Our wonderful moderator Carla, who has a unique post-abortion ministry, gave her testimony 4x during worship services yesterday at Faith Community Church, in Hudson, WI.
Carla is a gifted speaker with a touching story. She is there for you if you need her at Carla@jillstanek.com.
Carla, I love you~ you are so brave to share your story so openly, to help others. I am so thankful for you.Posted by: Bethany at March 16, 2009 3:49 PM
I love you too Carla. You are faithfully spreading the message of grace and healing in Jesus. Great job!Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 3:52 PM
God Bless you Carla for your beautiful witness for LIFE! I pray that one day your message will be heard by all.Posted by: Janet at March 16, 2009 4:07 PM
Carla, that was well done. Spoken from the heart and with love. I wish you well and am glad you have found some peace.
Posted by: Hal
at March 16, 2009 4:24 PM
Oh the awesome and wondrous power of our Lord Jesus Christ and the faithfulness of His follower, Carla. When we are weak He is strong.
Yes He can take the ashes of destruction and turn them into works of beauty.
Praise God, for He is good......all of the time.Posted by: HisMan at March 16, 2009 4:29 PM
Carla, I don't know what to say other than "thank you." Thank you for caring and for following Christ in loving obedience in this ministry. I will join the posters above in saying that I love you, too. :)Posted by: Kel at March 16, 2009 4:29 PM
Wow, what a touching coincidence...
I had a miscarriage at 11 weeks and named the baby Jamie.Posted by: Janette at March 16, 2009 4:39 PM
Seek forgiveness if you think you need it but I really don't think its required in matters of taking care of one's own health. One person's perception of their own "sinfulness" is not a reflection on the "sinfulness" of others who may have had the same experiences but who perceive them differently.Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 16, 2009 4:48 PM
Killing your baby isn't a matter of "taking care of one's own health."
Carla understands this, and is deeply repentant.
To cause someone to believe their sin to not be a sin is one of the worst things you can do to a person.Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 4:54 PM
Yo La Tengo - who are you referring to? Are you referring to the "others" Carla sought out in the crowd who may want someone to turn to for help in their situation?Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 5:26 PM
To cause someone to believe their sin to not be a sin is one of the worst things you can do to a person.
Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 4:54 PM
I think telling someone that something they did is a sin is pretty bad.Posted by: hal at March 16, 2009 5:27 PM
Hal, no telling someone that what they did is a sin is a very loving thing to do, especially if the world is telling them that it isn't.
It means you care enough about them to care about their soul. The first step to forgiveness is admitting that you've done something wrong.Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:30 PM
YLT, way to go... belittling and dismissing someone else's life story ... who gives you the right?
Carla, you know I love you. This was difficult to listen to but must have been more difficult to tell. Hugs to you.Posted by: Elisabeth at March 16, 2009 5:33 PM
The first step to forgiveness is admitting that you've done something wrong.
Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:30 PM
I'll agree with that. But if you tell someone that they've sinned when they haven't (or if "sin" doesn't exist), well, that's just cruel.Posted by: hal at March 16, 2009 5:35 PM
Well, Hal, God clearly states that killing is a sin.
I'm not advocating yelling SINNER and throwing stones, I'm just saying that we should call things what they are and not attempt to hide the true nature of abortion in order to spare someone's feelings.
A person's eternal salvation matters more than temporary hurt feelings. If we pretend that nothing is wrong with abortion, a woman might die never having repented of her act.
It doesn't make much sense to tell someone "Jesus died for your sins" while at the same time telling them "everything you do is ok."Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:45 PM
It doesn't make much sense to tell someone "Jesus died for your sins" while at the same time telling them "everything you do is ok."
Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:45 PM
We can both agree with that statement.
I'd delete the first part, you'd delete the second.Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2009 5:46 PM
that was me. SorryPosted by: hal at March 16, 2009 5:47 PM
Tell me anonymous, do you believe it is ok for a person to rape and murder a child?Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:48 PM
Ok Hal, then the question is directed at you.Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:49 PM
hmmm, are you expecting an answer other than "no?"
Assuming by "murder" you don't mean "abortion," and by "child" you don't mean "fetus."
Well, you just said that you agree with the statement "everything you do is ok."
Obviously there are some things you believe are NOT ok, right?Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:52 PM
There are lots of things that are not okay. I thought you were using shorthand for a broader libertarian philosophy.
Have a great day, I have to get on a plane......Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2009 5:58 PM
Hal, some libertarians believe that there should be no laws whatsoever. For all I knew you could fall into this catagory.
Of course, you don't. You believe there are things that are "wrong." Would you tell a serial killer it was wrong of him to cut up prostitutes?
There are things that you would speak out about. You wouldn't consider it cruel to do so.Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 6:11 PM
"Seek forgiveness if you think you need it but I really don't think its required in matters of taking care of one's own health. One person's perception of their own "sinfulness" is not a reflection on the "sinfulness" of others who may have had the same experiences but who perceive them differently.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 16, 2009 4:48 PM
I think telling someone that something they did is a sin is pretty bad.
Posted by: hal at March 16, 2009 5:27 PM"
Both of these posts were written by people who are devoid of the wonderful and amazing knowlege of God, which is Christ crucified. They also do not realize the lost state they are in and their need for a Savior.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8 "6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
Luke 8:9-11 "9His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
" 'though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand.'
11"This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God."
Posted by: Anonymous
at March 16, 2009 6:24 PM
you are so brave. May God continue to bless you. There is no doubt you have changed lives with your testimony..
Anon was me....Posted by: HisMan at March 16, 2009 6:40 PM
"I think telling someone that something they did is a sin is pretty bad.
Posted by: hal at March 16, 2009 5:27 PM"
Actually Hal, telling someone that what they did was sinful is an act of love. When I read what you write you make me weep inside.
Proverbs 27:5-7 "5 Better is open rebuke than hidden love. 6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."
Ezekiel 33:8-9 "8 When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 9 But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself."
Repent now Hal and turn to Jesus Christ before it is too late.
Oh Carla, I'm sorry you grew up without the love you should have had, but thankful that now you can delight in God's boundless love for you. What the Lord has done in you and through you to others is beautiful indeed!
Thank you for sharing your testimony here. May God continue to bless you with his love and mercy!Posted by: Fed Up at March 16, 2009 6:54 PM
I hope to one day know my way around the scriptures as well as you do, HisMan. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 16, 2009 6:55 PM
I can never stick around here for any length of time because every single post gets derailed - it's all insanely unproductive.Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 6:57 PM
Your testimony is great. Thanks so much for sharing it here.Posted by: Therese at March 16, 2009 7:03 PM
Pat. s, I don't see where this topic derailed.Posted by: Bethany at March 16, 2009 7:03 PM
Pat. s, also, I'd like to know how your comment was on topic or productive?Posted by: Bethany at March 16, 2009 7:05 PM
Bethany - for the purpose of expressing how this post quickly moved away from Carla's story, my comment was productive. The movement started when the definition of sin debate started. I'm too much of an idealist.Posted by: Pat S. at March 16, 2009 7:19 PM
A little bit of Islamic insight, in case you're interested.
The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said: "If you see evil, fix it with your hands, and if you cannot do that then fix it with your tongue, and if you cannot do that then know in your heart that it is evil."
I personally don't go around telling people their actions are sinful (though my husband and I jokingly whisper "haraam!" (forbidden!) to each other when we see something... haraam), and I really don't think it is useful unless the person will take something from what you say.
The other day my husband and I were with (mostly Pakistani) friends, and one of them started saying how much he disliked Saudi Arabians, and how Pakistan is so much better than Arabia. It was a joke for a while, but when he started to become serious, one of our friends reminded him that nationalism is not allowed in Islam.
If I were to go up to some people in a bar drinking and tell them that consuming alcohol is forbidden, will they listen? Of course not. In fact, I think that would do more bad than good, telling off a bunch of drunk folks.
Just my point of view. Not taking sides. Just a story. :)Posted by: Leah at March 16, 2009 7:19 PM
I lost you Pat S....what do you mean?Posted by: Jasper at March 16, 2009 7:27 PM
Jasper - I responded to Bethany about my comment being off topic and unproductive. I also said I am too much of an idealist because I think most of what has been said in the comments of this post is unrelated to the actual content of Carla's story. I hoped things would have gone in a different direction with these comments.Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 7:32 PM
btw - Carla is my beloved wife.Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 7:34 PM
Pat, I am so very sorry. I have no idea what is wrong with me today. I assumed right off the bat that you were someone trying to start something with pro-lifers -- I was completely out of line and my comment was uncalled for. I apologize.
Carla: your testimony is so moving.
Just a few thoughts:
First of all, I am struck by just how much God loves you and He has proven this to you - he's given you the wonderful gift of your husband and the gift of FOUR living children! This is such a healing blessing for you.
Secondly I was wondering if you believe that when you held your miscarried baby, Jamie and were so upset this was the point where you made a connection between what Jamie was and what Aubrey was? That you recognized you aborted a child years ago and so you began to mourn the loss of BOTH babies.
"He rescued me because he delighted in me..."
"our Lord my God, I will thank you for ever..."
AmenPosted by: angel at March 16, 2009 7:42 PM
Hi Pat, I don't know if you think I'm partially responsible for derailing the conversation. My first post was very supportive of Carla's efforts. I don't want anyone to ever have an abortion because they think they have no choice.
What works for Carla (and others I'm sure) might not be right for everyone. Carla felt guilty about her abortion and her seeking forgiveness therefore makes sense. Other women are very satisfied with the decision they made to terminate a pregnancy, and those women shouldn't be told they've sinned or need forgiveness.
That's all I was trying to say.
I have no criticisms of Carla whatsoever. I was impressed by this video.Posted by: hal at March 16, 2009 7:42 PM
Carla's story is not wasted, thousands of people visit this site...
"btw - Carla is my beloved wife."
You're very lucky Pat :)
Carla, thank you for being so brave. Your story has helped me understand & increase in compassion for the other victims of abortion, the men & women who've lost their children. I've needed this as I've been participating in 40 Days for Life & have begun sidewalk counseling. When women who have been there share these truths it is a powerful statement and debunks the myth that the pro-life side is composed of misogynist wanted to oppresss women. I hope others can seek healing by your witness of Christ's love.
YLT, taking care of one's health? Neither the physical nor mental health of the woman is "cared for" by an abortion. One study, whose researcher's intent was to disprove the link between abortion and breast cancer, found instead that it was definitive. Carefully taking into account the age of the girl or woman when she had the abortion(s), two findings were particularly staggering to me:
1) One abortion before the age of 18 increases a woman's risk for developing breast cancer 800%.
2) Of the 12 study participants who had one abortion before the age of 18 AND a family history of breast cancer, 12 had breast cancer before age 45. 100%. And you may or may not know that pre-menopausal breast cancer is typically the most difficult to treat & the most fatal.
This is only ONE aspect of her health not being "cared for". The suction abortions performed on thousands of women everyday in this country have never been proven safe in animal testing and I have just heard testimonies from two women rendered sterile by theirs. One, when consulting with a fertility doctor later on was told that the suction of the vacuum had literally pulled her fallopian tubes down to the level of her uterus. With one 90% and the other 100% blocked with the subsequent scar tissue, her chances of having her own child was nil.
I could go on & on, unfortunately. Abortion hurts women.
Posted by: klyn73
at March 16, 2009 7:43 PM
Hal - Who was Carla speaking to in the video? Where did she call others out as sinners?Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 7:49 PM
Bethany - no offense. It's all good. The first thing I should have done was to intro myself and that probably would have cleared up any suspicion you had.Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 7:52 PM
Pat, she didn't. As I say, I have no problem with anything Carla said.
I only turned "negative" when Lauren said what she did at 4:54.
Posted by: hal
at March 16, 2009 7:52 PM
Lauren at March 16, 2009 5:30 PM
Your perception of the state of someone's soul is based on nothing more than presumption. When God gives you "x-ray soul-vision" then you can speak with some authority, but if all you're going on is what your pastor said about the bible then it might be wise to keep your thoughts about other people's sinfulness to yourself.Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 16, 2009 7:55 PM
YLT - really? You keep your thoughts to yourself?Posted by: Pat S at March 16, 2009 7:59 PM
Mashallah, Carla, God is the Most Merciful. You're very beautiful, that was a touching speech.Posted by: Leah at March 16, 2009 8:02 PM
re: the "link" between abortion and breast cancer. It's completely false!Posted by: Yo La Tengo at March 16, 2009 8:03 PM
No, YLT, I can say that certain things are sins. These are laid out. I don't know the state of anyones soul, but I have an obligation to inform someone of God's law.. If they feel convicted about something they have done it is not because of me, but because of God.Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 8:05 PM
Oh and Hal, I wasn't the one who brought up to concept of sin, that was your good friend YLT.
YLT said "Seek forgiveness if you think you need it but I really don't think its required in matters of taking care of one's own health. One person's perception of their own "sinfulness" is not a reflection on the "sinfulness" of others who may have had the same experiences but who perceive them differently. "
That's what spured this entire debate.Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 8:08 PM
YLT@7:55PM -- are you not casting stones yourself?
One person's perception of their own "sinfulness" is not a reflection on the "sinfulness" of others who may have had the same experiences but who perceive them differently. "
Your moral relativity argument is easy to debunk, YLT. It's been done on other threads and need not be repeated here.
When God gives you "x-ray soul-vision" then you can speak with some authority
By whose authority do YOU speak, YLT?
it might be wise to keep your thoughts about other people's sinfulness to yourself
Ever considered taking your own advice, YLT?
Sorry to derail further, Pat S.Posted by: Fed Up at March 16, 2009 8:34 PM
Very touching Carla. Thanks for sharing and professing the GREAT love and mercy that God has shown to you.Posted by: LauraLoo at March 16, 2009 8:53 PM
What a sad story with an ending of hope! God bless you and your family.Posted by: Vannah at March 16, 2009 9:39 PM
Anon was me....
Posted by: HisMan at March 16, 2009 6:40 PM
No kidding!Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 9:45 PM
I loved the part where Carla said "...our children are/were raisng us...."
so true at times. lolPosted by: Mike at March 16, 2009 10:23 PM
You're a very good speaker, Carla.
Posted by: Erin
at March 16, 2009 10:44 PM
(Obligatory snark liberal comment: You're a good speaker, just like Obama!!!!111!!1)
Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 9:45 PM"
You're so, so kind.Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 1:05 AM
"I hope to one day know my way around the scriptures as well as you do, HisMan. God love you.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 16, 2009 6:55 PM"
Thanks.....I have a love and thirst for God's Word that I am sure He put there. I eat, breath and live His Word for they are "life".Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 1:33 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way.... you would make such an awesome Catholic. You are always welcome!!
Janet: agreed about HisMan!Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 6:48 AM
THANK YOU!! I appreciate all of the sweet comments of love and support. I was trying to process it all yesterday. :)
I think I appreciate your comment the most. It touched my heart more than you could know. You will be won by love.
Are you making trouble??!! Banned. Banned, I say.
Janet and Angel:
I could say that you both would make aweseome Christians but I won't since I know you already are. If you are implying that all Catholics are Christians but all Christians aren't Christians, I've got a problem with that logic. You are either a Christian or you are not and He knows who His sheep are for they hear His voice which is His Word. This should be confirmed (a workman that need not be ashamed) when you study your Bible to show yourself approved.
If you mean Catholic in the sense of a Christian who believes in the divinity of Christ, the universiality of God's relationship to man and the salvific effect of Christ's death on the cross to those who believe, than I am as much of a Catholic as any of you claim to be.
In fact, many Catholics are not Catholics at all but think they are by the mere fact of association or groupthink. Hence the danger of doctrines such as infant baptism, faith by generational inheritance, etc. versus adult choice and indiviudal responsibility towards God. The truth is that many nominal Catholics don't know what their Church teaches and if they do they don't live it, thus by definition of their own catachesis they profess allegiance to, disqualify themselves as members, (i.e., as in Sebelius and Pelosi).
Let me say this that Sebelius' and Pelosi's demonically inspired philosophies are concrete evidence of the lie that somehow just belonging to the right Church saves one's soul. This is a doctrine of demons and is designed by satan to lure people into a false sense of spiritual security and to keep people from the truth that it is faith in Christ alone that saves one's soul and not association with a particular "Church".
If you mean Catholic as in a sense of adopting the traditions, teachings, doctines, and heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, there's just too much deviation from Scripture for me to label myself as such.
Doesn't mean I don't think Catholics aren't saved or anything like that, just means that at this point in my life and walk, I can't make the connection between doctrinal Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.
When The Roman Cathoiic Church abandons the practice of baptizing babies and making priests the go-between agent of man and God, then I will become a Roman Catholic again.
Let me say this and this is important. In these last days it is supremeley critical that we demonstate the unity of the faith to the world that was Christ's desire and one of His last wishes expressed to the Apostles. Jesus said that the world will know we are His disciples by our love for one another, not by our association with a particular church.
So, I say, that despite our doctrinal differences, our shared faith in Christ (expressed on this site as the outrage against abortion and every other ungodliness spouted here) joins all of us in love, agape love. Christ is the answer, Chist is the focal point, Christ is it. Satan wants nothing more than for us to be divided in a vain attempt to divide Christ (as he tries to insanely kill God by ripping babies apart).
Satan could not divide Christ as not a bone was broken on the Cross at Calvary nor did Christ suffer decay in the tomb. Christ is the vine and we are the branches each bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
Shalom.Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 12:56 PM
If you mean Catholic as in a sense of adopting the traditions, teachings, doctines, and heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, there's just too much deviation from Scripture for me to label myself as such.
OK then. Never mind.Posted by: Janet at March 17, 2009 1:10 PM
"In fact, many Catholics are not Catholics at all but think they are by the mere fact of association or groupthink. ... The truth is that many nominal Catholics don't know what their Church teaches and if they do they don't live it, thus by definition of their own catachesis they profess allegiance to, disqualify themselves as members, (i.e., as in Sebelius and Pelosi)."
Ha. Don't remind me.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 1:15 PM
No offense intended, however, when you get a few momments read the entire post as it explains my position.
Most of my relatives are Catholic. I am a spiritual black sheep in their eyes. To them being a Catholic and hence a good Christian, means attending Mass, burying an upside down statue of St. Jude in their yards for good luck, doing a St. Joseph table, etc. Their faith reeks of superstition. None of them have any clue as to what's in Scripture regarding true Christianity.
Do they believe in Christ as Savior, yes, however that's typically where it ends. They have a form of godliness but has no power to transform or save.
Some are pro-choice, some have no problem owning businesses that take advantage of others, etc. It's just not like they're persuing God wholeheartedley.
It's very, very sad.Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 1:35 PM
I'm sorry to have been so blunt...I'm not offended by your comment which I read in its entirety, it's just that I'd rather not get into the whole discussion in depth. It was meant to be a compliment and I was just a bit disappointed that you didn't take it as such. When I first started posting here long ago, I assumed you were Catholic and I haven't been able to get that out of my head even though I KNOW you are not. Ignore or humor me if I bring it up again in the future.
Posted by: Janet
at March 17, 2009 1:49 PM
"burying an upside down statue of St. Jude in their yards for good luck"
Let me just say that I too condemn this practice (though I think traditionally people bury St. JOseph statue upside down). There is no doubt that it is superstitious. Of course, you also know how I feel about "pro-choice Catholics." God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 1:57 PM
HisMan: you may wish to read/talk to Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi and Steve Wood. It was the study of the scriptures and the eary Church fathers that brought them into the Catholic church.
I don't believe that other Christians (outside of Catholicism) CAN'T make it to Heaven. But I do believe that the fullness of Christ's truth and teaching is best expressed in the Catholic Church and that it offers the best surest way to Heaven.
That however, is a topic for another blog!
I do deeply repect your knowledge of scripture.
Also I see nothing wrong with sacramentals - medals, statues, icons and so forth. These are all things that help to remind us of God. Used properly they help inspire devotion.
I've said novenas to sell homes and they've worked. I've also used blessed salt and oil in my home and on the sick respectively. I see nothing wrong with these practices.
There, I'm done!Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 3:08 PM
HisMan, those are the same practices that have kept me out of the Catholic church. You were far more eloquent and gentle than I think I would have been, even thought it was obviously meant as a compliment.
Agreed though, that what holds us together is more important than what separates us and it is together that all of God's children must work together to protect the innocents.Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 5:30 PM
"HisMan: you may wish to read/talk to Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi and Steve Wood. It was the study of the scriptures and the eary Church fathers that brought them into the Catholic church.
I don't believe that other Christians (outside of Catholicism) CAN'T make it to Heaven. But I do believe that the fullness of Christ's truth and teaching is best expressed in the Catholic Church and that it offers the best surest way to Heaven.
That however, is a topic for another blog!
I do deeply repect your knowledge of scripture.
Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 3:05 PM"
I don't mind at all reading others opinions about the RCC. Give me some titles.
I do know this....the RCC has changed a lot since just 30 years ago. I admire their stand on abortion. The teaching of Pope Paul are excellent. They just do so much good in God's name. Perhaps I am being too harsh.
Is it true that some churces baptize by immersion now?
Elisabeth is right, we are all on the same boat together.
I do think God knows what's in our hearts and I wish no harm to the RCC. In fact, my silent protest is that they line themsleves up more closely with Scripture which is my way of continually offering up a prayer for their good. If God wants me to return to the RCC I will do it in a heartbeat.Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 6:12 PM
Give me some titles
HisMan, Scott Hahn was a protestant minister who converted to catholicism. All his books are good. I especially like The Lamb's Supper. One of the things I like most about his writing is that he ties in the Old Testament with the New, the old covenant with the new in such a beautiful way. If you have EWTN on your cable carrier, you'll often find him on shows there. He's got great info on his site at http://www.salvationhistory.com/
Another resource I found helpful is Marcus Grodi's forum
It's a good place to ask a question and get accurate information. Marcus is also a protestant minister who converted to catholicism. His apostolate is assisting other protestant clergy converts in the issues they face, like losing their job. He's got a show every Monday night at 8pm EST on EWTN.
Wishing you peace and the fullness of God's love.Posted by: Fed Up at March 17, 2009 7:38 PM
I would love to give you some recommended titles to read if you're interested. In fact, I'd like to recommend something if you want. If you don't mind, let me know the one or two things that really bug you the most about Catholicism; the place where you really see the Catholic Church as terribly deviating from scripture. Since I know you're extremely knowledgeable about scripture, I'll try and recommend something that attempts to discuss the Catholic position using a lot of scripture. And HisMan, I would love to read anything you would like me to read too. I too, just want to go wherever Jesus wants me to. I owe everything to him. Whatever he wishes of me, that is what I must do.
"Is it true that some churces baptize by immersion now?"
Yes, in fact, it has always been the tradition of the Church that one may baptize by immersion or sprinkling. The Catechism says that both are valid forms, but that immersion is a fuller sign.
"we are all on the same boat together."
Of course, I agree here. While our differences are profound and can not be put away, we are stand solid on a good 90% of the issues, especially the stand against talking innocent human life. I am very proud to have you on my side there, my friend. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 7:46 PM
"When The Roman Cathoiic Church abandons the practice of baptizing babies and making priests the go-between agent of man and God, then I will become a Roman Catholic again"
HisMan (or others) what's the objecgtion to baptizing babies? I didn't know that was controversial.
.Posted by: hal at March 17, 2009 7:54 PM
"what's the objecgtion to baptizing babies? I didn't know that was controversial. . "
Hey Hal. Well, I think it really boils down to how one understands baptism. For the Catholic, baptism is a "sacrament of initiation," the way one initially enters God's new covenant. We also understand baptism as a necessary condition for salvation (hence, all the discussion about unbaptized babies possibly going to limbo). We believe baptism wipes away original sin and puts the baptized in a "state of friendship" with God. Thus, if my 16 month old were to die tonight, God forbid, she would go to heaven. Of that, I am 100% sure. Once she reaches the age of reason, usually 7-9 years old, that could possibly change. But right now up until then is the only time in someone's life, according to a Catholic, that they can be 100% sure of salvation if they die. So of course, if that is how you understand baptism, it makes sense to baptism them almost immedietly.
Now I won't pretend to speak for how HisMan understands baptism, but for many non-Catholic Christians, baptism is a sign (which does not in-and-of-itself put you in "God's friendship") that you go through which symbolizes that you have made a conscience commitment to Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. And of course, if you understand baptism that way, it makes sense that you would wait to baptize someone until they are ready to do so.
So to me, the whole question of infant baptism really is a question about WHAT baptism is and does. If the Catholics are correct, then of course we should baptize infants. If the view I mentioned above is correct, then of course we should not baptize infants. HisMan may have a different understanding of baptism then the way I described it above, but generally that is how I see the controversy. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 8:08 PM
Bobby. You're leaving out a 3rd option re: baptism.
We believe, as oneness pentecostals, that baptism is a requirement for salvation, but also that it should only happen after a person has repented of sins.
We of course take this view from the text: Acts 2:38
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
We believe that infants do not have the capacity to repent, and thus should not be baptized until they reach an age at which this is possible.
I have a really good article on the subject that one of our associate pastors wrote up here:
Posted by: Lauren
at March 17, 2009 8:35 PM
Hal, in addition to what Bobby wrote, I would add that Catholics also believe that sacramental baptism seals us with graces (spiritual gifts) from the Holy Spirit that help us to grow in relationship with God. These are gifts that help us on our path of spiritual development and growth in holiness. That's another argument I hear in defense of infant baptism. Set me straight, Bobby, if I'm not correct on that.Posted by: Fed Up at March 17, 2009 8:40 PM
Great, thanks Lauren. I'll take a look at the article. And then to add to that, the way you and the Oneness Pentecostals understand baptism, of course you wouldn't baptize an infant. So it looks like this too points to the fact that the real issue is how we understand baptism, and whether or not we baptize infants seems to logically follow from our view of baptism. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 8:45 PM
I will say that we do dedicate infants, though it is non-binding from a salvation standpoint. We basically make a promise to God that we will raise them to follow Him.
I agree that age of baptism depends on how we understand baptism as it relates to salvation. It's very interesting. :)Posted by: Lauren at March 17, 2009 8:51 PM
Thanks guys. learn something new every day. I thought most (or even all) Christians baptized babies.Posted by: hal at March 17, 2009 8:54 PM
I'm having a little bit of trouble finding this in the Catechism, but I"m pretty sure that the three theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) are infused in baptism. Now, as far as the gifts of the Holy Spirit goes, I thought that they were infused at confirmation, but according to the Catechism
"1303 ...Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
- it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;"
So it seems that one does receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit at baptism. So I think you're right. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 8:57 PM
Oh, there it is.
1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
Good.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 8:58 PM
Posted by: Fed Up at March 16, 2009 8:34 PM
I speak from my own authority as thinking person who also happens to be a person of faith. The right to speak is not something conferred by faith but rather by God wherein even those who disagree with the church can speak.
Remember, Jesus died a Jew, not a Christian. Everything afterwards is a pale imitation of the real thing. The christian church is like "New Coke" and we all know how much that sucked.
I'm starting to have sympathy for New Coke. Poor thing, it gets brought up everytime something lame happens. You know the guy who came up with the marketing must hate himself!Posted by: Lauren at March 17, 2009 9:12 PM
That article was pretty good. I think a Catholic can basically agree with it. Hurray! :)Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 9:20 PM
What, Catholics agreeing with Oneness Pentecostals...the apocalypse is near!Posted by: Lauren at March 17, 2009 9:24 PM
I know! Dun dun dun!!!!!!Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 9:29 PM
another interesting thing is that the Eastern Rite Catholic Church confirms and baptizes infants at the same time.
In other words, when a baby is brought to be baptized, confirmation is also done at this time.
My protestant friends have objected to baptism of infants on the grounds that an infant cannot make a conscious committment to Jesus Christ. However, the Catholic Church believes that parents can make that commitment on behalf of their children and that the Sacrament of Confirmation is when they become make their own commitment in the faith.
As Bobby stated, this means that a small child would go to heaven if they died during this time of their life.
Also, I would think that this situation exists for the most part up until a child is around 10 years old or so - although today with all the garbage kids are exposed to, I'm not so sure. But a priest told me that young children generally are protected from mortal sin in a special way by God.
Jesus Christ is not a Christian? How ironic that the names are so similar.
What is faith? What is "the real thing"?Posted by: Janet at March 17, 2009 10:45 PM
There are no examples of babies getting baptized in the New Testament.
Of all the overt examples of conversion be it Paul, the Ethiopian Eunuch, Cornelius, etc. all are adults. The book of Acts is whre this is found so I suggest you read it.
In fact the early church did not baptize babies until about the 4th century.
All were adults including Jesus Himself after which God spoke, "This is my Son in Whom I am well pleased, listen to Him". Which I think means follow His example.
This too: There is no translatable word into English for the Greek word baptizo which means to dip as in dipping a piece of cloth into dye. The word baptize was transliterated from this word baptizo.
Hence, using the meaning of baptizo; dipping or immersion, is totally different than sprinkling. For me, my desire is to please God and do what He tells me to do. How can one do so unless they truly seek Him for He promises, "He who seeks me with his whole heart shall find me".
There are many instances especially in the OT where God gave a command, i.e., "don't touch the Ark (the temple assistants immediatley died), don't turn back and look at Sodom and Gommorah (Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt), Moses striking the rock for water instead of speaking to the rock (he didn't enter the promised land), Namaan not dipping into the water seven times (and wasn't healed of leprosy until he did so), etc., etc.
I think the lessons are there to be learned. The risks of opposing a holy but loving God are immense. While Jesus demonstated that God is very loving and merciful, He also said that He came to fulfill the law not eliminate it. Sometimes believers forget that.
On the other side is being so legalistic that you forget about God's grace and mercy. I try to strike a balance.Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 10:48 PM
I wonder if there are any statistics on those who were baptized as babies staying faithful to the church versus those baptized as adults staying faithful to the church?
Many if not all of the infant baptized Catholics I know are nothing of what Christians should be, zero. There's no magic in infant baptism.
That's not to say that infant baptized Catholics have not embraced the faith. MK is a prime example of an adult baptized Catholic who is absolutely on fire for God.
Thsi too: There are numerous Protestant denominations that baptize babies so this is not just a Catholic rite.Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 10:57 PM
the early church did not baptize babies until about the 4th century.
I'm not sure that's correct, HisMan.
HisMan: I don't think there are any stats.
From a Catholic perspective the purpose of baptism gives the soul a supernatural life. The infant does not need to DO anything. The sacrament itself confers the grace of God on the infants soul. We believe that baptism gives us a "higher life" or supernatural life which is needed to get to heaven. Baptism removes the guilt of original sin and it gives the gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially faith hope and charity to the soul.
You mentioned that "Many if not all of the infant baptized Catholics I know are nothing of what Christians should be, zero."
This is truly a sad situation. The gifts of grace received at baptism can be squandered just as anything. The gifts received at baptism must grow or they will be lost. Especially the gift of faith. To nurture this gift we must learn and study our faith. And we must PRACTICE our faith.How many parents have their baby baptised but never set foot in a church?
Unfortunately, these people did not do this. But I can tell you that I know many people who have used their baptismal gifts wisely. And you know a few through this board - Bobby for example.
We must also remember free will. Regardless of whether baptism was chosen for us or we choose it at a latter date, all Christians must at some time in their lives make a conscious decision as to whether they will follow Christ and live by his teachings.
In the Catholic church we also have the sacrament of Confirmation - it is considered a "strengthening" of the baptism in which a young person on the threshold of adulthood confirms his faith. Strictly speaking it's not required for salvation.But as a Catholic I believe that through this sacrament we are given special charisms by the Holy Spirit, two of which are usually dominant.
Confirmation does several things:
It gives us the strength to bear our suffering in this life and to sacrifice as well.
It helps us stay faithful to our faith in the face of obstacles and to overcome doubts that we all may experience in our lives.It allows us to witness for our Catholic faith.
If you doubt this, think about what happened on Pentecost Sunday - in the Catholic Church this is considered the Apostles confirmation day! They came out of their rooms, boldly, without the fear they had been experiencing to bring Christ to others.
I don't ahve time to write anymore now but I hope this helps you.
And you are quite right, some people have what is called "the fire within".
You should read Thomas Dubay someday. I think you might like his writings on the spiritual life.
Surprised by Truth by Patrick Madrid (there is a second book by the same title #2)
Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott Hahn
Posted by: angel
at March 18, 2009 6:45 AM
This is a great discussion.
I was baptized as an infant. So was my sister. Granted, the sample of two is pretty circumstancial, but it's enough that I cannot say for certain there is no power in infant baptism.
I was also baptized as an adult. My church did not require it for me (because I was baptized as an infant) but I felt I should do it in obedience to Jesus.
My daughter (10 months) has not been baptized. She was dedicated. At first I wasn't sure about it--there seems no reason for it. Of course I am going to raise her to follow Jesus, she's my daughter and it's my job. But it's something to dress up the baby and show her off, and after I looked very carefully at the wording of what would be said (none of this takes a village business) we did it.
The view I had heard of infant baptism--which I believe is from the Reformed church--is that babies are baptized and young children allowed communion because, since they are raised in a Christian household, it is better to assume they will be Christians than to assume they will be pagans, and that unless they prove otherwise by word and/or action, they are presumed among the elect.
Watching and listening to Catholics on sites like this one, over the years, has answered many of the objections I once had to Catholicism. Prayers to saints, many aspects of that whole Mary business--I understand that now.
Here are a couple things that still bother me:
I don't believe that Joseph and Mary were celibate their whole lives. I understand the Catholic position--that Joseph was a widower, which is why Jesus has brothers. But why would God call them married and yet them not engage in the act of marriage? If he just wanted Joseph to take care of Mary and Jesus, why not make that clear? Why tell him to take her home as his wife? Why is it specified that he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son? Why not just say he had no union with her? (I hope no one is offended by this--certainly Mary is special, and her relationship with God was special--I don't question that she was a virgin when Jesus was born, only that she was one her whole life. I am not accusing her of any sin in this regard--though I am also not sure that it is defensible from Scripture to claim she was sinless.
Priests not allowed to marry--what scriptural evidence is there that the gift of celibacy must always come with the gift of preaching?
this may get a little off-color, if it does, I am sorry--
First, the idea that it is okay for a married couple to not have sex, either forever or temporarily, without a grave reason. I have heard it stated very clearly in this forum that if there is no union, they are not sinning; yet Paul tells us that a man and a woman who are married should not abstain except for the purpose of prayer and fasting. Not with prayer, but for the purpose of it. This rules out abstaining to avoid having children but saying it is okay because they are praying--and I've never heard of a couple fasting for NFP, but that's what the KJV says.
I also disagree with the notion that non-reproductive sexual acts are always bad. I do not think they should take the place of reproductive acts, or be used to prevent conception. But at times--say, during pregnancy and directly after, when sex could be dangerous for the woman or her unborn baby, or it's just difficult or impossible--I do not see how it is sinful for me to help my husband, if we aren't bringing any foreign objects into the mix. I know that if it is done when reproductive acts were a possibility, my conscience bothers me, but if they are not, it doesn't. I am not against being told I am sinning--but it is not my rights I am trying to uphold. What is the Biblical basis for saying that nonreproductive sexual acts that do not involve outside parties are not okay when reproductive acts aren't an option? We were not able to have sex for much of my pregnancy, and I have had two miscarriages begin after a sexual act, so I am not trying to avoid life, but preserve it and bless my husband.
That said, I also think NFP is unfair to women, because sex is most enjoyable for me when I am fertile. But that's more an argument for openness to life, because I don't think any method of birth control is an improvement.
I think--and I got this from subtle clues in what I've heard from some Catholics--that the idea that abstaining from sex within marriage is okay is related to the idea that Joseph and Mary didn't have sex.
I understand the Catholic view of baptism. But I do not subscribe to it. Why wouldn't all children--created and known in the womb by God Himself before any human knew they existed--be in friendship with God?
Quite frankly, I do not know what happens when children (baptized or no, whoever their parents) die. The way I see it, God may save them all, or He may save only some, depending on how they would have responded to Him had they grown enough to have the chance. That their salvation depends on an action taken by their parents seems strange, when the children won't be condemned for the acts of the parents. Also, why would Jesus not save the children of His people who died too young to be seen or baptized? I choose to believe that the children I have lost are in heaven, but freely admit I do not know. By what do you know that a baptized child will definitely go to heaven?
Now, I am not saying that the church I attend gets everything right. I attend a Baptist church. (Notice I don't say I'm a Baptist.) My church does not have official positions on much of what is important to my family and I. They don't condemn birth control. But it seems to be where God planted me, so here I stay until and unless he moves me.
If everyone in the Catholic Church practiced what the Church preached, you would have a lot more chance of converting me. As it stands, it seems that there are more in your church who don't practice what their church teaches--if they even know it--than any other denomination. I can't help but think if I went to a Catholic church, I would still be surrounded by small families (just like at my church) and the people wouldn't even be interested in knowing God more, for the most part. There seem to be many Catholics online who are vibrant Christians, but I know none in real life. And I live in MA, so I feel like I have as much a chance of changing my church to be the church I would like to attend as finding one that already is.
God bless you all.Posted by: YCW at March 18, 2009 12:15 PM
I'll Hold You In Heaven is a precious book by Pastor Jack Hayford. It has been especially helpful for me to see that yes, all of my babies are in heaven. :)
Hi YCW. I read your whole post, and I appreciate it. Lots of great questions. I'd like to address some of the questions you asked, but there is just so much and such a wide spectrum. What would be a good place to start? Of what you asked above, what would you say bugs you the most or is the most concerning? I'll try and start there and see where it goes. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 18, 2009 1:46 PM
"I understand the Catholic view of baptism. But I do not subscribe to it. Why wouldn't all children--created and known in the womb by God Himself before any human knew they existed--be in friendship with God?"
This is because of original sin, committed by Adam and Eve. God gave this couple a test which they failed. The rupture between man and God was so great, that this sin has passed on to each one of us. But he promised to bring us a Saviour - Jesus Christ.
Through baptism, original sin is removed from our souls and grace infused. However, the effects of original sin remain with us. What are these effects? For one thing concupiscence, pride etc. These effects we must struggle against our entire life.
We dont know what happens to babies who are not baptized but we believe that our God is a merciful God. Some theologians believe that unbaptized babies are somehow given the opportunity to choose God or Satan.
A baptized child will go to Heaven because his soul is infused with supernatural life. His body had natural life (which dies) and his soul through baptism has supernatural life - original sin has been removed. Since a baby is too young to know right from wrong and mistakes, and also really has a very limited world -eat play and sleep he can't really sin.
Remember it was never God's plan to have a world that included death. Our bodies were never meant to die. They were meant to be unified with our souls forever. This was our state prior to the Fall. Our body and soul were completely and perfectly integrated. There was no sin, no pride, no concupiscence. Death ruptured this unity.
"If everyone in the Catholic Church practiced what the Church preached, you would have a lot more chance of converting me. As it stands, it seems that there are more in your church who don't practice what their church teaches--if they even know it--than any other denomination."
Sadly there are many very bad Catholics today.They not only cause scandal but they also cause others to doubt and lose their faith. There are lapsed Catholics on this blog who continue to do serious damage to ALL Christians particularly encouraging others in sinful situations.Posted by: angel at March 18, 2009 2:02 PM
Bobby I was just gonna direct you to this post! Ha! Great minds think alike!! :)Posted by: angel at March 18, 2009 2:03 PM
Ha! Unfortunately that would require me to have a great mind...Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 18, 2009 2:07 PM
....which you do! ;-)Posted by: angel at March 18, 2009 2:08 PM
The basis for priests marrying isn't in the scriptures is it, Bobby? I thought it had something to do with the Church wanting the property of its priest, rather than having it go to their heirs. Is this true?Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 2:55 PM
sorry, should be "not marrying"! obvi.Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 2:56 PM
YCW, as an adult convert to Catholicism, I appreciate your questions. Bobby can give you his take as a cradle Catholic. I'll wait to see what he gives you before I chime in on your specific questions.
But let me ask you to consider a few things as you ponder the info Bobby will give you. If he refers to the catechism or the teaching of the early Church fathers, please know that the catechism is very much scripturally based. The teachings of the fathers aren't accorded the same weight as sacred scripture, however they give us important historical insights into the way Christianity was practiced in its earliest days.
I had a big sola scriptura (scripture alone) bias that took me a long time to overcome. I had to stop and put the early days of Christianity into context. Christianity came out of Judiasm, which passed on its teachings largely by oral tradition. This practice continued in the early Church. Most people couldn't read or write. Even if they could, all the teachings of the early Church couldn't possibly be written down. And this is noted in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
Here's a passage for you to consider regarding tradition and oral teaching that may not be contained in scripture: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15)
When it comes to Mary, please remember that Our Lord entrusted her to John, the author of the 4th gospel and Revelation. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that he (and others through him) came to know her very well when he took her into his own home (John 19:27).
As it stands, it seems that there are more in your church who don't practice what their church teaches--if they even know it--than any other denomination.
That may be a fair criticism, however I also came to understand that the Catholic Church outlines its teaching in much greater detail than many protestant churches do. So it's easier to catch a Catholic in the act of violating teaching than it may be for some other denominations.Posted by: Fed Up at March 18, 2009 2:56 PM
The basis for priests marrying isn't in the scriptures is it
I know you addressed Bobby, Asitis, but I'll jump in. In I Corinthians, Paul encourages celibacy but doesn't mandate it. His reasoning is that the unmarried man is free to concentrate on matters of God, but the married man has a divided allegiance between matters of the world and matters of God.Posted by: Fed Up at March 18, 2009 3:09 PM
"The basis for priests marrying isn't in the scriptures is it, Bobby? I thought it had something to do with the Church wanting the property of its priest, rather than having it go to their heirs. Is this true?"
Well, first of all, non-married priests is a discipline of the Church, not a dogma. Eastern rite Catholic priests may be married and you will every now and then find a married priest here in the West. It is usually allowed for a covert from Anglicanism who is already married. And it is possible, though highly unlikely, that the West will one day allow priests to be married in general. I will be the first one in seminary when that happens, which it never will :)
But, I think there are some passages extolling celibacy and the goodness of that discipline. For example, we have St. Paul in 1 Cor 7 saying
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
There is also Jesus' saying in Matthew 19
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
So both Jesus and St. Paul have good things to say about being celibate, and the Church has taken this suggestion for her priests. Not because sex or marriage is bad, but because it is so good. You are giving up something that is so good for the sake of an even higher good.
Also, you mention priests as property. I would say it is more that the priest is the bride of Christ. Since we believe the priest acts in eh person of Christ, the Church is his bride and he serves the Church. That's a very rough theological sketch there. I could go on, but taht is the basic idea.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 18, 2009 4:45 PM
Thanks Boby. But why did this "discipline" come to be? Why did the church decide this?
Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 5:40 PM
Oh, I see you wrote "the priest as property". That's not what I meant. What I was referring to was the property of the priests. Such as their land, real estate. I had heard this was the reason.Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 5:55 PM
@ Bobby: yes, it is the tradition of the Church that priests not marry.The priest is the bride of Christ first and foremost.
I know a few Eastern rite married priests and all have told me that knowing what they now know they would never marry prior to being ordained.
It is simply too difficult trying to manage two vocations.
Even a deacon must promise that if widowed he will not marry.
How do other religions manage it?Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 6:39 PM
the nature of priesthood does not require celibacy
Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical "Sacerdotalis Caelibatus" in which he defined three aspects of priestly celibacy: Christological, ecclesiological and eschatological.
Christological in the sense that the priest looks to Christ (who was celibate) as his ideal, his role model.
Ecclesiological in the sense that the priest through his celibacy "bonds" himself totally to the Church as did Christ.
Eschatological in the sense that the priestly celibacy mirrors the total freedom we will have in Heaven, united to God. Celibacy allows this freedom from attachment here on earth.
so celibacy involves freedom, sacrifice - sacrifice in the sense of giving up the possibility of married life to be the bride of Christ and his Church.
I should also like to note that although some of the apostles had wives they never lived with them after they began to follow Christ.
Historical documents indicate that celibacy was practiced from the very beginning.
The Gospel of Luke mentions that "there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life"
To me, it seems that Christ was emphasizing that it was necessary to leave behind many things including the vocation of marriage (which He considered sacred and instituted at Cana). Christ did not command celibacy but given his teachings it seems likely this was his preference.
From what I have been taught and from Church documents, we know for sure that about the 4th century the Western Christian church began to strongly emphasize a celibate priesthood.
It wasn't until the Second Ecumenical Council of Trent that celibacy was made obligatory.
As for the property question, I've never heard this claim before. I think it likely to be one of those Catholic "myths" that circulate!
I don't know too much about the very early history of celibacy. I've been wanting to buy the book "Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Origins-Priestly-Celibacy-Christian/dp/0898709512 cause I've heard lots of good things about it and I bet it has a lot of the information you're asking about, but that's about all I can offer at the moment.
I've never really heard of the "property" controversy, though.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 18, 2009 6:52 PM
hmmm, I'll have to look it up then. I think I learned about it in history class in high school... mind you it was a public high school, not Catholic.Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 6:55 PM
I actually wasn't aware it was controversial. But a quick search reveals that it seems to be.Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 7:11 PM
What did you type into google?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 18, 2009 7:14 PM
You talking about eminent domain seizures @ 7:11pm, Asitis?Posted by: Fed Up at March 18, 2009 7:14 PM
I threw in some keywords: catholic priests celibacy history....Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 8:03 PM
yes and you pulled up all manner of strange webpages, no doubt! lolPosted by: angel at March 19, 2009 11:00 AM