Letter to the editor

[Steven_Merten]

barsapp:

it is done…
Canon 1398 provides that, “a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.”
abortionists are condemned to hell.

Hello barsapp,

No, No, No, you have not read the watered down Pope John Paul II version of excommunication. Now excommunication means simply that you are no better off than a Protestant in that you do not recieve the sacraments. Major excommunication, through anathema, was ended by Pope John Paul II in 1983 as I am told. Excommunication (major at least) no longer means eternal damnation because the Church, as I understand it, is no longer using the Christ given keys to have Jesus bind a purpatrator to sin, as they did in anathemas of the years before 1983.

The “excommunication” you point to is not the Pre-Pope John Paul II anathematization excommunication that damns unabsolved anathemaed souls to hell of yester year before 1983.

 

[Della]

Lorarose:

It’s a more than a little silly when people think the term “separation of church and state” means that churches cannot apply standards to its members - who are, seemingly, willing active members of that particular church.

It isn’t like the Catholic Church is dragging unwilling pro-choicers into mass and then cruelly denying them communion.
In order to be a catholic, a person is expected to seriously consider the Church’s teaching - and to pay attention to the leadership of the Pope and the Magisterium.

This expectation has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
The fact that a non-catholic thinks there is something wrong with this should show us that there are those who think the Catholic Church should not be able to have the right to freedom of religion.

Absolutely! Now, this is what you should have written, Spenser, instead of writing a treatise on abortion and who can receive the Eucharist and why. The crux of the issue isn’t abortion or even who can receive the Eucharist, but the separation of church and state. If you want people to understand that point then focus on it and leave other issues on the side.

 

[Roman_Army]

Steven Merten:

Hello barsapp,

No, No, No, you have not read the watered down Pope John Paul II version of excommunication. Now excommunication means simply that you are no better off than a Protestant in that you do not recieve the sacraments. Major excommunication, through anathema, was ended by Pope John Paul II in 1983 as I am told. Excommunication (major at least) no longer means eternal damnation because the Church, as I understand it, is no longer using the Christ given keys to have Jesus bind a purpatrator to sin, as they did in anathemas of the years before 1983.

The “excommunication” you point to is not the Pre-Pope John Paul II anathematization excommunication that damns unabsolved anathemaed souls to hell of yester year before 1983.

Dude, abortion is the equivalence of murder. There is not a need for the Pope to explicitly anathematize. They are already outside the church if they refuse to properly repent. What must be done however is on the parish level. Many parishes fail to emphasize the importance of abstaining from recieving the Sacraments if one is in grave sin such as abortion, heresy, etc. They also need to back up their teaching with scriptural references.

It is obvious that the Pope also needs to decide what to do with politicians that support abortion. They are supposed to abstain from the reception of the Eucharist. But, unfortunately there is no official ruling by the church yet on that. Priests and Diocesan Bishops are left to decide for themselves.

 

[barsapp]

Steven Merten:

The “excommunication” you point to is not the Pre-Pope John Paul II anathematization excommunication that damns unabsolved anathemaed souls to hell of yester year before 1983.

it seems you are right… it is very disappointing not to see abortionists burning in hell… how can this be possible? (anyway, i think they are going to be in hell with all those politicians).
i’ve read “throwing stones” Part I and tomorrow i’m going to read part II. very interesting. any other link? Do you think the anathema should be reestablished?

 

[Steven_Merten]

barsapp:

it seems you are right… it is very disappointing not to see abortionists burning in hell… how can this be possible? (anyway, i think they are going to be in hell with all those politicians).
i’ve read “throwing stones” Part I and tomorrow i’m going to read part II. very interesting. any other link? Do you think the anathema should be reestablished?

Hello barsapp,

I think we have to study Jesus’ sworn oath that He will “hold sins bound in heaven” that Appostolic Successors call upon Him to do so from earth. I think we have to ask ourselves, if I were standing before Jesus on judgement day and He bound me to sin, because Apostolic Successors called upon Him to do so, would this be a good thing? Why would Jesus swear to bind a culprit to sin, due to Apostolic Successors calling upon Him to do so?

I think the only answer to such questions is that Jesus put such power in the hands of Apostolic Successors (or shall I say on their tongues) to give them power to lead. Compare if Jesus would have told His followers don’t worry about obeying Apostolic Successors, verses Jesus swearing that He, at judgement, will back Apostolic Successors proclamations to bind souls to sin. I believe that it is Christ’s sworn oath to uphold papal proclimations binding or loosting souls to sin, which really puts Apostolic Succesors in the ultimate leadership position. An Apostolic Successor leadership position of power which makes “superpower” world leaders power, minuscule.

Throwing Stones

**NAB MAT 16:13 **

Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.**NAB REV 1:16 **

A sharp, two-edged sword came out of his mouth, and his face shone like the sun at its brightest. When I caught sight of him I fell down at his feet as though dead, he touched me with his right hand and said: “There is nothing to fear. I am the First and the Last and the One who lives. Once I was dead but now I live-- forever and ever. I hold the keys of death and the nether world.”

NAB ISA 11:4

The Rule of Immanuel

He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.​

**NAB JOH 20:20 **

At the sight of the Lord the disciples rejoiced. “Peace be with you,” he said again. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Then he breathed on them and said: “Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.” NAB MAT 5:22

What I say to you is: everyone who grows angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; any man who uses abusive language toward his brother shall be** answerable to the Sanhedrin,** and if he holds him in contempt he risks the fires of Gehenna. **NAB MAT 18:17 **

“If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”

 

[awfulthings9]

Della:

Absolutely! Now, this is what you should have written, Spenser, instead of writing a treatise on abortion and who can receive the Eucharist and why. The crux of the issue isn’t abortion or even who can receive the Eucharist, but the separation of church and state. If you want people to understand that point then focus on it and leave other issues on the side.

I wish it were that easy. I think you are underestimating the logic used by the other side. They are correct that it is a violation of church and state seperation when a non-tax organization supports one party or the other. It is necessary, as has been my experience, that one must emphasize why abortion is not a political party issue and is not a mere issue to be lumped with health-care and immigration. They must understand why a Catholic politician is not at liberty to both partake of the Sacrament and allow such an evil. Otherwise they will always see it as political meddling.

 

[Lorarose]

It is necessary, as has been my experience, that one must emphasize why abortion is not a political party issue and is not a mere issue to be lumped with health-care and immigration. They must understand why a Catholic politician is not at liberty to both partake of the Sacrament and allow such an evil. Otherwise they will always see it as political meddling.

Yes…because the Church must be concerned with God’s relationship with mankind - the Church must necessarily be concerned with how mankind treats this gift of life.
Many think of this as an issue of “privacy” - or leftwing vs. rightwing.
It is nothing of the sort.

It is an issue of life and death - and neccesarily an issue for people of faith to address as a serious matter.
We look back now on the people of the WWII generation and we ask… “how well did they rise to the challenge?”
Who fought the spreading evil? Who looked the other way?

We don’t look back on those who fought the Nazis as people who should have minded their own business due to separation of Church and state.

I think people who take the “separation” stance on abortion are really afraid/uncomfortable to challenge themselves by taking a serious look at the issue.
They say “separation” and that lets them off the hook.
It is cowardice.

 

[Orionthehunter]

awfulthings9:

I wish it were that easy. I think you are underestimating the logic used by the other side. They are correct that it is a violation of church and state seperation when a non-tax organization supports one party or the other. It is necessary, as has been my experience, that one must emphasize why abortion is not a political party issue and is not a mere issue to be lumped with health-care and immigration. They must understand why a Catholic politician is not at liberty to both partake of the Sacrament and allow such an evil. Otherwise they will always see it as political meddling.

You asked for our advice and we gave it to you. You can write a 300 word Letter to the editor on abortion, separation of church and state, or the requirements to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church requires one to be in communion with the Church’s Teaching and that public expressions contrary to Church Teaching break that communion. However, unless you are hte most gifted writer in the world, I doubt you can cover all subjects with only 300 words and any attempt would do a disservice to all these legitimate issues.

Again, the advice that Della and I are trying to give you is to decide which issue you want to address and do a good job articulating yourself.

 

[awfulthings9]

Orionthehunter:

You asked for our advice and we gave it to you. You can write a 300 word Letter to the editor on abortion, separation of church and state, or the requirements to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church requires one to be in communion with the Church’s Teaching and that public expressions contrary to Church Teaching break that communion. However, unless you are hte most gifted writer in the world, I doubt you can cover all subjects with only 300 words and any attempt would do a disservice to all these legitimate issues.

Again, the advice that Della and I are trying to give you is to decide which issue you want to address and do a good job articulating yourself.

Orion, I did ask for your advice, but then, in post 15, I mentioned that I had already sent the letter, so your post and Della’s became, not advice, but a critique, and I could only defend my piece at that point. By post 15 I had read and used much of the advice I received, so I am appreciative, but for you to continue to give feedback after the letter was sent doesn’t do any more than facilitate discussion, which is what I was engaging in. I could write three hundred words making a great defense of against the church and state argument, but (and I should have printed his entire letter here) his main point, as I mentioned in my first post, is that the Catholic Church is being a bully to these politicians. So, fine, I do a great job of showing that “legally” this isn’t a violation of church and state, his mentallity, and that of most non-Catholics will be, okay, the Church is being a bully, they’re just doing it “legally”. The letter needed to give something of the Catholic perspective so that all readers understand that, for us, communion is more than just fellowship. We’ll have to agree to disagree beyond this, but truly, Orion and Della, I do appreciate your insight. If the approach you proposed is truly the better one, there are more than enough dedicated and knowledgable Catholics in this area that I’m sure there will be more letters than mine, and these will surely do it more more along the lines of what you proposed. God bless.