a past", don't you think?
And of course that situation, while just and fair, will still be fraught with problems on a natural level. God designed one-man-for-one-woman. That design was built into our bodies, our psychology, our minds, and our emotions.
This is difficult for me as I have slept with 1 other person but I would not marry a non-virgin woman. I do agree that the ideal is for 2 virgins and in terms of sin fornication is fornication (though sometimes people do multiple other mortal sins during/surrounding fornication). However I do not think virginity is equal in males and females. Men do not have hymens while women do, a woman also takes more damage to her ability to pair-bond than a man. The acts itself also impacts a female and male differently, typically the woman is effected more as she is the 'receiver' and woman tend to be more emotional in general. There is also the psychological aspect, the idea/act of taking a woman's virginity and knowing that your wife has only slept with you is a big deal for many men. Of course I do understand that a virgin woman may not want to marry a non-virgin man, after all it is the ideal and ultimately a preference.
-
This is difficult for me as I have slept with 1 other person but I would not marry a non-virgin woman. I do agree that the ideal is for 2 virgins and in terms of sin fornication is fornication (though sometimes people do multiple other mortal sins during/surrounding fornication). However I do not think virginity is equal in males and females. Men do not have hymens while women do, a woman also takes more damage to her ability to pair-bond than a man. The acts itself also impacts a female and male differently, typically the woman is effected more as she is the 'receiver' and woman tend to be more emotional in general. There is also the psychological aspect, the idea/act of taking a woman's virginity and knowing that your wife has only slept with you is a big deal for many men. Of course I do understand that a virgin woman may not want to marry a non-virgin man, after all it is the ideal and ultimately a preference.
I forgot but there is one more thing. A woman absorbs the DNA of her fertilized eggs so any future child would have a tiny portion of the DNA of other men, this is also a big deal for many.
I'm not sure how true it is but I also heard that even just the sɛҳuąƖ act is enough for a women to absorb her partners DNA.
-
Problem with the "forgiveness" aspect is that the woman doesn't appear contrite ... especially if she threw that in his face during an argument, as if she relished having wronged him that way.
Agree.
-
Mensa et thoro?
-
Hello Reddit this a a throwaway account. I am 37m and my wife is 39f. We had been married for 10 years and we have a daughter who is 9f going on 10. Me and my wife had a fight and she said something about my daughter not being mine I kept a straight face but after she realized what she said she left and went to bed. I had never thought about my daughter not being mine, but I had to know if she was or wasn't. Long story short I got a paternity test and I wasn't her father. I showed it to my wife who begged and pleaded with me not to get a divorce, but I told her that I was. I told my family and friends what happened and they said I should cut them out of my life including my daughter. I don't want to raise a child that's not mine nor do I wanna pay for her either. My wife keeps calling me telling me not to make her and our child homeless, but I don't care if she is homeless or not she shouldn't have cheated. for people wondering where her real dad is he's dead, he died a few years ago. so WIBTA if i did just cut her out of my life?
Edit: A lot of people keep asking the same question. Why can't you love her? Or why are you punishing her? If her mother had gotten sa'd then by all means yes I would keep her and love her, but she didn't her father may be dead but he has living relatives who would be more than happy to know a piece of there son is still alive. I'm not punishing her I just don't really feel I can look at her the same. Those who are saying get full custody I will not I would have no help to raise her.
As the OP pointed out this story may be fiction, but assuming it is real, the question that comes to mind is, what were they arguing about that the wife wanted to hurt him so badly that she would hurl that one at him?
Some infidelity on his part, whether actual or perceived?
Some criticism of his wife's parenting that the wife took as a personal attack?
Did he criticize their daughter?
Did the wife actually know that he was not the father or was it just an intuition that turned out to be correct?
-
As the OP pointed out this story may be fiction, but assuming it is real, the question that comes to mind is, what were they arguing about that the wife wanted to hurt him so badly that she would hurl that one at him?
Some infidelity on his part, whether actual or perceived?
Some criticism of his wife's parenting that the wife took as a personal attack?
Did he criticize their daughter?
Did the wife actually know that he was not the father or was it just an intuition that turned out to be correct?
Well a woman always knows that the child is hers as she is the one of carries the child.. a man on the other hand cannot be sure if the child is his without a DNA test. It seems that the person in question got cheated on around the time he got married, probably before the marriage. I don't think the women cares if it's his child or not because she cheated... If she wanted it to have been his then she simply would not have cheated in the first place, she knew what she was doing.
-
There's an old adage that I think applies:
There's his story,
there's her story,
then there's the truth.
-
I forgot but there is one more thing. A woman absorbs the DNA of her fertilized eggs so any future child would have a tiny portion of the DNA of other men, this is also a big deal for many.
I'm not sure how true it is but I also heard that even just the sɛҳuąƖ act is enough for a women to absorb her partners DNA.
The sɛҳuąƖ act alone does not cause the woman to absorb her partner’s DNA. It is only in cases of a fertilized and implanted egg that a small portion of the male’s DNA is absorbed and becomes a permanent part of the woman.
-
Well, I don't see this as a question of "forgiveness". Charity requires taking care of the daughter, since her entire life she believed the man was her father, and charity would probably require keeping the mother around (again, for the sake of the daughter). Problem with the "forgiveness" aspect is that the woman doesn't appear contrite ... especially if she threw that in his face during an argument, as if she relished having wronged him that way. Also, given that they were married for 10 years and the daughter is 9 going on 10, she was cheating on him "right out of the gate", which does question her motivations in getting into the marriage. Until she shows actual sincere contrition, it's not a question of forgiveness, and she should be relegated to the couch for the rest of the time she's permitted to stay in the home that the man is paying for. Also, the question comes up about how often she may have been unfaithful over the entire 10 years. Perhaps for the future ones she was more "careful" not to conceive. Also makes me wonder why the married pair don't have a child between them over the course of 10 years.
Good points Lad!
We can talk about "Forgiveness" when she is contrite. Even God, who is perfect, doesn't forgive us *anything* until we are actually sorry for having done it (including cessation of committing said offense).
And if she was unfaithful (and got away with it) 10 years ago, it makes you wonder how many times she was unfaithful during the past 10 years. After all, she didn't exactly conceive any children with her husband. Was she on the pill? It's not exactly a rare scandal for a woman to be on artificial birth control these days (though it should be!)
And the timing of the infidelity shows an above-average problem. Possibly invalidating the marriage. I mean, this wasn't "The Seven Year Itch" or some other common human phenomenon; this was right at the BEGINNING of the marriage! Did she intend to get married (an exclusive union) to begin with? Her behavior is a higher level of messed up than the classic "I'm sick of the same old spouse".
And yes, it would be charitable to think of the daughter's emotional, mental, and physical well-being. Charity is about what ISN'T owed in justice, but given anyway.
And another point:
There are worse fates than being single for your whole life. This poor guy. I didn't even catch this point, but they've been married 10 years and the couple has no children between them? Just the one girl, who wasn't even his? Something seems amiss in that marriage/relationship. I think it's safe to conclude this man married very poorly, for whatever reason (was she "cute"? was she "hot"? was he desperate?) Very sad.
-
I would argue a man with a past is not the same as a woman with a past. Actually, not even close.
Still, a man/woman who has a past committed a mortal sin at some point, however, the earthly consequences affects the women 100x more in my opinion.
-
And the timing of the infidelity shows an above-average problem. Possibly invalidating the marriage. I mean, this wasn't "The Seven Year Itch" or some other common human phenomenon; this was right at the BEGINNING of the marriage! Did she intend to get married (an exclusive union) to begin with? Her behavior is a higher level of messed up than the classic "I'm sick of the same old spouse".
That thought had also crossed my mind, but of course we know little of the exact details. There are many people out there who get "married" for various reasons who don't intend to be "tied down" to the one spouse (if he doesn't satisfy all their needs/desires). And the lack of children over 10 years between the actual couple suggests that they were also not exactly about welcoming the children God would send them. This situation seems messed up in general, so that the husband should hardly be surprised that it turned out that way. When there isn't the understanding that the primary end of marriage is for children, that lack of commitment to children often also manifests itself in a lack of commitment to the spouse.
-
Wow! As a formal nullity case before a Tribunal, this would be an EASY annulment on grounds of fraud since the female failed to disclose her past in order to secure consent of the male. Canon 1098 of the 1983 Code. I would need to look-up the corresponding canon in the 1917 Code as I cannot remember it.
.
There is no corresponding 1917 Canon. "Failure to disclose one's past" is not an impediment to a valid marriage.
.
-
.
No, this is definitely not grounds for annulment according to Catholic standards. Lying about oneself does not invalidate the marriage. The only type of lie that would invalidate it would be a lie of person, such as someone impersonating someone else; for example, Peter intends to marry Bertha, but Matilda disguises herself as Bertha in such a way to deceive Peter, and goes through the marriage ceremony.
Obviously such a scenario is borderline impossible, which is why there were only a few dozen marriage annulments handed out worldwide before Vatican 2. If not telling one's spouse that their child was not theirs, or whatever it is that happened here, were grounds for annulment, the annulment factory would have been running just as hard before Vatican 2 as it has since.
After Vatican 2, the false church invented a lot of new grounds that would make the sacrament of matrimony invalid so that people could get divorced and remarried without admitting that that's what they were doing. Obviously those grounds were designed in such a way that they could be handed out to basically anyone, since otherwise how does this allow everyone to get divorced? So the idea that concealing information about oneself would invalidate the marriage was one of many things that were invented to this end.
But obviously the sacrament of matrimony is instituted by God Himself, so only God can determine what makes it valid or not. And the rules the Church laid down for matrimony were those received from God. No one has the power to add to or change the conditions on which sacramental validity rests, especially not modernist heretics.
Good post Yeti. I agree--the 1917 code would, based on the information available, regard the redditor's marriage as valid.
.
Just wanted to add one thing-- the Church can add and remove impediments to marriage. Not impediments that deal with the essence of the marriage, but ones that do not bear on its essence can and have been added/removed throughout history. Modernist heretics, of course, can't :)
-
1 Be not jealous over the wife of thy bosom, lest she shew in thy regard the malice of a wicked lesson. 2 Give not the power of thy soul to a woman, lest she enter upon thy strength, and thou be confounded. 3 Look not upon a woman that hath a mind for many: lest thou fall into her snares. 4 Use not much the company of her that is a dancer, and hearken not to her, lest thou perish by the force of her charms. 5 Gaze not upon a maiden, lest her beauty be a stumblingblock to thee.
6 Give not thy soul to harlots in any point: lest thou destroy thyself and thy inheritance. 7 Look not round about thee in the ways of the city, nor wander up and down in the streets thereof. 8 Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up, and gaze not about upon another's beauty. 9 For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire. 10 Every woman that is a harlot, shall be trodden upon as dung in the way.
11 Many by admiring the beauty of another man's wife, have become reprobate, for her conversation burneth as fire. 12 Sit not at all with another man's wife, nor repose upon the bed with her: 13 And strive not with her over wine, lest thy heart decline towards her, and by thy blood thou fall into destruction.
Sirach 9
-
How many people in NewChurch married their baptism sponsor without a dispensation?
-
How many people in NewChurch married their baptism sponsor without a dispensation?
For a minute I was thinking of babies who were baptised marrying their sponsors, but then I realised that it's most likely older converts. Silly me:facepalm:, still both are issues.
-
1 Be not jealous over the wife of thy bosom, lest she shew in thy regard the malice of a wicked lesson. 2 Give not the power of thy soul to a woman, lest she enter upon thy strength, and thou be confounded. 3 Look not upon a woman that hath a mind for many: lest thou fall into her snares. 4 Use not much the company of her that is a dancer, and hearken not to her, lest thou perish by the force of her charms. 5 Gaze not upon a maiden, lest her beauty be a stumblingblock to thee.
6 Give not thy soul to harlots in any point: lest thou destroy thyself and thy inheritance. 7 Look not round about thee in the ways of the city, nor wander up and down in the streets thereof. 8 Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up, and gaze not about upon another's beauty. 9 For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire. 10 Every woman that is a harlot, shall be trodden upon as dung in the way.
11 Many by admiring the beauty of another man's wife, have become reprobate, for her conversation burneth as fire. 12 Sit not at all with another man's wife, nor repose upon the bed with her: 13 And strive not with her over wine, lest thy heart decline towards her, and by thy blood thou fall into destruction.
Excellent quotes, from Ecclesiasticus chapter 9. ;)
We need to know that big name, despite its many syllables. Because many pre-Vatican II spiritual books reference it all the time as (Ecclus. N:NN) As a man who's read hundreds of pre-Vatican II Catholic books, not a one of them has called it "Sirach". Though I suppose we should know it's called that, since the United States (and all English-speaking countries) have so many Protestants all around us.
I can handle big words, the Douay-Rheims Bible, Catholicism, and Tradition. :)
-
.
There is no corresponding 1917 Canon. "Failure to disclose one's past" is not an impediment to a valid marriage.
.
Good point. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
Excellent quotes, from Ecclesiasticus chapter 9. ;)
We need to know that big name, despite its many syllables. Because many pre-Vatican II spiritual books reference it all the time as (Ecclus. N:NN) As a man who's read hundreds of pre-Vatican II Catholic books, not a one of them has called it "Sirach". Though I suppose we should know it's called that, since the United States (and all English-speaking countries) have so many Protestants all around us.
I can handle big words, the Douay-Rheims Bible, Catholicism, and Tradition. :)
I wrote Sirach because it was easier to remember and spell. Basically I was being lazy.
-
"I wrote Sirach because it was easier to remember and spell. Basically I was being lazy."
Yes, which is why I used winky faces and smilies in my criticism. It was really a small point, almost a nit-pick.
Overall, yours was a good post because it represents much-needed input from God the Holy Ghost.
You can't get any better than quoting Scripture, especially when Scripture directly addresses an issue (unlike the Prots, who only have Scripture so they try to find Scripture quotes against Social Media...)
I was just using your temporary laziness as a teaching moment...