< Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >
Rome to Regain Control of the World
The 2004 Presidential Election
Now if Ellen White's prediction that the Vatican would be "employing every device to extend
her influence and increase her power in preparation for a fierce and determined conflict
to regain control of the world" is ever to come to pass, we would need to start seeing
examples of her trying to "extend her influence and increase her power."
It was a bit of a surprise to many when bishops and even a Vatican official started
talking about refusing to give communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians, like John
Kerry. Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs went further than that in a May 1st
letter to the 125,000
members of his diocese. He ordered them to not take communion if they vote
for pro-choice politicians, until they repent and recant. Rarely does a church and a
foreign power so blatantly and publicly try to
influence an American election.
Many pro-lifers found such public stands from these prelates
to be a breath of fresh air. But the same week
that we read about the political pressure brought to bear
against John Kerry, we also read the following:
The first Catholic priest in the United States to be reinstated because
of a loophole in the church's zero-tolerance policy on sexual behavior with
minors is headed back to Michigan, the Archdiocese of Detroit said Tuesday. . . .
In February, the Vatican reinstated the priest to active ministry, saying
the charge against him -- sex with a 16-year-old boy in the 1970s -- wasn't
a crime under church law at the time. That ruling cast a national spotlight
on Bjorklund because it opened a major loophole in the get-tough, zero-tolerance
policy on abusers that Catholic bishops in the United States adopted in
priest heads to Michigan," bold added.
Reinstate him because it wasn't a crime? What?
The reason it wasn't a crime is because the age of consent was different back then.
Since he was old enough to give consent, it wasn't "child abuse."
But wasn't it still immoral? Or is sex between two consenting males no longer a grave evil?
Does this mean that a priest who has an affair with a married woman, who never commits a
"crime" since the woman is old enough to give consent, can still remain a priest?
Reading in the same week this story and the one about refusing communion to pro-choice
politicians got us thinking. Is the Vatican really concerned about
morals, or is she primarily concerned about power? How many bishops have called for
refusing communion to adulterous or pedophile priests, rather than just transferring them
somewhere else? How many such priests have actually been refused communion?
After all, the apostle Paul made it crystal clear in 1 Corinthians 5:11 that
fornicators in the church
should be refused communion, and in vs. 13 he even said to remove a fornicator from
membership. But he didn't say a word about refusing communion to citizens or politicians who
vote a certain way. Is it not best to first do what the Bible commands before we attempt to
do something it says nothing about? That is, unless achieving world dominion is our
real goal and aim?
< Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >