The excommunication imperative
Like many, I have been waiting for the Catholic Church to fully enforce repeated threats to excommunicate Catholic politicians who do not desist from aiding abortion. Pope Benedict XVI has most recently denounced such behavior, but as in the past the matter of restricting offenders from Communion has been left to individual priests. Prompted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent prevarication on the topic (she suggested that abortion is an undecided issue in the Church, and called herself an “ardent, practicing Catholic”), Fr. John De Celles, a Washington, D.C.–area priest, offered this comparison:
“Imagine if someone came in here and said ‘I’m a mafia hit man and I’m proud of it.’ Or ‘I deal drugs to little children.’ Or ‘I think black people are animals and it’s okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children’s school.’ Are these ‘ardent practicing Catholics’? No, they are not. And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. … Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics.”
I wish I could speak of Protestants excommunicating those in our ranks who sanction abortion, but an unfortunate byproduct of sola scriptura has been the ceaseless fracturing of the Church. Anyone who believes his version of Biblical interpretation is better than the others can follow the thousands who have gone before him and set up his own church. Members are likewise free to sort amongst the shards as we see fit. Excommunication is for us, therefore, merely asking the offender to get his piece of host somewhere else.
For Catholics (and Orthodox), however, excommunication still has teeth. In response to this censer-rattling, liberal Catholic politicians have made noises about their rights (as if God can be sued by the ACLU), and advanced the specious claim that their faith is their private business, not to be mixed with their actions as office-holders.
Privatized religion is a popular notion with Americans, combining two things we like: faith and privacy. But private faith is unbiblical. To begin, faith is nothing if it is not lived out (“faith, if it has no works, is dead”). And the Church was, at least in the beginning, not just about “me and Jesus.” It was instead a corporate community of believers confessing, communing, and acting in one accord as directed by Scripture, tradition, teaching, and the Holy Spirit. Faith is meant to be lived out, in other words, in all of one’s actions, within a community of fellow believers.
Fr. De Celles explains that there was another time in our history when American Catholics (Protestants were equally guilty) disobeyed their Church on what they told themselves was a matter of private conscience: slavery. Decades later, in 1956, the Archbishop of New Orleans defied powerful Catholics in his city by desegregating Catholic schools under his domain. And guess what he did to the Catholics who continued to call for racist segregation? That’s right: excommunication.
Here’s hoping—for the sake of the Church’s integrity as well as for unborn children—that his modern-day counterparts follow suit.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top64 Comments to “The excommunication imperative”
When the people who sound this line start talking about disciplining Rudy Giuliani with the same kind of fervor they apply to John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi, I’ll take it seriously.
Until then, I remain convinced it’s just using a religious cudgel for political ends.
Report comment to moderator
So Tony, here is a real question:
What do you mean by excommunication? Just kicking her out? Or do you believe that Rome has the keys to the kingdom, such that excommunication means she is outside the Kingdom (barring repentance)?
As a protestant, I’m on general principles cautious about ceding the keys of the kingdom to Rome. I don’t think that stands in an objective fashion.
So, objectively, do you think that Rome would be making a real decision about Pelosi’s spiritual status? Or is this more political smoke?
Report comment to moderator
You’re kidding, right, SteveG? Anyone who supports abortion should be disciplined by his church, Republican or Democrat, politician or celebrity or private citizen. As the article makes clear, it’s just as unconscionable to treat unrepentant abortion advocates as members in good standing as it is unrepentant racists or adulterers or any other type of sinner. Including Guiliani.
All Christians I know would agree with this statement.
Do you still think it’s all about politics? (Why do I bother asking?)
Report comment to moderator
Guiliani goes to church? I didn’t know. I’ve never heard of him testing the proposition by asking for communion.
This Christian agrees with David L, too.
Report comment to moderator
Tony is right that through the doctrine of sola scriptura Potestant churches are on difficult ground in denying the table to church members. I envy the Catholic and Orthodox churches the ability to deny communion to those who put their liberal politics above their religion. In this fateful cultural struggle with secularism evangelical and orthodox Protestants wield much stronger weapons.
Report comment to moderator
I’m very uncomfortable with a religious extremist such as “an ardent, practicing Catholic” being third in line for the White House.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Giuliani’s behavior (vindictiveness, unrepentant adultery, support for abortion) has long been deserving of church discipline, in my opinion, but as NJL suggests, I imagine we’d have to drag him into a church for the purposes of throwing him right back out.
Harris,
I mean by excommunication formal exclusion from the Eucharist. One can judge the import of that based on one’s sense both of the Church’s ability to discern unrepentant, soul-threatening sin, and of the importance of the Eucharist in God’s salvific work. In other words, excommunication could be, on the one hand, a sign of damnation (in that it falls on those who have damned themselves by unrepentant sin). On the other hand, it could be a participation by the Church in a person’s condemnation, insofar as what is loosed on earth by God’s priests is loosed in Heaven.
Regardless of one’s views, however, I would say it is an error to assume Rome has the key to salvation, or even full Church authority for that matter, given Leo IX’s unlawful assertion of imperial power around 1053 A.D. But even if excommunication holds no spiritual power over the offender in its own right, it should still be exercised, in my opinion, for its instructional effect, namely, to say to the faithful: here is unrepentant sin and you should have nothing to do with it.
Report comment to moderator
David L.: That’s manifestly not true. Rudy Giuliani is a Catholic, nominally at least. When Christians, and Catholic bishops, speak of denying Communion or excommunication of politicians based on their support for abortion rights, it’s always always always Democratic politicians they name.
Granted, there are fewer pro-choice Republicans than Democrats, but there are some, and some in the Catholic church. How come the Bishops who call for excommunication always overlok them?
NJLawyer and Tony may be right that Rudy’s not a churhgoer; I don’t know one way or the other. But this article suggests he considers himself devout.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
It’s not “always always always,” as this post makes clear.
So maybe it’s just always always.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll also note the article SteveG cites is a great example of the “private faith” doctrine that politicians evoke to give themselves space to behave however they please, all while pretending to believe in what American Christians believe. And as Steve makes clear, it’s a falsehood to which Republicans are certainly not immune.
Report comment to moderator
I’d add one more to the the import of excommunication– that the person excommunicated has made his unrepentant attachment to sin so publicly clear that the Church refuses him the Holy Things out of concern for (a) him doing further violence to his own soul (”beware, lest you eat and drink condemnation unto yourself”) and (b) the sacrilege and scandal that results from granting the Holy Things to those so publicly and patently unprepared to receive them properly.
So many people today get concerned about the “scandal and stir” it might create or the “judgmental attitude” that might be conveyed if a person is refused communion. Certainly, excommunication is not something to be done lightly, but it seems like the RCs are heading back in the right direction on this one, if only in “baby steps.” But I’ll take “baby steps” over “standstill” or “backwards,” any day of the week.
Oh to see a return of the spirit of those holy Christian martyrs in the earliest days of the Church who chose to die at the hands of the pagans rather than “simply” divulging the hiding place of the vessels in which the Eucharist was consecrated!
Report comment to moderator
1 Corinthians 11 The “LORDS Supper”
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Report comment to moderator
I thought the same thing, StuBob. How can Pelosi claim she is “ardent” in her faith if she picks and chooses which doctrines she’ll obey? Mother Theresa she’s not.
Report comment to moderator
How earnest, how endearing are these exhortations! Whatever differs from the sound doctrine of the Scriptures, opens a door to divisions and offences. If truth be forsaken, unity and peace will not last long. Many call Christ, Master and Lord, who are far from serving him. But they serve their carnal, sensual, worldly interests. They corrupt the head by deceiving the heart; perverting the judgments by winding themselves into the affections. We have great need to keep our hearts with all diligence. It has been the common policy of seducers to set upon those who are softened by convictions. A pliable temper is good when under good guidance, otherwise it may be easily led astray. Be so wise as not to be deceived, yet so simple as not to be deceivers. The blessing the apostle expects from God, is victory over Satan. This includes all designs and devices of Satan against souls, to defile, disturb, and destroy them; all his attempts to keep us from the peace of heaven here, and the possession of heaven hereafter. When Satan seems to prevail, and we are ready to give up all as lost, then will the God of peace interpose in our behalf. Hold out therefore, faith and patience, yet a little while. If the grace of Christ be with us, who can prevail against us?
Matthew Henry’s Commentary
Report comment to moderator
We as Believers are to “avoid them” –
Report comment to moderator
“They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics.”
God calls them something else.
Report comment to moderator
I Cor. 11
11:16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 11:17 But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. 11:19 For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you. 11:20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper: 11:21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 11:22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.
11:23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 11:25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.
11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 11:28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. 11:30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. 11:31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. 11:34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.
Report comment to moderator
There’s one big problem with Tony’s argument:
Killing someone for the mafia and dealing drugs are illegal actions.
Providing (or procuring) an abortion is not illegal.
Nancy Pelosi and other public officials have an obligation under the Constitution to uphold the rule of law. You don’t have to personally agree with a particular law, but you do have to uphold it. To do otherwise invites anarchy.
And if a person cannot uphold the rule of law, then they should have the good sense to resign.
If the Catholic church denied communion or excommunicated every one who supports upholding the rule of law, I suspect their pews would be very empty.
There’s another important point in the dispute over this matter: in the Catholic church, if one is denied communion or excommunicated, the Catholic church believes that person cannot go to heaven (though possibly, purgatory). So it’s a very big deal for someone like Nancy Pelosi. Of course, the Protestant church would beg to differ on that. Who’s to say who’s right? (I think they’re both wrong, for what it’s worth).
Report comment to moderator
A great deal of the problem here is the politicians view of the authority of the church which ever one that is, and their view of the authority of scripture. Does it really have any bearing on anyone’s eternal destiny? Faith has been so relativised anyone can believe anything they want–doctrine is unimportant, do and proclaim anything they wan, and still expect God, if he exists, to welcome them into heaven, if there is such a place. All this has been made possible by the FACT that everything has evolved to its present state so there really is nothing to hold us/them accountable. Scripture and the church are meaningless to those who recognize no real authority in them.
Report comment to moderator
17-
unworthy participation of the Lord’s Supper, in context of the chapter is spelled out in detail in verses 16-21. The passage is not a fill-in-the-blank/make the offense be whatever you want it to be, resulting in someone being unworthy to partake.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Tony, but I still think there’s a lot of hypocrisy here. We hear this call for Democrats, not Republicans. We hear it for supporters of abortion rights but not for supporters of capital punishment, which the Catholic Church also opposes.
Your link at #9 was an encouraging exception to this trend, but by and large I’ve seen little to contradict my belief that this threat is invoked almost exclusively against pro-choice Democratic Catholics and no one else.
Report comment to moderator
PS … and while the link shows that Republicans sometimes do get called out, there’s a picture of Nancy Pelosi, not Rudy Giuliani, on this post … and that’s almost always the way it is.
Report comment to moderator
When I was “living in sin” 10 years ago, the Protestant church my wife and I were attending at the time excommunicated me. It’s definitely not a GOP/Democrat issue, as SteveG suggests.
Report comment to moderator
Tony [7];
My concern here is basically that of parading our faith before the crowd a la Pharisees. A public banning or excommunication has its political purpose, but does it perform a spiritual function? On this, I’m not so sure. I’m not sold on this as a method to reclaim the fallen, particularly in a political season.
Moreover, this “now she can’t receive the Eucharist” definition turns the Eucharist into something akin to a political Corpus Christi procession (”boy, now she’s done it, she can’t eat the True Body and drink the True Blood”). Again, the Protestant (and Reformed) in me rises up and says, not so fast.
At stake is not the Church’s discipline, but its authority. Jesus is very clear about the role of scandalizing unbelievers. Enmeshing the Gospel with our politics does little service to either in the end. It won’t even win the political victory you seek.
And lastly, you may be at the edge of a rather large unintended consequence. Can a newly-militant, boundary-protecting Catholic church really be a partner with schismatic Protestants? A win for authority may be a loss for comity; the partnership rather than strengthening, weakens.
Politics should not over-rule the role of spiritual discernment.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I don’t think you should conflate “rule of law” with a particular judicially determined decision. These congressmen are not being condemned for failing to override Roe v Wade (an act which would, in fact be constitutional, and therefore within the bounds of lawfulness). They are being condemned for expansions of abortion rights beyond that afforded by Roe v Wade, especially the public funding of abortions. There is nothing in the law that requires such funding, in fact, that is precisely why they are legislating it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s an odd sort of justice that she was called down for supporting the abomination of abortion; I don’t think any other influence could have gotten through that tough hide of hers. She needs our prayers that she can turn from catholicism and meet the true Christ of the Bible. But it seems like this ought to have been allowed to be a private issue. Public whipping somehow seems inappropriate.
What I’d REALLY like to know is how she got away with dismissing Congress for a six-week vacation right when the Republicans were trying to take action about high gas prices! Forget excommunication, can anyone give me a good reason for her to remain the House Speaker??? She never had any business in that seat to start with. But in the dems’ book, the dirtier the politics the better. For a crime like this against taxpayers / her constituents, maybe we should take a more serious look at the public whipping idea…
Report comment to moderator
Harris,
My concern is not the use of Church authority for political purposes, but the perversion and defaming of Church teaching and purity by politicians parading as faithful Christians. We believe that abortion is murder. We are failing to restrict those who willfully expand the scope of that murder from participating in communion. Catholics and Orthodox have clear grounds for restricting communion in this instance, but so do Protestants — there is a widespread belief in Reformed circles that the table must be guarded from unbelievers and unrepentant sinners. I guess some things are good even if the Catholics do it, eh?
Yet if the Eucharist is just a symbol to you, then revoking it has only symbolic meaning, in which case I can sympathize (but not agree) with your concern that excommunication is purely political symbolism. Even if it were only symbolic, however, I would argue that the symbolism is good and instructive and necessary.
As for the actual content of the Eucharist, however, I find myself increasingly in agreement with Flannery O’Connor, who said that if it is just a symbol, then to hell with it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I agree with you that the left is more frequently targeted, but I wanted to demonstrate that it’s not only targeted. Abortion is, in my mind, the place to begin with Church discipline for politicians, because it is — in my view — the greatest abomination in which they publicly participate. But I’m all for calling them to account for every willful flaunting of Church dogma.
Of course then that might mean fewer politicians. But I suppose we’d get by.
Report comment to moderator
Gotta’ like to see Catholics setting their own straight and taking it to the mat, once, instead of letting “ardent cafeteria Catholics,” like Pelosi and Biden, portray to the rest of America that Catholics can remain Catholics while rejecting the Catholic Church’s clear teaching:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75639
LL Mac- This is not the case of the Pelosi’s bishops taking her to the pilory on their own– she publicly made, at best, a very misleading statement regarding a matter of faith and morals. It is the bishops’ grave duty to correct this. Please note that Pelosi’s own bishop has written her and requested her attendance at a private meeting to discuss the matter. Wouldn’t that be a god-send if she publicly repented afterward and became an ardent, faithful Catholic???
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I had a tough time watching Rudy be the “warmup act” for Palin. Seemed all backwards. If I’m not mistaken, Giuliani is automatically excommunicated for his marital situation. If he is still receiving Communion, the damage done is borne by his priests and bishop and shame on them for letting it continue. This is not a Republican, Democrat, or any other party issue; this is a moral issue, and I, for one, am glad to see more Catholics starting to “man up” and walk the talk.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure what Tony expects Nancy Pelosi to do. Unless the Supreme Court reverses itself, there’s really not much legislatively she or anyone can do.
I realize that abortion is the be-all and end-all for a minority of Americans. But the vast majority of Americans are just plain tired of the whole issue. There will never be a satisfactory answer to the issue, no matter which side one comes down on.
While I know it will be “heresy” to the anti-choice folk, most Americans are focused on the issues that affect their every day lives (Do I have enough money to buy gas? How am I gonna make my house payment this month? Etc.). Abortion just doesn’t rate very high on the scale of most people’s concerns. They’ve become inured to the “banging drums” on abortion.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree, Anlir. For one thing, Pelosi makes very clear that she supports Roe v. Wade and will fight anything that limits any abortions. Not only legislative acts, but also Supreme Court nominees that may not be pro-abortion. So, Pelosi has and will continue to strongly support any and all abortion rights.
Besides, we know that abortion is very much a hot-button issue to liberals and conservatives alike. I happen to think that if someone much like Sarah Palin, who was pro-abortion rights instead, had been nominated as McCain’s running mate, liberals would be much more muted in their opposition. At the same time, conservatives would be pretty disheartened and not sure that we really wanted to vote for McCain.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
It’s clearly the case that Pelosi is not simply constrained by “the law of the land” to support abortion. For one, Congress is authorized to amend the Constitution, meaning that it can lawfully overturn Roe v Wade, which was judicial overreach from the beginning. Second, she is not required by law to support federal funding of abortion, which she fervently does.
By 1864 the vast majority of Americans were tired of the slavery and rebellion issues as well. Thank God Lincoln and his supporters pressed onward.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Tony, amending the Constitution to take away women’s privacy rights and the right to make their own health care decisions is not going to happen. That’s far too radical and extreme for the vast majority of Americans. It has about as much chance passing as another go at Prohibition.
Americans may not particularly like abortion, but they aren’t willing to make it illegal again, much less alter the Constitution. When it comes down to it, most people want that option available just in case something should happen to them or someone they love. I predict you’ll still be frustrated 50 years from now on a Constitutional amendment.
Although the anti-choice movement has tried mightily to tie abortion to slavery over the last 35 years, most people aren’t buying the connection.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Given your other posts on the rights of humans you care about (e.g., the right of homosexuals to be free from coercion), I’m surprised to see you fall back on majoritarianism as a governing principle. What “most people” believe has never been a reliable moral principle. It took over a century to end slavery in Great Britain and the United States, and most of that time its vocal opponents were met with the tiresome claim that doing so was unrealistic, that its victims weren’t really human beings with the same rights as whites, that most people didn’t support them, that people care about “more relevant” things, etc.
Report comment to moderator
“Here’s hoping—for the sake of the Church’s integrity as well as for unborn children—that his modern-day counterparts follow suit.”
I dont know if I’d hold my breath waiting for that one to happen, Tony; laudible a goal it in fact is. In South Texas (roughly the region south of San Antonio) at one time folks thought the Mexican-American border areas would back off from the Democratic party given its rigid, litmus-test driven, stalwart and sunshakeable “Abortion Uber alles” commitment.
But most liberals still place greater value on social-welfare state bennies, and public monies going to the currently living will always count moreso than efforts on behalf of the unborn.
By the way, did the abortion controversy pop up on Protestantism’s radar screen only after 1973? Were there proLife advocates in the years prior? Were conservative Christians outraged when Gov Reagan liberalized California’s abortion laws? Who spoke up?
Report comment to moderator
# 19 – Zatos – “Scripture and the church are meaningless to those who recognize no real authority in them.”
Just because a person doesn’t believe in them does not mean that it doesn’t exist. The Lord will still hold the person just as accountable whether he chose to believe or not.
Report comment to moderator
Tony, the discussion on this thread (sorry I cam late to the party – I’ve been busy these past couple days), fails to take something into account.
It was touched on as a question of private faith.
What no one has mentioned is that I can believe privately that abortion is murder. We have a representative form of government, meaning that our politicians are supposedly representing us as citizens and we trust them to act according to our wishes.
If I am elected to a representative position in government, and my constituents have elected me to speak for them, what if I represent a majority who believes that abortion should be legal and are pushing for less regulation, etc.
If I am doing my job the way I should, then I would have to violate my conscience in order to properly represent my constituents. If I act to oppose abortion at every opportunity, am I truly representing my constituents? Or am I representing my self?
I guess it answers the questions of why voters elect representatives who think they way they do, but I believe that too many politicians represent themselves and not their constituents, and shame on us for electing them. Others have prostituted themselves to get elected.
Having said that, a true Christian cannot compartmentalize his faith to the point where he/she compromises it in the course of doing his/her job. And I think if a public figure calls him/herself by the name of Christ, then the pastor of that person’s house of worship should hold him/her accountable for actions while in office. Church discipline should be exercised in increments prescribed, and Excommunication should be the last resort for unrepentance, with an eye toward restoration into fellowship as soon as possible.
It sure would give me pause about running for office if i didn’t feel that I could maintain my integrity.
Report comment to moderator
3-
So your church took a stand for righteousness in the home?
Report comment to moderator
39-
23-
So your church took a stand by excommunicating you? The church took a stand for righteousness in the home?
Report comment to moderator
It’s somewhat strange and almost always predictable. If a liberal hears two Christians speaking about abortion the conversation must turn political. He or she will use words like “choice”, “support” or “opinion”, all words that project an idealism of yielding to a “higher power” and His sovereign, eventual decision while also being respectful of humanities “rights”. It sounds noble, but it is the elitism in its purest form- the stuff that seems to trouble them most and what makes them cry out at Christians when specific hard hitting topics surface. I’m fairly certain from His word that God has made his decision already. Abortion shouldn’t have to be voted on and it’s not an American issue only. An ardent or even somewhat ardent Christian should be able to differentiate the law of a temporary nation and that of a Sovereign God. If political words describe a particular party that realizes that then a Christian should- without harassment- be allowed, even expected to “support” or “choose” them by offense or defense, whichever is needed.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir: “Providing (or procuring) an abortion is not illegal.”
So what?
God is not an American, nor is He bound by American jurisprudence. After all this time, you still fail to comprehend those simple little facts.
Report comment to moderator
And what NJLawyer fails to understand is that we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. We don’t live under the Bible, we live under a secular Constitution. Their Biblical rules have absolutely zero sway over the rule of law or those of us who don’t follow them.
After all this time, you still fail to comprehend those simple little facts.
One wonders how a (self described) attorney can have such an ignorant view of the rule of law and the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
REG: Yes.
Report comment to moderator
LOL, no we don’t live in a “democracy,” Anlir, nor to we live in a “theocracy.” I’m sure neither NJL nor any of the other believers on this blog would want either of those. We live in a representative form of government, as the Founders intended. You really don’t get it, do you! Sad.
Report comment to moderator
#30 Klasko
I would expect any elected politician to make decisions based on his or her religious faith.
I do object to people trying to set rules and governmental policies for everyone else based on their faith. Religious people complain that secular people have imposed their secular values on religious people. Secular people complain that religious people impose their religious values on them. Just as most people can’t smell their own body owner, each group is oblivious when they do it to others.
A lot of this behavior is “drama queen” histrionics, but some of it gets more serious.
Battles about what should be taught about evolution in biology classes, for example, or whether religious groups should be administering charitable governmental activities.
Report comment to moderator
44-
Did your wife excommunicate you?
Report comment to moderator
REG: Galena Bible Church excommunicated me. The head pastor is Gary Kirst, and his phone number is (815) 777-2902.
Report comment to moderator
Reg – 47
I can’t believe you asked this question. Do you sin Reg, or is just everyone else?
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately in many Protestant churches, “numbers” has replaced a sanctified lifestyle, this is especially true in many “mega-churches” Any member or attendee that knowingly and blatantly sins, and refuses true, (and I emphasize true), repentance should be “excommunicated” or its equivalent. Flush the “church growth number” mentality down the drain
Report comment to moderator
“an unfortunate byproduct of sola scriptura has been the ceaseless fracturing of the Church.”
Makes a strong point that “sola scriptura” is untenable.
Report comment to moderator
On the topic of excommunication, I was curious about Harry Reid. As the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, I was wondering if he would face excommunication from his mormon faith for supporting abortion. Unlike Pelosi, Biden, and others, Reid actually considers himself pro-life and has voted against initiatives that supported Roe v Wade. He does support initiatives that make family planning and birth control more available though and supports most women’s issues. His stated position though is that “Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered.”
Report comment to moderator
Theo,
The Mormons aren’t nearly as pro-life as Christians, and Reid’s politics bear that out. You may find the following link of interest: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_abor.htm
I also Googled the following quote from catholic.com which points up the fluidity of Mormon “morality” without even referring to the classic Mormon-caffeine-Coca Cola connection, polygamy, or racial standards for their priesthood:
“Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).
This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).”
Looks as if Reid is OK under current Mormon moral prescriptions, but who knows what revelation the next “prophet” may have?
Report comment to moderator
I think most Americans actually fall somewhere between the ultra-conservatives and pure liberals.
I believe that few Americans would allow abortion once the fetus could survive outside the womb. Similarly, few Americans would disallow abortion in cases where the fetus could not survive and threatened the life of the mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy.
Rape and incest are other cases where most americans would consider abortion to be consdered.
If either party would take more moderate stands, they could probably win a majority of Americans.
Report comment to moderator
Our Christinaity extends past the pulpit. There are times that a spouse must stand up for righteousness in the home when the home is being affected. We are accountable to our spouses first.
Report comment to moderator
Reg
We are accountable to GOD first -
Report comment to moderator
56-
“There are times that a spouse must stand up for righteousness in the home when the home is being affected”
And, when I stated this earlier in the year, not in a random judgemental way, but as someone who has lived this road, I was attacked. This religious-entertainment based forum can easily become a slaughter house.
Report comment to moderator
56-
God is represented in the spouse first, not in the church, first
Report comment to moderator
56-
And at the time I suggested that the one doing the attacking just stick to talking about his own life and not judging me for living mine. We all learn more that way.
Report comment to moderator
And I find it ironic that the one arguing against my divorcing for adultery is now admitting that his wife divorced him for that same reason. I just don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
If you are talking about Outkast on the other thread, you my dear were out of line in your question to him. You can’t wait to bring up divorce, its your favorite subject, you are obsessed with the subject of divorce.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Mistake its right here on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
To Theo Godwyn,
Why would anyone want to settle for a “moderate stance” on the truth? Diluted truth = a lie. PS – Ironically “sola scriptura” is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible!
Report comment to moderator
Nice article. Thanks. By the way, when one considers that many saints in the Catholic faith (and I’m sure many others) gave up their life rather than be coerced into diluting the doctrines of their faith (e.g. Thomas More for one), it is all the more regrettable that we see so many politicians who use their faith to garner votes, but don’t follow their faith in legislating. There is nothing wrong with basing our legislature on Christian-judeo-Islamic principles, since our nation is probably 90% comprised of such now, and most definitely was back in the day when our forefathers forged our cornerstones. But somewhere along the line, we were made to feel narrow-minded in desiring such from our legislators, or suggesting that they do their best to perpetuate the ideals that comprise our Constitution. But there is a movement afoot which seems to indicate a line in the sand is now being drawn. At least, I seem to sense it.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!