Posted on 01/03/2011 8:15:52 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
He was speaking to the people He was speaking to. They would have understood what He meant. He didn't intend everyone to.
Every horror contained in Obamacare should be blamed on the bishops, who have campaigned for national socialist health care for a CENTURY. They have not stopped preening and posturing about their pro-life creds--ever since they flip-flopped on Obamacare DAYS before the vote.
Everything I have said above applies to "the bishops'" treasonous effluvia about immigration "reform," right down their slavish use of Democrat terminology and talking points in all things.
Food and water, no job. Maybe a free ride to the ICE station. They have food, water, shelter, a bed, and medical all down at the border patrol station. If they are starving, I will give food and water till other arangements are made.
Wrong.
Nobody said this.
And refuting doesn't work, if you're refuting what nobody said.
I do try to keep in mind that Martin Luther said many worthwhile and admirable things, while at the same time he often indulged in polemical exaggeration of an incendiary kind. I am willing to overlook this for the sake of a better-directed discussion.
Remember that Luther famously declared "Esto peccator et pecca fortiter" --- "Be a sinner and sin strongly"--- adding, "But more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ."
It does raise a smile, but it's not something I would wear on a T-shirt at a Lutheran Youth Day rally..:o)
Zmirak’s flippant comparison, of basically, “Luther was clearly wrong, so this why bleeding-heart Christians are also wrong” may work fine with the (small) minority of Roman Catholics on FreeRepublic, but is hardly an argument to bring up to the majority here, in a country established by (an overwhelming majority of) Protestant Founding Fathers.
Why does he alienate Protestants first off, when his arguments against illegal aliens are valid HOWEVER one thinks of Luther?
A great majority of Roman Catholics, like Jewish people, consistently, persistently vote liberal Democrat anyway...
A rather stupid method of political argumentation if you ask me.
However, his point was that this is the peril of private interpretation of Scripture, which Dr. Zmirak's main audience (at Catholics Online and CatholiCity) may associate mostly with guys like Luther, but which is here (in Zmirk's article) most garishly and gaudily displayed by clueless, kneejerk liberal Catholic Bishops, whose Scriptural malpractice is then swiftly and neatly gutted and filleted by Dr. Z's keen polemical knife.
In other words, it's the Cathoilic Bishops' errors he intended to skewer.
Which we should both, I think, applaud.
I disagree. Since God's perspective is the only perspective that matters, and since the clergy specialize in trying to understand God's perspective on all matters public and private, I believe it is a duty of the clergy to assert the influence of the Bible everywhere in creation.
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
If a member of the clergy violates a law that clergyman is subject to the lawmaker/enforcer. If a lawmaker/enforcer creates or enforces a law that violates God's law, the clergyman should boldly condemn both the sinner and the sin.
For example, I would call upon my Pastor and Elders to excommunicate anyone known to promote abortion.
Leviticus 25:35
And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
You said: "I believe it is a duty of the clergy to assert the influence of the Bible everywhere in creation."
Yes, of course!
But that doesn't mean the assumption of secular authority. That’s clericalism: the exercise of political power and influence by clergy who, in so doing, intrude upon the proper vocation of the laity.
It's an important distinction. As John Q. Citizen, a clergyman can vote, and speak on issues ---not using the resources of the Church, and in his own name. And as pastor, in the name of the Lord, AND using the resources of the Church, he has the right and duty to teach Biblical principles (including the principles which should guide politics); but not to lobby for his preferred legislative strategy.
It’s an important distinction: policy decisions are properly in the hands of the laity. If the laity are morally in the wrong, by all means let the pastoral authority of the Church correct them: but the details of political strategy are not matters in which the clergy have either special training or special authority.
For instance: a pastor ought to say, "We learn from Christ's precept and example that we should pay our taxes to lawful government." But the pastor has no business specifying, "The property tax should be ____ and the sales tax should be ____ and the income tax should be _______ " -- the details, in other words.
The point is, specific public policy decisions--- the choice of different approaches to the public good ---are the proper sphere of action of the laity. On the other hand, if some proposal involves an objective evil (for instance, taxes: "Let's open public brothels, a great source of tax revenue!"--- this “proposal” should draw a quick pastoral kick in the pants.)
What you don't want is clergy using Church resources and their pastoral authority to lobby and leverage government power. That's happened way too much in centuries past: it did not, in general, work out well. (We learned!)
I get concerned because the USCCB and, for that matter, liberal clergy of all denominations, including liberal Evangelicals and Jews, have been doing that for years: using Church resources to enact a political agenda which is strictly outside of their competence, while at the same time often failing to do the teaching and internal discipline and the works of sanctity which really ARE within their competence.
By the way, I'm interested in why you crossed out "ecclesial" and substituted "ecclesiastic". A quick resort to the dictionary gives the impression that they are synonyms. But there may be a shade of difference? Let me know, I like to learn.
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.