On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:16:26 -0500, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:31 AM > Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any > > > subject it desires. > > > But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes > far > > > beyond free speech. It is coercion. > > > > O.k., let me make sure that I am not misunderstanding your position. > > > > You believe that the Catholic Church is/was free to speak out > against > > National Socialist and White Supremacist politicians, but should not > > be permitted to take any concrete steps against either - since that > > would be coercion? > > > > It depends on what you mean by concrete steps I would imagine. > > If the Church (or any instrument thereof) says "We disagree with > Politician X on issue ABC due to church doctrine and we urge you to > write Politician X and lend your voice to our cause", then the Church > is doing exactly what it should be doing, and that is making a > contribution to our plurality. I think this would be true even if such > a statement originated in the Vatican. > > A parish priest or a cardinal can state their personal opinion on any > subject under the sun, and that is fine with me. It seems to me that > that is the way things are supposed to work. > > But when church officials threaten to withhold what they claim is a > gift from God over secular issues, that I cannot agree with. But then > I suppose that depends on whether one believes that God needs Popes > and Priests as intermediaries when dealing with the common riffraff > and deciding who gets which sacraments. In that sense the question is > whether one has a personal relationship with ones God or an impersonal > "managed" relationship. > (I believe this argument echoes other arguments that have occurred > since the Reformation.) > The God of the New Testament must surely love the Atheist as much as > the Saintly. As I understand it, this is unconditional love, and is > unbounded, even though it will not keep one from being hellbound. ( > The sinners in hell must really be irked knowing they are loved in > spite of their condition. No wonder Satan is such an asshole.) > IMHO, God does not grant privileged frames of reference. God does not > make one holy, we make ourselves holy by consecrating ourselves with > the gifts we were given access to at the moment of our creation. In > other words, one is a saint by ones own actions and beliefs, not > because one is favored by acclaim or providence. Because of this while > Popes and Priests should be honored for having dedicated their lives > to God, the promotion of "goodness", and to the welfare of the flock, > they are still human and subject to the temptations of the flesh and > the world. > > Having said all this, servants of God should never refuse to give > sacraments even to people they find despicable. They *should* speak > about morality and injustice and follow their conscience, and should > act to help those in need. > But to use sacraments as a stick to punish anyone for any reason, or > to coerce others into doing their will is just plain immoral in my > book. > > xponent > Have You Read My Book? Maru > rob
I don't go that far. (But I also think that what religions claim to do for moral reasons is often immorality or hypocrisy in my book.) I am wondering about the emphasis on this issue when the Church has other officially stated positions it has repeatedly condemned, such as against the death penalty, that he is not pushing. That smacks of politics Gary "imagine, churches being political" #1 on Google for liberal news
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
