“When it comes to the life or death of the body,” Schneider says, “no doctor would leave things in ambiguity. The doctor cannot tell the patient, ‘You should decide how to apply the medicine according to your conscience and following the laws of medicine.’ Such behavior on the part of a doctor would undoubtedly be considered irresponsible. Yet the immortal life of the soul is more important…”
1 posted on
04/25/2016 1:11:50 PM PDT by
ebb tide
To: ebb tide
I do hope to be proven wrong, but so far? It seems to me that Bishop Schneider is merely applying the same old canard for Vatican II: it’s just ambiguous.
2 posted on
04/25/2016 1:20:18 PM PDT by
piusv
(The Spirit of Christ hasn't refrained from using separated churches as means of salvation:VII heresy)
To: ebb tide
Yes, but instead we got a “stupiditatis laetitia”.
4 posted on
04/25/2016 1:50:52 PM PDT by
I want the USA back
(The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. Orwell.)
To: ebb tide
Such a rule would allow the Church to accept Christ’s teaching “in theory, but not in practice.”The very definition of "We're not changing doctrine, we're changing pastoral sensitivity."
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson