Well, at least they are ideologically consistent.
Will other churches follow suit?

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/10/04/pope-francis-closes-door-death-penalty-fratelli-tutti


Pope Francis’ new encyclical, “Fratelli Tutti,” does something that some Catholics believed could not be done: It ratifies a change in church teaching. In this case, on the death penalty.

In 2018, Pope Francis ordered a change in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official compendium of church teaching, when he termed the death penalty “inadmissible.” Today the pope placed the full weight of his teaching authority behind this statement: The death penalty is inadmissible, and Catholics should work for its abolition. A papal encyclical is one of the highest of all documents in terms of its authority, removing any lingering doubt about the church’s belief.


“There can be no stepping back from this position,” says Francis, referring to the opposition to capital punishment expressed by St. John Paul II. “Today we state clearly that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible’ and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.”

Meanwhile in this country the political party that has traditionally been opposed to the death penalty has moved so far in the other direction in attempt to court those with any sympathies for fundamentalism, all discussion of abolition is completely off the table.
Very sad.

Meanwhile the pope has still done nothing about child molestation and its concealment. He has been in power for over seven years and promised many times to make reform a priority and yet his only action has been to prevent the US bishops from enacting substantial measures to protect kids on their own.

For whatever reason, the pope seems hesitant to direct church members to always take their concerns to law enforcement agencies first. I realize that he has a enormous worldwide church to deal with, but IMO there is no reason why he couldn't enable the U.S. bishops to move ahead with their own protection measures.

I think there are two mutually reinforcing dynamics at play. First, the pope knows how deeply ingrained in the church the habits of child abuse and concealment are and how high the corruption rises. I doubt there is anyone in the upper reaches of the RCC hierarchy who has not been aware of, or complicit in, numerous coverups. Eradicating misconduct could therefore tear the organization apart.

Second, letting the US bishops set a higher standard and start cooperating actively with law enforcement would increase pressure to allow the same in other countries. Assuming the RCC in Latin America or Africa or other regions does not want to open Pandora's Box, there would be intense resistance to such reform. Francis has every reason not to open such a schism between the US and other branches of the church.

It would take a true revolutionary, a moral hero, to address such challenges. And Francis is no hero.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile the pope has still done nothing about
> child molestation and its concealment. He has
> been in power for over seven years and promised
> many times to make reform a priority and yet his
> only action has been to prevent the US bishops
> from enacting substantial measures to protect kids
> on their own.

Yes, I have been terribly disappointed over this. When he was elected I thought he would be much more proactive about this horrendous reality in the Catholic Church. He was touted as a good man, different, maybe revolutionary, I thought. Too bad to think it would take a revolutionary to implement urgently needed changes to prevent continuation of this abomination in the church.

Maybe they could work from the other end - realize and think of the probable lifetime of devastating harm that priest molestation causes to victims and families and MAKE IT STOP. If you start with thinking of the victims maybe you will be more strongly incentivized to do whatever it takes to stop the harm at source asap. What a concept - think of victims first, rather than the perps and the church.

Perhaps the rot--the number of priests who have blood on their hands, the number of higher officials who have tolerated and concealed such abuse--is so great that eradicating it could destroy the church.

That is perhaps the only logic that explains why no pope has been willing to think, as you propose, from the victim upward.

A nightmarish scenario if so. But there has got to be a reason. If nothing else makes sense sometimes you have got to think the worst.

Why though?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

I guess it's the chicken/egg question - what came first...

Yes, the Catholic church is consistent on its pro-life stance, I'll give it that. The RCC is opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the Catholic church is consistent on its
> pro-life stance, I'll give it that. The RCC is
> opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and the death
> penalty.

While L-d$,inc OK's abortion and the death penalty.

The LDS church is not okay with abortion.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/abortion

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

"The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

"Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

"The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

"The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."



When a Stake President gets an employee at work pregnant, he will counsel her to get an abortion...

And where is the penalty?

Is a 1st trimester abortion 'murder'? If it's not murder, look at the penalties for the sin next to murder. I had to wait six months to go on my mission. That was it. I kept on blessing the sacrament, etc.

If excommunication isn't the automatic penalty for abortion, then the silliness above is meaningless. And what about the 'morning after' pill? We don't know if the flushed out egg was fertilized or not, do we? So either taking that pill is nothing, in the grand scheme of things, or it's a very early abortion.

I think the church is a very active participant of selective morality.

...in my humpable opinion.

If an investigator wants to be baptized s/he is asked in the interview if s/he has ever been involved in any way in an abortion. If the answer is yes, the interviewee must go through a second interview by a member of the SP/MP that focuses specifically on abortion as murder. The process is more intense and more humiliating than for other converts.

The church had no official stance on abortion until the 1930s, but from that point onward it has been considered a big deal--more serious even than adultery, second only to murder.

I'm just trying to hammer the nail down hard on a lack of listed, available, specificied penalties. Because I think that the lack of specified penalties equals the same laizie faire attitude about abortion that existed initially in the church, when many of us have no problem believing that Dr. Bennett was JoJu's routine form of birth control.

If it's murder, why don't abortion-performing doctors get kicked out for conspiracy to commit murder?

Plus I think there's a lot of "the Lord is never caught by surprise; he knew there would be X number of abortions per year and planned accordingly. Per this view, nothing happens that wasn't expected and planned for.

I do not believe there is a single abortion-providing MD on the rolls of the LDS church. If that is wrong, I hope someone can provide some sort of evidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2020 10:55PM by Lot's Wife.

Here's a story about a TBM (apparently) who got a 22nd week abortion, after she and her husband consulted with their bishop and her doctor. Since she's from Midway, I'd say the chances are good that mormons were involved in the medical procedure.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mormon-mom-abortion-donald-trump_n_580a565ce4b000d0b1566cf0?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD9MS0AhTlol5zR9dy_-ZmubKsGKdMx-q8hwyg_-pvdxT6gH3tan0VzryLx-ObUUyZBD_Lw7WmVdNliwnODDFjfYY4oC5_q6T7TT-OHjjxALCXkrtYpxIjg_IgejNd6HbIEovqD_UjXDnyfR5lSSeAPH7QVfjYu_Qwx4q61cg15t


Again, I'm not saying that the church doesn't have "rules" in place to discourage abortions, and there may not be a single LDS M.D. who will bruit about the fact that he/she has done or will do abortions, but the church I know and despise always finds a way to get things done so that people are 'satisfied' with the decisions made.



The church is as crooked as the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company, and continues to operate with a public set of books and then the books only the beneficiaries of the organization get to see.

I'm happy to admit that the church has 'tough' rules against abortion. Can you admit to the possibility that there may be two sets of rules, one set for the regular mormons and one set for the connected mormons?

> Can you admit to the
> possibility that there may be two sets of rules,
> one set for the regular mormons and one set for
> the connected mormons?

Of course.

But your example doesn't unambiguously support your conclusion. The church has always said that when the health of the mother is endangered, abortion is permissible. Might a Mormon OB/GYN perform such an abortion? Very possibly, and the church would not have objected. So in that case, yes there could be abortionists in the LDS church.

The rules against abortion, however, are extremely tight. There probably would be forgiveness for an insider who went to the authorities with suitable anguish but the circle would be very small.

Then I shall remain ambiguous. It's a lot more fun.

When I encounter the word "ambiguous," yours is the visage that comes to mind.

When I encounter the phrase "gnarly crone", your white-stuccoed façade lurches to mind.




Let's do lunch again some time!!!

It would be a pleasure. We should include Ms. Saucie and Lot, who admires your ambiguity!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2020 01:16AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be a pleasure. We should include Ms.
> Saucie and Lot, who admires your ambiguity!

I love you Lottie....No worries Elderolddog already

knows and approves.

I'm so lucky to have friends like you .

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The LDS church is not okay with abortion.

YES, it is. They reserve the right to choose who and when.

Catholic leaders say NO WAY for any reason.

L=d$,inc is for it.

"yea, yea or nay nay... anything else is an abomination".

Then by the same token you approve of murder. You know, like the killing of people for violating certain laws and/or in wars of national defense. Right?

Because you implicitly reserve the right to decide whom and when killing of people is appropriate.

https://youtu.be/KRSkECZqQ8s

Pope Francis as he likes to call himself is a hypocrite. What he did in Argentina contradicts much of what he preaches.

Francis had a lot more to say than just this, for example he went straight after that over-arching world demon sometimes called ‘neo-liberalism’.

Too much good stuff to quote, the whole thing is worth reading:

http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html

I like many parts. This is good:


17. To care for the world in which we live means to care for ourselves. Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home. Such care does not interest those economic powers that demand quick profits. Often the voices raised in defence of the environment are silenced or ridiculed, using apparently reasonable arguments that are merely a screen for special interests. In this shallow, short-sighted culture that we have created, bereft of a shared vision, “it is foreseeable that, once certain resources have been depleted, the scene will be set for new wars, albeit under the guise of noble claims”.[12]

A “throwaway” world

18. Some parts of our human family, it appears, can be readily sacrificed for the sake of others considered worthy of a carefree existence. Ultimately, “persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected, especially when they are poor and disabled, ‘not yet useful’ – like the unborn, or ‘no longer needed’ – like the elderly. We have grown indifferent to all kinds of wastefulness, starting with the waste of food, which is deplorable in the extreme”.[13]

He goes on to name other things that are “deplorable in the extreme.” I’m grateful that he does.

Human

Meanwhile, is he right on wrong on his stance against the death penalty. Personally, I agree with him and am glad that most civilized countries have abandoned it.

Agreed.

Even half the US states have abandoned the death penalty (22 formally by legislation, 3 by moratorium).

Mormons however are very big on vengeance. They know "vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lard", but they dearly want to help the Lard along. I expect Utah will be among the last states to abandon the death penalty, just as they were the first to reinstate it (Gary Gilmour iirc).

It's not just Mormons who are vengeful. I prophesy that lower in this thread a wise man will remark that

> Meanwhile, officers charged with enforcing laws
> carry out death sentences on an 'as needed' basis.

Often that vengeance can be prospective: punish them now for what they might do in the future.

Yes, many people claim the gift of prophecy. They also think they understand who deserves smiting better than God does, and they do their best to bring God up to speed.

That sounds like the Vengeance Prayer in the Mormon Temple Ceremony until the 1920s.

Did you take that oath, BoJ?

As a legal pronoucement made by legal authorities, the death sentence is on the way out.

Here in CA, our governor issued a ban on executions. So we have a legal death sentence, defendants get hit with that death sentence, are placed on Death Row, but currently both they and their sentence are free from execution.

Meanwhile, officers charged with enforcing laws carry out death sentences on an 'as needed' basis. I understand their reluctance to be recipients of a death sentence, but at times wonder if they look forward to meting out justice.

Is it as simple as, "Society shouldn't take upon itself the power to order a death, but as individuals, we are allowed our free agency"?

> Meanwhile, officers charged with enforcing laws
> carry out death sentences on an 'as needed' basis.

What a tragic observation.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Meanwhile, officers charged with enforcing laws
> > carry out death sentences on an 'as needed'
> basis.
>
> What a tragic observation.


For the cost of a few 9mm rounds we save millions of dollars over the next few decades.

Really? Each police killing saves millions of dollars over decades? That's impressive.

On the other hand the single tragedy of Breona Taylor has cost the state $12 million even before the court cases. And there are dozens of other law enforcement debacles wending their way through the judiciary as well.

Better to spend the cost of a few 9mm rounds on better police training or even more rigorous education of citizens.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2020 09:38PM by Lot's Wife.

Remember Wave the right hand so that people will look at it and not notice what the left hand is doing!