Posted on 06/07/2009 2:56:42 PM PDT by lewisglad
And that is the type of thing that you're dealing with in 1 Cor 5. There was a scandal within that particular congregation. While I would think that my church would deal with it somewhat differently, that situation is NOT what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is if a known prostitute comes to church (not that she is going there trying to score tricks, but that she is trying to get some solace for her soul). What I'm talking about is if a gang-banger comes to church (leaving his weapons outside, of course). What I'm talking about is if a homeless drug addict comes to church (he doesn't shoot up in church, but he might be high when he stumbles in).
Let me give you an example from my church. A woman ran an in-home daycare. Several people placed their children there. One day, one of the children died while under her care. She was convicted of negligent homicide and served a couple of years in the state prison. (She pleaded innocent and, to my knowledge, maintains that stand to this day, btw)
Her husband divorced her and took her kids away. They either started to go to another parish or just stopped going to church altogether.
The church, throughout her imprisonment, took care of her: they provided her toiletries and other sundries to make her life in prison easier. She had regular visits from the church staff and from the clergy (the women's prison is less than 20 miles from the church, so it wasn't all that much of an effort). At the same time, the church and the clergy made an effort to console the victim's family. And when she got out of prison, she wasn't shunned, she wasn't humiliated in any way.
When it came to light that the church wasn't going to boot out the woman convicted of killing (albeit unintentionally) this child, the victim's family was up in arms. They, along with several others (not sure of the quantity off the top of my head), actually started attending another parish, as they did not approve of what this parish was doing.
She has since been released and, to my knowledge, is an active member of the church. I, obviously, have no idea if she confessed this, or what she confessed if she did so. Not my business. The only reason I even know about this is because I know some of those who ministered to her while she was in prison.
Now, nobody is suggesting that a prostitute, a gang-banger, a druggie, or a murderess be given the positions of choir director, director of religious education, or even as an usher. But those people are those that the Church is supposed to minister to. Remember 2 Cor 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.
Sometimes that is a tough task.
BTW, in light of the recent Father Cutié incident down in Miami, how I personally would hope that they would deal with the situation is to give the woman involved some counseling and suspend the clergyman until he had a chance for reflection and discernment of his vocation (does he really have what it takes to be a priest?) If he realizes that he isn't cut out for the task, then laicize him; if he believes that this was a one-time-thing, then move him temporarily to a position where he doesn't have the temptation. If he is successful there, move him slowly to more challenging posts. I realize that in non-Catholic churches, there are different arrangements for clergy, but that's the general idea. I'd say firing the pastor sounds appropriate. (Let him find a ministry far from that temptation...if he's truly called to the ministry)
As for the woman, it would depend upon whether she realized what had happened. Her contrition over the incident would be key: if it was a circumstance where she fell into the adulterous relationship, and she was truly sorry, I don't know that I would exclude her. We are all human, after all. Would you exclude a woman who had an abusive relationship at home and, in the midst of a heavy work travel and long hours situation, fell for male worker at work? Again, not trolling for an adulterous hookup, but just something she fell into out of weakness moreso than anything else? Or would you, after getting her out of the adulterous relationship, try to work with her and her husband to mend their relationship, envelop them with prayer, and try to teach / counsel them on how to live as a Christian couple (or at least as a Christian spouse)?
If she wasn't contrite (yeah, I'm glad I seduced him and I'd do it again), then that would be a different situation altogether.
****What I’m talking about is if a known prostitute comes to church (not that she is going there trying to score tricks, but that she is trying to get some solace for her soul). What I’m talking about is if a gang-banger comes to church (leaving his weapons outside, of course). What I’m talking about is if a homeless drug addict comes to church (he doesn’t shoot up in church, but he might be high when he stumbles in).****
I am in complete agreement with you in this.
****The church, throughout her imprisonment, took care of her: they provided her toiletries and other sundries to make her life in prison easier. She had regular visits from the church staff and from the clergy (the women’s prison is less than 20 miles from the church, so it wasn’t all that much of an effort). At the same time, the church and the clergy made an effort to console the victim’s family. And when she got out of prison, she wasn’t shunned, she wasn’t humiliated in any way.****
The appropriate and commendable thing to do.
****When it came to light that the church wasn’t going to boot out the woman convicted of killing (albeit unintentionally) this child, the victim’s family was up in arms. They, along with several others (not sure of the quantity off the top of my head), actually started attending another parish, as they did not approve of what this parish was doing.****
Not knowing the complete circumstances in this story, I have nothing to say other than, I hope in time all wounds are healed and reconciliation occurs.
****If she wasn’t contrite (yeah, I’m glad I seduced him and I’d do it again), then that would be a different situation altogether.****
Well, she was less than gracious lets say. Even her sister and brother would not speak to her for quite afterwards.
I don’t recall seeing anything in my church’s bulletin this weekend that celebrated tiller’s murderer.
As a matter of fact I don’t recall hearing any church say that it thought that it was a good thing.
If you find one that has, let me know.
You better watch your butt!
Don’t slip up like that again mister!
Dr. Tiller was "outstanding," and "notable" as a physician and a Christian, but both words are used as teasers in a somewhat equivocating way because I don't specify outstandingly or notably what: Mercenary? Warped? Brutal? Ethically perverse? Homicidal?
Choose one. In fact, choose all five.
Dr. Tiller's "working philosophy" did in fact involve the intentional infliction of severe head trauma on a daily basis. It seems to have been instructional, or at least inspirational, to Mr. Roeder, who used an analogous procedure to rid himself of Dr. Tiller's unwanted human life.
None of it was unclear to me.
And that being the case, you would not advocate a state's right to excuse the two people who take part in the murder of a four year old child.
That being the case, I assume that you would not advocate a state not charging and not prosecuting one of two people that conspire to kill a baby.
I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if this point has already been made, but this is factually incorrect. Overturning Roe per se would not instantly illegalize abortion across the 50 states. Some states have their status quo ante laws still on the books; some do not. It would then be up to the states to resolve as they will.
And when I say "the states" I mean both the state legislatures and the state courts. Some state Supreme Courts have ruled that their state constitutions support a "right" to abortion analogous to Roe; some have even ruled that their state constitution supports a "right" to abortion exceeding the one in Roe: for instance, IIRC some have asserted that their state constitution requires that the abortion right be advanced via state funding for abortion, e.g. for the indigent or for pregnant incarcerated women.
Though abortion is murder objectively speaking by any reasonable definition, it would not become proscribed by 50 state homicide codes automatically upon the overturning of Roe. This would, however, open up a spate of action in all the states at the level of legislation AND lawsuit.
What an excellent insight. I had to bookmark it.
This link has some good pictures of what can happen
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
One, I'm not advocating anything. I'm telling you what the law is.
Second, killing someone is not murder. Murder has a specific legal definition. Murder is the taking of a human life without just cause. The law defines what just cause is and what a human life is.
Roe v. Wade did not "make abortion legal." Roe v. Wade said that existing state laws against abortion were unconstitutional and were therefore not to be enforced.
That means that with Roe in place, all state laws that ban abortion are subject to Supreme Court oversight. As the current Supreme court decree is that any law that outright bans abortion would be overturned due to the current validity of the Roe case, there are currently no state laws that cover a complete ban on abortion because there are no state laws that specify exactly what a human life is. That would have to be spelled out by the legislatures of the several states and survive the inevitable court cases seeking to overturn such laws.
So, if Roe were to be overturned tomorrow, that would not automatically make abortion illegal.
And even if it did, the facts are the facts.
Even when abortion was illegal, only two women have ever been charged and tried for aborting their child and both of those were prior to 1923.
So the idea that "Yes, and when Roe is overturned and abortion is made illegal, women who have abortions will be charged with murder" is just a bunch of crap.
It didn't happen before when abortion was illegal. The idea that if Roe were overturned that women seeking illegal abortions would suddenly be locked up is ludicrous at best.
Aborting a baby is murder and until the vast majority of the people in this realize that fact, Roe will stand and abortion will continue to be legal.
So, if Roe were to be overturned tomorrow, that would not automatically make abortion illegal.
Of course, and when the states criminalize abortion, they will have to classify the act of abortion as Capital Murder and impose the same penalties upon the offenders (abortionist, mother and all who conspired) as if they were the persons involved killed a four year old child.
The idea that if Roe were overturned that women seeking illegal abortions would suddenly be locked up is ludicrous at best.
So, do you believe that it is also ludicrous to lock up a woman who kills her two year old baby?
No. It isn't.
Aborting a baby is immoral and heartless. It is the killing of an innocent.
Aborting a baby is many things. But it IS NOT MURDER.
Murder is a legal term that applies to the illegal taking of a life. As abortion is currently legal, killing an unborn baby is NOT MURDER.
Continuing to say so just shows that you don't understand the law.
So, do you believe that it is also ludicrous to lock up a woman who kills her two year old baby?
It isn't a matter of what I believe. It's not a matter of what you believe. It isn't even a matter of what either of us wants.
It's reality. The reality is that no woman has been charged with the crime of abortion since 1922. Overturning Roe won't change that. Overturning Roe and making abortion illegal in 50 states won't change that.
And getting a proscecutor to put a woman in the dock, charged with murder, where she can cry to a jury is a bad scene. No prosecutor wants to try a case he can't win. So he won't.
And hasn't. Since 1922.
You can want it to be different, but wanting won't make it so.
It doesn't matter what I believe. (And it might surprise you to find out that I believe that the unborn have just as much right to live as your or I.)
What matters in this issue is what the law says. And what the precedence is.
If you want to say that it's not fair or it's not just, feel free. Those are beliefs and opinions. You're entitled to them.
I happen to agree with you.
On the other hand, if you want to say that abortion is murder, I have to disagree with you because the law disagrees with you.
Got it?
The law used to say it was murder. This was true in many states. I believe 5 unelected judges decreed that it wasn’t...turning the law on it’s head.
There were state laws that said that abortion was a tantamount to murder. The Supremes said that those laws violated the right to privacy of women and was therefore unconstitutional.
Stupid since the "right to privacy" doesn't seem to be in any copy of the Constitution that I've seen. But they did it anyway.
Now interestingly, the Supremes said in Roe v. Wade that the right to privacy trumped the right of a child to live. A well-crafted case that preserved privacy and asked the court to protect the unborn too would likely be hard for the current crop of the Supremes to ignore.
But even so, overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't automagically make abortion illegal in the several states. New laws would have to be crafted that specified the exact parameters for each state for a person to be prosecuted for abortion.
And based on the history of abortion laws and courts, the target of such laws would be doctors, not mothers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.