Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Theologian Preaches Revolution to End Church's 'Authoritarian' Rule [Kung]
The Guardian (UK) ^ | 10/5/12 | Kate Connolly

Posted on 10/06/2012 4:51:11 PM PDT by marshmallow

Hans Küng urges confrontation from the grassroots to unseat pope and force radical reform at Vatican

One of the world's most prominent Catholic theologians has called for a revolution from below to unseat the pope and force radical reform at the Vatican.

Hans Küng is appealing to priests and churchgoers to confront the Catholic hierarchy, which he says is corrupt, lacking credibility and apathetic to the real concerns of the church's members.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Küng, who had close contact with the pope when the two worked together as young theologians, described the church as an "authoritarian system" with parallels to Germany's Nazi dictatorship.

"The unconditional obedience demanded of bishops who swear their allegiance to the pope when they make their holy oath is almost as extreme as that of the German generals who were forced to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler," he said.

The Vatican made a point of crushing any form of clerical dissent, he added. "The rules for choosing bishops are so rigid that as soon as candidates emerge who, say, stand up for the pill, or for the ordination of women, they are struck off the list." The result was a church of "yes men", almost all of whom unquestioningly toed the line.

"The only way for reform is from the bottom up," said Küng, 84, who is a priest. "The priests and others in positions of responsibility need to stop being so subservient, to organise themselves and say that there are certain things that they simply will not put up with anymore."

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Theology
KEYWORDS: kung
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian.....

Translation: It's a while since we've heard from Kung so we decided to stir the pot by asking him the usual provocative questions.

1 posted on 10/06/2012 4:51:14 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Yeah yeah. Kung's shelf life expired about thirty years ago. He's the Norman Thomas of the Church.
2 posted on 10/06/2012 4:57:39 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The Guardian wants a revolt against the Catholic Church as does Kung.My response is...if I'm not there feel free to start without me.
3 posted on 10/06/2012 4:58:43 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Found your own church, you perverted psychopath.
4 posted on 10/06/2012 5:02:27 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
If Kung is such a reprobate why is he still in place?

It's all very well to point out the error of his ways but it appears no one can summon the courage to give him the old heave ho.

5 posted on 10/06/2012 5:03:53 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
But Küng, who has won the support of leading figures including Henry Kissinger, Kofi Annan, Jacques Rogge, Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson and Shirin Ebadi. . . .

Oh, well, then, that certainly clinches it!

6 posted on 10/06/2012 5:09:23 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

He is a theologian, but officially he is not a Catholic theologian. His authority to describe himself as such has long been revoked.


7 posted on 10/06/2012 5:20:56 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

He is not in place. His licentiate is gone, confiscated. But he is a free citizen of Germany and can say whatever he wants and pretend to have whatever authority he wants to claim.


8 posted on 10/06/2012 5:24:05 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Catholic theologian preaches revolution to end church's 'authoritarian' rule

Oxymoronic.

9 posted on 10/06/2012 5:26:15 PM PDT by Barnacle (Is treason a high crime or misdemeanor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
"One of the world's most prominent Catholic theologians"

Only in his mind.

10 posted on 10/06/2012 5:27:56 PM PDT by arkady_renko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Gee, are there not enough Protestant (protester...of the Catholic Church) churches in the world including not denominational ones?!? Found one of your own or find one that fits your beliefs....just stupid.


11 posted on 10/06/2012 5:28:38 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Correction: Hans Kung is NOT a Catholic theologian. He calls himself “catholic,” and he used to be a “priest.” He has deliberately cut himself off from any legitimate attachment to the Roman Catholic Church. He is a liar and a charlatan, but he is NOT a Catholic theologian. Time for the woodshed for the writer of this article.


12 posted on 10/06/2012 5:33:20 PM PDT by redhead (Guns don't kill people...Planned Parenthood kills people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Ha—Kung won the admiration of all the Satanists who frequent the orgies and sacrificial rites of Baal at the Bohemian Grove. How sick that a person like Kung is still considered “Catholic” when his mind is so contaminated by the occult and base urges.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI. I’ve been reading his works....he is a brilliant, clear thinker.


13 posted on 10/06/2012 5:34:45 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

This is what occurs when rebellious priests are not defrocked and excommunicated where needed.


14 posted on 10/06/2012 5:40:15 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Yes, I read a lot of Karl Ratzinger’s books before he became Pope. I found them brilliant, insightful, and always orthodox.

I was especially impressed by “The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood.”


15 posted on 10/06/2012 5:45:55 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
To be fair, they support Kung on his little side-project of creating a "global ethics program" for all cultures to agree to share - they have not signed on to his program of calling the Pope a dictator.

The article is actually hilarious. He calls the Pope pompous, yet he has a larger-than-life statue of himself outside his mansion.

It is painfully obvious that he is jealous of the Pope's success. It's just not fair! He is smarter, more sophisticated, more stylish, has more fashionable friends, more exquisite taste, it's a travesty!

Also, he cannot believe that the Pope won't hang out with him anymore, just because he called him a Nazi and encouraged his clergy to pick fights with him. How petty!

Kung's egomania pours out of him like a mighty river, no matter how much his journalistic cheerleaders try to promote him.

16 posted on 10/06/2012 5:45:55 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Dear Herr Kueng,

Everything you want may be found in the dying mainstream Protestant churches. Please join one of them and leave our Church alone!


17 posted on 10/06/2012 5:54:04 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

“Kung won the admiration of all the Satanists who frequent the orgies and sacrificial rites of Baal at the Bohemian Grove.”

The place with the giant owl statue?

Freegards


18 posted on 10/06/2012 5:54:15 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: redhead

“...this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role.”

Here’s the link from the 1979 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19791215_christi-ecclesia_en.html


19 posted on 10/06/2012 6:01:22 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
He has the authority as a priest and Catholic theologian if not the official title. Did he not lose his licentiate because he argued against papal infallibility?

Last year Kung said he and Benedict were on good terms so it appears Kung hasn't suffered too much since his retirement.

20 posted on 10/06/2012 6:07:55 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

How crazy, a church that expects its leadership to believe in church doctrine, that is just insane.

/sarc


21 posted on 10/06/2012 6:13:29 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
described the church as an "authoritarian system" with parallels to Germany's Nazi dictatorship

The Church is not the same as a political system of government as its end is different. It is based on divine revelation in Jesus Christ and has as its main goal preserving such saving truth down through the ages. As such, it is not a democracy, as the truths of divine revelation cannot be changed by popular vote. Rather the apostles of Jesus Christ passed on, by the laying on of hands, the task of preserving and teaching the divinely revealed deposit of faith in Jesus Christ to their successors, the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Pope, and so it has been handed down through the ages. The Magisterium governs the Church through holding fast to the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition.

22 posted on 10/06/2012 6:14:48 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

He’s a “Catholic theologian” only in his own mind, and has no authority at all.


23 posted on 10/06/2012 6:45:40 PM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Sounds like a modern- day Martin Luther. :)


24 posted on 10/06/2012 7:00:03 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Exactly.

Would liberals tolerate such dissenters in their groups? No.


25 posted on 10/06/2012 7:25:22 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

bump

Nope. Look at the media and academe, they almost NEVER hire anyone but other liberals.


26 posted on 10/06/2012 7:33:21 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

True. However, look at how they turn on those who formerly agreed with them then later disagree. For example, John Stossel. When his investigative reporting starting holding the government to the same standards to which he held big business, the media elites shunned him.


27 posted on 10/06/2012 8:23:57 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
He lost his licentiate because he argued in favor of euthanasia.

The Pope's personal charity toward him should not be mistaken for approval of his false teachings, any more than hearing a prisoner's confession should be confused with the condoning of murder.

28 posted on 10/06/2012 8:40:55 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
What you have said here is quite profound. One of the things I have noted about the left is that they are never satisfied striking out on their own. They must destroy what you hold dear and FORCE you to follow their beliefs. Why doesn't he start his own church? Because he wants to destroy your church and force you to accede to his beliefs. Just as the left wants to do to our nation.
29 posted on 10/06/2012 9:00:08 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
As John Allen reported for NCR back in 2005 when Kung and Benedict met, they met as warm friends. And did not Ratzinger endorse Kung’s book written years earlier on papal infallibility?

Now if Kung were an parishioner refusing to pay the church tax he might not have been dealt with so kindly.

Kung is like the priest/U.S. congressman Robert Drinan who worked so hard in support of abortion. He'll be criticized but not too harshly.

30 posted on 10/06/2012 9:17:13 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Part of why Hans Kung is so insanely embittered is precisely that the Vatican long ago and very publicly stripped him of the abiklity to call himself a Catholic theologian, or to teach theology in a Catholic university. He received an interdict in 1963, and was stripped of his license in 1979. Ironically, he had been responsible for getting Benedict XVI in his first teaching position.


31 posted on 10/06/2012 9:34:12 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

>> And did not Ratzinger endorse Kung’s book written years earlier on papal infallibility? <<

Uh, no. In fact, that book is how Kung lost his sacred liscentiate.

>> As John Allen reported for NCR back in 2005 when Kung and Benedict met, they met as warm friends <<

Kung landed Ratzinger his first teaching position; there was much mutual respect based on their personal histories. Implying from this an acceptance of Kung’s theology is simply absurd.

>> Now if Kung were an parishioner refusing to pay the church tax he might not have been dealt with so kindly. <<

Kung is such a person.

>> Kung is like the priest/U.S. congressman Robert Drinan who worked so hard in support of abortion. He’ll be criticized but not too harshly. <<

The American Catholic church in the days of Drinan was in a state of all-but-official schism, from top to bottom. The team of John Paul II and Benedict XVI has through attrition removed from the American episcopacy ALL the liberals. In 1978, you couldn’t find a Catholic bishop who would public agree with Humanae Vita (the papal encyclical opposing artificial contraception and defending the Church’s stance against abortion). In 2012, you will not find one who will publicly criticize it. (There are still some lingering bishops who’d probably curse it under their breaths, but they are fewer, and their retirements looming soon.)


32 posted on 10/06/2012 9:42:07 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dangus
And did not Ratzinger endorse Kung’s book written years earlier on papal infallibility? <<

“Uh, no. In fact, that book is how Kung lost his sacred liscentiate.”

Thanks for clearing that up as I was under the impression Ratzinger had written the following about Kung’s book:

“A predominantly critical article should not, however, ignore the positive side of Kung’s book. This can be clearly deduced from all that we have said before, when we affirmed that he opened for discussion, in an explicit and unequivocal way, problems that must be reformulated. He denounced obscurities in the historic and systematic structure of Catholic theology, which in fact have persisted and until now have usually been avoided and not confronted head-on”

“Implying from this (friendship) an acceptance of Kung’s theology is simply absurd.”

Yes, it is and more since I didn't imply that, only that their long time friendship wasn't undone by any of Kung’s theological statements or teachings.

Both Kung and Drinan could certainly be called leaders or shepherds, both being professors at very prominent universities and in positions of influence yet both can oppose and argue against what the Catholic church would call “divinely revealed dogma” and be treated more kindly than if they skipped out on the church tax.

If this be the case with two influential leaders on two of the most important tenets of Catholic faith and morals what must the average Catholic think? If the infallible church cannot speak to it's failing leaders how can it speak to anyone?

Kung is not just a parishioner anymore than Drinan was but when Kung dies he will suddenly turn into a near saint with only slightly less honors just like Drinan.

For those reasons the last paragraph in your reply is simply laughable.

33 posted on 10/06/2012 10:39:11 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Kung is like the priest/U.S. congressman Robert Drinan who worked so hard in support of abortion. He'll be criticized but not too harshly.

I guess that undermines Kung's criticisms, then. We're not like the Nazis after all. Good point.

Thanks for clearing that up.

34 posted on 10/07/2012 6:03:11 AM PDT by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
If Kung and those who commit serious sins like his (denial of a “divinely revealed dogma” is considered a serious sin within Catholic teaching is it not?) are kept within the fold then why should not the charge of hypocrisy be laid against Benedict, et al.?

How can the Catholic faithful be expected to be four square and solidly against abortion when a pro abortion priest is allowed to work in it's support for years quite openly and freely?

My Catholic relatives and I have this discussion often and they too wonder why the wolves are left among the flock despite the Biblical injunction to remove the wicked from the church and the demand for shepherds to be of good reputation.
Since they get no better answers from the hierarchy than you have given many are now ex-Catholics.

35 posted on 10/07/2012 9:11:10 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Indeed.

We'll talk again in the future, no doubt, on another thread on another day, when the theme is the historical brutality of the Church against its enemies, real or perceived.

For today however, we'll be weak, vacillating hypocrites who wink at evil and are afraid to confront it.

Your concern is, nevertheless, appreciated.

36 posted on 10/07/2012 9:26:54 AM PDT by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Please... the cloaks of victimhood neither cover flatteringly nor fit. And this “we'll”?

You'll talk about whatever you choose, I suppose, but at the present it still isn't clear why someone/anyone who is supposedly such a reprobate or nearly so is kept as a leader, an “ambassador” for Christ.

37 posted on 10/07/2012 10:28:36 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Please... the cloaks of victimhood neither cover flatteringly nor fit. And this “we'll”?

Oh.. my previous comment was not an appeal to victimhood. Far from it. Rather, it was an aside to the fluctuating, contradictory images of the Church, conjured up by the naysayers, depending on the scandal du jour. One day, overly tolerant. The next, dictatorial Nazis.

In your words......."laughable".

.....but at the present it still isn't clear why someone/anyone who is supposedly such a reprobate or nearly so is kept as a leader, an “ambassador” for Christ.

So we haven't been tough enough on "leader" Kung, eh?

I guess he could be locked in a cell and physically prevented from taking the Guardian's phone calls. What do you think?

I guess if "it still isn't clear", you won't be able to give us the reason, will you?

38 posted on 10/07/2012 2:47:46 PM PDT by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
I didn't create the scandals occurring within the Catholic church and when I ask why those who have are not removed I hear comments like the following:

“So we haven't been tough enough on “leader” Kung, eh?” as though that meant something. And “leader”? Yes, maybe ‘man of respect’ would be more suitable or ‘FOB’ (Friend of Benedict).
After all, how many people get an endorsement of their book from the Pope? Or am I mistaken about that point?

Of course the Guardian is ‘stirring the pot’ to use your analogy, that's what they do, but whose ladle is being used?

39 posted on 10/07/2012 4:36:51 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
OK, I think I've got it!

Kung says that the Church is... an "authoritarian system" with parallels to Germany's Nazi dictatorship.

You, on the other hand, would appear to disagree and ask why people like Kung are not dealt with more severely, which in Kung's world, of course, would make us even more "authoritarian".

It would appear we're in agreement. We both agree that Kung is mistaken.

Good job.

40 posted on 10/07/2012 6:47:01 PM PDT by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Ping!


41 posted on 10/08/2012 7:36:30 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

This is the problem with the internet mentality of proof-texting unfamiliar sources, count-your-change.

Fortunately, your excerpt included the statement, “a predominantly critical article should not, however, ignore the positive side of Kung’s book.” He does NOT suppose that an article should NOT be predominantly critical. Rather, he notes that among all the criticisms of Kung’s work, there are some notable points worth taking. This is critical in Ratzinger’s work; if you merely dismiss objectionable works without finding what is appealing in them, you are hopeless to counter them.

As for “what must the average Catholic think,” the failure of Catholic leaders in recent decades is self-evident and scandalous. But what is the alternative? Protestantism, which continuously deeper and deeper into heresy, while the conservatives cordon themselves off into tinier and tinier schisms? The Catholic Church’s faithfulness is on the rebound, after having absorbed so many errors of mainstream protestantism. What Protestant denomination is so rebounding? PCUSA? The Episcopal Church? ELCA? Disciples of Christ? Church of Christ? American Baptists? National Baptists?

I’ll give you one: the Southern Baptist Convention, which in 1973 was pro-choice, pro-birth-control, pro-masturbation and pro-divorce. But who do you think talked some sense into them?

So why do polls paint Catholics as so liberal? Catholics tend to live in major cities and the northeast. As such, they are in a far more liberal millieu than Protestants, but Catholics always vote far more conservative than the Protestants who surround them: In 2004, the majority of Catholics from Massachusetts voted against John Kerry! But most Catholics are from New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, etc. And fallen-away Catholics still identify as Catholics, while fallen-away Protestants usually cease to identify with a particular denomination at all, and these fallen-away Catholics usually adopt the prevalent values of the cultures they live in. Which is these states is outrageously left-wing, and formed by mainstream Protestantism.

So has the failure to draw a sharp contrast between Catholic/Christian values and the larger culture been harmful to Catholicism? Yes, it’s been absolutely devastating. But the Catholics in America are not adrift, theologically, to Your Own Persional Interpretation of Scripture. Those that have clung to tradition have made fantastic progress in righting the ship. Who will right the Protestants’ ship as evangelicals succumb to liberalism?


42 posted on 10/08/2012 8:08:04 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

And that’s why the Church of England was invented, just for special cases like you, Kung. Why don’t you go sign up with them?


43 posted on 10/08/2012 8:49:19 AM PDT by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dangus
“Fortunately, your excerpt included the statement,...”

Fortunate or not, it was intentional as the excerpt was not taken as approval or agreement with the entire contents of the book but only to show that an endorsement is in its self quite an honor when it comes from someone of note.

Just so there's no confusion of terms: an endorsement is not to be taken as anything more than a recommendation, not total agreement, not a stamp of approval but just a recommendation for consideration.

When it comes to the use and misuse of labels, “Protestant” surely must be amongst one the most misused.
Many so-called “Protestant” groups differ from one another as much or more than Protestantism as a whole differs from Catholicism so simply using “Protestant” to mean “non-Catholic” but nominally Christian distorts the meaning of both.

The division of both Catholicism and Protestantism into ever more fragments is to be expected.
One can be liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist, or whatever other “ist” and “ism” conceivable and still be recognized inwardly and outwardly as Catholic, Protestant, or “other”.

In short, the divisions under the umbrella “Catholic” are just as deep and numerous as under...say..”Baptist”.

As you write: “ The Catholic Church’s faithfulness is on the rebound, after having absorbed so many errors of mainstream protestantism. What Protestant denomination is so rebounding?”

I'm at a loss to what ‘rebound in faithfulness’ you're talking about unless it means the tamping down of scandal involving priests. That must be certainly be a welcome relief.

Again you raise a central question: “So why do polls paint Catholics as so liberal?”

Your analysis points to assimilation of community values from a more liberal community culture. But in saying:

“But the Catholics in America are not adrift, theologically, to Your Own Persional Interpretation of Scripture”,

You error greatly. If the Catholic majority voted against John Kerry in Massachusetts with his views of abortion (infanticide by any reckoning) then by what theological justification did other Catholics vote For him? Or for that other Catholic politicians of even more liberal stance?

Which Bishops are explaining to the Catholic faithful that Scripturally what one lends their support to they become participants in? It's one thing to rob a bank but how much different is it to knowingly hire a bank robber as a teller?

As for “fallen away Catholics” identifying as “Catholic” they are simply reflecting and agreeing with Catholic teaching and law.

“Who will right the Protestants’ ship as evangelicals succumb to liberalism?”

A good question seeing the Catholic faithful are being encouraged to be more like the evangelicals.

44 posted on 10/08/2012 10:51:50 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Man these folks just don’t like it when they’re told they can’t do something they WANT to do! They want the Church to change HER policies, because they ‘feel uncomfortable’ being told what they’re doing is wrong.


45 posted on 10/08/2012 5:39:25 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

You’re spinning madly. THere’s no point in further conversing.


46 posted on 10/09/2012 7:44:34 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dangus
You cannot blame the problems of the Catholic church on its leadership and at the same time blame those problems on the flock for absorbing “the many errors of mainstream protestantism” (many, very many though they be).

If anyone has absorbed “the many errors of mainstream protestantism” it has been the leadership, the Catholic shepherds, who have left the flock to be divided into their own political, ethical, geographical, theological schisms and fractions.

But you call it whatever you choose to whomever you choose.

47 posted on 10/09/2012 8:50:01 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson