quote: The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs has said Catholics should not receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage.
Bishop Michael Sheridan said voters should receive the sacrament only if they recant and repent in the confessional. However, he said no one will be enforcing the rule in the Communion line.
While several U.S. bishops have issued similar warnings to Catholic lawmakers who defy church teaching in policymaking, Sheridan is believed to be the first to expand that directive to voters this election year.
I've heard of church officials recommending someone for the members to vote for, but saying that someone can't receive a rite because of who they vote for goes a bit too far.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
A bit?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Sarcasm.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I don't think it comes close to violating church/state as the quoted person claims. It is interesting, however, that they don't extend the ban to politicians with other anti-Catholic records such as supporting the death penalty or the war in Iraq. Different sects of Christianity have been obsessed with sex for a long time, but American Catholics are definitely facing a crisis of identity (better than 50% of seminary students survey as gay, for example).
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
RRR--my comment was sarcastic as well.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Ah, well...
::Repairs sarcasm detector::
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I wonder if he's good friends with the bishop in Lincoln, Nebraska. He makes statements like that too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You need to understand the Catholic faith a bit more before you make such pronouncements. The Catholic Church has no dogmatic statement on capital punishment. The Bishops and the Pope, speaking as spiritual leaders, have condemned it. However, the Pop has not issued a statement from the chair that Catholics must oppose it.
The Church's teaching on abortion (and stem cell research for the same reason) is official Church dogma. The teaching is not that abortion is immoral, but that abortion is functionally murder. Therefore, supporting discrimination as to who receives the protection of murder statutes is an outright denial of this dogma. Another part of official Church dogma is that people not in full communion with the Church should not receive communion.
You say it's "going to far," but the Bishop said he wasn't going to enforce it. In other words, he reminded Catholics of two important tenets of their faith and told them they should follow them. That's a spiritual leader's job.
Dagonee
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Hmm.
Dag, I'm an estranged Catholic, but I'm under the impression that homophobia's a longstanding tenet in Church dogma. Would you agree that if this bishop told homosexuals they can't receive Mass, he's just serving his role as a spiritual leader?
By the way, I need to tap that post you made in response to me oh-so-long ago. Since it looks like I seem to have a day off today, I may actually get the chance to do so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, that reminds me, I meant to add that I don't see how the gay-marriage stance falls into the abortion category, as long as the person supporting equal civil marriage rights differentiates between religious marriage.
Edit: And, no - a Bishop telling homosexuals not to attend Mass would not be properly serving as a spiritual leader. In fact, I've never heard of anyone being told not to attend Mass.
Dagonee
[ May 15, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and "homophobia's a longstanding tenet in Church dogma" is just not true. However, this brings up the entire discussion we haven't finished, as well as misapplication of the word "homophobia" to a situation it's not necessarily suited to, so I'll delay discussion until you respond to that post.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was under the impression that Dagonee and Lalo are the same person. In this thread, you don't appear to be. Have I been mistaken?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In the cathoilc church, is there a difference between attending mass and taking communion (I think that's what it's called)? I mean, would it be acceptable for someone to attend mass even though they are not supposed to take communion?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets see, one's a rabid young liberal proad and boastful of his sexuality, the others a thoughtful moderate, former conservative, in law school with a fiance.
Sounds like the same people to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In the cathoilc church, is there a difference between attending mass and taking communion (I think that's what it's called)? I mean, would it be acceptable for someone to attend mass even though they are not supposed to take communion?
Absolutely - in fact, you're supposed to if for some reason you're not in a state to receive communion. For example, if you've commited grave sin, you're not supposed to receive communion until you go to confession for it. However, being in that state does not relieve you of the obligation to attend Mass. The rules on Communion are strict because Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. This doesn't imply a physical transformation, but a substantive one. People who are not receiving Communion are still participating in the sacrifice of Mass (I think - I'm a little fuzzy on that part of it).
fugu13: When did I lose my conservative credentials?
BTW, the Crypto API wasn't available - they said they could reconfigure to make it available, but I just decided to go with a dictionary lookup of passwords bearing no relation to the username, and hence unpredictable. This only worked because I know how big the table's going to get - it wouldn't work in true production environments. Thanks for the suggestions.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Whoa, when did this become dogma? Just a couple years ago, the only things other than the Nicene Creed that's dogma are the Marian beliefs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First, I'm not sure that general assertion is correct. Original Sin isn't in the Nicene Creed yet is part considered dogma:
quote: The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.
Further, dogma is not that narrowly defined:
quote:Well, a "dogma" is a divinely revealed teaching. It may be defined solemnly as was done in the case of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary, or it can be defined "in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life" (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary s.v. "Dogma"). As Hardon notes, a dogma is a "[d]octrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation" (Ibid.). And it is clear that the grave immorality of the direct and voluntary taking of an innocent human life--which includes deliberate or procured abortion--is a divinely revealed teaching:
"This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."
John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), section 62.3 (i.e., 3rd paragraph in section 62).
Third, the Marian beliefs are at the center of Church opposition to abortion. The belief that the stain of original sin was removed from Mary at conception requires that conception be the starting point of personhood.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Backing up again, I think Dag's first point is that there is a difference between saying "can't" and saying "shouldn't"
As for the prohibition on abortion being dogmatic... that might be a stretch, but the catechism does link abortion to the murder commandment whereas I think the death penalty stricture is more of a "at this time we feel it is inappropriate". Do you have a copy of Humanae Vitae, handy, Mack? you could probably answer your own question on the church's teaching better than I if you do.
What is and isn't dogmatic to Catholics is a tough subject to crack, at times.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
hehehe... then you could look up Evangelium Vitae, too like Dag did, I suppose.
Dag, I'm not sure that papal encyclicals count as Ex Cathedra statements, but they are important blocks of Church teaching to say the least.
[ May 15, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
They gotta say ex cathedra. And that doesn't happen often.
Catholic church keeps getting more and more effed up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
grrrrr.....
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why is it considered polite to call someone's Church f^%$ed up?
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Maybe because I'm also a member of that church and allowed to criticize it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, its her church too.
edit: yeah, and that.
[ May 15, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a difference between criticizing something and profane (even pretty cleaned up profane) name-calling.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
There's also legitimate dissent. And that sort of cleaned of "profane" is in line with stuff like freaking or frigging or what have you.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And if you or the bishop had the slightest clue as to Catholic Doctrine, you would know that clergy are the servants of the Church, not its masters. The Church is the laity/membership. Servants do not order the Church about.
Contrary to CardinalRatsinger's pronouncement, the Church is a democracy. Under God's Will, not the hierarchy's. The "divine right of kings and bishops" has long been repudiated. And if certain bishops wanna push for a Schism by trying to usurp the rights of the Church members: servants are replaceable. They'll find themselves out of the RomanCatholicChurch, leading a small band of heretics.
[ May 15, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That actually happened to a bishop who refused to follow Vatican II, Lefevbre was his name. He took a good number of followers with him.
The catholic hierarchy does have a history of going against the laity, even against specially appointed commissions. One such group was appointed after Vatican II to study the issue of artificial birth control. This group presented the recommendation to allow the use of artificial birth control by the Catholic laity--but the Pope decided against it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And if you or the bishop had the slightest clue as to Catholic Doctrine, you would know that clergy are the servants of the Church, not its masters. And the Church is the laity/membership. Servants do not order the Church about.
Slightest clue? The Catholic Church is not a democracy on matters of morality, nor is it a democracy when it comes to the sacraments. Priests take very serious vows to bestow sacraments according to the teachings of the Church.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
What part of the Church is not the hierarchy don't you get?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What part of The Catholic Church is not a democracy on matters of morality, nor is it a democracy when it comes to the sacraments. Priests take very serious vows to bestow sacraments according to the teachings of the Church do you not understand?
I never said the Church was the hierarchy.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:You need to understand the Catholic faith a bit more before you make such pronouncements.
Yes. Please understand that the Catholic Church loves money and likes to fancy itself god, sometimes it even enjoys calling people witches and then murdering 300,000 people in the name of peace.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Silverblue, was that statement really called for?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
The Catholic Church can judge people but people cannot judge the catholic church?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Has the Catholic Church murdered hundreds of thousands of people? yes
Does the Catholic Church love money? yes
Does the Catholic Church believe it is god? yes
So how can a list of facts be innapropriate?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
The first one is a fact, albeit a pretty antiquated one, but the last two seem like opinions of the fact-giver. Unless, of course, ther is significant evidence to the contrary.
[ May 15, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
You gonna say a trillionaire doesnt love money?
That's like saying the invasion in Iraq has NOTHING to do with oil.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Congrats guys! This is the fastest degrading non-gay marriage thread I've seen yet!
Edit: I'm just so glad right now that my Protestant beliefs are conistantly intolerant, rather than arbitrarily so.
[ May 15, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: Priests take very serious vows to bestow sacraments according to the teachings of the Church do you not understand?
Exactly. For the Catholic Church, it is all about the teachings of the CHURCH, not the Teachings of Jesus Christ.
I mean come on, The Church allowed thousands of Child molesters to Preach, Teach and receive communion, but if I believe that condoms can be useful in a society of 280,000,000 people I'm banned?
Ha!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't see where having a lot of money means you love it. My mom had ten kids, does that means she loves them more than someone who has struggled with infertility for years?
The clergy are the shepherds to a flock. A flock cannot function democratically on its own. Is there a church that does not have either a claim of direct revelation from God or specially trained clergy?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No one's been banned. Nor has anyone been denied Communion for any policy on condoms.
Facts are your friend.
Well, clearly not your friend, but they are the friends of people who like to make a valid point.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Thing is...sheep are dumb.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, no, Dagonee. The Catholic Church is a single entity, possessing all of the traits of its worst members throughout its entire history and none of the traits of its best. Clearly no good the Church has ever accomplished can be acknowledged because all of its members, poor parish priests, missionaries, nuns and all, are only in it for the money and power. Duh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks Mabus, sarcasticmuppet, pooka, and Chris.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The good that the church's members--and even the church--still stands. There are individual priests and monks and nuns who are amazing people.
But in terms of the hierarchy--something nasty happened. The child molestation scandal, the threats of denying communion, the end of dialogue about women in the priesthood or even diaconate, ignoring the panel that it appointed about the path to take on artificial birth control...and others.
In Massachusetts, they're closing eighty some-odd parishes in order to cover settlements from the molestation lawsuits.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Okay so here's the problem with the statement as I understand it from the article. The bishop said that catholics who vote for elected officials who support stem cell research should be excommunicated. The reason for this most likely has to do with the church's pro-life stance. However that means you have to vote for the other guy. Now an interesting trend that you might note is that often people who are against abortion and things like stem cell research are for things like the death penalty. And while this might not be the case everywhere it is frequently true. So with this statement, as I understand it from the atricle, (I should find the statement) he's not saying you shouldn't vote for people who support the death penalty. But really the reasons for not voting for these people is the same.
Generally I have lots of problems with Bishops making large blanket statements saying things like if you belong to group X you are excommunicated. I understand that they are trying to educate the members of the church on the teachings of the church. However, it always seems like perhaps statements like these get people defensive and do more harm than the good they could do. And sin is a very personal thing. It's basically defined as turning away by choice from God's grace. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm I don't like statements that says you're a sinner but I don't know you and I don't know your circumstances or your heart but you you're definately a sinner.
I'm comparing this statement to the one made by the bishop in Lincoln that is posted here:
Although, this list seems shoter than i recall it being.
edit: I realized I should note that I did read about the chruch not having officially condemned the death penalty. However, I feel that life is life and if one is going to say that people shouldn't kill people it really should pretty much be fair across the board.
[ May 15, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: sarahdipity ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Generally I have lots of problems with Bishops making large blanket statements saying things like if you belong to group X you are excommunicated.
No one has said this.
quote:I realized I should note that I did read about the chruch not having officially condemned the death penalty. However, I feel that life is life and if one is going to say that people shouldn't kill people it really should pretty much be fair across the board.
Please tell me you can recognize a moral difference between infanticide and the execution of a criminal after due process of law. Not that a reasonable person can't decide both should be outlawed, but that it's possible to be against one and not the other.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
If not for the Catholic Church, we'd all be homosexuals!
The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the only thing that stands between humanity and the ULTIMATE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Not if you believe in the sanctity of life. It isn't consistent to be against abortion and FOR the death penalty. Life is life and we aren't supposed to judge.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
The Holy Roman Catholic Church died for your sins!
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote:The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the only thing that stands between humanity and the ULTIMATE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote: ..."which lurks just outside the range of even the most sensitive, long-range detectors which we feel gives conclusive evidence as to The Ultimate Evil's nefarious intent."
[ May 15, 2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Is the Catholic Church worthy of its TRILLION dollar price tag?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not if you believe in the sanctity of life. It isn't consistent to be against abortion and FOR the death penalty. Life is life and we aren't supposed to judge.
I'm against murder. I'm in favor of allowing people to kill in self-defense. Almost every American holds that belief. So obviously thinking killing is wrong in SOME circumstances is logically self-consistent.
Dagonee P.S. TSS, you are a raving as...well, you can fill in the blanks.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
If the intent is still to kill even when in self defense--by the teaching of catholic theology, it's still murder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Any cite on that? That's not how I was taught.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even the American Bishop Conference, which opposes the death penalty, says, ""We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty." (Emphasis added.) cite
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay...what is your point?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That there are conditions where it might be acceptable. In other words, that it's not a blanket rule.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
In ancient society, where it was nigh impossible to keep a murderer away from society and keep him from murdering again. Now with our ability to incarcerate indefinitely, capital punishment isn't needed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But that's an entirely different statement than it is illogical to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I can recognize the difference. But since I say I am pro-life I believe that I have to be against the death penalty as well. By killing someone you take away their ability to repent. I mean this is pretty horrible.
And in any case sin isn't really supposed to be compared as in this one is worse than that one.
As far as the self defense thing I believe that killing in self defense is not a sin. I mean it's just like being raped doesn't mean you've committed adultry. But the death penalty isn't really self defense in my opinion.
I guess my point was I don't like generalizations. It's just a me thing. I think they hurt people. I think they stop important dialog and impede understanding. And when this type of thing happens I feel like people stop understanding each other and just get mad. But I don't know whose fault it is media misinterpreting statement, poor wording, or somethign else. It's usually hard to tell and I don't know a lot about this particular situation. I'm actually probably a little biased by what happened in Lincoln. This statement was a "those engaging in _____ should not recieve communion" where as when I read about the thing in linocln it was a "those part of ____ are excommunicated". I guess there's a difference.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am also pro-life and anti death penalty. I used to be pro death penalty, and at the time I felt pretty confident that it was not a contradiction, that there was a huge difference between the taking of a completely innocent life (unborn baby) and taking the life of someone that had proved themselves to be a danger to society and that might be a danger again someday.
Now, like sarahdipity, I feel that taking away a person's opportunity to repent is decidedly not a stance I think Jesus would take. Every person is a sinner and every person deserves the same opportunity for redemption. Society has no place taking that away from someone, not when life in prison provides society ample protection from a murderer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't necessarily disagree with that.
However, death penalty and abortion are treated very differently by the Catholic Church, which means different treatment for abortion rights supporters and pro-death penalty folks is internally consistent. That's all I've been saying.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Was it not the Catholic church that coined the term “consistent ethic of life,” meaning anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-assisted suicide, etc? Or was that just specific Catholic ethicists, and not official church teaching?
(The idea that it’s one consistent ethic, I mean. I know that official church teaching is anti-all of the above.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Methinks Thor has lost it completely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Did he ever have it? The first post of his I ever saw was easily the most offensive thing I've ever seen on Hatrack.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Occasionally he posts while not under chemical influence (or less so?), and is fairly coherent. Last night would not be one of those times . . .
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:The first post of his I ever saw was easily the most offensive thing I've ever seen on Hatrack.
Wow.
That's a big bowl of chunk you are chewing on Dagonee. Which post was it? Was it the one about how religion did not create God, or was it the one about how Ben Affleck was a lousy Daredevil?
This is all a very interesting debate, a good question...
How much moral authority does the Catholic Church have right now?
More than Michael Jackson and less than Jesus Christ, but is it higher than Susan Summers or L. Ron Hubbard?
Of 6.8 people on Earth we sure come up with cool questions.
I judge got an urge for the new caramel ho-ho!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it was the one about how the Vatican is currently pimping little boys. The one that lasted about two minutes.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I repeat.
How much moral authority does the Catholic Church have right now?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Our church (LDS) doesn't have a firm stance on stem cell research, but they also don't have a firm stance on In Vitro Fertilization or condoms, for that matter.
Still, I find it repugnant that an LDS senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, supports stem cell research and the death penalty. It's because he known the baby boomers are very concerned about medical treatments.
I don't know how many regenerated livers one unborn baby's life is worth. Aside from my belief that they never will learn how to regenerate a liver. The Parkinson's disease treatment is somewhat more likely, but I still wonder... what it means when we give doctors the right to do things that would be considered monstrous for a regular person to do. I guess they are rather like priests that way.
[ May 17, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Aside from my belief that they never will learn how to regenerate a liver.
Yeah. Since livers already regenerate by themselves . . .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: what it means when we give doctors the right to do things that would be considered monstrous for a regular person to do. I guess they are rather like priests that way.
OK, Pooka, I'll bite. What monsterous things do we (LDS) give priests the right to do?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I repeat.
How much moral authority does the Catholic Church have right now?
As much or more than any other human institution currently in existence. How's that?
Especially since "The Church isn't the hierarchy."
Dagonee Edit: And you still haven't even deigned to apologize for you baseless, malicious, allegations from that thread.
[ May 18, 2004, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, Dag, why isn't the Church the hierarchy? I can understand that claim when made about, say, Baptists, but I don't see it for Mormons, Catholics, or any other group that still believes that their leaders are divinely inspired.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, that was a comment posted by someone else to condemn the Communion warning - I was using it ironically to further separate the Church as institution from the bad acts of some of the members of the hierarchy.
Formally, however, the statement is true in many ways. Here's a summary from the Catechism:
quote:777 The word "Church" means "convocation." It designates the assembly of those whom God's Word "convokes," i.e., gathers together to form the People of God, and who themselves, nourished with the Body of Christ, become the Body of Christ.
778 The Church is both the means and the goal of God's plan: prefigured in creation, prepared for in the Old Covenant, founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ, fulfilled by his redeeming cross and his Resurrection, the Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. She will be perfected in the glory of heaven as the assembly of all the redeemed of the earth (cf. Rev 14:4).
779 The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can accept.
780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.
This means that the hierarchy (especially limited to the current hierarchy) is a small part of the Church. In the context of this thread, it is important to note that priests are responsible for administering the Sacraments, and part of that responsibility is to take needed care to assure they are administered in accordance with Catholic beliefs. But it is the community of believers in Christ throughout history that comprise the Church.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I just figured out my mistake. Lalo is Daedelus (sp?), not Dagonee. I am still trying to keep straight the multiple names... *sigh*
![[Wink]](wink.gif)