:: like mike ::

The exciting life of mike.. a zen libertarian law student
:: welcome to like mike :: bloghome | contact ::
[::..archive..::]
[::..recommended..::]
:: google [>]
:: Eugene Volokh [>]
:: The Fly Bottle [>]
:: Downtime [>]

:: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 ::

Exam number one coming up: First Amendment.
:: Mike 8:32 AM [+] ::
...
I would like to clarify the previous post, because I have gotten some feedback on it. When I was a Catholic, it felt like disobedience of the Church or disagreement with one of her key teachings was just way too scarry to deal with. I still think it is. Perhaps in some ways, I think that this is one of the key failings of the church--that it scares people into agreement. It wasn't unitl I felt like the Church was wrong about her claims as to the nature god or the existence of hell (i.e. her most basic claims) that I could even allow myself to think that the Church could possibly be wrong about morality. I just have a hard time identifying with the idea of "Catholics for disagreement/disobedience of the Church". It seems kind of like "soldiers for disobedience of the army". I actually think that Catholics that can consider themselves pro-choice probably are pretty good people. At least they don't let the Church get in the way of making serious moral choices. They are probably the Catholics most worth supporting. But on the other hand, it is their sense of willfully making moral decisions in disobedience to some of the Church's most vigerous teachings--and yet professing to be loyal--that makes me feel like they don't take either their strong stand (pro-choice) against the teachings of the church or their support of the Church too seriously.

Perhaps I'm just mad that I believed that being a Catholic meant supporting the church in everything, but they don't. :(.
:: Mike 8:30 AM [+] ::
...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?