Posted on 06/08/2006 5:15:26 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Remember a few years back when the New York Post was about to drag one of the American cardinals out of the closet?
I think McCarrick's all but admitted it.
The Abp. of Washington is always a Cardinal. But he's retiring in about 10 days, hooray, hooray, so he won't have opportunities to do any more harm.
Great! Is that suppose to make us feel better? Sure do hope they don't share his views.
It appears he's giving his personal opinion here rather than the Church's teaching.
I'm sorry but he's a Cardinal. A very high ranking cleric. He has no business doing this. His personal opinion should be in line with Church teaching.
These people take positions in the Catholic Church because it is three squares a day and no heavy lifting. It's a damn good life. Everything is provided for them, and they get fabulous benefits and vacations.
"My question is how long will it take for him to get the call from the Vatican for a little sit-down with the Pope. McCarrick should get the smack down he deserves."
It would be so nice to see someone actually suffer consequences for idiotic actions like this.
I'll be waiting...waiting, waiting....
He'll probably suffer the same fate as Cardinal Law did.
"He'll probably suffer the same fate as Cardinal Law did."
which isn't so bad.
Law has been reduced to a fundraising position.
If MCCarrick were treated in this manner then fewer seminarians would be influenced by his "personal opinions"
Fewer laity for that matter as well.
... The idiot cardinal should have finished this quote with "then they just shouldn't get married." What a charlatan.
After Law was allowed to have a public role in the funeral of John Paul II.
Trust me, those of us who are still Catholic know it quite well.
It is time for the Catholic Church to clean house.
The time is long overdue.
The Catholic Church hasn't lost anything of substance.
"After Law was allowed to have a public role in the funeral of John Paul II."
Law was assigned to the basilica prior to JPII's death.
I'm assuming he was given the role at the funeral as he was repesenting the basilica.
It does seem someone somewhere could have found an alternative though.
That statement is so subjective and interpretable as to be rendered virtually meaningless.
I can get "married" in the church, but if I do not have that license from the State, the marriage will not be recognized.
As soon as the concept of State licensing couples is extended to homosexuals, there will be no difference even though the terminology is tortured.
If I am married before a civil authority, i.e., judge, clerk, mayor, it is a marriage. What twisted semantics the homosexual lobby uses.
An elderly couple I know married before a minister to obey religious edicts, but the marriage was not registered with the State. According to the State, this is not a marriage, nor is it a civil union.
Marriage is only marriage if you can prove it to the State. All marriages are civil whether you like it or not.
?
Another C.I.N.O. errant priest.....a disgrace!
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.