A
aspirant
Guest
I certainly did.
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
What do numbers have to do with the principle behind the idea?
…and isn’t even one too many?
D
dianaiad
Guest
That’s now, in terms of numbers, this is quite true. However, in places where euthanasia is legal, the statistics are rising. How many must there be before it crosses some line?
The problem here isn’t that I think the church is wrong in doing this. If it works to lower the incidence of abortion, then it’s a very good thing to do. The question is only about the reasoning behind it; if it is only about the rebellion, then…practicing euthanasia is rebellion to the exact same degree that abortion is. As well, these sins, as are all other sins, are personal. That is, no matter how many people commit the sin, they only do it one at a time, and their sin involves only themselves–and their victims, of course. So is this really about the numbers only?
D
dianaiad
Guest
that doesn’t surprise me a bit, aspirant.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Post number 469.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
No, of course not. But if it is to be used to address specific issues that are huge problems at that time, it wouldn’t make sense to apply it to everything, would it? It would lose meaning. And I personally believe that the error in thinking that occurs with abortion is worse in that it is harm done towards a completely defenseless and innocent individual, where euthanasia is not. But anyway, you’re still looking at excommunication as some sort of “ultimate punishment” towards the individual. You could have one individual who was excommunicated, went to confession and had their sins forgiven, had the excommunication lifted, and went on to live their life and eventually went to heaven. You could have another person who committed a mortal sin, never repented, never felt sorry, died, and went to Hell. The person who never received an excommunication incurred a far greater penalty.
A
aspirant
Guest
Euthanized people are often defenseless and innocent.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Kind of hard to excommunicate someone who is dead.
Stephen168
New member
Page 32 where she is clearly telling me not to talk to her again like that …or…something else…or…not.
But it is very clear what she was saying…I guess.
Actually using the word ‘ignore’ would have made it clearer to us, just like if she asked questions, it would help make Catholicism clearer to her.
A
aspirant
Guest
I had no idea that post meant she was putting you on ignore.
D
dianaiad
Guest
You are conflating the two concepts of ‘the worst thing that can happen to a person’ with ‘excommunication.’ Bookgirl, this idea that I am saying that excommunication is the worst thing that could happen to a person isn’t one that I have ever promoted. I AGREE WITH YOU that the worst thing that can happen is that you never repent of your sins and you go to hell. I have posted, several times, that both the Catholic and the LDS church view excommunication similarly in this way; it is not imposed as a ‘punishment’ so much as it is a REMEDY. A prompt to get the sinner BACK.
That, of course, assumes that, having been excommunicated, it is possible for a sinner TO come back, and of course in both faiths that is very true. It is, in fact, the point.
It is ALSO true that in both faiths, whatever excommunication means to either faith or the members of either faith, it is THE most severe consequence either church can impose upon its members. Neither church can do anything worse than excommunicate a person–with the possible exception of refusing to take an excommunicant back, and neither church does that. Forgiveness of sins, and coming back to the fold, is permitted and encouraged by both faiths.
So, can we lay that one aside? What happens to a person in terms of his or her own spiritual life and God–and the eventual eternal destination–is between him and God. The CHURCH, however, has this thing called excommunication that is in addition to the natural consequences of committing sin.
I have been accused here of ‘telling you what you believe,’ and getting things wrong. Perhaps I have, but I don’t see where. Most of the problems seem to lie in things like your post; you are assuming that I mean, and am inferring, things that I do not—and in fact have clearly stated several times that I do not.
Excommunication is something that the churches do. It is separate and apart from what the sinner does, and I am speaking specifically about what the CHURCH does.
Stephen168
New member
I didn’t either but like my Mom use to say, “Its her story let tell it.”I had no idea that post meant she was putting you on ignore.
I did notice she asked a question recently…maybe she is coming around.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Rebecca.
“Euthanasia” refers to something you do to someone ELSE. The term for something you do to yourself is ‘suicide,’ and as for excommunicating someone who is dead…well, Catholics HAVE done that. Try looking up the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-681, in which a great many dead people were anathemized…(and no. I do NOT want to get into hot water over the difference, if any, between ‘anathema’ and excommunication. Suffice it to say that if being declared anathema is worse than excommunication, then it simply takes the place of that ‘ultimate penalty/remedy’ that excommunication holds now, and leave it at that.)
In fact, in some cases, after having declared the dead person to be excommunicated, the body was removed from consecrated ground and disposed of elsewhere–in a river or in a midden…and THAT, m’friend, is a very literal ‘kicking to the curb.’
True, Catholics haven’t done anything even remotely like that for quite awhile, though right here in CAF there have been conversations (not in non-Catholic religions, but elsewhere) about this matter. It seems that the church CAN recognize and declare an excommunication post mortem. I don’t know that it does so, or why it would want to, but when you consider the nature of latae sententiae excommunication, it would HAVE to be possible to do this.
…not, again, to (I forget the term again…) impose excommunication, but to recognize that the person excommunicated him/herself at some point during his/her life and didn’t do what was required to get that excommunication lifted.
A
Answersplease
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
There is only one way any poster in this arena can arrange to ‘not see’ someone else’s posts, aspirant, ESPECIALLY when the context is about how I was going to see to it that he could post and insult me without consequence, because… 'If I can’t see them, I can’t report them."I had no idea that post meant she was putting you on ignore.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have not, Answersplease. However, since your method of posting makes it a royal pain in the behind TO quote and answer you, you will have to excuse me if I choose not to answer posts which are as off base as this one is. For instance…
Yes, Answersplease, that IS what happens with latae sententiae excommunication–something that I have also stated many times. This is, again, a case of my declaring that the sky is blue and you telling me that I’m wrong because the sky is actually blue.
OK. So? Are you talking about latae sententiae, where the sinner pretty much excommunicates himself, or the other sort–which is not merely recognized, but is actually imposed?
No. Suicide is suicide. Euthanasia is not. Euthanasia, though it may not be murder in the legal sense, is certainly the killing of one person by another. I’m sure that in some, if not many, instances the victim is aware of, and approves, the action, but it’s still done by someone else.
Actually, answersplease, you aren’t repeating yourself. You are repeating ME—and then claiming that I still don’t get it right, even when everything you are ‘correcting’ me about is actually in full agreement with what I wrote!
But ok, if you want to talk about LDS excommunication, go right ahead. I don’t know a lot about the full range of Mormon excommunication, though. Some of the smaller Mormon groups have a very different view of it than the CoJCoLDS does.
Yep. I said that.
I see. “Quinn was actually excommunicated because fo those publications because he said so himself…???” Even though he didn’t attend the disciplinary meeting that resulted in that excommunication, and even though it is public record that he was excommunicates for, FIRST, actions unbecoming a member of the church (an charge that is used ONLY in matters of moral problems–active homosexual lifestyle, adultery…stuff like that) and only SECOND for apostasy–and that last charge was not unanimous?
Personally, no matter how much you WANT to believe Quinns’ side of this, given that he WAS kicked out by Mormons and all and you automatically want to assume that nobody ever gets excommunicated by the LDS church who actually deserves it, the facts simply do not support you.
Fact: Quinn is gay. He was actively gay at the time of his excommunication. We do indeed excommunicate actively gay members, for the same reason we tend to excommunicate others who break those very simple moral laws. Especially after they have been through the Temple, abandoned his wife and otherwise broken most of his Temple covenants…and that is why he was ex’d. If you want to call that ‘anti-gay,’ be my guest–though it isn’t being gay that is the problem. it’s ACTING upon it that is. It is a very difficult path to walk, being faithful, LDS and gay.
OK.
You don’t excommunicate active gays. You also do not excommunicate murderers, rapists, child molesters and a few others who commit horrendous and very mortal sins. Your choice.
Whether that is a good thing or not is in the eye of the believer, I suppose. You think it’s a good thing you don’t, and I think it’s a good thing we do.
Stephen168
New member
I was wondering if an ex-Mormon could tell me: Is this attitude of judging people’s hearts and minds; and telling them what they should think is a typical part of Mormon culture?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I think it is a good thing we practice what we preach, ie, forgiveness of sins.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Sometimes at the request of the person…which is suicide, with another’s assistance.
And maybe if you can produce something that shows this is something Catholics are doing by the millions…probably not. Right.
Can you answer why?
lol. So we’ll stick with your definition of Catholic practice. got ya.
No, the person is still Catholic, even though a dead one. When are you going to stop with this kicking to the curb thing?
It’s only mormons who believe you can change a person’s religion after they are dead.
Again, you should answer why this is done.
You should notice we’re back to reasons for excommunication and how it seems you can’t grasp it is for rebellion.
It’s called the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If a person does not believe the teachings of the Church, why would they seek Reconciliation from her? It would be like you going to confession. Sure, a priest might hear your confession, but he would not offer absolution.
- Status