Catholic guy trying to get Kerry ex-communicated from the Catholic church.

[wasteofo2]

I was just watching Hannity and Colmes (gotta love endless rhetoric going nowhere), and one guest was some Catholic guy who filed for Kerry's ex-communication from the Catholic church becuase of his stance on abortion. I actually want Kerry to be president, but I also think that he should be ex-communicated. Whenever Kerry has been asked about his policy conflicting with his faith, he's responded by saying that he can believe whatever he wants as far as religion and it doesn't have to carry over into his politics becuase of the separation of church and state, and that the church shouldn't tell him what to do politically. Certainly the church should have no influence on his (or anyones) politics, but if his political viewpoints conflict with the church, he should keep his political viewpoints and abandon the church that preaches against things he supports. It's just so hypocritical, annoying, and insulting to the intelligence of the American people when any politician says that they're deeply religious, get their spiritual guidance from religion, it taught them how to be a good person, gave them their moral base etc. and then their policy goes completely against their chosen religion. I'd be glad if he were ex-communicated and had to actually get votes based on politics, not his religion. I'm not a catholic, but I'd be deeply offended if someone claimed to be a catholic and then went out and made laws that went against catholocism. These politicians can't actually think they're fooling anyone, if they actually believed in catholocism, they would try to actually follow its lessons and save their soul and others, not just go to church on sunday and go against their faith on monday in passing legislation.

Kerry is far from the only one who deserves to be cast away by their church, I'm sure people are aware of Bush's higher than average allowance of the death penalty, but this is a nice start, really trying to get religion and politics separate again.

I hope for the day when there can again be a candidate like Jefferson who doesn't have a mainstream religious affiliation and wins without people voting for him just because they go to the same type of church.

 

[Gokul43201]

Was it you that started the thread on who could be the next President, among a woman, a person of a minority race, etc ? I think the last person with a shot at making President would be the atheist. Ain't going to happen in this country any time soon !

 

[wasteofo2]

Was it you that started the thread on who could be the next President, among a woman, a person of a minority race, etc ? I think the last person with a shot at making President would be the atheist. Ain't going to happen in this country any time soon !

Yeah it was me who started that, and I know about the atheist, too bad that this country's regressed so badly since Jefferson, he was obviously one of the best presidents ever, even if he didn't believe in god.

 

[russ_watters]

I actually want Kerry to be president, but I also think that he should be ex-communicated.

That's ironic - I don't want him to be president, but I don't think he should be excommunicated.

 

[Kerrie]

religion and politics shouldn't mix...

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Kerry has said he's opposed to abortion and that life begins at conception. He has also said he supports a women's right to choose. Can someone please interpret this for me? Maybe someone from the National Organization for Women (NOW) might like to take a stab at it.

 

[wasteofo2]

Maybe he doesn't like abortion, but thinks if women want to kill their babies it's their buisness, so long as it's inutero? Maybe not though...

 

[check]

If they excommunicate Kerry, they should also excommunicate the majority of Catholics who don't believe and/or practice 100% of the church’s teachings.

 

[wasteofo2]

If they excommunicate Kerry, they should also excommunicate the majority of Catholics who don't believe and/or practice 100% of the church’s teachings.

Well, one of Christ's main messages was forgiveness and repentance, so excommunicating John Average who says "God Damnit!" when angry would be kind of strict, not leaving him room to change himself. However, excommunicating John Politician, who helps to pass laws which go against your church's teachings is a bit different, he's helping make it legal and acceptable for people to violate your teachings.

 

[phreak]

If they excommunicate Kerry, they should also excommunicate the majority of Catholics who don't believe and/or practice 100% of the church’s teachings.

Agreed.

Where in the Catholic Bible does it say that life begins before conception? Where does it say that abortion is wrong?

It doesn't. It gives messages that Catholics use as excuses to say that abortion is wrong, but it never clearly states it.

Kerry has a different opinion and thinks that women should have a choice and that abortion isn't wrong. Why should he be excommunicated for ONE personal belief? If he's excommunicated, some 90% other Catholics should be excommunicated for their beliefs also.

 

[the number 42]

religion and politics shouldn't mix...

I think this is the bottom line. In general, people are pretty good at getting on with their lives in a rational way without any obvious signs of religiousity, but would be upset if there wasn't some sort of religious ceremony at weddings, funerals etc... and in the US it appears you need your politicians to have political convictions too?

I am all for relgion - it can be a great source of solace etc - but let's not turn elections into weddings, where we need to have it dressed up to be palatable. I wouldn't want a politician to be the Pope, and we really don't need our political leaders to leak their half-baked self-serving religious insights - I am talking Bush, Blair, and anyone else who using religion as an excuse for political ends - into their secular lives. Kerrie has summed it up, and really we need say no more - just look at history.

Anyway, should we be allowed to discuss this topic on a Sunday?

 

[Gokul43201]

Can you not be a Catholic because ou agree with a majority of their ideas? Should you be ex-communicated for disagreeing with a few or helping to pass laws against them ?

Should the log-cabiners be ex-communicated from the Republican Party because they support gay marriage and would like to have it legalized?

How about Schwarzenegger ?

Can the Bush administration be allowed to call themselves conservatives, when they've drummed up an astronomical fiscal deficit ?

Why am I talking in questions ?

 

[enigma]

The Catholic Church must really want to lose their tax excempt status...

I'm tickled pink. I'm only a little ticked that my taxes go to pay for their profits.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Where in the Catholic Bible does it say that life begins before conception? Where does it say that abortion is wrong?

It doesn't. It gives messages that Catholics use as excuses to say that abortion is wrong, but it never clearly states it.

How about Thou shall not kill.. If you believe life begins at conception, but also believe in a women's right to choose, then your condoning murder. My personal opinion of Kerry is that he's an empty shell with no deep convictions.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I believe the Catholic belief that not only life, but specifically human personhood begins at conception goes back to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It is important that Catholics don't get their doctrine from the "Catholic Bible" alone, but also from the continuing inspiration of the church, namely the saints and the Pope. And the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed a truth of doctrine by the Pope in the 19th century.

It states that the virgin Mary was preserved from Original Sin "from the first moment of her conception". So it required her to BE Mary at that moment, and if she, then so also every fetus, every fertilized zygote, is a person.

 

[the number 42]

Lets not get into counting how many angels can fit on a pin head. :zzz:

And speaking of pinheads, are you really going to stand for any more of Bush's holy wars? (That's holy, spelled O-I-L).

If it comes down to religion - nominal Catholicism or not - I reckon you'd have to run a fully fledged satanist as democrat to make voting republican seem like a good idea.

 

[russ_watters]

Kerry has said he's opposed to abortion and that life begins at conception. He has also said he supports a women's right to choose. Can someone please interpret this for me?

Its quite simple really: Kerry is a politician and his campaign advisors have devised that strategy for trying to please as many people at once as they can.

Well, one of Christ's main messages was forgiveness and repentance, so excommunicating John Average who says "God Damnit!" when angry would be kind of strict, not leaving him room to change himself. However, excommunicating John Politician, who helps to pass laws which go against your church's teachings is a bit different, he's helping make it legal and acceptable for people to violate your teachings.

So in God's eyes, the politically powerful really are different than everyone else? Not buying it.

I actually think this whole flap is funny because it exposes the Vatican for what they are: a government. They aren't going after Kerry because of his beliefs, they are going after him (like you said), because of what he can do with them: He's a politician. Just like them. And that makes him a threat to their political power.

edit: So how's this for more irony: I'm not Catholic, I'm protestant. But if I were Catholic, I'd be more inclined to vote for Kerry because he's going against the Vatican and they don't like him.

 

[wasteofo2]

So in God's eyes, the politically powerful really are different than everyone else? Not buying it.

Well I don't claim to know how god views things, or to know if god exists etc. What I'm saying is, the Catholic church says abortion's wrong, so they don't want a member of their church which makes it legal to have abortions to retain his membership.

Of course, they are also a govt. shrouded in religion...

 

[kat]

edit: So how's this for more irony: I'm not Catholic, I'm protestant. But if I were Catholic, I'd be more inclined to vote for Kerry because he's going against the Vatican and they don't like him.

Lol, Huh? Catholics don't like the Vatican?

Yes, Kerry should be ex-communicated if he continues to support stances that are against the tenents of the Catholic faith. Being ex-communicated means being denied communion. It does not mean that he is not allowed to go to church. On another note, why the hell would he want to continue to be a Catholic and receive communion if he doesn't agree with the catholic faith?
It's completely hypocritical. The same goes for other people who declare their faith as Catholic and yet don't even believe in the basic tenents of the religion. Who's kidding who?

 

[russ_watters]

Lol, Huh? Catholics don't like the Vatican?

No, the Vatican doesn't like Kerry. By "they" I mean the Vatican. Though I do know several Catholics who aren't real keen on the Vatican.

kat, does everyone in a religion necessarily believe in absolutely everything in the religion? Are religious laws the same as tenets of faith? Does the Apostle's Creed (the Christian statement of faith) say anything about abortion? Does the church leadership necessarily know better than the members? Does the church leadership ever make mistakes? Are specific rules necessarily important to the faith (ie, which is more important to a Catholic - not eating meat on Friday or believing in Jesus?).

If everyone had to believe in absolutely everything in a religion to be a part of it, virtually everyone would need to form their own religion.

 

[kat]

No, the Vatican doesn't like Kerry. By "they" I mean the Vatican. Though I do know several Catholics who aren't real keen on the Vatican.

kat, does everyone in a religion necessarily believe in absolutely everything in the religion? Are religious laws the same as tenets of faith? Does the Apostle's Creed (the Christian statement of faith) say anything about abortion? Does the church leadership necessarily know better than the members? Does the church leadership ever make mistakes? Are specific rules necessarily important to the faith (ie, which is more important to a Catholic - not eating meat on Friday or believing in Jesus?).

If everyone had to believe in absolutely everything in a religion to be a part of it, virtually everyone would need to form their own religion.

Russ, I never made any statement of the sort. The Catholic church is built upon following leadership and dictates of the Vatician. I don't want this to get into a religious discussion, I haven't considered myself Catholic since my teen
years and I threw a hissy fit in front of the entranceway of Saint Anne's but... I've studied the Catholic church for years. There are specific outlines for excommunication, the different types of actions that are to be excommunicated and exactly what it implies. The Pope...does not make mistakes...he is the voice of God (blasphemy for suggesting it ). Specific rules are not important to faith as far as I'm concerned, and the Catholic church relies on symbolism less and less all the time (for example you can eat meat on Fridays, you can let the host touch your hands (the horror) and your teeth etc.) BUT publicly supporting the right to Abortion by a prominant politician undermines the authority of the Church and breaks numerous papal dictates, not to mention Paul's expulsion of those supporting abortion way back when...it has a looooong history of being onsidered a HUGE offence...accepting the host while supporting Abortion..and not even believing that you should be asking for absolution..is just well..not Catholic.
Catholicism, as with any denomination is a Social structure, right or wrong, it relies on specific outlines of what is acceptable and what is not. I have no problem with Kerry supporting abortion, but why should the Catholic church allow him to continue to use his Catholicism as a political plus while he is all the while undermining the church and breaking what they consider the "sanctity of life"?
Personally, I think he would be far more honest if he were to say that he could not practice a religion that continues to ignore the rights of well over half its constituents...women. How can any modern man continue to support such a misogynistic religion. Big strike against Kerry the hypocrit.

 

[Shadow]

religion and politics shouldn't mix...

Amen to that.

 

[Prometheus]

On another note, why the hell would he want to continue to be a Catholic and receive communion if he doesn't agree with the catholic faith?
It's completely hypocritical.

I agree with you completely. Why would anyone want to continue to be a Catholic and receive communion if he believes that he should use his own mind, steeped as it is in the Catholic tradition, to come to his own opinion about anything at all? Doesn't he know that thinking on his own is not allowed. He must follow 100% of all Catholic teaching, and sqelch any individualism that he has.

OK, so maybe there are millions of Americans who fell that they should be allowed to disagree on certain preachings of the Catholic faith, but they don't count.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In fact surveys continue to show that US Catholics behave, in regard to birth control and abortion, very much the way non Catholics do. The enthusiasts who fill the diocesan newpapers and Catholic magazines are a small minority. The average married person who goes to mass on Sunday and takes communion has no problem with birth control and thinks abortion is sad but should be legal. Many many studies, questionaires constantly updated.

 

[kat]

That's true SelfAdjoint, but I think in regards to ex-communication in a "legal" sense is the vocalizing of his support for abortion rights. I think any Catholic who is in the spotlight such as Kerry is in fact challenging the churches authority to dictate morality. Since that is how Catholicism functions, it seems only natural that they would defend Catholicism against his attack. I think it's perhaps long overdue for the Catholic church to either back what it advocates or change it's stance on what it advocates.

He must follow 100% of all Catholic teaching, and sqelch any individualism that he has.

I wasn't referring to 100%, I was referring to what has always been one of the most basic tenants of the Catholic church. One of the few "sins" that are specificly mentioned in it's list of reasons for Ex-Communication.

 

[Prometheus]

I think in regards to ex-communication in a "legal" sense is the vocalizing of his support for abortion rights. I think any Catholic who is in the spotlight such as Kerry is in fact challenging the churches authority to dictate morality.

That is interesting. I never thought of it that way. I never realized that a candidate for office should uphold the principles of a foreign autocrat, rather than his personal opinion as he believes that it reflects the attitudes of his constituents.

For attempting to do a service for his constitutens, you consider that he is challenging the church's authority.

Perhaps you think that he should step down as a candidate if it involves accepting that his constituents are not all Catholic.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't referring to 100%, I was referring to what has always been one of the most basic tenants of the Catholic church. One of the few "sins" that are specificly mentioned in it's list of reasons for Ex-Communication.

I'm curious how many times (and where) in the Bible we are told when life begins (SelfAdjoint's point taken), and specifically that abortion is a sin. Clearly, it was a prevalent practice at the time; and other kinds of sins are repeatedly discussed. Surely, the Catholic Church would not list this as a reason for ex-communication, unless it were clearly described in the Book as a sin ?

 

[kat]

I'm curious how many times (and where) in the Bible we are told when life begins (SelfAdjoint's point taken), and specifically that abortion is a sin. Clearly, it was a prevalent practice at the time; and other kinds of sins are repeatedly discussed. Surely, the Catholic Church would not list this as a reason for ex-communication, unless it were clearly described in the Book as a sin ?

Well, first of all I don't accept the notion of sin so don't attack the messenger. Secondly, we're not talking about the bible. We are talking about Catholicism, and it is clearly described in their outlines for ex-communication.

For Reference:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2272: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,’ [CIC, can. 1398.] ‘by the very commission of the offense,’ [CIC, can. 1314.] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. [Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324.] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society." "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,’ [CIC, can. 1398] ‘by the very commission of the offense,’ [CIC, can. 1314] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. [Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society." "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,’ [CIC, can. 1398] ‘by the very commission of the offense,’ [CIC, can. 1314] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law [Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324]. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."

2273: The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights." [79 and 80] The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights." [79 and 80] The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights." [79 and 80]

2322: From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 #3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

1983 Code of Canon Law
Can. 18 Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly. Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly.

Can. 209 §1 Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions.
§2 They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong.

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 1329 §1 Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence, and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept, if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender, then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same or a lesser gravity.
§2 In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them; otherwise, they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties.

Can. 1330 §1 An offence which consists in a declaration or in some other manifestation of doctrine or knowledge, is not to be regarded as effected if no one actually perceives the declaration or manifestation.

Can. 1336 §1 Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish, these penalties are as follows:

1. a prohibition against residence, or an order to reside, in a certain place or territory;
2. deprivation of power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favour, title or insignia, even of a merely honorary nature;
3. a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in n. 2, or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place; such a prohibition is never under pain of nullity;
4. a penal transfer to another office;
5. dismissal from the clerical state.

§2 Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated in §1, n. 3.

Can. 1339 §1 When someone is in a proximate occasion of committing an offence or when, after an investigation, there is a serious suspicion that an offence has been committed, the Ordinary either personally or through another can give that person warning.
§2 In the case of behaviour which gives rise to scandal or serious disturbance of public order, the Ordinary can also correct the person, in a way appropriate to the particular conditions of the person and of what has been done.
§3 The fact that there has been a warning or a correction must always be proven, at least from some document to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.

Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

Can. 1397 One who commits murder, or who by force or by fraud abducts, imprisons, mutilates or gravely wounds a person, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with the deprivations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336. In the case of the murder of one of those persons mentioned in can. 1370, the offender is punished with the penalties there prescribed.

Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

 

[Guardian01]

Well...I'd say religion has ALWAYS mixed with politics! think about it...and BETTER YET...science mixes with religion! EEk...NOW I'VE DONE IT!

 

[kat]

That is interesting. I never thought of it that way. I never realized that a candidate for office should uphold the principles of a foreign autocrat, rather than his personal opinion as he believes that it reflects the attitudes of his constituents.

Perhaps you never realized it because that is not the statement I made. The politician has already pledged his duty to uphold the principles of the "foreign autocrat". The "foreign autocrat" REQUIRES that he follow their laws and cannons or cease to claim membership. I didn't create the situation, it existed long before I ever came to be. If Kerry claims to be Catholic and Catholic Cannon IS the guideline to being Catholic then he either follows that Cannon or ceases to be Catholic. It's that simple. MY personal opinion is that he should reflect the populace he represents and not the Catholic church! Reality is that you cannot do both if that means supporting Abortion.
As a woman, I fully support the right to choose what I do with my body. BUT the Catholic church should either stand up for what it supposedly believes in or change it's laws!

For attempting to do a service for his constitutens, you consider that he is challenging the church's authority.

Consider?! HE IS! and YAY for him! BUT that doesn't change the law of the church! Stop attacking the messenger!

Perhaps you think that he should step down as a candidate if it involves accepting that his constituents are not all Catholic.

The sanctity of life IS absolutely, irrefutably CENTRAL to Catholic belief. IF he doesn't believe that then...HE"S not practicing Cathocism. I THINK he should stop being a hypocrit and lead with honesty and integrity. That means, stop claiming to be a practicing Catholic to garner votes and be up front and honest that he can't support an entity that invalidates the right of a woman to her own body!

 

[loseyourname]

Christian ethics are so mixed up, anyway. Where would the US be if we "turned the other cheek" every time we were attacked? We'd either be a British or Japanese colony. Instead, the Christian Coalition is more concerned with not granting civil rights, outlawing the morning-after pill, repealing campaign finance reforms, banning cloning, banning homosexual marriage, and giving taxpayer money to Christian charities. Nowhere on their agenda is the prerogative to convince Americans to "love their neighbors as they love themselves." They're so worried about what they think Christianity says we shouldn't do that they forget there are also a couple of not-so-bad ideas as to what we should do.

 

[Prometheus]

[

Perhaps you never realized it because that is not the statement I made.

The sanctity of life IS absolutely, irrefutably CENTRAL to Catholic belief. IF he doesn't believe that then...HE"S not practicing Cathocism. I THINK he should stop being a hypocrit and lead with honesty and integrity. That means, stop claiming to be a practicing Catholic to garner votes and be up front and honest that he can't support an entity that invalidates the right of a woman to her own body!

I am sorry that I seem to have misunderstood your meaning.

This is an interesting point. However, as numerous Americans seem to both consider themselves Catholic and to reject some of the churches teachings, then Kerry is not alone. Should they all quit the church? Perhaps you are right and it is hypocritical. I don't know enough about Catholicism to attempt to refute your statement.

 

[the number 42]

Nowhere on [the Christian Coalition's] agenda is the prerogative to convince Americans to "love their neighbors as they love themselves."

The main flaw in this idea is that many people don't love themselves, they love food, cars, holidays etc. So when they extend this 'love' to their neighbour they may be affronted that their neighbour doesn't appreciate the gesture. So the bottom line is 'love thineself' before you start spreading it around.

Its a bit like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Ever notice the cute way that children sometimes give presents to adults that the child themselves would like? They think that because they like The Cat in the Hat, you are going to love the Cat in the Hat keyring they have got for you.

And if your neighbour happens to hate themselves but love crack cocaine, don't be surprised if they're not interested in a big hug, a bible discussion, or a barbeque

 

[russ_watters]

I don't want this to get into a religious discussion...

Ironically, have never considered the discussion of Catholicism to have much to do with religion...

Specific rules are not important to faith as far as I'm concerned, and the Catholic church relies on symbolism less and less all the time (for example you can eat meat on Fridays, you can let the host touch your hands (the horror) and your teeth etc.)

Fair enough.

BUT publicly supporting the right to Abortion by a prominant politician undermines the authority of the Church and breaks numerous papal dictates,

To me, that's just it - like I asked above, does a politician's power make them different? I thought religion was all about faith. Two people both publicly state they support abortion. One has the power to enact laws legalizing it and one doesn't. To me (and I believe, to God), both are equally on the hook for their beliefs.

...and not even believing that you should be asking for absolution...

Did he actually say that?

but why should the Catholic church allow him to continue to use his Catholicism as a political plus while he is all the while undermining the church and breaking what they consider the "sanctity of life"?

To prove to their followers that they are, in fact, leaders in faith and not leaders in politics.

Personally, I think he would be far more honest if he were to say that he could not practice a religion that continues to ignore the rights of well over half its constituents...women. How can any modern man continue to support such a misogynistic religion. Big strike against Kerry the hypocrit.

I'm not clear on his particular take on the faith. He may or may not be a hypocrite. But I share your issues with the church.

That's true SelfAdjoint, but I think in regards to ex-communication in a "legal" sense is the vocalizing of his support for abortion rights.

'Religious law,' to me, is a contradiction in terms.

Since that is how Catholicism functions, it seems only natural that they would defend Catholicism against his attack.

Absolutely - because power is what is important to them, not faith.

Secondly, we're not talking about the bible. We are talking about Catholicism... [/irony]

Yet another issue I have with the Church.

For Reference:

Strikingly absent from early references is a clear definition on what is meant by "abortion". Contrary to their insistence, their own policy has changed.

Perhaps the answer here is for the Americans uncomfortable with the politics of the church to split off and form a new church...

 

[kat]

Ironically, have never considered the discussion of Catholicism to have much to do with religion...

Well, this thread is riddled with examples of confusing personal beliefs, biblical quotes and other religions views with those of the Catholic church. I just want to make it clear that the issue is none of these but...Catholicism and the requirements of beingallowed (or not allowed) to be an active reciever of communion is.

To me, that's just it - like I asked above, does a politician's power make them different? I thought religion was all about faith. Two people both publicly state they support abortion. One has the power to enact laws legalizing it and one doesn't. To me (and I believe, to God), both are equally on the hook for their beliefs.

Well, both may be guilty of sin but one may have a greater guilt in that he actively promoted abortion by creating an "open door" to do so. I think that the Catholic dictates actually allows for both to be excommunicated. Leading others astray and all that...

Did he actually say that?

Seeking absolution would mean that you cease or at least make an attempt to cease the action..he's basicly stated the Catholic church should butt out and mind their own business...unfortunately, he's apparently forgot that the Catholic church views their responsibility to cover the "whole picture" so to speak.

To prove to their followers that they are, in fact, leaders in faith and not leaders in politics.

Well, as a Catholic he should know that's not what his religion dictates. Catholicism has always concerned itself with faith as well as actions including actions that lead others astray.

I'm not clear on his particular take on the faith. He may or may not be a hypocrite.

It's like being a member of an all purposefully all white club and claiming you're not racist...

'Religious law,' to me, is a contradiction in terms.

Then consider it "rules of membership" with consideration of their take on there being everlasting consequences.

Absolutely - because power is what is important to them, not faith.

Well, to be fair this may be true for some but not for others. I think that it is possible that there is a belief that there is an obligation to save their flock from everlasting damnation. Again, not my personal belief but a very Catholic one.

Yet another issue I have with the Church. Strikingly absent from early references is a clear definition on what is meant by "abortion". Contrary to their insistence, their own policy has changed.

Clarify please.

Perhaps the answer here is for the Americans uncomfortable with the politics of the church to split off and form a new church...

Well, I think that many have done this. Thus the huge movement for inter and non- denominational churchs and the loss of Catholic memberships.