W
why_me
Guest
So are the mormons aware. All churches have rules to follow. My point is not to defend the mormons but to show that all churches engage in excommunication when their rules are broken.
- Status
W
why_me
Guest
Likewise for the wayward mormon.
All are welcome back.
W
why_me
Guest
What about the information posted in the article on this site:
**The sisters receive financial assistance through the community and operation of the day care. **
There are other tidbits in the below link about how they receive money. It seems that they will be cut off if they loose community support. Here is the link:
arkansascatholic.org/article.php?id=1006
M
Montalban
Guest
That’s an invalid argument.
To use a bad analogy. A cop shoots a criminal who was shooting at him. Both men are ‘guilty’ of shooting. However one was justified in doing so.
The Mormon church is itself a heretical organisation.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
Thank you:thumbsup:
M
Montalban
Guest
No problem.
Differences in legitimacy occur all the time. Our PM came to power, Hussein came to power - one was voted in, one was head of a coup (that may have later been legitimized).
It’s not just that aspect of apparent similarity. There are other ways to look at differences. Even in court (at least here) if you and I were both up on charges of robbery they’d look at motive as well - because the same apparent action would be different based on our intention.
So the mere “You guys excommunicate = they excommunicate” doesn’t work - at least not on such a superficial level.
Perhaps if he offers more details he can show that they are more alike.
In this case a Mormon may have excommunicated someone for personal reasons whereas the Catholic Church may have excommunicated someone for committing a henious crime - the fact they both excommunicated someone is not enough to say that they’re ‘guilty’ of the same thing… which is what he’s trying to prove.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Excellent points…:yup:
P
Petergee
Guest
What about it? There’s nothing in the article to suggest that the Church is taking or withdrawing any money or property from them. The Church is the one losing property. The huge property belongs to the order which the excommunicated nuns belong to. The only people who are being financially penalised are the two loyal Catholics in the order who have been forced to move out of the schismatic order’s property. If people in the community support the schismatics they will continue to donate to them and patronise their daycare service.
The article describes the Catholic Church bending over backwards to avoid excommunicating these women despite them thumbing their nose at basic Catholic doctrines for more than 20 years. How anyone can read that article and conclude that the Church is treating them unfairly is beyond me.
W
why_me
Guest
And will the catholic community continue to give them support? Maybe yes, maybe no. I suppose it is in God’s hands now. And if no…what then? Something tells me that everything will be lost.
W
why_me
Guest
Good judgement call. Now please read the biasness in the above quotation. Both the nuns and the mormon were excommunicated for the same reasons. The mormon was an apostate and the catholics were heretics.
L
Leopard
Guest
Neither nuns nor religious brothers are ordained. It would not be incorrect, however, to say that by their religious profession they are commissioned to act in an official capacity in the Church, in a sense, so their teachings and actions must conform to the Catholic Faith.
M
Montalban
Guest
The example I gave which you’re calling biased was just an example.
I stated that they might have been excommunicated for different reasons as a way of showing that the mere fact both groups were excommunicated does not mean the same thing happened.
Likewise the isse of ‘authority’, etc. They are all examples to illustrate how differences *may *occur.
If it is your contention that they were both excommunicated for heresy this still would not address the other issues I raised.
The issue of the ‘high priesthood holder’ is one unknown to me. All I’ve got is your issue about six nuns (in some detail) and an obscure reference to a Mormon excommunication issue.
And I don’t see why Catholics should ‘defend’ a person excommunicated from their church because they defend this Mormon of which you speak?
Why should they? There’s no onus on Catholics to defend both people they agree with, AND people they disagree (ex-nuns)
W
why_me
Guest
A catholic posted a story about a mormon being excommunicated. It was on a different thread. Many catholics came to the defense of the excommunicated mormon. They also posted harshly toward the lds church. I defended the lds position.
A few days later, the news story broke about 6 nuns being excommunicated. I posted my thoughts. No catholic has come forward on this board and defended the nuns.
Why? The answer is simple. The nuns are catholic and the catholics on this board will not go against their church. Mormons are the same way.
However, on the mormon apologetic board the lds excommunication was discussed, the opinions were varied but the lds supported the excommunication.
Both faiths have different rules. In the lds faith, all members know that if they commit adultery, they may be excommunicated. In the catholic faith if one commits adultery, no excommunication. All mormons know that if one apostatizes against lds doctrine, one can be excommunicated etc.
In the lds faith there are three degrees: probation, disfellowshipment, excommunication. Each is given according to the sins commited and the knowledge that the person has. It occurs at the local level.
My point: all faiths excommunicate. No one is better or wrose than the other. However, I will make an exception for the JW’s. If they shun their faimily or friends upon excommunication because of their church’s doctrine, then I would consider that wrong
M
Montalban
Guest
Which one?
What’s wrong with Catholics arguing against the LDS church? In doing so they don’t have to prove the validity even of their own church - it’s not a case of having to prove all points at once.
Do they need to be defended?
No. No Catholic is required to defend the nuns actions. They may, as Christians take a Christian look at this, if the nuns say, weren’t being treated well - say if they were being tortured they could then say “Oh, I don’t agree with thier position, but I think their treatment is bad” - but they don’t have to. It’s not a requirement of being Catholic to argue in favour of everyone.
As many who read my posts know - I am not Catholic. I think they’re hetrodox. For me to say that doesn’t mean I suddenly have to prove my own church is true. I don’t have to have every argument at once. Further to that, although I don’t agree with the Catholic church I certainly don’t think that they have to have all arguments at once either. Your point is rather strange.
Good for them.
They would indeed. They’re very different.
That’s up to them. If they’re each doing it consistantly.
Thanks for the truism!
No. That’s false. As pointed out, the reasons why, etc. have to be considered.
W
why_me
Guest
It is right here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186236
This will give a clue as to why I posted this thread.
M
Montalban
Guest
Thanks.
If you went to court, would you expect that not only would your attorney defend you, but attack every other defendant in every other court at the same time?
L
Leopard
Guest
Yes and no. While the canonical penalty of excommunication does not apply to adultery, adultery is objectively a mortal sin, and persons who have committed any mortal sin should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion before those sins are repented, confessed and absolved.
P
Petergee
Guest
I still can’t work out what your beef is. When you become a nun, you take a vow of poverty. You often depend on the charity of others. These women were told they had a clear choice, to remain Catholic or to choose to continue to preach doctrines contrary to Catholicism. They had a long time to think aboout it and freely chose the latter. No doubt this will mean that many Catholics who used to donate to them no longer will. And maybe some non-Catholics will start donating to them just because they wouldn’t support anything Catholic. Are you claiming that the Church treated these women unfairly in some way? If so, state clearly what it is you think the Church has done wrong. If not, stop the snide innuendo.
Z
Zooey
Guest
I’m not Catholic, either. I don’t have to be Catholic to see, that these are two entirely different situations.
The man who was excommunicated by the Mormons, had done nothing more than discuss with his family the fact, that he had decided to leave the church because of what he had learned about it. He was a perfectly ordinary private citizen, who has been attacked in a bizarre move that makes Mormons look even weirder than they all ready are.
The nuns were openly following a religious cultist. There had been a period of years where there was every attempt made to get these women to stop espousing this “Army of Mary” group, whilst all the while claiming to represent the Catholic Church. They were living before the people around them as Catholics, while denying Catholic teaching & defying the bishop. People in the community were being scandalized & their eternal souls ( as well as those of the sisters) were put at risk.
If anything, its the opposite of the Mormon thread. The Mormon man wanted to quietly leave them, & they turned it into a sideshow. The so-called
Army of Mary were causing a public scandal over a period of years, & the bishop finally had to step in, to prevent any further attempts at spreading this heretical teaching. (Their leader
thinks she was the Blessed Mother in:shrug: a former life, for goodness’ sake!)
The case with the nuns is, if anything, more like the case when the Free Methodist Church in Canada excommunicated Benny Hinn, because of his public shenanigans. It was necessary in order to make clear that he is NOT approved by the FMC, since he is out there in front of the world making himslef ridiculous.
Acting to prevent continued public scandal is one thing. Creating a public scandal by excommunicating someone who has all ready resigned is quite another. That’s what the Mormons are doing.
It’s not just comparing apples & oranges. It’s more like comparing banana cupcakes and secondhand cars.
The man who was excommunicated by the Mormons, had done nothing more than discuss with his family the fact, that he had decided to leave the church because of what he had learned about it. He was a perfectly ordinary private citizen, who has been attacked in a bizarre move that makes Mormons look even weirder than they all ready are.
The nuns were openly following a religious cultist. There had been a period of years where there was every attempt made to get these women to stop espousing this “Army of Mary” group, whilst all the while claiming to represent the Catholic Church. They were living before the people around them as Catholics, while denying Catholic teaching & defying the bishop. People in the community were being scandalized & their eternal souls ( as well as those of the sisters) were put at risk.
If anything, its the opposite of the Mormon thread. The Mormon man wanted to quietly leave them, & they turned it into a sideshow. The so-called
Army of Mary were causing a public scandal over a period of years, & the bishop finally had to step in, to prevent any further attempts at spreading this heretical teaching. (Their leader thinks she was the Blessed Mother in:shrug: a former life, for goodness’ sake!)The case with the nuns is, if anything, more like the case when the Free Methodist Church in Canada excommunicated Benny Hinn, because of his public shenanigans. It was necessary in order to make clear that he is NOT approved by the FMC, since he is out there in front of the world making himslef ridiculous.
Acting to prevent continued public scandal is one thing. Creating a public scandal by excommunicating someone who has all ready resigned is quite another. That’s what the Mormons are doing.
It’s not just comparing apples & oranges. It’s more like
comparing banana cupcakes and secondhand cars.
H
heisenburg
Guest
Doesn’t this statement fall under moral relativism? Sorry… not trying to derail…
- Status