U.S. NOW HAS CHANCE TO BAN ITS DARKEST EVIL AND AVOID ASPECTS OF A PURIFICATION

Spirit Daily ^ | Nov 9, 2002 | Michael Brown

[Irisshlass]

The U.S. must quickly seize the opportunity to eliminate partial-birth abortion. This is the single worst sin in American history. To destroy a child is bad enough, but to do it when the baby is fully viable -- and cognizant -- is beyond terrorism. We worry about spanking a toddler at the same time it's okay to crush the skull of an infant?

After a ban on partial-birth abortion, Republicans and Conservatives, granted a golden opportunity by last Tuesday's election, must move boldly to ban all abortion. Since Roe versus Wade, 43 million American children have been killed, comparable to the Communist atrocities in China and Russia and vastly more than the 405,000 Americans lost in World War II. When we say "beyond terrorism," we mean it. Lost in all the uproar over September 11 was the fact that bad as the attack was, it cost no more human lives that day -- that very September 11 -- than did abortion.

We hear so much about Iraq, which certainly needs to be addressed. But what about infanticide? Why is there not the same level of rhetoric? Why is there not the same outrage? Abortion will cause 1.3 million casualties during the next 12 months; can we say the same for Iraq? Or for Al Qaeda? Or for any current adversary?

Nothing is more urgent. Nothing calls out more for divine rectification. We have to be tough here. We have to tell the ugly truth. And that truth is that abortion has a demonic origin. In fact, one could argue that society is unknowingly participating in a huge ritual: the sacrifice of innocents, a blood sacrifice hearkening to Molech (see Leviticus, chapter 18-20).

"Abortion on demand is the demonic Baal worship of modern times," noted one writer. "King Ahab and Queen Jezebel led the Israelites in Baal worship and the sacrifice of children in the Old Testament. Ahaz went so far as to burn 'his son as an offering' to Baal/Molech, as did Manasseh (see 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). Why would people make such terrible decisions? It was believed that human sacrifice to Baal held the key to prosperity. Therefore, selfish people desiring to live in prosperity and ease brought their firstborn child to the high priest, where scholars say the child would be offered as a burnt offering to the deity."

There are also roots in actual witchcraft. Witches have often promoted abortion. Some consider it a "sacrament." Do we really want to be part of something so dark? Is it hysterical to want to rid this nation of such an evil? While there were times they allowed infanticide during the Roman Empire, even Nero exiled women who had an abortion, and today, even Jane Roe has turned against abortion as evil!

In His mercy, God waits for us to make this huge decision. He will embrace the repentant woman. He will even forgive an abortionist. Did He not anoint even a murderer like Saul? Oh, the love He has for us -- the understanding that we struggle here with spiritual blinders. Oh, what love He has for those who have had abortions. "Yes, the Bible reveals God's great love for children," said the same writer previously quoted. "It also reveals how much He loves those deceived by the abortion propaganda machine. He loves them so much that He gave His only begotten Son to offer complete healing and restoration from the trauma of abortion through the healing power and blood of Jesus Christ."

The same can be said of the politicians who have stood idly by -- or have even promoted the "pro-choice" position. God will forgive them too; He awaits their return; but as the number of aborted continues to increase, there is only so long He can watch without taking action. If we move now -- forcefully, radically, without compromise -- aspects of God's purification, so overdue, will be avoided. If not, don't pay attention to the political scene, no matter how victorious it seems at the moment; if we don't get rid of abortion, only disaster looms on the horizon.

[Irisshlass]

This will take a lot of prayer. Republicans don't have it in them to do this without Divine Intervention

Right...I agree.

[sinkspur]

After a ban on partial-birth abortion, Republicans and Conservatives, granted a golden opportunity by last Tuesday's election, must move boldly to ban all abortion.

Can't do it. The only workable option is, after the retirement of one or two senior members of the Supreme Court, to appoint strict constitutionalists who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Even after this, abortion will still be legal in well over half the states.

A constititutional amendment to ban abortion is a non-starter without a massive change of heart among the American populace.

[exnavy]

Leave out the "partial-birth" and you've got an idea whose time has come.

[Litany]

Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.

[RnMomof7]

Republicans don't have it in them to do this without Divine Intervention. Great Post.

I am sad to say I believe you are correct..They like the issue to get the pro life vote..but they do not REALLY want to act on a prolife platform.

They could easily and with little public outcry pass a strict Informed consent law , Parents rights law and a partial birth abortion ban.

All of these bills together would greatly reduce abortions . But I have no hope that will happen.

[RnMomof7]

A constititutional amendment to ban abortion is a non-starter without a massive change of heart among the American populace.

You are right sink...dead on target..We have become a culture of death ...

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.

[Polycarp]

No modern witches consider abortion a "sacrament".

From a Wiccan (NOT Christian) website:

		"'And ye harm none, do as ye Will' sometimes means you have to take the path of the least harm," I explained to my son as we finished painting my protest sign: Pro-choice NOT Pro-abortion. As I was preparing to attend a pro-choice demonstration which I felt would be unsafe for my children to attend, I wanted to include them in other ways.  With hopes of avoiding a lecturing discuss I felt that through painting my sign a natural conversation would evolve.              My eight-year-old had many questions, and while I explained that I believe it is a tragedy when an abortion need be gotten, I also expressed that it can sometimes be an even greater tragedy for a pregnancy to continue.  As he continued questioning me, we finally found a common ground for discussion.  He had viewed the movie _Dirty Dancing_ several times and was able to understand the pain of the character who underwent an illegal abortion in that drama.              The search to find this common ground, backed by my strong desire to imprint my children with Wiccan ethics, was one which caused me to question my own deep-set beliefs.  As a Wiccan High Priestess, I asked myself, where should a Witch's ethics on abortion be grounded?                My first approach was to consider the historical background of the Witch as an abortionist.  Before the burning times women controlled their own medicine, and abortion was herbally induced. "The wise woman, or witch, had a host of remedies which had been tested in years of use.  Many of the herbal remedies developed by witches still have their place in modern pharmacology," so we are told in _Witches, Midwives, and Nurses_ (pg 14).          As Witches have always worked with healing through nature, have abortifacts been part of that healing?  Barbara Walker seems to think so.  In her book,  _The Skeptical Feminist_, she states: "Ancient methods of family limitation known to the Greeks and Romans--contraceptive sponges, abortifacient drugs--were outlawed by the clergy and retained only in some secret traditions of witchcraft" (pg 174).              I wondered, if secret traditions of Witchcraft have kept knowledge of herbal abortifacts alive, would it not follow that it is an ethical duty for some to be prepared to provide abortion as it is an ethical duty to keep coven traditions alive?  Perhaps that may be, I told myself, but it is necessary to understand what ethical grounds those traditions are based upon, in order to determine if it is an ethical coven which keeps then alive.  As Starhawk says, "The world-view of immanence does carry with it a set of ethical imperatives, though they are based on principles very different from those of patriarchal culture" (_Dreaming the Dark_; pg 34).              The key here seems to be, what are the principles which govern this decision?  The primary principle would have to be self-responsibility.  While Witches recognize the sacredness of a unified life force, Gaia, we hold a higher regard.  We recognize the sharing of responsibility that all differentiated life forms take on a Higher Self level.  As we assert an ethic of non-interference, we base our ethical judgments on questions which define the boundaries of our personal responsibility in the web of life-- the "power-with" perspective.         In looking at abortion from this perspective, where lies the responsibility for aborting a potentially ensouled body? As we believe a child chooses it's own birth, might a soul not also choose an abortive experience?  If two True Wills cannot come into direct conflict with each other because the universe is a whole, and it is in the True Will of the mother to abort, then does it not logically follow that a soul chose that abortion?  Perhaps there is a balancing of fate or karma that a soul needs to experience and so chooses to abort.  Perhaps they were an old soul that just needed some final balancing, provided by the abortive experience itself.  In these political times, the final question really lies: Who takes the responsibility to decide on an abortion in American society.  Does the woman decide, or the state?                          This brought me to yet another philosophical debate. At what point in physical development does a soul enter the body?  When does a fetus cease being a mass of tissue and blood vessels and become a differentiated human life force?  The Catholics base their  opposition to abortion on the teaching that "in intercourse the male deposits in the female a homunculus, or 'little person' complete with soul, which is simply housed in the womb for nine  months" (Witches, Midwives, and Nurses; pgs 10-11).         Some Witches have debated this issue, with many theories abounding. When does a human life force inhabit the body?  Does it enter at conception, or quickening, perhaps at birth, maybe even much later, if at all.  One theory put forth has been that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is a result of a body being born without ever having had a soul enter it.  After some time, the ectoplasm can no longer support itself and, due to "no explanation," the body dies.  Other theories account for a range of situations, including the belief that autistic children are a result of an unensouled body maintaining physical existence. Though these are hard issues to debate, they leave us with the conclusion that we cannot form consensus on when life differentiates because there is no finite answer.         Either way, we can identify a body that is ensouled--the woman's.  By following the ethics of non-interference and self- responsibility, we can readily see that only she can ethically make the decision to abort or not, as ultimately her True Will is the active sustainable force. When any other seeks control over a woman's body to thwart what she sees as best for herself, that is when the ethical error occurs.         If that is when the ethical-error occurs, I asked myself, then what is the appropriate use of self-defense to prevent that occurrence?  It is commonly held that Goddess "spirituality is the recognition of all acting powers and energies: of the physical energies in cosmic bodies, of the life-energies in all living organisms of the psychic and mental energies in women and men" (_Matriarchal Mythology in Former Times and Today_; pg 13).  However I would argue that Wiccan spirituality involves more than simply having that recognition. Wicca is an active religion, a religion of doing and being.  Even in choosing not to take an action, an action has been taken.         Our responsibility of self-determination does not end at the "recognition" of our "acting powers." We also have an ethical imperative to defend our belief in following individual True Will. As Goddess-worshipers have been active in reclaiming' the midwifery movement, so we need to be equally active in the pro-choice movement.  Both issues are but opposite sides of the same coin, having control over our own bodies.  It is only in maintaining full control of our bodies that we maintain our full empowerment as Priestesses.   It is a basic occult fact that mastery of the physical plane precedes mastery of the spiritual.         In maintaining mastery of the physical plane, it is apparent Witches must find ways of self-abortion without the support of the patriarchal medical establishment.  The medical world of clinics and doctors is only as stable as the laws governing them, and laws made by courts are flimsy protection indeed.  During the fifteen years since abortion was legalized, under the Supreme Court decision Roe vs.Wade, our abortion rights have been placed under assault through restrictive regulations.         The severity of the issue lies not in abortion being immediately re-criminalized, but in women having access to safe abortion.   In today's political climate, barriers are constantly being erected,  i.e. parental notification laws; father's rights laws (unfortunately these are primarily utilized by battering mates continuing their coercion); federal funding controls; overly extreme clinic regulation; and more.         It is important then to ask ourselves this: Is it possible to provide for safe herbal abortions without the intervention of any agencies, medical or government?  Have Witches stood guardian of coven lore capable of inducing abortion, or gained new knowledge  along the way? What about the once embraced practice of menstrual extraction done at home?  Have advances been made in that field which Witches would profit from knowing?                   I spoke with a Witch who had done self abortions. She was reluctant to have details of the procedure published, stating that the herb, pennyroyal, could be dangerous and poisonous if used incorrectly.  She related a story of living out in the country roughing it-- no running water or indoor plumbing.  Having no access to medical care, she provided her own abortions (5-6 of them) by drinking tea.        Disregarding the poison potential, would this be safe for all women?  What about the minority of women (15%) with the blood type Rh-negative, who want to have future children?  According to the _Ms. Guide To A Woman's Health_, Rh-negative mothers must have the drug gamma globulin (Rho-gam) within 72 hours "after any incident in which fetal Rh-positive cells may have entered her blood stream . . . Even if therapeutic abortions are performed, Rh-negative mothers should always receive the shot of gamma   globulin" (pg 196). Otherwise, "the second Rh-positive baby can be developing in a maternal body with predeveloped antibodies against its blood.  The antibodies from the mother's blood can pass across the placenta, attack the blood cells of the fetus, making it severely   anemic and in the worst cases, causing such severe loss of blood cells that the baby has heart failure and dies . . . In less severely affected babies, a total blood transfusion may be performed after delivery" (195-196).         I pose a hypothetical question: If abortion was illegal and abortionists were jailed, if a woman induced her own abortion and then went to the doctor for Rho-gam, would she then be subject to legal penalties?  Would a woman be forced into a position of   sacrificing healthy pregnancies in the future for a clandestine abortion now? Perhaps I, as an Rh-negative mother with two abortions in my past and strong hopes for another child in the future,  am more sensitive to this.  Still, it causes me to ask myself, how can we as women and Witches, SAFELY maintain control of our own  bodies?         However, I realize the core question of ethics must finally be: Once a Witch has maintained mastery of the physical plane through access to safe abortion, how does she achieve mastery of the spiritual plane by exercising the use of that access in an ethical  manner?  How do we express the responsibility that comes with empowerment as we search for the wisdom and judgment to decide for ourselves?  What special abilities can we, those who work "between  the worlds," draw on?         After speaking with a High Priestess who has counseled women seeking abortions, I learned these suggestions. Try to "communicate with the spirit consciousness," if there is one present.  Some souls choose inappropriately to attempt to incarnate, and when this is discussed a mutual agreement can be reached.  As no life force is ever truly destroyed, "it is not the ultimate tragedy" the once-borns make of it, "there can always be another  chance" (quotes from unnamed Priestess).         On a linear timeline, future opportunities exist for the two souls to be together. It's like asking company to wait for Friday instead of coming on Wednesday; the future holds infinite possibilities.  The woman must judge what is best for herself at that point in time, but when a good innerplane communication is reached it is a strong support.  Also, divination is in order.  If  the woman is working with a coven they should assist her with  this.  Astrological interpretations, dreams, tarot, I Ching, pendulums, hypnosis, runes, there are many bridges between here and the spirit world that are our heritage as Witches,             In following the Wiccan rede, we identify the many possibilities life holds out for us and we consistently work to chose the path of the least universal harm.  As we are the center of our own universe, we find that path through identifying our True Will.  It is not enough to have the power to abort, we must be prepared to exercise that power ethically.  In making such a critical decision as whether to bring forth life, it is imperative that we use all means at our disposal for counseling.  However, once a Priestess has chosen an abortion as the path of her True Will, then the Craft community should extend its support to our sister in need.       While driving to the rally, I envisioned a world of no abortion due to having no need for abortion, a Summerland of every child a wanted child.  As I approached the demonstration on the Wisconsin State Capital grounds, I could hear women chanting from three blocks away.  The capital dome loomed in the background, impressively crowned by "Miss Forward", Wisconsin's strange name for a likeness of Maat. I came upon about fifty picketers circling in a deosil direction chanting:            Not the church not the state            Women shall decide their fate! It was a very magickal moment.         For almost two hours we circled and chanted while the "pro-lifers" marched with children and pickets.  They were holding a rally to protest the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. We were picketing to protest their oppression, a counterdemonstration.  The scene got rather ugly at moments; the extent of hate emanating from them was close to overwhelming.  As they claim to hate abortion, so they acted on their hate by expressing it towards us. Men from the "pro-life" side tried to physically intimidate our group's women by bearing down on their personal space, invading their aura fields by barely not touching.  At one point, a "pro- lifer" hit one of my friends with a sign.  I remarked later that the scenario seemed to be: how much can I abuse you without actually touching you?  One woman came over, to within an inch of my face, and started yelling at me.  I regressed to her level and shouted back our slogan:           Right to life you're a lie           You don't care if women die!         The people from our side kept looking after each other.  When yet another personal, violent confrontation would happen, friends would come and protect by disengaging the pinpointed woman. When my friend was hit, the sign was torn down; when body space was invaded, women were brought into a safer, tighter circle.  I was glad to see men from the pro-choice side helping maintain a protective force, welcomed even by some separatists, due to the danger in the air.         As they were dispersing, three Catholics came into the middle of our circle, knelt down, and started reciting the rosary.  I acted instinctively. I stood before them, facing East, and did an immediate simple, repetitive invocation to Diana.  Casting pentagrams in the air I yelled "I invoke Diana, protect your women" Some pro-choice women started chanting, "We all come from the Goddess", while other pro-choice women defiantly held up crosses  made from rusty clothes hangers.  As they supported my ritual they became a part of it, blending our energies together.  I focused on "Miss Forward", repeating the invocation until peaking our cone.  I was then enveloped into the cuddly arms of a beautiful woman friend.  I grounded rushes of energy as I fell onto her.         Diana please take that peak of power, use it to raise this voice in convincing others to raise yet more powerful cones of  protection.  The ethics of  Wicca are grounded in personal empowerment for the benefit of self and group empowerment, A careful  study of the questions raised in the light of that grounding  leads me to know and understand that access to abortion is  truly a Witch's issue. We welcome your comments on this and other topics. Please visit our message board.

Home</a |>Archives</a |>E-mail

All work contained in Feminista! (TM) online journal is owned by the respective contributing authors or artists, including all copyrights contained therein, and may not be copied, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form without the express written permission of the copyright holder. Please contact Feminista! or the author/artist via email or USPS to Feminista, 1850 Union Street #1173, San Francisco, CA 94123.

Copyright © 1989, 1999 Lady Lee
All rights reserved by authors

[Slyfox]

The most dangerous thing to a Wiccan is to have someone before them praying the Rosary.

[Irisshlass]

Your a wiccan?

[Irisshlass]

The most dangerous thing to a Wiccan is to have someone before them praying the Rosary.

Because its a weapon...

[ventana]

I hope the pro lifers also prayed to St. Michael. Good grief these wiccans are wacko. V's wife.

[Polycarp]

We also have an ethical imperative to defend our belief in following individual True Will. As Goddess-worshipers have been active in reclaiming' the midwifery movement, so we need to be equally active in the pro-choice movement. Both issues are but opposite sides of the same coin, having control over our own bodies. It is only in maintaining full control of our bodies that we maintain our full empowerment as Priestesses. It is a basic occult fact that mastery of the physical plane precedes mastery of the spiritual.

Catholicism represents the antithesis of this movement. The Rosary is the battlefield tactical nuclear weapon of Christianity. (Of course, the Holy Eucharist is the global thermonuclear warfare weapon of Christianity.)

[B-Chan]

I agree. What we ought to do is declare an immediate Federal blanket ban on all abortion, then, when the inevitable protests turn to riots, put them down harshly. That's the quick way, thw way that would stop the killing immediately, the best way.

But we won't. So let's work and pray for a speedy end to legal abortion trough the legislative process. First, the Federal government should a blanket ban on partial-birth abortion. That's non-negotible. Next, we need s concentrated effort by U.S. senators, representatives, and state politcians to enact legislation at the state level that will outlaw or severaly resrict all abortion within that state. This will set the stage for a constitutinal test of said legislation a couple of years down the road, giving the GOP a central plank to run on for '04 and just in time for Justices O'Connor and Souter to retire.

Of course, abortion providers would not exist in our communities if people did not want them there. A truly-pro life community would no more allow such a place to exist within their city limits than they would a concentration camp; if our population were truly committed to the cause of life, there wouldn't be an abortion clinic left standing anywhere: they would be burned to the ground the minute the last person inside left for the evening on their opening day. Therefore, I primary concern must be to force people to face the ugly truth abou what abortion is. We need a full-on nationwide media campaign -- big bucks, wide exposure, TV, radio, and print -- to confront the public with the fact that abortion is murder. If "got milk?" can become a national catchphrase, so can "abortion = murder". We must mobilize the resources of wealthy Catholics and other wealthy supporters of life to fund such an endeavor. And of course we must continue to preach, pray, and pursue every opportnity to tell our fellow citizens the truth about this abominable practice.

We can see abortion outlawed within our lifetimes. All we have to do is want it bad enough and work for it hard enough. (One Rosary a week for life might be a good start.) We must all do what we can to end legalized abortion.

[Siobhan]

The web is thick with Wiccan articles on the sacramentality of abortion and rituals for abortion.

[Siobhan]

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

[Aquinasfan]

In her book,  _The Skeptical Feminist_, she states: "Ancient methods of family limitation known to the Greeks and Romans--contraceptive sponges, abortifacient drugs--were outlawed by the clergy and retained only in some secret traditions of witchcraft" (pg 174).  

Protestants take heed.

[RnMomof7]

Because its a weapon...

Come on Irish what did Jesus do when confronted by Satan?

[RnMomof7]

The Rosary is the battlefield tactical nuclear weapon of Christianity.

What did Jesus do when confronted by evil?

[RnMomof7]

They will NEVER declare a ban..The polititans worry more about votes than life

They have been successful in keeping us coming back on the "someday" promise..it has actually become their #1 tool with Evangelicals and Catholics..why kill the goose?

I will be thrilled if they do ANYTHING to reduce the numbers..Informed consent..mandatory sonograms...parental notification...and a ban on partial birth abortions..

[RobbyS]

The Catholics base their opposition to abortion on the teaching that "in intercourse the male deposits in the female a homunculus, or 'little person' complete with soul, which is simply housed in the womb for nine months" (Witches, Midwives, and Nurses; pgs 10-11).

Interesting, but then Wicca is a mishmash of WRONG information, theosophy with a dash of Hollywood thrown in.

[Polycarp]

were outlawed by the clergy and retained only in some secret traditions of witchcraft" (pg 174).

So it would be safe to say that sola scriptura protestantism essentially joined witchcraft in embracing contraception as morally licit in 1930? Sounds like a perfectly safe assumption to me.

[Irisshlass]

One of the fifteen promises to those who recite the rosary...it shall be a powerful armor against hell...

I've witnessed this at abortion clinics where those that work at the clinic, including guards, screaming at us etc...we would kneel down begin praying the rosary...and they would stop...completely stop!...we finish our protest and go home..

[RnMomof7]

Jesus WAS God right? How did He respond to the confrontation with Satan?
He did not pray although he did at other times of need. When a direct confrontation with evil in the person of Satan occurred here is what He did

  
  Mat 4:1   Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
  
  Mat 4:2   And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
  
  Mat 4:3   And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
  
  Mat 4:4   But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
  
  Mat 4:5   Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
  
  Mat 4:6   And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
  
  Mat 4:7   Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
  
  Mat 4:8   Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
  
  Mat 4:9   And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
  
  Mat 4:10   Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
  
  Mat 4:11   Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


This is the pattern HE has given us..we are to use the sword of His word to defeat Satan..and Irish no doubt that abortion is from the pit of hell

[RnMomof7]

Seems most Catholics need to take heed too guys ..look around you. Eithor there is a curse from God closing the wombs of Catholic women or they are using birth control

Genesis 20:18, the Lord closed all the wombs of the household of Abimelech;
Genesis 29:31, the Lord opened Leah's womb;
Genesis 30:22, the Lord opened Rachel's womb;
1 Samuel 1:5, the Lord closed Hannah's womb;
1 Samuel 1:6, the Lord closed Hannah's womb.

A closed womb is a curse of the Lord, an open womb a blessing ...look around you at all the two children families next Sunday...eithor the work of men or of God..take your pick

[Polycarp]

Eithor there is a curse from God closing the wombs of Catholic women or they are using birth control

One big difference, RnMomof7. Regardless of what Catholics may or may not do, the Church of Jesus Christ STILL faithfully teaches that contraception is inherently evil.

If there are Catholics that sin, and reject this teaching, who can be surprised by this.

The difference is that protestantism teaches that contraception is good, and that protestant couples may contracept with a clear conscience.

The RCC teaches its wrong, and some Catholics sin by doing it anyways.

Protestantism teaches its OK, confirming its adherents in inherent evil.

Even you should be able to grasp the difference.

In the end times, there will be a great falling away, a great apostacy.

"Christians" too will fall away into sin, but Christ's Church will persevere in teaching the Truth until the Second coming.

Protestantism re contraception teaches that evil is good, just as scripture predicts it would (because its a novel, false giospel, since sola scriptura not only is not scriptural but a rejection of scripture that says otherwise), and thus its followers do evil.

Catholicism has never taught and will never teach that evil is good. Its followers may choose to do this evil, but they choose it knowing it is condemned now and for all times as evil in the Catechism, which is accessable to every single Catholic on earth.

[Irisshlass]

Mom...never talk to Satan...

[RnMomof7]

One big difference, RnMomof7. Regardless of what Catholics may or may not do, the Church of Jesus Christ STILL faithfully teaches that contraception is inherently evil.

Poly that is stupid..what it says is that most of YOUR people do not follow your churches rules . The rebellion of your people makes your church morally superior?

If there are Catholics that sin, and reject this teaching, who can be surprised by this. The difference is that protestantism teaches that contraception is good, and that protestant couples may contracept with a clear conscience.

No poly Mainline protestantism does not teach it is GOOD it takes a neutral stand on it not proclaiming it good or evil (Orthodox evangelical churchs do have a stand similar to the RC one (you do see large familes in them)

The RCC teaches its wrong, and some Catholics sin by doing it anyways.
Protestantism teaches its OK, confirming its adherents in inherent evil.

Again you imply that there is something moral about a church that declares sin and makes rules it does not enforce...it is not holy or good it is hypocricy

Even you should be able to grasp the difference. In the end times, there will be a great falling away, a great apostacy. "Christians" too will fall away into sin, but Christ's Church will persevere in teaching the Truth until the Second coming.

It is already too late poly trent killed the gospel..and the Holy Spirit left..

Protestantism re contraception teaches that evil is good, just as scripture predicts it would (because its a novel, false giospel, since sola scriptura not only is not scriptural but a rejection of scripture that says otherwise), and thus its followers do evil.

I would suggest you look at your church and your people with clear eyes ..the curse is evident poly..you chose not to see it ..

Catholicism has never taught and will never teach that evil is good. Its followers may choose to do this evil, but they choose it knowing it is condemned now and for all times as evil in the Catechism, which is accessable to every single Catholic on earth.

Poly the nightly news make that statement a joke

[RnMomof7]

LOL..you are too much Irish

The bible calls the word of God a sword..when Jesus returns that sword will be coming out of His mouth ..it is the word that will judge us.

bop Satan with it ..

[Irisshlass]

I'm telling you...don't do that...danger, danger, danger...

[Aquinasfan]

A majority of nominal Catholics contracept, but Church teaching is and always has been quite clear. The Catholic Church stands alone in this regard when less than 70 years ago all of Christendom was united on the subject.

[Polycarp]

I'm telling you...don't do that...danger, danger, danger...

Good wise advice. There are indeed possessed evangelical "Christians" who thought they could simply cast out demons like it was just a matter of quoting scripture. Presumption.

[Polycarp]

The Catholic Church stands alone in this regard when less than 70 years ago all of Christendom was united on the subject

Yes, Its perfectly clear. Don't worry, no one is deceived by her verbal gymnastics. Wipe off the dust, move on to fertile fields.

[Irisshlass]

... There are indeed possessed evangelical "Christians

wow...that can happen when one takes on the devil with no authority..

[computerjunkie]

Lurking, but need to ask:

So, you're saying that praying or reciting the rosary against Satan is more authoritative than the Word of God? (See your #25 and RnMomof7's #26.)

Back to lurking...

[Polycarp]

MARK 9,38-41, AND THE VALIDITY OF PROTESTANT AND OTHER UNAUTHORIZED EXORCISMS

In the Gospel of Mark (9,38-41) we read [in my translation from the Greek]:

9,38 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone who was trashing demons in
your name, and we were hindering him because he was not accompanying us."
39 But Jesus said, "Do no hinder him. For no one who will work a deed of
great power in my name will immediately be able to speak evil of me; 40
for he who is not against us is for us. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of
water to drink because you are Christ's, 'Amen,' I say to you, that he
will certainly not be without his recompense."

If we were to read back into this Gospel the present state of the Mystical
Body of Christ, what with Catholic and non- Catholic Christians, it would
then seem that Jesus intended any and all who sincerely invoked His name
to be able to cast out demons, those who were and are duly authorized by
Catholic ecclesiastical authority and those who were and are not so
deputed.

However, at the time of this event Jesus had not yet even given the
command to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. Who was a Christian and who was not was much more loosely
defined. Those who were disciples of Jesus could express this by being
"for" Jesus and not "against" Him, demonstrating this by invoking His name
when relieving the suffering of the besieged or simply by giving a drink
of water to a disciple because he was a disciple of Christ. It was not
necessary to follow Jesus and the disciples everywhere.

Within a few years however, in order to be "for" Jesus, to be a disciple,
to do anything in His name, one would also have to be baptized into His
name. Those who would be so sincere as to give a cup of water to a
disciple of Jesus because he was a disciple of Jesus would certainly not
have a problem in receiving the watery sacrament. Those who were insincere
in using Jesus' name to cast out demons were soon to be exposed and
crushed for not being disciples of Jesus, and this by the demon himself,
as we see with the sons of Sceve: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who
are you?" (Acts 19,15ff). These itinerant exorcists certainly knew by the
time this happened that it was insincere to use Jesus' name but not belong
to the family of faith in the way He wanted people to belong to it -- by
baptism. And at that time it was only baptism into Catholic, that is,
"universal" Christianity.

Note that the passage in question is 9,38-41, and that the apostles had
been given the authority to cast out demons, and only they, back in 6,7.
This, however, does not demean the authority of Jesus and His ability to
delegate this authority the way in which he wants. We have to understand
that Jesus was able then, just as He is able now, to discern when someone
was doing something in His name. He had the freedom to permit the action
to be carried out in His name or to let it be carried out without the
benefit of the action having the power of His name behind it. Jesus
Himself grants the power behind His name. No one can just use His power
without His permission, as if using His name was some sort of magical
formula enabling one to tap into the power of Jesus without Him knowing
anything about it.

Jesus accepted the sincerity of the lone exorcist, but not that of the
sons of Sceve. They were miserably unsuccessful. The lone exorcist
obviously did not know of Jesus' restrictions ("he was not accompanying
us"). It was a good thing for Jesus to enable the man to cast out demons
and demonstrate the tremendous power of Jesus, that He is able to work
through others by the authority that He gives to them (not something
anyone else can do). This was a valuable lesson in a Christology which had
direct consequences for a proper understanding of ecclesiology: Jesus
instructs the disciples that He has direct contact with all, something
which does not undermine their authoirty, but which rather reminds them
where that authority comes from, not themselves, but from Him alone.

The authority needed for exorcism is not essential to the proper
management of the Church, although it is extremely useful. Jesus can give
this authority to anyone as He sees fit. However, in the normal course of
affairs, it is the prudence of Jesus at this time, as expressed by the
Church which He founded upon Peter, that only those who are delegated by
hierarchical authority are able to have this authority to cast out demons.
This is not necessarily prejudicial to the case of someone who, in not
knowing the need for such authority, simply goes ahead and does an
exorcism. It is not guaranteed that Jesus will grant the authority of His
name to such a person, although there is that possibility. And those who
would otherwise try to use Jesus' authority against His will, as expressed
by the Church, are in for an unpleasant surprise.

[Polycarp]

WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PERFORM AN EXORCISM?

EWTN

---

Are all exorcisms forbidden? The old moral theologians distinguished exorcism of a possessed person, which they called "solemn"; this is certainly restricted to an episcopally authorized exorcist. Then there are "simple" exorcisms, not indeed of a possessed person, but of, for example, catechumens. Those who have permission to use the traditional Roman Rite of Baptism certainly command the devil to "beat it". Or again, if one were experiencing an extraordinary temptation by the devil, he is not allowed to say, "go to hell" to the devil? I don't think Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly forbade all exorcisms, but only those of possessed persons. Comments?

I recently saw an interview with the President of Franciscan University at Stubenville, Fr. Scanlon, who seemed to think that simple exorcisms in cases of oppression and obsession were permitted.

In fact he made an interesting point that I had never heard before about confessors traditionally being encouraged to perform exorcisms as part of the rite of penance in cases of obsession.

***************

Now exorcism, by definition, puts the devil under the pain of a law he must carry through (for instance, to depart). Every direct command and only a direct command to the devil is properly called an exorcism.

There is imprecatory exorcism, which is a direct command to the devil, something which might be called a solemn exorcism no matter how short or improvised or discreet. Formal examples include the ritual of exorcism of 1614 still in force to this day, as well as that of Leo XIII, as well as the one in the pre-Vatican II ritual of baptism, etc. Anyone authorized to perform this latter ritual of baptism is authorized to perform the exorcism present in that ritual. Solemn, major, public, official exorcism of the Church is a sacramental which necessitates a duly authorized priest. This involves imprecation, that is, a direct command to the devil given in the name of Jesus and the Church to depart from a person, place, or object. Such a command, that is, any such command, be it improvised or from a ritual, no matter how short or long, is by its very nature exorcism. Remember that Jesus Himself was extremely restrictive in his choice of exorcists.

There is also deprecatory exorcism, which is an intercessory prayer directed to God, the Virgin Mary, St. Michael, et alii, that they themselves command the devil instead of us, something which might be called a simple exorcism no matter how long or traditional or public. Deprecatory exorcism, is, strictly speaking, not an exorcism at all since there is no direct command to the devil involved. Formal examples include "exorcisms" of the new ritual of baptism, of the RCIA, the last petition of the Lord's Prayer, etc.

All are encouraged to participate in deprecatory "exorcism", ordained or not, authorized or not, when necessary, but always, always in the name of Jesus and the Church. (Cf. the Lord's Prayer.) No commands are to be given. But without authorization, all, including priests, are forbidden to perform imprecatory exorcisms. Minor, private, simple "exorcism" is necessarily restricted to deprecation, that is, intercessory prayer. This is true no matter the antiquity, length, or author.

I suggest that this is the type of "exorcism" to which the St. Alphonsus Liguori was referring concerning the usage of exorcism within the confessional. But even if this were not the case, remember that although the changing prudential judgment of the Church on the correct implementation of the sacramental of exorcism changes through the years according to the signs of the times, this does not make either St. Alphonsus a heretic or the present Magisterium heretical. Analogously, the implementation of the Novus Ordo does not make Pio V a heretic nor the present Magisterium of the Church heretical.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "traditional freedom of the faithful."I hope it does not mean the liberal flaunting of Church authority to do what one thinks best. The law of the Church (CIC 1172) is written in a manner which is "invalidating" and "incapacitating." Restrictions are to be interpreted strictly, which in this case means that imprecation is left to authorized priests. See the Church's own official interpretation in Inde ab aliquot annis (Die 29 m. Septembris a. 1985).

This is the present law of the Church and the present official interpretation. The mind of the legislator is clear according to legislated norms of interpretation. Some feel the prudential judgment of the Church to be inadaquate, both those who are more traditional and those who are more charismatic. The present law is indeed extremely restrictive. So was Jesus in this matter. There are reasons for this. Anyone performing any imprecatory exorcism without authorization is in extreme danger. I can’t emphasize this more. If one plays with fire, one WILL GET BURNT!

---

[Polycarp]

WHO HAS THE POWER TO EXORCISE DEMONS?

EWTN

---

 

The following question occurs frequently: "Since Protestants have no real concept of a central infallible authority, would God have granted us the power [to exorcise a demon] simply because we were acting on what we believed to be the proper scriptural interpretation?"

In reply we may say: Your instincts concerning the Mystical Body of Christ are ecclesiologically correct! Ignorance of the need for proper authority is bliss, that is, successful, if and only if God empowers it. But this is very dangerous all together, for without the proper authority one is personally opened up to the attacks of the evil one. Note that Jesus didn't send everyone to cast out demons. In fact, He put quite a severe limitation on this, an action which is absolutely legitimate for the Church to imitate. In the code of canon law, mirrored by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1673) we read this:

#1172. No one may lawfully exorcise the possessed without the special and express permission of the local Ordinary. This permission is to be granted by the local Ordinary only to a priest who is endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life.

In September of 1985 (AAS) Cardinal Ratzinger rescinded the permission for both laity and non-exorcist priests to proceed with any kind of exorcism, something which also applies to the recitation of the exorcism of Leo XIII.

As it is, no one but an exorcist may give a direct command to the devil, for such a direct command, given in the name of Jesus, is by definition an exorcism. The most one can do is make prayers of intercession for the deliverance of the besieged person or thing in conjunction with other sacramentals of the Church such as holy water. Note that this has a place in the prayer of intercession, the Lord's Prayer, at the end of which we pray, "deliver us from evil." "Evil", in this case, is to be understood as a personal evil, that is, the Evil One.

If you come across what you perceive to be a case of someone being harassed by the devil, or have a problem with a dwelling or a particular object, contact my colleague Fr. LeBar. — Counselor.

---

[Polycarp]

wow...that can happen when one takes on the devil with no authority..

When I was in Haiti, a country with much voodoo and demonic influence, the evangelicals were constantly "doing exorcisms."

It was a pride thing, not a sign of the humble love of Jesus.

They literally got an ego trip out of going to Haiti then coming home to brag about their exorcisms.

These were multiple divorced and remarried hypocrites, business cheaters, people who lead all kinds of debased lives, who thought that just because "they had been saved" at the local independant evangelical pentecostal church, they had the power and spiritual depth to go around wrestling with demons.

I didn't want to be anywhere near these jokers when they (thought they) were "casting out demons."

If they had literally experienced a true demonic possession, that demon would have laughed in their face.

I have heard priests speak about the unprepared attempting exorcisms in South America.

I won't say more. Just leave if you see one trying to do it. You are in danger; they are in even more danger.

[Irisshlass]

I've never been around it...never want too...I've read books, listened to Malachi Martin...he has said pride is the hook...he said he had the army coming to him to perform exorcisms on personnel that were possessed from remote viewing...I saw an documentary on the true story of the exoricist...and prior to a Priest being called in, the boy was taken to an evangelist...who thought it was fascinating..well he got cut up and the terrorized from the experience...

[drstevej]

I have never cast out a demon, but I do plan to vote against Mary Landrieu on December 7th!

[Irisshlass]

I've said this to RNMom...you don't do anything against Satan...if your praying against Satan...thats your PRIDE...take everything God...talking to God, reading the Bible, calling upon Jesus, praying...take it to God...and I'm very serious when I say this..

[Salvation]

Pro-life bump!

[Irisshlass]

Pro-life bump back at ya :)

[computerjunkie]

I know you are serious...and so am I. Standing against Satan is nothing to be taken lightly.

However, you said in your #25: "One of the fifteen promises to those who recite the rosary...it shall be a powerful armor against hell... I've witnessed this at abortion clinics where those that work at the clinic, including guards, screaming at us etc...we would kneel down begin praying the rosary...and they would stop...completely stop!...we finish our protest and go home.."

Would I not have the same "power" if I stood in front of an abortion clinic and quoted scripture? "It is written, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy words; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:14-16)

And Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..."

I guess I don't understand the difference in praying the rosary and quoting scripture. When tested by Satan, Jesus said, "It is written..." and proceeded to quote scripture to him.

[Irisshlass]

Sure I don't see why not...and its from your heart and saying it to God...

[Irisshlass]

Would I not have the same "power"...its not your power...you will witness God's power...that is not what its about...I never did pro-life work to get caught up in God's power....I went there for God and the unborn...

[Joshua]

"Catholicism represents the antithesis of this movement. The Rosary is the battlefield tactical nuclear weapon of Christianity. (Of course, the Holy Eucharist is the global thermonuclear warfare weapon of Christianity.) "

I really believe that in the near future we're going to be reading that a study proved prolonged breathing of incense in enclosed sanctuaries causes this kind of brain cell damage.

Just to be fair though Carpy,until then I'll keep a lookout for little mushroom clouds over your Cathedrals...