Steven.... glad to see your assessment of 'Lawyers' is in agreement with Jesus. (If ur not aware of what he said about them, google "woe to you lawyers" and it will come up)

We also need to be at least 'wary' of Cardinals, they represent considerable power within the Church. The highest 'rank' in the New Testament is 'Bishop' which is simply suggestive of an elder endowed with wisdom and high moral standing, who also happens to be:

"The Husband of ONE wife"

Which suggests it is fine for Priests to be married. There is no rank or category of 'priest' in the New Testament. None whatsoever.

Here is a Catholic discussion about the concept for those interested:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_24111998_pnewt_en.html

The danger of 'big' religion with 'big' organizational structures is the same for Christianity as for Islam. There can be a fine line between having the power and "using" it to 'remove' (to use the politest term) enemies of the faith.

No matter which way we go, the Body of Christ will always have some kind of network and structure, although personally I feel a loose network is best, and avoidance of direct political control is most preferable.

The Biblical idea, even since Kings took power, (or were given it in many cases) was for the voice of the prophet to call the King to account, and back to God. Whenever they went off the rails, morally and spiritually the nation suffered.

Without a moral GPS, we are at the mercy of the loudest voice.

Father of Night asks –
“Why is it that some people take the words 'separation of church and state' to mean elimination of the church?”

The answer is simple enough: hatred. This is old news, isn’t it?

Denny sees this, re Jocelyn Scutt. Jocelyn is playing the long game on abortion, so she will do all she can to discredit the Catholic Church on any subject at all, so she can roll it out next time there’s an abortion flare-up.

But, none of this answers the real church-and-state issue.

Admiral von Schneider says –
“Cardinal Pell has simply stated that his Church judges embryonic stem cell research to be morally repugnant and that politicians who regard themselves Catholics should, as a matter of conscience, vote against it.”

True enough.

On the other hand, Pericles says –
“Pell … is categorically stating that Catholic members of Parliament should adhere to Catholic doctrine ahead of the constituency they represent.”

This is probably where the problem lies. If there is a clearly visible direct clash between Catholic doctrine and the views of a Catholic politician’s constituency, then that politician might have to go with the constituency or resign from office.

But, there would need to be a direct clash. And it’s worth bearing in mind that there may not be many. Further, I’m not exactly clear how one determines the views of one’s constituency, apart from local referendums.

Pericles’ solution is – “It would seem reasonable, if this is the case, to ask all prospective members to state this to their constituency prior to their election, so that the public at large knows what to expect from their elected member. Similarly with any other religious order that places obedience to a "higher authority" - whether or not this is in the form of an earthly individual - above their duty to their people.”

This might be right, except that it would have to apply to all politicians, not just religious ones. They might all have to show their hand. After all, they all have views, consciences, associations, allegiances …

Pax,

It is impossible to get your moral rules from an unquestioned authority, whether it's a parent, Pell, the Pope, or a mythical being. Doing something because Pell (or anyone) says it's moral to do so isn't being moral, it's being an amoral rule-follower.

The answers from an 'unquestioned authority' certainly seems a lot smarter than those who condone the murder of unborn babies and then try and excuse it by unscientific science! Give me that 'unquestioned authority' that has led to the prosperity and peace of the West for decades as opposed to that humanistic philosophy that has led to death and poverty everywhere.

Anybody who derides what Pell had to say and waffles about seperation of church and state obviously thinks that someone who believes in a particular faith or strand of that faith should do that only on Sunday, or whichever is the preferred day of worship. There would be many who do just that, but some take their beliefs very seriously.

The article suggesting bribery is silly. The point is can a truly devout person of whichever faith vote against his beliefs? I can't see how they can. The Bishops, Imams, Rabbis and whatnot are doing their job by reminding their followers of particular responsibilities. A plus is that the rest of us then know what our elected oficial is likely to vote.

For a Catholic not to be able to participate in Holy Communion is far, far worse than being asked to leave Emily's group. There is no comparison whatsoever. That was a silly analogy without any insight. Holy Communion is more than just a 'church ritual', the Catholic Church is more than just a lobby group.

That is why I would prefer a person standing for election be open about having any religious beliefs at all. I think it should be mandatory to declare.

BOAZ-David,

Priesthoods go back to Shamanism. In our path of history priesthoods evolved in Sumer 4,000 years before the Messiahic period when the Jews were under Roman occupation. Jesus teachings were assimilated into Church structure - that is usurped. We ahve Paul and Constintine [perhap's Constitine's mother] to blame that one.

Another example is the title of "Defender of the Faith", given by the Pope soleyto the Catholic Henry VIII for his a Theological Thesis he wrote. The British Monarch descendents of warlords, Germanic houses and norseman viking raders, usurped the title. What right does one with artificial designation of Monarch of England have to the head/defender of a religion. Anglicanism, without sanction from the catholic and universal Christian, set it self-up. A state religion. Why can't a Jew, Muslim or Catholic, or, Athiest be Queen of England?