www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall John Kerry & Latin Legalism

Well, the US has not ratified the treaty on the International War Crimes tribunal, and besides it can only hear cases concerning crimes commited after the tribunal was instituted, so in any case the atrocities (without "quote" marks, in my opinion) commited by US Soldiers in Vietnam does not come under it's juridiction...

Christian

A few points I want to make.

I think Cardinal Arinze answered the questions perfectly. When asked directly about the issue at hand, he answered directly and without slippery lawyer-language our own Bishops seem to have mastered. But when asked specifically about Kerry, he answered the only way he can - he is not Kerry's Bishop, nor even an American Bishop, so he passed it on to them. RC's get criticized for centralizing everything in Rome - let's hear some cheers when they respect the office of the Bishop and his authority over his flock!

Regarding what would happen if this was an Orthodox person, sadly, I believe the same thing. Here in Maryland one of our senators (Sarbanes) is Orthodox, and he is completely pro-abortion. He has been praised by Orthodox churchmen and given awards and had banquets for him by Orthodox bishops and priests. So we all have this problem - maybe that is a basis for unity?

Unfortunately, many bishops seem to have their spine removed during their episcopal consecration. Cardinal McCarrick (my bishop) said that he did not feel "comfortable" denying the Eucharist to a pro-abort. Guess what, Cardinal - those babies did not feel "comfortable" when their limbs were ripped apart in the womb, either. In America, we see abortion as completely a political issue, so our bishops don't seem to want to use the Eucharist in a political manner. I agree with the idea of not using the Sacred Body and Blood of our Lord as a political statement, but abortion is not about politics, it is about killing God's precious infants.

My wife had an interesting experience this past Sunday I thought I would share.

We found out recently that a member of our Roman Catholic parish is our local State Senator (Democrat), who says he is "pro-choice". He does not advertise it much, and he has voted with pro-lifers on all abortion-related bills that have come up (partial-birth abortion, parental notification, etc.). Where I live, if you say you are pro-life , you have about 0% chance of getting elected.

So my wife went up to him after Mass, and asked him his position on abortion. He confirmed that he is "pro-choice", but mentioned his pro-life votes. My wife respectfully asked him to be open to reconsidering his position. She then spoke for about 60 seconds about how as an American, we believe in certain rights, of which Life is the most sacred. She also mentioned how poor women don't really have a choice, and are often forced into abortions by circumstance and no support from others. She briefly mentioned that as a Catholic his position is incompatible with Church teaching. He was respectful in listening and they departed in a good manner.

So I was wondering, should our priest deny this person communion? He is publicly pro-abortion, yet he obviously is somewhat conflicted by it. He doesn't promote abortion in his campaign, and I don't think he goes to pro-abortion rallies or marches. Personally, although I would not vote for him, I'm not sure he should be denied communion. But on the other hand, if he were, he might realize the seriousness of what he is supporting, and decide to repent of his position. Honestly, I'm not sure which action is better.

I think this is different from Kerry, who revels in his disobedience to the Church, to the point of being scandalous.

A very interesting and I believe accurate op-ed piece on this subject.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ay/catholicbishopswhofaultkerrycrossline

Dear Francis:

Being in the eye of the emerging (or impending?)political storm, the D.C. and Baltimore Bishops jointly were sent this "message" by Rome today:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=45991

AmdG

Joke heard on the Jay Leno show about John Kerry.

Question:

Why did Kerry Cross the Street ?

Answer:

It dosen't realy matter, because he has already crossed back.

Dear Moe,

Thank you for sharing that article.

It is unfortunate that this disagreement over abortion will fuel and help U.S. conservatives.

But why is it that the liberals' calls for justice, equality etc. has to be bought at the price of the blood of the unborn?

Hitler believed that the world would be better off without the Jews. Other dictatorshops, both Left and Right, eliminated millions in pursuit of their ideals.

Is the death of the unborn the price modern man feels he should pay to ensure equality of rights for women and freedom and control over their reproductive organs?

Have we become so ideological and politically-correct that we lose sight of basic humanity?

And if, for argument's sake, Catholic legislators who favour "pro-choice" want to eventually eradicate the reasons why women choose abortion (ie. poverty), then is this a moral argument in favour of allowing abortion?

And what about the many middle-class and upper-class families who have abortions because they simply see more babies as a nuisance?

What about the very real fact that upper-middle class people active in the abortion movement WANT abortion clinics for poor women so as to avoid a further drain on welfare etc.?

There are studies indicating this as well and they were brought to my attention by a professor of mine who happens to be a Marxist.

There is also the view that women wanting abortion rights are thinking very much like the United States with respect to war and its right to sacrifice its young men and women in wars.

The view is that if the people are dependent on the state, then the state has the right to do with them basically as it pleases.

And women who feel that since the "fetuses" depend on them for everything - they also have the right to "dispose" of them if they so choose.

It is amazing how the U.S. has gone to war to fight Nazi philosophy and dictatorial powers elsewhere and yet there are U.S. citizens, such as those in the march on Sunday and Catholics in the Democratic Party that uncritically accept Nazi philosophy with respect to the unborn.

But I'm a man and therefore don't have a right to tell a woman that she shouldn't have an abortion.

My father was an Eastern Catholic who saved Jews during WWII.

Neither gender nor religion should make any difference in such basic moral issues.

May God bless you, Sir and please do not take offence at me!

Alex

This has some interesting food for thought.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/25/141223.

Where the pro-life issue is concerned, we have to remember it includes more than just the abortion issue. Being pro-life means just that...we are in favor of life. This includes condemning not only abortion, but also capital punishment, unjust wars (such as the one we are involved with now), and allowing the poor to go without proper food, clothing, shelter and medical care, as well as a living wage for all workers. To be truly pro-life, one must fight against all of these and not just abortion. I don't know of any politician who supports this "seamless garmet" of pro-life positions...and especially not the current administration. Moe

Note, however, the "seamless garment" position, as usually put forth, is not official Catholic doctrine. One does not have to subscribe to it to be fully within the Church's teachings. However, one does have to condemn abortion to do so.

Let's look at each one:

Death Penalty: The Church does not condemn the death penalty outright - you can support it and still be within the bounds of Catholic morality. That being said, I think in America you need to really consider your position carefully if you support our practice of the death penalty. I personally think our country's practice of the death penalty is horribly unjust and should be abolished. But that does not mean that a sincere Catholic cannot support it and be within the current boundaries drawn by Catholic moral law.

Helping the Poor: As Catholics, we have an obligation to help the poor. However, how we do this is left to the prudential decision of each believer. I personally think government programs to help the poor do more harm than good, so I don't support them. However, I believe very strongly in Church programs for the poor and they get my spiritual, financial, and physical support.

War: Each war must be considered on its own. War in an of itself it not condemed by Catholic moral law. We can have disagreements about the morality of the Iraqi War (and I have major problems with it), but it does not make one against Church teaching to have supported it, if they truly felt it fell under "just war" theory.

Abortion: Here is a black-and-white issue. You cannot support the killing of innocent children, because there is never a justification of it. Period.

Saying that a pro-abortion politician is "pro-life" due to their overall policies misses the overall picture. If you support abortion, you are disqualified from holding office. Just like a racist is disqualified from holding public office, even if some of his policies might help African Americans or other minorities by improving the economy.

So you are saying that one life, of the unborn, is worth more than another life? I thought all lives were equal in the eyes of God and all equally to be protected? Moe

Moe:

Killing the unborn is, by far, the most abominable because this human being is blameless and defenseless!

All the other would-be victims in an unjustified war or because of famine, poverty, or hunger, and the death convict, each has or had the available means, one way or the other, to defend his life that could avert or could have averted its loss.

Amado

Please define support in this context.
Endorsing a pro-choice Senator, who is more likely than his pro-life opponent to help his party control the Senate bring pro-life judges to the bench? Paying taxes? Paying UN dues? Failing to take direct action to put a clinic out of business - one way or another? Recognizing the fact that many an perhaps most people in this pluralistic society do not see this issue as black-and-white thus placing practical limits on what Government ought to do - at least to the extent that we wish to maintain our experiment of self-government and limited Government?

YES! We MUST stand up and protect the unborn, more than any other group, because more than any other group, they are being DIRECTLY targed by the culture in which we live!

I would also like to point out that, contrary to what the media would like you to believe, it is not just the Catholic Church which opposes abortion. There are organized pro-life groups among virtually EVERY religion, Christian and non-Christian. I have even seen "Atheists for Life" and "Pagans for Life".

So Kerry's (and other politicians') charge that somehow if he opposes abortion he is supporting one religion against another, is completely false.

There are good people of every, and no, religion, who understand perfectly well what abortion is - the murder of one's son or daughter.

What I am saying is that the Catholic Church has never taken the view that directly killing another human being is ALWAYS immoral. But she has taken the view that directly committing an abortion is ALWAYS immoral. So no, all lives are not to be equally protected.

If someone comes into my house and is attempting to kill my daughter, and I have no way to stop him other than to shoot him - my action is not immoral. Is the criminal equal to my daughter and me and an unborn child in the eyes of God? Certainly, but that does not make my killing him automatically an immoral action.

In the same way, Catholic moral law allows for the legitimate use of both the death penalty and war. I'm not saying the American use of the death penalty and the Iraqi War fall under those guidelines, but it is debatable. The legitimacy of abortion - the killing of an innocent human being - is not debatable.