Banned From Catholic Web Sites?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='24 October 2009 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1256389885' post='1990641']
Whether you like it or not, the Bishop is the only one who has the authority to prohibit a Catholic Politician, from receiving Holy Communion.

I wouldn't have had a problem with the petition, if it was a general request, i.e. we want the Bishops to stand firm, by not allowing Catholic
Politicians who support abortion, to be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion.

However, the petition went over the top, by demanding Catholic politicians specifically, to be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion. We as lay
Catholics have no right to drag a person before the USCCB's and demand that they be excommunicated.

Again, the spirit of this petition was the equivalent of the Pharisees dragging the woman caught in adultery, before Jesus, demanding that he follow the law by
agreeing that she be stoned to death.

In both cases, it was self-righteous arrogance. Jesus response to the Pharisees would be the same to the framers and signers of the petition.
Let he who is among you who is without sin, sign the petition.

Jim
[/quote]
Again you are judging people's hearts by calling them arrogant. Again you have no clue to someone's thought on the subject. We actually do have the right to petition the bishop to excommunicate heretics, we are condemning people's BEHAVIOR.

[alleros]

er... yes.

Would rather not say any more.. But probably being seen as too liberal.

A strong mystical streak gives me a different angle on some things . So now I am more careful - hopefully:) But I tend to see the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

If you widen that to Christian websites/forums?

I have now developed a thicker skin and leave before it gets too bad, making sure I have the last word and that it is a cogent one. Makes them .... lol

The worst encountered was the "Chriistianity " section of boards ie; I did not realise the depth of anti - Catholic feeling, and anti -Christian feeling also. Especially by the mods, of whom none was Catholic and who allowed anyone to post anything. Very anti-Catholic..

It was a lamb to the slaughter scenario.

Yet I did manage to build bridges for some, who were seeing abuses as Catholic - if you see what I mean. Leading them to understand what Catholic beliefs really are.

Which sadly got me attacked by some of the Catholics as being an " a la carte Catholic"

It was snipers alley.

So finally after some major blasphemies had appeared and not been challenged, I reported them to the main boards ie and quit.

Most of the worst offenders were mods from other sections of the boards ie.

Never went back. Not to the Christianity section.

I cannot bear to hear my Lord mocked. Just cannot bear it.

There is a xanga revelife group I watch carefully; but too many trolls attacking and mocking. The mods there say that they allow it for "outreach" .. sigh.

Ah well...

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='24 October 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1256400003' post='1990678']
Again you are judging people's hearts by calling them arrogant. Again you have no clue to someone's thought on the subject. We actually do have the right to petition the bishop to excommunicate heretics, we are condemning people's behavior.
[/quote]

Arrogant behavior is arrogant behaviour, and that's what it is. I'm not judging their hearts, but their behavior.


We have the right to petition a Bishop to excommunicate a heretic. A heretic is one who is teaching doctrines contrary to Catholic teaching. None of the
politicians in the petition are teaching doctrines.

Their votes in congress may be questionably sinful, but its not for us to throw the stones at them, which this petition was doing.

BTW, as far as I know, never went anywhere. The USCCB pretty much ignore such things.

Jim

[Jaime]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='24 October 2009 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1256391040' post='1990647']
Not for you to judge, for the actions they have taken, within the legislature, are more complex than what most people understand.

Catholics can not [b][i]actively promote[/i][/b] abortion. The definition here is promote abortion. When it comes to various bills being debated and voted
on in Congress, most are not promoting abortion per se, and I believe that the Bishops of these politicians, who they in fact have had private meetings with,
them, understand this and hence, have not excommunicated them.

The bottom line is, its between them and their Bishop. If their Bishop has not excommunicated them publicly, then we as laity have to accept that they
are in good standing with the Church and can still receive Holy Communion.

There are some in Catholic Forums who are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, who stated that they will not give Communion to anyone who they know voted
for Barrack Obama. This is nuts. We don't have that authority.

Jim
[/quote]

It is completely within my purview to assess the actions taken by a politician who claims to be Catholic. And if you feel its too complicated for you, just go and see the NARAL rating of any Catholic politician in question. All of whom listed in the petition received a 100% NARAL rating Jim. I don't know what your definition of "actively promoting" is but for me, voting against a ban on partial birth abortions is actively promoting. the Catholics in question voted against the ban.

It takes about 30 seconds to take the blinders off and simply do the most minimal amount of research. They put themselves in the position of role models. And other Catholics can use the positions of these people to defend their own.

As far as banning goes, usually they only ban stalkers and deities here. You can however get suspended for no reason at all.

[Maximilianus]

We'll get nowhere if we just sit around and let those in power who claim to be Catholic continue to slap the Church in the face by supporting the evils of relativism and the culture of death. Lives and ultimatley [b]souls are at stake[/b].

"Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and your religious act like religious." - Archbishop Fulton Sheen

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='24 October 2009 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1256405491' post='1990698']
It is completely within my purview to assess the actions taken by a politician who claims to be Catholic. And if you feel its too complicated for you, just go and see the NARAL rating of any Catholic politician in question. All of whom listed in the petition received a 100% NARAL rating Jim. I don't know what your definition of "actively promoting" is but for me, voting against a ban on partial birth abortions is actively promoting. the Catholics in question voted against the ban.

It takes about 30 seconds to take the blinders off and simply do the most minimal amount of research. They put themselves in the position of role models. And other Catholics can use the positions of these people to defend their own.

As far as banning goes, usually they only ban stalkers and deities here. You can however get suspended for no reason at all.
[/quote]


It is in your choice not to vote for such a politician. However, it is not in your right to judge whether that politician should be banned from
receiving Holy Communion or not. That is the authority of the Bishop, not you, regardless of what you think about that Bishop. He has
access to information about the person in question, that you do not. He is the pastor of that dioceses, and it is through him, that the person
will be brought back in line with the Church.

Nasty petitions like the one mentioned, only push such Catholics further away, because they are filled with hatred and nastiness that , make
people cringe.

The Bishops have taken a Christian approach to dealing with such politicians, lets pray for them and let them do their job.

Jim

[Jaime]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='24 October 2009 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1256420120' post='1990791']
It is in your choice not to vote for such a politician. However, it is not in your right to judge whether that politician should be banned from
receiving Holy Communion or not. That is the authority of the Bishop, not you, regardless of what you think about that Bishop. He has
access to information about the person in question, that you do not. He is the pastor of that dioceses, and it is through him, that the person
will be brought back in line with the Church.

Nasty petitions like the one mentioned, only push such Catholics further away, because they are filled with hatred and nastiness that , make
people cringe.

The Bishops have taken a Christian approach to dealing with such politicians, lets pray for them and let them do their job.

Jim
[/quote]

You, I or anyone else can certainly assess whether or not someone is actively promoting abortion. And I am well within my rights to respectfully request a bishop to enforce the rules that the Church has set up.

Do you think that someone who votes against a ban on partial birth abortion, is promoting abortion?

[CatherineM]

I have corresponded on many occasions with bishops, both by letter, phone, and in person, and I am quite capable of doing so in a congenial manner even when discussing difficult subjects. I recall bringing something to his attention once, that although it had been in the news, he was not aware of. Sometimes bishops are surrounded by people who don't want to upset him, and he, himself is too busy with other mundane things such as prayer.

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='23 October 2009 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1256322980' post='1990329']
No, its no reason to ban you for disagreeing with it.
We rarely ban people here [ porn and spam always], you can say almost anything within reason, as long as you do it politely. Personal attacks are not tolerated.

The people to whom the petition was referring have already publicly left Christ, because their public stances are a scandal to the laity and an abomination to God.
[/quote]

A moderator named Michaelangelo banned me in MSN Catholic Community and I cried and deeply regretted what I have done in that forum. Since out of too much expectation to their religiosity, I trusted them that they really wanted to see the light and to live in the arms of the truth thus I urged them to explain their faith. Since if anyone can explain his own faith, he will become the master of his faith and not its slave. Religious people are truly sensitive people. I was banned in that forum when I discuss ‘The Holy Trinity – The Devil’s Scheme’.

At least here in Phatmass, when I discuss ‘Holy Trinity – The Devil’s Doctrine’, I am still an active member although this topic was closed for an ‘unknown’ reason.

Nevertheless, it is not into my lost if you banned me since I am just trying my best to bring you to light and if you are truly in the light you should have known me by now because The Truth is my lord and I am his slave.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='reyb' date='25 October 2009 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1256451272' post='1991020']
A moderator named Michaelangelo banned me in MSN Catholic Community and I cried and deeply regretted what I have done in that forum. Since out of too much expectation to their religiosity, I trusted them that they really wanted to see the light and to live in the arms of the truth thus I urged them to explain their faith. Since if anyone can explain his own faith, he will become the master of his faith and not its slave. Religious people are truly sensitive people. I was banned in that forum when I discuss ‘The Holy Trinity – The Devil’s Scheme’.

At least here in Phatmass, when I discuss ‘Holy Trinity – The Devil’s Doctrine’, I am still an active member although this topic was closed for an ‘unknown’ reason.

Nevertheless, it is not into my lost if you banned me since I am just trying my best to bring you to light and if you are truly in the light you should have known me by now because The Truth is my lord and I am his slave.
[/quote]
...and we disagree with you in probably hundreds of different ways, but disagreement is not a valid reason for banning someone from an internet forum.

[alleros]

Glad to hear that!!


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 October 2009 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1256452025' post='1991021']
...and we disagree with you in probably hundreds of different ways, but disagreement is not a valid reason for banning someone from an internet forum. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]
[/quote]

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='24 October 2009 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1256421574' post='1990797']
You, I or anyone else can certainly assess whether or not someone is actively promoting abortion. And I am well within my rights to respectfully request a bishop to enforce the rules that the Church has set up.

Do you think that someone who votes against a ban on partial birth abortion, is promoting abortion?
[/quote]


It depends on how the law is written and if there is a law already on the books, or whether there is a protection
of the life of the mother clause in it bill. It also depends on whether its a medical procedure or actually partial birth
abortion as defined. Not all up or down votes are so clear.

Let me give you an example.


During the election, pro-life groups pointed out how Barrack Obama voted to fund abortions at health clinics on
Native American Reservations, and John McCain voted against it.

This would seem like a clear case of one candidate being pro-abortion and the other opposed. However, such was not the case.

The piece of legislation, was merely a bill to increase funding for health services on the reservation clinics, which were already being paid for
by the Federal Government. There was no exclusion on abortion, so of course abortions could be paid for. The distortion on the issue is that,
the original bill when it came out, John McCain supported it and it never had "no abortion" exclusion it it. Obama wasn't even a senator when
the bill was originally voted on.

However, the campaign rhetoric was that John McCain was pro-life and Obama was pro-abortion. Neither statements were true.

The Catholic politicians who voted for the increase in spending for the health clinic services, would've been denied Holy Communion, had
neo-Catholic forces had their way.

The Bishops know better, which is why, none have banned their politicians-constituents from receiving Holy Communion.

Jim

[Jaime]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='25 October 2009 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1256487633' post='1991080']
It depends on how the law is written and if there is a law already on the books, or whether there is a protection
of the life of the mother clause in it bill. It also depends on whether its a medical procedure or actually partial birth
abortion as defined. Not all up or down votes are so clear.

Let me give you an example.


During the election, pro-life groups pointed out how Barrack Obama voted to fund abortions at health clinics on
Native American Reservations, and John McCain voted against it.

This would seem like a clear case of one candidate being pro-abortion and the other opposed. However, such was not the case.

The piece of legislation, was merely a bill to increase funding for health services on the reservation clinics, which were already being paid for
by the Federal Government. There was no exclusion on abortion, so of course abortions could be paid for. The distortion on the issue is that,
the original bill when it came out, John McCain supported it and it never had "no abortion" exclusion it it. Obama wasn't even a senator when
the bill was originally voted on.

However, the campaign rhetoric was that John McCain was pro-life and Obama was pro-abortion. Neither statements were true.

The Catholic politicians who voted for the increase in spending for the health clinic services, would've been denied Holy Communion, had
neo-Catholic forces had their way.

The Bishops know better, which is why, none have banned their politicians-constituents from receiving Holy Communion.

Jim
[/quote]

Jim you are not going to get anywhere with an overly simplistic argument like this. (which btw is full of errors) You can easily go to NARAL site and see how every single politician has voted on abortion bills. When NARAL gives a 100% rating to a senator or congressman, they aren't confused. You point to one bill and cry "its too complicated"

Take a look at HR 3660 a ban on partial birth abortion. Its not convoluted. its not complicated. Its black or white. So Jim, if a politician had voted against the ban (as did the people listed in the scurrilous petition) are they actively promoting abortion?\

[quote]
The Bishops know better, which is why, none have banned their politicians-constituents from receiving Holy Communion[/quote]

Wrong. Tom Daschle has been excommunicated. And he will be welcomed back with open arms when he recants his stance on abortion and follows Church teaching. Btw there were literally thousands of letters to the Arch Bishop to address this issue. Not once did the Arch Bishop say "hey stop bugging me with this. You have no right"

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='25 October 2009 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1256488769' post='1991082']
Jim you are not going to get anywhere with an overly simplistic argument like this. (which btw is full of errors) You can easily go to NARAL site and see how every single politician has voted on abortion bills. When NARAL gives a 100% rating to a senator or congressman, they aren't confused. You point to one bill and cry "its too complicated"

Take a look at HR 3660 a ban on partial birth abortion. Its not convoluted. its not complicated. Its black or white. So Jim, if a politician had voted against the ban (as did the people listed in the scurrilous petition) are they actively promoting abortion?\



Wrong. Tom Daschle has been excommunicated. And he will be welcomed back with open arms when he recants his stance on abortion and follows Church teaching. Btw there were literally thousands of letters to the Arch Bishop to address this issue. Not once did the Arch Bishop say "hey stop bugging me with this. You have no right"
[/quote]


I have gone to pro-life sites which stated the same bills as NARAL. They show up and down votes on various pieces of legislation, one of which is the one I described.

Pro-life groups showed John McCain voting against and Obama voting for. However, as I dug into that bill and what it was about, I found that the original bill when it first came out, John McCain voted for it. So in fact, he voted to fund abortions, if you want to use it as the litmus test of whether he's pro-life or not.

Also, NARAL will support the Candidate that is either on their side, or the one who is less threatening to them, and that usually means the democrat.

It doesn't mean that that particular candidate is not pro-life, in the literal definition of the term.


Also, Tom Daschel excommunicated himself from receiving Holy Communion over 20 years ago, when he divorced and remarried without obtaining an
annulment.

Pro-life groups distorted the actual reason why he can not receive.

Here's an article explaining the situation.

[url="http://208.113.223.118/modules.php?name=News&file=printpdf&sid=1146"]http://208.113.223.1...intpdf&sid=1146[/url]


Also, here's the bill H.R. 3660

[url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3660"]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3660[/url]

See how the bill had nothing to do with PBA per se, but a tax deduction
for the self employed, for he cost of their health insurance.


In Christ
Jim

Edited October 25, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Jaime]

First off Jim, you're quoting an article that was plagiarized and stolen from the Weekly Standard. Secondly you need to read the article.

[quote]Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento was the first American bishop touse the new note from Rome. At a pro-life Mass on January 22, he spokeof California Governor Gray Davis's claim to be a "pro-choiceCatholic." After describing the efforts by Davis's pastor to get thegovernor to see the moral incoherence of his position, Weiganddeclared, "As your bishop, I have to say clearly thatanyone--politician or otherwise--who thinks it is acceptable for aCatholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or hersoul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church. Such aperson should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of hisown volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has achange of heart."[/quote]

So while the article casts doubts on the origin of Daschle's troubles with the Church, (although Carlson's meeting with him had nothing to do with marriage.) the stolen article shows a clear cut example of you being wrong.

and here is the summar[b]y of HR 3660 FROM THE 106TH NOT THE 110TH THAT YOU QUOTED[/b]

[quote] Partial-BirthAbortion Ban Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibitany physician from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion in oraffecting interstate or foreign commerce, unless it is necessary tosave the mother's life that is endangered by a physical disorder,illness, or injury. Prescribes penalties.Definesa "partial birth abortion" as an abortion in which the personperforming the abortion deliberately and intentionally: (1) vaginallydelivers some portion of an intact living fetus until the fetus ispartially outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performingan overt act that the person knows will kill the fetus while the fetusis partially outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt actthat kills the fetus while the intact living fetus is partially outsidethe mother's body.Authorizesthe father, if married to the mother at the time of the abortion, andthe maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 yearsof age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless thepregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or theplaintiff consented to the abortion.Authorizesa defendant accused of an offense under this Act to seek a hearingbefore the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct wasnecessary to save the life of the mother.Prohibitsthe prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion isperformed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisionsregarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealmentof a felony.[/quote]

[url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-3660&tab=summary"]http://www.govtrack....660&tab=summary[/url]

Please discuss the actual bill I'm talking about. I hope this was an honest mistake

Again Jim I'll make it as clear as I can

IF SOMEONE WERE TO VOTE TO LIFT THE BAN ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, WOULD THAT PERSON BE PROMOTING ABORTION?