MikeWF

You wrote, "It is unbelievable to me that human beings seem not to comprehend that there is something truly evil in intentionally killing innocent human beings- whether in the womb or not."

The Catholic Church actually takes it past the "intentionally killing innocent", does it not?

Something to think about: When Jesus said: "He who is without sin, cast the first stone", He did not say, he who is with a sin that 'ain't as bad', did He?

We seem to be very good at setting up a "hierarchy" of sin, just as we are very good at setting up a "hierarchy" of a lot of things.

Sin is sin, wrongdoing is wrongdoing, call it whatever you like but this type of thinking can and very often does degenerate into the "old" 'I'm not as bad as 'that one' because my sin is smaller', what a crock, can you see the "self-righteousness" that is built into this way of thinking?

Some of the simplest and most straight-forward things that Jesus taught, some of which are: "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "Your forgiveness should be unlimited", "Love one another as I have loved you"... are the first things disregarded by many and at least one of the reasons seems to be because they actually go against our human nature, not because people don't see the very simplicity of them but on the contrary because they do.

It is written, "I will reveal to the 'little ones' the mysteries of the Kingdom", it is not about "rules and regulations", it is much 'more simple' than that, yet, as I have said, it can go very much against our fallen nature.

We are not called to look things up in a book, so to speak, but to look into our hearts, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" not necessarily how they actually treat you.

Forcing oneself on another in any which way is wrong, this should seem self-evident, shouldn't it?

Don't there seem to be quite a few that regurgitate the "intrinsic evil" yet simply ignore some of the so-called 'lesser evils'?

Have you ever noticed that some people take sin very seriously especially the sins of others?

Jesus at least once is reported to have said something to the effect: "Why look for the splinter in your brother's eye when the whole forest is jammed into your own", do you think that this is any less valid today?

Two simple things to think about: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

God's Plan is for ALL to be in the Kingdom because a partial victory would be a loss and God's Victory is Total.

Do you think that God asked us to be more forgiving, more merciful, more loving than God?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

: aquadolph

"Abortion is murder...pure and simple. Murderers must be told that they are not to recieve communion until they have gone to confession."

___________________

What about capital punishment and pre-emptive war? I don't see your Church denying communion for these "sinners"

How convenient of you to pick abortion as murder and not other things. No political agenda here, nosireeee!

MikeWF

You wrote, "Jesus gave the “keys” to Peter. Read Matthew 16:18."

Does this mean that Peter is "above" others, so to speak, remember, Peter and Paul got into "discussions" at times when Peter was clearly in the wrong on a subject.

You also wrote, "Jesus did tell people to follow Him. But then He also said that whoever did not listen to his anointed leaders were not listening to HIM. (Luke 10:16)"

Have you ever thought that God can "anoint" anyone He feels like, for whatever reason He has, remember there have been many "anointed" thru the ages, one of which in the OT was Cyrus who wasn't even a Jew and yet God anointed him.

We should "listen" to all and follow One. Unless one listens, one can not hear. The Holy Spirit can speak thru anyone sometimes unbeknowst to that person.

You then wrote, "Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The new rule of love is a higher standard than the Old Testament rule of “thou shalt not” – it is not a lower standard."

This is true and the reason is that "the law" is Love which is God since God is a Being of Pure Love. The Law is God. God's Plan will be fulfilled. The standard has not been changed, it has merely been stated more clearly and yet we still do not hear, still do not see.

You then wrote, "God’s will is for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). But He also clearly implied that many people will not follow His desire for them, leading themselves to Hell"

Have you ever thought that it would be a good idea to pray for God's Will and not our own? Remember, one of Jesus's prayers was: "Not My Will but Thy Will be done", this also shows that Jesus had a human will just like the rest of us but that we can give our will back to God, part of the use of our free will.

By the way, God did not create "hell", if one were to die and go to hell that person will come to the realization that they built it themself and that they have no one to blame but themself.

You also wrote, "we have free will. Wide is the path that leads to destruction, and many are those who follow it. (Matt 7:13)"

Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you...", I think that you know what a yoke is, we are to walk with Jesus, guided by the Holy Spirit, on the way to the Father, the whole Trinity, so to speak, is rooting for us.

By the way, my path is not your path and other people's paths are also different from each other, so no one except God can lead us but others can be of help.

It speaks of the "mysterious plan of God" in the bible well guess what God has had His Plan since before creation and it will come to Fruition.

Jesus won the "keys" to hell and spiritual death by His Life and Death here on earth and He will use them in due time, in other words those in hell and spiritual death will get out, so to speak.

Jesus took the sins of the entire world of all time upon Himself, pretty nice of God to do that, don't you think?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mr. Baum,

It is unbelievable to me that human beings seem not to comprehend that there is something truly evil in intentionally killing innocent human beings - whether in the womb or not. At 3 weeks after conception, an unborn child has a beating heart. At 6 weeks, measurable brain waves. Most all abortions occur AFTER one or both of these milestones because most women don't even know they're pregnant until after the 1st missed period.

What do we use to determine the end of life? Heart beat and brain waves. Why is it so difficult to at least use the same standard at the beginning? Is it because we are so in need of sex that we are willing to do whatever it takes to have it without consequences? According to Alan Guttmacher (Planned Parenthood - pro-abortion rights), about 94% of abortions have NOTHING to do with life of the mother, rape/incest. It is for convenience.

Mr. Baum:

1) Jesus gave the “keys” to Peter. Read Matthew 16:18.

2) Jesus did tell people to follow Him. But then He also said that whoever did not listen to his anointed leaders were not listening to HIM. (Luke 10:16)

3) Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The new rule of love is a higher standard than the Old Testament rule of “thou shalt not” – it is not a lower standard.

4) God’s will is for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). But He also clearly implied that many people will not follow His desire for them, leading themselves to Hell – we have free will. Wide is the path that leads to destruction, and many are those who follow it. (Matt 7:13)

awunsch

You wrote, "when he makes a decision on matters of dogma, he has the gift of infallibility which binds all Catholics."

Do you place "dogma" ahead of God?

If I am not mistaken there have been two and only two "infallibility" statements made since Jesus's Time: Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, correct me if I am wrong.

The "infallibility" thing has only been around since, I believe, the 1st Vatican Council somewhere in the late 1800's, is that true?

You also wrote, "As for communion, the priest has an obligation to ensure the proper celebration of this sacrament"

Seems to me that if there is any "obligation" involved wouldn't that be to listen to what Jesus instructed: "Feed My lambs..."?

Even tho I know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, I do not know exactly how God may make use of this, so to speak, maybe we should let God use this wonderful Gift that He has given us as He sees fit.

You then wrote, "However, if the priest recognizes an individual as one who is in sin (such as a prominent pro-choice politician),"

Do you think that God is "in sin" since He seems to be pro-choice in so far as God gave us free will, where would free will be if there was nothing to choose from?

There is a difference between letting someone make a choice and forcing something on another, can you not see that?

You then wrote, "As for the "majority of Catholics" that voted for Obama, it speaks more of those who do not follow their faith than of what "Catholics" politics are."

Somewhat "judgmental" don't you think? Does this mean that the "minority of Catholics" that voted for Obama did so for OK reasons?

How are you able to judge if someone is "following their faith"?

Faith can hopefully lead someone to God and then that someone can take Jesus up on His Invitation to "Come follow Me".

As I have said before: God will not fit into any of the boxes that so many try to contain God in.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The Vatican is a State/country hence the head (currently Pope Benedict XVI) of the Vatican holds both a political position as head of state and a religious/spiritual position as head of the Roman Catholic Church. Many things the Pope says are merely opinion while others are as head of a State and in the case of religion, when he makes a decision on matters of dogma, he has the gift of infallibility which binds all Catholics.
Many people consider the Iraq war as an unjust war but the Pope(s) never said that. Both JPII and Benedict were against that war - for that matter against all war because it never solves the problem, which is true. The Church has clearly stated the issues of life in which social justice, war and the death penaly are matter in which Catholics can differ in opinion. However, abortion, embryonic stem cells and euthanasia are always evil and cannot be supported. Hence those who voted for President Obama in the last election and who, as politician, actively and publicly support abortion are excommunicating themselves from the Church.
As for communion, the priest has an obligation to ensure the proper celebration of this sacrament and the recipient has an obligation not to present himself if in a state of sin. The obligation is on the recipient as a priest cannot know the status of that individual. However, if the priest recognizes an individual as one who is in sin (such as a prominent pro-choice politician), he is obligated to refuse communion. This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with the spiritual consequences of both the individual and the reverence required of the sacrament as well as the scandal that ensues to those present for Mass.
As for the "majority of Catholics" that voted for Obama, it speaks more of those who do not follow their faith than of what "Catholics" politics are.

aquadolph Part I

You wrote, "I am wondering why the two of you are posting stuff that isn't very valid...such as the seperation of church and state...that is a recent fabrication of many on the left side of the political spectrum."

The "separation of church and state" is in place so that a "theocracy" is not set up which many have tried thru the ages and it goes against what Jesus said, "Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caeser's?

You then wrote, "There IS no actual seperation of church and state as by any definition in our Constitution and though some may seek to use that as an excuse to tell the catholic church and other churches to butt out of politics."

Church laws are not to be the "laws of the land", it is that simple.

You then wrote, "Catholics have just as much of a right to voice their opinions on politics as any other group."

I am a Catholic and I am not a group, I am a human being. Just as any other "group" does not have the right to shove themselves down other people's throat's neither does ANY religious group.

You then wrote, "This nation is not comprised of all catholics, so they cannot carry the day in any disagreement. But they are guaranteed by the constitution the ability to voice their opinions (that may be formed in part based on their faith)."

Who said that they weren't?

You then wrote, " And the vatican WAS a state back when it had to be to defend itself among other states in the renaissance period...but it is no longer a "state"."

I could be wrong but I do not think that I am about the Vatican being a State, maybe you should check out the reality of the countries of the world.

You then wrote, "It's leader is the Pope (chosen by the holy spirit) and it's faithful do recognize that he is our vicar or representative of christ on earth."

A "Christian", of any persuasion, is suppose to be a "representative" of Jesus on earth, why do you think that they came up with the term "Christian"?

aquadolph Part II

You then wrote, " Both the last pope and this one are strong in the holy spirit and I do trust both of their judgements far more than I trust many in our Americanized Catholic congregations"

Jesus's invitation was to "Come follow Me", not to follow Peter or any of his successors and Jesus also said to "Feed My sheep...", He did not say they were anyone else's sheep, lambs, did He?

Also, when Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit, He did not even come close to saying that this was only for the "higher-ups", did He?

You then wrote, "That is what the priests must try and discern when a politician comes up for communion (one who is pro choice)."

Considering that God is "pro-choice" in that He gave us "free will", I would imagine that if God, Himself", showed up for Communion you think that He should be scrutinized and refused.

Jesus said, "Feed My lambs...", have you ever thought about letting God have a say in this?

You then wrote, "and only the person there for communion knows if that is true or not."

How can you say this and then also say that the priest should decide?

It is about a "relationship", it is not about "rules and regulations" and telling "other people" what to do.

By the way, God's Plan is for All to be in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Jesus won the keys to hell and spiritual death and He will use them.

That is the "GOOD NEWS".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Weigel may not be right on everything, but you need to interact with what the present pope wrote about the difference between abortion/euthanasia and the death penalty/just war:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." Pope Benedict XVI (while then-Cardinal Ratzinger)

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&CFID=10618596&CFTOKEN=80854991

CCNL

Yes, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did say that He was not "of this world"...because his kingdom is in heaven and he came to reopen the door that leads back into heaven (which he did on the cross and at his resurrection). If you had any clue of the fact that there are MILLIONS of people in this country who have had "near death" experiences where they have died and literally gone to the spiritual realm (which included heaven, hell and purgatory) and then come back to life here on earth and if you had talked to any of them, you would see that the "other world" is where we go when we die and that one wants to enter heaven (not hell or purgatory) when one dies. To do so..."Follow Jesus" in how He lived. Love the Lord with all of your heart, your soul and your life...and then love your neighbor. And sin no more. Sadly...the very conceptr of what is sin is being muddied about these days by Satan, who wants to deny us access into heaven. He roams about our world...seeking souls to distroy.

When one sees a true visionary who is recieving our Blessed Mother Mary or Jesus or an angel...one can not break them out of the apparition recieving mode. No pain stimulus or distraction works...for they are literally between the two worlds. I have been blessed to have seen the celestial flash that can be seen (once or twice or three flashes) when the two worlds do meet for the real apparitions. This is important stuff for you to know and grasp if you truly don't want to miss the entrance into heaven.

CCNL:

The Jesus Seminar has been discredited for at least the previous two decades. No recognized biblical scholar in either the Catholic or Protestant traditions teaches any part of the hypothersis postulated by Mr. Crossan and friends. John Crossan et al, have found a method for making pocket change while thumbing their nose at the establishment. This adolescent nonsense
no doubt explains part of your obsession with the topic.

Matthew's gospel, and therefore Matthew as an apostle and evangelist, is one of the easier NT Texts to date and establish as credible. Matthew's gospel was written to the Jewish converts in Jerusalem, the only gospel to address the Jewish Palestinian community. We know that all Jewish people were expelled from Jerusalem by 70-72 AD. Therefore, the text of Matthew existed in the 60's or even 50's AD.

In fact, we can date Mark's gospel to the late 40s to early 50s AD because Matthew depends largely on the Marcan text. We also know that Matthew is included in every list of the apostles in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Among the original material included by Matthew is narrative of his own call to join the Apostolic college, which is confirmed in the later writings of the NT.

Can you move on to another friggin' point?

But did this simple, preacher man aka Jesus really say, "My kingdom is not of this world"???

According to many NT and historic Jesus exegetes, no, he did not. Again this passage was added to the gospels to embellish the life of this first century preacher.

The same conclusion was made about: "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it".

http://www.jesusdatabase.org/index.php?title=180_Pilates_Questions

I am wondering why the two of you are posting stuff that isn't very valid...such as the seperation of church and state...that is a recent fabrication of many on the left side of the political spectrum.

There IS no actual seperation of church and state as by any definition in our Constitution and though some may seek to use that as an excuse to tell the catholic church and other churches to butt out of politics...Catholics have just as much of a right to voice their opinions on politics as any other group. This nation is not comprised of all catholics, so they cannot carry the day in any disagreement. But they are guaranteed by the constitution the ability to voice their opinions (that may be formed in part based on their faith). And the vatican WAS a state back when it had to be to defend itself among other states in the renaissance period...but it is no longer a "state". It is a faith...a religion. It's leader is the Pope (chosen by the holy spirit) and it's faithful do recognize that he is our vicar or representative of christ on earth. Both the last pope and this one are strong in the holy spirit and I do trust both of their judgements far more than I trust many in our Americanized Catholic congregations.

Abortion is murder...pure and simple. Murderers must be told that they are not to recieve communion until they have gone to confession. That is what the priests must try and discern when a politician comes up for communion (one who is pro choice). It isn't about their politics...it is about whether they are in a state of sin and need confession first...and only the person there for communion knows if that is true or not.

Thomas,

Thank you again for your respectful and thoughtful reply.

From the thing I like the most about going to the Catholic Church here in Mexico:

"la paz sea contigo"

PART I

coloradodog

You wrote, "My confusion lies in the Catholic claim the Vatican is a separate country and the Pope is the "Head of State." Catholics want it both ways."

Maybe at one time it was a "Catholic" claim but most if not the rest of the world recognize the Vatican as a "State".

The "history" of "Christianity" is littered with the twistation of quite a bit of what Jesus taught, one of which is "My Kingdom is not of this world".

Anyone that claims to be a "Christian" and tries to set up a "theocracy" is going against what Jesus so simply said.

You also wrote, "Archbishops denying Communion to errant Catholic legislators is the most glaring proof."

I totally agree because only God can look into one's heart and since I know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, no one has the right to get between God and another person.

It is somewhat ironic that some of the people that know the least about God, except maybe God's Name, try to force their "conception" of God on others, whereas God gave us free will, some try to force "their will" on others whereas God will not force His Will on people.

You then wrote, "The Church itself calls it's Clergy Ambassadors of the Pope."

You probably know more about this than I do but we should be "Ambassadors of Jesus" not of the Pope.

Jesus said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It".

Jesus said It was "His Church", He did not say it was Peter's, Jesus also said "the gates of the netherworld ...", this is the whole mission of the Church.

Jesus also said, "I Am the Vine, you are the branches", He did not say branch.

As I have said before, I cherish my Catholic Faith and sometimes I find it rather amazing, even tho I shouldn't because God knows what He is doing and what His Plans are, that the Catholic Faith has survived and even flourished within the Catholic Religion and for that matter even outside of the "physicality", so to speak, of the Catholic Religion.

Another thing that I have said: If one is a Catholic than they should also be catholic.

PART II COLORADODOG

You then wrote, "Is your Church a religion or a foreign entity with an agenda to influence government policy in the US?"

First off, two things: It is not "my" Church and to me it is not a "religion".

I mentioned this awhile back: I stopped going to "church" some time in my teens and basically didn't go for about 30 years and looking back on it and thinking about it, one of the reasons, even if not consciously thought about at the time, was that it was becoming a "religion".

As far as "a foreign entity with an agenda to influence government policy in the US", within the "Catholic Church" one could find a whole range of opinions on many things and even tho it goes against every thing that Jesus taught, there most likely are some that would like to set up a "theocracy".

In "Christianity" in general this quest for "worldly power" is quite evident among some. In Catholicism this quest for "worldly power" is evident in some even within the "religion" without necessarily going into the wider world, so to speak.

You also wrote, "if I weren't so fed up with the theocratic agendas of intolerant Abrahamic religions."

What do you think Jesus thinks about this total twistation of what He taught and lived and died for?

Also Jesus extended the invitation to "Come follow Me", it wasn't to follow those that say they are following Me.

On a different post a while back I wrote that I believed that the founding fathers of this country were Divinely Inspired when they put in the separation of Church and State, I don't know this but I definitely believe it.

I thank you for your kind words and I wish you well and I would like to say that God is so much nicer, to put it mildly, than many think God to be and that many want God to be.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

When President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah, I found out something I did know, that the Saudi King is a Muslim religious leader much like the Catholic Pope. The Saudi King is the protector of Mecca. Does the comments from Coloradodog apply to Saudi Arabia as well?

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

I believe it's the 14th Amendment that says people born in the US are citizens.

My confusion lies in the Catholic claim the Vatican is a separate country and the Pope is the "Head of State." Catholics want it both ways. They want to be a Church and they want to be political. Like the Mormons, they claim a tax exemption as a Church but are deeply involved in politics. Archbishops denying Communion to errant Catholic legislators is the most glaring proof. The Church itself calls it's Clergy Ambassadors of the Pope.

Is your Church a religion or a foreign entity with an agenda to influence government policy in the US? (By the way, I always appreciate your respectful and civil tone in your postings and replies. It is something I could aspire to if I weren't so fed up with the theocratic agendas of intolerant Abrahamic religions.)

coloradodog

You wrote, "Other "States" are required to register their Ambassadors to the US as foreign agents. The US can decide to accept or reject the appointed Ambassadors. If the Vatican is a Country, it needs to register it's "Ambassadors" (priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals) in the US."

Seems as if you forgot the laity, does this mean that I need to have dual-citizenship?

According to your wording does this mean that since I was born in this country that this country can revoke my citizenship because I am a Catholic?

Wouldn't this be a total disregard for the "separation of church and state"?

Are all of the people that are in this country from other "States" for whatever reason considered "Ambassadors" from whatever "State" they are from?

I know that the "Catholic Church" is not perfect but it just so happens that every other organization on this planet is not perfect either but to condemn all for the actions of a few is something to think about.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Other "States" are required to register their Ambassadors to the US as foreign agents. The US can decide to accept or reject the appointed Ambassadors. If the Vatican is a Country, it needs to register it's "Ambassadors" (priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals) in the US.

WHY SHOULD THE VATICAN SPEAK INTO ANOTHER STATES POLITICS WHEN IT IS ALSO A STATE? WHO SENT THE MEMO TO THE WASHINGTON D.C. CARDINAL THAT STATED " DON'T GIVE COMMUNION TO KERRY " FOR THE REAL REASON TO GET BUSH ELECTED TO THE SECOND TERM AS WELL AS THE FELLOW UP MEMO THAT " AMERICAN BISHOPS ARE IN HARMONY WITH US"? HELLO POPE BEN 16. CHRIST'S CHURCH MUST BE ONLY A CHURCH, NOT A STATE.