CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[historian]

So, there's a bit of a problem for me, personally.

I've been in a professional role that is at odds with (modern) church teachings: defending death sentences. That is, once the inmate is sentenced to death, there are certain appeals. On behalf of the state, I did my best to make sure those death sentences remained, using every legal argument I could find. I was pretty effective, too (if I do say so myself).

About 3 times, I was "on call" for an execution in case there were any last minute filings.

There were some ... polite, but terse conversations with the defense counsel who several times were also Catholic. And intensely anti-death penalty. Worse, were the conversations with certain family members whom I love, who were disappointed in my role.

I can assure you, I undertook the role only with prayerful discernment before and during that entire time. Also, with the recognition that I will be judged at some point for all of my actions, those included.

I bring that up as context to say that I'm very reluctant to call for excommunication of people who participate in political roles. Is it justified, for people like Cuomo? IMHO yeah. And probably others.

And while I believe there are lines that delineate parts of that spectrum of activities, I'm not sure where they are. And I don't think very many people on this earth really do, either.

See...I can say, that, say, an appellate judge, may have to rule against personal conscience in order to follow the rule of law, but may advocate for a more just law. However, a legislator, who's job IS to write the law, has much less wiggle room. That is where I don't like when the RCC, who believe that taking the sacraments are ESSENTIAL to salvation still looking over these more egregious offenders. Your constituents elected you to decide the law because, at a base level, they trust your judgement. If your (or Pelosi's or Cuomo's) constituents no longer feel they are good representatives, then they can get kicked out of office. If you aren't willing to sacrifice your seat for what is right, then you have a lapsed moral judgement or you don't believe the teaching of the church. Both of which, IMHO, would be excommunicatable offences.

 

[T.Lex]

I'd argue that it's your job to defend death sentences, not necessarily your own personal stance. I'd also argue that the death penalty is a pretty squishy theological playground. Even I wouldn't try and hammer in a stake there.

I appreciate that. The issue comes in the "doing my job" notion.

For a governor, signing properly passed legislation is part of the job. If a majority of constituents favor something, that's the way our system works. (Subject to a discretionary veto for any reason or no reason at all.)

Likewise, I was never comfortable with the "just doing my job" line of defense as it has a somewhat... disgraceful past, in terms of what behaviors people rationalized.

I agree that one needs to "proceed with caution" when talking about excommunicating anyone; however, a stand must be taken against anyone who violates the church ...

That's the crux, right? (Pardon the pun.)

Does it violate the church to sign a piece of legislation?

My church (relatively recently) takes the general position that the death penalty is wrong. Full stop. My participation in it, arguably, was MORE direct than the governor's signature on a piece of legislation.

Again, I think Cuomo's real problem exists in his personal belief system. (Or lack thereof.) I am dubious whether he "prayerfully discerned" that he should advocate for that legislation. Ultimately, that is a matter for God to determine.

 

[JettaKnight]

But, but - my religious life and my life outside the church should be independent!

 

[T.Lex]

See...I can say, that, say, an appellate judge, may have to rule against personal conscience in order to follow the rule of law, but may advocate for a more just law. However, a legislator, who's job IS to write the law, has much less wiggle room. That is where I don't like when the RCC, who believe that taking the sacraments are ESSENTIAL to salvation still looking over these more egregious offenders. Your constituents elected you to decide the law because, at a base level, they trust your judgement. If your (or Pelosi's or Cuomo's) constituents no longer feel they are good representatives, then they can get kicked out of office. If you aren't willing to sacrifice your seat for what is right, then you have a lapsed moral judgement or you don't believe the teaching of the church. Both of which, IMHO, would be excommunicatable offences.

I appreciate that position.

Our perspectives are more or less aligned, I think.

I was prepared to not take on my small role in the process, and at different times questioned whether I was the right person to participate. But, I believe God worked in His mysterious ways to make that role part of the path He intended for me.

That's probably the key difference. If, at any point, I felt like I was being asked to choose between my faith or my job, then I would've walked away from the job.

 

[Bartman]

“Does it violate the church to sign a piece of legislation?”

When that piece of legislation facilitates something that one pope called the “Culture of Death,” that seems pretty cut and dried to me.

But I’m a Protestant, what do I know?

 

[T.Lex]

“Does it violate the church to sign a piece of legislation?”

When that piece of legislation facilitates something that one pope called the “Culture of Death,” that seems pretty cut and dried to me.

But I’m a Protestant, what do I know?

More than many Catholics, apparently.

We all - at some level - facilitate and participate in the Culture of Death. Part of this is just me - I tend not to see lines that are cut and dried. But sometimes there really are gray areas wrapped around really tough questions.

 

[JettaKnight]

Speaking of knowledge... it's a month late, but still funny.

[video=youtube;ifZTG_SAbU8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZTG_SAbU8[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

“Excommunication is a last resort, and as the governor continues to distance himself from our communion, it may unfortunately result in that.”

Bishop Scharfenberger on Andrew Cuomo

https://twitter.com/matthewschmitz/status/1089189130788130817

 

[Ziggidy]

Considering the directives of the current pope, maybe he should also be excommunicated?

 

[T.Lex]

So, I reflected on this theme in this thread the last few days.

I'm not sure how to say this non-confrontationally in print, so I'll just throw it out there with the caveat that I respect all those participating in this thread, and love them in the Christian-brotherly way.

But, it seems that those calling for excommunication (in this thread) are Protestants, right? Like, based on my understanding, in large part from this thread, if your church doesn't agree with you, you can find a different church. Getting "excommunicated" from a certain church may not be a big deal.

As a Catholic, there aren't really any options. (Yeah, there are actually some fringe variations of Catholic, but they are pretty strange IMHO.) It seems like it can be pretty easy to throw around the notion of "excommunicate them!" for all sorts of perceived violations of dogma when the demand comes from a tradition that allows for multiple traditions.

Now, having said that, there probably are different denominations more in line with those people who profess to follow Catholicism, yet advocate policies directly opposed to the Church. They should probably search their conscience to determine if Catholicism is "right" for them.

But, I think the lack of viable options helps inform why many Catholics aren't in a hurry to push for excommunication.

Again, I intend no slight by comments. It is really more of an observation. If I'm missing something about how Protestant churches work, I'm open to being informed.

 

[historian]

So, I reflected on this theme in this thread the last few days.

I'm not sure how to say this non-confrontationally in print, so I'll just throw it out there with the caveat that I respect all those participating in this thread, and love them in the Christian-brotherly way.

But, it seems that those calling for excommunication (in this thread) are Protestants, right? Like, based on my understanding, in large part from this thread, if your church doesn't agree with you, you can find a different church. Getting "excommunicated" from a certain church may not be a big deal.

As a Catholic, there aren't really any options. (Yeah, there are actually some fringe variations of Catholic, but they are pretty strange IMHO.) It seems like it can be pretty easy to throw around the notion of "excommunicate them!" for all sorts of perceived violations of dogma when the demand comes from a tradition that allows for multiple traditions.

Now, having said that, there probably are different denominations more in line with those people who profess to follow Catholicism, yet advocate policies directly opposed to the Church. They should probably search their conscience to determine if Catholicism is "right" for them.

But, I think the lack of viable options helps inform why many Catholics aren't in a hurry to push for excommunication.

Again, I intend no slight by comments. It is really more of an observation. If I'm missing something about how Protestant churches work, I'm open to being informed.

Exactly. We have independent churches. That being said, membership in the church is different and good protestants practice church discipline which is similar to excommunication. Conduct that is contrary to church teaching and belief can get you kicked out. So if you get kicked out, you can go find a different one (like be an Episcopalian, those guys don't believe anything ).

I think the perception is that the RCC doesn't care about its doctrine that much if it lets people flaunt its basic tenants and doesn't discipline them in any way. Especially since in RCC belief that the sacraments impart grace and therefore are necessary for salvation. Being excommunicated or even disciplined by the RCC should be a big deal, but the church doesn't do anything. For instance, if you went out and cheated on your wife, were unrepentant and were a member of our church in Funcie, we would have a membership meeting in which we would vote you out of membership. We would hope you come to repentance and would welcome you back when it happened, but you would not be welcome to partake in communion and would not be considered a member. When is the last time the RCC did that to a person who committed adultery? Henry VIII?

 

[Ziggidy]

So, I reflected on this theme in this thread the last few days.

I'm not sure how to say this non-confrontationally in print, so I'll just throw it out there with the caveat that I respect all those participating in this thread, and love them in the Christian-brotherly way.

But, it seems that those calling for excommunication (in this thread) are Protestants, right? Like, based on my understanding, in large part from this thread, if your church doesn't agree with you, you can find a different church. Getting "excommunicated" from a certain church may not be a big deal.

As a Catholic, there aren't really any options. (Yeah, there are actually some fringe variations of Catholic, but they are pretty strange IMHO.) It seems like it can be pretty easy to throw around the notion of "excommunicate them!" for all sorts of perceived violations of dogma when the demand comes from a tradition that allows for multiple traditions.

Now, having said that, there probably are different denominations more in line with those people who profess to follow Catholicism, yet advocate policies directly opposed to the Church. They should probably search their conscience to determine if Catholicism is "right" for them.

But, I think the lack of viable options helps inform why many Catholics aren't in a hurry to push for excommunication.

Again, I intend no slight by comments. It is really more of an observation. If I'm missing something about how Protestant churches work, I'm open to being informed.

I do not take that as a jab, by any means. Good question.

I do not think there is a difference between the 2, Protestants and Catholics; when it comes to a topic such as this. Either you are a Catholic or you are not. Either you are a Protestant, or you are not. If you do not agree with the teachings of either, then you should not be in either one. Different churches have different doctrines and beliefs that surround the core thought of Christ being all. IMO, those differences are what separates the local churches. You have Charismatic Catholics, Liberal Catholics, anything you want to be Catholics; and the same for the Protestant churches. You have A/G, Spirit filled, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Liberal unification.....so many. They all have a center focus with doctrines and or traditions they support.

Any individual who goes to a church and claims to be Protestant, Catholic, Methodist....whatever, needs to not only verbally support the church, but in their lives exhibit what they claim to believe in....in where they place their faith. Many people search churches to find the church that supports "their" views of the bible and unless something happens, they stay there. Other people make claim to a church and may support it, but they have little side table discussion and disbeliefs but stay for the sake of convenience; never really giving 100% to their church. Others join a church to promote themselves in various ways. There is more, but I think you get the direction I am going.

I truly believe that if anyone does not support their church 100% should never be in leadership of that church. Not only does one need to support it 100% but must also exhibit it in their daily lives - or at least exhibit the effort to be a better Christian. If someone claims to belong to a certain church, it is their responsibility to support the church through their lifestyle. Foe example, I find nothing wrong with praying for church members who struggle with sin (as we all do); however, if that sin is disruptive, leadership must discuss it with the person. If Cuomo actually supports and promotes abortion, this is a major issue. It goes against the church, and becomes actual competition for the church. If the church does nothing but publicly denounces his actions, that still reflects badly upon the church. The same holds true for protestants; IMO. One cannot compete with the church. One cannot call themselves one thing and publicly and freely support another.

We are talking bible here. Jesus Christ. Once we place our focus on anything but Christ - it's wrong. I cannot be a Christian and openly support abortion. The same holds true for pornography, theft, lies and such....it becomes the center - it's actually pride. How can support abortion and call themselves a follower Christ. "Before you were born, I knew you..."

So the question is, excommunication or removal from a church body. Let me ask you this. You belong to a club and they have rules. You do not follow the rules, what happens. You are either spoken to and asked to conform or asked to leave. This is much more important.

In the end, I would never support abortion. If I was a public servant, I must decide. Support Jesus Christ or support and celebrate a law that kills babies days before they are born. You do know, you cannot have both. What do you do? Turn your back on Christ or refuse to sign the bill? If you sign the bill and turn your back on Christ; IMO, the church MUST excommunicate....otherwise the church is no better.....catholic or other.

 

[T.Lex]

Exactly. We have independent churches. That being said, membership in the church is different and good protestants practice church discipline which is similar to excommunication. Conduct that is contrary to church teaching and belief can get you kicked out. So if you get kicked out, you can go find a different one (like be an Episcopalian, those guys don't believe anything ).

I think the perception is that the RCC doesn't care about its doctrine that much if it lets people flaunt its basic tenants and doesn't discipline them in any way. Especially since in RCC belief that the sacraments impart grace and therefore are necessary for salvation. Being excommunicated or even disciplined by the RCC should be a big deal, but the church doesn't do anything. For instance, if you went out and cheated on your wife, were unrepentant and were a member of our church in Funcie, we would have a membership meeting in which we would vote you out of membership. We would hope you come to repentance and would welcome you back when it happened, but you would not be welcome to partake in communion and would not be considered a member. When is the last time the RCC did that to a person who committed adultery? Henry VIII?

HA!

Yeah, maybe that little debacle is part of the reason it doesn't happen very often.

So, I literally was not aware of this wiki until your post, and I searched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Catholic_Church

It looks like, in the modern church, there has been excommunications for certain people involved in abortion rights movements. There has also been some re-consideration of those excommunications.

One thing that probably deserves mention is that abortion-on-demand is a 1st world problem. I suspect that, for most Catholics in the world, it isn't an option at all.

For a bunch of reasons, including those already mentioned, it appears that any specific action is left to individual bishops, rather than the larger church authorities.

Cynically, another set of reasons probably exists in the idea that individual dioceses may not want to punish abortion rights activists too hard for fear of losing a bunch of parishioners.

 

[Ziggidy]

HA!

Yeah, maybe that little debacle is part of the reason it doesn't happen very often.

So, I literally was not aware of this wiki until your post, and I searched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Catholic_Church

It looks like, in the modern church, there has been excommunications for certain people involved in abortion rights movements. There has also been some re-consideration of those excommunications.

One thing that probably deserves mention is that abortion-on-demand is a 1st world problem. I suspect that, for most Catholics in the world, it isn't an option at all.

For a bunch of reasons, including those already mentioned, it appears that any specific action is left to individual bishops, rather than the larger church authorities.

Cynically, another set of reasons probably exists in the idea that individual dioceses may not want to punish abortion rights activists too hard for fear of losing a bunch of parishioners.

That sounds terrible. I believe Christ spoke out against that very thought....

 

[foszoe]

Church; A building or a place to go to
Church: A organic entity, a living being you are a part of

Easy to change building, cold emotionless
Hard to cut out disease, hurts

 

[Ziggidy]

Church; A building or a place to go to
Church: A organic entity, a living being you are a part of

Easy to change building, cold emotionless
Hard to cut out disease, hurts

Very true....it hurts as it should. But at the same time, you need to remove in order to keep the rest of the body clean from disease or other complications stemming from the disease.

I believe, as cold as it may sound, that the church tries to be everything to everyone; without absolute concern to the rest of the body. Our society is an example of this "live and let live" mentality; not solely the fault of any church, but IMO, it adds significantly to the problems we see today.

 

[JettaKnight]

 

[historian]

Excellent!

 

[Ziggidy]

There's that "predestined" word......

 

[josh64]

Fine, I'll go....

Is time travel possible in The tenets and teachings of Christianity? I say no.

I disagree. Look at revelation for one example. All biblical prophecy might be considered time travel as they saw what they wrote about. Just an idea.

On god's eternal plan as mentioned in the previous post, all are born with free will, and he expects us to use it.
We can throw our lives away any way we wish.