Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: presently no screen name

I would defer to someone more knowledgeable, but I'm pretty sure the homosexual pedophile priests are ineligible to receive or distribute Communion, just as you or I would be ineligible to receive it. Didn't stop them, but if they're going to bugger people, I don't think desecrating the Eucharist is a big deal to them.

Gross oversimplification here, but if I smack you in the face, that's a sin, but it's not as bad a sin as murdering you in cold blood. Both are sins, and Christ died for all of them, but the former will not necessarily make you ineligible for receiving the Eucharist.

BTW, there's a better word than "ineligible," but I don't know what it is.


112 posted on 03/15/2007 9:35:43 AM PDT by perez24 (Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]


To: perez24
"Gross oversimplification here, but if I smack you in the face, that's a sin, but it's not as bad a sin as murdering you in cold blood. Both are sins, and Christ died for all of them, but the former will not necessarily make you ineligible for receiving the Eucharist."

Thats a good point. How do you think that would apply to say a 3rd party, myself, who believed it likely that you (perez24) was likely to murder "presently no screen name" but did nothing about it and perhaps helped to create circumstances which would make that crime easier to commit? Do you think I, the third party, would be "eligible" to receive?

Of course I'm drawing an analogy towards those who worked to keep quiet and deceive during the abuse scandal. Those bishops, priests, and perhaps even higher than that, they are still with us.

117 posted on 03/15/2007 9:48:07 AM PDT by iranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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