Article

2004-10-19 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-10-19 10:20:09 PM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Catechism of the Catholic Church, to wit:

(abortion and cooperating in it) " incurs excommunication latae sententiae,by the very commission of the offense..."

Its still possible to get forgiveness upon confession that is genuine. There is an entire ministry in the Catholci Church that exists to bring abortion supporters and their victims back into God's grace.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has made the case for this. Read his interview with the NY Times - the whole thing, not the cut n pasted job the NYT did,. The unabridged version is at www.archen.org

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-19 1:27:37 AM|| 2004-10-19 1:27:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I wonder how Kerry will spin this?

And this guy, if he is going tilting after windmills, he should get a few more Republicans "pro choicers" to his roster: Rudy Guliani is one I do not see named.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-19 1:33:13 AM|| 2004-10-19 1:33:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Don't expect to see any major coverage of this in the MSM

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-19 1:52:52 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-19 1:52:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 As Stalin once asked, "How many Divisions does the Vatican have?"

Posted by Casifax Perplexis6334 2004-10-19 6:01:13 AM|| 2004-10-19 6:01:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I can see the logic of this, as long as it's modified to include every catholic who has ever had a abortion, used birth control, or has publicly expressed the opinion that it's OK for other people who aren't catholic to get an abortion.

Since I'm not catholic, I do have have a question. This is meant honestly, not with the slightest insult. First, does life begin at conception? Second, does the soul appear at conception? If this is so, why is it not acceptable to use birth control that prevents concepption in the first place? Also, 30% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage. No fault of anyone. Does the church give last rites to these miscarriages? If not, are these souls denied heaven? A number of these first trimester miscarriages occus without the mother ever really knowing she was pregnant. What happens to these souls?

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 7:07:44 AM|| 2004-10-19 7:07:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Excommunicated?
Does this mean he wont be able to communicate any more? No more speeches?? GREAT!!

Posted by Bryan 2004-10-19 7:07:54 AM|| 2004-10-19 7:07:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sorry. 30% of all FIRST pregnancies end in miscarriage. For subsequent pregnancies, it's 10%. The question is still the same.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 7:09:08 AM|| 2004-10-19 7:09:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Is this when they do the bell and book thing?

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-19 7:31:01 AM|| 2004-10-19 7:31:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Hope this helps...if you consider that the soul exists at conception and retains original sin until Baptized.

Re: Souls of aborted babies and of miscarriages

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although we cannot know what happens to these souls, we can trust in Godâs mercy and have reason to hope that they are in heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains: âAs regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.â (CCC 1261)
__________________
Jim Blackburn
Catholic Answers Apologist

An unscientific poll conducted by Catholic Answers Forum (10-13-04)

View Poll Results: Is it a sin to vote for John Kerry?
It is a mortal sin to vote for John Kerry 117 54.42%
It is a venial sin to vote for John Kerry 12 5.58%
Whether it is a sin depends on one's intentions 59 27.44%
It is no sin to vote for John Kerry 27 12.56%

Posted by RN 2004-10-19 7:52:34 AM|| 2004-10-19 7:52:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Herr John Kerry gice ich seething Ãbelkeit.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-19 8:05:50 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-19 8:05:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 RN: Thank you for your honest answer. It's nice to see that it's possible to not know, which seems to me the essence of faith.

My own personal difficuly lies in the concept of original sin itself. Christianity makes the basic assumption that humans are born in sin, and cannot extricate themselves without outside help. Most other world religions see it the other way around, that we are born pure and corrupted by the world afterward. Makes for a whole different viewpoint, since if we are born pure, it is possible for us to remain so without anyone else's help. Not easy, not very probable, but at least possible. And it's up to us to keep trying, through an eternity of lives if necessary. Escape from rebirth comes from within. No, I don't beleive this literally. It's "as if".

I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from the novel Tom Jones: "We are all of us as god made us, and most of us a good deal worse."

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 8:07:01 AM|| 2004-10-19 8:07:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Good to have this kind of action and discussion so close to Guy Fawkes Day. The Vatican's action is even less welcome than the Guardian's.

Furners, get a clue.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-19 8:15:05 AM|| 2004-10-19 8:15:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 While we're at it, let's not forget that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used to go by another name: The Inquisition. Name change I beleive in the 1860's, but still the same bunch of jolly guys.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 8:32:51 AM|| 2004-10-19 8:32:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Posted by The Doctor 2004-10-19 8:40:06 AM|| 2004-10-19 8:40:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 As Stalin once asked, "How many Divisions does the Vatican have?"

Dammit, Casifax, stop giving them hints!

Posted by Unagum Unomoger1853 2004-10-19 8:42:43 AM|| 2004-10-19 8:42:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 No one expects the Spanish Inquisition? You're probably right, but only because Cardinal Ratzinger can't figure out how to pull it off.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 8:52:49 AM|| 2004-10-19 8:52:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Actually, the excommunication is automatic - thats what the latin in the first post I made says.

The Church does not excommunicate you in the case of abortion: by your own actions, YOU have exocommunicated yourself (like the law doesnt really make someone into a murderer - the person does so themselves by comitting the murder, and the law formalizes this at trial).

The only thing the Church does in the case of "latae sententiae" acts is recognize what you have done to yourself. You have already done the damag e- the Church isnt doing anything to you except formalizing the label you have placed on yourself and putting the persoin outside the graces of the Church until they genuinely confess and repent, and accept the everpresent forgiveness God offers to all sinners.

Also, the Spanish Inquisition is ancient history - and irrelevant, due to the reformation and the changes in the Church since that time. I suppose you hold the Salem witch hunts against modern day New England protestants, or the predations of Atilla against the Hungarians?

I know of no major religious system which says that man is born perfect. Original Sin of some form is present in Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, given their common roots (All come from Abraham, which links them to Adam), and in Buddhism and Hinduism, you are re-born according to karmic debt; even the Bodhisattvas had to achieve perfection instead of being born with it. The common root is that all believe you must believe in thier system and work hard to rid yourself of the stain of original sin. Christianity is unique in that it allows that original sin is removed by baptism and faith, not worldy works.

And regarding Cardinal Ratzlinger, it is his job to enforce the rules. If you dont bother enforcing the rules and laws, then why bother having a Church, or a nation for that matter? Nations and states put people in jail for breaking the laws. Even private groups will kick you out for violating the rules deliberately and repeatedly.

The difference is that the Church doesnt put people into jail, it just boots them out, and symbolically communicates to them the fact that they (ther person in question) have severed their relationship with God and His Body on earth (the Church) - the name for this state of a relationship is Excommunication. It means that you no longer have communion with the Church since you have breached the faith severely. Its not the Church, but the person and thier actions.

As for how many divisions the Pope has, he apparently has far more effective divisions than Stalin. After all the Soviet Union isn't around anymore, and the Church still is.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-19 9:33:50 AM|| 2004-10-19 9:33:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm sure he'll still be welcome at St. Beautiful People's up on Beacon Hill. After all, business is business.

Posted by tu3031 2004-10-19 9:42:34 AM|| 2004-10-19 9:42:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 I donb't hold the Salem witch hunts against the protestants, or the Inquisition against catholics. My point, if there was one, is that the job of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith is to root out heresy, which is it's job as the lineal descendant of the inquisition.

As to the question of man being born perfect: didn't say that. Nobody is perfect. Said man is born pure and without sin. Not the same thing at all. If man is born without sin, he can save himself, without need of a church to do it for him. Yes, you are reborn with karmic debt. If you didn't have any, you would have escaped rebirth. It's not considered sin in the way christians see it. It's the end point of actions taken in a previous life. The Bodhisattva achieves perfection through study and meditation on the teachings of the buddha. In doing so he becomes like a flame that has gone out. He is neither there or not there. It's not hooked up with original sin. Your idea that there is some common theme of original sin in eastern thought is just plain wrong. You insist on something that isn't true. Sorry. I've studied this stuff for almost 20 years, and it just doesn't work that way. What's the saying? Examine the mote in your own eye? Something like that.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 9:49:16 AM|| 2004-10-19 9:49:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Wierd Al, to answer your question about contraception:

Remember God's commandment in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply"? It was given to Adam, to Noah, and indirectly to Abraham and his descendants. It goes to the Catholic theology of sexuality. God gave us the pleasure of sex so as to encourage us to do it. Sexuality is a pleasurable, healthy and normal part of human behavior. You're supposed to have sex as part of marriage. This does, however allow you to abstain periodically - meaning if you use natural family planning, then you can attempt to choose when you will have a child as a couple. By the way, when practiced according to the training, NFP is as effective as birth control pills (google for it and read up if you like) without all the side effects. There are physicians, gynecologists and other professionals who teach this nation wide - for both "birth control" and fertility (if you know whent he most likely time of ovulation is, you can plan your activities around that time to enhance or reduce the chances of becoming pregnant).

But remember, the purpose God has behind sexuality is procreation. So the doctrine says that all sexual acts have to be open to the possibility of procreation to fulfill the responsibility behind the pleasure. And before you get into it, yes this means that anything the results in orgasm (of the male) other than vaginal intercourse is going against the rules - ruling out homosexual activity and oral sex to the point of orgasm (and no I dont know if oral sex is OK if you use it only as foreplay - ask a theologian on that). And as for post-menopausal sex, it is still open to procreation by way of the stories of ELizabeth in the New Testament, and Sarah in the old testament, who both bore important children (John the Baptist and Isaac repsectively) after menopause.

And that is pretty much the standard answer you will get in marriage counseling from a Catholic point of view, although probably said a bit better than what I said, and I may be wrong about the exact wording and nuances that I may have communicated here. (In other words, this is just an opinion, if you want the official position, go ask a priest or certified Catholic counselor).

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-19 9:55:44 AM|| 2004-10-19 9:55:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 You contradict yourself: pure but not without defect?

Wierd Al, if you are not born perfect (without defect), then how can you be born pure (without contamination)? You are born with a burden of bad actions - in Buddhism/Hinduism its the karmic debt, in Judeao-Christian tradition its called original sin: the tendency Humans all have to act in destructive ways, in contravention to the laws of God and nature. Its illustrated every day, even by small children.

And you are talking to a Catholic who ran away from the Church for over a decade, of which I spent 5 years trying to be a Buddhist - Therevadist, not Mahayanist. When I got to the end of things, I saw, as the poet says, that "there was no 'there' there", yet something was still missing (the first cause, the Creator). But thats a matter of personal faith and not of much relevance other than to show you where I come from.

The question still stands. And I know all about the beam in my eye, I consult regularly about it - wonderful thing, Irish Catholic Guilt... As for the mote, I suggest you look to the beam in your eye instead as well - for you deny Him His very divinity.

From there we can agree to disagree. I'm not here to convert you but to explain and answer your questions. I do not intend to offend or preach - just to show you why Catholics do these things -and the nature of the "inside" reasons for what peopel outside the Church see when it comes to Catholic faith and politics.

And I could be mistaken: I am, after all, just a well meaning catechist, a lay person. To get the authoritative view, consult a local bishop.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-19 10:09:53 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:09:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Um....well, Old Spook, that was a great answer as almost all of your posts are, but there's one tiny problem.
Yes, NFP can work almost as well as any other method....if you happen to have well-regulated cycles. A lot of women don't, especially as they get closer to menopause and your body gets a little weird with the changing hormone levels.
I kinda-sorta was one of those "oops" babies. Fortunately I was wanted, and my parents were more than able to take good care of me, but not every child born in that situation is.
I'm just amazed that the Vatican, according to this story, let some lay lawyer start the process instead of a priest or bishop. That's the weird, and frankly scary, part of this whole story. I'm no Kerry fan, but I don't relish the idea of my fellows in the pews deciding they are going to be defenders of my faith and going after other parishioners because they don't like any aberration from doctrine. I guess that shows just how low the bishops have sunk in the last few years. How depressing.
I guess if I get busted by my local church ladies while filling my pill prescription at the local Planned Parenthood I can expect the same damn thing, then.....

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-10-19 10:15:19 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:15:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 One last comment before I go out for the day:

I believe this fellow brining these things tothe Ecclesiatical court is a bit of a grand-stander, and probably politically, not spiritually, motivated, given his list of "targets". The laws of the Church fully apply to ALL the faithful. the reformation certinaly should have taught Catholics that lesson.

My opinion is that these things are best handled between the Diocese of which the person in quesion is a member. This case before the ecclesiatical court shoudl have been a request for a GENERAL ruling, not one specifically about specific politicans. Then after the ruling comes, each diocese would be required to apply the decision to its members.

[cynical]
But that wouldn't make an opportune splash in a bit political season, would it?
[/cynical]

Bottom line for me is that Kerry knowingly, willingly and repeatedly broke the laws fo the Church, and by doing so placed himself outside the communion of the Church (ex-communicated himself). The Church has yet to formally state it, and this fellow is trying to selectively force the issue for political gain.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-19 10:17:30 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:17:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 If we are born "perfect", then how is it that we would be corrupted by sin? Doesn't that necessarily imply that we were NOT born perfect?

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 10:25:17 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:25:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 John Kerry wants to portray himself as a Catholic who happens to disagree with church policy. Pardon an ignorant question, but isn't that the definition of a Protestant?

Posted by BH 2004-10-19 10:29:02 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:29:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Blondie, you have a valid point - one which my wife and I face now. But for younger people, NFP is effective and should be given preference in deference to your faith. I do recall hearing that if the hormonal pills are medically neccesary, that is, required as a medical treatment, even for younger women, then they are OK per Church doctrine. Birth control is usually doctrinal matter, not an immediately dogmatic one like abortion.

To give you an idea of my age, our son is joining the Marine Corps (and we got married later than most couples). So my wife and I are facing some irregularity in timing already. I don't have a good answer for that except to say that if we have another child, we welcome him or her as a gift. However, the doctor has suggested birth control pills as a medical treatment, a "theraputic regulator" for the menses (she's too young for hormone therapy just yet) - we will probably be asking the Archdiocese in which we live for a ruling if my wife decides that she has had enough with the irregularity - there is nothing in Church law that says you may not seek legitimate treatment for a medical condition - its along the lines of (although not as serious as) choosing chemotherapy for a cancer patient who has become pregnant.

As I said before, I'm no expert on the nooks and crannies, just the broad and general swat of Catholic catechism in these areas. So I'm asking for help where I need it, and maybe you could do the same if your being on "the pill" worries you in the least.

I boggle at the things Rantburg brings out into the public. I never thought I'd be diuscussing Catholic sexualtiy, birth control and a stranger's & my wife's menstrual cycle in public.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-19 10:33:55 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:33:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 OS: karma is not the result of bad action. It is the result of ALL action, nonaction, thought and nonthought, good and bad. Only indifferent action/thought is exempt. Therefore, it does not make man bad at birth. It only means he needs to move further along the path. To be pure is to be like an empty vessel, to be filled later. The concept of karmic debt is after all, only a concept, one that even true scholars have a little trouble with. Again, it is "as if", not necesarily physically true.

Theravedist. I am truly impressed. Not a touch of sarcasm. A very rough row to hoe, one that I didn't feel able to do. I'm not sure where I would place myself. The teaching I feel closest to is the Diamond Sutra, for what that's worth.

The problem with the first cause, is of course fundamental to the teaching of the Buddha, who generally refused to answer questions regarding such things as being basicly beside the point. To paraphrase: Whether there is a soul or not, whether there is a god or not, whether the universe is infinite or not, it is true that there is birth, suffering, pain, disease, old age, and death.

I've read in several religions, and I have found these concepts resonate for me. I also recognise that they would be extremely disturbing for many people, and honor that discomfort. So, we appear to be on the same page at this point.

With regard to birth control: the Dalai Lama agrees with you on the question of abortion. He has however said that he also understands the problem of overpopulation, and concedes the need for birth control. The question is whether sex is only for procreation, again something we appear to need to agree to disagree on.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 10:35:07 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:35:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 If man is born without sin, he can save himself, without need of a church to do it for him. Yes, you are reborn with karmic debt. If you didn't have any, you would have escaped rebirth.

seems to me you've got a bit of a contradiction there.

If one is born pure - ie: empty like a vessel, how is it that one also be born with the baggage of Karmic debt? Especially since if one didn't have any Karmic debt, they would have escaped rebirth? Karmic debt sounds like just another word for "sin" to me.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 10:45:14 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:45:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 OS...all the best to your Son.

Semper Fi !

Posted by RN 2004-10-19 10:45:19 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:45:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 2b: Again, karmic debt is first of all only a concept. Second, it is not the result of bad actions, it is the result of ALL non-indifferent actions and thoughts, good or bad. It's actually a carry-over from hindism, and gets a little complicated in buddhism, since hindus believe in a monad, and buddhists don't. You are trying to graft your concept of original sin onto a set of beliefs that don't agree with you. Original sin is not a law of the universe, it's a religious belief. What is so threatening about accepting that other people have other ideas?

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 10:54:39 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:54:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Let's put it as simply as possible. If you are a buddhist, these can be no original sin,, because there is no sinner. If you understand this, you have entered the stream. If not, you need a teacher. I'm a student, and not qualified.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 10:59:16 AM|| 2004-10-19 10:59:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 In case the neocons hadn't noticed, this is AMERICA, not the vatican. Canon law is no better than Sharia and is NOT the law of the land. It's about Democracy. I'm sure the protestants will welcome John. One more sad example of Catholic idiocy.

Posted by me 2004-10-19 11:10:07 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:10:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 You are trying to graft your concept of original sin onto a set of beliefs that don't agree with you

I'm not trying to do any such thing. You don't have any idea if I even believe in orginal sin or not. I'm just pointing out that you have a bit of a contradiction that, like members of other faiths, you can't explain, so you start quoting jingoisms and parsing semantics to explain it.

Bad..nonindifferent...whatever. According to you - actions, nonactions, nothingness results in one being reborn because of a Karmic "debt" which hopefully will..in time, need not be repaid.

Call it what you want...

Obviously you have spent 20 years into buying into the concept that a Karmic debt isn't really a debt ...it just nothing. Not a debt really, just a pure empty vessel. So carry on. No point in going further.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 11:21:01 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:21:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 2b: snotty when people don't agree with you. You haven't actually read the posts, you just have to prove how bitchy you can be. Religious concepts are just that: concepts. Take them literally if you want. Or not. I'm discussing what some of them are, not saying I agree with all of them. So try a christian one out: tell me all about the concept of the trinity in fifty words or less, and explain how one becomes three.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 11:27:58 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:27:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 Why, pray tell, are any non-Catholics posting on this thread? Jerking off for the camera, perhaps?

Obviously, this is their turf and their issue - and outsider opining serves no purpose whatsoever except self-gratification of the silly sort.

Posted by .com 2004-10-19 11:29:28 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:29:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Jews don't hold with the idea of original sin, just the imperfection of man.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-10-19 11:29:51 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:29:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 oooh...drew some blood, did I? Since you chose to attack me personally and claim that I can't explain my faith, I take that to mean that you are incapable of explaining yours.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 11:30:57 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:30:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 Methodist. Don't give a shit. Popery stupid. Talk to God your own damn self.

Posted by mojo 2004-10-19 11:41:25 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:41:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 The Trinity is no more inexplicable than Buddhist doctrines such as the unity of nirvana and samsara.

Posted by HV 2004-10-19 11:45:52 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:45:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 Original sin and karma: Whether we are born with it or not, in Buddhism, conditioned existence is an overlay or obscuration of unconditioned existence, and everyone suffers from it until liberation, so for all practical purposes, Buddhism and Catholicism are strikingly similar on this subject.

Posted by HV 2004-10-19 11:51:00 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:51:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 About the Spanish inquisition. How many people were burned in Spain during its 300 years of existence? 12,000. That is 40 per year. (To give a comparison: protestant europe burned 40,000 "witches" in a mere thirty years ie 1,300 per year.

Was it more prone to torturing than say,secular courts? When they were created, Inquisition courts, gave in fact _more_ guarantees than secular courts (like allowing the accusee to name people who had feuds with him and whose testimony would be disregarded) and prominent inquisitors warned against torture as leading to false confessions. The problem with Spanish inquisition was not its brutality but that it was still using the same methods in the XVIIIth century when people no longer considered them normal.

Posted by JFM 2004-10-19 11:54:33 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:54:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 HV, thank you for making my point more clear :-)

but shhh...don't tell wierdal...he believes that, unlike the rest of us, he's got it all figured out.

That said, I kindof have to agree with .com's post above....this is a thread for the catholics.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 11:58:30 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:58:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#43 OldSpook> Is pleasure supposed to be *always* a bonus granted by God for fulfilling an obligation towards him, or are there pleasurable activities that people can engage in without needing to be fulfilling a duty at the same time?

As for "be fruitful and multiply", even when I considered myself a Christian, I always saw that more as a blessing and less as a commandment. In part because it wouldn't jive with the unmarried clergy if it was a religious commandment. And now that I check out the Bible again, it does indeed say "God *blessed* them" when he was saying these things. Hmm.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-19 11:58:51 AM|| 2004-10-19 11:58:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#44 Heck all this deep and interesing comment. I am lucky I belong to no organized religion. I am ex methodist.

I just wonder again how many folks will vote for Bush over Kerry because of this issue. I know it will impact all serious Catholics. I grew up in the midst of them. This is serious stuff.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-19 12:07:34 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-19 12:07:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Agreed, SP'oD. It would've been fascinating to see what the actual Catholics had to say, without the irrelevant BS. But, alas...

Posted by .com 2004-10-19 12:09:12 PM|| 2004-10-19 12:09:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 agree spd. This will impact many Catholics that might have otherwise voted for Kerry. I think this WILL have a serious impact. It won't make the MSM, but it will make all of the Catholic religious chat sites, newsletters, etc ...and people who tune in to those types of things will be ones most swayed by this.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 12:10:13 PM|| 2004-10-19 12:10:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 In case the neocons hadn't noticed, this is AMERICA, not the vatican.

I do not think you understand the meaning of the term 'neo-con'.

>Canon law is no better than Sharia and is NOT the law of the land. It's about Democracy. <

Nobody ever implied that it was the law of the land. It is, however, what members of the R.C.C. are to follow. It's called "you play the game, you follow the rules".

I'm sure the protestants will welcome John.

'John' (nice to see you're on a first name basis with him) is free to go anywhere he likes.

One more sad example of Catholic idiocy.

Nonsense. If ones wishes to throw around the label 'Catholic', one must also assume the 'cross' that goes with it. It's not like being a libertarian, where one agrees with a vague philosophy, but varies wildly on the details.

Posted by Pappy 2004-10-19 12:23:34 PM|| 2004-10-19 12:23:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 If ones wishes to throw around the label 'Catholic', one must also assume the 'cross' that goes with it

Pappy excellent point. To do so otherwise is as ridiculous as to claim that one is a Christian and then get miffed when someone points out that you are practicing the Muslim faith. Ok...a bit extreme of an analogy, but one is not born a "Catholic" any more than one is born a Red Sox fan. It's ultimately a choice that is followed by action.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 12:29:37 PM|| 2004-10-19 12:29:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 a bit extreme of an analogy, but one is not born a "Catholic" any more than one is born a Red Sox fan

Poor choice again 2b...God's love is eternal and forgiving...not three strikes and you're out.

Posted by RN 2004-10-19 12:35:33 PM|| 2004-10-19 12:35:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 HV: "Original sin and karma: Whether we are born with it or not, in Buddhism, conditioned existence is an overlay or obscuration of unconditioned existence, and everyone suffers from it until liberation, so for all practical purposes, Buddhism and Catholicism are strikingly similar on this subject." Agreed. Just different end points. Christians go to heaven, buddhists attain Nirvana. Except I'm not sure how you have unconditioned existence.

2b: If you think HV made your point, more power to you. If you think I'm claiming to know "the truth", you understand even less of what I say than I thought. If that's possible.

If this is a thread only for catholics: a: what happened to free speech? and b: someone needs to let the catholic heirarchy know that they should stay out of our politics.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 12:36:55 PM|| 2004-10-19 12:36:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Oh my, did I offend? So sorry. Your freedom of speech and onanistic exertions are intact - you're still posting, aren't you?

Posted by .com 2004-10-19 12:59:58 PM|| 2004-10-19 12:59:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 If this is a thread only for catholics: a: what happened to free speech?

.com's point is that this is something that concerns Catholics and really should be discussed by them. It's like a thread between expectant mothers regarding pregnancy issues; a comment by me (a male whose kid entering junior high) about my experiences with pregnant women at Kids R' US is really just so much verbal onanism.

and b: someone needs to let the catholic heirarchy know that they should stay out of our politics.

Nonsense. The 'catholic heirarchy" [sic]
doesn't tell its members who to vote for, only what the Church doctrine is, and that voters should make choices based on that doctrine. One still has the free will to make a decision.

Mr. Kerry tried to have it both ways. He played up his Catholic membership card but went the 'disagreement' route because they were both politcally expedient. The Church, in a rare case of religious bravery, called him on it.

Posted by Pappy 2004-10-19 1:03:42 PM|| 2004-10-19 1:03:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Weird Al - I'm sorry, I was over the top. My only defense is that I did, indeed, want to know how the Catholics view this, assuming it's true. They are a very significant voting group of citizens - and thus it could have a serious impact on the most important election in my (long) lifetime. So I was uber-focused and short of patience.

Again, my apologies.

Posted by .com 2004-10-19 1:13:48 PM|| 2004-10-19 1:13:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Bottom line Kerry got caught in ~~one instance of~~ his hypocracy.

Posted by Critle Cravimble4999 2004-10-19 1:30:04 PM|| 2004-10-19 1:30:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 .com: actually, I'm interested to know what they think as well, since it probably will have an impact on the election. One of the nice things about postings like this is that 20 people can put something up at the same time. Statement #53 seen and forgotten. If we all agreed, where would be the fun?

Looking back to about #5, it appears that I'm the one who got this ball rolling in the first place. So, if people feel I've done wrong, then I apologise. It's just the I love a good rolling religious discussion and dive right in. I get assertive, even when I don't necessarily believe what I'm saying, just to see what peeks out from under the covers. For instance, who would have thunk a good Irish catholic boy like OS was once a theravidian? Grand fun.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 1:33:29 PM|| 2004-10-19 1:33:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Vatican denies it responded to lawyer seeking Kerry's excommunication

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- An official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said a California canon lawyer seeking a formal decree of heresy against Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Democratic presidential nominee, has misrepresented his contact with the Vatican office.

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr. (Marc) Balestrieri," said Dominican Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation.

"His claim that the private letter he received from (Dominican) Father Basil Cole is a Vatican response is completely without merit," Father DiNoia told Catholic News Service Oct. 19, declining to discuss the matter further."

Never mind.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 1:55:46 PM|| 2004-10-19 1:55:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#57

WELCOME TO MY WORLD, BROTHER JOHN... HEH HEH HEH

Posted by BigEd 2004-10-19 3:03:05 PM|| 2004-10-19 3:03:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 .com, speaking for the rest of my faith is a bit presumptuous, but I'll try.....

How are most of them going to react? Naturally, at first we want to know what happened to cause the supposed excommunication. As far as I know, he hasn't stated anything more than many other Catholic politicians have regarding abortion, and he is far from the first to be divorced, remarried and running for office.

THEN.....we're going to make up our own minds and vote the way we feel we should.

We are not some monolithic voting bloc that mindlessly follows what the priest says here in America. That's the old country way....

Our voting patterns are pretty much the same as the average American. We are a little bit more anti-abortion, and maybe a little less likely to support the death penalty, but that is about it as far as differences are concerned.

Would I vote for someone just because they are a fellow Catholic? Nope. I don't know anyone in my congregation who would. Case in point....Pat Buchanan. I wouldn't vote for him unless his opponent was Satan himself....and even then it would be close.

I would vote against someone who was stridently anti-Catholic (the type that goes around saying that we aren't Christians, that kind of crap), but I don't think that is any different than some other voter choosing not to support a candidate who said something derogatory about something they believed in or valued.

We have the whole political spectrum in our faith, from left wing loony to right wing nut. Most of us have already made up our minds, and this isn't going to change the opinions of hardly anyone now.

I have voted for, and will vote for, candidates who were pro-choice and pro-death penalty, simply because I thought they were the best for the job. I don't think that is a sin that's going to sentence me to time in hell.

If there is one good thing to come from this election, it is the fact that Kerry is Catholic and no one really cares about that. He doesn't have to defend his loyalty to country vs. Vatican like Kennedy did.

Now if only Kerry wasn't so damn mediocre......

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-10-19 3:35:47 PM|| 2004-10-19 3:35:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#59
Ain't it the truth? God, I love American politics. Break out the popcorn and beer on election night and watch the fireworks. Greatest show on earth.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-19 3:52:34 PM|| 2004-10-19 3:52:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Well said DB. Though most of the Catholics (if not all) the ones I know are not opposed to the death penalty, use contraception (I know you didn't specifically mention this but it was mentioned earlier in the thread) and are not stridently pro-life.

.com> I'm Catholic as well, come from a big-ass Irish-Catholic family and married into my wife's big-ass Irish & Polish Catholic family (they walk around pissed, drunk, but don't know why :)
I grew up with the stuff. I have some pretty religious famliy members and some who have told the church to piss off. I also belong to the KofC.

Now for the meat - our views are as different as any Americans. Heck, other then on military affairs I don't know if you could get me and OS to agree on what it means to be able to be Catholic and have differing views from the church etc.

WRT to my family - my dad's going to vote Nader and was pissed as hell at the RC Church for raising the no communion issue w/Kerry. My mom-in-law is voting Kerry and dis-likes Bush. Me and the wife and all the younger members of the family are voting for W. I think Kerry's a schmuck personally (on so many levels), I have issues with people who wear their religion on their sleave when there's an election. To me, religion's a personal matter, I think the founding fathers would cringe at some guy politicking from a pulpit. I also think they'd cringe when church's start suggesting who or who not to vote for. That just doen's go for the RC, look at many black Baptist churches that take on dem positions based off what race-baiters like Jackson/sharpton spew.

I don't support/not support any politician based solely on their religious or military background for that matter. For the record I am for the death penalty and still sleep fine at night. I think if a person leads a good life and does the best they can they still go to 'this concept of heaven' whether they beleived in Christ as their savior or not. I don't like the practice of abortion, I'd like to see more people put up their un-wanted babies for adoption. I'm glad partial-birth abortion was gotten rid of. However, I don't want to go back to the 50s/60s where young girls are bleeding in back alley ways w/coat hangers shoved up their genitals. I hope there comes a day where abortion is very rare, though I think it should remain an option for those who want it, let's try to take care of the ones who are already here walking around amongst us. Not all my fellow Americans are catholics, I wouldn't push my views on them as certainly as I don't push my religious or political views on my Marines. I feel a person's decision to have an abortion is between that individual and their maker. I know Kerry got lampooned for that type of statement but I feel the same way. I don't think it's a sin to vote for kerry, it's definitely stupid, but not a sin. I think things are bullshit or not because usually I come to some sort of logical conclusion, I rarely use "my church or God says..." as an argument. Now, as a disclaimer to anyone who wants to tell me I'm a moral coward or some such because I don't choose to leave the church or become a protestant or whatever because I don't swallow every tenet - get off the high horse, save your breath. This Marine ain't going no where.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-10-19 4:40:09 PM|| 2004-10-19 4:40:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 ummmm. you guys are mite wanna read this link.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-10-19 4:43:29 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2004-10-19 4:43:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 thanks mucky. All the hoopla for naught.....

Also, my apologies DB, you did mention a birth control thing in an earlier post, I mis read the posters. My wife had the same issue w/the irregular cycles so that's an interesting angle. I guess the church would be fine w/that because it's a health issue and not directly related to trying to stop from having a baby. Though we've never asked.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-10-19 4:55:32 PM|| 2004-10-19 4:55:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 DB...interesting, thanks. However, I do think that, even if it turns out that Kerry was not excommunicated, this will cost him votes.

This can only have two impacts - 1. people who do care, 2. people who don't care. "Don't cares" are a non-impact. Many "do cares" may or may not change their vote - but any that do make the decision to not to vote for Kerry after considering this issue, are a net loss for Kerry. There is nothing about this issue that will gain him him any votes. Is it enough to turn the election? I doubt it.

BTW...Did Kerry annul his marriage with his first wife after they had been married and raised their kids?

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 5:24:48 PM|| 2004-10-19 5:24:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 2b - I heard something earlier that he tried to annul the first marriage. I don't know if he actually did that....supposedly Mrs Kerry the first was pissed as hell about him trying.

Still, that would pretty much be a non-issue to most Catholics except for the really strict ones. I mean, damn, there are a lot of divorcees in my congregation. One of them, sort of a local celebrity, comes in with her kids and her new husband.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-10-19 6:38:10 PM|| 2004-10-19 6:38:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Jarhead:
Do us a favor and have about 18 kids.

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-19 6:49:52 PM|| 2004-10-19 6:49:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 DB..if I remember correctly, it was more of an issue of character, rather than a divorce issue.

Maybe someone can refresh my memory - but I believe that rather than get a divorce, he wanted the marriage annulled...like it never happened - even though by that time their kids were already grown up. There was a sleeze bag reason for not just getting a regular ol' divorce - he didn't want to pay alimony or some other equally sleazy reason

....help someone must know why.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 6:51:49 PM|| 2004-10-19 6:51:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 2b - Ah, who the hell knows why he went for it? Maybe Teresa wanted him to get one. Anyway, here's a link about it. (Page halfway down....)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37965

"This week's issue of Time magazine says Sen. John Kerry 'sought an annulment of his 18-year first marriage before marrying again.' News reports indicate, however, that Kerry didn't seek an annulment until after he married Teresa Heinz in a civil ceremony in 1995. Today's New York Times says Kerry 'sought an annulment from the church when he was divorced from his first wife.' Notice that neither Time nor the New York Times says that an annulment was granted. They say it was 'sought.'
"Kerry cannot claim that this is a private matter since he publicly joked about his quest for an annulment on the Don Imus show of May 8, 1997. 'Seventy-five percent of all annulments in the world take place in the United States,' Kerry said, 'and I guess the figure drops to 50 percent if you take out all Massachusetts politicians.' He continued saying, 'It's one of those special Catholic things. It's like confession or feeling guilty about things you haven't even thought of doing.'

"On Feb. 16, 2004, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that 'Kerry's office didn't respond to several e-mail and telephone requests' regarding the question of whether an annulment was granted. On March 23, 2003, the Providence Journal-Bulletin said that Kerry 'will not say whether he obtained an annulment of his first marriage. â¦' Why the reticence, especially since Kerry says his 'current marriage is in good graces with the Church?'

"Why does this matter? If Kerry did not receive an annulment, then he is not married in the Catholic Church and cannot receive the sacraments. But even if he was annulled, did he and Teresa Heinz get married in the Catholic Church following the annulment? If not, then Kerry is not married in the Church, thus raising all sorts of questions."

I guess he must have gotten one, since they've been receiving communion at mass.....a big no-no for divorcees, especially those who have remarried.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-10-19 7:04:36 PM|| 2004-10-19 7:04:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 According to a previous account offered by the paper, the fact that Kerry was still technically married till 1988 "reportedly came as a surprise to some of his frequent companions."

Just weeks before his May 26, 1995, remarriage to Ketchup heiress Theresa Heinz, Thorne took Kerry to court in a bid for an increase in child support payments, arguing that "his income was up substantially," according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Both Kerry and Thorne denied that the lawsuit had anything to do with Heinz or her fortune.

But friction arose again two years later when Kerry, a Catholic, applied to the Washington, D.C., archdiocese to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, even though the couple had two grown daughters.

Thorne "has written a letter of opposition to the archdiocese because she feels the process demeans their relationship and their children," reported the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 1997.

The paper blamed Kerry's new wife on the annulment bid. His office issued a terse statement: "Sen. Kerry very much understands Julia's feelings and appreciates her support. Sen. Kerry believes that this is a private family matter."

The Washington Times noted in a Kerry profile several years ago that his critics consider him "a ruthless political opportunist." Given some of the more obscure details of Kerry's first marriage, that assessment may not be too far off the mark

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 7:26:20 PM|| 2004-10-19 7:26:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Bush could have brought this up in the debates, but he has too much moral fiber to pull a cheap trick like Kerry did, re: Mary Cheney.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-10-19 7:36:05 PM|| 2004-10-19 7:36:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 OldSpook - Thanks for reminding me why I am not Catholic! With that method of birth control I would have hundreds of children. Instead I have my ZPG mandated 2.

(ZPG -- Your duty to the planet as a human not to kill it with over population.)

Posted by 3dc 2004-10-19 8:05:29 PM|| 2004-10-19 8:05:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 ps..thanks desert blondie for the help. Had to log off without time to respond :-)

Posted by 2b 2004-10-19 8:43:47 PM|| 2004-10-19 8:43:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 It sounds like there is a quiet riot going on under the lid, lol! I didn't expect any sort of lock-step with the Vatican, but I have to ask: If you disagree with so many of (what appear to be) the hardline rules / laws / tenets / whatever - why go to Catholic churches, why think of yourself as Catholic? There are a lot of little-bit pregnant people running around, methinks. I find it curious. And I include Skeery - he follows what suits him, so I don't see why he's "Catholic". I don't get it, but appreciate the info. Even if it turned out to be true, it sounds like it would only mean something to a minority of Catholics... maybe a very small one, too.

Thanx - an education for a Texas boy who saw damned near all the other Christian religions of note in the US in action, my mother was a ping-pong ball until she found the Mormons, but I never visited a Mass. Hell, still I know 10x more about Theravadan Buddhists in Thailand and Wahhabi RamaLamaDingDongs in Saudi than I do Catholics, lol! My honest thanx for lifting the lid!

Posted by .com 2004-10-19 10:11:52 PM|| 2004-10-19 10:11:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 My wife and I are not Catholic or even fundementalist christians. However we both know divorce and abortion are grave sins. So I am wondering WTH Kerry comes off claiming he is catholic even in the general sense (universal christian faith as opposed to the Holy Roman Chatholic Church.) This all leaves me scratching my body parts.

This crap of getting a marriage annuled years after the fact was one of the issues Martin Luther had when he nailed that letter to that door. It just shouldn't be done. Once a marriage is consummated you hitched for good. I am really (not) sad he couldn't get married in a real Catholic Church because he was divorced. This creep doesn't rate even a shot at being president of the US.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-19 10:39:56 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-19 10:39:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 the annullment game is a sad one. I married in the RC faith, and got divorced. I can no longer marry in the church, but that was made VERY clear before I married the first time. I should've been a better husband and married later than I did. An annullment in my case would be by mutual agreement...not that hard to grasp: encouragement to marry once, and do it right, or have civil ceremonies for the rest

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-19 10:45:44 PM|| 2004-10-19 10:45:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 "If you disagree with so many of (what appear to be) the hardline rules / laws / tenets / whatever - why go to Catholic churches, why think of yourself as Catholic?"

I think the reason most Protestants don't get this, is because unlike Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, the clergy of most Protestant groups doesn't have the meaning that the clergy of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox has. I believe most Protestant groups either don't have a clergy or they don't see it as an intermediary between God and men with a divine mandate.

I'll let others speak of themselves, but the best way to make the point is by analogy I think: Some may consider Bush the legitimate president of America, fully-authorized to make decisions, but they may still disagree with those decisions.

Likewise someone may consider the Roman Catholic Church (or the Eastern Orthodox Churches for that matter) as the legitimate medium between God and men, divinely authorized to conduct ceremonies, absolve sin, etc.. -- and they may nonetheless still disagree with many of the specific choices and beliefs and teachings of that hierarcy. They consider the Church to *err* in its interpretation of God's will and scripture, but that doesn't mean they don't consider the Church as a whole to be divinely authorized.

It just means that they don't believe the Church's mandate extends to replacing their own reasoning faculties.

That's the justification anyway. My guess is that in many cases the real reason is that "I disagree with lot that the Catholic Church has to say" is less scary than a clear statement "I am no longer Catholic".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-19 11:13:30 PM|| 2004-10-19 11:13:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 3dc - stop lying. NFP is as effective as birth control pills. And Catholics have duty to God first - which includes stewardship of the planet, not a "duty to the planet" - that last phrase sounds like something you got of Saturday morning cartoons.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-20 12:53:09 AM|| 2004-10-20 12:53:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#77 A catholic President to America will be a curse, as he will be under the frock of the Pope on all key issues.Vatican authority will be sought for every important matters. Its like bringing back the evil demon of Papacy again to USA

Posted by Rosemary wilfred 2004-10-26 9:20:37 PM|| 2004-10-26 9:20:37 PM|| Front Page Top

13:37 Cromorong Chomble7321
21:20 Rosemary wilfred
15:23 lex
00:53 OldSpook
00:03 Asedwich
23:14 Mike Sylwester
23:13 Tibor
23:13 Mike Sylwester
23:13 Aris Katsaris
23:13 Frank G
23:05 Mike Sylwester
22:54 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:51 Frank G
22:48 3dc
22:46 CrazyFool
22:45 Frank G
22:39 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:39 James
22:31 Barbara Skolaut
22:23 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:22 .com
22:14 Mrs. Davis
22:11 .com
22:10 Robert Crawford