Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Doug Loss

But all that being said, the priests understood that getting into some sort of altercation with the police wasn’tgoing to help anyone, and would have taken the police’s focus off the matter at hand; looking for who had perpetrated this heinous act. That doesn’t mean the faith of those priests was weak, nor were they shirking their duties as priests, they were simply being logical about the situation. Nothing at all wrong with that. The little boy may have died without benefit of the Last Rites, but I believe he was received warmly by his His Father in Heaven.


46 posted on 04/28/2013 2:59:16 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: SuziQ

Sorry SuziQ, but you’re wrong. The priests forcing their way into the scene would most definitely hoep someone—the dying who as it was were denied the last rites. Yes, they were shirking their priestly duties. Those duties include defying the civil authorities when they are preventing the priests from performing their fundamental sacraments. It wouldn’t have taken the police’s focus off the matter at hand at all to let the priests give last rites to the dying, that’s a silly argument. As to being logical about the situation, that’s also a silly argument. If a government edict can determine when you can or can’t perform one of the most fundamental sacraments of the church, then you are no longer working for the church, you’re working for the government. Your “logic” is in fact a total cession to civil authorities of their responsibility to God and the church. That’s shirking their priestly duties, there’s no other way to see it.


47 posted on 04/28/2013 3:38:14 PM PDT by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson