I could see if any of these issues were actually mentioned by Jesus that the Church would have no choice but to follow his teachings. But none of these positions is supported by Jesus is the Gospels; he's rather silent on who has sex with whom (except he didn't condemn prostitutes and adulterers), when a fetus gets a soul and whether you can use artificial contraception. In essence, the RC is adopting non-Jesus positions on the most intensely personal issues and then people like you want to adopt a "if you don't like it, leave" approach. Go ahead, but you are moving away from Jesus and closer to the Darfius "only a few get saved" position and people will leave the RC for those fundamentalist cults if you continue to get your way and gear your message to those who are intolerant and close-minded.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe already threw one king out why would we want another?
I could see if any of these issues were actually mentioned by Jesus that the Church would have no choice but to follow his teachings. But none of these positions is supported by Jesus is the Gospels; he's rather silent on who has sex with whom (except he didn't condemn prostitutes and adulterers), when a fetus gets a soul and whether you can use artifi ...[text shortened]... you continue to get your way and gear your message to those who are intolerant and close-minded.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here's a nice article on a related subject:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=742&e=10&u=/ucac/20050414/cm_ucac/itsonlyfunnyuntilsomeonelosesapie
Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fana ...[text shortened]... square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food.
This article reminds me of the "fact driven debates" No1 engages in on this site ......
Originally posted by no1marauder
I could see if any of these issues were actually mentioned by Jesus that the Church would have no choice but to follow his teachings. But none of these positions is supported by Jesus is the Gospels; he's rather silent on who has sex with whom (except he didn't condemn prostitutes and adulterers), when a fetus gets a soul and whether you can use artifi ...[text shortened]... you continue to get your way and gear your message to those who are intolerant and close-minded.
I am not advocating the "if you don't like it leave it" approach.
People should convert and accept the teachings of the Church. Thát is my stance.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe: They should join some other religion. Their lives are a public affront to what the Catholic Church believes.
I am not advocating the "if you don't like it leave it" approach.
People should convert and accept the teachings of the Church. Thát is my stance.
How is that NOT a "if you don't like it leave it" approach? The Church if it wants to be relevant should stick with the teachings of Jesus and not be soooooooo concerned with what people do with their sex organs or other parts of their bodies. Isn't what Jesus taught good enough for the RC?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat aint what the church is doing Ivanhoe . it's trying to force it's morality on non-Catholic's by force of law. And is selling its very soul in an ungodly alliance with the the rich and the Catholic hating Bible belt.
I am not advocating the "if you don't like it leave it" approach.
People should convert and accept the teachings of the Church. Thát is my stance.
Where are the Mother Teresa's going to come from if the only Catholic's left are the rich and powerful?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI know you did not intend to mean it this way, but in your initial post on this thread the role of the papacy sounded very similar to the mafia. Americans are very individualistic and tend to rebel against authoritarianism if it is perceived that way.
This is an old issue, isn't it ? The fear of Protestant and liberal America that the Roman Catholic Church might operate as some obscure foreign force to undermine American society.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Ivanhoe: They should join some other religion. Their lives are a public affront to what the Catholic Church believes.
How is that NOT a "if you don't like it leave it" approach? The Church if it wants to be relevant should stick with the teachings of Jesus and not be soooooooo concerned with what people do with their sex organs or other parts of their bodies. Isn't what Jesus taught good enough for the RC?
No1 please, that is a quote from the article and it goes as follows:
If there are politicians who promote abortion and abortion is seen by the Pope as a serious crime against humanity--which I agree it is--then he has every right in the world to say they can't have communion. They should join some other religion. Their lives are a public affront to what the Catholic Church believes. That is his job. And that is his privilege.
The article talks about "POLITICIANS who PROMOTE abortion" in the public sphere.
"They" should either stop profiling themselves as a Roman Catholic or they should convert and stop promoting abortion.
Originally posted by kirksey957There isn't any other way to take it. It's not a perception , it's the reality of it.
I know you did not intend to mean it this way, but in your initial post on this thread the role of the papacy sounded very similar to the mafia. Americans are very individualistic and tend to rebel against authoritarianism if it is perceived that way.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow dare they have an idea the pope dont like , maybe they should be burned at the stake after being sufficiently tortured into confessing that they are indeed in league with Satan.
No1 please, that is a quote from the article and it goes as follows:
If there are politicians who promote abortion and abortion is seen by the Pope as a serious crime against humanity--which I agree it is--then he has every right in the world to say they can't have communion. They should join some other religion. Their lives are a public affront to ...[text shortened]... g themselves as a Roman Catholic or they should convert and stop promoting abortion.
and lets burn all the left wing books too since we'll have a nice fire going
Originally posted by kirksey957
One other question. Do you believe that the sacrament of communion belongs to the pope, bishop or priest in terms of determining who is worthy to receive it?
People who publicly advocate doctrines that contradict the RC teachings in a serious and fundamental way and they insist on advocating them publicly, knowing that these teachings are clearly and fundamentally at odds with RC doctrine, place THEMSELVES outside of the Communion. It is not correct for these people to try and give another, a false impression to the community and the world by wanting to recieve the Holy Communion. Holy Communion with the Lord is a serious thing. You cannot have Holy Communion with God if you do not want a communion with God by pushing aside His commandments and teachings. The two stances are seriously contradicting eachother.
Receiving he Holy Communion should not degenerate into some operetta, some fraud, that politicians can use for PR reasons to gather votes from the Church Community.
Kirk: " Do you believe that the sacrament of communion belongs to the pope, bishop or priest in terms of determining who is worthy to receive it?
Receiving Holy Communion should not become a power tool in the hands of priests, bishops or popes. But it also should not become a plaything in the hands of politicians who clearly make a mockery of it.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou wrote about the article: "It is better written than I ever could do. That's why I post it", so I assume you endorse its statements. Besides the obvious fact that pro-choice politicians don't "promote" abortion and may personally find it immoral and/or sinful, the same logic would apply to any RC member who voted for pro-choice politicians. Wouldn't they be "promoting" abortion, too? We all know the subtext behind this is that the Cardinal in Boston opposed allowing John Kerry to be given the sacrament of communion; a position of faith the Cardinal conveniently discovered only when Kerry was running for President although he has been a RC member all of his life and has been in the US Senate for 20 years. The Cardinal's decision to withhold a sacrament to a lifelong Catholic for political reasons during an election was reprehensible. And please point me to the doctrine that RC politicians MUST press for laws which impose the RC line on moral matters on non-RC's.
No1 please, that is a quote from the article and it goes as follows:
If there are politicians who promote abortion and abortion is seen by the Pope as a serious crime against humanity--which I agree it is--then he has every right in the world to say they can't have communion. They should join some other religion. Their lives are a public affront to ...[text shortened]... g themselves as a Roman Catholic or they should convert and stop promoting abortion.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt is a fallacy to say pro-choice politicians i.e. those who oppose criminal laws against abortion are "advocating doctrines that oppose RC teachings" as I was unaware that the Catholic Church doctrine consisted of commandments regarding what criminal laws may be passed. If a RC politician is personally opposed to abortion and regards it as sinful, he is following Church teaching; the fact that he opposes codifying Church teaching into the criminal law to be imposed on ALL people is irrelevant. Should a RC politician who opposes laws banning artificial contraception be forbidden to partake of the sacraments, too?
People who publicly advocate doctrines that contradict the RC teachings in a serious and fundamental way and they insist on advocating them publicly, knowing that these teachings are clearly and fundamentally at odds with RC doctrine, pl ...[text shortened]... n the hands of politicians who clearly make a mockery of it.