Posted on 04/22/2005 9:35:16 AM PDT by metalmanx2j
No, really you're claiming that your interpretation of the Bible is the ultimate authority. I see nothing in the Bible that commands or even permits anyone to commit a sin, even if they are required to commit it by civil law.
Yes, the Catholic Church defends civil disobedience for these kind of cases.
It's funny too that when draft was required in Spain it was allowed to allege "conscious objections" in order to not do it. Instead you could do civil, more easy and for a shorter period of time work.
"Perhaps, as Paul writes in the book of Romans, this truly is a matter of conscience, and is best left at that.
It is fit and proper for religious authorities to speak out on sin; however, religious advocacy of civil disobedience is not Biblical."
-You bring up some good points. Your conclusions are worth exploring further. Paul tells us that as Christians we are 'in the world but not of the world'. In tandem is Jesus' admonition to 'render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's'. How are we to interpret the Pope's view of the new, Spanish legislation through the context of our Christian lives?
It seems to me that Matthew, the tax collector gives us the living example. As an administrator, his job was in conflict with his heart, after he met Jesus. As a result, Matthew was no longer a tax collector. He chose to give up his secular authority for his faith in Jesus. Christ knew this would not be easy. He tells us to sell our worldly possessions and follow Him. He makes it clear that to amass secular power and worldly wealth is at odds with the kingdom of heaven. He councils us to be not afraid and that there are many mansions in His Father's house. Christ pushes us to make the moral choice. This Pope is asking us to do the same.
The Pope calls on us not to obstruct the government. Jesus tells us the same thing. What the Pope is asking Catholics in Spain to do is to keep their hearts pure. He is throwing down the moral challenge to them. If they are true Catholics, then they cannot administer a policy which is contradiction with their faith. Their moral obligation is to resign their secular position if it is at odds with their faith.
Catholics who will have the hardest time with the Pope's admonitions will be those who want to be both Catholic and amass secular power or position, as well. This Pope, in a few days has already told us in so many words that if you are a true Catholic, there are certain jobs you cannot or will not do. Abortionist, Spanish Marriage License Clerk, Governor of a Capital Punishment State, President of the United States (as long as abortion and capital punishment are the law),etc.
This will be tough medicine for the Cafeteria Catholic crowd. Being a Catholic is a lot more than just vestments and monstrance. This Pope expects Catholics to live up to their faith. It will be interesting...
"Equipped for every good work" is not the same thing as "sufficient for salvation."
Secondly, this begs the question as to what constitutes Scripture. When Paul wrote this letter, it was not considered scriptural. The New Testament was not canonized until 400 years later. Who determined that the Letter to Timothy was scripture?
Thirdly, Paul was referring to the Old Testament, not the New Testament.
Finally, which Old Testament canon was Paul referring to? He was probably referring to the Septuagint, which is the canon referred to by Jesus and the apostles in 200 of 300 NT references to the OT, and the OT canon determined by Christ's Church.
"The Church has always taught that when civil law and Divine Law are at odds, civil law may not only be set aside, but it must be vigorously resisted. This case in Spain is a perfect example."
-Not necessarily true. When you say 'vigorously resisted' you inspire aggressive action. The Christ-like resistance is one of peaceful disobedience. It is more resigned to the willingness of wanting to live in the state and the recognition that those rules (the mandatory sacrifice), are rules that as much as I'd like to comply with the state I just can't because it is at odds with God. There is a resignation here that my fate, for my faith will be determined. It really isn't vigorous resistance. Christ did not 'struggle vigorously'. The Christ-like way is to speak out in love and faith but if the words are unheard to accept the fate required for your faith in God.
That's not what the Bible says.
1 Corinthians 11:23-30For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [died].
This is a general admonition. We should be subject to rulers and authorities within reason. We can't use this as an excuse to sin.
Otherwise, I'd have to obey an order to put Jews to death. That's simply absurd.
Thank you!
I believe you have nicely summarized my thoughts. I hope any Christian would leave a job before committing a sin. I fully support the new Pontiff’s position.
What was not clear to me was whether the “senior Vatican official” was encouraging this, or suggesting that Catholics should not be subject to rulers and authorities.
My original point was not whether Christians should follow their conscience in situations where they see a conflict with secular law; rather that the Church must be mindful of Titus 3:1 before they direct civil disobedience by their members.
"You represent the Catholic Church doctrine as authoritative; I submit to you, however, that the Bible is the ultimate authority..."
-Listen, the Catholic Church is not perfect. However, the evidence of millenia of thought and struggle within and without leads me to believe that it is most likely still the closest thing we have to Christ's original message. A sprinkling of theologians, some angry monks and a few bonafide nuts does not undo the works of Augustine, St. Paul and the hundreds and hundreds of others.
The Bible is Divinely Inspired. But the Bible provides no administration. In that respect, all organized 'religions' are not valid. That being said, if there is no mandate for administration, how best to spread The Word? We are but humans struggling with the divine. Given everything out there, I am satisfied that the Catholic Church is as good as any vehicle to spread The Word. Those who don't might want to examine the hearts of the founders of these external administration and determine whether hubris, agrandizement or mental instability played some role in their founding as well. Then maybe, come home.
You are quite correct. While the word “honor” was not intended to be all-encompassing, 1 Corinthians is the right reference. Thanks!
A good lesson for many Freepers.
Sucessfully.
the fact remains that it is still the law.
Kinda like slavery was. And abortion is.
That sounds familar.
Which makes it OK as long as you don't own one yourself? BTW, the law COMPELLED you to return escaped slaves.
nor are we compelled to have abortions.
Not yet.
So murder is OK if someone else does it? We are not called to defend those who cannot defend themselves?
Leni
Of course murder is not OK.
Yes, we are call upon to defend the defenseless.
We are also admonished to obey civil authorities and law.
How you as an individual act, in good conscience, is between you and God. But even Jesus acknowledges that not all can or will be saved.
Which is why we are told to teach the Scripture, so that noone will be lost through ingorance. They must, however, elect to accept salvation.
The passage you cite is incorrectly interpreted if you think it means man's laws are over God's.
It's not un biblical to refuse to obey immoral laws. You call that civil disobedience. I call it faithful.
That certainly is not my intention.
I use a variety of Bible translations, Concordances, Commentaries, and study tools. I recount their teaching as accurately as I am able.
If you find instances where you believe I am indulging in personal interpretation, please take me to task.
Thanks!
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.