|
Addendum October 2003: Understanding the relationship of Fr. David C. Trosch In the light of recent public disclosures (the document has not been updated as of this date) it may be that Archbishop Lipscomb only legally holds office and does not morally do so. In the document, The Essential Priesthood (Legal and Moral Requirements for Catholic Priesthood) and related documents, the difference between being a legal only priest (includes all higher offices) and a moral priest who has valid authority to unite the offerings of faithful Catholics to the one perpetual propitiatory offering of sacrifice at the Last Supper that has been consummated on Calvary (Note: God and offerings united with Jesus' are not constrained or restricted by time). While the legal actions of legal only priests are valid, such legal only priests do not have moral association with the priestly office. Similarly a moral holder of papal office is subject to the foregoing and additionally has the authority to officially expound upon the teachings of Sacred Scripture and to establish, change, or terminate his own disciplinary statements or those of a prior papal office holder whether he holds office either legally only or both morally and legally. Only moral popes would have protection under Canon Law. Legal only popes (non moral office holders, that is, infiltrators, the automatically excommunicated, those guilty of grave public scandal, etc.) have no such protection and can be dealt with in the manner that any lay person can be dealt with; or, as civil circumstance may present, as a criminal. Cardinals and the various levels of bishop other than a pope have restricted authority over their designated segment of the Church. Within that jurisdiction they have binding authority provided that the use of such authority does not act in opposition to any higher teaching or moral authority. Note: Not even a pope has the authority to diminish or countermand a teaching of God found in the Holy Bible, or an established official teaching of the Church bound under the authority of any morally ordained and morally consecrated pope. Any unjust action on the part of a bishop at any level of the Church, including that of a pope, is not morally binding and may on an individual basis be treated as non existing. Those recognizing the injustice are not bound by any legal restrictions in relation to such priest. This does not mean that legal authority of a bishop does not exist in the civil arena. Until removed from office by higher authority or by mandate of faithful Catholics, the legal actions of a bishop are legally valid. This would include the ordination of men to the priesthood and the making of binding civil contracts to the degree they cannot be legally overturned in relation to canonical and civil law. If Archbishop Lipscomb was morally not a valid subject for ordination then any moral decision he might make would not be binding except as would be in agreement with higher written and moral authorities. If he came under automatic excommunication following moral ordination (heresy including opposition to the teachings of the whole of Sacred Scripture and other true teachings of faith) or was guilty of grave scandal, then he (or any bishop) would cease to have morally binding authority. No member of the faith would be bound to any of his directives. To knowingly support a non moral priest or bishop (parish and/or diocese), financially or in any other manner, would be mortally sinful. To not be interested in the morality of one's parish priest or the diocesan bishop would also be mortally sinful if one could reasonably be aware of such condition. Disinterest in the authenticity of the teachings and the teachers of the faith should be understood as condemnatory. The Holy Trinity wants us to be in unity and harmony with them on their terms. Dissenters and the disinterested are subjects for the fires of Hell. About Fr. Trosch
The developer and principal author of this web site is Fr. David C. Trosch. He became well known in newspapers and magazines worldwide for his cartoon (colorized cartoon). In graphic terms the cartoon raised philosophical questions concerning Justifiable Homicide, specifically whether abortion providers may be killed as a moral means of defense for the innocent unborn. Fr. Trosch has been the focus of attention on many regional, national, and international television shows such as: Geraldo, Rolonda, Christina, Dateline, Today Show, Margie Clapprood Show, Investigative Reports, Conspiracy Tapes, etc. He has also been on radio talk shows from New York City to Los Angeles. He has been the cause of much controversy and the focus of much opposition. Fr. Trosch's belief, and the belief of many others, is that a human being exists from the instant of conception; that it is cold blooded heartless murder to willfully take the life of such innocent person regardless of motivation; that each human being has the right to be defended even if it means the deaths of unjust aggressors. The official teaching of his Church, the Roman Catholic Church, is that the intentionally caused death of any innocent person, from the instant of conception onward, is murder (Catechism of the Catholic Church; The Gospel of Life). In his early twenties Father Trosch was drafted into military service and on completion of his term of service received an honorable discharge. He achieved success as business manager and owner prior to entering seminary at the age of forty-two. He was ordained for and served as priest in the archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama until restricted by his bishop for his public position on defensive action. their attention toward peace with man in preference to peace with God. Father Trosch believes that justice will only be achieved through religious unity, via truth understood by sound reasoning based on natural law and on the revealed Word of God. Contra productive controversies and differences which exist among people claiming belief in the One True and Universal God need to be eliminated. Father Trosch is a Roman Catholic priest who disagrees with most bishops and priests and is still in good moral standing with God and good legal standing with His Church. He is not under any censure. No formal process is underway. Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb has removed his faculties1 to act publicly in the name of the Church leaving him in the condition of a newly ordained priest. The archbishop's action was an unreasoned response based on common humanistic values ordinary to those focused primarily upon this life. The priests, scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees who questioned Jesus were also opposed to truth. 1Can. 1342 §2 Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by means of a decree; nor can penalties which the law or precept establishing them forbids to be applied by decree. QUESTION: How can a priest be in good standing with his Church and with God and be in opposition to all ranks of the priesthood within the Catholic Church? ANSWER: A priest who accepts in faith all of the formal teachings of his Church remains in good standing with the Church and with God. When bishops, priests, and other pseudo members of the Church do not adhere to formal teachings, they do not act according to God's will. They are not members of the spiritual Church. They are only members of the temporal church of earth. Therefore, when a bishop is in opposition to truth his directives must be rejected and his authority subordinated to the actual will of God. Commentary on Hierarchial Structure of Church.Remarks and References concerning the authority of Jesus.
I have presented many position papers to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church,
to ministers and members of other churches, to pro-life organizations, to news
media, and to people in various parts of the world. The Born are at WAR with the Unborn
The principle purpose of this service is to provide information in regard to the moral and ethical protection of innocent unborn people.Since the deaths of Dr. David Gunn in 1993, Dr. John Britton and escort James Barrett in 1994, there has been much information made available to religious leaders, civil leaders, and the general public in regard to direct defense of the innocent unborn in the womb. Thus far most all religious and civil leaders have proven themselves to be either cowardly or hypocritical. Society as a whole has reacted no differently. Practically speaking truth and morality are now taking second place to diplomacy and humanistic considerations. The effective position of religious leaders is little different than the position of atheists or agnostics. On judgement day it is probable that non-believers will be sentenced to a cooler place in Hell than many proclaiming to be believers in God. SLAVERY / CHATTELS (Chattelhood):According to present interpretation of law human beings begin life as chattels. These innocent humans are legally considered as property. From the instant of conception they are deemed to lack the character of personhood even though lack of humanity from conception onward has never been established. As chattels the position of the unborn is similar to, identical with, or even worse than the position of black slaves when they were declared chattels by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the 19th century. (Chattels can be tortured, sexually abused (raped), killed, etc. at the discretion of their owners.) Civil law has removed all of the ability of slaves and the unborn to obtain even minimal protection against injustice. Further, no one is legally able to do much in regard to providing basic human rights for them. The underlying position of non-personhood in regard to the unborn was developed from Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, but has never been substantiated or declared as fact. Lack of personhood has never been proven. DICHOTOMY: The pre-born can inherit, but can also be murdered. LEGAL NOTE: A father could will his estate to his child in the womb. The mother could have herself named legal guardian of the child. She could then write a will for the child naming herself as beneficiary in the event of the child's death and then kill the child in order to inherit it's estate. It would all be legal and without civil penalty. Murder charges can be brought against anyone except the mother who intentionally kills a child in the womb. A child's mother can have him/her murdered at will without fear of civil consequences. Pro-choice arguments now focus more upon the progressive establishment of rights at various stages and conditions of life. A mother's right to have her unborn child murdered takes precedence over any right of the child. Few if any states have ever convicted anyone of 1st degree murder of a child. Teenagers have less equal legal protection than adults. In some countries women have less protection against injury and death than do men. A basic right to life for the innocent should exist equally for all, or we might as well go back to the days when many carried guns and the ability to quick draw and shoot straight made right. IMPORTANTThis service is also intended to provide a forum for |
