| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Catholic Church coming down against Kerry |
| 2004-10-13 |
| From the OldSpook I told you so files - I *knew* the Church was going to have to sooner or later condemn Kerry for his 2faced position on embryonic stem-cell research, gay marriage, and most of all, Abortion. The New York Times reported today that Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in the swing state of Colorado, is applying pressure on faithful Catholics to draw the line on three key moral issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research,—three issues that favor the re-election of President George W. Bush, but don't fare well for Senator John Kerry. The archbishop explained to a group of Catholic college students gathered in a sports bar here in Colorado, that abortion is "a foundational issue" of the Church. Senator Kerry, he reminded them, despite his front and center Catholicism, has been a consistent proponent of abortion, and so what about his potential influence upon the Supreme Court? "Supreme Court cases can be overturned, right?" he asked. And so why not Roe v. Wade? But it won't happen with Kerry. It may happen with Bush. In a separate private interview in his residence, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion. "If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes." Archbishop Chaput didn't out and out endorse either candidate. His point is that responsible citizens, responsible Christians look at these issues, see where the candidates truly stand on them, and then vote their conscience, vote for the man of principle, not slick promises. Kerry is doing what generations of Republican politicians could not do: pushing the Catholic Vote out of the Democrat Party. |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #19 Let's face it, the doctrines of papal infallibility and of adherence generally to the teachings of God's Vicar on Earth are honored in the breach by most North American and European Catholics today. The vast majority of the (non-Opus Dei) western Catholics are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from Protestants. Survey data have shown repeatedly that their social views are identical to those of mainline protestants. This election will not turn on abortion orstem cells. It's about who can and will defend this nation. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-13 11:47:50 PM |
| #18 Old Spook, it's not that simple. I can disagree with the leaders of the Catholic Church (even with the Pope) and still consider myself a Catholic. The Church didn't play a stellar role in Nazi Germany. It even condoned antisemitism and didn't speak up against the persecution of the Jews. Yet good Catholics who disagreed with the Vatican hid Jews in their basement to save them. You can believe in the Church and not agree with everything the Church decides. This is not a comment about Kerry's stand on abortion but a general observation. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-10-13 11:42:27 PM |
| #17 Kerry's a cafeteria Catholic: he picks and chooses the doctrinal beliefs that he's willing to uphold. Which is to say, he's pretty much in the mainstream of American Catholicism and will probably neither win nor lose many Catholic votes on the the abortion issue. The evangelical Prods are another matter entirely. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-13 11:36:57 PM |
| #16 You may disagree with me and with the Catholic Church and our moral decisions on those items above, plus routine adiminstration of the death penalty, treatment of the poor, etc. I'll be glad to argue into the ground and show you the error of your ways on those issues. And I'll win because if you accept my preconditons the arguments will fall to me. The issue is that we disagree on fundamental ground issues: when does life begin? What obligation do we have to human life and human dignity? Do you believe in God, Jesus and the one holy catholic and apostolic church? If the answer is yes, then you will be forced to agree with the Chruch's stand. The theology and logic is there given the precepts of the CHurch. BUT! If your answer is no, then we can agree to disagree - you'll think me religious a fool, and I'll pity you in that you are working against God and will reap the sorrows you sow. And that's where Kerry fails: he tries to claim the Church and oppose it at the same time. And thats not using his Religion against him - thats calling him out on a lie, a deception he is foisting on the public. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-13 11:26:45 PM |
| #15 Wierd Al and LiberalHawk - you're flat out wrong. First off: The Archbishop is not telling "people" how to vote in order to exercise political power. He is concerned for the souls of Catholics and his tremarks are clearly addressed to Catholics, not to the public at large. This is why: It is undeniable that the Church views abortion and abuse of the unborn as a great sin - in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is an evil capable of severing your relationship to God. It is tantamount to murder for Catholics. Its spelled out in CCC 2272: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense, The Church attaches the canonical penalty of automatic excommunication to this crime against human life." To vote for a politician because he support abortion, is to cooperate by giving your sanction, formally, to the act of abortion across the area that the politican covers. And to do so places you at risk of your immortal soul. Thats why the Archbishop spoke out. Not because he wants Bush, nor Kerry - as a matter of fact his most recent writings says that neither candidate is "perfect" on fitting the Chruch's views. Its because he sees Catholic aouls at risk. And that is who his opinon was aimed at. Not at Baptists, Buddhists or Atheists. Catholics only. To say otherwise is to misconstrue a very carefully worded and thought out statement by the Archbishop. FYI: Harvesting of embryos for reseach also falls under this: could you imagine harvesting grown humans for "research"? The Nazis did it - and its the same for Catholics who believe life starts at conception. Secondly: The "Its wrong to push my views on others" is a load of crap. Was it wrong to push our views, violently, on the Nazis who ran the death camps in Europe? Was it wrong for the Federal Government to use the National Guard to push the views on Civil Rights on the segregationists? If something is a great moral evil, a holocaust, an enslaving, then you are morally boud to speak out and act against it when you can. Now you know why people on the pro-life side are so vehement: this is a matter of life or death due to our core beliefs. The thing to remember is that it is KERRY who keeps bringing his Catholicism to the forefront. And thats where the issue is: his claims to be Catholic but his actions to the contrary. Its a fundamental moral and intellectual dishonesty that Kerry displays, and THAT is the issue. Kerry cannot claim to be Catholic and then act against the very vital moral center of the Church and its teachings. To do so is to LIE about something that should be vitally important to a person: his faith and immortal soul. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-13 11:25:12 PM |
| #14 CyberSarge: If true catholics can't "rail" against church doctrine, then there probably aren't a whole lot of them around. That isn't the issue at stake here. The issue is whether churches should or should not publicly attack or endorse candidates from either side while operating as non-profit organizations. I don't care which side they endorse. As a backup question: In 1960 non-catholics attacked Kennedy, claiming that if he were elected he would toe the vatican line on issues of public interest. In 2004 catholics (esp in the hierarchy) are attacking Kerry because he won't follow the vatican party line. Either both attacks were wrong, or they are both right. Attack Kerry all you like on issues. You're free to do so, and I won't even raise an eyebrow. Call him any name you like. I'll yawn. Use religion as a way to attack someone on public issues, you're wrong. Or be willing to accept any and all attacks from the other side re: Bush's religious beliefs without calling foul. |
| Posted by: Weird Al 2004-10-13 7:41:33 PM |
| #13 Weird Al, a true Catholic, you can't rail against church doctrine or teachings. To do so would (like the man said) put you in a state of sin. Now to remedy this you need only go to confession and do penance. You can’t ‘fudge it’ or ‘nuance it’ to fit your individual agenda. Every Sunday all Catholics make a profession of faith and it doesn’t include the words ‘however’ or ’but’ or ‘sometimes’. You either believe it/follow it or you don’t. Kind of like the black and white (right/wrong) approach that President Bush takes on the world. FYI I voted this weekend and I have nothing to go to confession about. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-13 6:30:36 PM |
| #12 Say whatever you want - but this will cost Kerry votes and will not gain him any, that he doesn't have already. |
| Posted by: twobea 2004-10-13 5:07:51 PM |
| #11 Question: how many cathoilics in this country agree &/or disagree with church doctrine on abortion and stem cell research? From what I hear, the percentages are the same as non-catholics. So are there 30 or 40 million catholics confessing their difference in belief? I doubt it. Does the church demand they comply? Not that I've heard. This has less to do with individual belief than it has to do with the church's belief that it has literally a god given right to interfere in the political process in govts. It gets away with it in many countries around the world, and can't seem to get it through it collective sclerotic head that we don't have a state govt here. "Is the soul present at conception" is a theological arguement, not an arguement of demonstrable fact. It is in fact dependent on the question of whether or not humans have individual souls in the first place, which is also a theological question, and is not universally believed. Religion on either side needss to stay the helll out of politics, whether it's catholic, fundamentalist christian, or black baptist. |
| Posted by: Weird Al 2004-10-13 4:39:11 PM |
| #10 what if you believe civil unions are properly a state matter, and oppose an amendment to the federal constitution? Some issues SHOULD be fudged That's not fudging, that's simply asserting a straightforward, intellectually honest and respectable defense of the Constitution. If we'd taken that approach to abortion rather than the, er, abortion that was Roe v Wade, we would have arrived at the same result with vastly less division and confusion. Letting the people and the states decide is by far the most appropriate way to resolve issues arising from the greatest social upheavals in modern history: the change in women's status and the widespread acceptance of homosexuality. Absurd to argue that these new phenomena are somehow up to the Supreme Court's 7 doddering old farts to 2 young fogies to resolve for the rest of us. Any decent, enlightened politician should be able to articulate this "let the people decide" message. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-13 2:43:06 PM |
| #9 Hell, you want fudge, take a look at the Vaticans latest statement on Iraq. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-13 1:02:18 PM |
| #8 Lex - what if you believe civil unions are properly a state matter, and oppose an amendment to the federal constitution? Some issues SHOULD be fudged - theyre intrinsically complex, and nuance IS appropriate. In any case, even if i thought he was fudging, theres a reason to cut him slack. Same reason i cut Bush and Rummy slack when theyre accused of not admitting mistakes. Cause if they did so the other side would demagogue the issue. Well the GOP is demagoguing gay marriage, and it aint pretty. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-13 1:01:47 PM |
| #7 If Kerry has any intelligence or guts, he will state what he believes and accept the consequences. Abortion and gay marriage are not issues that can be straddled. The public has vastly more respect for those who state their beliefs and positions clearly, without patent efforts to fudge the issue. If he believes that abortion is the taking of innocent life, then he should oppose it. If he believes otherwise, then he should say, as Clinton brilliantly did, that he's committed to making abortion "safe, legal and rare." As to gay marriage, again, some clarity, Senator: if you oppose civil unions, then oppose civil unions. If you don't oppose them, then say so. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-13 12:42:00 PM |
| #6 Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion a vote for a candidate - IE any candidate, including a Protestant or Jewish candidate, not just an RC candidate. the Archbishop says Catholics who vote the wrong way are in a state of sin. He of course has the right to say that, but its odd that some people who think that its a fine thing for the AB to say that, and its just reprehensible and ignorant to say that this is a problem, seem to have so much difficult with say Ayatollah Sistani telling Iraqis how to vote. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-13 12:38:02 PM |
| #5 I am a Catholic and I agree that the Archbishop should re-enforce to parishioners what they should consider when voting. I also agree that even if you are a practicing Catholic and an elected official you cannot superimpose your beliefs onto everyone else. However you should at least try to affect change within your scope of authority. Ronald Reagan was definitely against abortion and refused money to the UN for its abortion programs. The true question is whether Kerry would support a challenge to Roe-Vs-Wade? A simple test of faith that I think he would fail. That’s why I voted for Bush this weekend (absentee ballot). |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-13 12:02:09 PM |
| #4 well, Kerry could always choose to stand by his *snicker* convictions and leave the church...publicly |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-13 10:36:43 AM |
| #3 OldSpook, as you know I have some arguments with the Church's history. But I agree with you completely on this one. When one takes up the mantle of belief, one has to actually believe. If not, then fergawdsakes find a better fitting mantle! Labels are not meaningless when one sticks them on one's very own self, after all. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-10-13 2:31:49 AM |
| #2 In case you are wondering, Chaput is pronounced "Sha-pew" (yes its of French derivation, but I think he's from Nebraska). I admire a man like Chaput - he has the guts to stand up to those in the Church heirarchy whose faith is about as warm and deep as a puddle when it comes to speaking with moral authority. Chaput exercises the full authority of his postion and the Church to address the faithful on political issues where the Catholic Church has a very clear position and an interest in taking part in the public dialog. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-13 2:12:06 AM |
| #1 You may not agree with my stand on these issues, and that's OK if you're not a Catholic - you're free to dissent. You are not bound by the rules that I and Kerry are when we voluntarily, willingly accept the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church and its Credo. Christ carried a Cross, and sometimes as believers, we must pick up a cross too (even though Kerry seems to prefer hiring the somone to carry his for him - or to hide from the burdens that Christianity imposes on believers). The difference between real Catholics and Kerry is lying to you and to himself and to God when he claims to be a good-faith Catholic and supports abortion, funding and harvesting embryos for embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage. Kerry is a moral coward on the most impiortant life-and-death issue that a person faces: his essential questions of belief, faith and salvation. He lacks the courage to face the consequences and responsibilities of living Catholci values instead of just mouthing them, and he lacks the honesty to say that he disagrees and will leave the Church over these differences (unlike Martin Luther). If he cannot be trusted to be honest and couragous with himself, how can we trust him to be honest and courageous with the nation? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-13 2:07:22 AM |