More on Kerry's claims to be Catholic

Remove all ads!

Splunge, just about any religion or philosophy can put you in conflict with your government's policy or with the political system of your country.

Also, no one is forced to have any specific religious affiliation, or any at all. What is required by me in this thread is that people don't usurp affiliation that they don't have.

As for good standing with the church, not being kicked out doesn't mean good standing yet. Kerry's programme is in violation of the RCC doctrine and moral teaching, therefore it is highly improper for him to call upon his Catholic affiliation.

 

@ Splunge - why do I keep getting involved here too?

What this is basically saying is you aren't allowed to hold office if you're Catholic. To remain an elected official, you must represent your constituents. To be Catholic, you must uphold all the rules of the Church. So, in a situation where there is a conflict between your constituents interests and the RCC, you either will no longer be a representative of the people (by being voted out of office) or you will no longer be allowed to continue to practice in the Catholic Church. So I guess it's not fair to say you aren't allowed to be both - you can be, provided the majority of your constituents are Catholic. Unfotunately, to my knowledge no state in the union has a majority of Catholics.

 

It's still a damned-if-you-do, dammed-if-you-don't scenario.

Observation: There are times when the doctrines of the Catholic Church are in opposition to the interests if Kerry's constituents.

Observation: Catholics do not make up the majority of Kerry's constituents.

As there is a disagreement between the Church and his constituents interests, it logically follows that on any vote concerning this disagreement, Kerry cannot logically vote for the Church's position AND for his constituents interests.

Kerry only has three options when the vote comes. Vote for abortion legislation, vote against abortion legislation, or abstain.

If he votes for abortion legislation, he is failing in his duty to the RCC.

If he votes against abortion legislation, he is failing in his duty as a representative of the people.

If he abstains he is deficient in his duty as a representative of the people.

Therefore, if you're Catholic and a representative, you're screwed either way. I say that in such a case, your first duty is to the people who put you there, as you swore an oath to uphold that office, and do exactly as Kerry is doing.

 

Exactly! So when these conflicts come up, if you side with the church, are you automatically a traitor? Of course not. So why should you be denied continued affiliation with your religion if you take the other position?

True enough; or at least they felt that, overall, your positions are better than anyone else running for office. But they shouldn’t be surprised if you vote according to your religious beliefs. (I know, I’m not helping my case here.) But…

Or more accurately, the voters will decide whether, on the whole, your performance warrants being voted out, despite your stance on one particular issue. So why shouldn’t the same be true of whether deciding someone deserves to be called Catholic?

It sure seems to be.

 

And now we are back to the issue. The Christian People's Party (formerly Catholic people's party) in my country doens't care what the pope says, but what the average Catholic thinks. And the average Catholic is the one the Pope choses his guards from. As there is a huge disagreement among Catholics, there is a huge disagreement inside of Catholic based parties. And it is wrong to assume that the Pope seriously is representing Catholic dogma. The Pope is questioned by a majority of Catholics. And that means for him, that the traditional Catholic parties don't do as he likes. So, the traditional Catholic voter segment has changed it's view, but some parts, among them Woytila, have not. That's why the Church suddenly seems to struggle to get the Christian Parties in line. There's a fraction inside the Church that is loosing grip.

This side topic that just showed up, is completly irrelevant in my views. Ofcourse, the member of a Catholic party presents Catholic views. And it's his perfect right to do so. He was voted into office to do just that. Similarly, Presybterians vote for Presbyterian parties. Of course, my beef would be, if when into office, they suddenly would start to mention their belief-systems and god as guideline for the country. But they're brought up well and don't do that. Of course they present a point-of-view, but they don't present a Church or entwine state with church.

So, a Catholic politican that is voted into office represent the point-of-view of Catholics. The point of view of Catholics isn't necessarily the same as the point of view of the pope. Now, the heads of the Church could try and discipline the people that make the Church up. That's an impossibility. So, the internal power-struggle wages on, but that doesn't mean that the member of the different sides aren't Catholic. At least, until one side hasn't clearly won and a shism has taken place. Opus Dei doesn't represent the Church, it is just a sub-group. A flavour of Catholicism. When I say that, I don't mean a Church inside of Church, rather a group inside of a Church among many other groups.

How many Catholics really belief, that women shouldn't be priests ? How many really aren't against the legallity of abortion ? I think a majority. Yet, the interesting thing is, that some countries are more conservative then others. Poland, I think is very conservative, weras Italians and Swiss have in parts become easy going-Catholics. The Church has to combine and harmonize so many different people, so many different countries, it's amazing, yet a good example of it's strength to be home to many very different people.

 

@Chandos: First, I'm not an "anti-Kerry minion." Please stop calling me that. I have shown respect to you even though I have disagreed with your analysis of history and documents.

Second, if you believe your point is so obvious, then please connect the dots for me. Show me by logical argumentation that the statements in question necessarily support the conclusion you are drawing. Will-to-power and simple assertion doesn't carry much weight with me.

No need to repeat your favorite quotes for emphasis -- I read them all, and did not ignore those you restated. I simply have a different idea of what they mean, and a different idea of how Jefferson's personal ideas relate to the actual laws of the United States. Perhaps you believe the Founders were monolithic in their ideas of the relationship between church and state; I do not. Moreover, I believe it can be demonstrated that Jefferson's beliefs did not make it into Constitution or law unmodified.

Yes.

If he abstains he is deficient in his duty as a representative of the people.[/quote]Only if he has promised not to do this. A representative is not bound by law or conscience to vote according to the majority will of his constituency.

Per RCC doctrine duty to God is higher than duty to state. And Catholics are bound to obey the church and God by covenant, which is of even greater force than a vow.

 

Actually, BTA, I’d be inclined to agree with you, except that some people here seem to be suggesting that such is not the case. Like you, I'd like to hear from those more knowledgeable than myself.

But even if it were true, I have no idea what the criteria is for differentiating between trivial things and significant things. Apparently, child molestation is OK (or more accurately, not really bad), but abortion is not OK. Now granted, the RCC is free to set it’s own rules based on its interpretation of the Bible, but it would be nice if they let everyone know the means by which it determines the relative importance of those rules.

Makes me wonder why anyone would want to be a Catholic in the first place.
(That was just a tongue-in-cheek poke from a smart-alec agnostic, so no need to fire up the flame throwers. )

 

As this everlasting contreversy is intersting me endlessly, here's a read about the struggle inside the church.

http://www.catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?article_id=161218

 

@Aldeth:

Not everyone has to be a representative. Power and authority is no one's inherent right in democracy.

The duty to God always comes before the duty to the people. The duty to the people, however, means doing what you consider good for those people. That's not always what they want you to do. For many anti-abortion politicians, disallowing abortion means preventing people from committing murder. For a Catholic, murder is a grave sin. Therefore, by preventing abortion he is trying to prevent people from contracting a grave sin, as well. In a way, he's working for their salvation.

A representative, also, has a duty towards his nation before his immediate constituents. The nation including future generations. Including those who could be born if abortion weren't allowed. See?

That depends. There's no uniform vision of what is good for the country. A representative voting according to the will of the majority isn't necessarily good for the country.

Also, ends don't justify means. Evil deeds are evil regardlessly of any positive goal. Therefore, preventing a country from doing evil is good for that country.

Moreover, while we can argue as to what is good for the country or what is profitable and there's no clear uniform vision of that, there's a clear set of Catholic morals.

Moral goodness or evil, furthermore, as I've already mentioned, ranks higher than immediate profit or even well-being of a group.

For those reasons, representatives voting against abortion are not voting against the country. Neither are they doing what is bad for the country.

Last but not least, nothing changes the fact that Kerry keeps pretending there are not contradictions between his policy and established RCC doctrine. Why? Because he wants votes. He wants power. That's more important to him than integrity.

I guess saying "Yes, my views are not consistent with official doctrine of the Catholic Church" is too great a requirement. As I've said, getting votes seems more important than the truth.

By the way, if Kerry's duty to his voters is superior to any other duty, isn't he duty-bound to tell the truth to his voters? Ie to admit to them that his policy is inconsistent the RCC dogma and moral teaching?

Misleading one's constituents is hardly fulfilling a superior duty towards them.

 

Good one, chev.

Explain to me, then, the Church's position on the following two sins, and what its response should be when they are discovered:

1. Homosexual acts - a male priest having sex with another male.
2. Corruption of a minor - where that other male is a boy.

I'll admit that I'm not sure if the RC Church views the second one as a sin, but if it doesn't...

 

The second is worse than the first. Boy molestation is far more of a grave sin than simple homosexual intercourse. All non-marital intercourse is disordered and is sinful so long as there are no circumstances reducing culpability to null, but I can't really think of any circumstances except when you aren't consenting - but this one is quite obvious. A priest can't marry, so all his intercourse is non-marital, therefore sinful. The partner being male adds to that, and so does the partner being a child. There are also special vows of chastity violated, and duties of a priest abandoned and violated. Seems a boatload of sinfulness.

 

No, sir. That is not it at all. The main theme, that sustains these quotes, which I see, and it may be interpertation, is that "a man's beliefs are between his own conscience and God." Not between him and his chruch, or dogmatic authority figures or doctrine. Please read the quotes carefully and look at points of agreement between, Jefferson and his younger disciple, Madison.

And I was not trying to be disrespectful to you or anyone else. But I am amazed by the denial of obvious quotes. I would suggest that you find a good biography on Jefferson, or a good edtion of his notes or letters. Sit down and spend sometime with Thomas J. He is a complex fellow, but a brilliant one. Often, a paradox; an enigma, but always steadfast in his belief in individual liberty, and his plain dislike for religious dogma. He believed greatly in the moral authority of Jesus Christ, and he thought so much of Him, that he copied his own versions of the Gospels. But he was not fond of organized religion. Often in his career he was unfairly accused of being an athiest as a result of his views on separation of Church and State by religious leaders of the time (hence his famous quote blasting them). Jefferson's views were not the positition of one who would want to see the Chruch tamper with government, as you suggest he would - the thought would horrify him.

Again, I apologize for unfairly accusing you of disliking Kerry.

[ June 26, 2004, 06:42: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Thank you.

Please reconcile this postion with the steps the RCC took immediately upon discovery that such events had, in fact, taken place. I'm not referring to the delayed reaction.

And I suppose that I should make myself clear with respect to the actual point of this thread:

Kerry's integrity should indeed be called into question if one of the following two conditions exist:

1. The RC Church has a clear set of rules, the violation or contradiction of any one of which would immediately and consistently result in the expulsion from the Church.

2. The RC Church has two sets of rules. For the first set, a violation or contradiction of any one of which would immediately and consistently result in the expulsion from the Church. The the second set is less severe; maybe a "three strikes and you're out" approach. However, the reasons for the distinction between the two sets would have to be obvious and reasonable.

In the absence of either of these two criteria, Kerry would be allowed to contrdict the RCC and still remain a Catholic in good standing. To me, these criteria seem not to exist.

 

Can the Catholic Church get any more hypocritical? Are they going to censor those Catholic politicians who also support capital punishment?

 

I agree. And I think he should. It would probably get him more votes.

Bombur - I had the thought that perhpas we are not as far apart on Jefferson as we think. Note, that I mostly use separation of "Chruch" and State, and not religion and State. Jefferson would never have wanted to keep religion completely out of the workings of government, only the organized "Chruch." At least that would be my interpertation of Jeffersonian thought on the subject.

IMO, he would be horrified by the thought that government would not allow a Nativity scene at Christmas near government buildings. He would more than likely consider that to be a suppression of freedom of religious expression. Jefferson would have considered it a failure of government if local citizens, through their representatives, could not express their own religious practices. In the Jeffersonian view of "successful" government, the People and "the government" are practically the same thing.

[ June 26, 2004, 09:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@Chandos:

I beg you pardon, but Jefferson's quotes are not a source of Catholic dogma. Jefferson has never had any authority to change that dogma, alive or posthumously through quotes.

Also, Jefferson is not the World's Supreme Moral and Religious Authority, as well. Therefore, it's not enough for you to prove the authenticity of a Jefferson quote to pass your points.

But have it occured to you that Jefferson is not my chief moral authority? Or anyone's? Perhaps he is so important for you, but it doesn't mean he automatically gains the same position in everyone's mind.

I've never denied the quotes their authenticity. I take your word on that they come from Jefferson as, quite frankly, I'm not an expert on Jefferson. However, that Jefferson really said that doesn't mean that I have to agree with him.
That sort of blind adherence not even the Pope receives from me.

Perhaps one day when I have the time I will read that. However, as I have, said, Jefferson doesn't gain my automatic adherence.

I don't necessarily take whatever he said as a revelation of absolute truth, nor do I hold myself to his standards for anything. You shouldn't expect that from me. I don't pepper you with Papal encyclical quotes, nor do I play infallibility on you, do I?

@Splunge:

No. Excommunication is only the case in case of extremely grave violations. For lesser ones there are lesser ecclesiastic punishments and at any rate for most violations there's "only penance". Frankly, calling God's name in vain is a violation of that Catholic set of rules, and it's not like anyone's excommunicated for saying "God how this hurts" or something.

However, the hierarchy of importance of each violation may be difficult for a non-Catholic to understand, let alone a non-Christian.

Contradiction is a graver offence than violation and yet in some cases when the Church withdraws support for a politician or even excommunicates him, the problem is more in incompatibility than punishment for an offence.

Excommunication is in most cases formal sealing it for someone who has already removed himself from the Church. There is no such need for someone who doesn't contradict and oppose the rule per se, but has "only" violated it.

Also, there is the problem of Reconciliation. Attachment to and persistence in sin is very different to regret and willingness to atone and avoid that sin in the future.

At any point can an excommunicated person or anyone who has sinned go confess and receive absolution. That's the specific of the Catholic Church. However, it can't be done for anyone - everyone must do that of his own will. First of all, must be willing. The difference between the Good Murderer and the Evil Murderer is a good illustration of this.

There is no such thing as three strikes out. Persistence in sin and lack of willingness to abandon the sin when called to do so by appropriate authority (bishop ordinary in most cases) results in more serious steps being taken.

When excommunication is automatic, or latae sententiae as the Canon Law puts it, it is always in matters of utmost importance for the Church, where opposition to a rule or part of dogma signifies that the person in question (the opponent within the Church's ranks) is no longer on the same side of the fence.

A person in state of grave sin is not considered in good standing with the church. Such a person can't receive Communion until confessed and absolved, for instance. Salvation is believed to be put in very serious risk until absolved from grave sin.

Individual cases of priests abusing children were handled according to the sin > regret > confession > absolution scheme. If any of them questionned the Church's authority in his case, or questionned the wrongfulness of his action, or questionned the validity of the VIth commandment, he would have been excommunicated. That was not the case. They confessed and were absolved. Unfortunately, they were, in general, given more credit than they deserved and means were not taken to make it impossible for them to abuse any children anymore. Some of them were sick people and they needed treatment. Again, too much credit was given to the treatment in general as well.

Also, it must be understood that accusation is not necessarily true and must be confirmed in appropriate ordeal - everyone has a right to fair trial and is considered innocent until proven guilty under the Cannon Law of the RCC. There have been much more false accusations of child molestation than true ones in the history of the Church.

In case of politicians supporting abortion in public and voting in favour of legalisation thereof, there is nothing to prove. The opposition is public and clear. There's no accusation to prove or disprove. There is no willingness to abandon that sin and persistence in that sin is usually the case. This means, in common English, that those politicians won't simply confess, get absolved and stop supporting abortion. They are persistent in their continuous opposition to the Church's authority and to the rules that they violate, which makes that violation different from a violation in which the offender doesn't question the law itself.

That is why such politicians are excommunicated after a sufficient amount of warnings and time for deliberation like in other serious cases of persistent public opposition - for instance, when the Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated three segregationists, including a state senator and judge who refused to pay heed to the Archbishop's remonstration.

Also, the gravity of child molestation and of abortion are not equal.

To someone for whom abortion is just post-coital contraception, child molestation will be a greater crime.

However, to someone who considers abortion murder (as the Church does and so those who perform abortion are excommunicated alongside murderers), legalising abortion is a far graver crime than child molestation. Also, when abortion is legalised, it affects millions of women and millions of aborted children, creating a law tolerant of murder for a long time (ie until revoked). Therefore, a politician who partakes of the legalisation of abortion nation-wide is guilty of millions of deaths.

Sexual abuse of children still being a horrible crime, millions of deaths outrank a dozen abused children.

 

chev, that was quite well done. Seriously. Since I am not really familiar with the RCC’s ways of dealing with sin, I’ll take your word for it (and I have no doubt that you are stating it accurately). But I’m not ready to concede yet.

To me, the whole issue boils down to one of internal consistency within the RCC. And yes, I’m sticking with the child molestation issue, because of its seriousness (I’m sure there are other examples, however). Your post describes quite clearly how these cases should be handled by the Church; I won’t comment on what I feel to be the inadequacies of this process, because that’s not what this discussion is about. Instead, I will comment on whether the Church handled the cases in accordance with its own guidelines. Two examples:

From here:

From here:

To me, what seems to be the case is that the Church only acted in accordance with its own guidelines when it was caught; it wasn’t just a case of errors in judgement as to the likelihood of repeat offences. This in turn says to me that it allows flexibility in interpreting and applying its guidelines. So why shouldn’t that flexibility be extended to its followers?

I guess in the end what I have difficulty with is looking at what I see as obvious hypocrisy within the Church, and reconciling that with its stated (but not exhibited) insistence that its rules be followed. So if Kerry goes against the Church’s public stance on abortion, is this a sign of a lack of integrity, or a recognition that things aren’t set in stone? I see it as the latter, and that, when combined with his duty as a public servant, says to me that he is showing no character flaw here.

And tying in with that, I haven’t even addressed Iago’s posts which seem to state quite clearly that there can be different factions of Catholicism, with different sets of standards. Perhaps you would like to comment on that as well.