correction:

or that a society cannot justly have laws that give the death penalty for such a crime

Quote from: clare

Er no, because I wouldn't want adulterous men put to death either.

Once again earning your title as Queen of straw.  Not putting someone to death for a crime does not mean the crime is not worthy of death, or that a society can justly have laws that give the death penalty for such a crime.

Indeed, and men could also be put to death for it, I guess.

I'd rather they weren't though, but that's just me.

Clare, you've publicly refused to condemn the scandal of a civil marriage of a woman to an already married man, you certainly are "sentimental" about the issue of adultery.

You called it "charity."

And it believeth all things.

And to be honest, your ungracious manner of debating makes me more disinclined to condemn it.

Do you think name-calling and belittling are likely to win an opponent around to your view?

Er no, because I wouldn't want adulterous men put to death either.

I never said you did!

So then who are you debating above?  You are burning a straw man.  

Anyhow, why don't you? It's clearly not because you don't think it's a serious crime;

I don't think such a law is unjust.  

so it is possible to recognise that a crime is serious and yet not support the death penalty for it!

You're against it Clare, because you think Our Lord, in saving that woman, meant to tell adulterous women that they wouldn't have to face death for committing adultery.  That's the reality.  

The indignation, the smearing from people like ggreg, is that they think it is monstrous for women to be put to death for adultery.  They think it's an injustice.

Quote from: clare

Er no, because I wouldn't want adulterous men put to death either.

Quote from: Clare

I never said you did!

So then who are you debating above?  You are burning a straw man.

Look Tele. You wrote:

What we have among today's so-called "Trads" (really they are mainly liberals) is a sentimental view that regards the crimes of women as being of no significance.

Which is itself a strawman, and I responded:

Er no, because I wouldn't want adulterous men put to death either.

because I don't regard crimes of adulterous men as being of no significance either, and yet I still wouldn't put them to death.

Quote

Anyhow, why don't you? It's clearly not because you don't think it's a serious crime;

I don't think such a law is unjust.

Is it unjust to put an adulterous man to death?

Quote

so it is possible to recognise that a crime is serious and yet not support the death penalty for it!

You're against it Clare, because you think Our Lord, in saving that woman, meant to tell adulterous women that they wouldn't have to face death for committing adultery.  That's the reality.  

You will insist on informing me of what I really think!

No, Our Lord was telling those men that they were in no position to execute that woman. And, fairplay to them, I think they got the message.

The indignation, the smearing from people like ggreg, is that they think it is monstrous for women to be put to death for adultery.  They think it's an injustice.

Are adulterous men not deserving of the death penalty? And, if not, why not?

because I don't regard crimes of adulterous men as being of no significance either, and yet I still wouldn't put them to death.

No, it goes way beyond that.  As your refusal to condemn the scandal at FE shows.

Whether you realize it or not.

Is it unjust to put an adulterous man to death?

No, it's not, and that's a non sequitur Clare.  That has nothing to do with this discussion.

You will insist on informing me of what I really think!

You seem to have said as much in the past.

No, Our Lord was telling those men that they were in no position to execute that woman. And, fairplay to them, I think they got the message.

At the beginning of this thread you started talking about casting stones.  Who was casting stones?

Are adulterous men not deserving of the death penalty? And, if not, why not?

You keep repeating the same non sequitur.

Tele,

In the last couple weeks, did you see the young couple at Mass?

Feel free to keep me out of your pet theories.

Telephorus,  

What, as a Catholic man, do you believe unwed mothers should have to do to be free from their shame?

I shared my story on another thread. I am not trying to make excuses for my choices, but to give some perspective. Not all unwed mothers are horrible people. We are all sinners, but my sin can be seen by others. She is almost 9 months old and she is God's beautiful creation.

I have tried so hard to be a virtuous woman despite circuмstances that leave me submerged in secular, feminist culture. My sins are forgiven but no amount of prayer can change my past. What should my pennance be?
 
I only attend NO mass because I'm too ashamed to go elsewhere
I once drove several hours to the closest SSPX church I could find because I felt the Holy Spirit wanted me there.Yet my shame was more than I could bear. I sat in my car, nursed my baby and begged for answers from the Lord.

I never feel worthy of receiving the Eucharist even when I've made a good confession.I head cover and can barely even look up at mass sometimes. I feel I commit ongoing sin by u sing daycare for my baby, but what choice do I have? Most men would not allow me not work even if they would take me as a wife.

I am 23. I have been told I am attractive. I keep myself very fit, but I try not to be vain.  I have changed the way I dress. I have a limited budget but I do try to save a little to look nice.  It feels so counter to everything I know from the secular world, but I want to dress with dignity.I have begun to cover my hair even for NO mass. I often cover when I pray for humility.

What more can I do? Must I spend the rest of my life in shame?  Will I ever attract a man to marry me if I don't even feel comfortable in a traditional mass setting?Wll he want to marry someone when he cannot see my face?

What else should I do to repent?