More on Kerry's claims to be Catholic

Remove all ads!

Yes, I can and will comment on that. There are no branches of Catholicism with different doctrine. Individuals differ in opinions as everywhere, but there are no exemptions for anyone from the official established doctrine, Canon Law and other tenets. That some people within the Church would like to have various different restrictions to be lifted is a natural thing - people always want laws to be less strict for themselves while stricter for those who have done something they don't like.

There is no authority independent from the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. Matters of doctrine are not subject to majority vote, should even the majority of faithful hold a different stance than the Pope. This said, there are no legitimate custom versions of Catholic doctrine and moral tenets.

As for flexibility, that flexibility is also exercised in dealing with Kerry. Note that there has not been any ruling in his case yet.

As I stressed it, it's impossible to understand the subtle intricacies of the problem without understanding the Catholic concepts of sin, regret and repentance. There is a reason for there being difference between "just" sin and persistence in sin. The priests in question were punished - quite obviously there was a need for confession, absolution and some serious penance - only it wasn't done in public. Frankly, it's better to deal with such things swiftly, decidedly and discreetly. However, problems begin when people make active effort to mislead the public by pretending nothing was going on. Compassion and forgiving love sometimes needs to inaction and failure to prevent the offender from re-offending - as it was the case with some abusive priests. I agree that the safety of abused children is more important than the offender's chance for returning to his work. However, it's also important to make distinction between real testimony of children and confabulation or things dictated by parents or other people for the children to testify. In many cases, the priest believes he behaved in a fatherly manner, while the parents believed the way he touched the kids was not quite fatherly. There are rare instances of obviously intended sexual abuse and those were mostly sick people with serious disturbances who needed treatment and after that treatment they were reinstated with proper remonstration and instruction. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough. Still, it's always better to let ten culprits go than to sentence one innocent person. At present, we have many priests appealing to high authorities or even to Vatican because of their bishops punishing them or breaking their carreers without proper ordeal, let alone a fair trial. Also, for each family claiming to have had their children abused by a priest, there are some ten families absolutely convinced that the priest in question is incapable of such an atrocity. Whom to believe? Proper procedure must show that, but extreme caution needs to be exercised. An unrepentant offender must be punished, but an innocent servant of God can't have his name tarnished and his life broken on a couple of dubious accounts. Caution is key. This said, I still believe that no priests to whom child molestation was proven should have been allowed to work with children again. Pope John Paul II seems to agree. His personal attention is actually the reason of some such troubles being eventually solved.

Politicians supporting abortion, apart from the gravity of abortion outranking the gravity of child molestation, differ from those priests in yet another regard: they are not willing to confess, repent and sin no more. Also, they are in open and direct opposition to the Church and its established doctrine and moral teaching, contrary to the abusive priests who don't deny the Church's authority (it warrants a very quick suspension from all duties and powers of ordination), nor do they contradict the VIth in itself. This means, in common English, that they don't say in public that child molestation is all right. Also, they are willing or at least declare willingness to atone and sin no more (ie not to molest any kids anymore). Pro-abortion Catholic politicians are, quite obviously, not going to admit that they were in the wrong, that they regret, ask forgiveness and beg God's help in not promoting abortion anymore. Or are they? Also, there is no confusion between voting for or against abortion, no more or less unclear distinction between good and bad touching. It's yea or nay, 0 or 1. Extremely simple and extremely clear.

This is where the difference lies, with no prejudice to difference in gravity (abortion is more evil than molestation) and scope (promoting abortion hurts more people than all the abuse one pervert can commit) between child molestation and promotion of abortion.

Also, if we put punishment aside (as, after all, God is the ultimate judge and the only one that knows what happens in the offender's conscience), the Church needs to make it clear that it doesn't endorse voting for any such politician who supports or promotes abortion. There is to be no room for confusion.

One more thing that needs to be underlined is that, should Kerry actually be excommunicated or otherwise punished, it wouldn't be for belief that abortion is right, or permissible, or tolerable. It would be for actively contributing to its legalisation, which belongs to the sphere of action and not belief.

 

chev, I’m doing my best to see your point of view, and in a way I understand where you are coming from, but I still can’t accuse Kerry of lacking integrity here. I think it’s for a number of reasons, which have already been discussed at length, so I’ll just list them (in no particular order) without repeating the details:

- what I still see as Church hypocrisy
- Kerry’s duty as a public servant
- my own belief that there is nothing wrong with abortion if done early enough (so I see Kerry’s position as being more courageous than anything)

I think we’re at an impasse here. You’re not going to convince me, and of course I will never convince you. So I think I’ll drop out of this debate for now, and leave it for others.

Anyway, regardless of this whole discussion, anybody is a better choice than Bush!

 

Ah, Chev...not a single one of those comments was directed in your direction, but those Republican conservatives who were active on this thread. I think this happens quite often. As an example, most of my posts in the earlier part of this thread were directed at HS. But you seemed to believe that they were directed at you. I would never try to convince anyone other than another American on the "moral authority" of the Founders. Because my only concern is for the political dimensions of this argument. Like Jefferson, I believe that "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

I don't waste my time on those who buy into the religious dogma of organized religion, particularly those who are not Americans. Especially, since your opinions on Kerry are impotent and benign; you can neither vote, nor can you influence in any real way the next election here in the US. But my own feeling is that a man's beliefs regarding religion are between himself and God. I agree with Ben Franklin, that organized religion tends to divide people rather than inspire them to do good towards one another. And historically, it has only brought out the worst in people. To go further, would warrant a separate thread on the disadvantages of organized religion (as well as the reverse).

Of course, I always respect your views on such matters, since you spend so much time and effort concocting these tirades on those who refuse to conform to authority, particularly on sexual matters. Also, your defense of conventional authority is well-written and thought out. Nevertheless, as a non-conformist, who has contempt for most authority anyway, we will never agree much. But I will always defend your right to disagree and express any opinion as your consceince sees fit. Anything else would be un-American.

 

@Splunge:

I realise it may be difficult or even impossible to explain it to you fully given that abortion is not murder for you and that you (probably) haven't had much to do with the Catholic doctrine of sin and repentance.

Whatever arguments I can give you are based on abortion being a far greater crime than molestation and on the difference between regretting and repenting sinners and who are persistent in sin as well as open in their direct opposition to the very law they violate.

As for duties of a public servant, in this case they are more perceived than fixed. Still, no such duty, real or perceived outranks one's duty to God according to the RCC dogma. If, however, Kerry believes otherwise and regards his perceived political duties as more important than his moral and social duty based on religious dogma and teaching, then he shouldn't pretend that it doesn't happen - ie he shouldn't pretend that he doesn't abandon his duty to his religion of whose members he seeks support basing on that affiliation.

In common English, he shouldn't behave as if nothing were going on between himself and the church's official stance.

When he dodges it and tries to be on both sides of each argument, that's when his lack of integrity shows.

He shouldn't call upon any affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church or religion when he at the same time publicly opposes its dogma and moral tenets. Whatever else is a very low lie which practically amounts to stealing votes that he is receiving for actually being Catholic as a result of his calling upon the affiliation with the RCC.

@Chandos:

Those "republican conservatives" may have a very different opinion on how Jefferson should be interpreted. Also, they are not morally, ethically, religiously or otherwise bound by what Jefferson ever said or wrote, let alone your interpretation of it. They may exercise this sort of adherence to another Founding Father, different chosen authority or no one at all. From what I know, Jefferson is not exactly an American equivalent of the Prophet. Your contempt, whether for anyone not American or for any American that refuses to share your particular views doesn't change anything in this regard and it quite surely isn't any motivating factor for them to subscribe to your position. Contrary, in most cases it will disqualify you prima facie.

On a purely logical side, contempt is your subjective feeling or conviction, so it has nothing to do with the validity of anyone' arguments, nor the authority of his position. If any position at all, it will only discredit yours.

 

Your lack of understanding and ignorance of the internal political argument, which has been occurring within in this country during the last several decades, are excusable, because you obviously have no experience with its dynamics. The political dialogue and the shaping of the American political experience draws on many sources, of which the Founders and the founding generation are a large part of that dynamic. Often times repulicans and democrats do not agree on the issues. The orginal meaning of the American political system and its important documents, such as the Declartion, the Contitution, &etc, and its authors, which Jefferson is an important one, are crucial to that dialogue. That repulblicans don't agree with me, and other progressives, is a given part of that dialogue and does not prevent the dialogue from taking place.

Also, I find it strange coming from someone who comments so obessively upon something so personal and subjective as other people's sexual behavior and views on sex to criticize someone else for putting forth a political "subjective" opinion. That you don't understand the nature of the debate, or for that matter, my own personal opinions on the political issues in my country, does not prevent me from expressing them.

[ June 27, 2004, 21:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

And that's where I see the problem. Woytila is ignored by the Catholic church. So, he is ignored by the Catholic parties. So, what's the problem ? No Catholic bothers (well, maybe a small minority) what the Pope says. If there a Schism in the Castholic Chruch, I doubt that Woytila side could dare say his Roman Catholic. The description will remain with the people that shaped it, the central and south European average Catholic, not a meaningless Pope. That's propably why peope refer to him as "Woytila", as his abiltiy to fill out the position as Pope is doubtful. Maybe he should have resigned after a while after being shot.

A political of Catholic party directs itself to the Catholic opinion, not the opinion of the Pope, if there is a difference, as nowadays. The Catholic Church may be an absolute Monarchy. But even in a absolute Monarche, the ruler depends of the consent of the ruled.

[ June 27, 2004, 22:36: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

As if on cue, there's this op-ed in the New York Times:

Perhaps, Chev, the Catholic church should withdraw the sainthood of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who obviously were not Catholics. Of course, it goes without saying that the writer of this op-ed should be forced to change the name of his book to "Why I Am Not a Catholic."

The Catholic church has changed its opinions many, many times in its history, and yes, this pertains to both "beliefs" and "acts."

As Iago points out, the Catholic church might be changing in ways that the current Pope wouldn't approve of. And somehow, I doubt that the next Pope will be as conservative as the current one...

 

@Chandos: Whatever you have said in your most recent post only proves what I had said before. The most amusing part is where you stick so firmly to your assumptions of the adversary's ignorance. I call that "evidence through obviously", to distinguish semi-logical inference where the word "obviously" fills the holes in evidence material as necessary.

I'm not going to play the Whose Credentials Are Better game with you as, quite frankly, it looks akin to the size debate SP once had

It gets even more funny when you summarise the whole process of evolution of American politics and statecraft in a couple general and syntactically disordered sentences while at the same time you accuse me of lack of deep insight into subtle intricacies.

It's getting more and more funny, given that one needs to know a bit more than "Declaration, Constitution etc" even to leave highschool. Quite frankly, quoting Jefferson and seeing him as fountain of absolute truth was not quite enough for more than just a passing grade.

Yes, yes. You are a living force of progress and that progress is being halted by those anti-progressive retards of conservatives. We knew that before you said that.

And before moderators come in and close the the thread, please switch to PMs if you have any more interesting stories about my personality or knowledge.

Please, we're commenting on abortion and other collateral issues here from a religious or philosophical standpoint as a rule, so your rant is objectless. That you don't recognise organised religions or philosophies is your own problem and you have every right to that, but it hardly makes "something so personal and subjective" of the tenets of an organised religion.

@Iago:

Maybe in Switzerland, but hardly elsewhere. The Pope is ignored by the Catholic Church no more than a monarch or president is ignored by his own administration.

This current Pope has hardly been meaningless. Neither is the position of a Pope in general meaningless in the RCC. We would all be good Protestants if it were.

Perhaps in Switzerland, but hardly world-wide. Strangely, you're about the first person I've ever heard to refer to him by his lay surname rather than the Papal name except radical anti-clerical activists who never use any Church titles as a rule.

I hardly see being shot as a reason for resigning from the office of Pope.

In the Catholic Church, religious offices are what they are - religious - and so they aren't manned through general elections. Bishops are elected by cathedral chapters and the Pope is elected by the Cardinals and so was this current Pope as well.

@Bion:

Quite frankly, I don't see any reason to attribute to the above any other character than Mr Willis's personal opinion.

This shows that Mr Willis hasn't quite read the Bible. At least he sees the possibility of at least some people calling upon the Fifth on this one.

There is a difference between hair and fingernails and, let's say, liver or lungs or an interal organ indispensible for a human to live.

Even more so is a foetus, a fertilised ovum which is going to develop into a human like Mr Willis or I, quite distinct from a fingernail or some hair. I would have supposed it's obvious.

And clearly this is a failure of religious education system

Dead people have never been baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. Ever. It doesn't take a teologist to realise that after death it's too late for a sacrament of which the purpose is to prepare a newborn faithful for temporal life.

It also shows that Mr Willis's approach to faith is superficial and sacraments amount to a couple of words and some gesture. That's magic, not religion. There is more to religious cult than simple form.

That pattern of thinking is more characteristic of people who from themselves rejecting a religion's substance (themselves following a different religion or none at all) move on to treating cult as sort of dramatic play. Given this, I don't understand why Mr Willis prefers to stay a member of an organised religion.

People taking part in abortion are ipso fact excommunicated (latae sententiae excommunication) alongside murderers and their accomplices. Abortion is filicide in the eyes of the Church.

Because that's the only thing you need to be said.

The very idea of there being a God that could rule something you do to be wrong is a bad thing, isn't it? God had better stick to hearing and granting prayers and being a goody that saves all people no matter what they do

That's absurd.

The idea of an organised religion is not actually to please the faithful. They can always go see a movie or play a game if that suits them better. Neither is the idea to please God, nor does lip service please God. The idea is reaching salvation and, here's the catch, salvation is not anyone's right and it's surely not a granted bonus. It's not enough to be baptised RC and go to church every Sunday to be saved.

As for the current Pope, he's hardly of the most conservative wing in the Church. It's possible someone with different views will be chosen after him, but no Pope can change the basic dogma.

For more argument on abortion, please refer to (closed thread):

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000844

Now, I trust we're done with background information and we can come back to the topic.

 

Mr. Will's book was also rejected for an imprimatur due to the serious errors in doctrine and Church teaching that it propogated. Not a reliable source to go to.

 

@ Chev

And I guess that's the unbridgable divide here. No doubt any strong supporter of RCC dogma would agree with you. The problem, as I see it, is most people who call themselves "Catholic" aren't nearly as "Catholic" as you are. That is to say, that most people I know of who call themselves Catholic do not nearly subscribe to all of the Church's views and tenets as rigidly as you do. I don't find anything wrong with your position, but observation (at least here in the States - I've never been to Poland so I can't comment on the populace there) tells me that your position is far from a common one.

Now, just because the majority of people have gravitated to that position does not in any way give that position validity. As you have said, the RCC isn't a democracy in any way. However, if the vast majority of Catholics think more like me than like you (and I really do believe that to be true), the Pope will have to accept their membership unless he wants to excommunicate half the members of the RCC. As that obviously isn't going to happen, the matter comes down to not whether the Pope or RCC dogma considers Kerry to be in violation of RCC tenets, but whether the populace feels that way. If Average Joe Catholic sees nothing wrong with Kerry's position on abortion (and again, of the Catholics I know, most don't have a problem with Kerry), then what the Pope says or what RCC dogma points to is ulimately moot.

All your points about Christianity and more specifically Catholicism are correct. You could even make the arguement that all of these people who aren't true Cathoics will find their punishment in death at the hands of an angry God, but that doesn't change the fact that in this world (and lets face it, no one can really claim to be an authority on the afterlife) the Pope is powerless to do much of anything to Kerry without losing the support of countless Catholics.

EDIT: Spelling

[ June 28, 2004, 19:29: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Sorry I'm getting in way late on this one, but did Chev just suggest that any Catholic who gets voted into a public office, must put the interest of the people aside in order to enforce the rules of the RCC?

 

@Chev:

So, then show me a *single* quote, in the old or new testament, that specifically bans abortion or contraception. And no, this doesn't include "thou shall not kill," because abortion as killing is what is at issue here. (Though I guess such heretics as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas don't count here, right?) The bans on abortion and contraception are based on Canon law, and Canon law changes over time.

So the Catholic church is against organ transplants as well now? I hadn't read about that!

Yes, the foetus will develop into a human, after lots of cell division and after 9 months of incubation. Come to think of it, the sperm will also develop into a human after fertilization and above; why the arbitrary choice of fertilization as the moment of assigning humanness? Again, the Vatican proves that it knows jack squat about biology: as in Monty Python, "you're a Catholic the moment dad came..."

No, but an unborn infant who is expected to be stillborn may undergo conditional baptism. Perhaps the Catholic church should try to identify pregnant women at high risk of abortion and seek them out for conditional baptisms?

Again, Canon law and subject to change, and often ignored in practice, at least in the US.

As far as I can tell, you've only tied your argument that abortion is murder to church tradition, not to any pronouncement by God. And I'm afraid after 2VC, Papal Infallability isn't what it used to be. Or perhaps you don't agree with Canon law after 2VC? Well, I don't agree with the Canon law that identifies abortion as murder.

And Wills' argument against the attempt of some bishops to influence politics has nothing to do with the moral relativism you attempt to attribute to him. You're reaching here, Chev...

Again, the position on abortion as enshrined in Canon law is relatively recent to the history of the Catholic church, and in no way constitutes "basic dogma."

Here, you display your *vast* ignorance about the history of Christianity and of the Catholic church. Read a little bit about church history by a real historian (not just an apologist for current church policy), and you'll see just how often the "basic dogma" of the church has changed over time, whether you're looking at the 4th or the 12th or the 20th century. C'mon, you don't think 2VC had anything to do with the will of the people?

And you again use the absurd tactic of dismissing as unserious those who seek to change the position of the church, which again only proves your ignorance. Perhaps you don't get around much in Poland, but trust me, there are many serious *Catholic* scholars who believe quite passionately that various aspects of Canon law are incorrect. There is about 1000 times more debate among Vatican Canon lawyers than there seems to be in your own head about Catholic policy, and even more debate outside the Vatican. As someone who has had the opportunity to study with serious, published, university-level Catholic scholars across the political spectrum, from liberation theologists to conservatives who want to roll back 2VC, I can say that you don't know what you're talking about when you project Catholicism as a single, unified front.

No, I'm afraid your understanding of the Catholic church in no way provides a complete and uncontestable background for this debate.

@HS: of course it didn't get an imprimature; it doesn't fully agree with current church positions!

@Aldeth: Again, you shouldn't take Chev's Catholicism as the only Catholicism out there...

@Everyone: Here is another recent article by a Catholic former policy maker who personally believes in the church's current position on abortion, while strongly disagreeing with current bishop activism:

 

Well, not really. He more or less flat-out said it. "Suggest" is a bit of a mild word. See the quote in my last message from Chev:

 

Yes, it's quite mainstream here. Like the article I've posted above showed, the inner Catholic contreversy is already going since I remember. But then again, the make-up of the Confederacy may galvanise theological disputes.

Well, you're right. But many things I've read about him see being shot was a turning point in his life, as he never recovered from it fully, at, I gather, still suffers from pain and physical hinderances, caused by the wounds. That indeed changed his outlook on things, as he was described as physically strong and energetic person before getting shot. Some say, he wouldn't rely that much on Cardinal Ratzinger if his physical condition would be better.

Sorry, I may not have been clear in my writing. I meant the Christian parties, that were formerly formally known as Catholic political parties. Like the Christian (formerly Catholic) People's Party in Switzerland or the Austrian Christian People's party. The controversy inside the Catholic church about dogma has translated itself into the traditional Catholic vote, those parties are based on, giving them a hard time to re-concile all factions. And those parties tend to go where the vote of the average Catholic goes and that direction is not, as mentioned before, necessarily the direction Pope goes.

 

Sorry, but in given circumstances I can't argue any more. Answering the same questions more than three times in one thread doesn't lead anywhere. Discussing all collateral trivia while trying to steer the debate back to the point isn't my idea of a great pastime. Even less so is going point-by-point all over again and again.

I'm not even going to point out, let alone answer some of more recent juicy bits. Frankly, I'm not used to people talking to me this way, nor do I plan to be any time soon.

Have a good time if anyone wants to continue this debate, however, from no on without me.

 

Despite the high energy arguements that have gone on, the Kerry supporters have failed to make a dint in the basic crux of the issue. Take the word "Catholic" (or Baptist or Islamic or Transcendentalist or Survivalist or whatever) out of the equation and make it real simple...that will bring all the Theological questions to "mootdom".

1. Kerry claims to be "X"
2. Members of "X" must do certain things, one of which includes "Y".
3. Kerry refuses to do "Y"
MEANING
either...
A. Kerry does not understand what it means to be "X".
or...
B. Kerry understands what it means to be "X" and is lieing about his status as "X".
or...
C. Kerry understands what it means to be "X" and is afraid to stand for his own principles for whatever reason.

This ain't so hard, kids (sorry, not including you, Splunge ). It's not like we're trying to plan the occupation of a foreign nation. This shouldn't be so difficult to grasp. Oh well, since chev has been bludgeoned out of this thread, I doubt ther'll be much more to say.

 

Damn! I thought I was done here.

"X" = "public servant"
"Y" = "serve the public"

So your analysis stands, except that 3. needs to be slightly modified:
3. Kerry refuses to ignore his duty to do "Y"

B. wouldn't apply, and A. and C. need to be slightly modified as well (and become redundant in the process):
A. Kerry understands what it means to be "X".
C. Kerry understands what it means to be "X" and is not afraid to stand for his own principles for whatever reason.

This is the impasse I was referring to before. As Aldeth says, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And as chev said:

So basically, if I'm to follow your logic through to its inevitable conclusion, this means that no Catholic can ever be a public servant with integrity, since eventually his duty to his religion will come into conflict with his public duty, and if he wants to remain a loyal public servant, he'll have to renounce his duty to the Church.

 

I couldn't have said it better Splunge. You see, when you get down to it, the analysis provided by Hacken Slash is way too simplified for such a complex issue. I mean, if I wanted to stir the pot (which I never would of course), I could say, for example, substitute Bush with Kerry and allow X = be a christian, and allow Y = follow the commandment "thou shalt not kill", and then ask about his stance on capital punishment. Or allow Y = provide for the poor, or provide for the sick, or provide for the elderly, etc.

Yes, that's a ridiculous arguement I just put forward, with it's purpose being to illustrate the problems you run into when you oversimplify an issue. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this issue, as it has been clearly shown that Kerry cannot vote both ways (despite conservatives who may claim otherwise). It all comes down to whether or not a person feels his (or her) first obligation is to the people, or to the Church, and that is left for every man (or woman) to decide on his (or her) own. However, saying Kerry can't be Catholic because he doesn't follow every Papal decree is preposterous.