More on Kerry's claims to be Catholic

Well, I think others have, or at least I am under the impression they did, I certainly did, that the problem lies withing "advocating actions that are apparently contrary to this person's stated belief system". It is simply not "apparently contrary".

If it happens that at least 50% of the Catholic priests, trained in Catholic exegesis of holy scripture differ from the pope in many issues, showing the case as clear cut "black and white" issue is a misleading false dilema, as I stated before. I don't say it intentionally stated by Chev this way. But this is an struggle inside of the Church that wages on for some time.

Now, the next point is, the ability of the pope to enforce his own dogma inside the Catholic Church against the will of the Catholic Church. As happened here with Bishop Haas. The Pope appointed a Bishop, as lined out in the article I quoted above, and the Priests and the Catholics started to rebel against him. Forcing the pope to a save face solution of creating the Diocese of Vaduz in Liechtenstein (and Vaduz is not happy and wants to get rid of Haas too). So, the Pope lacks the muscle to enforce his own favoured Bishops that favour his view against the will of the Catholic Church. He lacks the consent of the average Catholic, or at least a huge number of them.

Yes, formally, the Pope may have every right to enforce his view of Catholic dogma but practically, he lacks the muscle. He would start a Schism and surely a fight for the name "Roman Catholic Church" and the true holders of it would start.

And the other point, the need of a Catholic politican if faced with a "loality question" to follow the Church or his duty to the country was defintley solved in the culture wars. The country prevails over Church. There is no serious Catholic politican that thinks otherwise.

 

It has been indicated, however, that if Catholic politicians behaved the way Chev says they should, it would no longer be a voluntary membership, as it is the "duty" of said politician to institute the RCCs beliefs as the law of the land.

 

Not getting that.... You are implying that the member of a Catholic party is burdened by the Roman Church to obey the the orders of the pope. That is ridiculous. And surely not Catholic. Being in a very old Catholic country, I can certainly say, that is not Catholic tradition to assume things like that. Never was. Never will be.

Yes, there was once a pope that said that the existence of the new founded state of Italy contradicts dogma of the Catholic Church and Catholics are forbidden to participate in anything that has anything to do with the Republic of Italy (illegaly placed on former territority of the Church). Some popes later, that stance had complety changed and the Church is fine with things and how there are and that there is a country called Italy. You seldom (read: Never) hear otherwise. Only small fractions would still hold to that old point of view, and surely not the majority of Catholics today.

No I do not say that. I say that being a politican and member of the Catholic Church does not mean that you are expelled from the Church if you are voting against the criminilazation of abortion. Simple as that. It is not Catholic teaching that a politican that does that gets thrown out of the Church. In this case, former Federal Council Metzler, Catholic politican from Lucerne (and AI, that also is Catholic but..., Lucernian stays Lucernian) land of the holy hammer of the Catholic Church and the Swiss Guard would have been expelled for doing that. Did not happen, never been suggested to happen, so why do you assume that would be standing Catholic procedure. If that really would be Catholic procedure, that would be very new to me. And again, Poland is not the only country with nearly two millenia Catholic tradition.

I repeat again, this is about an internal Catholic dispute among the different fractions. And Catholic politicans represent their Catholic voters and their views. Neither the policitans or voters are bound by the words of the Pope. In good days, Catholic voters and the Pope agree on many thing, if not, internal Catholic dispute.

 

No, this was exactly what I was talking about in the above thread, when I said many people are Catholic, but they aren't THAT Catholic:

 

There are 2 issues that keep getting volied around in this thread that I think aren't terribly fair. I quote BTA on both, but the same arguement has been made by several people here.

First: John Kerry is not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice - and they aren't the same thing. There is a qualitative difference between seeing that there situations in which certain unpleasant occurances are favorable and even necessary, and enthusiasm toward the practice of said occurance. Kerry isn't encouraging abortions, he just opposes abolishing them entirely. He feels - as most pro-CHOICErs do - that some decision making power here should be left to the patients and doctors in question, and that those morally opposed shouldn't get to make the decision for everyone.

Second,

You can't put a persons religious beliefs in such black and white terms. Religion is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Non-belief in one aspect of a religion full of different aspects does not negate belief in all other aspects. If it did, EVERY religion on earth would cease to exist, because humans are not perfect - not in any sense. We have our own thoughts and ideas and feelings. Laws of any church were created by man, and thus, can be disagreed with by man.

For example: I personally think Marijuana should be legalized. One law, that many feel passionate about, that I don't happen to agree with. Does that make me an anarchist? NO! Disagreeing with one law doesn't negate my respect for and appreciation of all other laws on the books. Is that so difficult?

By that rationalle, if disagreeing with ONE aspect of the Catholic church means you don't get to call yourself a Catholic anymore or affiliate yourself with that faith, try applying the same to political parties. Say you heartily agree with the Democrats on every single issue - except for, say, affirmative action. Can you still consider yourself a Democrat, or are you kicked out of the club?

 

err... that's why I wrote "implying" ?

Well, yes. Well, no. That's the point. There is no homogenity. They do believe the teachings of the Church. All of them. But they do not believe exactly the same. Some value some values more, other place more importance other values, that means, the conclusions differ. Interpratition and traditions are complex. And it's an internals disagreement. If you don't like parts of your home, that doesn't mean leaving is the best choice and your home certainly is still your home. If belief is put as "home". There is serious thelogical dispute inside the Church. Don't look at is so simply.

 

D.R., you took the words right out of my, errr, keyboard.

The idea that one must without question accept everything the Church says is fine as long as you believe that people are mindless cattle incapable of independent thought. But once you introduce individuality into the picture, to me, religion becomes more of an overall system of beliefs which you either reject or accept on the whole. But just because you may disagree with one or two of the “rules’, that doesn’t necessarily mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Otherwise, nobody would belong to any religion. For example, chev likes to boast of his drinking prowess; I seriously doubt the Church condones that kind of activity. Does that suddenly make chev a non-Catholic?

Edit: @ D.R. below - I wondered if anyone would catch that.

[ June 29, 2004, 23:16: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

That's an unfair comparison, but I'll play along.

I guess the simple answer would be because nearly everyone believes murder is wrong, and that they wouldn't want it to happen to them. Far less people feel as strongly about abortion and in fact, our society is pretty evenly divided. Also, preventing abortions and pursueing those who perform them aren't an essential element in a functioning society - as it is with murder, for obvious reasons. There is also still quite a bit of debate about whether or not abortion IS murder.

Unless a similar consensus can be formed that abortion = murder, this will be a no-win issue for both sides.

edit - @ Splunge

Bad, bad, bad, BAD choice of words for this thread, dude.

 

Ahm... no. Ahm... yes. Difficult. Divorce. It is not allowed. That is also a very important point of Catholic doctrine. Yet, many are divorced, how come ? It is also a very important, that women can't become priests. Yet, a Catholic nun is likely to tell the Pope to change his mind about that. To doubt and favour other interpretations. First thing is, don't think about Catholic doctrine as something written in stone since a two thousand years. Theology is not an easy field. And faced with complex situations the answers themselves are complex.

Another pillar of Catholic faith is to love and help people. If faced with difficult situations, they are not condeming a person for the rest of their lifes. At least not all of them. They also see it as important part of their believe to help people in need. There is nothing more Catholic as Charity. Charity itself is fundamentally Catholic. Some Catholics may see it far more important to help people in a crisis then to put them into jail. That doesn't mean that they want people to abort and do try to create a world where this has not to happen. Yet, in an imperfect world, one has to make decisions, what values are more important. To punish or to help people getting on their feet again.

The strong believing Catholics I know are more concerned with helping than arguing about criminal law codes and papal doctrine. Helping is the true heart of being Catholic. At least it seems to me so.

Find a way to solve the contradiction of the different pillars of believe for every situation and you have solved the mystery of life.

I just want to note that I'm delighted to see that the discussion goes in the way I like to see it. The inside of the Catholic Church and it's heterogenity, that's the problem, not some bloke in the US.

That is certainly not true. Drinking beer made in a monastery is one of those good old Catholic traditions... I have been happy to adapt to.

[ June 29, 2004, 23:19: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

No BTA, neither are untrue.

But is or is not the official stance of the Catholic church, and a rather prominant one, that one cannot get divorced and still be Catholic?

If THAT were the case, John Kerry (along with half the Catholics in the US) would've been kicked out of the church a few decades ago, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If the above is not true, then I shall concede as well.

edit - Iago kinda beat me to it.

 

So that means Catholics are bunch of drunks? If so, then:

1. That certainly explains a lot about the logic behind decisions and rules of the Catholic faith.
2. Where do I sign up?

 

Franciscan Weiss Bier ?

 

Although it is not really important for the current discussion, the explanation is rather simple:

The church law of the RCC doesn't allow anyone to be divorced. If you marry, you are banded for life.

How then could it be that some people achieve divorce? Well, remember there are two ceremonies involved if you're getting married churchly? There's the worldly marriage and then there's the one conducted by a priest. The first can be divorced. The second can't.

So "divorce" really just means the secular side, a divorced couple still stays married (and catholic) in the eyes of the church.

Now, please, carry on...