Bert Robbins wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
.. .


Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is
sinful, it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.


The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic
Church you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

As I said, I haven't been back


Good, there are many churches that will bend to the wind just down the
street from you.


If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one
that is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and
steps up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to
yourself you hypocrite.

So you wish to rewrite the constitution? I *AM* against *ANY* State
approved religion or vis versa.


Nobody is saying that the Constitution of the US needs to be rewritten. You
just need to remember that if you adhere to the dogma of the religion then
you should consider that when you are voting for people to lead you.

If enough of your neighbors agree with you this is good and if enough of
your neighbors disagree with you then your have more work to do to make them
see the error of their ways.


The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind.
The beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can
never be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong
side of the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have
just changed.

I hold my own beliefs. I can think for myself. Can you?


So, you are not a Catholic, you are a moral relativist.


Can you even express yourself without resorting to personal insults?


You don't like your views being challenged? If you have a strong character
you will enjoy having your moral view challenged due to the fact that you
will be able to defend them.

It is people like you that the pope hopes leave the church or see the error
of your ways and reform your views and get back to the churches teachings.

Good luck with the evangelicals down the street!


I don't mind, in fact I enjoy discussion -- but as gentlemen. Resorting
to name calling and/or profanity is a sign of a poor vocabulary.

As to my beliefs, I don't believe that Any church has a direct line to
god, and am more than a little suspicious of all of them.

The pope choses to shelter (Cardinal Law) and defend child molesters,
and you want to tell me he represents god?

From
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...canchurch.html

–Ratzinger's office also was responsible for reviewing cases of priests
accused of child molesting. Clohessy's group has complained that the new
pope apparently scuttled a request to investigate the Rev. Marciel
Macial, founder of the Legionaries of Christ – though it was encouraged
that the Vatican recently reopened the investigation.

Ratzinger was seen in some circles as minimizing the abuse crisis when
he told Catholic News Service in 2002 that "less than 1 percent of
priests are guilty of acts of this type." A 2004 survey commissioned by
the U.S. bishops showed that about 4 percent of the priests who served
over a half-century were accused of abuse, though it did not pin down
the percentage of guilty priests.