Mormon Religion

[dianaiad]

Because rape does not incur excommunication. It is gravely wrong, however, and if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent it is a mortal sin. Mortal sin, if unrepented, damns. The Church cannot impose any penalty comparable to that.

They could also have been delivered before term, and some attempt made to save their lives. Even if futile, such attempts would be intrinsically good; directly killing the children, however, is intrinsically wrong.

People are free to choose not to seek reconciliation.

From what I have heard, that’s not the reason most formal Catholic excommunications are not lifted. I could very well be wrong about that, however. I have had too many people criticize the CoJCoLDS because of the number of excommunications that are not reversed…and I KNOW that the reason they are not (when they are not) is because the sinner is recalcitrant, not because the church refuses.

I doubt it.

Of course you do. Being Catholic, you have to.

Not necessarily. In order for her choice to damn her, the act would have to be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, and she would also have to refuse to repent wrongdoing for the rest of her life. We do not have sufficient information to know her culpability, and even if she is gravely culpable, she is still alive and free to repent at any time.

She was formally excommunicated. In the eyes of the church, isn’t that pretty much all she wrote for the woman? Certainly she can’t go to confession or take communion any more.

No more or less possible than the mother’s salvation. Or mine, or yours, or anyone else’s.

then why excommunicate her?

Direct abortion is not allowed even in these cases. Removing a portion of the fallopian tube is considered morally licit. There is a vast moral difference between being unable to save a child (in the latter case) and directly killing the child (in the former).

Yes…I’ve heard the argument. I do not agree with it. It seems to be purest sophistry to me to apply a ‘moral difference’ to a procedure that would not be required IF THERE WAS NOT A PREGNANCY involved. I do like you ‘being unable to save the child’ phrase, though…because that’s what this was in the case of the 9 year old. There were three children. The doctors could save one, or none–and they were unable to save the unborn twins if they were to save the nine year old child.

It is not the result alone that determines the morality of an act. Otherwise there would be no moral difference between allowing one’s grandmother to die a natural death and shooting one’s grandmother. The result is the same: grandmother is dead. Morally speaking, the two are as different as night and day.

Yes they are…but we are not talking about shooting one’s grandmother–unless shooting one’s grandmother saves the lives if the children she’s holding a gun on. That would be true even if the gun toting grandmother were completely unaware of the danger she was putting the children in.

In the case of abortion (and I’m talking ONLY about abortion that must be done to save the life of the mother here…) it’s not a case of killing a child for the convenience of the mother. We are talking about choosing to save one life—or lose two. In cases where there is little to no chance that the unborn child will survive, but that attempting to carry it to term WILL kill the mother, (which, by the way, WILL result in the death of the baby anyway) then the choice is pretty obvious. You save one, or lose both.

(shrug)

By the way, 'allowing one’s grandmother to die" is ALSO murder, if the means to extend her life comfortably are available. After all, one COULD simply refuse to feed her, or give her water—that isn’t actively shooting her, is it? After all, dying of starvation is also natural causes, isn’t it?

Sheesh, I loathe rhetoric when choices regarding lives are involved. I much prefer to look reality square in the face, accept it with all the horrors and tragedy, and do what is required. Anything else is, I think, dishonest.

 

[dianaiad]

Professionally, these three young men will have no impact outside of your church. No charges we’re filed, no prosecution, no criminal record. Inside your church, yeah, they will be the oldest elders in their ward, for a long, long time.

Professionally, any background check will find this. Politically, any opponent will have a field day.

…and good luck to them if they want to go to any Tier one university. Oddly enough, of all those only BYU MIGHT have them. Nobody else will.

Nope, they are toast.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The background check for credentialling or licensing would find this stuff. Any attempt on their part to run for any office would result in some muckraker dredging it up and replaying it.

You know this as well as I do.

So people disciplined by your church are unable to be plumbers or electricians and are unable to open a business such as a restaurant or gas station? I suppose that’s par with denying a degree.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m a professional educator and a postgraduate student. As such, my research skills are supposed to be better than average.I’m SUPPOSED to be able to find things that would be difficult for the average guy to find.

Finding and understand are two different things. There is something common in all the things which will cause a person to incur excommunication latae sententiae. A ‘professional educator’ might want to understand what they find.

 

[Stephen168]

Why I’m thinking this discussion is on the side of the absurd…a very determined mormon lady trying to tell us what the Code of Canon law means. To what purpose? I’m kind of embarrassed for her.

I was thinking of an anti-catholic bigot who walks into a Catholic Church and then starts telling us all about what we believe. “You worship statues, see they are right there, anyone can see it.” “What? Are you ashamed of them?” At some point you do get embarrassed at their ignorance.

 

[why_me]

I was thinking of an anti-catholic bigot who walks into a Catholic Church and then starts telling us all about what we believe. “You worship statues, see they are right there, anyone can see it.” “What? Are you ashamed of them?” At some point you do get embarrassed at their ignorance.

Do you mean the antimormon bigot on a catholic site who proclaims what mormons believe and refuses to listen from the lds posters who may counter their antimormon rhetoric? Yea, I can understand such embarrassment that more neutral catholics may feel.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was thinking of an anti-catholic bigot who walks into a Catholic Church and then starts telling us all about what we believe. “You worship statues, see they are right there, anyone can see it.” “What? Are you ashamed of them?” At some point you do get embarrassed at their ignorance.

Maybe. I just see a person who can’t see through the fog of Mormonism. It can be a frustrating place to be.

 

[Stephen168]

Please, sir, exactly how have I misunderstood anything I read in the code of canon law?

List of Dangerous Animals

1. Wolf
2. Coyote
3. Dogs

Dianaiad: This list sure reflects poorly on the organization with created it. The Asian Cobra kills many more people than any on their list.

Rational Person: I don’t think you understand the list.
Rational Person thinking to themselves: I’m not an authority, but I only see canines on the list.

Dianaiad: Yes, I do it is very clear.

Rational Person: I don’t think you understand the list. You might think about what these things have in common.
Rational Person thinking to themselves: I’m not an authority, but coyotes only live in the Americas.

Dianaiad: I don’t think you understand it. I am a professional educator. It is my job to find things, and I easily found this list, I read, now I fully understand it to the nth degree. Asian Cobra should be on the list.

Rational Person: (shakes head)

 

[Stephen168]

Maybe. I just see a person who can’t see through the fog of Mormonism. It can be a frustrating place to be.

You maybe right. I’ve never lived in that fog.

 

[twopekinguys]

No. it is not. ‘dropping the host’ all by itself may refer to both intentional and unintentional actions. As you have been conversing with me for quite some time, you should know that I meant an intentional action, not an unintentional one, and it is THAT which I clarified in a later post.

As such, it is anything BUT ‘moot.’

Well there now. We agree.

If I had assumed you were talking about intentional desecration, you would have said, “oh, you’re assuming something”. I took what you said, “someone dropping the host”, as exactly what you said. You added the intentional bit later. I addressed your statement based on what you stated at the time, not what you added later. Keep the goal post in one spot.

How interesting that I could write ‘latae sententiae" so many times, explain exactly what it means, and then you tell me that I’m missing “latae sententaie” because it means what I had already told you it means. “Automatic” and "self imposed’ are, in THIS case, equivalent. Excommunication. The WORD IS ACTUALLY USED, y’know…and when the words 'reserved to the Holy See" are used, it is my understanding that such an excommunication can only be lifted BY the Holy See.

Now THAT’S excommunication.

But you are putting your mormon spin on what a Catholic latae sententaie excommunication is versus ecclesiastical.

With this self imposed ex-ing, the churh itself (ie priest, deacon, etc) doesn’t necessarily know about it. The Church trusts that the person will act in an appropriate manner and not approach Holy Communion until the situation is properly rectified. i.e. confession.

No argument there…I never claimed that they were precisely equivalent. However, excommunication is excommunication. The remedy for either one is that the excommunications, which are very real, must be LIFTED by a the proper authority, specifically.

Obviously you’re not understanding. Excommunication is not excommunication. If that were the case ,why would there be two different types, with two different requirements for resolution?
In simplest terms, one is a informal, and the other is formal. One you do to yourself, and resolve yourself. The other the Church itself is imposing, and has to resolve.

Not quite; evidently a simple confession with the parish priest is not sufficient. For instance, the Pope himself must lift those 'reserved to the Holy See" and it takes a Bishop to lift others–unless he authorizes the priests in his area to do so. I understand that some do—and some don’t. However, whether they do authorize this or not, it requires something more than a simple confession to take care of the matter.

Again, this is something you’re putting a mormon spin, and a lay spin on. As I said before, canon law is written by and interpreted by canon lawyers. Just like civil law.
Also, there are many other steps that are taken before that type of ex-ing.

Possibly not…however, if she were Catholic and she was responsible, and if, in any part of her life she had read canon law (or had heard about this) then the penalty is right there. This method of yours of arguing with me by agreeing with me is interesting, if a little bemusing.

It seems pretty straight forward to me

.

Too many “Ifs” to make your position viable.

Are you serious? The publicity surrounding this issue was so supermarket tabloid shark attack that IF any of the models had been excommunicated, that fact would have been bleated about like trumpets in a fanfare. In fact, since they were not, THAT issue HAS been made much of; Hardy ex’d, the models not…and buried in almost every news story is a throwaway line about how many/most/some of the models attended disciplinary hearings.

I have news for you, sir; being CALLED to such a hearing is discipline enough. Most of those things end up as counseling sessions; some result in some form of probation, or disfellowship—but excommunication would be a matter of church record and someone would have glommed onto that like a piranha fish.

continued on next post

But you yourself have said you did know, you assumed, you didn’t know. I don’t think I would rely on supermarket tabloids for my source.

Let me put this as straight forward as I can. It will only require a simple yes or no answer.

Were the gentleman that voluntarily posed for this calendar excommunicated? Yes or No?

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes. I wrote that. Something about 'I don’t know…" and “maybe” should have given you a clue that the next phrase was a wild guess. At the time I honestly didn’t know whether any of the young men HAD been excommunicated. I later learned that no, they had not.

My first thought was that I couldn’t imagine that a young returned missionary who was still active, and who didn’t have a problem with the church would DO that. It seemed to me then, (and it still does) that this modeling gig was a pretty big statement of “F*** YOU” to the church by those models.

Indeed. You are about to go back four years…

All of them were formally disciplined; disfellowshipped, and the one young man who was still serving his mission at the time was sent home in disgrace. The members of the church involved forgave them, and did not, finally, pursue felony charges against them. Had they been Catholic, they would have attended confession, and all would be fine with them now.

But nothing is fine with them now. They would have been better off excommunicated. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that could have been done to them that would have been worse than being sent home from a mission with dishonor. The two whose missions were completed were disciplined…disfellowshipped…and you can be assured that these three men’s lives have been ruined. They will never hold any sort of important position in the church. They will never be able to run for office, nor get any sort of state license to do anything. They will spend the rest of their lives regretting that action.

You are still not seeing the inconsistency. On one had you have a beefcake calendar producer, up front, out in the open, helping people with the proceeds(whether you believe it or not) Get’s the big EX, and then you have 3 guys that intentionally desecrate a Shrine, and they get “disciplined” or “disfellowshipped”. BIG inconsistency.

If it would have been better for these guys to get Ex’d, and disfellowshipping is so horrible, why wasn’t Hardy disfellowshipped?

As far as your “if they had been Catholic” statement, you are quite wrong. Had the culrpits been a priest, deacon, etc. in their clerical clothing, there would have been consequences. The missionaries were in “uniform”(clerical clothing), name tag and all.
See, apples to apples.

I’m not condeming anyone. Where on Earth do you come up with this stuff.

As I said before, from the articles I have read, some of which you supplied, there isn’t any mention whether or not the rapist was Catholic.

Newsflash!! we can’t excommunicate someone who is not Catholic.

You might want to check. I didn’t call for these guys to get ex-d. By the way, it wasn’t youtube videos, they posted pictures on photobucket.com. Also, it is kind of hard to react to something until you know it occurred right?

You’re having a real problem with your facts on this aren’t you? People were ex’d, no wait, they were disciplined, no wait, we don’t know. 9 year old ex-d, then no she wasn’t, youtube vs photobucket.

As usual, you are trying to deflect, and move the conversation in another direction. We are talking about the calendar, and the inconsistencies there. Try to stay on topic ok.

 

[twopekinguys]

continued:

What we both understand, I think, is that excommunication is never as cut and dried as our opponents want it to be. Everything depends upon one thing; getting the sinner BACK. That, I notice, is the stated goal of Catholicism in terms of excommunication. It certainly is the stated goal of Mormonism…and if we both can get the sinner back on the right track without it, why go that far?

Excommunication, like any form of religious discipline, is about the sinner–not the wishes of onlookers. It doesn’t matter what I want, or what you want; like the confessional, it’s between the sinner, the church, and God.

Nothing is ever cut and dried.

 

[twopekinguys]

We will have to get it directly from her, of course, but I imagine that her mother told her what happened when she was old enough to understand it. I rather doubt that this small child was PRESENT at all of those meetings, myself. However, we will have to ask her.

She didn’t mention any of those organizations. She mentioned her parish priest. Again, we’ll have to ask her.

I agree.

First, she specifically stated that her mother was a ‘single mother…’ i.e. NOT remarried. Second, the CHILD was not divorced or remarried; what’s up with that?

Actually, most of the parish schools I investigated a few weeks ago would have; they had ‘scholarship’ or subsidies for members of their parishes. However, this poster said that her parish did not. (shrug) Not everybody does everything the same.

That is quite possible.

To get the whole picture of this poster, you should read all of their posts in their history. some of the details were on this thread, and some were on another.

As far as helping with the tuition. Not every parish can help with tuition. Limtied resources lead to limited assistance. I’m sure you can relate that some wards are more financially able to support the community than others.

Our parish provides many scholarships for families with children in our school. In fact, our parish subsidises about 60% of the tuition costs alone for our school. Other parishes are not that lucky.

But again, meeting basic humanitarian needs is one thing. Subsidizing tuition is another.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think it is probably safe to say that in her case we’re talking about “a person who lacked the use of reason,” as Canon Law puts it.

Absolutely

Yes. There are longstanding principles of legal interpretation that aren’t even part of the Code itself. To become a canon lawyer requires years of study and degrees in canon law, much like becoming a civil lawyer.

You are absolutely right. Our previous Bishop, who is now the Archbishop of Newark (John J. Meyers) is one of the premier Canon Lawyers in the US. He and I had numerous conversations about becoming a canon lawyer, and different aspects of canon law.

 

[twopekinguys]

Were the former missionaries member’s of the ward where Hardy was their Bishop?

I’m not sure, but I don’t think Hardy was a Bishop. At least I haven’t heard or read of him being one.

Looking at some of the bio’s of the models, they are from all over, so I doubt they were from the same ward. But who knows.

 

[twopekinguys]

No, I am not embellishing; several of the articles I read mentioned that the stepfather was Catholic; he was not excommunicated because the Cardinal in charge of things stated that as bad as his sin was, abortion was worse.

As well, the doctors were aware that this child’s pubic bone development was far too small to allow her to give birth–or even provide the space required for her to HAVE twins. It MIGHT have been possible for her, on strict bedrest and with a caesarian section, to carry and give birth to one baby, but not twins.

And her 'stomach pains" were not simply the exageration of an inexperienced 9 year old. Having that sort of stomach pains is NOT NORMAL at 4 months along, no matter how old or young you are.

And the church is calling for the punishment of the rapist? Wonderful. He’s still not being excommunicated though, is he?

Mom is, though…and I have noticed that there is one large difference between latae sententaie excommunication and the more formal type–and that seems to be that while the latae sententaie sort is frequent—and as frequently lifted, the more formal sort is very seldom lifted. As in–almost never.

So here we have a mother who simply made the best choice she could for her daughter, a choice that (according to your beliefs) damns her. Yet the man who raped and abused his step daughter might get jail time, but his eternal salvation is still possible.

You will excuse me if I have a problem with this.

As to what the church would do–well, shoot; you guys allow the medical treatment of fallopian pregnancies and other lifesaving procedures that result in the death of the fetus NOW. What in the name of all that is wonderful would have been different here, except that a nine year old would have been tortured for the next five months–if she lived that long–and almost certainly would have lost her two babies anyway as well as her health for her life long?

Can you provide one of your resources that says the father was Catholic. I am not seeing it in the one’s already provided.

Just so you know, even the mother and doctors salvation is still possible. Just like the fathers.

 

[twopekinguys]

Maybe. I just see a person who can’t see through the fog of Mormonism. It can be a frustrating place to be.

aaahhhh–ooooooo—ggaahhhhhh

 

[why_me]

Maybe. I just see a person who can’t see through the fog of Mormonism. It can be a frustrating place to be.

It is hard to claim that mormons live in a fog. They know where they came from and they know where they are going after death. And the air is pretty clear in their belief system. They have a pretty good tight path to follow without any fog at all. I don’t think that there is another christian faith that has so many answers about premortal, mortal and afterdeath life. Where is the fog?

 

[Marie5890]

It is hard to claim that mormons live in a fog. They know where they came from and they know where they are going after death. And the air is pretty clear in their belief system. They have a pretty good tight path to follow without any fog at all. I don’t think that there is another christian faith that has so many answers about premortal, mortal and afterdeath life. Where is the fog?

Let’s just keep things clear and in reality. They, like all people, have a faith and a belief system of where they are going.

They don’t “know”.

Believe, hope, have faith; Yes they have that.
But they don’t “know”.

None of us do.

Keeping it real.

 

[twopekinguys]

First, she specifically stated that her mother was a ‘single mother…’ i.e. NOT remarried. Second, the CHILD was not divorced or remarried; what’s up with that?

As I suggested, if you look at the posters history, you would have found this (bolding mine)

I was raised Catholic by my mother. I went to CCD, received First Communion,and attended Catholic school for 2 years. While I was not alowed to be confirmed a memeber, I went through all the classes, invertviews, service projects, and attended the mass. We moved 3/4 of the way through my 8th grade year. My mother then begain to attend a Methodist church with her new husband. I did attend mass with her parents during summers and I attended a few since becoming an adult.

In light of the comment of “new husband”, and the priest not helping with tuition, it would seem that there was a divorce an remarriage involved.

Of course we won’t know for sure until she tells us for sure. If she does that is.