More on Kerry's claims to be Catholic

Remove all ads!

That's true. But is the church infallible? Can the church be wrong? Do they never make mistakes?

Last time I checked, the bible didn't exactly smile upon priests forcing alter-boys to blow them. But the Vatican didn't consider them non-catholics anymore, did they? The RCC "established its own rule" to cover that little fact up for decades while ruining thousands of lives in the process, just to save face. It was only until the scandal broke far and wide that anything was ever done about that. The Vatican lying about it and covering it up, if I may be so bold, doesn't exactly make them as perfect as they claim to be, nor the stick by which we measure what makes a "good" Catholic.

If Father O'Malley can spend 20 years porking a boy scout troop, and still be forgiven, I find it hard to believe that Kerry recognizing a woman's right to choose, without wearing an "Abortion: The Other OTHER White Meat" T-shirt is going to ruffle too many feathers, earthly or otherwise.

Besides, I don't see the Vatican - or anyone, for that matter - complaining about the Republican members of the Senate who are pro-choice, pro-war, etc etc, and Catholic at the same time. Until I do, claims of John Kerry being unworthy of being a Catholic are little more than lame partisan attacks, IMO.

PS - Hey Bombur, cool avatar.

edit - @ Jack - Just forget it. It isn't worth a PM back-n-forth or more board space. No hard feelings - I don't want to argue with you.

 

God forbid that democracy stand in the way of the Catholic Church. Apparently Catholic politicians have to choose between performing their elected duties and being "good" members of the flock.

The same thing is happening in New Jersey and Colorado - bishops are saying that politicians who disagree with Church doctrine on social policy and the people who vote for them shouldn't be allowed to receive communion. Wasn't America founded to prevent exactly that sort of interference from the pulpit, and to protect those who choose to practice different religions. It's one more example of one religion trying to dictate how all people - not just its own adherents, but everyone - should live.

Bah.

 

No, that's not why, Funk. And everyone knows it is not. Yet, for some of us good government is important. Sorry that representative government is something you don't care much for, but I intend to remain a strong advocate for it. Knowing my desire for such government, your attacks on me personally fit well your own conduct, not only towards open debate, but the dislike of such ideas on government, and those who hold such ideas.

This comment proves that the attacks are not just about Catholics, but "the minds of everyone." That leaves the replies open for those of us who are not Catholics.

Now, the attack is really on his ability as a potential president. That is political, despite the thinnest veneer of being a debate about being "Catholic." And it is the attack of a political partisan.

The stated topic is about Kerry's voting record, and if whether or not it is in line with the RCC. Anytime a representive's voting record is commented on, it becomes political. This whole thread is a feeble attack on Kerry's policy decsions, while claiming that it is not about politics at all, but being "Catholic." It is perhaps one of the most dishonest attempts I have seen yet, at trying to restrict open debate on a political issue, by attempting to camouflage it as religious one.

The Republicans who have commented on this issue here are denying the real issue, which is that Kerry IS an elected official. And as such he should represent all the people of his state. But that is if one really cares for representative government, which obviously some do not. Yet, Kerry may also represent Catholics on issues such as poverty, healthcare and the issue of war better than Shrub.

But this is really an attack on Kerry because of his politics - he is Pro-choice. The word "consistency" has been bantered about. It would be nice to see some of this virtue from the anti-Kerry minions on this thread as well.

But that is exactly what you are engaged in. He can't vote a particular way and still be "true" Catholic. Of course, that is your opninion, which you are entitled to. But you can't have your "cake and eat it" also, as you are attempting to do. On the one hand, you attack his politics, and then hide behind the "Catholic" banner and claim that it is not political. The most disturbing part of this is that the anti-Kerry minions on this thread are then hiding behind the same "Catholic banner," while trying to take shots that are shamelessly political in nature.

As someone who does have a vote, it will be for an American representative and not an official of a foreign state.

 

For the sake of clarity: I am not Catholic. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Church (Roman or otherwise). I do not believe the RCC is consistent in disciplining its members. I do not believe that pedophiles within the RCC have been sufficiently disciplined. I disagree with RCC doctrine on many, many points.

That being said, from the perspective of official RCC dogma, the church is handling the Kerry matter in a fairly consistent and responsible manner. Is this in stark contrast with the way that they have handled other matters? Yes. But that they handle some matters badly does not mean that we should accuse them of inconsistency (i.e., being inconsistently bad) when they act with more integrity. Are there some within the RCC that are not handling this matter appropriately? No doubt there are, but that is no reason to condemn everything the RCC is doing in this matter.

Please recall that the question at hand is not "Is RCC doctrine correct?" but "Is Kerry acting inappropriately for a Roman Catholic?" Secondarily, the first question naturally leads to another: "Is Kerry's lack of integrity with regard to his religion an indication of a possible lack of integrity in general?"

@Rallymama:

Actually, no. the United States was founded for a number of reasons, one of which was to have a government that did not sponsor an official, federal church. The ideal was the separation of church and federal government, not the separation of all government and all religion.

Interestingly, most of the original states had official state churches, many of which were maintained for decades after the founding of the country. In the formation of the U.S.A., the goal was not "no government-sponsored churches" but "no federally-sponsored churches."

That the founders intended religious influence in the government can be demonstrated in many ways, not the least of which is the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by their Creator," etc.). Even now most if not all state constitutions in the U.S. make explicit references to God as the basis of liberty and freedom.

Finally, from a purely democratic perspective (which is not mine, mind you), all people have the right to vote however they want to vote, and all religions have a right to practice as they want to practice. It is within the federally protected rights of the Church to compel its members to vote one way or the other, and within the federally protected rights of the congregants to vote according to their religious ideals, even if that means that they vote to impose their religion on others. After all, even the Constitution can be changed with sufficient votes.

[ June 24, 2004, 23:26: Message edited by: Bombur ]

 

In his charge as a representative of the US Senate?

Did someone mention the Founders? I think the Founders would tend to agree with Rally's point, more so than the notion that government should be an advocate for any religious doctrine.

Since the author of the Declartion is Thomas Jefferson, we should look at some of his comments on relgion and its influence on government. I really like this first one.

Here are a few notes on religion and government by James Madison. Note: he is also commenting on some of George Mason's thoughts on the subject. Notice the important issue of: "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." And this: "It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him."

This final one is from Noah Webster, while not offically one of the Founders, but known for his English dictionary, he was a radical Federalist and advocate for the Constitution.

[ June 25, 2004, 00:13: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

First question then: Is Kerry acting inappropriately as a Roman Catholic?

IMO, no. I personally believe that following a particular religion 100% according to the mandates of the current dogmatic stance kind of misses the point. The church has been proven wrong in the past, and may in time change its position on this issue as well. Doubtful, but maybe. As a faithful Catholic, one shouldn't abandon the remaining 98% of what Catholicism stands for because they don't agree with 2%. Also, Catholicism shouldn't abandon or shun those who don't see eye to eye with every single aspect. Religion isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

Second: I don't believe he's showing a lack of integrity with regard to his religion. Even if he did, I'm not electing a Pope - I'm electing a President. I personally believe the way one follows his or her religion is their business, and far too much emphasis is put on the religious beliefs of our leaders in this country. Being religious does NOT equal being moral, and in fact, the two concepts are often mutually exclusive. If Kerry can't be a good Catholic and pro-choice at the same time, then you have to apply that standard to ALL Catholics who fall slightly shy of dogmatic law - in which case, the Vatican would have to excommunicate about half of its worldwide members in the blink of an eye.

 

@Bion:

As I've already said, belief is one thing. Act is another. Believing that the Church is wrong and abortion is right is one thing. Acting against the Church's doctrine is another thing. If you believe the law of a country is wrong, it's your matter and only yours. However, when you advocate breaking that law, you get in trouble with the government that upholds that law. The same way it is with Kerry and the RCC.

@Iago:

Those are groups that have different garbs, different organisation, different work schedules, different raison d'etre and different history. Different philosophical outlooks and/or priorities as well. Heck, there are even liturgical differences. However, they are all Catholic monastic orders and preach the same Catholic doctrine and Catholic morality. They are not sub-churches in any way. Neither are they in opposition to one another or to the Pope in Rome.

That is true. Kerry is Catholic. In this sense, my topic title can sound like misnomer. However, he is not consistent with Catholicism, while he claims to be a Catholic in good standing with the religion and the Church. Enemy within the ranks of the faithful? Possibly.

No one claims there are no differences within the Church. The matters in which Kerry is involved are ones of great importance in the doctrine. There aren't many things more important than life in the doctrine of the RCC. In the eyes of the RCC, legalising abortion is letting mass murder happen and encouraging it. It's a bit different from how to translate Greek word X or is eating meat on day Y problems. Isn't it?

If the Pope were to decide each bishop nomination, he wouldn't be any less estranged by that sole fact. The bishop would possibly be estranged, however. Chapters elect bishops and the Pope appoints them unless they're unfit. Quite a good system, I bet. Again, if the Pope selected and appointed each individual bishop directly, wouldn't you say he's keeping too much unnecessary power in his hands?

The dioceses care for votes, of course. They do what they can to prevent what they see as murder from being legalised. Anyone can do that. But why do they try to prevent murder from being legalised? Because that would nourish their egos? Or because they take pleasure in forcing things on people? Heck, no. They do their best to prevent laws incompatible with Catholic doctrine from being passed.

@DR:

Being a faithful member and disagreeing on one thing isn't about sinning with impunity and being allowed to do what you like and keep your religious purity. It's about actually trying to change the organisation and help it see the light - according to what the disagreeing member believes. Kerry isn't doing that. Kerry is simply trying to get votes from both sides by being on both sides of the fence.

As for your fiancee (fiance would be male), I don't know her, so I can't tell. However, if abortion is the only thing on which she disagrees with the Church, I believe she considers pre-marital sex and contraception to be wrong as well.

@Aldeth:

I agree that some clarification is needed. However, I've been providing that clarification.

@DR:

Just about everyone is thrilled about the idea of someone committing murder. If anti-abortionists consider abortion murder, it's only normal they shudder at the very thought of it happening.

The official position of the Vatican is that death penalty is to be avoided when it can be, ie when the danger of anyone getting harmed can be eliminated without killing the offender. Otherwise, the lives of potential victims are to be considered more important and death penalty can be served. This is mostly during a war or similar, anyway.

@BTA:

You're correct.

No ipso facto excommunications for voting in favour of abortion and other issues or for politicians who vote in favour of abortion etc. Not yet, at least. It is suggested that those people abstain from receiving Communion, which means they're most likely in state of grave sin (subject to the level of guilt) and receiving communion in that state would contract an added sin of sacrilege.

Aldeth:

He is free to choose one - he can't have both. Either communion with the Church or the implied wishes of his constituents. He wants to have both, however.

A Catholic politician can vote according to his conscience and against the wishes of his constituents and thus maintaining communion with the church, or vote according to the wishes of his constituents and accept that he no longer is in communion with the church, or resign his mandate and stop voting at all. He can't vote against the Church's essential doctrine and maintain communion with that same Church.

@DR:

How does abusing a couple of boys compare to allowing millions to be killed? Especially if the first culprit accepts the wrongfulness of his deed and displays willingness to atone? Still, at any point can Kerry or any other Catholic pro-abortion voter go confess and be absolved and sin no more - ie stop voting in favour of things inconsistent with divine law in the eyes of the Church.

@Rallymama:

No one forces anyone to be Catholic. It's just that people want to keep the name while doing un-Catholic things. And that's bad.

America wasn't ever founded by anyone except maybe by God when he was creating continents. The reason for Independence War was oppression by colonial overlords - the English king and parliament - and not by a religious organisation.

As for forcing religion on people, no one is forcing any religious beliefs on anyone when voting against abortion.

Forcing morals then? Look, there are thieves who believe theft isn't morally wrong. We could find murderers who think it was all right for them to kill in given circumstances. And yet we still put them in prison and enforce our morals on them.

So, if someone believes abortion is murder, just why should he allow people to commit it? Because they don't see it as wrong?

The bishops are acting as Canon Law requires in this case, so that's not a strange invention of theirs.

@Chandos: Again, nice quotes, but they have nothing to do with the subject. I don't recall any Founding Fathers holding any power over the Catholic Church.

The separation of church from state was intended first of all to assert the freedom of religion of the people. In essence, to allow religions to decide their dogma without any interference on the part of the state.

Consequently, the state has no authority to change any part of Catholic dogma or Catholic Canon Law.

From the point of view of the law, the Church is free to create, shape and exercise dogma and laws so long as applicable laws of the state are not being broken in the process.

Also, following from freedom of religion, conscience and freedom of speech, the Church is free to decide what its doctrine is and what is acceptable in its light. Consequently, the Church is free to decide that Kerry's doctrine is inconsistent with established Church's doctrine and withdraw its support.

That Kerry could lose votes (and is hoped to lose them)? He had them for being a Catholic consistent with Catholic doctrine in the first place.

What happens if, let's say, a Commie claims to be personally opposed to Capitalists but votes Capitalist? It's only reaonable to expect him to get kicked out of Commie Party at light speed.

If Kerry all of a sudden went to confession and started voting pro-life, do you believe he should still be allowed to keep the votes he had for being in favour of legalising abortion?

Hardly logical.

[ June 25, 2004, 00:58: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I can't even begin to answer the question posted there or to explain just how profoundly wrong it sounds to me. I am horrified.

I am so sorry Chev...

 

By what are you so horrified?

Do you believe that murder is a lesser crime than molestation? The statement that molestation is a lesser crime than murder seems profoundly wrong to you? Now I am horrified. Really.

 

Well, Vukodlak doesnt seem to see it as murder, but that is another topic..

 

No, the Founders only had power over the government of the United States, which is where Kerry is an elected representative. The Pope has no power here, unless he would like to become a representative of the American People. As a free country, he is always welcome to do so if he can meet the qualifications for office.

 

Right. Chandos' quotes demonstrate that the government has no right to interfere in religion, not that religion has no right to interfere in government. They dictate against mandatory membership in a particular church, but they do not dictate against state (as opposed to federal) sponsorship of a church, or of religious ideas. Again, look at the historical fact of state churches and at the religious language in our current constitutions.

 

@ chev - Many of us don't consider abortion to be taking a human life, so your indignation doesn't really carry much weight. Of course, you knew that already, since it has been covered ad nauseum in the abortion thread.

I'm a bit torn here, since I'm the first to admit that I'm not familiar with RC doctrine. Speaking strictly as a layman, it seems to me that the question is one of what takes precedence - Kerry's duty to the RC Church, or his duty to the people who elected him. Occasionally, those duties will come into conflict, and in those cases he has to let his conscience guide him as to which path to follow. It seems to me that, to be a good American, he has to support his constituents; on the other hand, to be an obedient Catholic, he has to support the Church.

Is it better to be a good American, or an obedient Catholic?

 

Denial, denial, denial. The lengths that the anti-Kerry minions will take to deny the obvious. But this is one of Jefferson's lesser known quotes. It may be my own fault because I am trying to give too much of a wide range of the Founder's thoughts on the subject. Let's narrow it down a bit, and try another one:

This particular one adorns his memorial walls.

Thank you, Splunge. You just put the whole issue into the singular question that should be answered - from a political standpoint.
Anyone who runs for office in that instance you cite, has an obligation to tell those whom he represents that he will not vote in the interest of the People who elect him, but rather at the pleasure of the Vatican. This, of course, would be political suicide for most Catholics who wish to hold office in the United States. The people have a right to know what they are getting. Also, in such an instance, a representative should not swear the oath of office if he cannot discharge his duties as an American.

[ June 25, 2004, 04:45: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Really? That is a bold statement, indeed. Usually, a government representative is expected to uphold the laws and the consititution of his/her nation. That would also mean that religion should be a deciding factor in voting for a representative rather than on the issues.

Let's explore your statement a little closer. Suppose America decides to suddenly go to war in a place, like...say, Iraq? Now, America and its national interest and security are at stake. Then the Pope decides the war is wrong, for reasons such as the "Right to Life is sacred." Now there is a vote on a declaration of war. Should the representative be expected to jeopardize the national security of his fellow countrymen and put the natonal interest at risk, because another ruler decides that should be the case? In most places that would be considered treason.

Let me give you another scenario. Suppose the people just happen to overlook the Catholic issue and elect a representative on the declarations of the current Pope. Let's go further, and say they are all Catholics living in the same district and oppose abortion. But the Pope is old, he passes away and a new Pope is elected. The new Pope thinks abortion is OK in some instances. So now the representative is ordered to vote FOR abortion issues. But most of those Catholics still feel that abortion is wrong. So, now since they know they elected someone who follows the decrees of the RCC rather than that of the rank-and-file Catholics, he must vote the opposite. This can be thought to be a conflict of interest.

But, I am to believe that our government officials would throw America's security to the whim of another outside interest? Your statement is very profound, BTA.

 

Sorry, Chandos...

You are mixing up various elements of Church Teaching, Doctrine and Dogma...

These are vitally different things that are taken at different levels by the Faithful. Your example is moot.

 

@BTA:

Exactly, you've hit it. The votes a Catholic representative gets for being Catholic are not the same as votes he gets for being Joe Representative. If I, let's say, should get votes for being a member of, let's say, Abstinent League and I voted in favour of booze industry, should I really have any right to have the Abstinent League still support me?

That is what I've been trying to explain to Chandos. The voters have every right to be informed and make an informed choice. A politician has no inherent right to get votes and all support he gets is conditional upon his program and his views on things.

Next problem is that when someone becomes a member of a church, he is subject to ecclesiastic authority of that church. There is one way he could avoid that authority: to disclaim it officially, ie to leave the church or to admit in public that he doesn't agree with the established doctrine but he still considers himself a member.

Kerry won't leave the Church. Kerry won't admit he is inconsistent with the official doctrine. No, because that would take votes from him. Kerry will try to be on both sides of the conflict, as in any conflict he meets on his way.

Imagine:

1) "Sorry, dear Vatican. I love you no more. I'm leaving. Long live Reformation!"

2) "It is important for you to know that whereas I consider myself a faithful Catholic, I disagree with parts of established doctrine and moral teaching of the Church."

However, Kerry will go on like "I'm personally opposed to it, but it should be allowed for people. I mean, I'm opposed to it, but I'm OK with it. You get it? Call me Jack."

The Church has been opposed to procured miscarriage and similar practice since the very beginning. I've already given relevant quotes in some other thread, I believe. That's based on Biblical arguments and no Pope has the authority to change anything in the Bible. They can change the official interpretation for the RCC, but there are limits that interpretation can't cross. For instance, quite obviously, interpretation can't contradict the text being interpreted.

@Splunge:

As I've already said, the problem is inconsistency between claiming to be a Catholic with good religious standing and contradicting Catholic doctrine in public. Kerry doesn't have to be Catholic. Leaving the Church is not forbidden.

Also, there is no contradiction between being a good American and an obedient Catholic. I wouldn't call Hacken Slash a bad American or a disobedient Catholic, for instance.

 

Why oh why do I keep insisting on becoming involved in these things?

Well, to the best of my knowledge, he is a Catholic with good religious standing - he hasn't been kicked out, has he?

But what happens when RC and American values conflict? I certainly wouldn't call H.S. a bad American or Catholic either, but then I also haven't seen him put in a decision-making situation where the RC doctrine and American values are at odds with one another; in that situation, he would have to compromise somewhere, but depending on its severity, I doubt that the compromise would result in him all of a sudden being labelled a traitor or the devil reincarnate.