I grew up with the chaos surrounding continous donations from people all over the region or picking up complete households. My parents' house resembled a warehouse quite often. We even bought old military  field ambulances, unimogs etc from the german army once and took them down there after painting them white.

My mom was and is very nationalistic when it comes to croatia and not really happy about former sec of state james baker or Clinton because of their policy regarding croatia. Back then the US would have rather seen one stable state (yugoslavia) instead of unstable region. If croatia would remain in the political system of yugoslavia then the region would be stable - so Croatia did not really get all that much support when they declared themselves independant and fought for their freedom.

I grew up with the chaos surrounding continous donations from people all over the region or picking up complete households. My parents' house resembled a warehouse quite often. We even bought old military  field ambulances, unimogs etc from the german army once and took them down there after painting them white.

My mom was and is very nationalistic when it comes to croatia and not really happy about former sec of state james baker or Clinton because of their policy regarding croatia. Back then the US would have rather seen one stable state (yugoslavia) instead of unstable region. If croatia would remain in the political system of yugoslavia then the region would be stable - so Croatia did not really get all that much support when they declared themselves independant and fought for their freedom.

I agree but there is a mentality that is bred from the Vatican downward.  There are good priests and nuns and there are bad priests and nuns.  Heard stories for years that come from both sides.   

 I go to a bible study on Tuesdays that has upward of 300 people in it.  This past week, the guy who is usually the sound guy taught as our regular teacher is in Canada teaching.  This guy, Mike, is a Pastor and is from Puerto Rico originally.  He was brought up very Catholic.   A lot of us sitting there came out of the RCC years ago. 

He gave us a lesson on the book of Judges about a woman's influence on her son and how this one woman's influence affected many many people in a negative way even though she was very religious.  Anyhow he said that he vividly remembered on a trip with his parents when he was a young boy asking his mother if they were Christians.  She replied back, "no, we are Roman Catholics."   He said that said it all.  His mother didn't realize what she said but she spoke the truth.  She was religious but had no relationship with Jesus.    Years later she became a born again Christian and she understood. 

My great grandmother was  a French Canadian RC.  She  was very religious but she was very lost as well.  She thought it was blasphemy to say that Jesus was a Jew.  She got very angry if you told her this.  She hated the Jews.  She made her 10 children go to church (my grandmother was one of these children) and not one of them to my knowledge ever kept this faith when they got older.  In fact, one of them turned gay.   My grandmother today is very anti RCC even though if push came to shove she would probably call herself Catholic.  I don't understand that mentality but I know why she says this.

I don't know anything really about Croatia.  My husband looked into buying us tickets to Poland yesterday.  He said the town where we will be staying is 95% RC.  They own and control everything in that town.  I'll know more when I go and get a feeling for the place. 

One thing to keep in mind when talking about the RCC in Europe or the church in general before the reformation in the 15th and 16th century I suppose is its long tradition and history one the one hand and the intricate relationship between political power and church hierarchy on the other.

The reason why the RCC "controls everything" in Poland as you put it is most likely due to the fact that the RCC has a couple century long tradition. Poland and Lithuania used to be a really huge and powerful catholic empire before it was split up and shared between Prussia, Austria Hungary (Habsburg dynasty) and Russia. They even had a sort of democratic aristocratic constitution. More than 20% of the population used to be aristocratic in Poland in that time.

That church-tradition in Europe has shaped many things, and I would say that most of our moral values that can be found in human rights for example and that even atheists use like being caritative and so forth developed in that christian tradition. It is not something that is shaken off easily and has left recognizable tracks in society and history, many of which are decidedly negative or questionable, no doubt. 

For example, Bavaria is very catholic and ultra conservative, especially when it comes to moral values. Having a baby when not married and living in a small village could mark you as a social outcast and heaven forbid if you are gay or otherwise act out of the norm of the acceptable. People are proud of their tradition, narrowminded and generally stuck up in that regard.

Personally, I was never told that I would go to hell if I did this or that or anything like that. But I have a good friend who is half irish and her mom said that the catholic church in Ireland was pretty horrible, especially to orphans and single mothers. The priests had way too much power and ruled by fear.

I had an argument with my mother a few days ago: In Brazil a 9 year old girl was raped by her uncle and pregnant with twins. She aborted the twins - and in her case I have to say that there was probably no other way, she was 9!!! can you imagine a little tiny girl with twins? - and the biship there excommunicated her. I think that was just unacceptable and that the strict application of canonic law is totally excessive and inhumane in that instance. My mom said that the bishop had no choice because the law is the law and its not up to him to decide wether it applies or not. That is just raising my hackles - sometimes I think I am not really catholic myself because some things just don't sit right. So I can understand why you left.

This is true.  Church and politics in bed together.  It's still like that in some places. 

have you heard the news lately over there? It's been all over the print news here.  The RCC is in deep trouble for many abuses regarding orphanages that go way back to the turn of the 19th century.  Thousands are speaking out now about the emotional, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the priests and nuns to these orphans.  18 Catholic orders are in question as many orphanages were targeted by these RCC abuses.

I agree.  Where is the forgiveness that Christ offers?  This is a child who was a victim.  The man should be dealth with, not the child.  Nine years old!  I can't even imagine this. 

This is exactly what Christ went up against with the Pharisees.  Christ went against their traditions because they had no scriptural support.....like washing their hands ceremoniously before they ate.  They mocked him for not doing this.  It was a grave sin not to do so.  God says nothing about this in his OT law but they made their own rules that superceded God's rules. 

The man was dealt with as well, but abortion is abortion.. or that was the argument used. As I can tell, abortion is a very hotly debated issue in the states. It is my impression though that alot of that debate is very polemic and polarizing in its rhetoric, on every side, so it is very difficult to have a critical and productive debate over it to find the best solution. People have their opinion. rooted in religion or in civil rights or whatever, and are mostly not even willing to listen to the othersides argument - which is not difficult at all if all you hear are polemic slogans all around.

Once I had a fierce debate about the 2nd amendment with a friend of mine from Florida. He is an absolute advocate - I think americans are just nuts in regards to weapons.. but my argument was that the 2nd amendment was created in a different time with different political reasons behind it and is not necessarily needed anymore in the contemporary modern united states with its standing military, where everybody swears an oath on the constitution to protect the nation. I was all for you know talking about it academically, having an intellectual dialectic discourse about it and informing the public about the different interpretations etc.. and he was just: WHY? For him, he needs to feel like he can fight and protect himself if and when the time comes the government turns on its own people. No way he would listen to another argument even a little bit haha I think he even called me a communist.

Religion seems to polarize people just as much if not even more.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that but I can understand why he would.  Taking weapons away is the first order of business if you want control over a people.  Make them defenseless. 

I'm on your friend's side here.  I've never owned a weapon nor used one myself.  But I believe we should protect our freedoms fiercely.  It seems like day to day we are losing them more and more. 

As a Christian I would love to see all weapons done away with and they will be as promised when he comes back.  But as a human being living in a fallen world, I can see how this would never happen until then. 

and I think that's a good thing really.  As the world gets further and further away from God there should be a larger and larger gap between the two cultures.  On one side you have the world culture with their humanistic thinking and on the other side you have those who have traditionally looked to God, not man for answers.  Jesus said he did not come to unite but to divide.  While he wishes unity for believers he calls us to be different from the world.  He calls us to follow him not man. 

Jesus was a polarizer if there ever was and he was killed for it.  John the Baptist was as well.  So weren't the disciples.  Every single one of them was martyred for their faith but one. 

 First God sent his prophets and messengers to warn the people.  When that didn't work, he sent his son.  They killed him just like the parable goes about the vineyard owner who sent his servants and then his son to the unruly tenants.  One day we will all answer for what we did with his son.  Either we loved him or we crucified him.  Either we cursed him or called  upon him.    We are either for him or against him.  There is no inbetween.  There is no fence straddling. 

It is something that is totally alien for me, almost no civilian outside law enforcement owns a weapon here. There are gunclubs and people who practise shooting at a range as sport, but I know nobody who even owns a gun.

Can you explain to me why you think that the current legistlation is taking freedom away because it is increasing government control? For me, the current crisis came to be because there we no control in the financial sector and greed and the wish to make a quick buck blew the whole thing out of proportion until it imploded. Everything on credit could not last long.

It is almost paranoid how republicans view the government as enemy, and I don't really get why. I am not advocating general government controll on every aspect of life (that would be socialist indeed) and there is too much in some areas - bureaucracy for bureaucracies sake - but certain aspects have to be controlled because if they run rampant the consequences are enourmous. Selfregulating market seems to be an utopia. It is nice that you answer so patiently, I don't really have the chance very often to be so curious, so thank you very much.

UTEMIA posts:

I've been following this sad case over the last few months. The liberal news outlets around the world are criticizing the Church and specifically the archbishop for the excommunications.

Canon 1398 states that "A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." This means the girl-mother and the doctors involved in procuring the abortion brought about their own (automatic) excommunication.  The Archbishop the excommunication was upholding the Moral law and the Fifth Commandment of Almighty God which forbids the murder of the twins ever before Canoncial law was set to automatically excommunicate those who are directly involved.

Under no circumstances, even in the hard case of a 9 year old pregnant with twins, can the Church change God's absolute laws for she would cease to be "the Church" Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the Church with St.Peter as her first earthly head.  St.Matt. 16:16-20. Remember too, He gave St.Peter and thus his successors (the Book of Acts) the keys to the kingdom and His authority to bind and loose on earth shall be bound in heaven.  To be for abortion under any circumstances, would violate the Magesterium of the Church. The Archbishop, like it or not, was dutifully bound to issue the penalty of excommunication.  

So your Mom and I are in agreement on this one. Maybe she had Hebrews 13:17 in mind, "Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch over your souls as they must give account; that they might do this with joy, and not with grief; for this is would be unprofitable for you."

Turns out, the doctors were not in a moral crossroads. On the contrary, under the cover of "legality", they performed with full knowledge the barbarous act of abortion killing two babies. The national media reported they said they did what they are "used to doing with great pride."  Sounds like we have Catholic doctors performing abortion and it finally caught up with them in this case. If they want to continue practicing the evil of abortion, they are no longer able to be Catholic doing it.

Also turns out that for every one who'll declare the girl's life was in danger as a result of the pregnancy, it has been equally reported that the hospital said her life was not in danger, and moreover, a medical specialist opined that the child and the doctors could have safely delivered the twin babies via caesarean section.

St.Matt.16:16-19 tells us what the Church binds; the Church can loose....the excommunications can be lifted. 

KFC POSTS:

 KFC, it really pains me that you have such a sorry misconception about Sacred Tradition and keep repeating this nonsense. The CC Sacred Tradition and Canon Law has never once made any rules that superceded God's rules...as you can see here in this tragic example, the Church through Canon Law upheld God's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".

As far as bringing up the Pharisees trying to slam Tradition, remember, it's the Protest-ants who took up with following the Jabneh Pharisees. The unbelieving Pharisees after going against Christ went against His, one, holy, (Infant) Catholic and Apostolic Church whose members were given the mission to go, preach and teach all that He commanded.  

How many times do I have to tell you Lula.  I have NO LOVE FOR YOUR SACRED TRADITION?  I keep telling you this....for what three years now?    My allegience is not towards any denomination or tradition.  Christ has some very harsh words towards those with thier tradtions.  I'm with him. 

Now, yes, this is a tragic situation but not one I think the girl should be punished for.  She's a victim.  The question was asked about her being ex-communicated.  I don't think she should have been.  Her parents.....yes.  But this little girl?  No. 

The RCC and I are in agreement when it comes to the abortion issue because we both see this as murder clearly because of biblical doctrine is against it.  So this isn't the tradition part Lula that I'm against.  The tradition part I disagree with is the banishment because of their canons and laws that have nothing to do with biblical doctrine.   The bible is all about forgiveness.  Jesus told the woman caught in adultery (a grown woman no less) go and sin no more.  I think the RCC is in danger of putting a millstone around this 9 year olds neck and will have to answer for it. 

So clearly they have chosen their tradition over the words of Christ.  And for that I'm n complete disagreement.  Yes. 

Christ would not have treated this girl the way the RCC did. 

I know. However, not loving Sacred Tradition and misrepresenting it by comparing it to the Pharisees are two different things.

St.John 20:30, "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book."

21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written everyone, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." 

These passages tell us the Holy Bible isn't all there is to Almighty God's sacred revelation...it is incomplete....it needs something else to supplement it; i.e. Sacred Tradition.

Yet,through Apostolic Succession, this Tradition is confirmed by 2 Thess. 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by epistle." 2Tim. 2:2, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

OK..no problem. This is your opinion on the matter but you advanced your opinion by slamming Sacred Tradition as though it is Pharisitical in nature when it is nothing of the sort.

The CC, like her Founder, condemns the taking of innocent life. Period.

Had those "Catholic" parents and doctors acted with the Church and according to her Founder's teachings, the girl would have been spared the killing act of abortion and all the trauma and pathology that is sure to follow.

Then she would have been a mother of twins while still young enough to be in elementary school - young enough to be their older sister and in no way fit to be a mother - a child herself in need of parents. Or she would have not survived the pregnancy at all, twins need room to develp after all. I

As I read the reports at the time of the abortion, the girl was OK as far as the pregnancy was concerned. Whether or not the pregnancy would have killed her is moot.  The point is the doctors should have taken the twins by Caesarian section and had they survived, the family could have given them to adoption. That would have been a win win situation. Had they died, at least every one involved knew they did the best they could for all concerned. The parents, the doctors and the girl can live with a clear conscience with that.

Rape is a very evil and violent crime and we must have the utmost of compassion for those victims, but we don't solve it by committing another violent act. After all, the unborn twins had nothing to do with the rape at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. When a rape occurs, why must the child in the womb gets the death penalty?

And who knows what our Lord had in store for the lives of these twins had they been allowed to live and enjoy all of life's choices?

It is always easy to wax poetically about just and right decisions when you yourself are not actually the one having to deal with it. That is true for all aspects of life though. 

Thankfully, the modern western society does not as a rule ostracise woman that become pregnant after being raped. That is not so everywhere. Rape has been used as warfare through the ages, and especially in Bosnia many woman and young girls were raped during the war. Many killed themselves rather than to live with that humiliation (pregnant or not), even though there are also those who felt like what you said and raised the child. I don't have the statistics for that though. But a part of the father of such a child, a brutal rapist,will always be present, that must be very difficult.