We need to stop donating money to churches opposed to pro-life

[The Liturgist]

Several mainline churches, such as the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and others, actively spend money advocating against the Pro-Life Movement in support of abortion, including “unrestricted pro-choice laws” which permit partial birth abortions in the period immediately preceding natural delivery, which I would say most Christians in the pro-life movement, including a prominent Roman Catholic bishop, regard as infanticide, and in some cases also support “euthanasia,” which is to say, doctor-provided homicide, and in one particularly grievous case from last summer, a parish of the United Church of Canada dared to “celebrate” this horrible act as if it were a sacrament in their sanctuary.

Now, many of us are members of some of the surviving traditional parishes in denominations such as the UMC, and do not want to abandon the church in which we were baptized. I propose that at a minimum, rather than making general donations, members in that situation should make specific donations, for example, to charities supported by the denomination, to dedicated funds for parish maintenance, or to the presbyter personally to supplement his income. Even then, an ethical quandary does exist, because putting money into these denominations in any way, even through specific denominations frees up other funds which can result in one inadvertantly financing anti-pro life lobbying, activism, political campaign finance and advertising campaigns. There are just a few exceptions to this, for example, donating money to a conservative presbyter who can be counted on not to in turn give it to the denomination or another cause opposed to the vital Christian project that is the Pro-Life movement, and charities which are substantially financed by separate donations from members rather than by the denomination itself.

I would also suggest organizing or joining pro-life initiatives within these mainline denominations, and working to change the policy. We must not forget that both the SBC and LCMS were considered mainline directions and were on a trajectory in line with that of the others, at one time. Change is possible. Also, the Supreme Court decision that the Diocese of Fort Worth was entitled to retain its real estate assets despite leaving the Episcopal Church is a compelling reason for parishes and dioceses interested in leaving to talk to a lawyer, rather than simply conceding the real estate like the Diocese of San Joaquin in California when it left the ECUSA for ACNA.

Of course, it would be better to reform these denominations rather than leave them, and such a reformation I would argue is even more important than the Protestant Reformation, which had beneficial effects for both Protestants and Catholics, and which I would regard as a win if it had not been for the bloodshed of the Wars of Religion, although at the conclusion of that conflict, the Peace of Westphalia did establish the novel concept of national sovereignty and diplomatic relations between nations which might not agree on matters of religion, governance or other issues. But the Reformation did lead to an end of the sale of indulgences in the Roman Church, and a substantial reduction of corruption, and other accomplishments at the Council of Trent, and it also allowed for the development of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism and other beautiful expressions of Christianity. It also led to the promotion of the idea of religious freedom, dormant in Christendom since the demise of St. Constantine and Emperor Valens, which in turn allowed those Western countries which embraced the concept to become safe havens persecuted Christians of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Pakistan, China, India, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal, and other countries at the hands of Communists, Islamist regimes, and Hindu and Buddhist nationalists.

The reform of the mainline churches could deliver an equally profound benefit: by reversing the doctrinal and liturgical changes which led to the departure of more than half of the membership of many of these denominations, and which I would argue is one of the factors directly contributing to the decline in the number of Christians relative to the total population in the wealthy nations of the West. Specifically, when a church teaches doctrines that blatantly contradict prior doctrines or plain meaning of the Holy Bible, or radically changes the form of worship (the importance of consistency in which was poignantly stressed by no less a man than CS Lewis), this produces cognitive dissonance which will alienate people, in particular young members who do not yet have children, who seeing this contradiction, will begin to doubt that their church has a grasp on the truth. Some apostasize directly, whereas others will become unchurched. When these unchurched people go on to have families, their children are not exposed to church, and so the practice of the Christian religion never becomes central to their life.

If we can restore the mainline churches, and arrest the decline of other churches in that direction (for example, the “Synodical Process” movement of the liberal element in the Roman Catholic Church in support of homosexual “marriage”), and also seek to create a culture of safeguarding so that the problems of sexual abuse that have plagued several denominations, we might be able to reduce or counter the decline of Christians as a percentage of the total population and reduce the accompanying potential and actual persecution of Christians we see in certain European countries, in Canada and during Covid.

 

[Sabertooth]

I would not participate in a church where I do not agree with their budget.
When I was able to go, their budgets were open to their membership.

 

[dqhall]

Several mainline churches, such as the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and others, actively spend money advocating against the Pro-Life Movement in support of abortion, including “unrestricted pro-choice laws” which permit partial birth abortions in the period immediately preceding natural delivery, which I would say most Christians in the pro-life movement, including a prominent Roman Catholic bishop, regard as infanticide, and in some cases also support “euthanasia,” which is to say, doctor-provided homicide, and in one particularly grievous case from last summer, a parish of the United Church of Canada dared to “celebrate” this horrible act as if it were a sacrament in their sanctuary.

Now, many of us are members of some of the surviving traditional parishes in denominations such as the UMC, and do not want to abandon the church in which we were baptized. I propose that at a minimum, rather than making general donations, members in that situation should make specific donations, for example, to charities supported by the denomination, to dedicated funds for parish maintenance, or to the presbyter personally to supplement his income. Even then, an ethical quandary does exist, because putting money into these denominations in any way, even through specific denominations frees up other funds which can result in one inadvertantly financing anti-pro life lobbying, activism, political campaign finance and advertising campaigns. There are just a few exceptions to this, for example, donating money to a conservative presbyter who can be counted on not to in turn give it to the denomination or another cause opposed to the vital Christian project that is the Pro-Life movement, and charities which are substantially financed by separate donations from members rather than by the denomination itself.

I would also suggest organizing or joining pro-life initiatives within these mainline denominations, and working to change the policy. We must not forget that both the SBC and LCMS were considered mainline directions and were on a trajectory in line with that of the others, at one time. Change is possible. Also, the Supreme Court decision that the Diocese of Fort Worth was entitled to retain its real estate assets despite leaving the Episcopal Church is a compelling reason for parishes and dioceses interested in leaving to talk to a lawyer, rather than simply conceding the real estate like the Diocese of San Joaquin in California when it left the ECUSA for ACNA.

Of course, it would be better to reform these denominations rather than leave them, and such a reformation I would argue is even more important than the Protestant Reformation, which had beneficial effects for both Protestants and Catholics, and which I would regard as a win if it had not been for the bloodshed of the Wars of Religion, although at the conclusion of that conflict, the Peace of Westphalia did establish the novel concept of national sovereignty and diplomatic relations between nations which might not agree on matters of religion, governance or other issues. But the Reformation did lead to an end of the sale of indulgences in the Roman Church, and a substantial reduction of corruption, and other accomplishments at the Council of Trent, and it also allowed for the development of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism and other beautiful expressions of Christianity. It also led to the promotion of the idea of religious freedom, dormant in Christendom since the demise of St. Constantine and Emperor Valens, which in turn allowed those Western countries which embraced the concept to become safe havens persecuted Christians of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Pakistan, China, India, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal, and other countries at the hands of Communists, Islamist regimes, and Hindu and Buddhist nationalists.

The reform of the mainline churches could deliver an equally profound benefit: by reversing the doctrinal and liturgical changes which led to the departure of more than half of the membership of many of these denominations, and which I would argue is one of the factors directly contributing to the decline in the number of Christians relative to the total population in the wealthy nations of the West. Specifically, when a church teaches doctrines that blatantly contradict prior doctrines or plain meaning of the Holy Bible, or radically changes the form of worship (the importance of consistency in which was poignantly stressed by no less a man than CS Lewis), this produces cognitive dissonance which will alienate people, in particular young members who do not yet have children, who seeing this contradiction, will begin to doubt that their church has a grasp on the truth. Some apostasize directly, whereas others will become unchurched. When these unchurched people go on to have families, their children are not exposed to church, and so the practice of the Christian religion never becomes central to their life.

If we can restore the mainline churches, and arrest the decline of other churches in that direction (for example, the “Synodical Process” movement of the liberal element in the Roman Catholic Church in support of homosexual “marriage”), and also seek to create a culture of safeguarding so that the problems of sexual abuse that have plagued several denominations, we might be able to reduce or counter the decline of Christians as a percentage of the total population and reduce the accompanying potential and actual persecution of Christians we see in certain European countries, in Canada and during Covid.

Should they be preaching against fornication, against premarital sex?

 

[Sabertooth]

Should they be preaching against fornication, against premarital sex?

If they are orthodox,* they should, but not succeeding at such cannot justify wanton feticide.
The kinds of churches in the OP are not particularly known for their emphasis on Holiness (not to be confused with Legalism).

*With a little "o."

 

[dqhall]

If they are orthodox,* they should, but not succeeding at such cannot justify wanton feticide.
The kinds of churches in the OP are not particularly known for their emphasis on Holiness (not to be confused with Legalism).

*With a little "o."

They may use abstain from fornication, or use contraceptives rather than create bastard children or abortions. Celibacy is an option for singles. Married couples may choose celibacy or to procreate. I have read Catholics do not endorse contraceptives.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Several mainline churches, such as the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and others, actively spend money advocating against the Pro-Life Movement in support of abortion, including “unrestricted pro-choice laws” which permit partial birth abortions in the period immediately preceding natural delivery, which I would say most Christians in the pro-life movement, including a prominent Roman Catholic bishop, regard as infanticide, and in some cases also support “euthanasia,” which is to say, doctor-provided homicide, and in one particularly grievous case from last summer, a parish of the United Church of Canada dared to “celebrate” this horrible act as if it were a sacrament in their sanctuary.

Now, many of us are members of some of the surviving traditional parishes in denominations such as the UMC, and do not want to abandon the church in which we were baptized. I propose that at a minimum, rather than making general donations, members in that situation should make specific donations, for example, to charities supported by the denomination, to dedicated funds for parish maintenance, or to the presbyter personally to supplement his income. Even then, an ethical quandary does exist, because putting money into these denominations in any way, even through specific denominations frees up other funds which can result in one inadvertantly financing anti-pro life lobbying, activism, political campaign finance and advertising campaigns. There are just a few exceptions to this, for example, donating money to a conservative presbyter who can be counted on not to in turn give it to the denomination or another cause opposed to the vital Christian project that is the Pro-Life movement, and charities which are substantially financed by separate donations from members rather than by the denomination itself.

I would also suggest organizing or joining pro-life initiatives within these mainline denominations, and working to change the policy. We must not forget that both the SBC and LCMS were considered mainline directions and were on a trajectory in line with that of the others, at one time. Change is possible. Also, the Supreme Court decision that the Diocese of Fort Worth was entitled to retain its real estate assets despite leaving the Episcopal Church is a compelling reason for parishes and dioceses interested in leaving to talk to a lawyer, rather than simply conceding the real estate like the Diocese of San Joaquin in California when it left the ECUSA for ACNA.

Of course, it would be better to reform these denominations rather than leave them, and such a reformation I would argue is even more important than the Protestant Reformation, which had beneficial effects for both Protestants and Catholics, and which I would regard as a win if it had not been for the bloodshed of the Wars of Religion, although at the conclusion of that conflict, the Peace of Westphalia did establish the novel concept of national sovereignty and diplomatic relations between nations which might not agree on matters of religion, governance or other issues. But the Reformation did lead to an end of the sale of indulgences in the Roman Church, and a substantial reduction of corruption, and other accomplishments at the Council of Trent, and it also allowed for the development of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism and other beautiful expressions of Christianity. It also led to the promotion of the idea of religious freedom, dormant in Christendom since the demise of St. Constantine and Emperor Valens, which in turn allowed those Western countries which embraced the concept to become safe havens persecuted Christians of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Pakistan, China, India, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal, and other countries at the hands of Communists, Islamist regimes, and Hindu and Buddhist nationalists.

The reform of the mainline churches could deliver an equally profound benefit: by reversing the doctrinal and liturgical changes which led to the departure of more than half of the membership of many of these denominations, and which I would argue is one of the factors directly contributing to the decline in the number of Christians relative to the total population in the wealthy nations of the West. Specifically, when a church teaches doctrines that blatantly contradict prior doctrines or plain meaning of the Holy Bible, or radically changes the form of worship (the importance of consistency in which was poignantly stressed by no less a man than CS Lewis), this produces cognitive dissonance which will alienate people, in particular young members who do not yet have children, who seeing this contradiction, will begin to doubt that their church has a grasp on the truth. Some apostasize directly, whereas others will become unchurched. When these unchurched people go on to have families, their children are not exposed to church, and so the practice of the Christian religion never becomes central to their life.

If we can restore the mainline churches, and arrest the decline of other churches in that direction (for example, the “Synodical Process” movement of the liberal element in the Roman Catholic Church in support of homosexual “marriage”), and also seek to create a culture of safeguarding so that the problems of sexual abuse that have plagued several denominations, we might be able to reduce or counter the decline of Christians as a percentage of the total population and reduce the accompanying potential and actual persecution of Christians we see in certain European countries, in Canada and during Covid.

One way to contribute locally but not allow any ‘percentage’ to leak into the general denomination would be to pick up a recurring utility bill for the local parish and pay that every month, something like a water bill. For Catholics, one could offer an occasional mass stipend, typically $10 each, or just a gift to a priest. Starve out bad bureaucracy but support good ministers.

 

[The Liturgist]

Should they be preaching against fornication, against premarital sex?

Well, considering the Holy Apostle Paul preached against it, I would say yes.

 

[Blade]

Praise God.. for me I will always give where He tells me to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Several mainline churches, such as the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and others, actively spend money advocating against the Pro-Life Movement in support of abortion, including “unrestricted pro-choice laws” which permit partial birth abortions in the period immediately preceding natural delivery, which I would say most Christians in the pro-life movement, including a prominent Roman Catholic bishop, regard as infanticide, and in some cases also support “euthanasia,” which is to say, doctor-provided homicide, and in one particularly grievous case from last summer, a parish of the United Church of Canada dared to “celebrate” this horrible act as if it were a sacrament in their sanctuary.

Now, many of us are members of some of the surviving traditional parishes in denominations such as the UMC, and do not want to abandon the church in which we were baptized. I propose that at a minimum, rather than making general donations, members in that situation should make specific donations, for example, to charities supported by the denomination, to dedicated funds for parish maintenance, or to the presbyter personally to supplement his income. Even then, an ethical quandary does exist, because putting money into these denominations in any way, even through specific denominations frees up other funds which can result in one inadvertantly financing anti-pro life lobbying, activism, political campaign finance and advertising campaigns. There are just a few exceptions to this, for example, donating money to a conservative presbyter who can be counted on not to in turn give it to the denomination or another cause opposed to the vital Christian project that is the Pro-Life movement, and charities which are substantially financed by separate donations from members rather than by the denomination itself.

I would also suggest organizing or joining pro-life initiatives within these mainline denominations, and working to change the policy. We must not forget that both the SBC and LCMS were considered mainline directions and were on a trajectory in line with that of the others, at one time. Change is possible. Also, the Supreme Court decision that the Diocese of Fort Worth was entitled to retain its real estate assets despite leaving the Episcopal Church is a compelling reason for parishes and dioceses interested in leaving to talk to a lawyer, rather than simply conceding the real estate like the Diocese of San Joaquin in California when it left the ECUSA for ACNA.

Of course, it would be better to reform these denominations rather than leave them, and such a reformation I would argue is even more important than the Protestant Reformation, which had beneficial effects for both Protestants and Catholics, and which I would regard as a win if it had not been for the bloodshed of the Wars of Religion, although at the conclusion of that conflict, the Peace of Westphalia did establish the novel concept of national sovereignty and diplomatic relations between nations which might not agree on matters of religion, governance or other issues. But the Reformation did lead to an end of the sale of indulgences in the Roman Church, and a substantial reduction of corruption, and other accomplishments at the Council of Trent, and it also allowed for the development of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism and other beautiful expressions of Christianity. It also led to the promotion of the idea of religious freedom, dormant in Christendom since the demise of St. Constantine and Emperor Valens, which in turn allowed those Western countries which embraced the concept to become safe havens persecuted Christians of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Pakistan, China, India, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal, and other countries at the hands of Communists, Islamist regimes, and Hindu and Buddhist nationalists.

The reform of the mainline churches could deliver an equally profound benefit: by reversing the doctrinal and liturgical changes which led to the departure of more than half of the membership of many of these denominations, and which I would argue is one of the factors directly contributing to the decline in the number of Christians relative to the total population in the wealthy nations of the West. Specifically, when a church teaches doctrines that blatantly contradict prior doctrines or plain meaning of the Holy Bible, or radically changes the form of worship (the importance of consistency in which was poignantly stressed by no less a man than CS Lewis), this produces cognitive dissonance which will alienate people, in particular young members who do not yet have children, who seeing this contradiction, will begin to doubt that their church has a grasp on the truth. Some apostasize directly, whereas others will become unchurched. When these unchurched people go on to have families, their children are not exposed to church, and so the practice of the Christian religion never becomes central to their life.

If we can restore the mainline churches, and arrest the decline of other churches in that direction (for example, the “Synodical Process” movement of the liberal element in the Roman Catholic Church in support of homosexual “marriage”), and also seek to create a culture of safeguarding so that the problems of sexual abuse that have plagued several denominations, we might be able to reduce or counter the decline of Christians as a percentage of the total population and reduce the accompanying potential and actual persecution of Christians we see in certain European countries, in Canada and during Covid.

Not to detract from your point, which I totally agree with, but this would also help establish the fact that the TRUTH concerning what is good, according to God, is still being told. The church NEEDS to stand for the truth. Or it is just another organization.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not to detract from your point, which I totally agree with, but this would also help establish the fact that the TRUTH concerning what is good, according to God, is still being told. The church NEEDS to stand for the truth. Or it is just another organization.

I agree entirely. It worries me that the relativistic attitude concerning truth that Pontius Pilate exhibited in the Gospel of John seems to now be exhibited by some liberal mainline clergy. For example, an Episcopal priest who sadly died several years ago and a nasty liberal UMC blogger are among many mainline pastors who have written articles attacking creeds. The Episcopal priest’s argument was more wacky than offensive, because he claimed the creed should be removed because it disrupted the flow of the liturgy, and then quoted the apocryphal Gospel of Mary‘s word for word copy of the text of Luke 17:21 in support of his argument, which worries me because why would you quote “The kingdom of God is within you!” from a dubious psuedepigraphical apocryphon quite possibly of Gnostic origin when you could get the same text from a pericope of Luke 17 which happens to be in Year C of the Revised Common Lectionary?

It almost suggests he was paying more attention to the apocrypha then to the synoptics, although the incident also motivates me to work on my satirically named “Year E” project*.

The Methodist blogger made a more disturbing argument, in that he falsely claimed that John Wesley thought creeds were “weaksauce” and put forward a counter-factual bit of revisionist history by quoting Wesley out of context in an attempt to show that he was opposed to creeds, which ignores the fact that he included the Apostles Creed and I think the Nicene Creed in the slimmed down recension of the Book of Common Prayer he edited for use by the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Sunday Service Book for the Methodists in North America, and also John Wesley’s persistant praise of the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican liturgy, with its extensive use of all three creeds, as being “the finest in the world” and having the greatest amount of “rational piety.” So basically this Methodist blogger lied about what John Wesley believed in order to oppose the use of creeds by the United Methodist Church, to what end?

*Year D is a fourth year focused on the Gospel of John developed by a Presbyterian seminary professor, which in my opinion rectifies many of the problems with the three year lectionaries, by including important pericopes they omitted, albeit at the expense of stretching it out another year; while my parishes use a traditional one year lectionary I have added a vespers service this year which is using Year D; Year E, which is not a formal project of mine nor associated with the LiturgyWorks group of which I am a member, but is rather more of a recreational idea, started with a chat I had with a colleague based on the silly 1980s book “The Five Gospels,” by Robert Funk, which documented the results of a project he conducted in all seriousness with several clergy of different denominations, including Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis, to evaluate and vote on the authenticity of all the sayings attributed to our Lord by the four canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, which I think is what it looks like: an accurate collection of genuine sayings also found in the synoptics which has been corrupted by interpolations of a Gnostic character, probably by one of the Syrian Gnostic sects that predated the Tatianists.

Now the Five Gospels project infamously used a mathematically flawed voting system, which just goes to show that just as theologians these days are much less reliable at teaching biblical Nicene Christian doctrine according to the Apostolic faith, we have also moved past the era in which theologians were also renowned mathematicians, logicians and scientists, like Ockham, Copernicus, and interestingly enough, an Anglican curate who proposed the existence of black holes in the late 18th century, and also John Wesley whose status as an early investigator of electricity rivaled that of Benjamin Franklin.

However, it also made me realize, Christians are at risk of being led astray by apocrypha which in some cases may have had legitimate origins but was intentionally corrupted in order to help sell Gnosticism or some other quasi-Christian cult like Manichaeanism. Therefore if I ever get the time I intend to edit out the corruptions from those works of apocrypha which are salvageable, as opposed to those which are known to have been originally written by heretics and are entirely corrupt, such as the blasphemous Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which was produced by the Manichees and which is the worst libel ever written about our Lord, and also nonsense like “THUNDER - The Perfect Mind”, the ancient authors of which had to have been using some serious hallucinogenic substances, perhaps the mysterious vapors which some Hellenic oracles used to get their power from, and of which apparently Ridley Scott is a huge fan of. But of material like the sayings Gospel of Thomas, where 90% of the document is substantiated by the synoptics, and the passion narrative in the Gospel of Peter, which was something of an anomaly in the early church, and unfortunately we only have the fragment of it dealing with the Passion and Resurrection, and other works like the ancient Christian hymns known as the Odes of Solomon, of which two previously missing odes turned up at Nag Hammadi, albeit with the predictable heretical material, my goal is to basically clean these texts up by excising everything which does not agree with the canonical scriptures, and then release this edition of NT apocrypha in the hopes of diverting away from the more dangerous material, which I will not even name in this thread, Christians who made the mistake I once made, of naively reading the apocrypha in the hopes of finding more stories about Jesus, which also I suspect leads people into the trap of Mormonism.

The name Year E is something of a joke, between myself and my colleague, the idea that even with year D, since the sayings Gospel of Thomas is also effectively Synoptic, the one gospel per year model would require a year E, although it also occurred to us that if material in a work of NT apocrypha could not be used succinctly where the RCL plus Year D uses canonical material to convey the same events, then that material is spurious and should be edited out. Basically, the theory is it that since people will look for this material, it would be better if they found an anthology edited to ensure no contradiction with Nicene Orthodoxy, and that admits the flawed and non-canonical nature of the material, and also shows where in the canonical scriptures the same story could be found, and which also contains an appendix showing some of the less disturbing but still worthless heretical material, such as a quote from the Tripartite Tractate, which we know is of Valentinian origin, and which is as boring and stupid as the name suggests, so as to discourage them from further explorations.

I really do believe that if a properly catechized Christian who loves the Bible stumbles across non Christian scriptures, they will be unimpressed. For example, the Quran is impressively stupid. Yet the problem is we have moral relativists active in some denominations, who want to make those denominations look exactly like the Unitarian Universalist Church. What else would happen if we deleted the Creeds as the Episcopalian priest and UMC elder I mentioned suggested?

It was the deletion of the Creeds which turned into heterodox Unitarian churches the oldest Congregations in Boston including the First Congregation and the Second Congregation, which later merged, along with several other Congregationalist parishes such as Federal Street Church, and the main Congregationalist seminary at Harvard, all of which were originally called Puritan but rebranded in the early 18th century, perhaps out of embarassment over the Salem witch hunt and to embrace the new expression of piety brought about by the timely preaching of Jonathan Edwards (which I would argue would not work today but was needed then, for the Puritans were suffering from that particularly dangerous sin which attacks those who through religious devotion have conquered other passions, pride, the deadly poison that demons use to attack prelates, monasteries, clergy and anyone who strives for holiness, and which had horribly disfigured the Pharisees and turned them into hypocrites).

And it was the deletion of the lingering remnants of a Christian confession of faith as advocated by early Unitarian Christians like William Ellery Channing, who although heretics, were still Christian, and the substitution of transcendentalism, as advocated by Ralph Waldo Emerson during his disastrous decade as a Unitarian minister before his flamboyant resignation, which, when implemented in the 1960s following the merger of Unitarians with the Universalist Church that turned the UUA from a pair of heterodox Christian denominations into a church which officially describes itself as “post-Christian” and which with the exception of a handful of traditionalist congregations like King’s Chapel in Boston* increasingly engages in a blend of various modes of occult ”spirituality.”

*not to be confused with the pious Reformed church in Brooklyn, New York, which is a bastion of traditional Nicene Christianity.

 

[The Liturgist]

I feel it is imperative to restate this, and to add that we need to stop donating to churches which celebrate the mortal sin of pride as though it were holy along with various forms of sexual perversion, for the same reason, since increasingly the two ideologies are comorbid. Thus if you are a member of a mainline church, since many of these do good work with their charities, my recommendation is to make specific donations to the charities on the ground at the local level, and donate with material or labor rather than cash which can be redistributed if there is any concern of this.

It is imperative we not cut off the various charities connected to the mainline churches that do good work among the homeless and other suffering people, work that I have seen firsthand, and frequently these charities also still retain the participation of more conservative groups which have otherwise disaffiliated with the mainline denominations which support abortion or sexual perversion or oppose humility and holy matrimony and celibacy as defined in the Bible.

As traditional churches grow in size relative to the fast-shrinking mainline churches, traditional Christians need to increase their involvement in these charities in order to be able to wrest control of them from the liberal churches at the appropriate moment, because otherwise at some point in the future they will be perverted in the same way in which the Boy Scouts of America, the YWCA, and other charities have been repurposed towards ends antithetical to their original purpose.

 

[tall73]

One way to contribute locally but not allow any ‘percentage’ to leak into the general denomination would be to pick up a recurring utility bill for the local parish and pay that every month, something like a water bill. For Catholics, one could offer an occasional mass stipend, typically $10 each, or just a gift to a priest. Starve out bad bureaucracy but support good ministers.

Good suggestions.

I feel it is imperative to restate this, and to add that we need to stop donating to churches which celebrate the mortal sin of pride as though it were holy along with various forms of sexual perversion, for the same reason, since increasingly the two ideologies are comorbid. Thus if you are a member of a mainline church, since many of these do good work with their charities, my recommendation is to make specific donations to the charities on the ground at the local level, and donate with material or labor rather than cash which can be redistributed if there is any concern of this.

It is imperative we not cut off the various charities connected to the mainline churches that do good work among the homeless and other suffering people, work that I have seen firsthand, and frequently these charities also still retain the participation of more conservative groups which have otherwise disaffiliated with the mainline denominations which support abortion or sexual perversion or oppose humility and holy matrimony and celibacy as defined in the Bible.

As traditional churches grow in size relative to the fast-shrinking mainline churches, traditional Christians need to increase their involvement in these charities in order to be able to wrest control of them from the liberal churches at the appropriate moment, because otherwise at some point in the future they will be perverted in the same way in which the Boy Scouts of America, the YWCA, and other charities have been repurposed towards ends antithetical to their original purpose.

Also good suggestions in light of downstream effects, which otherwise might not be realized until it is too late.

 

[The Liturgist]

One way to contribute locally but not allow any ‘percentage’ to leak into the general denomination would be to pick up a recurring utility bill for the local parish and pay that every month, something like a water bill. For Catholics, one could offer an occasional mass stipend, typically $10 each, or just a gift to a priest. Starve out bad bureaucracy but support good ministers.

By the way, as far as I am aware, no Roman Catholic dioceses are giving money to pro-abortion causes although there are probably a few radical bishops, for example, some of those advocating for the “Synodal Way” as a means of allowing homosexual marriage in the Catholic Church in Germany, which to his credit Pope Francis is opposing, might want to do such a thing. However at present I think it is largely thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that Roe v. Wade was brought to an end. In fact I would argue that every member of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and every member of the Southern Baptist Church and every member of every other church involved in that, as well as the Supreme Court justices, should have jointly received the Nobel Peace Price, but unfortunately that prize is controlled by a committee of left wing philosophers whose membership is determined by the Parliament of Norway.

 

[chevyontheriver]

By the way, as far as I am aware, no Roman Catholic dioceses are giving money to pro-abortion causes although there are probably a few radical bishops, for example, some of those advocating for the “Synodal Way” as a means of allowing homosexual marriage in the Catholic Church in Germany, which to his credit Pope Francis is opposing, might want to do such a thing. However at present I think it is largely thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that Roe v. Wade was brought to an end. In fact I would argue that every member of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and every member of the Southern Baptist Church and every member of every other church involved in that, as well as the Supreme Court justices, should have jointly received the Nobel Peace Price, but unfortunately that prize is controlled by a committee of left wing philosophers whose membership is determined by the Parliament of Norway.

We see and hear about some crazy immoral groups getting Catholic funding mostly due to inattentiveness by the USCCB, and/or fuzzy statements of purpose by the organizations where they don't actually specify that they are funding abortion or other immoral things. I suspect that there may be a bad USCCB staffer here and there (the GRINDR priest comes to mind as potentially the sort) who might intentionally let some immoral group get funding. Over all I think Catholic funding for such nefarious things will be rare. We do have lots of eyeballs watching that kind of thing too, so it gets caught when it does accidentally happen.

 

[The Liturgist]

We see and hear about some crazy immoral groups getting Catholic funding mostly due to inattentiveness by the USCCB, and/or fuzzy statements of purpose by the organizations where they don't actually specify that they are funding abortion or other immoral things. I suspect that there may be a bad USCCB staffer here and there (the GRINDR priest comes to mind as potentially the sort) who might intentionally let some immoral group get funding. Over all I think Catholic funding for such nefarious things will be rare. We do have lots of eyeballs watching that kind of thing too, so it gets caught when it does accidentally happen.

Indeed, it is unfortunate but there are groups within the Roman Catholic Church that are actively opposed to it, in its present and orthodox form. For example, I recall in the 2000s the trouble caused by a group of disobedient “Nuns on a Bus” as I believe they called themselves. Actually I have heard that several of the orders of women religious which have become non-traditional, no longer wear the habit and are losing vocations at an alarming rate are extremely left-wing in orientation, and this has contributed to their decline.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Indeed, it is unfortunate but there are groups within the Roman Catholic Church that are actively opposed to it, in its present and orthodox form. For example, I recall in the 2000s the trouble caused by a group of disobedient “Nuns on a Bus” as I believe they called themselves. Actually I have heard that several of the orders of women religious which have become non-traditional, no longer wear the habit and are losing vocations at an alarming rate are extremely left-wing in orientation, and this has contributed to their decline.

Ah, the infamous nuns on the bus. There are on the other hand faithful nuns who wear habits, like the Dominicans. No shortage of vocations for them. In fact their biggest problem is where to house all of the new postulants and novices. The bus, on the other hand, will soon enough be empty.

 

[Buzzard3]

Several mainline churches, such as the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and others, actively spend money advocating against the Pro-Life Movement in support of abortion, including “unrestricted pro-choice laws” which permit partial birth abortions in the period immediately preceding natural delivery

Disturbing. Shameful. A mark of the beast.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ah, the infamous nuns on the bus. There are on the other hand faithful nuns who wear habits, like the Dominicans. No shortage of vocations for them. In fact their biggest problem is where to house all of the new postulants and novices. The bus, on the other hand, will soon enough be empty.

Indeed, the traditional monastic communities, for men and women, especially those attached to the Traditional Latin Mass which after being liberated by Pope Benedict is now in shall we say “Custodes” if you will forgive a pun, have no shortage of vocations.

I myself in contemplating a monastic career, which I have done, would not want to attach myself to some of the liberal monastic groups for fear that the Oath of Celibacy might not be properly maintained and that some members might be homosexuals, who according to the ancient canons of the Orthodox Church in the Pedalion, are not eligible for monastic vocations, the language being something like “No man may become a monk out of disdain for womankind” or words to that effect. I can look up the canon if you are interested; it is in the Pedalion if I recall.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Indeed, the traditional monastic communities, for men and women, especially those attached to the Traditional Latin Mass which after being liberated by Pope Benedict is now in shall we say “Custodes” if you will forgive a pun, have no shortage of vocations.

The pun is probably that 'custodians' could also be read, a bit far fetched but actually, as 'jailers'. The Tradition is in the custody of these jailers. Would that they were shepherds.

Quite true that the traditionals grow. The Gower Missouri monastery is a great example. It is not just the TLM associated that thrive, but the likes of the Nashville Dominicans. But then I suppose the Dominican liturgy may not have been as muddled as the novus ordo. Bugnini really made a mess.

I myself in contemplating a monastic career, which I have done, would not want to attach myself to some of the liberal monastic groups for fear that the Oath of Celibacy might not be properly maintained and that some members might be homosexuals, who according to the ancient canons of the Orthodox Church in the Pedalion, are not eligible for monastic vocations, the language being something like “No man may become a monk out of disdain for womankind” or words to that effect. I can look up the canon if you are interested; it is in the Pedalion if I recall.

To be a monastic is to trust in your abbot and to trust whomsoever they report to. I would want to check carefully that the leadership were not tolerating sin nor participating in it. Seems like some say that celibacy just means not to marry. They then self excuse all sorts of unchaste living by others and themselves.

 

[The Liturgist]

The pun is probably that 'custodians' could also be read, a bit far fetched but actually, as 'jailers'. The Tradition is in the custody of these jailers. Would that they were shepherds.

That was my intended pun. Forgive me if I made it too obscure.