[metmom]

That argument simply makes it worse. As with liberal RCs today, it is how Rome acts that interprets her words, and treating them as members in life and in death, such as Teddy K., interprets canon law though that that is supposed to preclude such "notorious sinners" from being given ecclesiastical funerals, which even Chavez was given. And please spare the unsubstantiated excuse, "he must have repented."

If Hitler was to be considered excommunicated, it should have been manifestly done, and all Catholics forbidden to have fellowship with him, (1Cor. 5:11-13) like as Paul named names of those who were handed over to the devil due to their sins. (1Tim. 2:10)

I just want to gag every time I hear those pathetic excuses for for the wishy-washy inaction by the Catholic church in regards to following what it claims are its own guidelines.

All it is, is excuse making to avoid having to admit that the RCC can do or ever did anything wrong.

Non-Catholics are regularly and constantly castigated for their lack of moral stand on certain issues, but when it's the Catholic church, excuses abound.

While I have seen Evangelical churches actually remove people from their membership roles for unethical business practices and adultery, the Catholic church gives them Catholic funerals in violation of their own rules, and grant annulments to those who commit adultery and want to divorce their spouses, like said Teddy Kennedy.

[daniel1212]

And if Trad. RCs really want to separate from the liberal RCs Rome counts and treats as members, they must become part of a sect (becoming more Catholic than their vaunted leadership), but which action they criticize when Prots do it.

[boatbums]

While I have seen Evangelical churches actually remove people from their membership roles for unethical business practices and adultery, the Catholic church gives them Catholic funerals in violation of their own rules, and grant annulments to those who commit adultery and want to divorce their spouses, like said Teddy Kennedy.

I was thinking about this last night. I wonder what the Apostle Paul would have thought had his instructions for the Corinthian church to oust the member, who was unrepentant in an incestuous relationship with his father's wife, had they informed Paul that this member had "excommunicated himself" but that was all they were required to do?

Imagine if they wrote back to Paul and said, "We still let the guy come to our worship services, we let him partake of the Lord's Supper, we invite him to our homes, pray with him, let him tell his neighbors that he is a member of the Church of Corinth. We hope, in time, he comes to his senses and stops carrying on with his step-mom, but what more CAN we do?". I kinda think Paul would have had some very sharp words for the pastor for his disobedience in following Paul's implicit instructions. Now, this was just a regular member of the church, imagine had he been THE pastor or an elder - someone with leadership responsibilities?

The Catholics at Luther's time had no problem excommunicating him yet they let slide the very Popes who were guilty of far worse sins than the ones they accused Luther of committing. The hypocrisy is astounding!