C
Does anyone else think that the church is overstepping the mark on the Lisbon vote?
Does anyone else think that the church is overstepping the mark on the Lisbon vote? Suggesting that it is OK to vote one way or the other. Surely it sounds a little condescending to those that it considers it's subordinates? After all, shouldn't conscience dictate if that was necessary. A few countries in Europe have a church tax, deducted from wages and handed over. Could this possibly have any bearing on their reasoning? After all, in times of dwindling attendances, getting a cut of the average wage would excite most CEOs.
+1i don't understand your problem. They're telling people, who are interested in the church's view, what that view is. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore them. Or is the church not allowed to open their mouth anymore, and their congregations not entitled to hear the rc view on issues?
I don't understand your problem. They're telling people, who are interested in the Church's view, what that view is. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore them. Or is the Church not allowed to open their mouth anymore, and their congregations not entitled to hear the RC view on issues?
I think the OP has it wrong though. The Church is not airing its views on politics, it is telling those that may be worried that voting for certain things would be against Catholic teaching that, in this instance, they are okay and can vote 'Yes' with a clear conscience.
Does that mean if they vote NO that they wouldnt have a clear conscience? Or that a No vote would be against Catholic teaching?
If thats the case then people who may have wanted to vote No may feel that they will be sinning against the church unless they do what the church recommends.
No , they have been very clear that a vote either way is not against church teachings.
By the sounds of it they were being very careful not to appear to be endorsing either side in the political debate.
Certain elements of the No campaign do appear to be implying that a Yes vote wouldn't be in accordance with the Church's teaching (on the matter of abortion for example). Also the reported placement of No campaign literature in certain church buildings may give them impression of support from the clergy of that parish for a No vote. By implication, especially if not addressed by the hierarchy, the inference could be a Church position on the campaign in favour of a No vote. There have been no similar reported attempts to use the Catholic Church by the Yes campaign so there is no particular case for the Church to comment on with regards to the Yes campaign. If I was being honest it appeared to me that the elements of the No campaign were willing to hijack a potentially influential non-participant in the debate into appearing to back their cause - quite distasteful behaviour.
Does anyone else think that the church is overstepping the mark on the Lisbon vote? Suggesting that it is OK to vote one way or the other. Surely it sounds a little condescending to those that it considers it's subordinates? After all, shouldn't conscience dictate if that was necessary. A few countries in Europe have a church tax, deducted from wages and handed over. Could this possibly have any bearing on their reasoning? After all, in times of dwindling attendances, getting a cut of the average wage would excite most CEOs.
Yes, basically that was my point. But I also feel that the top brass in the church should have reined in the rightwingers in Coir and Alive mag. How can two sides of the same organisation have such conflicting ideals? On both sides this is not freedom of speech, it is the manipulation of their position to influence people that kowtow to them. The time has come [IMHO] for the separation of church and state.I agree.
But I think the OP is making the point that the church has no place airing its views on politics - that is the job of politicians.
Yes, basically that was my point. But I also feel that the top brass in the church should have reined in the rightwingers in Coir and Alive mag. How can two sides of the same organisation have such conflicting ideals? On both sides this is not freedom of speech, it is the manipulation of their position to influence people that kowtow to them. The time has come [IMHO] for the separation of church and state.
Yes, basically that was my point. But I also feel that the top brass in the church should have reined in the rightwingers in Coir and Alive mag. How can two sides of the same organisation have such conflicting ideals? On both sides this is not freedom of speech, it is the manipulation of their position to influence people that kowtow to them. The time has come [IMHO] for the separation of church and state.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?