From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
showing their position on life to be consistant
Published on December 29, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
In America, we often have debates concerning "the right to life" concerning various procedures that occur from before our departure from the womb to the end of our life. Good people, many of whom are Christians and Catholics will debate whether it is ok or not to abort a fetus, euthenize a terminally ill patient or put a serial killer to death. And we, reflecting our diversity, will take up various positions along the way.



Some will stand on permitting abortion but opposing the death penalty. Some will stand on the opposite ground. But not the Catholic Church. Here,, unlike in other areas, the church is probably the most consistant entity in the debate.



The Catholic Church's philosphy on life is simple. Man has no right to take it. Man has no right to end a pregnancy. Man has no right to perform any kind of "mercy killing" of any terminal patient. Man has no right to put someone to death, no matter what their crimes are.



The Catholic Church pays strict adherence to the commandment that tells us "thou shalt not kill." The Catholic Church sees no justification to kill whatsoever. This has remained consistant since after the Crusades and the middle ages. And at least in the modern era, they have remined uberconsistant on their position.



My hat certainly is tipped to the Church here. Where I do criticize and scrutinize some of their doctrine and practices, this particular one is at least not contradictory of itself. American evangelicals and conservative christians often confuse their "culture of life" philosophy by limiting it to abortion and Terri Shaivo, while endorsing wars, supporting the death penalty and allowing thousands of others who aren't Terri Shaivo to be euthenized without protest or congressional intervention. The Catholic Church, at least officially, remains consistant.



The latest statement of that consistncy came this week when the CC officially declared their view that putting Saddam Hussein to death was immoral and wrong. The church said in it's statement that hanging Saddam was simply committing another crime against humanity to somehow pay for other crimes and had nothing to do with justice.



Are they right? I don't know. Like most Americans, I like to think that I support life. I am against the death penalty. Tho my views on abortion, politically, at least, do not reflect the church's view. I am curious to how other Christians, and namely Catholics see the execution of Hussein. Will conservative Catholics side with their President or their Pope when it comes to this issue and the issue of the death penalty in general which the CC opposes and is uncompromising on? To me, at least, it could be an interesting discussion. I would be curious to how an American who calls themselves anything that puts them in concert with the GOP concept of "culture of life" looks at this. I would also be curious to know why those who support this way of thinking, that if the Church deems something immoral or wrong, that they should try to make America conform to those standards, rationalize this in their own mind. For example, anti-gay marriage stances are often defended with religion. But those same people will defy the pope when it comes to going to war or killing those who society has ruled a criminal so bad that they should not be allowed to live. Hmmmmmmmm.....

Comments (Page 5)
10 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Jan 30, 2007
I'm not even arguing against it as much as I am addressing a limited set of its propositions. Like the infallibility of the Church. To me Lula's perspective sets up a situation where everyone in the faith could go off and be totally evil, from the Pope down, but the "Church" would still be infallible.

I'm just wondering what the "Church" in that sense is composed of. As she says, it isn't the buildings or the vestments, either. There seems to be another entity of some sort, or just the "idea" of the Church. Functionally, it seems like that just allows a religion to do everything it wants and still retain the purity.
on Jan 30, 2007
well just to add my two cents....church is people...it's not pope, pillar or creed nor is it buildings. It's "ecclesia" which means "called out ones." It's people.

When the church was first started, they met in homes. I'm studying the book of Colossians and Philemon. These letters were written to the church, only the church was a series of Christians meeting in homes across Asia scattered about. The letters were copied and read at each house church. The prison Epistles were called circular letters as they made the rounds.

When Christ said he would "build his church" he wasn't talking a building made with hands but followers that would follow after him. His church would be "his" people.





on Jan 30, 2007
"His church would be "his" people. "


Then before "the judgment", there'd be no way to really define the Church, would there? After all, all Christian flavors consider themselves "His" people. Until He makes the final distinction, it's your word against theirs, right?

I know you'll say its "His" word against theirs, but in the end you're all reading the same thing, and to them the Bible validates what they believe just as well.
on Jan 30, 2007
I know you'll say its "His" word against theirs, but in the end you're all reading the same thing, and to them the Bible validates what they believe just as well.


It's HIS word period. He's the judge. He's the discerner of the heart. He knows what's inside man. His church are the true followers.....regardless of manmade religion. He knows who are HIS. He knows who are calling on Him in sincere belief and who have only empty words.

It basically comes down to one question...."Who do you say that I am?" If we are attached to the vine, we will bear fruit. It's that fruit that can be seen. Our root cannot be seen, but only by God.

BTW I don't believe the "church" can be infallible. The church is made up of sinful people. How can it be?



on Jan 30, 2007
"It's HIS word period."


No, it's words in a book attributed to Him. Often it is a narrative of events concerning God that doesn't even have any 'stamp of approval' in terms of inerrancy, like most of the Old Testament history.
on Jan 31, 2007


When Christ said he would "build his church" he wasn't talking a building made with hands but followers that would follow after him. His church would be "his" people.


i've stated that several times in various articles and responses. i interpret th e"you are the rock, and on that rock i shall build my church" line as referring to building it on the individual rather than the structure and organized hierarchal church that he tore down and stood against.

"It's HIS word period."

No, it's words in a book attributed to Him. Often it is a narrative of events concerning God that doesn't even have any 'stamp of approval' in terms of inerrancy, like most of the Old Testament history.


doesn't anyone find it strange that Christ himself, never wrote 1 word for the bible. there is no "Book of Jesus." Jesus was literate at age 12 where he argued with church elders over scripture. so why wouldn't he take a few moments to write out instructions or some nice thoughts or anything?

on Jan 31, 2007
why wouldn't he take a few moments to write out instructions or some nice thoughts or anything?


Would we have these fun fights if he had?
on Jan 31, 2007
Would we have these fun fights if he had?


lol  
on Jan 31, 2007
on that rock i shall build my church" line as referring to building it on the individual rather than the structure and organized hierarchal church that he tore down and stood against.


exactly....hey we agree on sumptin. I'd go one step further tho and say the church was built on HIM. He is the rock. Upon this rock.....himself. If you just take a concordance and look up rock you'd see especially in the Psalms God is always the rock. It's not Peter. It's not an institution. It's Christ. The church would be built based on the cofession of Peter. "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." basically saying...."you are the rock."

doesn't anyone find it strange that Christ himself, never wrote 1 word for the bible


Well, He is the word....John 1:1. He did not come to write books. He came to die and show us the way out. He was only here a short time. He gave his Apostles the duty to write down what they saw and heard as witnesses.

But he did write. We see that when he bent down and wrote in the sand. But even then we have no idea what he wrote about.

on Jan 31, 2007
But even then we have no idea what he wrote about.


He was practicing the cursive of his name . . . I've seen it in the movies, it looks like that to me.
on Jan 31, 2007
ha, silly me. I thought he was writing the men's girly friends names in the dirt.

When they saw their gals names, they quickly departed. The old men left first I noticed.
on Jan 31, 2007
When they saw their gals names, they quickly departed.


Even better! He was practicing writing out, "Mary X, Mary Y, Mary Z" (Because every woman in the New Testament seems to be named Mary )
on Jan 31, 2007
Even better! He was practicing writing out, "Mary X, Mary Y, Mary Z" (Because every woman in the New Testament seems to be named Mary


Not Surprising. They were Catholics after all.

(j/k! Dont take this seriously please!)
on Jan 31, 2007
I'm hesitant to get into a discussion with you concerning "Indulgences" because you don't understand infallibility.....yet. And here you are attempting to disparage the authority of the Pope using the doctrine of Indulgences. I'm not a betting woman, but if I were, I'm betting that you don't even understand the doctrine of Indulgences or really care to either. Nevertheless.....................

"Sale of indulgences"......Oh, c'mon, Indulgences have never been for sale and never will be for sales far as the CC is concerned....she has however long recognized the existence of abuses that occurred long ago associated with the doctrine of Indulgences...and taken care of those with disciplinary measures and reforms.

It is absolutely wrong to sell Indulgences and Pope Leo did not do so. There were abuses committed by some individuals, but never with the sanction of the Church. Granting Indulgences is Biblical. Christ gave the Church complete power of binding and loosing. She has the right therefore, to loose some of the expiation due to God by a sinner after the guilt of his sin has been forgiven. St. Paul did this in the case of a sinful man in Corinth. He first ordered him to be excommunicated, but after he had shown his sorrow, the Apostle pardoned him and remitted his punishment. "To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient, which is given by many. So that on the contrary, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow....For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." 2Cor.2:6-7, 10.

Pope Leo granted certain Indulgences to those who would give alms towards the building of St. Peter's in Rome. But there is a difference between giving alms to a good work, and giving money to purchase something of equivalent value. Remember that Christ had a special blessing for the widow who gave her mite as an alms in the Temple in Jerusalem. Would you accuse Him of sellling that blessing for a mite?

on Jan 31, 2007
"It is absolutely wrong to sell Indulgences and Pope Leo did not do so. "


Mkay, Lula. It's impossible to talk to you if you just lie and say that things that happened didn't. I might as well be arguing with a holocaust denier. As a rule I don't do things like that, because it is basically like arguing with someone who claims the sky is never blue.

I suggest you look at real history, not revisionist history. I understand what infallibility is, you just use a twisted definition intended to allow for the evils of the church while retaining its supposed infallibility.
10 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last