# Kerry Charged with heresy for communion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946 "2004-07-07T14:23:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/81 "2004-07-07T23:01:11Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Alright, Alright, the CC is not violating the Constitution. They are, however, _attacking_ it. They hate our freedoms. US servicemembers swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and the CC has made itself our enemy by demanding that they, not the voters, should be the ones to decide how our elected officials make decisions. Kerry is being singled out because of the large number of Ameican voters who support him. The CC is not simply choosing to disassociate itself from Kerry, it is trying to _coerce_ him with this heresy and excommunication business. No other organization has–or grasps for–that kind of power. How would we like it if there was a priest in every voting booth? To Americans–patriotic Americans–the secret ballot is “sacred” in a sense, and so is the principle of government of the people by the people and for the people. It’s so nice when your opponent in GD flails about so widly that even the most casual observer can detect his incoherence. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/82 "2004-07-07T23:11:36Z")
It just occured to me that if John Kerry were to agree to change his position on abortion or any other issue in response to threats from the CC, that would be _treason_. > [@](#): > > Keep digging. Maybe that hole actually will get smaller. Can’t think of a response, eh? I case it isn’t obvious, I’m using a lot of the same kind of hyperbole you so often hear from the Right these days. Nevertheless I stand by my points. > [@](#): > > Again, you fail to understand what is being told to you. The Catholic Church is doing no such thing. Some guy is. I suppose I could do with some clarification as to what extent Catholic _officials_ are trying to pressure Kerry. It’s one thing for a lobbyist to tell a politician, “A lot of people out there aren’t going to like it if you…”. But it’s quite another to tell him, “The Big Boss Man isn’t going to like it if you…”. I conceded that the CC is not tecnically violating the US Constitution, but wait a sec… > [@](#): > > The Catholic Church is not a branch of the US government, and so cannot violate this part of the constitution. But John Kerry _is_ part of the US government. They’re trying to coerce him into giving in to the Dark Side of the Force so he’ll be their tool in advancing their policy agenda here in the US against the wishes of the voters. They are trying to control him so they can control us. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/83 "2004-07-08T00:21:35Z")
**Sqweels** , let me give this a shot. No one is telling _Kerry_ anything. One man is asking the Church to stop giving Kerry communion because (in this man’s opinion), Kerry is a “hereitic.” This man is just a layman. He is not part of the clerical hierarchy and has no authority of his own. He’s asking the Church to say that Kerry is a heretic. The Church has made no statement about Kerry whatever and isn’t likely to. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/84 "2004-07-08T00:53:59Z")
OK, that’s fine. So long as no _officials_ of the Catholic Church are targeting Kerry, my statements are premature. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/85 "2004-07-08T01:12:44Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > I suppose I could do with some clarification as to what extent Catholic _officials_ are trying to pressure Kerry. It’s one thing for a lobbyist to tell a politician, “A lot of people out there aren’t going to like it if you…”. But it’s quite another to tell him, “The Big Boss Man isn’t going to like it if you…”. As far as I can tell from the news, in the majority there’s just a general intensification of the usual and customary (and mostly ineffective) badgering we get from the Church every election cycle as to how Catholic politicos and voters should reflect Church doctrine in their votes and policy actions. Yet, it IS true that a number of bishops (such as that one in Colorado Springs) from the more orthodox side have taken a more hard-ass position on the matter (the more consistent (FWIW) ones make it a blanket all-the-way anathema on _everyone_ not toeing the line, rather than making it Kerry-specific). However, it does not look yet as a _Church_ concerted effort as much as a _factional_ effort. This, probably, because enough _other_ bishops want to avoid that kind of political entanglement at this point in time (And let’s not be naive, some of them will lay off Kerry because they do not want to help _Bush_). As mentioned before, a private individual filed a “denunciation” suit, to which a reaction by the Archdiocese is _discretionary_ – the Bishop doesn’t have to _DO_ anything about it. So I would not be surprised to see how “just by pure chance” more “concerned laypeople” keep putting up these nuisance suits in Canon Court, against not just Kerry but other liberal RCC politicos. Their point, of course, is NOT to bring pressure on Kerry, who can afford a good Canon Lawyer, _but to demoralize potential Kerry voters_ among the church rank-and file by raising the spectre of not being in good standing with the Church. The Church will find itself in a quandary between serving as a tool for the politically motivated, and being perceived as letting slide his stance on some issues. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/86 "2004-07-08T01:23:51Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is no conflict with the RCC in Kerry’s position. There is no “heresy.” Paragraph 75 of the Denunication sums up the charge of Heresy thusly: > [@](#): > > Therefore, Defendant John F. KERRY’s multiple and public egregious actions in _fact_, conveyance of _signs_, assertions in _words_, and _affected_ negligence in _silence_, coupled with his deliberate, manifest, and pertinacious adherence to the proposition that one one has a right to choose abortive murder, constitute Heresy _contra Fidem Divinam et Catholicam Formaliter et Stricte dicta_, pursuant to Can. 751 CIC. Whether or not that arguement holds water with the Ecclesiatical Court is up to the Church, of course. You (generically) don’t determine what is Heresy. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/87 "2004-07-08T01:27:54Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > OK, that’s fine. So long as no _officials_ of the Catholic Church are targeting Kerry, my statements are premature. You just **now** get this point? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/88 "2004-07-08T01:27:59Z")
I just did, so there. Regardless of what the jackass says in his denunciation, it is not heretical to oppose a theocracy. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/89 "2004-07-08T01:44:08Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I just did, so there. > > Regardless of what the jackass says in his denunciation, it is not heretical to oppose a theocracy. It’s heretical if the Church says it is. Which they haven’t done, and according to the link they can just ignore the whole thing, I admit. Besides, this has nothing to do with “opposing a theocracy”. You, now specifically, cannot determine what is Heresy to the Catholic Church. ---
**Author:** ![Albert\_Rose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Albert\_Rose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Albert_Rose)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/90 "2004-07-08T01:59:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, all Americans familiar with the Constitution should be outraged at the state of public education in this country, to the extent it can produce persons that believe the statement offered by **sqweels** above. I really hate cheap shots against education. Is your “to the extent…” part intended to avoid such a cheap shot? ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/91 "2004-07-08T02:02:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I just did, so there. > > Regardless of what the jackass says in his denunciation, it is not heretical to oppose a theocracy. Are you honestly suggesting that if Catholic lawmakers voted in accordance with their consciences – which happened to be fully informed by Catholic teaching – we’d live in a theocracy? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/92 "2004-07-08T02:04:21Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > It’s heretical if the Church says it is. Which they haven’t done, and according to the link they can just ignore the whole thing, I admit. Besides, this has nothing to do with “opposing a theocracy”. You, now specifically, cannot determine what is Heresy to the Catholic Church. Sure I can. I can read the Church’s teachings and determine whether a given political position conflicts with those teachings. And JFTR, I’m not exactly an outsider on the issues of the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools as a kid and I am now married to Catholic who is raising our child as a Catholic. I am steeped in Catholic doctrine even though I no longer practice it myself. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/93 "2004-07-08T02:07:15Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > To me, that promulgation seems to cross the line between censure of a view not permitted by a Catholic, on the one hand, and impermissible meddling in the political process, on the other. Any comments? To me, Sheridan’s comments exceed what is appropriate for a bishop to utter, regardless of U.S. SOCAS laws. The NCCB was asked to make a declaration similar to that of Sheridan and chose, as a body, to leave it to the discretion of each bishop to issue his own pastoral declarations. Pilla of Cleveland issued a statement over the weekend including [this declaration](http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living/1088760666294480.xml): > [@](#): > > “I firmly believe that clear and honest dialogue about moral teaching is always preferred over arbitrary judgments, condemnation or punitive actions. The altar is a place of unity, healing, nourishment and grace. It is not a place for confrontation.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/94 "2004-07-08T02:16:49Z")
> [@TeaElle](#): > > Are you honestly suggesting that if Catholic lawmakers voted in accordance with their consciences – which happened to be fully informed by Catholic teaching – we’d live in a theocracy? I’m saying it would be theocratic for Catholic lawmakers to try to codify their religious doctrine into law. More importantly, I’m saying that it’s _not_ heretical _not_ to want to codify doctrine into law. The RCC opposes divorce, but no one would say that any Catholic lawmaker who opposes a legal ban on divorce is committing a heresy. Accepting the Church’s doctrine does not necessitate legislating it into he law of the land. John Kerry has not had an abortion, nor has he advocated it or assisted anyone else in getting an abortion. That is all the Church requires. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/95 "2004-07-08T02:52:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Sure I can. I can read the Church’s teachings and determine whether a given political position conflicts with those teachings. > > And JFTR, I’m not exactly an outsider on the issues of the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools as a kid and I am now married to Catholic who is raising our child as a Catholic. I am steeped in Catholic doctrine even though I no longer practice it myself. Then you are just arguing your opinions as if they were facts. Isn’t there a fancy Latin name for such a fallacy? In your opinion, Kerry’s actions do not rise to the level of heresy. In other people’s opinions, like the plantiff’s, they do. So what? Neither the plantiff, nor you, can determine what is heresy to the Church. The Ecclesiastical Court may (or may not) make a ruling according to Canon Law, but until then, your opinions are just that, and as we know, everyone has one. You could be a highly regarded Catholic scholar, but you’re still making declarative statements that aren’t up to you to make. I’m not trying to be snarky with you, but maybe the use of an occasional qualifer would help. “In my opinion something is or is not” vs. simply “is or is not.” ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/96 "2004-07-08T14:15:54Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But John Kerry is part of the US government. They’re trying to coerce him into giving in to the Dark Side of the Force so he’ll be their tool in advancing their policy agenda here in the US against the wishes of the voters. They are trying to control him so they can control us. I’m buying stock in Reynolds Tin Foil. > [@sqweels](#): > > OK, that’s fine. So long as no _officials_ of the Catholic Church are targeting Kerry, my statements are premature. Doesn’t matter. Even if the Church hierarchy tried to influence Kerry, it won’t make a difference or be relevant to your argument. Every political action committee with two pennies to rub together can try to influence Kerry. Any foreign country (i.e. the Vatican) with a diplomat can try to influence Kerry. Your paranoia here is unwarranted. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/97 "2004-07-08T14:29:40Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Then you are just arguing your opinions as if they were facts. Isn’t there a fancy Latin name for such a fallacy? In your opinion, Kerry’s actions do not rise to the level of heresy. In other people’s opinions, like the plantiff’s, they do. So what? Neither the plantiff, nor you, can determine what is heresy to the Church. The Ecclesiastical Court may (or may not) make a ruling according to Canon Law, but until then, your opinions are just that, and as we know, everyone has one. You could be a highly regarded Catholic scholar, but you’re still making declarative statements that aren’t up to you to make. > > I’m not trying to be snarky with you, but maybe the use of an occasional qualifer would help. “In my opinion something is or is not” vs. simply “is or is not.” While you have a definite point here, it’s been SOP in Great Debates for years that people may make assertions of their opinion regarding as-yet-undecided points without being required to aver that it is their opinion. **Dewey Cheathem Undhow** and I, arguing back and forth on the constitutionality of DOMA, the validity of substantive due process, etc., will regularly make assertions as though of fact, it being understood that we are arguing and attempting to substantiate our own views. Only when SCOTUS has definitively pronounced on an issue will we state such, and clarify that this is indisputable fact, not opinion. With it being clear that this Catholic layman is accusing Kerry of heresy, and that the Canon Law Court of the diocese has not ruled on the case, I think it would be clear that **Diogenes** or for that matter **tomndebb** or **beagledave** rendering a statement about its being or not being heresy is stating their informed opinion based in Canon Law, not reporting a decision not yet made – unless they’re in possession of next month’s edition of the diocesan newspaper! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/98 "2004-07-08T15:07:26Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > … but the only justification for abortion is when a pregnancy directly threatens the life (not health, not cases of rape or incest, not severe deformity of the fetus) of the mother. I don’t understand why the Church favors the mother over the fetus if the fetus is a person. What qualities does the mother have that make her life the more important. Maybe God should decide. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/99 "2004-07-08T15:10:57Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Then you are just arguing your opinions as if they were facts. Isn’t there a fancy Latin name for such a fallacy? In your opinion, Kerry’s actions do not rise to the level of heresy. In other people’s opinions, like the plantiff’s, they do. So what? Neither the plantiff, nor you, can determine what is heresy to the Church. The Ecclesiastical Court may (or may not) make a ruling according to Canon Law, but until then, your opinions are just that, and as we know, everyone has one. You could be a highly regarded Catholic scholar, but you’re still making declarative statements that aren’t up to you to make. > > I’m not trying to be snarky with you, but maybe the use of an occasional qualifer would help. “In my opinion something is or is not” vs. simply “is or is not.” I think it’s possible for people to express a view on the applicability of a law to a set of facts without dismissing their view as merely opinion. For example, suppose we were discussing someone who shoplifted a candy bar from the local 7-11, and one participant to the discussion called it grand larceny. I would be within my rights to say, “No, it’s NOT grand larceny. It may be larceny, it may be theft, it may be a lot of things, but it’s not grand larceny.” You cannot credibly reply, “It’s not for you to determine – it’s for the courts and the prosecutor.” While this is technically true, this is a _res ipsa loquitor_ - the thing speaks for itself - issue. Now, I grant that the current situation is less obvious to the layman than the candy bar business might be. But it’s not impenetrable. The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law clearly defines what heresy is: > [@](#): > > Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. If you, or anyone, claims that a particular person is a heretic, you must point to that person’s obstinate denial or doubt of particular truth. If Mr. Kerry had said, for example, that human life begins at birth, not at conception, he could credibly be painted as a heretic. If he said that abortion is not a grave sin, that, too, would be heresy. But - so far as I’m aware - Mr. Kerry does not take those positions, nor does he deny any truth that must be believed by Catholics. Note that even a person that procures an abortion is not a heretic. He is a sinner, a murderer, even. But not a heretic, UNLESS he did so by denying some essential truth. Do you now understand the distinction? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946/100 "2004-07-08T15:32:35Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I don’t understand why the Church favors the mother over the fetus if the fetus is a person. What qualities does the mother have that make her life the more important. Maybe God should decide. Well, in many cases if the mother dies, the fetus dies also. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-charged-with-heresy-for-communion/253946.md?page=6)