< 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 2002.—"Accused 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 >