clarification
By Diogenes (articles ) | October 22, 2003 5:49 AM
Keith Cardinal O'Brien, on himself:
"What I was trying to say was that when matters are up for discussion I would be only too happy to discuss them and ultimately accept what the decision of our supreme pastor says."
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Easter Campaign: Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($24,072 to go):
$80,000.00
$55,927.55
30%
70%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: extremeCatholic -
Oct. 22, 2003 4:50 PM ET USA
The problem is that Cardinal O'Brien doesn't act as if he knows what is "up for discussion" and what's been closed to discussion. And if something is "up for discussion" -- is the discussion prudent or imprudent at the present time?
-
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Oct. 22, 2003 9:58 AM ET USA
Translation: Debating orthodoxy with Orthodox Catholics here at the Vatican is a lot tougher (ie I lost every argument) than waxing Wiccan to the she-priest crowd back home. When I said everything was "up for discussion", I didn't think a debate meant "win-lose". I also didn't realize that Doctrine could be assented to by reason, and that dissent requires quite a publishing effort. La oops. They wiped the floor with me in the debate. I am enlightened.
-
Posted by: -
Oct. 22, 2003 7:12 AM ET USA
Translation: "Yes Holy Father, you are undoubtedly right about celibacy, contraception and homosexuality but, [in his best Joan Rivers impersonation] can we talk...?"
