I'm not sure how that makes the Church's actions ok, Saltpetre.

>>This thread has become pretty sad, with all the 'raking over of the coals' of ancient and almost entirely irrelevant history. Want to point fingers? Why not have a go at the Brits sending convicts to the penal colonies, or the wonderful early treatment, and much more recent treatment of our indigenous people, or of our woeful treatment of asylum seekers, or of Asaad in Syria, or Indonesia in West Papua, China in Tibet, Myanmar, Shri-Lanka and the Tamuls, Israel/Palestine, Pakistan and India in the disputed north, Afghanistan and Iraq<<

It is interesting though that you chose this particular bevy of beauties with which to associate the Church's historical activities. Did you have a particular reasoning or method when you made the choice?

An interesting point, Salpetre. Perhaps you have noticed that there
are all sorts of threads on OLO, where we criticise all sorts of things.

Why should the Catholic Church be exempt? Good intentions are not
enough, I am afraid, not when religious dogma lands up being the
cause for much suffering and misery.

The past burning of people like me is indeed still relevant as a point.
For of course the church, preaching love and caring, also
claims near exclusive knowledge about what the Almighty is really
thinking. Clearly the lines of communication must have been down
for a few hundred years. I had to chuckle about Mishka's lame
excuse, of oh well others were doing it too. Those others don't
claim special contact with the boss himself!

So in that sense it makes perfect sense to question all church
dogma, for clearly in the past they got it very wrong.

Given that church dogma affects my freedoms of choice, why should
I not protest?. Given that church dogma causes much misery and
suffering, why should I not feel empathy for those who are so misfortunate?

In fact the freedoms that we have today were hard fought for by our
ancestors, from a time when the Church was all powerful and could
knock off those who disagreed, to a point where its substantially
had its wings clipped, thankfully.

But of course the Church still has enormous power, especially in the
third world. As I've explained, first indoctrinating children to
believe their dogma and then threatening true believers with
excommunication, can indeed be seen as a powerfull political weapon
which should not be underestimated.

I must admit I can't keep up with all these comments, but I did want to make one point, as a history buff. You all (except Mishka Gora who has alluded to it but failed to spell it out) seem to be ignorant of the basis for capital punishment - in this case, burning at the stake. People like "Bloody Mary" didn't burn heretics simply because they had a different opinion. They received the death penalty - most unfairly, I hasten to add! - because they were guilty of treason. In a Catholic state, as all states were in Europse prior to the Reformation, heresy was just another form of treason. It has always been considered treason against God and the Church, but in a Catholic state it was seen to undermine the monarch too. Mary I was trying to restore her (Catholic) power in England after twenty years of Protestantism, so any sort of heresy was perceived as a treasonous threat and treated accordingly.

Non-Catholics weren't any better. As an Englishman, I'm heartily ashamed of the way Catholics were treated throughout history - indeed, continue to be treated. We can havea Muslim on the throne, but not a Catholic, after all!

I should also like to point out that there's a difference between criticism, which should consider good and bad in a balanced manner, and censure or calumny. A little more respect for freedom of conscience wouldn't go astray in this thread!

That's my two cents' worth - take it or leave it!

With all due respect, Lindy, just your say so is not a good
enough source for me.

So I've had a look further.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54045

This news source certainly discusses Bishops threatening politicians
with excommunication.

The second source claims that the Philippines President is even
concerned about it.

So its clearly an issue and I seemingly had it summed up just about spot on.

Just shows you how ignorant you and some of these Catholics are, Yabby. The bishops can't threaten to excommunicate someone because it happens automatically. All they can do is talk about it:

"Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.

When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy. "

(http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm)

Even if the bishops stay silent, those politicans will be excommunicated anyway. No one has to do or say anything. A pretty empty threat, don't you think?!

Finally we are back on the topic after a full round of abuse (which I am so glad I did not partake in):

"Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin."

So if I were a Catholic politician, I would be committing a mortal sin, yet I would not be excommunicated because my vote would be neither out of belief that abortion is not always gravely immoral, nor out of intention to assist women who want to have an abortion. My vote would be with the sole intention of getting government out of our life, in this area as in any other.

Suppose a thug bikie gang threatened a woman: "if you abort your baby we will break your teeth". If I understand correctly, then a Catholic (including a Catholic policeman) would then be forbidden to stop them and protect the woman. If so, then it is my good fortune that I was not born a Catholic.

I see no difference between the state and its government, being a non-voluntary organization that imposes itself on people against their will and any other criminal/gangster/terrorist organization.

Poor Mishka, even if deep in his heart he belives otherwise, he has no choice but to oppose me vehemently because otherwise he would commit a mortal sin.