More on Kerry's claims to be Catholic

Remove all ads!

@Chev: first off, you haven't yet dealt with any of the objections I raised; i.e., technically, defining who is or isn't a Catholic has nothing to do with affirming a position on abortion.

second, the most Americans don't consider a fetus in its first trimester to be a fully living human being, nor do they equate support of the right to choose abortion in certain circumstances with a support of killing or murder. Perhaps it's the opposite: paradoxically, anti-abortion activists are more likely to be pro-capital punishment, go figure. I know Catholics who support Planned Parenthood, and frankly I don't see the problem: they simply disagree with certain positions of the Vatican, not with fundamental tenets of Catholicism. The Vatican also didn't like the War in Iraq; should all US Republican Catholics be denied Communion?

And the bit about the Masons is just funny. Is it because the world-wide Masonic conspiracy is thwarting the Jesuits at the moment? Or is it because of the frathouse-like initiation rites?

Perhaps one should be excommunicated from Catholicism for doing yoga as well?

I think I shall have to start calling your position "anti-choice," given that you label Kerry using the polemical "pro-abortion" label. One can regret abortion while still remaining "pro-choice."

@Chandos: you know, I always run into people who run Houston down, but I have to say, it's a really comfortable town once you know your way around. Then again, I mostly stuck around Montrose and the Museum district, and the whole outer-loop was like Mars to me. Did my time at Rice...

 

@Iago: "catholic" means "universal."

@all:

"Nothing" is too strong, as one's practice with regard to abortion can lead to not being catholic anymore, sort of. But it is true that membership in the church is not determined by one's view on this issue. For Kerry no longer to be "Catholic," he would at the least have to be excommunicated. Even then, the church would probably consider him to be a "lapsed Catholic," and would offer the possibility of restoration. Once you are covenant, you may fall under the covenant curses, but you remain in covenant.

Along these lines, while Kerry might remove himself from fellowship with the RCC, he has no authority personally to revoke his covenant.

There is an excommunication Latae Sententiae now in force that says if anyone efficaciously procures an abortion, she is thereupon excommunicated (without further process or ceremony).

There are also precedents in the existing excommunications Latae Sententiae now in force that obligate governing authorities (such as congressmen and senators) to rule in certain ways on certain issues. It is not improbable that abortion might be added to this list in the future.

 

That might help to explain why there has only been one Catholic President.

 

Well, than I haven't been too far of, as general is a synonym of universal.

Well, you are still presenting a false dilemma. While it is true that "or" can be a legitimate usage in the of you cited case for black and white, it is irrelevant. As the very point of the false dilema is, that you presenting something like a black and white question which is not, because you use the word "catholic" wrong.

 

You construe the word "Catholic" falsely. Catholic with a capital "c" doesn't mean the same as catholic with a lowercase "c" means.

The Greek word "katholikos", which you probably call upon, means common. "E katolike ekklesia" would be "the universal church".

However, when we are speaking about an organised Church which bears the name of Roman Catholic Church and if the adjective "Catholic" is used to indicate a member of that church, then it's only normal that someone who isn't affiliated with that Church isn't referred to using that adjective.

Also, if intended to mean something universal, the word "catholic" starts with a lowercase "c". For instance:

He is Catholic. - means he is a member of a Catholic Church, by default this is understood as the Roman Catholic Church, although there are several churches that use the name Catholic (Utrecht Union, sedevacantists etc, also the Anglican Church's longer name is Anglican-Catholic Church).

He is catholic in his tastes. - means he is free of provincial attachments, particularism and the like. This is actually why the name "Catholic Church" or even "catholic church" was first used in the 4th century to distinguish the common, universal church of the Roman Empire from sects. Most basically, "catholic" meant free of heresy, such as Manichaeans or Arians.

Good try, but it didn't work.

Possibly. However, any president or senator or whoever is totally free to stop being Catholic at any point.

One can't have a cake and have it eaten.

Thus, coming back to the first point I adressed, being Catholic or not Catholic is exact opposite.

Catholic vs not Catholic

As the word "not" signifies negation:

Catholic(1) vs Catholic(0)

1 != 0

Following from this, you, basically, need to be Catholic to be Catholic. Fairly logical, isn't it?

[ June 24, 2004, 18:25: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

With regard to the Roman Catholic Church, "catholic" means both that the RCC is the "one and only" church (that is, the only true church) and that the RCC is present throughout the world (diffused but united). It does not imply flexibility of doctrine or tradition.

 

I for one am not surprised to see Kerry flip-flop on the issues. How someone can profess to belong to a religion that considers abortion murder, then vote pro-abortion is pretty amazing. How people can continue to defend this inconsistency is also amazing. But not surprising. At least not here. At least not when it comes from Chandos.

Chev, I admire your persistence and patience. You continue to try to foster genuine debate here.

Time to go. People are arguing semantics rather than the point.

 

@jack: I'm a little confused by your post; do you want a "debate" or do you want people to immediately take the "point" for granted? Given that you start out by apeing the "Kerry flip-flop" line straight from Fox, I find it hard to believe that "debate" is something you are willing to engage in.

And I still don't think anyone has shown that being pro-choice and Catholic are mutually exclusive. Catholicism today encompasses a wide range of mutually exclusive beliefs and believers, from liberation theologists to ultra-conservative Second Vatican dissenters. To say that one has to follow all of the Vatican's opinions to be a Catholic is absurd.

 

Oops, there is a mix up. I went to the meaning of catholic as general term, going from the point, that the Roman church never was, not is and never will be nor really was intented to be a homogenous church. Nor can it be and survive. Don't tell me there isn't a huge difference between a Domenican and Jesuit. Or a Benedict and a Augustinain. And then, I mention in my first post that there are many catholic churches, and the Roman once maybe become catholic again. My point still, is, there is a false dilema. Not agreeng with non essential points of the Chruch that have nothing to do with the holy sacraments don't make you suddenly un-catholic. If this really would be applied, the Roman Church would be soon a club of 85 people. Homogenity is nothing I have ever observed in the Catholic church. It would be a surprising novelty.

Well, it depends tradition of what level. Coming from the place surrounded be the Catholic heartlands (or think about Latin-America, that has its one, very unique tradition of Catholicism, not to mention the great impact from a branch that once the popes tried to dissolve), again, you don't put a bare-foot-walker in the near of preachers. Traditionally, you do keep the different orders separated, as they like to stir up trouble. Again, Opus Dei is just another fringe sub-group like many. And I really don't see homogenity, when the pope isn't even able to appoint a Bishop, because he is so estranged from the average Catholic.

And to abuse the word again again, I don't think that this is really about a political canditate in a far away place, it's about the diocese Chur and the C political parties caring for the Catholic vote, not for the papal word.

[ June 24, 2004, 19:35: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

I'm not saying that the RCC is homogenous, or that it doesn't have different flavors of theology and practice within it. I was simply pointing out that "Catholic" does not imply tolerance of views that compete with official church dogma. You drew the comparison between the Orthodox Church and the RCC; my point was simply that the RCC is not looser in doctrine than the Orthodox. If anything, it is stricter.

The reason I made this point was that Kerry's views are close to contradicting essential points of RCC doctrine (cf. the excommunications I mentioned), and that the RCC is not be design or intention conducive to such contradiction. Not like I have a vested interest in this -- I'm not Catholic. I'm not trying to be polemical, but simply to analyze the situation fairly.

I do think the man is a bit hypocritical. Either that, or he is a Protestant at heart, rejecting the ecclesiastical authority of the RCC. Perhaps he prefers to associate himself with the RCC for reasons other than theology. But if he does, he should know that the RCC itself will not accept Kerry's terms of association. He should have known what he was getting into, so he's got no real grounds for complaint when he takes flak from the RCC.

 

@bion

Nice dig with the Fox comment. How does that further the debate, strengthen your position, or weaken mine? It's just a dig. Accusing me of not being able to think independently. Nice try.

On topic: This is a perfect example of how Kerry likes to come down on both sides of the issue.

Kerry claims to be Roman Catholic. Yet he votes pro-abortion. You do not see this as a contradiction?

Ahh, what is the point. This is the kind of stuff that made me stop posting in the Alley in the first place.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Alley is yours.

 

@ Jack

And then...

and then...

Show up, level a cheapshot personal attack, and then leave.

Way to elevate that genuine debate.

@ All

For the record, and IMHO - you can still be faithful member of a particular religion and still not agree with 100% of their official positions. My fiance, probably the most devout Catholic I know, is pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion), and has very strong personal convictions as to that belief as well as why she believes this is one area where the church is wrong. It doesn't make her any less Catholic. But I guess she's a flip-flopper too, right?

PS - Unless Kerry was once against abortion, since he's currently (and always has been) pro-choice (not pro-abortion), how can you call it a "flip-flop?"

PPS - There is also, in most people's eyes, a world of difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. I personally concede that there are times when it's necessary to, for example, put family pets to sleep when the situation calls for it (as I did just 2 days ago). Doesn't make me in favor of indiscriminately killing animals.

Just a quick intellectual honesty check - is Bush a flip-flopper because his pro-war stance is in direct conflict to the position of the Vatican? And no, Bush not being Roman Catholic isn't really relevant...especially not after this...(link that apparantly no longer works, but was attached to a NY Times story about Bush asking the Vatican to encourage US Bishops to stump for him.)

[ June 24, 2004, 20:25: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

DR

That link isn't working.

Basically I agree that there is no apparent contradiction of being Catholic and pro-choice. That's the heart of the arguement right? We're not criticizing Kerry's voting record, or anything political here. As I understand Chev's initial post he is asking should Kerry be allowed to call himself a Catholic if he is pro-choice.

I'm Catholic. I grew up in a very Catholic community. While there were many people who were pro-life in the community, there were about an equal number of pro-chioce in the community. And it's not like the pro-lifers were the ones that went to church and the pro-choicers that were the heathens. My point is there are very few people that are Catholic that actually follow every single Vatican doctrine to the letter. I'm Catholic, my wife is Catholic, and in our two families combined there is only one person who agrees with everything the Catholic church espouses. So I guess none of us are Catholic then.

EDIT: One more thing. The title of this post is somewhat of a misnomer. Kerry isn't CLAIMING to be a Catholic. He IS a Catholic.

 

I think I'm on the same plane as you, Aldeth. People who are pro-choice aren't necessarily thrilled about the idea of women having abortions, but they recognize that there are circumstances where an abortion would be the best option, if not necessary - and hence should still be available. That hardly means you're pro-abortion. They don't see the need, and in fact find it harmful, to outlaw any abortion regardless of intent, situation or reason (which is the pro-life position).

I personally am pro-death penalty, because I believe there are instances that warrant such a punishment. I believe in safety, justice, do the crime, do the time, etc. But I also believe that murder is wrong, and in no way advocate killing people. People who can't distinguish between the two tend to be the same people who think people that are pro-choice dance around in circles at the tought of a 1st trimester fetus being aborted - and that isn't terribly fair.

Here's another question. The official position of the Vatican, if memory serves, is that capital punishment is wrong. The state of Texas executed more prison inmates than any other state when Bush was it's governer. Does he still get to call himself a Christian? Bush, at the very least, could have stayed the execution of every one of those men put to death in Texas. But he didn't. Yet he claims to be a bible-thumping Christian. I thought death and judgement was supposed to be left in God's hands, according to the bible. But that's just me.

So Kerry is the only flip-flopper here? Seriously?

 

That's not really for you to decide. The RCC establishes the rules of its own membership.

At any rate, even the RCC does not require that kind of adherence. The question of abortion, however, the RCC has elevated to the level of excommunicable offenses in some cases. In other words, how Kerry votes on this issue is fast becoming an essential point of doctrine.

The real issue here, as I see it, is not abortion; it is ecclesiology (doctrine of the church, including but not limited to authority and infallibility). Kerry and many other Catholics deny RCC ecclesiology or are simply ignorant of it. And ecclesiology is as essential as it gets to RCC dogma (remember the Protestant Reformation? -- that was mostly a battle over ecclesiology).

Kerry's problems with RCC ecclesiology are manifested in his record on abortion, and are indicative of his being opposed to RCC ecclesiology (since the RCC claims to be infallible, has already ruled on this issue, and has placed high enough importance on it to excommunicate thousands of its people). That makes him ignorant at best (assuming he doesn't know the ecclesiological issues), inconsistent on average (assuming he believes the infallible church has erred), and evil/deceitful at worst (doing what he believes to be wrong while at the same time protesting his innocence). To all appearances, he is what we might call "contumacious."

In the context of RCC dogma, informed contumacy is also hypocrisy: Kerry claims membership in an organization that demands obedience to its dogma as a requirement of membership, yet he openly disobeys that dogma. If he did it as an attempt to change the RCC, we might see that as admirable (if we agreed with his stance). But he's not trying to change the RCC; he's just trying to sin with impunity, and he's doing it publicly and blatantly.

 

I'm not sure how you managed to do it, Bombur...but you have summarized perfectly the cause of my biggest concerns about John Kerry.

When put in this context, anyone who thinks that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a man of integrity, has deluded themselves. This in not a "Catholic" issue...it affects anyone who has a vote.

 

@DR

The reason I pointed out Chandos, is that he is dodging the issue (as leveled by Chev), and turning the discussion away from the point. This is not the first time he has been observed doing this. Hence my lack of surprise.

You also edited my reply down to the point where you took it out of context.
I didn't say I was trying to foster real debate, I was congratulating Chev on doing so.

"Time to go" was in relation to where the debate was at this point, arguing semantics, not the point.

Anyway, this is my last post in this thread. You have illustrated wonderfully (with your editing job) why I don't see a potential for real debate here. Let's take it to PM if you have anything else to say.

 

Here's another point - if Kerry is supposed to represent the people who elected him, and the people who elected him are by and large pro-choice, does not Kerry owe it to his constituents to represent them as they feel they should be represented? Or is that just too logical of a point to bring up?