I don’t go in for all that Catholic nonsense of mixing church and state, but all the same, this guy’s statement is absolutely ludicrous. Of course, he’s probably never actually read the Bible, nor does he probably actually believe in hell, so why should he be expected to have a clear view of what he’s saying?
A local UHF chnnel brodcast the episode of the Simpsons where Bart “sells his soul” to Milhouse. Suddenly, automatic doors won’t open, his breath won’t fog mirrors,etc. I think five minutes after this guy is dead, he is going to learn a great deal about the religious faith he was obviously “born into” and not “reborn into.”
Catholics do not mix Church and State. The thing that has always brought persecution and hostility to the Church is actually the fact that it regards itself as separate from the State and not answerable to it, but to God alone.
These politicians are objecting because they feel the Church SHOULD go along with the State in whatever the State feels like doing at a given moment. The bishops are simply telling them that they cannot put the State first in a matter that violates Catholic moral teaching - and expect to be considered good Catholics who can go to Communion. They are public sinners, publicly flouting the moral teachings of the Church, and are being publicly called to come back and accept Church teachings.
That said, they probably don’t believe a darn thing. After all, Bill Clinton claimed to read his Bible every day, and look how it changed his life...not!
I am not, nor have I ever been, a catholic, but I have no problem with the leaders of that church explaining the moral and spiritual implications of certain actions to those who claim to be adherents of that faith. It is up to the individual politician to decide if his soul or his job is more important. The church leaders cannot force anyone to vote in a certain way - but they have every right to take action if that behavior violates church teachings.
Yup!
Nonsense!
Should be no connection between your faith based beliefs and the way you live your life.
Making it possible to destroy life for experimentation is a very direct expression of the way you live your life!
It also has NOTHING to do with making a law regarding the establishment of religion!
You'll have to explain what you mean by this. Canon law forbids any cleric (deacon, priest, bishop) from holding any appointed or elected office that involves the exercise of secular political power.
That's why Massachuestts congressman Robert Drinan S.J. was (finally) forced out of office in 1981; that's why Aristide of Haiti was (finally) forced out of the priesthood in 1995.
You might say "Well, why the heck were these priests ever in power to begin with?" You might ask the larger historical question, "What about the Medici popes and the Cardinal Richelieus and all that lot?"
Bad priests, is what I say. Up to the level of bad popes.
But you've got to admit that they were acting in disobedience to the doctrines of the Church. If you know your history, the Big Conflict that absorbed the energies of reforming popes for centuries, was the fight against Lay Investiture: the appointment of bishops, abbots, and other church officials by feudal lords.
Worldly, ambitious popes and bishops were all for such entanglement, because Bishop-Barons enjoying royal favor could have a whole lot of power. Reforming Popes fought against this entanglement.
Scandalously, sometimes the disobedient are in the majority. Thinking back, bishops have that track record: of the entire English heirarchy, there was only one bishop who refused to kiss Henry VIII's butt (St. John Fisher); Athanasius was virtually alone opposing the Emperor and his errors; St. Peter (who later repented) was silent when the whole crowd in Jerusalem was yelling, "We have no king but Caesar."
But in the end, who's the real Catholic: the obedient, or the disobedient? Those who actually practice Catholicism, or those who do not?