Kerry Charged with heresy for communion.

Great Debates
21

I would object to the assertion that Kerry has expressed any beliefs which are “heretical” (I can’t believe anyone still seriously uses that word) or counter to the teachings of the RCC. Kerry has said that he believes that abortion is wrong and that life begins at conception. The fact that he believes it should still reamain legal is not a heresy unless the plaintiff would like to argue that any Catholic who opposes an RCC theocracy is automatically a heretic. The Church condemns extra-marital sex. Does that mean that Catholics must also believe that premarital sex should be illegal in order to avoid being heretics?

Do all Catholics have to support legal bans on birth control? Adultery? Homosexuality? Idolotry? Atheism? The death penalty? Divorce? Do you have to believe all those things should be illegal in order to receive communion?

There is a difference between personally accepting the teachings of the Church and believing that everyone else must be forced to abide by those teachings.

The plaintiff in this case is full of shit. A belief that abortion should be legal is not the same as a moral endorsement. There is no conflict with the RCC in Kerry’s position. There is no “heresy.”

BTW, does the jackass who is bringing this suit intend to prosecute all the millions of Catholics who disagree with the Church on birth control or divorce or the death penalty as well or is this just a grandstanding political stunt designed to embrass JFK?

22

I haven’t been following this stuff too closely, but wasn’t the Vatican also against the Iraq war? Did they do anything similar against Bush or do they feel abortion is worse that war?

23

Perhaps Kerry should announce that he can no longer in good conscience remain a member of the Catholic Church. That would solve the problem nicely.

24

Right.

The way they worked to cover up the sex abuse scandals really was the best for their followers. The Crusades were the best for their followers. Oh, and that Inquisition was just a JOYGASM for their followers.

The Church as a ruling body is a corrupt organization that uses its resources to maintain whatever waning political sway it has while making sure that its wealth regains parity with the Mormons.

The very structure of the Church is corrupt and has set itself up from the very beginning to be followed with unquestioning fealty.

The Church works in its own best interests and doesn’t give a shit about its followers, but they do pay them lip service when belief starts to flag.

25

Quite so. But the seriousness with which an editorial policy regards any given bit of news is oftimes telling. A front page placement would seem to indicate a considerable degree of concern, wouldn’t you agree? In your consideration, does this story indicate a serious and noteworthy event in the Catholic citizenry, or merely some loopy attempt to undermine a candidate by any means available? Given that the Times has, shall we say, a somewhat spotty record in matters of strict journalistic integrity?

If I publish a story headlined “Bush Reported to Shove Kittens in Blender”, and reference a Reeder Pit Thread, might you not have some serious reservations? Yes, I daresay you might. But, of course, such a story would be entirely accurate, it has been “reported”.

My guess is that it is the latter, you are entirely welcome to your own interpretation, though I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t make insinuations of rhetorical dishonesty without any more foundation than you have presented here.

26

Suits me - I don’t see how anyone with a good conscience can be a member of the Catholic Church.

27

Nonsense. Dogma - “A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church” - is what it is. If you don’t like the doctrine of a particular faith, find a faith whose teaching more closely align with your beliefs. The Catholic Church has never been secretive about its teachings.

I cannot read the article (something about site-blockers), but is it the Archdiocese bringing the suit, or an individual? If it’s an individual, I wouldn’t be surprised to find political motivation behind the suit. If it’s an Archdiocese or other official body of the church, then it’s probably not political - it’s theological.

A church has the right to examine the behavior of its members for adherence to dogma; and contrary to earlier postings, a charge of Heresy is actually a means to open debate about the issues in a formal way.

28

In 1960, the GOP claimed John Kennedy would be taking his orders from Rome. This is a refreshing difference, however confounding they may find it now.

29

You are confusing the veracity of a story with its importance. I’m with Lib on this-- he was only talking about the former atribute.

30

Well, it would take an act of principle to renounce the Catholic Church. Kerry wants to have it both ways: He agrees with Church teaching (that life begins at conception), but has no problem sanctioning the taking of that inocent life.

Not that he’s any less principled than your average politician-- let’s just be clear that he ain’t **MORE ** principled.

31

Jut to clarify, the RCC is not bringing any complaint against Kerry, it’s just a layman who is bringing a petition to the Church that they should withhold communion from Kerry because he’s pro-choice. This is not any sort of institutional action by the Church, it’s one guy’s plea to the Church to stopping giving JFK the death cookie.

Bush isn’t a Catholic anyway, so the the Vatican can’t impose any religious sanctions on him, although they have been vocally critical of the invasion of Iraq as well as the death penalty. As a matter of fact, when Shrub recently met with the Pope, he tried to enlist the pontiff in campaigning for him. Bush whined that the cardinals and priests in the US “aren’t with me” (which, IMO, shows the true depth of Bush’s arrogance and delusion, that he thinks the RCC has some sort of obligation to support his election campaign) and wanted the vatican basically to order American priests to pimp Bush’s anti-gay hate amendment during mass. The Pope ignored Bush’s pathetic pandering for an endorsement and rebuked him about the war in Iraq instead. Props to his holiness for that.

32

You guys are (mostly) missing the point here. The Catholic Church hasn’t done anything to Kerry. A layman has brought a charge against Kerry in an ecclesiastical court, calling for him to be repent.

Bitch about that guy all you want, but the Church has yet to stand up and say, “yeah, Kerry, you f’ed up.” Leave it alone for now.

I found this little tidbit very interesting, though:
“People are saying you can be pro-choice and be a good Christian, that it is not contrary to the faith to support aborted murder,”
Which I guess means supporting completed murder is alright :wally

33

No argument from me. If I were a US citizen I’d be voting against Bush for being a threat to world peace, civil liberties, his mishandling of the terrorist threat and the good name of the USA, not voting for Kerry.

As it is I shall be voting against Blair when I get the chance, despite being a long time Labour voter.

34

Indeed.
So wouldn’t it be more apt to charge Bush with heresy?

Damn prottos everywhere!
Bring back the inquisition, I say.

35

If this is seen as a political move then how come people keep insisting that politics and religion (especially Christian religion) is not interwined in the US in any way?
In any other Western nation I am familiar with, people would be flat of laughter if such a thing would be done in the middle of an election campaign because nobody would think about it to see this as having any influence on election results.

I remember that I once made a thread asking something in the line of:
"how secular can the US be seen the fact that its current president declares to be chosen by God to become president of the USA and seen the fact that politicians embrace/support/hug ( the Judeo-Christian versions of) religion because otherwise they clearly don’t have any chance to even get a nomination as presidential candidate.
I also remember the hostile reactions I received, with references to “consitution” etc… which did not answer my OP because the reality (and this silly “law suit” is once again a proof) shows clearly that religion and politics are very much intertwined.

I would like to see the result if Kerry now simply declares that he sends the whole Christian religion to hell and becomes no matter what non-Christian/non Jewish, or atheist. Do you think he would have any chance to get elected?

Salaam. A

36

Kerry has not opposed or publicly disagreed with any Church doctrine.

It’s an individual.

Kerry has done or said nothing which is contrary to Catholic dogma. His public stance on abortion is that he opposes it personally and that he thinks that life begins at perception. He also recognizes that his religious views should not be legally imposed on everyone else.

To reiterate what I said earlier, adhering to Church doctrine does not mean that a Catholic is obligated to believe that all such doctrine should be codified into law.

37

I should modify what I said before: the Church needs to be very careful how they handle this. If they excommunicate a politician during an election year, or even if they hold a public “trial” for his excommunication, they’re going to be tapdancing all around the 501(c)(3) guidelines. If they insist they must do this, then they need to do it consistently, not just to politicians, or they need to give up their tax-exempt status.

Daniel

38

No! Really? Got a cite?

39

Ignorance of the meaning of simple words in the English language is bad.

‘Dogma’ refers to a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by the church. It does not mean an inability to question beliefs and authority.

This is Great Debates, not the corner bar. In debate, a gratuitous assertion is equally gratuitously denied. Perhaps, if you’d care to transform your assertion into a supported one by providing examples of the Catholic Church requiring “blind obdience,” you would have raised a debatable point, instead of merely offering the debate equivalent of sputtering nonsense.

That’s an opinion, and not one susceptible to any sort of rigorous analysis or refutation.

So: no, it’s not. It’s common in all sort of organizations. I assume you don’t look upon union involvement in politics as “loathsome,” for example.

Valid point. In my own experience, Catholic schools tended to be scholastically superior to public schools, but that doesn’t extend to all private schools, nor does it blunt the reality that stubborn ignorance may not be eradicated even with excellent educational opportunities at hand. The poster may simply be a victim of that phenomenon.

Correct. Mr. Kerry is, in my view, no worse on this than the Catholic politicians who routinely support the detah penalty – it’s absolutely unclear to me how someone can be fervently pro-life on one issue and so anti-life on the other.

Church law does take special notice of abortion, and imposes a latae sententiae penalty on those involved in the procurement of an abortion, directly or indirectly.

It’s unsettled what “indirectly” means in this instance, however, and I question the proposition that holds a legislator responsible for an abortion if his only participation was voting in accord with his conscience. In other words, we can clearly hold the abortion doctor liable under this rule; he directly performs the abortion. We can hold the counselor that refers the pregnant woman to the clinic for the purpose of getting an abortion responsible as an indirect procurer.

But would we hold the telephone installer who did the clinic’s phone system responsible? Although in a way, he assisted – after all, the clinic could hardly do business without phones – his connection to the crime is insufficiently direct.

  • Rick
40

No argument from me on that, either. I’m still undecided as for whom to vote, but if I vote for Kerry it’ll be as you say.