posted on October 19, 2004 12:10:00 AM new
Los Angeles, Oct. 18 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.
The consultant made his statement in a highly unusual letter to Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles canon lawyer who formally sued John Kerry in ecclesiastical court for heresy.
Balestrieri, who launched his case earlier this year by filing a heresy complaint in Kerry's home archdiocese of Boston, told EWTN's "World Over" program on Friday that he had received an unusual, indirect communication from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the pro-abortion stance.
That communication provides a basis, he said, to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is "personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose," incurs automatic excommunication. It also provided a basis for Balestrieri to broaden his canonical actions and file additional complaints against four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa; Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine; and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a Democrat.
The current action could be significant as it could undercut the entire debate over denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. An excommunicated Catholic may not receive any of the sacraments of the Church, including the Eucharist, marriage, and even Christian burial. The type of excommunication outlined in the new information is called latae sententiae, which means that it occurs automatically and does not require a formal pronouncement by any Church official.
Balestrieri said he went to Rome in late August to discuss his canonical case with experts, including an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Less than 10 days later, he received a letter from Father Basil Cole, a Dominican theologian and consultant to the congregation based in Washington, DC, who said he had been "delegated" by Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation, to give an unofficial response to the question that Balestrieri had submitted.
"I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith," said Balestrieri. "The first: Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy. The second: Whether or not a denial of the Church's teaching condemning every right to abortion also constitutes heresy. Father Cole, an expert theologian who studied the matter carefully, responded in the affirmative on both counts."
Father Cole wrote, "If a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ...."
Balestrieri said the response was unusual in several respects: that a response was provided to a layman at the request of the undersecretary in only 11 days, that the response was in writing, decisively clarifying the matter, and that it was in far greater detail than a typical official reply. "Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF, such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public," he said.
He also said that the original canonical complaint of heresy against Kerry had received so much response from the public that the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston has been deluged with thousands of letters from ordinary Catholics who wish to add their names to the complaint. The head of the archdiocesan tribunal reportedly told him that the case had not been rejected and was "now in the hands of the archbishop," that is, Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.
Balestrieri, a self-identified political independent, says that his actions come as a defender of the faith and Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal, not as one focused on an electoral outcome. "Our victory can come as early as today: It would be for Sen. Kerry, who publicly calls himself a Catholic and yet in violation of Canon Law continues to receive Holy Communion, to repent of his grave sin and publicly recant his abortion advocacy."
posted on October 19, 2004 12:53:56 AM new
Being excommunicated from that cesspool called the Catholic Church is the best thing that could ever happen to anyone.
Funny, the Catlick Church protects and defends child rapers but excommunicates people who believe a woman's body is her's alone.
posted on October 19, 2004 05:23:40 AM new
Yes, kerry's stand on both abortion, especially late term abortion AND embryonic stem cell research has turned tens of thousands [maybe more] of NOT ONLY Catholics but many religious away from the kerry ticket.
He said, when asked, he doesn't agree with his OWN faith's decisions on these issues....so good...quit pretending you're something your not.
posted on October 19, 2004 06:25:48 AM new
Weird. I'm one of the main pro-religion posters on this board, and the stem-cell thing is one thing I LIKE about Kerry and DISLIKE about Bush.
However, I don't really think there is anything to this article. If the CC actually started excommunicatinig people who were pro-abortion, they'd cut down their own numbers pretty fast. Say what you want about them, they aren't generally that stupid.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on October 19, 2004 07:05:26 AM new
replaymedia - I have supported the Constitutional rights of the religious for years here - against the religious bigots who constantly start threads to bash religion. I don't articulate it as well as you have, but I believe in this particular case, where you agree with kerry, it's more than just being about abortion and stem cell research.
I've heard a couple of religious group leaders who have shared their concern with kerry, on these issues, is mainly in his previous statement about using his litmus test for future USSC judges. They believe that will set an anti-religious precident in the Supreme Court and will totally change the decisions that come from them....against our religious freedoms.
For me personally, I don't like the idea of producing life for the only purpose being to destroy it. I do support other types of stem-cell research though. And I definately believe we need SOME limits on abortions. Most things in life has some limits...this should be no different, imo. There is NO reason a woman has to wait until the baby is viable to then decide to takes it's life.
Kerry has stated his position very clearly and a good number of Catholics are in agreement with him on the issue of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. That doesn't make those people who don't believe in some policies of the Catholic church "faithless" and eligible for excommunication. If all Catholics who practice and believe in abortion and birth control and Catholics who support stem cell research were excommunicated or chastised, the church would lose a significant number of members and as a result, substantial funding.
Such foolish ideas as expressed in this article will win more votes for Kerry from religious people of all faiths.
posted on October 19, 2004 07:13:06 AM new
I think you need to go read a few of the Catholic sites....you will see MUCH differently than how you currently see the issue.
And not just on the Catholic sites...but on MANY sites where people of faith express their opinions.
Easy to see how, you as an atheist would see it differently, but you have no right to speak for those of faith.
posted on October 19, 2004 07:27:39 AM new
Linda, I probably didn't make myself entirely clear earlier. I AM against abortion, at least theoretically.
However, it *IS* in fact legal, and I feel that as long as it stays legal, we may as well make what we can of the situation and benefit from stem-cell research.
Abortion is wrong. Period. But it happens everyday, and even if someday it were made illegal again, it would STILL go on. There is no need for anyone to hide their head in the sand and pretend that it will ever stop. Lets make use of those aborted fetuses. It's a lot like organ donations if you want to look at it like that.
Just a sick note: Did anyone see the episode of South Park with Christopher Reeve sucking the stem cells from fetusus? It really was one of their funnier episodes
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on October 19, 2004 07:33:37 AM new "I think you need to go read a few of the Catholic sites....you will see MUCH differently than how you currently see the issue. And not just on the Catholic sites...but on MANY sites where people of faith express their opinions. Easy to see how, you as an atheist would see it differently, but you have no right to speak for those of faith." linda.
I believe that I have just as much right to speak for those of faith as you do. You don't seem to have any reservations about speaking for me. Actually, I don't have to go to any "site" to check my opinion. I read the newspaper daily and besides that, I have many friends who are Catholic. These are good loving people, not hateful or filled with such animosity that they would want to excommunicate a member of their church simply because of a difference of opinion on policy and in this case for political sleaze. I lived in the south where most people were Protestant and of all the people that I know there, not a one would vote to banish someone because of a difference of opinion. They, like Catholics will see Balestrieri as an eccentric and as someone who does not represent their beliefs.
posted on October 19, 2004 07:36:17 AM new
replaymedia - Yes, now that you say that again, I do remember you stating it before. Sorry.
But with partial birth abortions NO ONE has given any reason this barberic procedure should continue...other than they 'want the right'. It has been overwhelmingly voted against at least THREE times. Most American's want this procedure stopped.
And I think there's a general misconception on the aborted fetus', once dead they are of no value. I think the left suggests this as a means of obtaining agreement....but dead fetus' can't be used. In early term abortions the babies are sucked throught a very tiny tub...which tears all body parts - apart. When looking at what's left in the bottle after an abortion it just looks like a woman who's had her period with some clotting.
The partial birth abortion procedure is the MOST barbaric procedure I've even witnessed. I couldn't stomach it.
posted on October 19, 2004 08:22:50 AM new "Just a sick note: Did anyone see the episode of South Park with Christopher Reeve sucking the stem cells from fetusus? It really was one of their funnier episodes"
That is probably one of the "sickest notes" that I have read on this board especialy when mentioned so soon after Christopher Reeve's death. The fact that anyone would find it funny is embarrassing to the human race.
posted on October 19, 2004 08:44:38 AM new
View from the uneducated:
"""Yes, kerry's stand on both abortion, especially late term abortion AND embryonic stem cell research has turned tens of thousands [maybe more] of NOT ONLY Catholics but many religious away from the kerry ticket.
He said, when asked, he doesn't agree with his OWN faith's decisions on these issues....so good...quit pretending you're something your not."""
Your first paragraph is just an opinion with no facts...and just the opposite is ALSO true, the bush administration has turned away many people because it wants to shove religion down the throats of all Americans.
Second paragraph:
Kerry said VERY clearly in one of the debates, he AGREES with the teachings of his church on abortion but does NOT FEEL it's right to legislate those "articles of faith" on others who may not share those beliefs.
He couldn't have been clearer...even for those with limited education.
NOTE: For years the Republicans campaign and win votes because they say are against abortion....the anti-women's rights people then, like sheep, vote one issue. This is a successful campaign TRICK..........
Have any neocons noticed
WE STILL HAVE ABORTION.....
even after all the promises your party made to you.....
posted on October 19, 2004 09:02:29 AM newso soon after Christopher Reeve's death....
kind of like edwards statement on stem cells....where he sounded JUST like a southern preacher screaming to the congregation 'when kerry's elected....people like Christopher Reeve would get out of his wheelchair and walk.' Oh brother....faith healing. And he's so far off of the scientific evidence that it's not funny.
And of course.....your FRIENDS are here sharing THEIR opinion....but rather YOU are, an ATHEIST, telling us all what people of faith believe. Like you speak for the majority....when you DON'T.
-------------
and then there's the QUEEN OF LIAR'S again....pointing out that kerry can't even live by the rules of faith his own religion preaches. Nope...not him...he's a Bible fearing man of God alright ....he'll take what parts he agrees with and pass on the others. NO WONDER their taking about not giving him communion and possibly ex-communicating him.
posted on October 19, 2004 09:32:49 AM new
Parklane, it just so happens that Helen and Profe51 are two of the most rational thinking and intelligent posters on the board. That's why you can't help but notice........ they stand out from the rest of the crowd.
posted on October 19, 2004 09:34:11 AM new
The catholic church is nothing more that a cult wearing the face of organized religion.
From dictionary.com
cult
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
----------------------
Could the charismatic leader be the pope?
Another view of a cult could be that if you join with us, we will take care of you. We will protect you from things that could harm you. Isn't this what the cathlick church does when it hides, legally defends, pays off victims, and moves the priests to another city or part of the country? Only so they can continually rape young boys?
On the stem cell issue. Imagine what people thought in 1953 when doctors performed the very first kidney dialysis. The method might have been considered outrageous at the time, but it brought about positive change to the medical research in this field.
The method was simple. Doctors took identical twins in which one of them had kidney failure. The used IV lines to connect both twins together to see if the healthy twin could sustain the other one. It worked. But when they were disconnected, the twin with kidney disease later died. This gave doctors the knowledge that a person might be able to live on only 1 kidney. As I do today.
It takes trial and error to make progress in the field of medical science, and stem cell research is one of the most useful methods current available to medical researchers.
I am very much for stem cell research.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 19, 2004 10:05:46 AM new
And then the Queen of the Uneducated says,
"and then there's the QUEEN OF LIAR'S again....pointing out that kerry can't even live by the rules of faith his own religion preaches. Nope...not him...he's a Bible fearing man of God alright ....he'll take what parts he agrees with and pass on the others. NO WONDER their taking about not giving him communion and possibly ex-communicating him. ""
Let's take this part, "he's a Bible fearing man of God alright ....he'll take what parts he agrees with and pass on the others. "
Most "religious" people do just that....like all the Catlick women who are on birth control....excommunicate them all? NNNooooo, church would lose those donations.......
So, singling out politicians, or singling out any particular group is very bigoted and proves interference in politics by the church......fine, interfere if they can but then they should lose their "tax-free" status.
OK, now people who aren't very highly educated can't read very well, but Kerry has said he agrees with the churches teachings ....he believes abortion as an "article of faith" is wrong but APPROPRIATELY will not legislate his religious beliefs onto others.
OK, Kerry has never performed an abortion BUT priests have RAPED children and have not been excommunicated....they've even been HIDDEN and GIVEN more victims!
Of course, those with not much education think raping children is fine but normal people know it for the horrendous sick crime that it is.
[ edited by crowfarm on Oct 19, 2004 10:07 AM ]
posted on October 19, 2004 10:49:18 AM new
And then there's the totally illogical idea that if you're an atheist you can't know anything about religion ?!?! How stupid is that?
It's like saying if you're not an ornithologist you don't know if that's a robin in your yard or a turkey!
For linda, an ornithologist is ..ah.... I'll simplify for you..a bird expert.
posted on October 19, 2004 11:00:20 AM new
EAG and Linda, there are some Bishops that feel any supporter of the Iraq War should be excommunicated.....
Executive editor of Sojourners: Catholic bishops "worse than irrelevant"
Sojourners has always been a kind of contrarian magazine in the evangelical world. While its theology is orthodox, its politics are as left as World magazine's are right. But generally the magazine has maintained its evangelical credentials not just through its emphasis on biblicism and evangelism, but also because its social justice values include protection of the unborn.
As such, it represents an important wing of the evangelical Protestantism—though in its social values it sometimes sounds a bit closer to a Roman Catholic magazine.
This week, Sojourners really starts to sound like a Catholic magazine—more of the Commonweal than the Crisis variety—as executive editor David Batstone attacks the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as inconsistent, "narrow-minded," and "worse than irrelevant." In "An open letter to the Catholic bishops," Batstone writes, "You risk stumbling into hypocrisy."
Batstone isn't talking about the clergy-abuse scandal. He's talking about the Iraq war and abortion.
"I am perplexed why you have chosen the abortion issue as a litmus test for 'full communion with the faith of the church,'" Batstone writes.
Sorry to speak so boldly, but you have no basis for so selectively narrowing your rich moral tradition. … We recently have witnessed in the United States a decision and act by our political leaders to pre-emptively invade a sovereign nation-state. The social teaching of the Church explicitly prohibits and condemns such aggressive behavior. Pope John Paul II certainly understands this fact, as he made clear in an audience with President George W. Bush last month. …
I have not heard one U.S. Bishop even suggest that Holy Communion might be withheld for any politician who enacted, or voted for, the immoral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Yet the consequent loss of human lives—both Iraqi and American—and the devastation of Iraqi society have been nothing short of tragic. Furthermore, this act of spiritual arrogance—invoking God's guidance while invading—has deepened historical animosities that surely will lead to more senseless bloodshed in the Middle East and across the globe. …
Why is it that the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church are unable to see this serious breach of morality? Over 250 of you are gathered in Colorado this week, and you only see fit to make public pronouncements about a sole moral issue.
Friends and brothers, I fear that your narrow-mindedness is turning the voice of the Church into something far worse than irrelevant. You risk stumbling into hypocrisy. I urge you to reclaim the full gospel of life, and announce it prophetically to those who would trample on the rights of the defenseless—those who have already been born as much as those yet unborn.
Batstone notes that he's "tenured professor of ethics and moral theology at a Catholic university" (that would be the Jesuit University of San Francisco, where an openly gay professor teaches marriage and family therapy). "It is precisely because I am so familiar with the tradition that I am perplexed," he says.
But Batstone's reference to authority here sounds a bit less like Avery Dulles than it does Howard Dean's brag, "If you know much about the Bible—which I do," right before he placed Job in the New Testament. That's because many theologians, journalists, bloggers, pundits, and others have been spending the last several months talking about why the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the abortion issue trumps other political concerns. Batstone doesn't even give a sentence to responding to these comments.
It's not like he has to read all of canon law to get the point. Just reading news coverage of what he's writing about—or the very bishops' statement he's criticizing—would have hit the highlights.
"Does the church see the right to life as trumping all its other concerns?" David Van Biema wrote in last week's Time cover package.
Technically speaking, yes. The most useful comparison may be with the church's anti-capital-punishment stance. The Pope has explicitly connected executions with abortion as part of the "culture of death." But church teaching on abortion is "definitive": Catholics must obey it as an act of faith. Teaching on capital punishment is merely "authentic," meaning believers may bring reason to bear on the issue. The church's catechism calls abortion an absolute evil but hedges on the death penalty, quoting the Pope as saying cases necessitating it "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." And canon law includes a penalty of excommunication for abortion but none for aiding state-sanctioned executions. …
The church allows believers commonsense, or "prudential," latitude in fitting doctrine to political action. That is not license to contradict teaching, but an acknowledgment of the delicacy of its application in the real world. In practice, says the Rev. John Langan of Georgetown University, prudence could translate into supporting Pennsylvania's pro-choice Arlen Specter (as Santorum has) to maintain the Senate majority of the Republican Party, which skews antiabortion.
The specific circumstances surrounding the Iraq war mean prudence plays an even bigger role than it does in capital punishment cases. More on that in a moment, but let's first keep in mind that the debate over abortion and Communion isn't simply because it's an election year. It's largely because the Vatican issued a doctrinal note to the bishops in November 2002 suggesting they weren't taking the matter of rogue Catholic politicians seriously enough. That doctrinal note repeatedly mentions abortion, along with same-sex marriage, divorce, education, drug use, prostitution, religious freedom, and an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good. Then it says this:
Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always "the work of justice and the effect of charity." It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.
Most politicians who supported the Iraq war believed they were doing the work of justice and charity. A politician who supports abortion, however, would have a hard time saying he was protecting the unborn. That line about "forget the complexity of the issues involved" is worth noting, because the church radically differs on its teachings of abortion and war. "The killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified," the American bishops said in their most recent statement. The Roman Catholic Church has always held that war can be justified. The debate was whether invading Iraq met the qualifications of a just war, and it's worth noting that folks in the Bush camp tended to reference traditionally Catholic doctrine on this issue while folks in the Sojourners camp tended to take a more pacifist view.
"We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments," the bishops said about the Iraq war in November 2002.
People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear. Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. … There are no easy answers. Ultimately, our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national security, but we hope that our moral concerns and questions will be considered seriously by our leaders and all citizens.
That's a long way from the language the bishops used on abortion. But Batstone says the Pope "made clear in an audience with President George W. Bush last month" (it was this month, but we'll let that slide) that "the social teaching of the Church explicitly prohibits and condemns" the invasion.
The Pope didn't say any such thing, but did call for a "speedy return of Iraq's sovereignty, in conditions of security for all its people." The Pope has always pushed for more United Nations action in Iraq, and has repeatedly called it "a grave matter." But that's a long way from "a grave sin," "a most serious and dangerous crime," and grounds for excommunication—language that the Roman Catholic Church uses for abortion.
Batstone claims to be an expert on Catholic moral teachings, and it's clear that he's long been concerned about the war. So why is he so upset with the bishops? Is he upset about their commitment to abortion? He says no: "I am not among those who would criticize you for taking a strong public moral position on behalf of the rights of the unborn. The Church has for a long time held fast to that conviction; it is consistent with, and an irrevocable thread to, the Church's 'gospel of life.' The word 'consistency' is significant here, for it is your lack of consistency in other grave matters that today undermines your moral authority."
But the bishops are being consistent. No matter how much Batstone wishes otherwise, Catholic teachings have never seen moral equivalence between abortion and the Iraq War. Just because the Pope criticizes something doesn't mean that it gets the same weight when it comes to church discipline.
Today, the Pope himself seems to have destroyed Batstone's case, criticizing "abuses" and "deviations" in the modern sports world. According to the AFP news agency, he lamented "exacerbated commercialism," the "aggressive spirit of competition" among top athletes and their "violence against people and things."
Under Batstone's logic, the bishops would be "worse than irrelevant" and "risk stumbling into hypocrisy" if they didn't immediately issue a statement banning NBA players from Communion. That's just not the way it works.
Enough Catholicism?
Okay, okay. Sojourners is pretty much an evangelical Protestant magazine—and Christianity Today certainly characterizes itself that way. Weblog has probably spent too much time today analyzing Roman Catholic teachings. So let's turn back to the evangelical world.
The National Association of Evangelicals has posted the draft document of its major declaration, "For the Health of the Nation: A Call to Civic Engagement." You don't have to rely on the Los Angeles Times summary anymore. Be aware that it's still in draft form, and that at this time the NAE is apparently seeking "review by one-hundred denominational executives, seminary presidents, and other parachurch officials" rather massive public comment. Some bloggers, however, are calling for an "open source" statement. That's probably not going to happen, but you can certainly see what happens if you send your thoughts along to the NAE e-mail address. Of, if you want to discuss the statement, try our Politics message board.
If killing a fetus is grounds for excommunication then I guess the same would hold true for killing thousands of innocent Iraqi's.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on October 19, 2004 11:03:22 AM new
Furthermore, if you want to excommunicate a person just on their beliefs about abortion, what do you do with all the women that actually have an abortion. I guess you would have to excommunicate them as well???
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on October 19, 2004 12:30:50 PM new
Religion and politics don't mix just like churches playing politics don't mix.
Both Bush playing his religion game and the churches playing their politics will come back to hurt them both.
An example of religion and politics mixing is the Taliban.
Its seems strange that Bush and his so called faith opposes abortion. When the same guy with the same faith supports the death penalty and the killing of innocent men woman and children in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I also find it strange for Bush and his so called faith to opposes abortion when he also opposes welfare for woman that have children they can't afford. Maybe Bush is banking on another term where he can make other laws. Like one that says, any woman who has sex without being married to a member of the opposite sex will be sterilized for their crime.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Oct 19, 2004 12:31 PM ]
[ edited by bigpeepa on Oct 19, 2004 12:35 PM ]
posted on October 19, 2004 02:34:56 PM new
yeager - You appear confused. First there is a HUGE difference between a twin helping her twin through the process of kidney kialysis....than there is forming human life to kill it.
Second there are different types of stem cell research. You did not mention *embryonic* stem cell....just stem cell and President Bush is for that and is the FIRST Presiden EVER to fund that research. What he is against is the Federal government paying for *embryonic* stem cell research.
----------------------
Then the QUEEN OF LIAR'S is at it again. Politicians present and make LAWS...they're just a tad more influential than your everyday Catholic citizen in forming the laws of our country - so YES, they should be held to a higher standard when NOT following the teachings of THEIR OWN church.
-----------------------
And kerry just shows what a total farce he is by saying he doesn't agree with his own churches teachings. Like...then DON'T claim you're Catholic. Like 'I don't personally believe in abortions' crap. SURE HE DOES - he's supported the pro-abortion crowd. He's gone to pro-abortion rallys, signed posters there, had his people tear up a sign by a woman who said her abortion had hurt her. All anyone needs to do is take a look at how he's voted. He NEVER has supported ANY bill which protects the unborn.
If he doesn't agree with his church's teachings...then he should leave. He's a typical phoney politician who uses this issue ONLY to further his political career....and nothing more - the suggested 'he's just using the separation of church and state' clause - that's just his excuse because he only gives lip service to the teachings of his faith so he can CLAIM to be Catholic...for the votes.
It would be almost the same thing if he'd said "I'm a member of the NRA" but I personally oppose citizens owning guns. And I personally oppose most of their rules." What a phoney.
And not...not only have some Bishops spoken up and said he shouldn't receive communion...but they're talking about excommunication now. Clearly states how they see his lack of committment to their teachings.
posted on October 19, 2004 02:51:27 PM new
If all Catholics who did not beleive or not practice some basic teaching of the Catholic church left the church there would be no Catholic church in America.
Birth control practices alone would decimate the Catholic church membership.
Throw in pro-choice catholics and that would take out the rest of them.
Kerry's standard is both rational and comports with our Constitutional republic, and offers no problems with one's religious conscience.
You don't need governemnt and its laws to practice your religion in this country.
Insisting your religious practices or articles of faith be made law or that your religious icons be displayed on public property is no differewnt than the Taliban.
posted on October 19, 2004 02:54:16 PM new
Linda, YOU are the one who appears to be confused. The point of my post was to show that in 1953, that first type of kidney dialysis might have been considered bizarre. Just as the stem cell research issue seems to be bizarre to some, that is.
The first transplant was in 1968 and in my talking to people about that, I realize that many people are still very ignorant of the issue. Just as they are in the issue of kidney dialysis. Can you imagine what people thought 50 years ago when surgeons said, someday we will be able to take an organ from a dead person and place it in a living person. How bizarre.
I strongly think this is the same thing happening with stem cell research.
Also linda, I am not confused on the stem cell issue. I know very clearly what my position is.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.