----- Original Message -----
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: The Vatican and the US elections
> At 06:58 PM 3/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >Only you seem to see it as an insult, and I think that is because
you
> >really really want to.
>
> Then again, I'm the only devout Catholic, AFAIK, here.....
Then you recognise that my *intent* was not some sort of a mortal
insult, but more of a smartass comment?
I've said before that I admire your faith. I've said this onlist and
offlist.
And its true. But that doesn't imply that we are always going to agree
on the "details" or even the "basics".
But that is OK. I can still respect you even when we disagree, but it
would sure help if you didn't suspect me of being your worst enemy.
>
> >> The Vatican issued last year a "doctrinal note" warning Catholic
> >lawmakers
> >> that they have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose any law
that
> >attacks
> >> human life.
> >> For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such
> >laws
> >> or to vote for them."
> >>
> >> So, Mr. Seeberger do you really mean to imply that it is *wrong*
for
> >the
> >> Catholic Church to make such a statement? Please keep in mind
> >that this
> >> doctrinal note was issued to the universal Church, and was not
even
> >issued
> >> in the same year as the United States' election.
> >
> >If the POTUS were President only over Catholics, such a doctrine
would
> >be A-OK. But since the POTUS is President over just about every
kind
> >of person that exists on earth, it is a most definate NO.
> >
> >The Vatican has no business whatsoever trying to influence secular
> >governance.
>
> That is interesting. So, do you believe that the Vatican had no
business
> whatsoever in trying to influence the Holocaust? The National
Socialists
> clearly thought that this was a matter of secular governance.
Certainly you are aware that the Vatican did next to nothing in that
regard.
>
> Moreover, the question you have kept on dodging - do you really
believe
> that the Vatican has no business whatsoever in evaluating the
positions
> taken in his name?
His name? Who are you talking about.
For example, if John Kerry had said that "my
> personal Catholicism sees nothing wrong with periodic adultery,"
would the
> Vatican have any right to disavow these opinions as inconsistent
with
> Catholicism? What if Kerry had said that "my personal Catholicism
sees
> nothing wrong with the poorest people occasionally stealing from the
> largest corporations, and the law should recognize the rights of the
poor
> to occasionally steal from the excessively rich" - would the Vatican
have
> any right to disavow these opinions as inconsistent with
Catholicism?
You want to stick to reality John, and avoid ridiculous hypotheticals?
>
> >> Or do you wish to admit that you weren't really making such a
fine
> >> distinction after all?
> >
> >Who tells the Bishops what to say John? I can tell you it isn't
George
> >Bush, or John Kerry, or even Jim Carrey.
> >No, those orders come straight from the Vatican, and the Vatican
needs
> >to stay out of America's business.
>
> Again, the idea that the Catholic Bishops march in lock-step with
the
> Vatican, which is demonstrably untrue, is one of the mainstays of
> anti-Catholic bigotry. Indeed, your allegation is particularly
ridiculous
> since your *own* article highlighted a number of differences of
opinions
> among the bishops on this subject. This certainly could not be
possible
> if they were all being, quote, "told what to say", by the Vatican.
Its obvious that in those cases, Bishops were giving a personal
opinion on the spot. But you are implying that American bishops
disregard Papal edicts on a whim. Does the Vatican ignore such
rebellion?
>More
> importantly, you said a moment ago that you wanted to distinguish
between
> the Vatican and the American Catholic Church. You now say that the
> American Catholic Church gets its marching orders from the Vatican.
Which
> is it?
I did make that distinction, and you are the one who keeps turning the
subject back to the American Church.
>
> >> >Your penchant for jumping to weird and extreme conclusions is
> >getting
> >> >the better of you.
> >> >I posted "news" that the Vatican and individuals *controlled* by
> >the
> >> >Vatican are involving themselves in our election.
> >>
> >> Mr. Seeberger, please do not try and change the subject. You
> >posted that
> >> [the Catholic Church is an] "Axis of Authoritarianism." I did
> >not
> >> object to your posting of the article. I objected to your
> >extremely
> >> offensive remarks after the article.
> >
> >John, are you trying to claim that the Catholic Church, from top to
> >bottom, is not authoritarian?
> >Don't be ridiculous.
>
> For the third time, Mr. Seeberger, I am objecting to your comparison
of the
> Catholic Church with Nazi Germany, Al Qaeda, and Baathist Iraq - and
the
> implication that the Catholic Church is the enemy of the United
States. I
> am also objecting to your implication that somehow
As I recall it, you made that comparison. You made that implication.
>
> We could end this conversation right now if you would simply
apologize for
> this sickening comparison, and disavow any belief on your part that
the
> Catholic Church is trying to subvert the republican form of
governance of
> the United States in favor of control by the Vatican.
>
I think you need to take responsibility for your own words and quit
putting them in others mouths John.
You never asked me what I thought and meant by the comment.
You made assumptions and then challenged me to defend *your*
assumptions.
After all these years you should know that dog don't hunt.
xponent
Dominus Vobiscum Maru
rob
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
