Officially excommunicate Planned Parenthood supporters
American Life League has just released a new ALL Report, and it’s quite compelling.
This report traces the history of groups the Catholic Church officially declared enemies and whose supporters it officially excommunicated.
For instance, the Catholic Conference of Germany in 1931 officially excommunicated all active members of the Nazi Party, and in 1949 Pope Pius XII decreed that all Catholics who “vote for, affiliate with, write for, or otherwise promote Communists” were excommunicated.
ALL makes the case that Planned Parenthood should today be declared an enemy of the Catholic Church and all active supporters, including politicians who vote to fund it, excommunicated.
The report shows a clip of Margaret Sanger in 1957 stating her “opposition” to be “mainly from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.” It would be great for the Catholic Church to officially agree PP is just as much an enemy as Nazis and Communists. Like I said, compelling…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLUJm6ESV_M[/youtube]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
For instance, the Catholic Conference in Germany in 1931 officially excommunicated all active members of the Nazi Party.
Adolph Hitler was never excommunicated from his Catholic church.
And that’s why pro-choice Catholics will neve be excommunicated. The Roman Catholic church is very political and, at the end of the day, doesn’t bite the hand that feeds them.
And BTW, I think the RC church should do their excommunicating. But they realize that if they do that, they will create a cause celebre. Those who are excommunicated will be martyrs and gain lots of sympathy and those who remain faithful servants to a medieval church will have a problem being elected.
The church is a master of all things political.
The thing is that ANYONE who in any way aids, procures or participates in abortion is automatically excommunicated. They do this to themselves.
I am certain there are many many Catholics who have had abortions and who have helped in some way others procure an abortion. Those Catholics are excommunicated. Many still go to church and receive the sacraments. Many, quite frankly don’t give a damn, just like they don’t give a damn about contraception. They could care less because they believe the church is wrong and is wrong to tell them what to do,
I guess it likely won’t be until they die that they learn the truth.
What would be helpful is if the bishops would talk about this situation from the pulpit. But they won’t. Just like they won’t talk about contraception, IVF, sterilization divorce etc.
Wow, that one picture of the sign says it all. “… Life ends at Planned Parenthood.” Something needs to be done,. They should not get another dollar.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the Catholic Conference that excommunicated all Nazis in 1931 had already…excommunicated all Nazis (to repeat myself horribly), and they “outranked” Hitler’s own church in the RCC hierarchy, then he was excommunicated, period, right? I’m not Catholic, so someone who is, please jump in here.
What’s the name of the church that the abortion fans belong to? They are a pretty zealous bunch. Molech is their god, and abortion is their blood sacrifice. They are jealous of the other churches, because our churches are pretty and don’t smell like decomp and cat urine. If Cece Richards is their high priestess, who is their high priest? Kermit Gosnell?
Alice, shshsh, don’t use logic in front of the pro-choicers, it makes their brains hurt. But yes, you are correct. One doesn’t need a golden, engraved excommunication notice to be excommunicated or separate themselves. If they want to see Hilter’s certificate of excommunication, ask me, I filed it inside the third cabinet on the left, next to Barry Sotero’s birth certificate.
Does one have to be a self declared enemy of the catholic church to be excommunicated or does the catholic church have to declare one an enemy before one is excommunicated?
Where is the scriptural basis for either one of those justifications.
Jesus gave some reasons and the apostle Paul addressed some situations that warranted excommunication/disfellowshipping and none of them rose to being enemies of the church.
Public and unrepentant sin was enough and refusing Godly council was enough.
With any and all due respect the ‘dead babies r us’ mob are enemy to truth, life and love and liberty.
Any of these folks who claim to be ‘christians’ have gone way beyond the threshold for initiating the process that leads to being ‘cut off’ from the body of Christ.
When the NAZI’s consolidated their grip on the reins of power in Germany one of the institutions they co-opted was the ‘protestant church’. They gave it a new name, and they refused to acknowledge the legitmacy of followers of Christ who refused to acknowledge Adolph Hitler as the head of this exclusively ’German Church’.
New pastors who were to be ordained had to swear to the following oath:
“I swear before God…that I…will be true and obedient to the Fuhrer of the German people and state and Adolph Hitler.”
[My response is, ‘No king, but KING JESUS.’ HE alone is the head of the body of Christ.]
One mark of obedience was to embrace and enforce the ‘German churches’ prohibition against Jews being members of the ‘German church’.
The NAZI’s executed more than 500 pastors who dissented and associated themselves with the ‘confessing church’.
Sadly many German christians went surrendered to the social pressure and subverted their citizenship in the kingdom of God to citizenship in the German state.
They agreed to display the swastika along side the cross of Christ.
I have not read anywhere that Adolp Hitler proffessed to be a follower of Christ. I have read plenty of accounts of his deliberately giving the impression that he was one of them. Hitler and his inner circle were virulently anti-Christ and anti-church. Their privately stated goal was to destroy it, not only in Germany, but in all of Europe.
How many Jews/prenatal children does one have to betray or kill or refuse to help before one has qualified to be ’excommunicated/disfellowshipped/cut off from the body of Christ?
What’s the name of the church that the abortion fans belong to? They are a pretty zealous bunch. Molech is their god, and abortion is their blood sacrifice. They are jealous of the other churches, because our churches are pretty and don’t smell like decomp and cat urine. If Cece Richards is their high priestess, who is their high priest? Kermit Gosnell
Let’s see, Reformed Judaism, the United Church of Christ, many Methodist churches, the Unitarian Church, some Lutherans, and the Episcopalian church. But Ninek, who isn’t a theolgian and who doesn’t have a divinity degree, thinks she is just so much smarter than clergy and theolgians who espouse a pro-choice theology. She’s a member of a “true” church. Perhaps Ninek would like to debate one of the “high priestesses” of pro-choice clergy, Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori who is presiding bishop of the Episcopalian Church.
Funny, in the 80’s, the Catholic bishop of Providence was reported to have excommunicated the head of our Planned Parenthood. When he was pressed to show the official decree, he said that she “self-excommunicated.” Shortly after, I called the diocese to get an official statement of excommunication. They hemmed and hawed about how I excommunicated myself.
BTW, New England was founded by those who disdained “popery.” Their spiritual descendants are the pro-choice Congregational churches. Meanwhile, the Roman church is losing members at a drastic rate. Meanwhile, our area is safely and securely pro-choice. Funny how things turn out….
Hitler was never excommunicated (something that we were not taught in Catholic schools) and his Mein Kampf was never put on the list of forbidden books – but “Lolita” was. Go figure!
C-onstipated C-lown,
None this religious leaders you reference will agree to a public debate because they have no courage and they have no convictions and most importantly they have no case.
They have fashioned a god in their own likeness and he is as impotent and helpless as they are.
I am not a theologian and only have a high school diploma but I can answer the question they will not:
When your mother was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her utersu?
These loons are false prophets and false teachers who worship their own intellects. Professing to be wise, they have become fools. They grope about in darkness and fall into a pit of their own making.
Some them may actually be ‘saved’, but their salvation is not yet complete. It would be better for them if they remain ignorant, than to learn the truth and then deny it.
Oh, the old question about “what species” is the embryo. D’uhhh, it’s classified as a “human” species but it’s still an embryo which doesn’t make it a “person” independent of she who incubates it.
But nice to know that you think that esteemed theologians are “loons.” Once again, there is no question as to why the pro-life movement are considered peripheral, religious wingnuts – and in your case, Ken, menacing members of a potential terrorist threat against American women. Yakima…
Unfortunately, few people understand exactly what “excommunication” is, and that includes Catholics themselves. “Excommunication” means that you have put yourself in a state of such serious sin that you MUST be Absolved of it BEFORE you receive the Eucharist or any other Sacraments. That’s really all it means. It doesn’t mean that a priest puts a big red “EXCOMMUNICATED” stamp on your forehead or that you are barred from ever entering a Catholic Church again. It doesn’t mean that you are never permitted to receive the Sacraments again (though I would argue that it’s highly unlikely that pro-abortion Catholics even believe in the Sacraments in the first place). And it certainly doesn’t mean you’re condemned to Hell.
That said, there is no need to excommunicate Catholics who support abortion, because they have already excommunicated themselves. What we need is CATECHESIS so that they pro-abortion Catholics understand that they have already excommunicated themselves and what they can do about it.
“Perhaps Ninek would like to debate one of the “high priestesses” of pro-choice clergy, Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori who is presiding bishop of the Episcopalian Church.”
All you would need to do is ask the “Bishop” to read some lines in her own Bible and explain why she ignores them. We could start with “Whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me” and go from there.
All you would need to do is ask the “Bishop” to read some lines in her own Bible and explain why she ignores them.
The Episcopalian theology is based on interpretations of the “lines” in the Bible. The pro-choice position of Reformed Judaism (the majority of American Jews) is based on their Talmudic interpretations of scripture. The reason why we had a Reformation is because of different scriptural interpretations. The above comment might have been said by a Pope, to a Lutheran bishop, during the Reformation.
Funny, Christian pro-lifers just can’t seem to deal with other member of faith communities who are pro-choice. Thus, they label them as evil apostates.
Uh, it’s kind of hard to interpret the Bible in such a way that allows for unborn children to be killed. Any Judeo-Christian theologian worth anything will tell you that abortion is at the very least a sin against the family.
mp, playing dumb is only amusing for so long. I think everybody would appreciate it if you knocked it off.
Reformed Judaism (the majority of American Jews)
Ha ha, not for long…
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/WillYourGrandchildrenBeJews/
M-is P-laced
Perhaps you have never been ‘constipated’. It is not a condition that is conducive to a sweet dispostion.
Especially if the C-onstipated C-lown is suffering from a case of inflamed hemorrhoids.
The C-onstipated C-lown is C-onstantly C-ranky. Perhaps you have correctly diagnosed her C-olonic C-ondition.
Any Judeo-Christian theologian worth anything will tell you that abortion is at the very least a sin against the family
Wrong again. If anything, they teach that having a child that is not wanted is more of a sin. Diversity of religious thought – basis for the Reformation. But I know – your religious viewpoint is the “true” one. Forget centuries of Talumdic teachings and Protestant canonical exegesis.
Reformed Judaism (the majority of American Jews)
Ha ha, not for long
“Ha, Ha” – are you happy that these liberal, pro-choice Jews wont’ be here “for long.” Once again, the anti-Semitism of the pro-life view rears its ugly head.
And while you’re laughing about this, have a chuckle over the decrease in the Catholic faith in New England.
“Their spiritual descendants are the pro-choice Congregational churches.”
Their genetic descendants are Mormons.
Makes sense.
Novel religious beliefs, check.
Ran away from persecution, check.
High birthrate, check.
Strong families, check.
Low social pathology, check.
Better off on their own, check.
Yup, same folks.
The Episcopalian theology is based on interpretations of the “lines” in the Bible.
Would that be like consulting chicken entrails or reading tea leaves?
I suggest the priestess invest in a good dictionary and engage her mind and not her emotions.
To return to the actual topic (come on, guys, don’t feed the troll), thanks for the clarification, ninek. While my denomination does practice excommunication, we don’t stack things the same way as the Catholic church, so I appreciate the info. ;)
To anyone in any church who would like to debate theology with me, “Bring it.” In fact, I’ve mentioned on Jill’s site before how much I admire the Tibetan Buddhists because debate is a very important part of their education. Having debating skills is high on their list of desirable traits. Perhaps some people want to be told what to believe, but those of us who are thankful for this wonderful brain that God designed, bring it on.
Jesus gave the Apostles the power to absolve, it is Scripturally based. You can excommunicate yourself; Papa doesn’t need to send you a fancy letter on embossed stationary. But to be reconciled, you need absolution. Is God merciful? Of course. If you die in the faith, but no priest is available to hear a last confession, God isn’t going to rubber stamp you to the “down” escalator.
As a Catholic, I respect very much the efforts of other people to get to know God and to learn about the Bible. However, the Apostolic Churches have a common theology that is 2000 years old and represent the true faith. They include, but are not limited to: The Greek Orthodox, The Catholic, and the Syriac Orthodox. There are more, but you get the idea.
I suggest the priestess invest in a good dictionary and engage her mind and not her emotions
So you hate Episcopalians. Nice. BTW, the presiding bishop’s academic background is far more extensive than yours. While you don’t accept it, the theology of the Anglican Communion is just as valid as yours.
“Ha, Ha” – are you happy that these liberal, pro-choice Jews wont’ be here “for long.” “Once again, the anti-Semitism of the pro-life view rears its ugly head.”
Uh, are you daft? Did you look at the chart? It shows a strong increase among Jews. It shows that the Orthodox will increase. Therefore the Reformed will no longer be a majority due to the increase of religiously observant Jews. Cheering the increase of Jews can hardly be seen as anti-Semitic.
But no surprise you made a non-sequitor ad hominem. You have no logical basis for argument.
“Ha, Ha” – are you happy that these liberal, pro-choice Jews wont’ be here “for long.” Once again, the anti-Semitism of the pro-life view rears its ugly head.
Anti-semitism, racism, homophbia, sexism are the first resort for those who have no clue.
It doesn’t matter to me a tittle your gender, nationality, ethnicity, sexual preference or political party.
Not all people who are opposed to prenatal homicide are gentiles. There are quite a few Jews as well. Does that make them anti-semites?
It would seem the ‘self hating Jews’ who are intent on aborting themselves out of existence would be the ‘anti-semites’.
The fewer of you ‘dead babies r us’ folks the better. Just keep limiting your numbers however you choose to do it.
Dig a hole and jump in it and recycle yourselves.
Death seems to be your first ‘choice’ for every social ill.
“While you don’t accept it, the theology of the Anglican Communion is just as valid as yours.”
No biggie, in 50 years the Anglicans will have a new theology anyway. I mean when they deny the truth of their own foundational writings, and traditions, what else is there? Post modern nonsense. At its core capricious and anti-truth; just a bunch of amoral ramblings. I know agnostics and atheists with more respect for truth, knowledge, morality and tradition.
“So you hate Episcopalians”
============================================
Just because I disgree with someone does not mean I hate them.
You are projecting again.
So the priestess is highly educated. Whoopty doo!
Reminds me of that line from ‘The Kings Speech’.
These experts you called idiots have all been knighted.
Then that makes it official.
Absolution can be found in the Jewish Bible, too, which Christians commonly call the Old Testament.
Orthodox Jews, though they do not recognize Jesus Christ, are also pro-life. How can the Messiah come if mothers are allowed to abort him?
The churches of the world are a lot like a family: we have common ancestors in the Apostles, but some churches broke off the original tree. For example, Saint Francis found some of the corruption in the Church to be completely unacceptable. Unlike Martin Luther, however, Francis stayed in the Church. An English King created a schism not because of theological wisdom, but because he wanted to keep divorcing and killing wives until someone produced a suitable heir. I used to not understand why a woman couldn’t be a Bishop. That was before I was properly catechized. I agree with the commenter above: We need catechesis, not more excommunication. Jesus did not come to lose sheep, he came to save all.
As some cheerful Christians like to joke: I read the book. We win.
“Diversity of religious thought – basis for the Reformation.”
Come on, did you fail history? The basis for the Reformation was the argument over the role of the Bible. Sola scriptura, anyone? Luther rejected diversity of opinion on the interpretation of the Bible, as did the Church. That is why he was working through the usual process of scholarly debate when things came to a head. But the division was over the role of tradition and authority of the pope. The Church was reformed. Council of Trent, ya know? This is just plain old history that even atheists know from history class.
“Now when they saw the boldness and unfettered eloquence of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and untrained in the schools [common men with no educational advantages], they marveled; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus.”
=====================================================================
On second thought, it would be more profitable for the priestess if she spent some time with Jesus.
GO hippie!
I love history, but ‘church history’ is not one of my favorites.
I believe I have arrived at the correct conclusion concerning ‘church’ and the little ‘church’ history I have read convinces me I understood correctly.
It is like making sausage. Most folks like sausgage, but few want to know how it was produced, especially after they have seen it done.
mp says: April 5, 2011 at 6:39 pm
“I categorically reject the notion that I was “playing dumb”…
==================================================================
Alas, I feared that was the case.
It is not an act.
This IS the real MisPoke and what you read is what you get.
Just for fun, for those still clinging to Sola Scriptura, I ask: How was it, then, that the Apostles were growing the Church as described in “Acts”? Why, if Sola Scriptura then how can you have a Church if all the Scriptura isn’t scripted on paper yet? Why, if Sola Scriptura, did Jesus not write a letter himself? Why talk in parables? Why heal? Why raise from the dead?
Ah.. because, the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Just like today: Laws exist to serve man, not man to serve laws. That is the very basis of why Roe V Wade WILL eventually be overturned. It does not serve man, and thus man ceases to serve it.
There are pro-life Episcopalians, and Jews, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and so on. There are people who claim to be pro “choice” Catholics. There are pro-life atheists and agnostics (hello, I am one). It’s not a religious issue–or not ONLY a religious issue. Anything that involves the legal and profit-based killing of someone needs to be re-examined. Whether or not CC and Megan and whomever “believe” the unborn babies aren’t persons, they cannot prove it…..It’s just that the unborn being persons (which they are, the only logical conclusion) is so PESKY because it means it wouldn’t be right to KILL ’em! Pesky little babies, how dare they have rights? *snerk*
I have been attending an Episcopal church now and then…..not regularly. I’m reading a lot of C.S. Lewis. I’m still sort of agnostic, that is how I would classify my own religious beliefs. But I have also met a number of other pro-life Episcopalians.
Ninek,
All that was before GOD became a christian.
Everything has changed since then.
The WORD of GOD is more than the ‘book’, but it does include the ‘book’.
If the WORD of GOD is ‘living and active’ and the WORD of GOD is limited to the ‘book’, then if we go to our quiet place and meditate on the ‘book’ then should’nt it move or make a noise or something to demonstrate that it is ‘living and active, sharper than any two edged sword’.
When we handle the ‘book’ shouldn’t we at least get a paper cut?
I am not mocking GOD or the ‘book’. GOD speaks and HE is not limited to the ‘book’.
HE can speak in many different ways and thru many different people, but when HE speaks HE will always lead us to HIS SON JESUS.
IN MANY separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets,
[But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order].
“Just for fun, for those still clinging to Sola Scriptura”
Interesting idea. I’ll just take a guess that “sola scriptura” is better than nothing like the goofy churches like the ELCA and some Episcopal etc. that shot themselves in the foot by denying that the Bible is true. I mean without the tradition and without the writings, they literally ain’t got nothing but a social club. The fundies have the Bible without the historic tradition. So they all splintered into a million bits. The Orthodox and Catholic have tradition and the Bible to hold them together. So, as an outsider just looking at it from an anthropology perspective, I see basically the historic/biblical folks as meeting the psychological/sociological requirements for folks to see themselves as a community. The fundies (sola scriptura) have only the book which makes it hard for them to forge an identity as a community. They probably recognize this subconsciously and hang onto the book whether they really understand it or not because it is all they have and without it, they have nothing, no basis for trust or community or identity.
Why do I get the feeling we’re about to enter the “religion debate” zone?
400 comments anyone?
Hi MaryLee, I know quite a few folks like you who are pro life and either convinced atheists or are pretty agnostic/taken Pascal’s wager. I also know pro life folks in the liberal churches. So, yeah, they are out there.
“Why do I get the feeling we’re about to enter the “religion debate” zone?”
Folks here are very concerned about how other people practice their religious beliefs.
“When he was pressed to show the official decree, he said that she “self-excommunicated.” Shortly after, I called the diocese to get an official statement of excommunication. They hemmed and hawed about how I excommunicated myself.”
Yes, this is called being excommunicated latae sententiae. Essentially, it means that by engaging in a certain act (and there are only about 5 currently in canon law) with full knowledge that there is the penalty of excommunication attached to it, you are automatically excommunicated the moment you engage in the action. Thus there is no formal decree or hearing or trial to “officially” excommunicate you. You automatically excommunicate yourself through the action that you take (and again, there are currently only about 5 things you can do that incur latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication)
“Why do I get the feeling we’re about to enter the “religion debate” zone?”
How about just “religion discussion”?
“Folks here are very concerned about how other people practice their religious beliefs.”
Oh, please, folks here are just having a discussion. It is what happens when people have active curious minds and apply them to current events.
“Folks here are <em>very </em>concerned about how other people practice their religious beliefs.”
You know, the constant shaming language to get people to shut up is very old and tiresome. People don’t come to a blog to discuss current events so that the school marms can come by an insinuate that discussions not go in certain directions. I think we are all adults here.
I wasn’t trying to offend, hippie.
I’m afraid my sense of humor didn’t translate well on the computer screen.
One of the longest threads we ever had on the blog (4,000 or something like that) was based on the catholic vs. protestant discussion.
I’m not saying not to discuss;by all means, let’s roll!
joan says: April 5, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“Folks here are very concerned about how other people practice their religious beliefs.”
====================================================================
Joan of Arsenio,
This will be slightly subtle so pay close attention.
I don’t really care how you or anyone else ‘practices their religiouls beliefs’, except when they use their beliefs to justify killing innocent people, particularly children, even their own children.
If your faith encompasses polygamy, then marry as many people as you want to at one time. I don’t really care as long as they are all the opposite sex. If some of them are the same sex then find another term for your union.
’Marriage’ is already taken.
If your religious beliefs includes sharing your minor children with friends, family, strangers for sexual gratification, then I do have a problem with the way you practice your faith.
Liberty is not license.
Carder,
“catholic vs. protestant”
Is that kind of like ‘my dad can beat up your dad’?
or ‘Predator vs Alien?
or ‘Godzilla vs Mothra?
or Better tasting vs Less filling?
or paper vs plastic?
Please tell me there is another alternative.
“You know, the constant shaming language to get people to shut up is very old and tiresome.”
I used no “shaming language”. But if you’re feeling ashamed of your participation in this discussion, maybe there’s a reason for that?
“I don’t really care how you or anyone else ‘practices their religiouls beliefs’, except when they use their beliefs to justify killing innocent people, particularly children, even their own children.”
I certainly would not endorse using religious beliefs to justify such things. However, that has no relevance to a discussion about abortion.
For the troll CC there is no love lost when it comes to the Catholic Church. She likes to pretend that Hitler was not excommunicated though as an apostate he incurred automatic excommunication (Canon 1364). Der Fuerher actually nurtured a hatred of the Church, he supported abortion and euthanasia, and had a fondness for Margaret Sanger, the heroine of the pro-abortion movement everywhere.
Excommunication also occurs automatically with certain offenses; i.e. procuring or assisting in an abortion (Canon 1389). Some say this includes public officials who vote to fund or otherwise facilitate access to abortion, but I am unsure of that.
“I used no “shaming language”.”
Baloney, the whole point of your statement was basically folks shouldn’t care about how other people practice their religion. Go try that line in a sociology class where all manner of human behavior is discussed. You see, incurious minds have no interest, but your complaint is that folks are interested.
“But if you’re feeling ashamed of your participation in this discussion, maybe there’s a reason for that?”
As if. About the goofiest thing said tonight. And more of the same trying to make me feel ashamed of whatever. The old school marmey crap, “maybe there is a reason for that?” Pure insinuation. And pathetic, I would add.
LOL
You are not using shaming language. No, of course not, but then in the same breath you go on to say that maybe I should feel ashamed!
You can’t make this stuff up!!!
Hilarious.
CC, when the Catholic Conference of Germany excommunicated all active Nazi Party members in 1931, then Hitler, who was a member and founder, was excommunicated too. There was no need to mention him by name, especially since there were hundred, probably thousands of members. He was also not yet Chancellor at the time.
I’m not sure exactly how this would differ from alatae senentiae excommunication; a lot would depend on the wording of the document. Unfortunately I used to have these documents, which were in a pdf file booklet from the Pave the Way Foundation, but it seems to have gotten lost when my old computer crashed.
Your constant harping on the number of Christians who are pro-choice and your insistance on the validity of their views is puzzling. You’ve more than once declared yourelf a proud atheist here. What do you care about how many Christians (or Jews) are pro-choice? Do you need them in some way to back up your beliefs? Is there safety in numbers? Why not let your pro-abort beliefs stand on their own? Because we all know how shaky those beliefs are, that’s why.
Abortion may not be directly mentioned in the Bible (ancient Jews were a vey pro-life culture, so a prohibition of this type wouldn’t have been needed). Nevertheless, the Catholic Church, acting on the authority given to St. Peter and the other apostles, has taught that abortion is a very grave sin since the first century. Opposition to abortion was one of the things that set Christians apart from pagan society. It’s the same today, even if an apostate pagan like Schori parades around in a bishop’s miter.
If she wants to debate me, I’m game – just warn her I studied with the Jesuits!
“Baloney, the whole point of your statement was basically folks shouldn’t care about how other people practice their religion. Go try that line in a sociology class where all manner of human behavior is discussed. You see, incurious minds have no interest, but your complaint is that folks are interested.”
This discussion is not driven by an intellectual or academic interest in religious practice as a subset of human behavior (which, for your information, is the field of psychology, not sociology), it’s driven by a desire to evaluate and judge the religious beliefs of others in strictly theological terms.
“You are not using shaming language. No, of course not, but then in the same breath you go on to say that maybe I should feel ashamed! ”
You’re the one who suggested “shaming” as an intended result of my post, not I. And so I reiterate my earlier point: if the first thought you had when reading my post was about shame, then maybe that’s some unwanted introspection on your part that was inadvertently forced by reading what I wrote.
“This discussion is not driven by an intellectual or academic interest in religious practice”
Sure it is. That is one aspect of the discussion. I am not arguing for a particular religious position. I go for the analysis of how it actually functions.
“human behavior (which, for your information, is the field of psychology, not sociology)”
Ugh, it’s like talking to the wall. Sociology is the study of the behavior of people in groups. Stuff like religion is included, uh, because it is social. What is the point of this goofy condescending comment? Like do you mean to make the point that religion is not a topic of sociology? I mean, are you serious? Do you honestly think religion is exclusively a topic of psychology and specifically not sociology? It is just silly. Why not comment on something that furthers the actual discussion rather than the condescending crap? It is rude to be condescending even when you are right, but it is just sad when you are in error.
Just make a salient point.
“You’re the one who suggested “shaming” as an intended result of my post, not I.”
Yeah, because that was your intent. Recall you said, “Folks here are very concerned about how other people practice their religious beliefs.” Emphasis on “very”.
So, what is the salient point in that comment?
Looks to me that it is just an observation that some folks are more concerned than they should be with how others practice their religion. It is just insinuation, and lame. Why not just come out and make an intellectual or academic point?
“Sure it is. That is one aspect of the discussion. I am not arguing for a particular religious position. I go for the analysis of how it actually functions.”
Of course no robust analysis of how religion functions would be complete without dismissing entire churches as “goofy” based on their stances on a particular issue or issues. You’re here to throw bombs. I don’t know why you’re suddenly going to such lengths to mask this initiative.
“Ugh, it’s like talking to the wall. Sociology is the study of the behavior of people in groups. Stuff like religion is included, uh, because it is social.”
Except you did not use the phrase “behavior of people in groups”, you used the phrase “all manner of human behavior”, which does not include the qualifier about groups. It’s obvious you don’t like being corrected, so here’s a tip: don’t make factually incorrect statements if you don’t want to suffer the horrible indignity of being called on such.
“Why not comment on something that furthers the actual discussion rather than the condescending crap?”
Oh, okay, here, I’ll make a contribution to the discussion that furthers it according to the lofty standards you’ve helped set: “[insert church that I disagree with on some theological issue] is goofy! This is crap! That is crap! The other thing is crap!”
“Looks to me that it is just an observation that some folks are more concerned than they should be with how others practice their religion. It is just insinuation, and lame. Why not just come out and make an intellectual or academic point?”
You’ve backed away from your original contention with my post. Are you still accusing me of engaging in “shaming”?
“While you don’t accept it, the theology of the Anglican Communion is just as valid as yours.”
CC I wasn’t aware you considered any pro-life theology valid, but that’s wonderful to know. And just as valid as the theologies you so dearly esteem – how flattering.
Certainly, given their equal validity, you can at least respect the internal structure of the RCC to teach its own theology and structure its own canon laws. No one is forced to stay, and indeed they may leave, as you have, to pursue a religion more in keeping with their personal preferences and beliefs. If the Church is indeed losing faithful at the rate you suggest, then I wonder that you worry so much about them as they must be in imminent danger of irrelevancy.
“Except you did not use the phrase “behavior of people in groups”, you used the phrase “all manner of human behavior”, which does not include the qualifier about groups.”
You know, this is the nitpicky school marmey crap. There is no point to this hair splitting. Yeah, I left off a qualifier because sociology implies groups and I was giving you credit for getting that without my spelling it out. Duh.
“It’s obvious you don’t like being corrected,”
Well, not when the person offering correction is wrong or pointlessly nitpicking that I omitted stuff that would be redundant like noting that sociology is about social groups. Duh.
“insert church that I disagree with on some theological issue”
theological issue? Have I said I disagree with any church on any theological issue? No, I haven’t. I have described them and the way they position themselves. Did I say they were goofy. Yeah. Context helps.
“I’ll just take a guess that “sola scriptura” is better than nothing like the goofy churches like the ELCA and some Episcopal etc. that shot themselves in the foot by denying that the Bible is true.”
Yeah, I think it is pretty goofy for a religious group to pull the rug out from under itself by denying the truth of its own foundational writings. Go ahead, defend that move. Tell us how it furthers their endeavors. Explain how they plan to get converts with that message. Give us a psychological/sociological basis for why that is appealing to folks.
As for crap, I was referring to all your vague insinuations.
Thank you Bobby for interjecting some intelligence into this thread. ;)
That is why the bishops should make sure that people KNOW if they participate in abortion in any way they will risk excommunication.
“You’ve backed away from your original contention with my post.”
Not.
“Are you still accusing me of engaging in “shaming”?”
Yes, mostly because you try to make the discussion about the commenters and not the discussion. Insinuating improper motives rather than engaging the topic, like saying, “Folks here are very concerned about how other people practice their religious beliefs.” which is an attack on the commenters and not a comment relevant to the discussion.
Excommunication is a last resort. Why? – $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
oh, and power.
Angel: Thank you Bobby for interjecting some intelligence into this thread.
: ) Bobby is great. I don’t always agree with everything he says, but he rules.
I’m surprised that nobody has yet invoked Godwin’s Law on this thread. Hitler was profoundly anti-choice. He thought that German population expansion was vital to the improvement of the Aryan race, and he vigorously enforced anti-abortion laws for the Germans he thought were worthy of reproduction.
Likewise, he was totally for Jews having abortions, or for other people he thought were not worthy of reproducing. There, abortion was not only permitted, it was encouraged or even required.
“Excommunication is a last resort. Why? – $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$oh, and power.”
First, aren’t there some like spiritual consequences that the Church tries not to inflict on folks by just excommunicating folks for any failing? I am not an expert but I thought I heard that.
Also, isn’t the point of excommunicating them just to get them to stop whatever offense they are doing? They can come back if they do thus and such. Right?
Is there an anti-Catholic psychosis in the Clinical Handbook of Psychological Disorders? There should be.
What $$$$$$$$$$$ ? What power? You mean the power to motivate people to charity? You mean the $$$$$$$$$ that fund charitable institutions in backwater nowherevilles all over the globe? The ones where the girly men of the UN are scared to go? Where relief workers are murdered. Where are all the privately funded secular groups serving the desperate?
Get a grip.
The issue of excommunication is a thorny one. It is not meant as punitive, but medicinal. It is meant to make the sinner realize that the magnitude of their rebellion and their unrepentant attitude cuts them off from redeeming grace for all eternity.
I don’t support declaring PP an enemy of the Catholic Church. That’s too parochial and restrictive. PP is the enemy of humanity, being the largest practitioner of crimes against humanity. If we excommunicate people for supporting PP, what about those who don’t necessarily support PP, but support contraception programs and abortion in other venues?
Canon Law can be refined to take into its purview those who participate with formal cooperation by including legislators voting specific bills aimed at supporting this mass-murder operation. There is a current canonical loophole regarding legislators.
“I’m surprised that nobody has yet invoked Godwin’s Law on this thread.”
Hey, you just did!
(KIDDING!!)
Hippie, I’m telling you, if you keep thinking and making sense like that, some abortion advocate’s brain is going to explode. They don’t like the logic and stuff. Lol!!
:>)!
:: sticks tongue out at ninek while smiling at Hippie :: ; )
Gerard, you know I don’t believe all as you do, but I’ve always been fascinated with the hierarchy of the catholic Church, and the very hierarchy of thought that has gone into it. I always appreciate seeing your thoughts. You’re a great addition to this board.
You’re sorta close hippie. Those who face excommunication for things such as supporting choice are probably those who are also in a position to make substantial donations to the church and have pro-church influence in the community.
“Catholic cult, one of the most disgusting religious atrocities of all time.”
Obviously, one has to have a very limited view of history to come up with such a silly view. Go read this guy and then get back to us:
http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Herodotus-Histories/dp/0375421092
It’s long, but evidently you need it. Keep your chin up. You will get through it. My 12-year old did. Please don’t tell us you are an atheist. Your confidence while in ignorance is an embarrassment to the intelligent skeptics.
“The Episcopalian theology is based on interpretations of the “lines” in the Bible. The pro-choice position of Reformed Judaism (the majority of American Jews) is based on their Talmudic interpretations of scripture.”
CC, your blasphemy is vile. Tell me what “lines” in the Bible the Episcopalians use to condone their pro-choice to kill babies in the womb position? Either post the “lines” or begone you wretch. Why do you come here and post lies. May God rebuke you for your deceit and destruction of any Christian mother’s souls who you lead astray. But you will not lead them astray here and now. Let us see you get called out on your deceit. In Jesus’ name you either tell me the lines of the Bible the Episcopalians say teaches them it is right to kill unborn children in the womb or carry your deceit as a Scarlet Letter in any future post you make on this blog from here on.
The catholics who attend church regularly are closer to 99% pro-life. And ANYBODY who calls themselves catholic and works for the House of Horrors known as Planned Barrenhood Corporation has excommunicated themselves. The Catholic Church has already openly makes this known. Catholics churches are filled with people that regularly walk and talk pro-life. As a faith community we realize abortion is of the devil and we are proud to be the enemy of the abortion industry.
“pro-church influence in the community.”
LOL
These are the folks using the church for respectability, not the other way around. In your little pro abort cesspool, the church and its charity may be more despised and suspect than influence peddling politicians, but regular Americans whose bread isn’t buttered by abortion advocacy certainly esteem the church more than politicians. They sure don’t figure the church is “good” because politicians frequent the church!!!
The delusion is just almost unfathomable.
What, like all the good republicans politicians who stand up for ‘family values’ yet who are on their second or third marriages hippie?
High profile church members promote the church amongst the community. That would be those with power and influence.
“your little pro abort cesspool” hm, let’s see if I can match that – only in a spirit of fun of course – how about ‘ your delusional dedication to a discredited deity’. Just playing with words!
I asked Reality:
“In your ‘reality’ was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya?”
Reality replied:
“my answer to your heavily loaded question must be NO!”
Then I have another question for you. As Commander and Chief Obama is supposed to be the one making those decisions. If he didn’t make the decision to launch then tell me who do you think is giving the orders to launch our missiles?
Are you really still trying to convince me that what has occurred is ‘Obama’s war on Libya’?
Like I said truthseeker, your question is loaded. Once you can lift it above the realm of ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ I’ll answer it.
Here’s one for you – exactly who declared war on Libya?
“You know, this is the nitpicky school marmey crap. There is no point to this hair splitting. Yeah, I left off a qualifier because sociology implies groups and I was giving you credit for getting that without my spelling it out. Duh. ”
It’s not hair-splitting. Sociology and psychology are completely distinct, separate disciplines. You erroneously confused the two. I pointed out your error as an aside to the main content of my response to you, and you’ve spent multiple posts backtracking and dissembling over this one tiny parenthetical correction I made for you, all the while claiming that I’m the nitpicky one.
“Well, not when the person offering correction is wrong or pointlessly nitpicking that I omitted stuff that would be redundant like noting that sociology is about social groups. Duh. ”
I’ll try to explain, in very simple terms, why you were wrong. Psychology is the study of human behavior on an individual level. Sociology is the study of human behavior in groups. Without that additional qualifier, the definition of sociology is meaningless and indistinct from the definition of psychology. “All manner of human behavior” (your original definition) is most certainly not the subject of sociology.
“Yeah, I think it is pretty goofy for a religious group to pull the rug out from under itself by denying the truth of its own foundational writings. Go ahead, defend that move. Tell us how it furthers their endeavors. Explain how they plan to get converts with that message. Give us a psychological/sociological basis for why that is appealing to folks.”
I don’t have to defend it. I’ve already made it clear that I consider it petty and beneath me (or any reasonable, decent person) to attack the teachings and beliefs of another religion, church or denomination (especially over something so utterly trifling). What does it say about the confidence you have in your own faith if you feel the need to knock down the beliefs of others?
The double standard amongst the oh-so-smart pro-lifers, on this blog, is truly amazing. While I have been reprimanded for my comments regarding pedophila and misogyny in the Catholic church, the commenters here have no problem trashing the Episcopalian church. I can certainly understand why they cling to their dogma, as it provides a basis for their anti-choice zealotry. But to then insult other faith traditions, whilst criticizing those of us who critique theirs, is the height of hypocrisy.
“It would seem the ‘self hating Jews’ who are intent on aborting themselves out of existence would be the ‘anti-semites’”
So pro-choice Jews are self hating. Interesting
“It’s the same today, even if an apostate pagan like Schori parades around in a bishop’s miter”
{Forbidden content edited. G.N.}
“Would that be like consulting chicken entrails or reading tea leaves?” (reference to the Episcopalian presiding bishop’s theology)
But if I “joked” that Ken’s biblical quotes were based on a Middle Eastern mythology, I would be castigated.
But the intellectually self indulgent and condescending Hippie who, obviously, is a noted theologian says this:
“No biggie, in 50 years the Anglicans will have a new theology anyway. I mean when they deny the truth of their own foundational writings, and traditions, what else is there? Post modern nonsense. At its core capricious and anti-truth; just a bunch of amoral ramblings. I know agnostics and atheists with more respect for truth, knowledge, morality and tradition”
While I disagree with the Catholic church’s position on many issues, I would not assert that they are “amoral” nonsense because I do realize that their position is based on what they perceive to be the truth. As I stated, there is a great diversity of religious thought in today’s faith communities. {Forbidden content edited. G.N.} But Hippie is quite the scholar so I guess it’s all good….
Obviously, hypocrisy is a pro-life family value!
{CC, There is a policy here about gratuitous stabs at the Catholic Church via constant accusations of clerical pedophilia. Pursuant to that policy your comments were deleted. That in no way suggests that you aren’t free to attack the Church in a host of other ways. G.N.}
And to Ms. Pieper
Throughout history, the popes have been very public about who is being excommunicated. As you know, England was put under “interdict” when the Pope was upset with King John. As I noted, former Bishop Gelaneau issued a press release, to the Providence Journal, regarding the excommunication of the director of Planned Parenthood. It certainly would have behooved Pope Pius XII to have made a public statement about the excommunication of Hitler. The fact that masses were said for the repose of Hitler’s soul didn’t do much for the public image of the RC church, either. But back to Hitler – somehow the self excommunication meme doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny. Il Papa made public statements about the evil Communists. He (and the German bishops) might have said something about Hitler – that their record is soiled is why Israel is not too happy about the prospects for Pacelli’s possible sainthood.
But the reality is, at this time in history, that most American Catholic Bishops won’t go so far as to deny communion to all those “self excommunicated” pro-choice Catholic politicians. Money talks….
CC:
For instance, the Catholic Conference in Germany in 1931 officially excommunicated all active members of the Nazi Party.
Adolph Hitler was never excommunicated from his Catholic church.
This is a prime example of
1. Hatred blinding people to truth (such as Hitler being the head of the Nazi Party, and therefore covered under the excommunication).
2. Ardent promotion of abortion breaking down one’s rational faculties.
Gerard, it is the role of the Catholic Church to save souls and prepare them for eternity with God. Being that Planned Parenthhood promotes promiscuity to children as young as five with its sex-indoctrination programs, they are stealing souls away from Him. Their official religion is in the Humanist Manifesto. That makes Planned Parenthood opposed to the Church’s mission. Therefore they are an enemy of the Church.
They sure don’t figure the church is “good” because politicians frequent the church!!!
The only time most of the politicians in my area attend Mass is right before an election. Oh and sometimes they show up an additional two times a year so that the other Chreasters can see them and vice-versa. Your so right hippie — Unfathomaby delusional.
What does it say about the confidence you have in your own faith if you feel the need to knock down the beliefs of others?
What does it say about the confidence you have in your own faith if you feel the need to knock down the beliefs of the faith you claim as your own, joan?
CC, you are very dishonest about Puritan New England trying to make the churches then to be pro-choice. Given how you deem us as into sharia law, it makes it worse. Those folks in Puritan days had strong views of the law of God being applicable in society.
Congregationalism at least in colonial days were diehard Calvinists who subscribed to the Savoy Declaration. Here’s their beliefs on Christianity and civil law:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/Savoy_Declaration/savoy3.html#twentyfour
“What does it say about the confidence you have in your own faith if you feel the need to knock down the beliefs of the faith you claim as your own, joan?”
When have I ever knocked down any religious beliefs here? Much less my own?
I haven’t, of course. But I suspect you’re using a very, very loose definition of this accusation that includes simple disagreement over certain issues.
CC, diversity of opinion wasn’t basis for Reformatiob. The five Solas were.
Ninek, sola Scriptura doesn’t mean there is no church to interpret it. It simply means the only objective basis for absolute truth, by which church can interpret. Yeah sure that has been misunderstood by many fundies to make themselves into island unto themselves with their Bibles. But not the Reformers who believed there is role for the church to interpret Scriptures. Hence the confessions like Book of Clncord and Westminister Confession.
Obviously lying AND hypocrisy is pro-abortion value (given abort penchant for support for male predators against women if they support abortion). CC I’d lying here too about prolifers all having indignation if she mentions sins of RCC. Prolifers who aren’t Catholics rail against the sins of that church, too.
Doug,
Thank you. The same here.
CC, you are very dishonest about Puritan New England trying to make the churches then to be pro-choice
Where did I say that? I merely reflected that their spiritual descendants are now pro-choice – which is ironic given, as you say, their strict moral stances. The “scarlet letter” is now the letter of choice for the anti-choice faiths whose members criticize non marital and non reproductive sex as “promiscuous.”
“Being that Planned Parenthhood promotes promiscuity to children as young as five with its sex-indoctrination programs”
Ah, the old promiscuity thing rears its ugly head again. And “sex indoctrination” – from which pro-life propaganda piece did that come from. Planned Parenthood provides gynecological services to women. My clinic does abortions, as well as other services, on Saturday and Wednesday mornings. The rest of the week (they are closed on Sundays) they provide pap smears, STD testing, etc. Many of the women, who run the gauntlet of protesters, are there to pick up birth control perscriptions.
But “Cranky Catholic’s” emphasis on “promiscuity” suggests a strange notion of sexuality – and worse, a hatred of sexual women.
“Italian dictator Benito Mussolini asked the Pope to excommunicate Adolf Hitler shortly before he went to Rome to seal their alliance in 1938, according to a Vatican document…It is not clear if the Church ever seriously considered excommunicating Hitler. The Vatican archives relating to pre-war Germany were opened in a bid to counter charges that the Vatican did not do enough to prevent the Holocaust.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3144984.stm
The argument is that Hitler was not a practicing Catholic. However, the director of our Planned Parenthood was also a non practicing Catholic. Her “self excommunication” was publicized by the bishop. There was no, as far as I know, publicity, by the Catholic church, of Hitler’s “self excommunication.”
If they are ptochoicers then they aren’t spiritual descendants.
Nice dance ‘Reality’. Funny how conservatives have no problem answering liberal’s questions but liberals look silly if/when they answer conservative’s questions. Let me ask you this theis softball question again. You stated that Obama did not order the missile strikes on Libya. If that is true then tell me who did order the US missile strike?
I will answer your question no problem. “exactly who declared war on Libya?”
As far as I know there isn’t anybody who ‘declared’ war on Libya. Obama engaged us in a war with Libya without ever looking for congressional approval or declaring war on Libya. Only in the liberal mind like yours can a sitting US president launch US missiles on a sovereign nation and forsake all responsibility for the launch just because he didn’t “declare” war. You have the spine of an embryo.
Hippie, there is a huge difference between sola Scriptura as practiced by the Reformers and their confessional churches and what’s done by many fundie churches today. Reformation churches don’t disdain all tradition- they just don’t see tradition as basis for absolute truth. Nor do they denied church have authority to interpret Scriptures- just that the church isn’t infallible. They were no liberals either.
Funny CC doesn’t mention spiritual descendants of the Puritans who are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church America and so on who are prolifers.
If they are ptochoicers then they aren’t spiritual descendants
It is a fact that the United Congregational Churches are descended from the New England Puritan church. If you don’t think so, fine; but they believe it. From the website of a Maine Congregational Church
“First Church was rooted in English (and more particularly New England) Puritanism and Separatism—the Puritans and Pilgrims”
http://allsoulsbangor.com/overview.html#attitudesToward
Funny CC doesn’t mean spiritual descendants of the Puritans who are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church America and so on who are prolifers
That’s because the Puritans were not Presbyterians. I was merely referencing the irony of how the original Puritans, with their “puritanical” code, morphed into a group that is now socially very liberal.
CC,
I know you hate facts and prattle on as though they were never presented to you, but the excommunication of Nazi Party members in 1931 included the head of the party. (That would be Hitler). That’s the end of the debate over whether or not Hitler was excommunicated.
But I guess in the magical, fantastical world of CC, the excommunication (The ultimate penalty) only applied to lesser members for lesser crimes, and not to Hitler himself.
That’s your delusion, CC, and not our reality. There are those who build castles in the air, and some who even move into them.
Truthseeker said:
”
CC, your blasphemy is vile. Tell me what “lines” in the Bible the Episcopalians use to condone their pro-choice to kill babies in the womb position? Either post the “lines” or begone you wretch. Why do you come here and post lies. May God rebuke you for your deceit and destruction of any Christian mother’s souls who you lead astray. But you will not lead them astray here and now. Let us see you get called out on your deceit. In Jesus’ name you either tell me the lines of the Bible the Episcopalians say teaches them it is right to kill unborn children in the womb or carry your deceit as a Scarlet Letter in any future post you make on this blog from here on.”
CC said: The “scarlet letter” is now the letter of choice for the anti-choice faiths
And per your admission CC the scarlet letter represents deceit. And when called out on your deceit you where it proudly. Spreading lies and disorder is the mission of the anti-christ. Just to be clear; are you admitting that what you post is deceit interspersed with complete fabrication, or can you actually reference scriptures that anti-choice ‘faiths’ actually try and quote to support their abortive mindset?
CC being descended by birth doesn’t make one spiritual descendants which refer to common beliefs. And you are wrong about the Presbys. The Puritans were largely Congregationalists of back then but had a significant numbers of Presbyterians, too. The Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans shared Calvinistic and other beliefs.
I’ve been called a lot of things – but never an agent of the anti-Christ. “Truthseeker” seems to think that I’m lying about the position of the Episcopal Church so without further ado, here’s the teaching that was adopted at the 1995 General Convention which is where and how Episcopalian “dogma” is established:
Resolved, That this 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.
Citation:
General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of…The Episcopal Church, Indianapolis, 1994 (New York: General Convention, 1995), pp. 323-25
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution-complete.pl?resolution=1994-A054
Reformed Judaism also explains, on a number of websites, its pro-choice position.
PS – I realize the “Truthseeker” is going to say that without a biblical citation, the Episcopalian Church is in error. I guess they’re agents of the anti-Christ, too! LOL!
I know you hate facts and prattle on as though they were never presented to you, but the excommunication of Nazi Party members in 1931 included the head of the party. (That would be Hitler). That’s the end of the debate over whether or not Hitler was excommunicated
Actually, the debate is ongoing. There is an interesting discussion here. It seems that there is a question of the language in the source document which is also questionable.
Some interesing photos of Hitler and Catholic clergy are found here.
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17565&start=100
The source document is here but I don’t read Italian or German.
http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Bavarian_Nuncios_17Feb1931.pdf
“Truthseeker” should stick to things that he or she knows about, like openly endorsing the actions of Scott Roeder.
The debate continues:
“Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf, “… I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.” Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.
Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” He never left the church, and the church never left him”
The excommunication of 1931 was done by the Bishop of Mainz regarding Nazis in his diocese. It was endorsed by the hierarchy which made a distinction between activists and followers. Said designations were left to local priests.
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise(n)-1.htm
The excommunication of Hitler is not a standard reference in any histories of the Third Reich. One would think that the RC Church would have heavily publicized this when it was apparent that the Nazis were committing crimes against humanity. But there was that “Concordant…”
“Truthseeker” should stick to things that he or she knows about, like openly endorsing the actions of Scott Roeder
And yet he/she claims to be a Christian and accuses me of being an agent of the “anti-Christ.” Helloo????
So there is an interesting discussion going on, but you don’t speak the language. The document was unequivocal, as is Bobby’s very apt description of latae sententiae excommunications.
You really love having it both ways, don’t you, CC?
If the church doesn’t excommunicate bad guys, then we’re bad.
If the Church does excommunicate bad guys, then we’re bad.
Hitler was at least a little better than you in one respect. He was more discerning in who he killed, and advocated killing.
At least he showed some restraint.
“PS – I realize the “Truthseeker” is going to say that without a biblical citation, the Episcopalian Church is in error. I guess they’re agents of the anti-Christ, too! LOL!”
This is the problem with deceivers. In one breath they will say that they are from a pro-abort Episcopalian theology is based on interpretations of the “lines” in the Bible. And then in the next breath they will say the pro-abort ‘faiths’ are faiths without need to reference the Word of God. The truth is that Jesus himself often used scripture as the authority on truth in God. So by definition churches that dismiss scripture also dismiss Jesus’ teachings. Sounds like they would be leading a lot of Christians astray then. Sounds like the work of the anti-christ.
CC, your assertions flip-flop like a fish out of water. Exactly which form of the lie are you now standing by? Are you on the flip side or the flop side. It sounds like you are now admitting you don’t know of any Episcopalian faiths that use “interpretations of the “lines” in the Bible.” to justify their killing babies in the womb. Does that mean you also admit it would certainly be blasphemy if they did?
“What does it say about the confidence you have in your own faith if you feel the need to knock down the beliefs of others?”
Goofy. No faith required to just be rational. Try it sometime.
Try to make a salient point. The condescending on and on of defining stuff that everyone already knows is boring.
Anyway, I am not knocking down their faith, but hey by their own accounts they don’t believe their own book. Evidently you missed the point. It is just the argument from utility. What is the utility of denying the veracity of your own foundational book? It is not a theological discussion. I just question how exactly they plan to market the concept. Get it?
“Truthseeker” should stick to things that he or she knows about, like openly endorsing the actions of Scott Roeder.”
Ha, ha.
Joan is back with another attempt at shaming someone into shutting up.
Today’s shaming tactic is to insinuate that someone is uninformed and shaming tactic #2 is insinuate that someone endorses murder.
But no salient points.
“What, like all the good republicans politicians who stand up for ‘family values’ yet who are on their second or third marriages hippie?”
Uh, aren’t they trying to use “family values” BS to try to improve their own very poor record? So, thanks for making my point that politicians use others, or propaganda, or institutions to gain respectability rather than using their own integrity to confer respectability on the institutions, ideas or people with whom they associate.
“High profile church members promote the church amongst the community.”
So you like the Catholic Church more because Biden and Santorum and Pelosi are Catholics? I wouldn’t have figured that from you. I guess I gave you too much credit.
“That would be those with power and influence.”
So, religious doctrine is more believable if politicians show up to church? Who knew?
“your little pro abort cesspool” hm, let’s see if I can match that – only in a spirit of fun of course – how about ‘ your delusional dedication to a discredited deity’. Just playing with words!”
Goofy. I haven’t made any theologically based arguments. I never do. I approach topics from the standpoint of reason and utility. So, big fail for you. I see religious adherence as a behavior, which it is.
truthseeker says:
April 5, 2011 at 7:18 am
The left is gonna paint whatever lies they want. As far as Scott Roeder being a folk hero? Probably to all the mother’s and dead babies Tiller tortured and killed. As long as people like CC and Planned Barrenhood fight to keep their right to commit abortion on viable babies and on unemancipated minors without parental notification some will likely continue to think of Roeder’s actions as their only means of justice. Is it a weakness in Christian faith to kill? YES. I think mine personally would be if a creep like Tiller ever commited his evil upon my wife or one of my daughters.
No “insinuation” needed here. Just a plain reading of what the poster wrote. Is that “salient” enough for you?
“Is that “salient” enough for you?”
No, it is a pointless restatement of a comment which everyone already read.
You don’t even offer a comment on what is contained in the quotation.
Look, the point of all of your comments appears to be ad hominem insinuations. That is you seem to constantly attack the commenters not the ideas. Why not just make a point related to the topic instead of always just attacking people?
Praxedes: The only time most of the politicians in my area attend Mass is right before an election. Oh and sometimes they show up an additional two times a year so that the other Chreasters can see them and vice-versa.
Ha!
There are those who build castles in the air, and some who even move into them.
Another keeper to put into my notebook! Thanks Gerard!
“The five Solas were.”
Fide, Christus, Scriptura, Gracia, and … Gloria?
Praxedes,
;-)
Hi CC.
Let’s just jump to teh heart of this. Suppose it can be established beyond a doubt that Hitler was never excommunicated. What follows? What is teh point you’re trying to make if so? Is it “the Church is hypocritical” or what?
Wow, our pro-abort trolls are so hilarious, but I don’t have time today to copy and paste all their inconsistencies together.
The sola scriptura thing got lost way up there in the thread, but I always find it a fascinating subject.
Today’s pagans and wiccans are actually the children and grandchildren of backsliding Christians. They may think they’re part of some ancient tradition but they’re about as ancient as radio shows and Howdy Doody.
Still the Good News is the same. God is alive. God presents you with a choice: death or life. Choose life that you may have it in abundance. All orthodox churches embrace this.
All churches who have justified acceptance of abortion are like Adam and Eve, chewing on their forbidden fruit. The lie sours in their stomach. You cannot be like God. You can kill a tiny child and you think that makes you powerful. It makes you a big, stinking bully. You can see that you have free will and you think that anything you will, you may do. That’s not Christianity or Judaism: that’s satanism. Some of our trolls are proud to be like that, proud of their bullying, proud that they can find others as debased as themselves. Well, all the Pelosi’s and pro-abort Reformed Jews don’t have the power to destroy the Church. 2000 years ago, the church began with a dozen apostles, a martyred leader, and a few supportive women. Despite hundreds of years of persecution and lion-feeds, the Church did nothing but grow.
It doesn’t matter who gets a fancy letter from Il Papa that confirms their excommunication: the Church is alive and it’s doors are always open to those that turn back, repent, and sincerely desire to be reconciled. As long as Cecile’s heart beats, she has a chance to turn back. As long as Nancy Pelosi draws breath, she can still find her way home. Where there’s life, there’s hope. Even for our trolls here: every moment is a new chance, a new opportunity. One of you thinks you’re a Catholic. I dare you, triple dog dare you, to turn back and be reconciled. Nothing you can do is bad enough to separate you from God. Even Hilter, who’s name we bandy about as the embodiment of evil, even he had a chance while he lived. Take that chance, J, cross the Tiber and come home. Not just on big holidays when all the best decorations are on display. Come home on an ordinary day. Be extraordinary.
Quick anecdote about the PP person who was excommunicated in Rhode Island. When I was in grad school, we had some Dominicans on campus, and one of them either grew up or was assigned to a diocese in Rhode Island. He told me that not only was the PP employee excommunicated, but it was a certain kind of excommunication (or maybe sentence, not sure the technical term) such that if she were to ever even walk into a Church during mass, the priest would have to stop saying the mass and wait for her to leave. Apparently this happened once- she came into Church during a mass, and teh celebrant knew who she was and stopped saying mass until she was gone. That is intense! If anyone knows the name of that kind of excommunication or extra sentence, please let me know.
CC,
“I’ve been called a lot of things – but never an agent of the anti-Christ.”
Well….
Jesus said “By their fruits shall you know them.” Your advocating the slaughter of innocents ain’t exactly the Archangel Gabriel announcing good news.
You come here doing Satan’s bidding CC, and it is with him that you will spend all of eternity if you do not repent of having killed your own baby, driven your niece/nephew to their death, and advocated repeatedly for the murder of others. Your behavior here is nothing less than Satanic.
If nobody has ever said this to you before, then count this as the grace-filled moment in your eternal trajectory when the mirror was held up to your face.
God awaits your return, ready to drown your every imperfection in His eternal ocean of love and mercy. This could be the greatest Easter of your life, CC.
Come home.
Lori Piper,
Perhaps you have more ready access to this…
When I studied Canon Law (1985 code), my professor told us that the murder of a priest or bishop was a matter of latae sententiae excommunication under the 1917 Code, which was in force until 1985. Under this code, Hitler bears the penalty for ordering the war against the Catholic Church that saw 80% of Eastern Europe’s clergy and religious murdered.
Can you dig that one out if you get a chance?
Yeah, that would be cool to find, Gerard. Unfortunately the 1917 code is only in Latin, and my Latin is not up to snuff… otherwise it would be fun to try and locate that canon…
Bobby,
The english translation is available in print form, if you have access to a seminary library.
Also, the penalty where the mass is stopped is from a Ferendae Sententiae excommunication. That’s one that is juridically pronounced, and comes with certain delects. I have a friend getting me the specifics from the 1985 Code, as I’m not at home to look through my copy of the Code .
“The english translation is available in print form”
No kidding! I wonder where the closest seminary is to me…
“Ferendae Sententiae excommunication”
Sweet! Thanks, I’ll check that out.
Bobby, Here’s the Reference:
Peters, Edward N. 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: in English translation, with extensive scholarly apparatus. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001.
Wow, Ed Peters… is there anything that man CAN’T do? Thanks, Gerry.
“It’s the same today, even if an apostate pagan like Schori parades around in a bishop’s miter”
{Forbidden content edited. G.N.}
Redacted! LOL! Guess I’ll never know what CC really thinks of my words. Unfortunately I’ve heard it all before.
In regard to the “discussion” of Hitler’s excommunication on Wikipedia, it’s really hilarious. ONE GUY is opposing those who insist the document is real, based solely on his own prejudice and historical ignorance. He keeps on saying “No one opposed Hitler in 1931, therefore any historical document that says they did is a forgery!” Sounds an awful lot like the way you operate, CC.
In regard to the pictures, it’s too bad you didn’t look further down that page and find out that the pictures in question have been subjected to scrutiny and it has been clarified that the clergy in question were not Catholic. I believe that Lutherans and other Protestant denominations have bishops too. Plus, the mere fact that Hitler shook hands with someone doesn’t necessarily make him a member of his church. I’ve shaken hands and interacte with lots of Lutherans, that does’t make me one.
Delightful how you depend on that German bishops’ document as proof of anything when you admit you can’t read the language. Well I can. The first part is just a cover letter in Italian by the papal nuncio in Bavaria to the Cardinal secretary of State for the Vatican, Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII.
The actual statement of the bishops says that Nazi leaders “have placed race higher than religion. They reject the revelation of the Old Tesament and even the Mosaic Ten Commandments.” In short, they say, what the Nazis put forward as Christianity is not Christianity at all. They add that “the Catholic clergy are strictly forbidden to cooperate with the National Socialist movement in any way.” The party is declared to be engaged in a “cultural war” (Kulturkampf) with the Church. It also appears that Nazi party members should be forbidden the sacraments on a case by case basis, depnding on whther they clearly understood the party’s opposition to Christian truth. There is a lot more that is very interesting, and I will try to translate the whole sometime, but I haven’t time now. But the bishops were clearly pointing out the posionous nature of Nazi racial hatred.
Something very similar to this appears to have been adopted by the whole German episcopate at Fulda that same year, which is the document I spoke about before, and was probably the basis for the AUL’s orginal story. That one did include a blanket excommunication of Nazi party members, excepting only those who joined by fear or coercion, if I remember right. At any rate, as Ronald Rychlak makes clear in his book on Pius XII and Hitler, Hitler, the War and the Pope, there is no record of Hitler ever attending the Catholic Church as an adult or seeking the sacraments. He was clearly an aspostate and therefore excommunicared by Canon 1364 as mentioned above.
As for why the Pope never publicized Hitler’s excommunication, I suppose he figured there was no need, since the Holy See under Pius XI denounced everything the Nazis stood for. Catholics would not have been under any illusion about Hitler’s beliefs being non-Catholic. That would have been the necessary part for pastoral care and teaching about Nazism to Catholics, not the private state of Hitler’s soul.
And the Concordat (not “Concordant”) had nothing to do with it. Hitler broke it almost as soon as it was signed and it was largely understood to be a dead letter. I don’t think the holy See thereafter felt bound by anything it contained when souls or lives were at stake.
You rant also fails to take into account the realities of the situation. After Cardinal Pacelli became Pope in 1939, and war broke out a few months later, the political neutrality of the Vatican as a state in its own right would have been compromised if it had trumpeted the that the major leader on one side of the war had been excommunicated, and leaders of the other hadn’t. And the political neutrality was only in place to protect the universal spiritual fatherhood of the Pope.
The result? The political neutrality of the Vatican as a state meant that the German generals who wanted to put out feelers for peace with the Allies if Hitler were out of the way (they planned to assassinate him) could feel free to approach the Pope in confidence. He passed on word of their plan to the British. The fact that because the Holy See continued at least in anme to havve that Concordat with Germany, Germany actualy continued to have an Ambassador to the Holy See during the war came in very handy when it came to protecting the Jews of Rome. You can find both stories admirably set out in Prof. Rychlak’s book.
As for the question of Hitler’s excommunication or any defense of Pius XII never arises in the histories you’ve read, I would bet that’s because they are written by anti-Catholic secularists, or ex-Catholics with bad consciences like yourself. Really, there has to be a reason you continue to push this junk on so regular, even compulsive a basis.
Hi Gerard,
I’ve used up about all of my internet time for today after that comment I made, so I can’t do any searching. But if you can’t find the English for that canon, I’d be glad to attempt a translation from the Latin.
truthseeker, or to borrow yor bro ken‘s little habit of moniker distortion liespreader; your hatred inspired desperation to malign Obama in any way is becoming obsessive.
You declared it to be ‘Obama’s war on Libya’ when that simply is not the case. Then you tried to compare it with the invasion of Iraq by ignoring the factual differences, UN resolutions etc. You found the invasion of Iraq to be legitimate without a resolution but the UN resolution in regard to Libya to be illegitimate.
The loaded question you put “was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya?” is demonstrative of your desire to establish some sort of conspiracy theory in one direction or another.
“As far as I know there isn’t anybody who ‘declared’ war on Libya.” – ” Obama engaged us in a war with Libya” – which one is it?
“launch US missiles on a sovereign nation and forsake all responsibility for the launch just because he didn’t “declare” war.” – hello! UN resolution.
“You have the spine of an embryo.” – does that render me ‘valueless’ then?
And I didn’t make any pro-abort cesspool based arguments hippie. And like I said, it was just wordplay. The letter for the day was ‘d’.
“I see religious adherence as a behavior, which it is.” – that sounds interesting, do tell.
“launch US missiles on a sovereign nation and forsake all responsibility for the launch just because he didn’t “declare” war.” – hello! UN resolution.
In your reality does voting for a UN resolution equal a declaration of war?
“You have the spine of an embryo.” – does that render me ‘valueless’ then?
No, it just mean your spine has a lot of developement ahead of it.
“does voting for a UN resolution equal a declaration of war?” – no. There is no war. Have you read the UN Resolution? The UN is responsible for the actions taking place. I obviously should have known better than to let you use terms like “declare” war” without challenging it.
That’s funny, I keep being told that a fetus is just like you and me!
Are you going to tell us which conspiracy theory you’re aching to launch? Is it the one that says Obama’s evil because he’s responsible for the actions taking place in Libya or the one that says he’s evil because he allowed the nasty old ‘one world’ UN take responsibility?
That’s funny, I keep being told that a fetus is just like you and me!
That’s why I didn’t say you have a spine like a fetus; I said you have a spine like an embryo.
In your reality the president of the US is not responsible for launching our missiles as long as he gets a UN resolution first. In my reality it is precisely our Commander in Chief who is responsible for launching US missiles regardless of how many nations condone his actions. I am perplexed by your insistence that our president is not responsible for launching our missiles. It is the president who gives the orders to launch. Can you explain yourself better?
“does voting for a UN resolution equal a declaration of war?” – no. There is no war.
Tell that to the Libyans… good grief
Perhaps you might ask whoever holds responsibility to make your statement “Obama’s war on Libya” the ‘Quote of the Day’ so you can hold forth on why Obama is satan’s spawn in regards to the Libyan dilemma.
No-one has declared war on Libya. Gadaffi has declared war on the internal rebels, that’s about as close as it gets.
You are now saying the person who decides on the quote of the day on this web site holds responsibility for Obama’s ordering the launch of missiles on Libya. lol
All I said was Obama is responsible for launching US missiles upon the Libyan nation. You refuse to admit that so you deflect with conjecture of Obama’s kinetic action was spawned from satan (your words not mine). So much conjecture – so little logic.
“You are now saying the person who decides on the quote of the day on this web site holds responsibility for Obama’s ordering the launch of missiles on Libya. lol” – how on earth did you get there?!? Wow, now you’re really losing it. I meant whoever holds responsibility for arranging the ‘quote of the day’, which wouldn’t be the UN. It’s ok, you’re obviously tired, look at the time!
Your persistent farnarkling has been an attempt to evade having to justify your statement “Obama’s war on Libya” and your assertion that it was OK for Bush, Blair and Howard to invade Iraq without a UN resolution but not OK for a coalition acting under a UN resolution to prevent Gadaffi attacking his own populace.
Except that I never asserted that it was OK for Bush, Blair and Howard to invade Iraq without a UN resolution ( I merely pointed out that they had support of 40 countries going into Iraq) or that it is not OK for a coalition acting under a UN resolution to prevent Gadaffi attacking his own populace (you brought up the UN while using them to deflect responsibility for our missle strikes on them. That type of deflection is used prominently by liberals wishing to avoid taking responsibility for their actions/decisions. Just let yourself go and say “Barack H Obama is responsibile for launching missiles on Libya”. It can be fun to be honest with yourself. You may even stumble into a dialogue. lol
The Catholic bishops in the US today don’t have the guts/spine to excommunicate these Democrat demons who call themselves Catholic.
Thank you Lori for your inccredible comment above.
I have read “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi David G. Dalin.
There are three pages devoted to the excommunication of Hitler in this scholarly book.
It would seem that Dalin who is obviously Jewish took the position that if Hitler were (publicly) excommunicated it would have resulted in more persecution, not less. His position is that excommunication rarely achieved the result intended.
He cites several examples:
1324, Pope John XXII excommunicated the elected emperor of Germany, Louis IV of Bavaria. “The unintended result was that Louis marched on Rome with an army and crowned himself Holy Roman Emperor. An anti-pope was elected and John XXII died in exile.” This happened at a time when the papacy had much more power and influence in politics and society in general.
“Pius V’s ecommunication of Queen Elizabeth I of England in 1570 was disastrous for the Catholic Church. It resulted in the final secession of the Anglican Church, the execution of hundreds of English Catholics….”
Continuing on,
Excommunication was equally ineffective against Napoleon; it led only to the pope’s exile. Nor did papal excommunication have any effect on Napoleon’s Grande Armee, whose Catholic soldiers cheerfully accompanied their emperor into battle after battle. It was a lesson of history that papal excommunication of a ruler could backfire, inspiring people to rally around their national leader.”
I think Pius XII quickly learned that Hitler was ruthless. The Holy See knew what was going on in Germany from the very beginning. They knew of the early eugenics programs. Both Jewish leaders and Catholic bishops strongly advised Pius NOT to incite the Nazis.
There is no doubt that Hitler, Himmler and other Nazi leaders who were baptized were apostates and they by their actions were likely excommunicated. Declaring this publicly would have had no effect.
Angel, thanks for writing that. I certainly would have brought that point up if I’d had the time. As it was, I was extremely busy last night. I doubt CC read it though. Or that she will ever answer. She always cuts out when the going gets tough and she can’t answer.
You made the first comment on the original thread, which included the words “Obama’s war”. After I pointed out the facts of the situation your next comment included the phrase “Obama’s war on Libya”.
You then attempted to defend the non-UN-sanctioned invasion if Iraq by Bush, Blair and Howard on the basis of Iraq being in breach of other UN sanctions, compared to the UN sanctioned actions of a coalition authorised to prevent Gadaffi killing his own people.
Everything you have said since has been an attempt to distract attention from your blatant gambit of denigrating Obama in any way you can on this topic.
Obama’s war. Obama’s kinetic military action. Obama’s command to launch the missiles. Obama’s hit and run. Obama’s decision. Obama’s the one who needs to take responsibility cause but he refuses to. Why?
Are you French? lol
“Obama’s war” – see, you’re still getting it wrong!
“Obama’s the one who needs to take responsibility cause (sic) but he refuses to. Why?” – that would be because it’s a coalition operating under a UN resolution. Is it Camerons’ war? Sarkozy’s war?
You are simply seeking to besmirch Obama in any way you can possibly even attempt to dredge up.
I think that at this point, on this particular topic, it’s time for me to invoke the “Gerard principle”.
Is it Camerons’ war? Sarkozy’s war?
Yes it is Cameron’s war and YES it is Sarkozy’s war and YES it is Obama’s war. And it naturally besmirches when you describe a hit and run like that.