From this article, it looks as though the Bishop made a mistake, but that’s a left-wing Catholic periodical. I wonder if a right-wing Catholic periodical might have a different story. I dunno, but there’s always two sides to every story, and I wonder what the Bishop’s stated justification was. The theology is clear: if both are dying, you have to step in and save the mother.
Anglicans enjoy enormous breadth of doctrine - it’s the Anglicans’ unique gift and its Achilles’ heel. There is hardly any church teaching outside the historic creeds that Anglicans do not disagree about among themselves.
However, generally speaking, Anglicans believe that the elements of the Eucharist - the bread and wine - contain the True Presence of Christ. There are Anglo-Catholics who believe in transubstantiation (but not that many); there are Anglo-Protestants who believe that Christ is present in the sense that he is present everwhere and that the sacrament of Eucharist is a memorial meal, not a sacrificial feast. And a whole range of opinions in between. And of course 90% of Anglican laity probably give it very little thought one way or the other.
So when the Pope writes a lengthy encyclical in which he sets out the case for nations to take care of their poor, it’s not an endorsement of a political policy position, but when the Pope acts slightly more cordially to one President than another, it is?
I’m not necessarily doubting this, because I have no idea one way or the other. Can someone provide a cite for this allegedly “cozy” relationship between the Pope and GWB, and for the allegedly “cold” relationship between the Pontiff and BHO?
The Pope, more so than perhaps any world leader other than the American President, has a pulpit. We need not guess, or infer from his “smallest of actions” any great truths when he is perfectly capable of voluminous and exacting detail to explain his positions.
As a side note, I also don’t particularly agree with the assessment that one’s relationship ran all that colder than the other’s did.
I did not say that. I said I had not read that specific encyclical so I cannot comment on it. I was making a comment on encyclicals in general.
And yes very small moves by a pope - or even a president or king or whatever - speak volumes. After all, even though spiritually we believe the Pope is the shepherd of Christ’s Church, he is also a sovereign head of state. Therefore small gestures mean a lot in diplo-speak.
Article: President Bush addresses relationship with Pope Benedict, U.S. Catholics
"…Raymond Arroyo closed the interview by referring to President Bush’s words about looking into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and “seeing his soul.”
*Arroyo asked President Bush what he saw when he looked into the eyes of Pope Benedict XVI. * “God,” the president answered"
I do know this: His dad was a Muslim, no child ever sheds things that intilled upon them by their father. He may not be a Muslim, but he must have some sympathies for the religion of his father.
I do know this: The Liberation Theology spewed out at the church Obama attended is not authentic Christianity. Even protestants would agree with that. It has all to do with politics and racial power (the race depending on which race is preaching it) and very little to do with the Gospel.
One time when John Paul II visted Nicaragua he publically chastised a priest that was espousing their Nicaraguan form of Liberation Theology.
This seems like a very definitive statement. Can a person born to Buddhist parents genuinely convert to Christianity, or must they always “…have some sympathies for the religion of [their parents?]”
Yes, but let’s observe the log in our own eye before we comment upon the motes found elsewhere. Like it or not, liberation theology arose from our Church. Gustavo Gutierrez was a Catholic priest, as was Juan Luis Segundo and Jon Sobrino. And the Vatican didn’t come out against it until the 1980s.
Really? Then I take it that you have some inside information about the feelings he has towards his father & the faith of his father that we have no access to?
My point was speculation, but it was informed speculation. I, as a man myself, still remember my youth with my dad, and how it has shaped me. Are you saying this is not possible for Obama? On what do tyou base your statement that what I said is “really not accurate at all”?
BTW: I really don’t want to go too far in this direction since it has nothing to do with the thread topic. But I am interested to know how you know the inner mind of Obama.
