In the past I’ve republished statements put out by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, which appear to have been, essentially, issued to the world at large. The following statement by a retired Swiss bishop seems to be along those lines as well, so I’m offering it here because of its very direct message. Of course, the bishop’s words are his own.
The Bishop's words are very eloquent and very well support the Christian faith. Thank you Mark for sharing them. I only have this to add:
To me, what the Bishop characterizes as the prudent and the ethical intersect. If you believe from the Bible that your body is a temple of God and is rightfully to be respected as such, you believe knowingly harming it is a sin. If you then believe that taking a COVID-19 Vax is harmful to your body (or at least more harmful than not taking it given whatever other precautions you may take), you will believe that taking it is a sin. If you believe in religious liberty, being coerced to take it against your will is also a sin. Acceding to that coercion and to the harm of your body are both then sins in your sight. This violation of conscience is wholly apart from the issue of aborted fetal tissue being used for testing of the vax (an isssue that provides its own basis for objection). I have been disappointed to see how little this argument has been referenced in this controversy - especially given that it is my own argument.
The other point I would like to make is that although "church documents" may have their strengths and weaknesses, the Bible as the inerrant word of God can be depended on to be true (as is written in many verses within it). As long as faith rests in the Word of God, faith can rest assured.
What a shame that the good Cardinal will never be viewed by the Conclave as a worthy successor to Francis the Red, who is destroying the Church with his every thought, word and deed.
Much writing, sad to say, amounts to anything but action, even when action is what is most needed. Here, the good Bishop's words suffer not at all from such impotence.
While I would be so bold as to very lightly quibble with the implication that Christ somehow needs our help in order to triumph (and would prefer to put the onus on Man and say that if we freely choose to do right by Heaven, then we, here on earth, most certainly *will* end up triumphant), I applaud every other word written.
It really is a shame that our woke and commie left, as they have willfully, methodically done to so many key aspects of the English language, long ago destroyed the phrase "speak truth to power." This is definitely a case where those words, if they still had any meaning, would very much apply.
(PS: If regular church attendance and other technical measures are the guide, I'm pretty much a lock to be one of the world's least impressive Catholics, so I don't want anything written above to make it seem that I see myself as anything more than that. That said, I mean it all exactly as it came out.)
The Bishop's words are very eloquent and very well support the Christian faith. Thank you Mark for sharing them. I only have this to add:
To me, what the Bishop characterizes as the prudent and the ethical intersect. If you believe from the Bible that your body is a temple of God and is rightfully to be respected as such, you believe knowingly harming it is a sin. If you then believe that taking a COVID-19 Vax is harmful to your body (or at least more harmful than not taking it given whatever other precautions you may take), you will believe that taking it is a sin. If you believe in religious liberty, being coerced to take it against your will is also a sin. Acceding to that coercion and to the harm of your body are both then sins in your sight. This violation of conscience is wholly apart from the issue of aborted fetal tissue being used for testing of the vax (an isssue that provides its own basis for objection). I have been disappointed to see how little this argument has been referenced in this controversy - especially given that it is my own argument.
The other point I would like to make is that although "church documents" may have their strengths and weaknesses, the Bible as the inerrant word of God can be depended on to be true (as is written in many verses within it). As long as faith rests in the Word of God, faith can rest assured.
Another Voice Of Conscience, Angelo Codevilla, has apparently died in a drunk-driver car crash, according to NRO etc.
What a shame that the good Cardinal will never be viewed by the Conclave as a worthy successor to Francis the Red, who is destroying the Church with his every thought, word and deed.
Much writing, sad to say, amounts to anything but action, even when action is what is most needed. Here, the good Bishop's words suffer not at all from such impotence.
While I would be so bold as to very lightly quibble with the implication that Christ somehow needs our help in order to triumph (and would prefer to put the onus on Man and say that if we freely choose to do right by Heaven, then we, here on earth, most certainly *will* end up triumphant), I applaud every other word written.
It really is a shame that our woke and commie left, as they have willfully, methodically done to so many key aspects of the English language, long ago destroyed the phrase "speak truth to power." This is definitely a case where those words, if they still had any meaning, would very much apply.
(PS: If regular church attendance and other technical measures are the guide, I'm pretty much a lock to be one of the world's least impressive Catholics, so I don't want anything written above to make it seem that I see myself as anything more than that. That said, I mean it all exactly as it came out.)
Amen