C
Carrie_Andrews
Guest
Huh?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Carrie_Andrews
Guest
You’re misrepresenting what I’m saying, and we are not living in the first century. I’m expressing my opinion of what I feel would have been a better approach for all concerned, not looking to argue with anyone, go jump down someone elses throat. I think to admonish the sinner with love is better than humiliating any one. Do you really think this approach is going to make this man change?Knowing a man’s heart is not necessarily required when calling them to account, especially if they know the desparity between their view and the Church’s teaching. Besides, since we can never know a man’s heart and intention in an absolute sense, then how can one ever ‘admonish the sinner’, which is one of the spiritual works of mercy. What right did Paul have to excommunicate a man who was sleeping with his stepmother? What right did Paul pass judgment upon this man when Paul wasn’t even present to confront the man in person. What right did Paul have to say that a believer who sins (publicly) is to be rebuked publicly if it is first required to know the man’s heart.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
I’m not jumping down your throat.You’re misrepresenting what I’m saying, and we are not living in the first century. I’m expressing my opinion of what I feel would have been a better approach for all concerned, not looking to argue with anyone, go jump down someone elses throat. I think to admonish the sinner with love is better than humiliating any one. Do you really think this approach is going to make this man change?
Whether we are in the first century is irrelevant. If a man today was an active member in a parish somewhere and was publicly known to be sleeping with his stepmother, I think that the response of the church should be the same.
And I agree with you that we should admonish the sinner with love. This should always be our first approach, just as Matt 18:15 and Gal. 6:1 states. But what about when correction and good counsel has not had their affect, and the person resumes in obstinate, manifest, grave sin. Then according to Matt. 18:16-17, 1 Cor. 5:9-13, 1 Tim. 5:20, we are to call them to task for the sins and admonish them publicly.
And when you read what the deacon actually stated, he was not at all rude about it. After all, the deacon could have called Mr. Higgins a venomous snake, a hypocrite, a white washed tomb full of dead men’s bones or other similar words that Jesus used. He could have admonished him to bring forth fruit befitting repentance or similar words that John the Baptist used. He could have said to not associate with such a one or to purge the evil person from their midst or similar words that St. Paul used. Compared to these words, the good deacon was quite gentle and cordial.
F
frommi
Guest
You can teach and act in accordance with the church without making a spectacle that screams “ME ME ME…I WANNA BE A CARDINAL!!!”So you support Bishop Burke or are you cherry picking? Just curious.
And giving a bishop a free pass?.. if by free pass you mean supporting a bishop who unambiguously and without compromise teaches and acts in accordance with what the Church teaches?.. then you bet.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Can you look inside Bishop Burke’s head and discern his motivation?You can teach and act in accordance with the church without making a spectacle that screams “ME ME ME…I WANNA BE A CARDINAL!!!”
If not, your post is very uncharitable.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Ahh, so you are cherry picking.You can teach and act in accordance with the church without making a spectacle that screams “ME ME ME…I WANNA BE A CARDINAL!!!”
B
Brad
Guest
You cannot put your opinion about potential above the teaching of the Church.Higgins Replies:
Critics of stem cell research ignore conspicuous facts
Chronic diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s inflict untold misery upon Americans each year. Stem cell research has the potential to alleviate much of that misery. Unfortunately, much confusion remains about this research. What is stem cell research? In a world where chronic diseases claim the lives of 70 percent of Americans, this research remains the best hope toward developing regenerative therapies resulting in creation of new cells and tissue in virtually every organ in the body.
Opponents contend that it will result in the destruction of surplus embryos. They ignore the fact that these embryos will eventually be destroyed as medical waste, with great life-saving potential tossed away. Because this fact renders opponents’ arguments hypocritical or inconsistent, they simply ignore it, just as they ignore the tremendous potential this research possesses.
This is an issue that has humanity at its core. While there will always be debate, reasonable people can find areas of common agreement. Let’s abandon the “all or nothing” approach that has dogged this issue, and let’s open our hearts and minds to the limitless potential this research has, and work together to eliminate chronic disease and human suffering in the years to come.
Brian Higgins
*Member of Congress *
Would it have been ok for Christ on the cross to have asked for organ transplants from the 2 thieves while they were fresh, considering they were going by the wayside anyhow?
F
frommi
Guest
Just pointing out the differences in approachAhh, so you are cherry picking.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Saying:Just pointing out the differences in approach
Is not “pointing out the differences in approach.” It is a flat accusation that the Bishop is not acting in accord with his apostolic duties but out of sheer self-interest.Originally Posted by frommi
You can teach and act in accordance with the church without making a spectacle that screams “ME ME ME…I WANNA BE A CARDINAL!!!”
I
irenaeus1
Guest
I concur that there are difference in approaches… it’s just you seemed to imply that you did not do this, while others did.Just pointing out the differences in approach
I
irenaeus1
Guest
frommi, back in Poat #191, you stated, “However…it seems as though people nowadays cherry pick which bishops should be questioned and which should be given a free pass."Just pointing out the differences in approach
And you are including yourself in that group of people, right? The problem with your take on this is that you apparently suggest one cannot question a bishop who is a sloppy administrator and perhaps even teaches something contrary to Church teaching, but you yourself are allowed to question a bishop who teaches and acts in complete accordance with Church teaching. In the example of Bishop Raymond Burke, you may not like his style or his approach, but you cannot accuse him of going outside the boundaries of acting within Church teaching. On the flip side, this cannot be said of certain bishops on the other end of the spectrum who are ‘questioned’.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.