I don’t usually end up on the Washington Post, but I got directed there for news about the falsified autism study (which is a separate rant of mine on bad science… both in the study and how it’s being reported… a false study doesn’t prove or debunk anything!!! Anyway…)
When I learned that our current (2011) majority leader, John Boehner, was a Catholic, I was amused that we have had two Catholic majority leaders in a row. I wonder if that’s a first… doesn’t matter. But, as this article shows, there are some major issues on which these two politicians’ views couldn’t be more different. The most obvious one being abortion.
The journalist then goes on to try to create a debate where there is none. There is a head to the Catholic Church, and the “who decides?” paragraph does not even mention the Pope as an option. Heaven forbid the Pope influencing Catholics who are in political office. If the journalist had done her research, she would have known, and it would have fit very well to say, that there is an objective definition for “being a Catholic.”
People are not Catholic because they choose to call themselves Catholic. It is more than a label.
People are not Catholic because of the culture they grew up in, though that can be a factor leading to “being a Catholic.”
People are not even Catholic based on what they do. Though what Catholics do should reflect what makes them Catholic.
People are Catholic because they hold as true all that the Catholic Church, the repository of all Truth, puts forth as doctrine. Any Catholic who rejects a doctrine excommunicates themselves, though the term has fallen out of fashion.
Originally written/meant to be posted Friday January 7, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment