More on Kerry's claims to be Catholic

Remove all ads!

By special request, I'm opening this thread. In the very beginning, let us make one think clear, in bold:

This is not a separation of church from state problem.

Also, please don't reply if you haven't read the opening post in full. Thank you. Also, don't post if you only want to say that it actually is a separation of church from state problem, thank you again. Now, let's move on:

Presidential candidate Kerry claims to be a practicing Catholic and receives Holy Communion under Catholic rite in public, while at the same time he publicly propagates a different program and a different morality to that of the Church with which he claims affiliation.

Let's make one more thing clear, in bold:

No one is telling Kerry how to vote. What is demanded of him is that he either be Catholic or stop calling himself one.

Following from freedom of religion, every church is free to choose its moral teachings. If every church is, then the Catholic Church as well.

ERGO: the Catholic Church is free to choose its teachings.

If the Catholic Church is free to choose its teachings, then:

1. It's not Kerry who does it.

2. The Church can also decide what is in accordance with them and what is not.

ERGO: The Church, basing on freedom of religion, can decide if Kerry's individual program and policy is in accordance with that of the Church. Also, basing on freedom of expression, the Church is free to announce its stance on the subject.

Now let's take freedom of association. Basically, freedom of association relies on being able to choose with whom you want to associate and with whom not.

ERGO: The Catholic Church can choose not to associate with Kerry.

ERGO: The Church can't be forced to associate with Kerry.

ERGO: The Church can disclaim association with Kerry.

What if we actually force the Church to associate with Kerry? As proven above, it would violate freedom of association.

What about freedom of conscience then?

News, in bold: No one is telling Kerry what to believe. Basing on his beliefs, he either believes Catholic or not, as a statement of fact.

If we still insist that he should be allowed to claim affiliation with the church despite publicly opposing it, then we actually dictate to the Church what should be allowed in it and considered acceptable.

Now: freedom of conscience again. Freedom of conscience relies on being able to consider things acceptable or inacceptable to you according to your own criteria. Absent that, there is no freedom of conscience.

Therefore, if we forced the Church to accept Kerry's own doctrine as consistent with the Church's doctrine, we would infringe on the right of the Catholic Church and its members to freedom of conscience.

Also, every organisation is accorded the right to accept and dismiss members according to its own criteria. If we deprived the Roman Catholic Church of that right, we would employ restrictions against it that are not employed against other organisations. That would infringe on equality.

Also, a restriction which is not substantially based in the law if it's exercised by authorities, infringes on freedom in its most basic understanding. That would be the case if we authoritatively forbad the Church from disclaiming affiliation with Kerry.

The list of rights infringed:

• freedom
• equality
• freedom of conscience
• freedom of religion
• freedom of association
• freedom of expression

Grand total: 6 rights.

Let me, once again, politely remind that it's nothing to do with separation of church from state.

Thoughts?

 

If the Catholic Church chooses to deny its association with Kerry, then that is its business. However, as long as he continues to identify himself as a Roman Catholic and continues to receive Holy Communion as a Catholic without any objection from the Church, the vast majority Americans will consider him a Catholic (for good or for ill).

Another point is that some people consider their denomination as part of their heritage more than what they truly believe; for example, someone might say that they are Catholic in the same way that one would say that he is an Englishman. I am not saying that I approve of this, however, that is what I have seen. Perhaps this is the case with Kerry, but I cannot be sure.

Despite all of this, I will agree that Kerry's views are not consistant with Catholic teachings.

 

This is the one "Kerry" issue that causes me the most concern. As a Roman Catholic, it hits close to home...but the same concern should be raised within the minds of everyone, regardless of your particular faith or doctrine.

John Kerry demonstrates a fundamental inability to reconcile his professed personal morality with publically demonstrated actions...this should be a HUGE red flag to any potential voter. I would have more respect for him if he were to simply state that "his views were no longer consistent with Church teaching" and withdrew from Communion with the Church. This is a sign of weakness and cowardice, elements that make him highly suspect as a suitable Chief Executive.

Now, before you red-eyed Liberals post about the relative morality and integrity of Bush...keep those comments to yourself, or start another thread. We are discussing the integrity and personal accountability of John Kerry...those vital personal characteristics are in no way mitigated by the actions of others. If all you can say is "yeah...but, but...Bush is worser", then we will consider Kerry Guilty as charged , and proceed with the sentencing phase of the trial .

Oh, and chev...damn you for starting a thread that you knew I'd have to reply to .

 

What!? John Kerry is an elected representative of the State of Massachusetts. When he ran for that office, the people of that state believed that they were electing a public official who would represent them and the issues of which they were concerned to the United States Senate. They did not elect the RCC, nor did they elect the Pope; they elected a man who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the State of Massachusettes and the US Constitution. If you believe in democracy, and that the People have the right to chose whom they elect to office to represent their interests, then how could Kerry vote under the direction of the RCC? If, and if ever there is a time that the laws of this country are indentical to the decrees of Rome, then by all means bring the demands of the RCC into the policial mix of issues into the politics of America.

There has only ever been one President that I know of who has been Catholic - JFK. The arguement against him at the time was that he would not be able to choose between the decrees of Rome and those of the United States. The accusations proved unfounded at the time, and JFK went on to become one of our most patriotic of Presidents, IMO. As someone who would like to see more Catholics elected because of OTHER issues on which we agree, I find that comment - curious. BTW, abortion is LEGAL in America at the present time. There may be some who are not aware that the Supreme Court has said as much.

Many of us "RED EYED LIBERALS" share some of the same values of the Catholic Church: we oppose poverty and we believe that the sick should receive treatment, which is something that I know the Catholic Church agrees with. I know this because I have attended Catholic Masses here in Houston, and the man standing at the altar had said as much. And I will take him by his word as an official representative of the Roman Catholic Church.

But there is that one issue, which is at the root of this debate: abortion. Come up with another and I would be glad to consider it. Those who would see the poor go without healthcare and go hungry because of their "Christian beliefs" may want to consider that there is more than one issue to this debate. Oh, but then we would have to consider Shrub's failure on OTHER ISSUES besides abortion. So, let's ignore those.

[ June 21, 2004, 02:51: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

1) It seems to me that there is far more to Catholicism than the Vatican's current stance on abortion, stem cell research, birth control, or any other red button issue. One could be a Methodist and have the exact same views on these issues, but that wouldn't make one a Catholic, as the church doctrines are of course different. One becomes a Catholic through baptism, catechism, and affirming the creeds of the church. Communion and confession are important to one's spiritual life, but not necessary for being at least nominally a Catholic. If John Kerry can go to church on sunday and affirm that he believes the creeds of the Catholic church, then he's by definition a Catholic. One doesn't follow up the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds with the Anti-Abortion Creed, nor must one recite in any liturgy the church's stance against stem cell research. Certainly, the Catholic church has a position against abortion and stem cell research, but it also has alot of other positions about alot of other things, and I don't expect that you have to check yourself off on each of these in order to be a Catholic.

2) In spite of the claim of the papacy to be infallible, church doctrine does in fact change. Think back on the Second Vatican Council; certainly there were a number of Catholics who supported the position changes of 2VC before 2VC, and were these people any less Catholics before 2VC? Or are the current day critics of 2VC (perhaps including you, Chev?) any less Catholic for their opposition to 2VC? Mel Gibson's pa thinks the pope isn't really a pope, nor has the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church had a pope been since 2VC; is he a Catholic? And what's to stop the Catholic church from modifying its position on stem cell research?

3) The whole excommunication thing is a joke. Never going to happen. The Catholic church didn't bother to excommunicate baptized Catholics like Mussolini and Goebbels, nor did it excommunicate the genocidal priests in Rwanda, but it's going to excommunicate John Kerry over stem cell research? Give me a break, the church would be making a total fool of itself...

 

Please stop dodging. I have already written twice in bold that no one is telling Kerry how to vote. He can vote the same without claiming Catholic. The problem is that he calls himself Catholic while voting like he does. The whole of your post that follows isn't relevant to this subject.

Kerry's programme is inconsistent with the programme of the Church to which he claims to belong and yet still he claims Catholic votes as a Catholic candidate.

@Bion: The church holds a very base commandment which says "thou shalt not kill". The whole moral law of Judaism and Christianity relies on the ten commandments. The Church holds abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research inconsistent with "thou shalt not kill". As a result, the problem isn't comparable to fighting over which language to choose or who should be the Pope.

If he prefers to keep Catholic legacy, he can always say clearly that he considers himself a Catholic despite the contradictions between the Church's doctrine and his beliefs.

If he is against the church on those issues, it's only fair that he should stop claiming to be a normally practicing Catholic in full communion with the Church and in good religious standing, for he is obviously and blatantly not.

It's a matter of basic consistency. I would say the same about a Judaic candidate claiming to be a practicing Jews in good standing with his religion and openly eating pork, for instance.

[ June 21, 2004, 03:31: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Stop dodging the issue yourself, and take your own advice. You commented on Kerry's voting record. Sorry if this anti-abortion thread is not turning out the way you hoped. But it seems in your scheme that anyone who runs for office in the US cannot be a Catholic AND a representative, unless one follows the orders of the RCC on THE ISSUE OF ABORTION. One must choose between being a Catholic, or a representative of all the People, whom he represents.

Note: some Americans may not be Catholic at all, but are still entitled to representation, at least that is how it works here, most times.

Good thing for Catholics who wish to hold office here that you have no decision making power regarding this issue. I also noticed that you have ignored the other issues. So let's see if you can comment on any other politicains in this USA who are Catholics and are in violation of any RCC dogma.

I'll wait while you try to come up with some more issues or politicains who may not follow the doctrine of "right to life" - like Shrub, in regards to all those who have died in a faraway land called Iraq. Those who have lost their sons and daughters there may also like to know that the Chruch is opposed to the mass slaughter of war.

[QUOTEThe church holds a very base commandment which says "thou shalt not kill". The whole moral law of Judaism and Christianity relies on the ten commandments.] [/QUOTE]

 

Open a different thread if you want to ask questions of me, and answer my questions in my topic within the given subject, if you please.

 

I'll just let one of the Catholics here in America, a Cardinal (I think that position is somewhat of an authority within the Church), comment on Kerry:

Those who are inclined to know more about this issue can read here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4724235/site/newsweek/

 

Chev sez:

Well, actually there's a long tradition of eating pork, shellfish, and other non-kosher delicasies in Reform Judaism. The argument was that dietary laws really had no relevance to the contemporary culture and moral teachings of the church. I think though that there's a trend for more Reform Jews to observe dietary laws, but I might be wrong.

@Chandos: this is off-topic, but you live in Houston? Went to school there for a few years, and sometimes even miss it! Brasil, No Tsu Oh, Taqueria la Tapatia, ahhh, the memories...

 

Bion - Yes, there are a few of us here; went to school here also: UH. I would have PMed this but you have no icon for it. Death Rabbit is a Houstonian also. But he's a hardcore native.

 

Being Catholic doesn't mean you have to believe the exact same thing that the Catholic church does. God only knows I don't, yet I still call myself Catholic.

 

I think Y'all are missing the point of this thread...stop hanging up on Church doctrine and teaching, and address chev's basic question about what it means about John Kerry for this dichotomy to exist. The only one who addressed the basic question is...me. This has nothing to do with voting records, the personal lives of any other person or even the very temperant views expressed by Cardinal McKerrick...this issue boils down to the personal integrity of a man who says he is one thing, and acts like something else.

Please try to address that issue...

Chandos...I had a bet with chev that you couldn't post in this thread without mentioning "Shrub" Pay up, chev...In US dollars please...

Oh, and I hope you know that the "Red Eyed Liberal" remark was me just going over the top again.

 

I can adress it here, Catholicism is less of a religion and more of a ethnicity. Simple as that. If you are born a catholic you die a catholic even if you never had faith in your life, you probably even went to church each week an took communion.

Thus Kerry have no problem voting for whatever he wants and still label himself a Catholic, following true church doctrine has nothing at all to do with calling oneself catholic. If it had you would have to excommunicate every single sinner and then some.

I myself am a good example, I consider myself as a protestant christian and that is a pretty big ethnical and cultural part of, I am both baptised and confirmed, it still dont stop me from loathing the religion christianity even if I see myself as a member of the ethnical group christianity.

 

Then you unfairly set him up, because in large part, I was responding to your comment on "what potential voters" should be concerned about, as one potential voter to another.

Kerry will be running against which Republican in November?

 

Ok, religion, non-catholic. Supposed to be Presbyterian, but conditioning has failed to some degree. To the involved point, abuse of god by political figure-heads. Presbyterian conditioning has had succeeded in making me finding those publicly stunts deeply appalling, that is known. Further, religion is and should remain private, abusing the state to further one's own religion, which seems to be trendy and the latest fashion in much too many places of this world, is problematic, when the fundament of every modern democratic state is the separation of religion from government. Yes, I know, I should have gone astray from the actual topic.

I don't know why you took Kerry as example. The obvious and very valid question: Woytila, the church and the next pope. There is obviously a big trench in the roman branch of the Catholic Churches (he, Christ-Catholic is much more fun). Woytila tends to rise the temperature among most Catholics in pro- and contra- debates. To me, it is clear, while this conflict will probably last for 30 years or even more, the Pope, Opus Dei and their views are loosing. The old guard that has to come to terms with letting go.
quote:
________________________________________
News, in bold: No one is telling Kerry what to believe. Basing on his beliefs, he either believes Catholic or not, as a statement of fact.
________________________________________
Obviously not true.
quote:
________________________________________
False Dilemma

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options.

A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Proof:

Identify the options given and show (with an example) that
there is an additional option.

________________________________________
He does believe catholic, but Catholicism is not a clear cut religion. And there was never a "good old time" in which "Catholicism" was a clear cut religion. Benedicts, Dominicans, Jesuits, internal struggle, the rebellion of the Augustinians... blah, blah, blah... And not that you wouldn't know that way better as I already. I like the joke in Black Adder: I've written a letter to the pope asking for your excommunication. In fact, I've written a letter to all three of them.

I've been told, that in most European cities, the churches of the Bare-Foot-Walkers and the Preachers were built in a save distance, as they were known to not get along to well with each other when they met. Something I can relate to, as I despise Dominicans too. For an order that claims to hail the virtue of poverty, they have a notoriety to indulge in luxus too much. By the expensive cars they usually drive, seems true to me. So, in this case I clearly prefer Franciscans. But my favourite branch is the Jesuits. The best the Catholic Church has brought into being. Yet, even Jesuits are not homogenous.

Haven't had any Latin or Greek, but isn't it so, that the name "Catholic" means "in General" in contrast to "Orthodox", "strict" or "correct" belief, implying that the catholic splitter from the old church likes flexibility more than keeping the old ways. The success of the Catholic Church was always its heterogeneity. So many people in so many different places in so many different life-situations had and have to be pleased. That's why the church always was a very amorphous construct with many different sub-branches inside of it.

So, the last Bishop of the diocese of Chur had to be evacuated by Woytila through the emergency creation of the the diocese of Vaduz, so he could save his face and the face of his failed appointment. The trench among Catholics is huge. And the upheaval of Catholics against Woytila is huge. Even if Woytila is the biggest pop-star alive, and has plenty of followers, like astonishingly presented on his last visit, his on the loosing side of an internal conflict. Sooner or later, the Roman Church will join the other Catholic Churches and let women become priests. It can't rely like now on importing priests form Latin-America and Africa, that have the benefit of being willing to keep up with celibacy and share views like the Pope on many issues. Views that by the a big part of Catholics aren't shared. Is Woytila Catholic at all ? Most Catholics where I live either ignore him or vote with their feet.

Edit: Put that whole thing through the Word-Spellcheck. Thought you might appreciate it to resemble a little bit English

[ June 21, 2004, 23:59: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Well, surely, whether Kerry is a catholic or not is in itself a matter of church doctrine? He certainly seems to consider himself a catholic and if the catholic church accepts him as such, I don't really see a problem...

 

"Yes" and "no" are accepted by virtue of the Law of Alternative to be mutually exclusive as a sort of axiom. A life example would be that something which is white isn't black at the same time.

That may at best refer to sort of a cultural identity and not active religious affiliation. Kerry claims to be a practicing Catholic in a good standing with the church, which is visibly untrue.

Excommunication doesn't technically make anyone non-Catholic. However, it cuts the tie to a large extent. It is used chiefly to disclaim affiliation and withdraw support. Private people are rarely if ever excommunicated.

As I've said, the matter is not of minor ecclesiastic details. Abortion etc is believed to be murder and a couple other controversial issues are inconsistent with the text of the Bible, and not a far-reaching interpretation. Allowing vernacular languages and stuff is one, the Bible is a more serious thing.

At any rate, the Church's appropriate authority decides the doctrine and the changes and that authority is not John Kerry.

@dmc: Sorry for confusion. I'm well aware of there being different branches and there being no central authority as well as the other things you've mentioned like the nature of dietary rules - I've even discussed that in a couple of threads revolving around Christians supposedly derogating divine law by no longer adhering to those restrictions. When I brought up my example, I meant to give an example of a lip-service religious politician who says one and does another. Or, as in most cases, says different things at different times.

@Hacken Slash: Thanks for pointing out the real topic question.

As for the Cardinal McCarrick and his reply, that is not an official stance of the Church despite he's the head of the taskforce to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians. In fact, there's no official stanse of the Church as of yet, and it is only supposed to be taken soon. Also, the “What they do,’’ he demurred, “is really their business and not mine.’’ part answers the question if Kerry should consult some Church authority before voting. And yes, no one's telling him how to vote and that is left to his conscience - as well as it is the case with every other politician. However, it doesn't sanction their political programme nor their publicly preached morality of some sort (ie what's right and wrong, for instance). Consequences prescribed by the Canon Law apply to actions that are left to individuals to take or abstain from taking.

The Cardinal's opinion has a great merit as have his arguments. However, neither has he formed an official stance as of yet, nor is his approach shared by all other bishops. For instance, Bishop Raymond Burke of St Luis says he would refuse Eucharist to John Kerry. Also, when the Cardinal says that he wouldn't withhold the Eucharist from Kerry, it is not to be interpreted as sanctioning any part of Kerry's moral programme, contrary to how the journalist is trying to make it sound.

Also, Boston's ordinary is Archbishop Sean O'Malley and ultimately he is the person to excommunicate Kerry. He has already suggested that Kerry abstain from receiving Communion, which was ignored and Kerry received on Easter.

If excommunication goes, whoever procures abortion is ipso facto excommunicated. This doesn't include politicians who propagate abortion, but it signifies the direction, especially as excommunication is supposed to be used in case of external (ie manifest) violation of divine or canon law and if a scandal is to be repaired (Canon 1399). All conditions are met. Canon 1369 also provides enough grounds for ecclesiastic punishment, as Canon 1371 from the point of warning on (he hasn't been warned yet, though it's being considered).

Whether or not any penalty is to be inflicted on Kerry is one thing. Letting him glow in the reflected light of the church and attracting Catholic votes by claiming to be a practicing Catholic is a different thing.

Kerry, however, lacks the character to state publicly that his views differ from established Church doctrine. What does he do? He quotes some Pope Pius XXIII (there was no such Pope, the last Pius was XIII) who supposedly said that Catholics are free to believe in whatever, more or less.

The matter, also, is not only of what Kerry personally believes (he claims to be "personally opposed" to abortion), but the problem is that he has already worked for the advancement of legalised abortion including partial birth abortion. Also, stem cell research and gay marriages (not another gay discussion in this thread by all that's good and holy, please), family planning and so on. As the President, he is going to support only those Supreme Court Judge candidates who are pro-abortion. There is no reason to neglect this announcement. Thus, the matter is of actions and not of personal beliefs.

Kerry has already removed himself from the Church and there's a matter of formal recognition of that, now.

Some precedent here would be the case of Sen. Lucy Killea of Luisiana instructed not to receive communion by Bishop Leo T. Maher of San Diego a couple of days before the election in 1989. The Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska announced in 1996 a list of groups, such as Planned Parenthood, Call to Action, masonic groups etc, that any Catholic in his diocese who would join would be automatically excommunicated. He said If you can't bring your faith into public life, what's the use of having it?. He also said:

The Bishop Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi excommunicated two abortion clinic workers and one doctor that same year.

The Bishop Thomas B. Wenski of Orlando says the following about the task force:

The Vatican has already taken a stance on Catholics voting pro-abortion (plus other hard ones) and declared supporting those positions to be a gravely immoral act. The very reason why the task force has been commissioned to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians was that document.

An older case would be Cardinal Joseph F. Rummer of New Orleans who excommunicated three prominent segregationists on one day in 1962, including a state judge and a state senator.

The basic policy is love. But love needs to be tough sometimes and slap wrists to show right from wrong. The most celebrated abortion supporter in the Senate showing up for Holy Cummunion and receiving it causes serious confusion and may lead people, especially his Catholic voters, to believe that his policy is acceptable. In the essence: that killing is right.