The Royal Slut, 20 Years After

Submitted by LocutusOP on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 18:07
Author: 

Mrs. Maureen Avila , Mundabor , DonnaLiane, CTCatholicCorner (@CtCathCorner)            

Date: 
Monday, August 28, 2017 - 18:00
Article link: 
The Royal Slut, 20 Years After

 

Mrs. Maureen Avila | August 24, 2017 at 11:55 am

Jesus pointed out the evils of unfaithfulness in marriage, but unfortunately the Princess was raised in the Heresy of Protestantism which accepts divorce. As for ‘stoning’ women caught
in the ‘solitary act ‘ of adultery , I am not quite as Jewish as “our elder brothers”.

Mundabor | August 24, 2017 at 12:38 pm

Non sequitur.
The female being raised Protestant does not justifies either adultery (first time only weeks after the marriage) nor scandal (slutting it out with the Arab guy).

I am glad you are against stoning. I don’t like being overtaken on the conservative lane.

...

 

DonnaLiane | August 24, 2017 at 11:37 pm

This may seem obvious but Charles was equally reprehensible in his actions and probably even set a new standard!

Reply
Mundabor | August 25, 2017 at 7:33 pm

Not entirely sure.
The Kings of England have a long tradition of adultery, debauchery and outright lack of shame. One started a new religion to marry a woman without breasts.

Charles is credited with a phrase that is, I think, more historically accurate: “I don’t want to be the first King of England without a mistress”. Edward VII certainly approved from the grave.

...

 

DonnaLiane | August 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm

Also, I doubt this was a valid marriage at all. Think about it. Charles rocks up and makes vows which he has no intention of keeping. Diana probably doesn’t either. He doesn’t mean a word of the vows he supposedly makest that very day. He has no intention of being joined to her as ‘wife’; he is already joined to another (Camilla), in so much as a person is joined to a prostitute if he gives himself to her (1 Corinthians 6:16). If a person lies as he makes his vow, is the vow valid? I can’t even establish intention of marriage in the Sacramental sense. Therefore they are both fornicators, most likely. The children are therefore not born of a licit marriage either.

Mundabor | August 25, 2017 at 7:35 pm

This is in the same category as “Francis isn’t Pope”.
They were married, therefore they were married. Their marriage was never annulled.
You and I don’t get to change facts at our pleasure.

...

 

CTCatholicCorner (@CtCathCorner) | August 25, 2017 at 2:40 pm

There is a reason we should never speak ill of the dead…you don’t know God’s judgement on that persons soul. Princess Diana might now be in Heaven or Purgatory. A Catholic priest gave her last rites before her death (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-10-23/news/9710240298_1_catholic-priest-princess-diana-pitie-salpetriere-hospital), she may now be enjoying eternity with Our Lord. We simply don’t know and should not speak ill of her because we least we speak judgement on ourselves. JMO

Mundabor | August 25, 2017 at 7:36 pm

Rubbish.
If this were true we should never speak ill of Stalin or Hitler.
People like you make sluttishness everyday fare, and those who criticise it are the bad guys.

...

 

CTCatholicCorner (@CtCathCorner) | August 25, 2017 at 8:30 pm

Wrong Mundabor. When we KNOW a Catholic priest has given Last Rites to a person, we should NEVER speak ill of them because we don’t know what occurred when Last Rites are given to a dying sinner. To my knowledge, Hitler nor Stalin had a Catholic priest give them last rites before their deaths.

Mundabor | August 25, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Please.
You are, I am sure, one of those who, when Francis dies, will refrain from saying anything negative of him, thus perpetuating his evil work.

A public person in life exposes herself to public judgment in death. It is not only not bad, but positively good to use these peop,e as a cautionary tale.

Just as an aside, the one with the last rites is nonsense. The woman was Anglican. I am as much of a priest as the man who allegedly gave her the last rites.

But really, this is irrelevant. We condemn Pope Honorius in the strongest terms last rites or no last rites, end of discussion.

 

 

Own comment: 

I recently heard a conversation with a rather serious Catholic (convert) who exclaimed "I am glad she died. She was going to destroy the royal family."

Mind you, the royal family of the U.K. has, as gently put as possible, a frictious past with Catholics, so it is telling that he was so vehemently against Princess Diana.

It would seem as though there is a consensus that she was a slut who was bringing shame on the royal family. I certainly don't think she would have destroyed it though, and truth be thold, the English royal family is not exactly known for its virtue.