It’s so nice when your opponent in GD flails about so widly that even the most casual observer can detect his incoherence.
- Rick
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
OK, that’s fine. So long as no officials of the Catholic Church are targeting Kerry, my statements are premature.
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.
Paragraph 75 of the Denunication sums up the charge of Heresy thusly:
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.
You just now get this point? :smack:
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.
I really hate cheap shots against education. Is your “to the extent…” part intended to avoid such a cheap shot?
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?
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.
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:
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.
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’m buying stock in Reynolds Tin Foil.
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.
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! 
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.
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:
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
Well, in many cases if the mother dies, the fetus dies also.