The pope was not aware that the bishop was a holocaust denier when he lifted his excommunication, and has since released a statement that the bishop would have to renounce his beliefs if he wanted to have any episcopal functions. Regardless, this is becoming a huge event, with “controversy” and “scandal” being thrown around by the media. One church official asked for the pope to resign because of it. Others are saying that the bishop's beliefs are too horrible for him to be a Christian. Vienna's cardinal and archbishop said, “He who denies the holocaust cannot be rehabilitated within the church”.
This whole problem instantly vanishes if we get rid of the idea that the pope has the power to grant or relinquish salvation to or from a person (again, see my explanation in the comments below--excommunication does deny a man salvation because it cuts off a man from receiving the Eucharist, per Catholic belief). Being a Protestant, I'm sure you won't be surprised at my belief that only Jesus holds the keys to salvation, and no man, including the pope, can take it away. The entire notion of being excommunicated and rehabilitated is not scriptural and rather silly, and this controversy would not be one if the catholic church abandoned it.
One thing I find interesting is that many people want this bishop to be denied eternal salvation because of his twisted view of history. The holocaust is an historical event that really happened and affected millions upon millions of lives. The tragedy of it is hard to encapsulate with words and is certainly undeniable by any rational person. But we live in a free society. We should be free to be irrational. Yes the holocaust was horrible, but to deny a man salvation because he doesn't believe it happened? That seems a bit much.
Some people don't believe we ever landed on the moon. Are they nuts? Yeah. But they are free to be nuts. A man's eternal salvation should not be dependent on his acceptance of history. It should only depend one one thing: does he love Jesus? That's what the Bible says, and last I checked, Christians were all about the Bible. The bishop believes many crazy things—that the U.S. planned and executed 9/11, and that all Protestants (like me) receive orders from the devil—but his salvation is personal and between him and Jesus. This is just one example where I think certain practices of my Catholic brothers and sisters lead to unneeded controversy and a whole bunch of useless messiness.
One thing that is frustrating me about this “controversy” is how it has spread like a wildfire within the media. Everyone with a keyboard and an opinion (yours truly) is writing an article, firing off any letters and thoroughly bashing the pope—most of whom aren't Christians. The German chancellor said “This should not be allowed to pass without consequences”. Excuse me, but I thought the world wanted to be SEPARATE from Christianity? I thought we had a division of powers, and that we all wanted to live in a happy little utopia where all the real and important things happened in the secular world and all those silly Christians with their silly beliefs kept them private and within themselves? Then what the heck are you doing telling Christians who can and cannot be part of their faith? Who the hell are you to tell the pope that he has to excommunicate some guy for believing some way? This is a Christian matter! It doesn't concern you! Why do you care?
What is even more outrageous, to me, about how the media is handling this is how they completely ignore Muslims. Hello, am I the only one to remember this, but did or did not the president of Iran—a Muslim nation that is working on building nuclear weapons—recently head a big-ol' get together with all of his fascist buddies and have a “scientific conference” about the “realities” of the holocaust? Did or did he not invite the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan to be a guest speaker? And does or does he not continue, to this day, to deny the holocaust, chalk it up to being some big global scam by “Zionist Jews” so that they can take over the world, and does he or does he not continue to threaten Israel with violence?
When has the Pope threatened Israel with violence? When has he denied the holocaust? When did he hold a conference with all his Christian pals and invite Klan members, and where is he building his nukes? It seems to me that the world is in serious need of some perspective.
Hello! The pope is not the problem! The pope is no threat to you! You want to throw a tantrum about people being insensitive? Iran is that way! Forgive me if I take no grievances by the Jewish community or by world leaders against the pope seriously while they completely ignore Iran. The day world leaders publicly show outrage where it is deserved is the day I start to care about their little feelings.
References:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5653201.ece
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8f87fb2a7e55fa1a4415bdfd6c915b3e.521&show_article=1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_jews
Posts
25 comments:
That was definitely interesting. I was thrilled to find out a while back that you're a Protestant Christian, like myself. It seems hard to find many on the internet these days.
BTW, if you could follow me on twitter, I'm briancrawmer. That would be great.
I'll look into your sources soon, this is all really interesting.
I suppose it's times like this when we humans can do one of two things to handle our own utter preverseness: laugh or cry.
Personally, for the most part, I choose "never learn in the first place" because I just don't want to know.
And as for the bishop . . . really, why care all that much? People will be people and giving him masses of publicity isn't helping.
But I agree: the problem goes deeper, right down to the belief that humans can give or take salvation. But it goes deeper than that: humans will sin.
Darn it.
Great work. New subscriber. Kids love it and I do too.
Excommunication in the Catholic Church is a legal penalty within the Church having nothing to do whatever with eternal salvation. Specifically, an excommunicated person is prohibited from acting as the celebrant in Catholic ceremonies; from governing; from acquiring a title or office or from benefiting from any title or office; or from receiving the Sacraments. The word means to put outside of fellowship. (see the Code of Canon Law http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM )
The Catholic Church does not claim that she can send someone to hell or to heaven. Only God can do that. This is a common misconception.
You may be interested to know that Jesus gave the Keys to His Kingdom to Peter and gave Him (and the other apostles as well) authority to bind and loose in heaven (Matt 16:19; 18:18). Additionally, Jesus established the criteria for excommunication in Matt 18:15-17. You'll note that the criteria Jesus establishes in the Gospels for excommunication deals with how a person is treated by the Church (namely, like a gentile or tax collector), rather than the person's eternal salvation. The whole process is meant to prompt reconciliation rather than to punish. See 2 Thes 3:14-15; 1 Tim 5:19-20; Dt 19:15-21 for more.
"The German chancellor said “This should not be allowed to pass without consequences”. Excuse me, but I thought the world wanted to be SEPERATE from Christianity?"
Germany has an official position on holocaust deniers, ie it is illegal in Germany to deny the holocaust. From her point of view, this is a prosecutable offense.
"Forgive me if I take no grievances by the Jewish community or by world leaders against the pope seriously while they completely ignore Iran. The day world leaders publicly show outrage where it is deserved is the day I start to care about their little feelings."
The Jews are outraged by Iran, outraged when the Iranian leader hosted a conference of deniers. This is the latest dust-up, so of course it's getting attention
interesting story, and your take on it synced up with me a bit. I have to say, there are a lot of people in this world who ignore these kind of things...
*snap!* maybe the next step down from Holocaust denial is Iranian Fascism denial!
PS: didn't know you were Protestant, mate. ;)
"The German chancellor said “This should not be allowed to pass without consequences”. Excuse me, but I thought the world wanted to be SEPERATE from Christianity?"
The chancellor of Germany is a Protestant Christian,too. And I don't get it why you would argue, that it is an in-group matter? By your reasoning you should not have an opinion either, since it is a Catholic matter and maybe not even most Catholics should bother, since it is an administration problem in the Vatican.
Furthermore Holocaust denial is a federal crime in Germany and the bishop in question did the interview on German soil, so he did break the law. Even though you might find it silly in terms of free speech, but Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany and is treated as such. Therefore the chancellor has every right for clarification beyond a statement of good will.
I may not be a catholic, but I am a Christian. I feel that makes this an issue that concerns me.
And the Pope doesn't live in Germany. The Vatican is not in Germany. Not all Christians are Germans. German law does not apply to the world. The German chancellor doesn't have the right to demand anything from the Pope or Christians.
You did not get my point, I never said that German law applies to the Vatican or any other country on the planet. Why are you turning to this red herring?
Bishop Williamson did a prosecutable crime on German soil and you did not even get the whole statement of the chancellor right (sorry but quoting the worst yellow press paper in the country BILD does not help). She did not ask for the prosecution of Williamson or that he be handed over to German authorities, she merely asked the pope for clarification, since at the time there was no statement at all coming from the Vatican. And furthermore the outrage on her statement was not by all Christians, but by Catholics bashing her for being Protestant.
I haven't seen any evidence of her being bashed by Catholics for being Protestant. I am a Protestant, and thought she was out of line. And No head of state has the right to demand anything--apology, clarification or what have you--from a religious figure. Church and state are separate, right?
You have a weird view on what applies for seperation of church and state. Of course she has the right, just as the pope has any right to demand apologies or clarifications on similar matters.
It seems to me a little strange to rail for free speech on the jawdropping views of a bishop, while declaring that someone else has no right for a reasonable comment or for demanding a clarification.
Normally i agree with your blog posts, but what you're saying here is... I'm not sure how to put it. Wrong? warped? never mind. the point of the comment is this:
Getting into heaven requires unconditonal love of our lord Jesus, right? Now, are you telling me there is someone out there who can completely unconditionally love someone, and yet deny that the murder of thousands of innocent people ever happened, purely because HE thinks it's unlikely/made up? I don't think so. You're right in saying that the Pope cannot stop people from going to heaven, but this man isn't going. He could have it proved to him time and time again that Jesus is our saviour, and while he may love him, he will not love him unconditionally. This argument probably has lots of flaws, so if you could highlight them i'll refine it.
oh, hang on... You didn't say he was going to heaven... whoops. sorry.
Yeah, I never defended the man or said he is going to heaven--I explicitly denounced him. I argue, however, that salvation comes from Jesus, not the pope or the church. And to an earlier commenter, when you are excommunicated from the Catholic church, you are forbidden to partake of the Eucharist. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is essential for salvation. Thus, excommunication is an essential barring from salvation.
And I apologize for saying that the chancellor has no right to demand an apology from Christians. I did not mean it. Of course, in a free society, she has the right to say what she wants. I will point out that denying the holocaust is a part of free speech, so evidently there is not true free speech in Germany (or anywhere else in the world, I will argue), but whatever. I am saying, though, that inner-Christendom discipline and politics, as annoying and stupid as they are, are entirely Christian matters--it is none of anyone else's business. If the secular world ever wants to make the argument that religious people expressing a political opinion or being involved in politics is a contradiction to Thomas Jefferson's separation of church and state (which I do not believe it is) then they are being hypocritical to mess with explicitly church affairs.
Brandon,
The Catholic Church does not teach that excommunicated persons cannot go to heaven. You may believe that or you may believe that the Catholic Church holds such a view, but either way you would be incorrect.
You appear to misunderstand the teachings of the Catholic Church on salvation, grace and the sacraments, as well. I would warmly invite you to read or at least reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church when making claims about what the Catholic Church teaches. This book is an authoritative collection of the teachings of the Catholic Church and is published online for free at many sites. You may also purchase a copy at Amazon or any large bookstore.
Using a reference such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church when making a claim such as the one that you make in your post and in a subsequent comment would make it appear that you are reasoned, fair and have a clue. Otherwise, in all fairness, you come off a bit clueless to your readers who are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Please read my previous response concerning excommunication and salvation. I will outline it with sources here, and edit my post directing viewers to this explanation. Forgive me when I use online sources, for my book on church history was lost when I lent it to a friend.
1)When one is excommunicated from the Catholic church, he is forbidden from participating in the Eucharist.
Source: http://arcc-catholic-rights.net/politicization_of_the_eucharist.htm
2)Jesus says, "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you”, in John 6:54. Catholics believe this to mean that unless you partake of the Eucharist, you are not saved—that is, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
3)Therefore, it logically follows that any person who is excommunicated loses his salvation for he is unable to partake of the Eucharist. Thus, when we put the power of excommunication--the “cutting-off” of a man from the church—in the hands of a man, we are placing eternal salvation in the hands of a man.
This is not biblical, and this is the danger of institutionalizing a man-made organization that wields spiritual power (power being distinguished from authority). My catholic brothers and sisters are still my Christian brothers and sisters. My simple belief is just that there is much to Catholicism that is needless and gets in the way of evangelizing.
Brandon,
Under your logic no Protestant could ever be saved since no Protestant believes the Eucharist to be the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus as He declared in John 6.
Your logic is still your own and not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Your reference does not demonstrate your point that anyone without the ability to receive the Eucharist is denied salvation.
I'm sure you can do better than this. Try using the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I dare you.
It's not my logic. I reference you to both links, written by Catholics, about Catholic faith.
Personally? I do not believe that you have to take communion on a regular basis to be saved. I believe it is a ritual Christians practice to show commitment to Christ and solidarity with each other. I believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said "this is my flesh" and "this is my blood" just like he was speaking figuratively when he went into the room, looked at the dead girl and said, "she is only sleeping". These are just parts of the age-old disagreements that make Christians different. But we are all, Protestants and Catholics, Christians.
My references demonstrate that;
A) Catholic belief demands a believer to partake of the Eucharist to be saved; and
B) Excommunication strips from a believer the freedom to partake of the Eucharist.
Those two realities are indisputable. They cannot be called "my arguments" or "your arguments" or "what Protestants believe". These are Catholic teachings that pertain to Catholics. To remain logically consistent, both must be true at the same time.
This means that excommunicated believers, under Catholic belief, cannot partake of communion, and that those same believers, unable to partake of communion, cannot be saved.
This is not my reasoning. These are not my arguments. This is the reality of Catholic teaching, and I have provided links to Catholic teachers to demonstrate it.
What makes you think that I haven't read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I have read nothing in the Catechism that makes the above two points false. The only argument you can reasonably make at this time is that Catholics truly do not teach that
A) you must partake of the Eucharist to be saved; and
B) Excommunication strips from a believer the freedom to partake of the Eucharist.
Where, in the Catechism, does it deny either of those two points? I have provided evidence that it doesn't. The burden of proof is now upon you to show that it does. If you can't, then Catholics teach that the pope has the keys to salvation.
I am truly delighted that the controversial part of my post has centered around this rather than Nazis or racism or free speech. This is far less tedious :)
I thank you for writing this Brandon.
Brandon,
Thanks for your response. Nowhere in Catholic teaching is it found that partaking in the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation. Your argument is based upon this error. The effects of the Eucharist are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which I urge you to reference), paragraphs 1391-1405. While it is impossible for me (or anyone else) to prove a negative, I will add that the Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for someone who has never received the Eucharist or who has never known the Gospel to be saved. See paragraph 846.
The offending bishop in question has been suppressed by his religious order and stripped of his teaching position (He lives in Argentina, BTW). He has issued an apology and has offered to reexamine the evidence. Rome has told him that he needs to recant his position in order to preserve his position as a bishop. Short of burning him at the stake, I'm not sure what else is to be done in this matter.
Leave it to the media, however, to find some way to draw this out and incite some angst in Jewish groups.
You are right--I can't find anywhere in the Catechism that says that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. It seems this stance was more or less understood in the past, which is why excommunication was such a serious penalty during the middle ages, and indeed, it seems that this notion is assumed by many Catholics today, as evidenced by the links I presented earlier, but, apparently, it is not what Catholicism teaches. That is very good to know!
However, upon inspecting the Catechism further, I stumbled upon this:
"...the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation..." (Paragraph 846)
Which seems to leave us back where we started, and in a much simpler way. If a man, excommunicated from the Catholic Church, is no longer a formal member of the church, then he, according to paragraph 846, cannot be saved. Therefore, any man who has the power to kick another man out of the Catholic Church in effect has the power to deny him salvation.
What boggles the mind about this Catechism is the immediately following paragraph:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." (Paragraph 846)
First, this seems a blatant contradiction to the previous paragraph. Under a header that reads "Outside the Church there is no salvation" the Catechism claims that the church is necessary for salvation, and yet immediately afterward it claims that those who do not know Christ and the church may achieve eternal salvation. Contradiction much?
Which leads me to a complaint as a Protestant. I do not believe that anyone who does not know and love Jesus can be saved. Yes, this includes the millions of people who have never had the opportunity to hear of Christ because they live in the dark and remote corners of the world. God has not granted them grace, just as he has not granted the Muslim or the atheist grace--he did not elect them. Not for any fault of their own any greater than our faults, but simply because he chose, in his infinite wisdom, to make us vessels of mercy, as Paul so keenly penned, and others not.
But here we have in the Catechism the bold and mad statement that a man can be saved by simply following his conscience! What logic is this? How can this be Christian doctrine? How many people have done horrible things because, following their conscience, they thought it was right? How many other cultures are there on this earth that have practices, like polygamy, female circumcision, and child marriage, that are abominable in every way, and believe so many superstitions that are entirely apart from Christ? Can any member of these societies, following their conscience to the best of their ability, and believing such superstitions and partaking in such practices as any good man of conscience would, find the same eternal salvation as one who loves and follows Jesus?
Last time I checked, Jesus words still were, "I am the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE can come unto the father BUT THROUGH ME". Not via his own conscience. Jesus is the ONLY way, and this means that all those who do not believe in and love him, will not be saved. As hard a pill as that is to swallow, it is the reality of our faith. Denying it does our own movement a disservice.
It's actually a crime in Germany to deny the Holocaust so the German chancellor kinda had a cultural stance for what she said.
Also there is a large number of studies done that directly infer that as long as a child has a stable family it doesn't matter what relation/gender types they have. As long as life is stable (little fighting, steady income, safe home... you get the idea) they can have two mommies or a mom and dad and grow up to be perfectly healthy.
The notion of the 'nuclear family' is something of an American myth. In fact nothing suggests that when it was common to have a married couple, male and female, heading the family that things were/are better than same sex or single parent households. In fact evidence shows nothing of the sort and I'll cite again studies showing that as I said before... stable families are the healthiest.
I would actually like to have a conversation with you about religion I've never had the pleasure of speaking directly to someone faithful about why they are that way and would find it interesting.
Brandon,
Thanks for your reply.
Indeed, the Catholic Church does not teach and has never taught that excommunication results in a denial of salvation. Having said that, in the middle ages excommunication was a much more serious matter than today because this ecclesiastical penalty often resulted in civil penalties as were common in England from the Reformation until the mid 19th century. Known as the Penal Codes, professing Catholics were subject to civil prosecution including the death penalty. Government enforcement of religious rules were once commonplace.
You might imagine that a conscientious Christian who didn’t agree with the Church, whether the Catholic Church in the middle ages or the Church of England in the 17th century would be very afraid of being excommunicated not because he might be denied salvation but because he might be denied his livelihood or even his life by the state! Much different today were one has the freedom to follow one’s conscience without fear from government reprisals (at least in the West).
You bring up a few issues regarding salvation and church membership. I’ll try to address them briefly.
Nobody who knows that the Catholic Church is the same Church that Jesus founded and is necessary for salvation can be saved unless that person joins or remains in the Catholic Church. This is what paragraph 846 says. Excluded from this is anyone who doesn’t know. Excommunication is a quite separate matter and does not deal with this at all. It would be helpful for you to see these as two independent matters.
Secondly, you mention those who are not members of the Catholic Church. Certainly, God would not send to hell a person that he did not permit or did not send grace to know Jesus and His Church. God does not create persons that are on a one-way trip to hell. Scripture says, “God wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth.” 1 Tim 2:4.
God may, in some way unknown to us, save anyone He wants. We, his creatures are bound by the Gospel. Paragraph 847 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that a person who doesn’t know the Gospel must first be moved by God’s grace. Nobody is saved by his or her own efforts. Salvation is by grace. A sincere following of the heart and mind must follow Grace. Grace leads to Christ and His Church. The Catholic Church acknowledges that God may save anybody He chooses if that person is sincere and follows the dictates of his or her own conscience. Unfortunately, twisted by sin, most are not sincere, cannot see the truth or are unable or unwilling to follow their own conscience. The Grace of God in Christ transforms us as Scripture says, Jesus came to find and save the lost; not lose and damn the saved.
"I do not believe that anyone who does not know and love Jesus can be saved. Yes, this includes the millions of people who have never had the opportunity to hear of Christ because they live in the dark and remote corners of the world."
I don't believe this is a correct view to have. From my knowledge, Jesus didn't die on the cross to save a select group of people. He died to open the gates of heaven to all mankind and remove sin. If I recall correctly, he even frequently forgave those who opposed him, including his executioners. So to say that only Christians can be saved doesn't seem logical, when Christ himself died for everyone.
Surely someone who frequently gives to charity and promotes pacifism, yet has never heard of God is more worthy of salvation than a Catholic who murders a man? After all, doing good is the work of God, and his work is what he commands us to do.
God created mankind in his image, and gave them the freewill to make the good and bad choices in life. If it was God's will to have everyone worship him, would he not have simply taken our free will away? It doesn't seem to me that God, who loves his creation, would deny any loving soul salvation for not believing in him.
I can't back up my words with references to the Bible, as I personally don't believe it should be taken literally. These are just my personal beliefs.
On the subject of the Bishop, I don't believe this an 'outrage' at the Bishop having his beliefs as a person, but more about a Bishop having those beliefs as a Bishop.
Again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me like the public expect high standards of behavior from the Church. As a person he is unquestionably allowed to have his beliefs, but as a Bishop he should know better than to make them known.
Glad to finally see some Christians about and not just another rant about religion being the worst thing in the world by Aethiests. Love your work Brandon.
I saw this and I couldn't resist. I'll do my best not to repeat previous posters, but if I do, I apologize.
You make a good point that a person's salvation should not be dependent upon their acceptance / rejection of history. That is presumably primarily an intellectual question, and normally would not impact any aspect of the person's soul or fitness for heaven (provided, of course, that the person's rejection of history is done in intellectual honesty and not as the result of hatred or some such which has twisted and corrupted their soul to the point of intellectual dishonestly - for the sake of arguement I will assume that does not apply here). However, the bishop in question, by his office, has accepted the additional responsibilities that come with his ordination and subsequent promotion to that office. Those responsibilities include teaching the truth to the extent that truth has been defined. Now, there are plenty of areas of ambiguity where there is ample room for honest intellectual debate, but even a (intellectually honest) casual student of history would not deny the Holocaust's existence.
Would a normal person who believed such things be excommunicated? No. This biship has the additional burden of his visibility and his teaching authority within the Church. As such, the higher office one possesses within the Church, the more scrutiny placed on that individual as a sort of quality control over who is spiritually leading the faithful.
The Church cannot afford to suffer such foolhardiness and error from one who sits in a position of authority - remember the priests who molested boys? Such is the nature of the Church (the body of Christ on earth) that we are all harmed by disease in a portion of the body. This has tended to be magnified by the media, but even in the absence of media, spiritual corruption still exists.
In addressing the Church's authority to exile someone from the community via excommunication, I believe poster Gil Garza explained that quite well in his most recent post. In addition, for a person to be deemed so damaging to the body of Christ on earth that the only way to protect the community is to excommunicate that person, that individual has already committed acts to divorce themselves from their relationship with God, and thus would not be worthily receiving the Eucharist anyway. In addition to Jesus's mandate that we receive his body and blood via the Eucharist, he also says that to receive him "unworthily" (meaning without true intent to better oneself and become more Jeus-like; understood within the Church to mean receiving Communion while in the state of mortal sin) is to be eating and drinking judgment.
I do enjoy your comment about us "silly Christians and our silly beliefs" and the secular utopia where all the important things happen.
Also, as it has been made abundantly clear, to excommunicate is not to deny eternal salvation (unless the person dies without reconciling with the Church) because excommunication need not be permanent.
Allow me to respond to "This whole problem instantly vanishes if we get rid of the idea that the pope has the power to grant or relinquish salvation to or from a person" briefly - difficulty or no, hairy issues or no, ethical quandaries or no - none of this matters. What matters is whether or not it is true - the Truth (God being Truth personified, among other things) is the ultimate quest, no? And apparently the debate over whether or not this is true is proceeding vociferously. :)
I would love to continue, but I fear my alchohol tolerance is shamefully low for an Irish Catholic ...
I thought this article was very interesting. I personally belive that only God has the power to give or take life or salvation. Every religion has their own beliefs but in this case, i feel that it is somewhat of a contradiction for the pope to denounce the bishop for his non-belief of the holocaust if he has alrdy accepted him back into the fold. He should have done his research on the bishop before doing so. JMO.
Post a Comment