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

djs, my point exactly, where the politics are involved, there is neither black nor white, its all mixed up together. I think we will accomplish more working to make it easier for women not to feel that an abortion is the only option. When the economy gets bad, the abortion rate goes up. That's why under Clinton the abortion rate went down. Under Bush it has climbed up again. Moe

And why single out Kerry, there have been other big name Republican politicians who support abortion too. Shouldn't they be excommunicated too?

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16845

Moe

Christ is Risen!
Truly He is Risen!

Dear Moe,

The answer to that is YES! ALL Catholic and Orthodox politicians publicly supporting the murder of unborn children as is contrary to the theology of both Churches and refusing to rethink this position must be excommunicated.

The short answer in Kerry's case is, HE is running for the highest office possible in the USA, so more media attention is erroneously focussed on him rather than others.

However, by communing in a Protestant church, he has effectively chosen to flaunt HIS PERSONAL AUTHORITY over that of the Catholic bishops. Any such doing would but a de facto excommunication anyway in the Orthodox Church. I am not certain how Catholic Canon law regards this, but Mr. Kerry is doing what he pleases, and has no intention of following the rules of the church he claims to be a pious member of.

THAT is what has many saying it is an outrage.

OF COURSE all other politicians with those positions should be excommunicated. And it is a crying shame more bishops in BOTH the Orthodox and the Catholic Church do not DO SO.

Gaudior, saying to politicians: practice what you profess, or just admit to being an atheist

Thanks for the link, Moe.

I especiallly liked the author's wonderng about the mentality of Christians who are clamoring for excommunications. This must certainly be a most unpleasant duty of a bishop; it would require extraordinary diligence in fact finding and drawing conclusions - not just superifical observations followed by sweeping judgments like:

That "judgment" is an outrage. I am happy that I am not in the position of having to make a judgment on Kerry's piety and adherence to the rules: I lack the full picture; it would take too much time to fill in the required details; and I wouldn't want to render an opinion on such a tremendously weighty matter without all of the facts.

ps - all Christians confess failure in practicing what they profess; it would be absurd to label them atheists on that account.

pps

Not much up on the meaning of "support".
Here's an article that approaches the crux of the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/n...4457413&ei=1&en=76f6e95314e20dbf

Moe,

Don't oversimplify statistical trends. Neither Clinton or Bush were/are responsible for the abortion rate. People make those choices. One can also conclude in pure Hegelian fashion that people respond differently to the current socio-political forces of the time. If we have a liberal president, then people get defensive about life and 'family' begins to matter and, voila!, more babies. If we have a conservative president, people get defensive about excercising their pro-choice decisions ...

But this is crude logic, no?

Also, during the Clinton years, the pregnancy rate dropped considerably. My wife worked in an OB/GYN office during the 1990's and those who asked about abortion procedures didn't have any president or political party or economic factors in mind. Of course, they were always turned away.

Those who were having more babies were those on welfare (not quite financially stable); those who were financially comfortable (who could actually 'afford' to raise more children) were not.

In your logic, Moe, you fail to include the multitude of accounting lies that gave the false impression of a healthy economy. Friends of mine had half their 401(k) savings liquidated during those years. We are still recovering from the fallout of the Roaring Nineties.

Many also choose to use contraception prior to any final decisions on abortion, thus preventing us from getting a clearer picture of the abortion mentalily. Our culture, even during the 90s, was one of a contraceptive mentality. Wasn't it Clinton who asked for a $35 million spending increase in January 20000 for family planning services and contraception?

[You also forget the Power Outage trend. Typically, after a blackout in power (usually of two or more days length) there is usually a spike in births nine months later. Things 'happen' when the TV is off ... This statistic does demonstrate a correlaton between lack of electrical energy and abundance of marital energy.]

But you insist that the abortion rate is dependent on the economy, and that the economy is dependent on the current President. This is slip-slop logic. Where is all that Free Choice mantra that claims that such decisions about abortion are at the hands (no pun intended) of free people? Did Clinton really stop abortion? Did Bush really start it up again? One of the first acts of the former President (Clinton) was to undo some of the laws protecting the unborn. What happened, statistically, with the people and the abortion rate doesn't measure up to what a President actually does. But please answer me this: What President and/or political party finds favor with the Pro-Choice folks?

Read this regarding the factors in the abortion rate decline:

-------

Abortion fight becomes muted as rate declines Contraception options, including morning-after pill, stricter laws cited
By Kim Kozlowski / The Detroit News

America has the highest abortion rate among industrialized nations, yet abortions have dropped to a 29-year low as the nation marks the 30th anniversary of the decision that legalized the procedure.

The decline is attributed to increased contraception options, stricter abortion laws and more women becoming aware of morning-after pills, which studies suggest could slash the number of abortions in half.
...
Morning-after pill
Perhaps the biggest factor to change the abortion debate is the increased use of emergency contraception, approved by the FDA in 1998.
...
Other contraception developments may also have contributed to the abortion decline.
...
The patch, which releases hormones through the skin and became available in 2001, is extremely popular at Northland Family Planning. Other popular methods include Depo Provera, a hormone injection women receive once every three months, which became available in 1992. Other options include the vaginal ring and intrauterine devices that release hormones.
...
Pamela Sherstad, spokeswoman for Right to Life of Michigan, acknowledged the decline in abortions, but credits it more to Michigan's laws restricting abortions over the last 15 years, including a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent and legislation that ceased funding abortions for women on Medicaid.

-------

No mention of the President.

Joe

Christ is Risen!
Truly He is Risen!

No, the judgment is merely an observation: When one KNOWS one cannot receive in one's own church, and recieves in another denomination, that shows a definite disregard for the wished of one's hierarchy, and no desire to work out one's personal salvation. The entire country is aware (thanks to an overzealous media) of Mr. Kerry's situation. He is no better or worse than any lay person advised not to commune, who goes off in a huff saying "I'LL SHOW THEM"...to the church/district/denomination next door. The facts remain the same, whether one is a public figure or not. One either places oneself in the hands on the church one professes to belong to, be it Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or Wiccan, and is in obedience to the rules of that church...or one is merely a member in dues-paying name only. Or attending so long as no one intend to ask that they give anything up, or make any sacrifice, or lifestyle change.

And I will say that ANYONE claiming to be Catholic and supporting gay marriage and abortion (as the Republicans you quoted do)...IS CATHOLIC IN NAME ONLY, AND IS MAKING A MOCKERY OF HIS FAITH.

Therefore, I do say: Non-believer. Absolutely. And with confidence. No one could believe, truly, and decide that such outspoken support was correct.

Gaudior, pointing out that discernment is necessary, or you have "Christian" politicians implementing "The Rainbow Curriculum" in NY public schools...

Dear Alex,
Thank you for opening this topic which started
on an entirely different thread.
I think that the bishops have made the church's
position clear and would like to see Kerry take the "high road" and simply refrain from receiving Communion when he attends Mass. He obviously doesn't understand the doctrine of the Eucharist if he readily receives in a church that doesn't hold the same beliefs. Now if only someone would refuse him.
Almost as scandalous was the recent Republican Senatorial Primary here in Pennsylvania. PA Sen. Rick Santorum (a "devout" pro-life Catholic) and President Bush both supported and campaigned for pro choice Sen.Arlen Specter against US Rep. Pat Toomey, who seemed to me to be an exact clone of Sen. Santorum! How Santorum sleeps with this flip flop is beyond me. The GOP obviously deemed Specter the more electable of the two come the November general election. Seems Pro Life is fine unless a Republican Senate seat is on the line.
What a dirty business!

Toomey also endorsed Specter after the outcome of the primary was known.

When this endorsement ceases to surprise you, you may come to realize some of the who and why of the great hype about Kerry's receiving the Eucharist.

When I was a young boy, I was late to meet a friend on a Sunday afternoon - delayed by an extra service after the liturgy. My friend, an RC, indicated his surprise that we stayed for the extra service - he was acclimated to many folks "cutting out" already after communion. I suggested that this would be considered scandalous in my church.

My father corrected me: it would go without much notice in our church, he pointed out; it would be assumed that there was some compeling reason, such as sudden illness, that forced an early departure.

Kerry's Vietnam service now fair game
www.NewsAndOpinion.com [newsandopinion.com] | Jack Kelly


Posted on 02/11/2004 9:45:25 AM PST by nelsonted1


Kerry's Vietnam service now fair game

Jack Kelly


AND WE WONDER WHY HE THINKS RECEIVING THE EUCHARIST IS OK!
Pani Rose

AND WEW WONDER WHY HE THINKS RECEIVING THE EUCHARIST IS OK!
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | I would not have contemplated writing anything even mildly critical of John Kerry's Vietnam service, were he not making it the centerpiece of his campaign, and were not he impugning President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. But as lawyers say before cross examination: "if the witness opens the door..."

Kerry joined the Navy after graduation from Yale in 1966, became an officer, and volunteered for Vietnam. After service on a destroyer, Kerry volunteered again to be a swift boat commander. This was courageous and commendable. Service on the swift boats, which patrolled the Mekong river, was about the only way a sailor who wasn't an aviator or a SEAL could get shot.

Kerry served on swift boats for about four months. During that time, he was awarded the Bronze Star (the lowest decoration for heroism in combat) and the Silver Star (the next higher decoration for valor) and three Purple Hearts for wounds sustained in battle. These latter decorations � like my title of "nationally syndicated columnist" � sound more impressive than they are. All three wounds were minor cuts from shrapnel, which, according to Kerry, caused him to miss a grand total of 2 days of duty.

For soldiers and Marines, especially of the enlisted variety, a Silver Star is a big deal. You've got to do something profound to get one. But the rules were different for officers, especially for naval officers.

This is the action on Feb. 28, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star: A Viet Cong fired a B-40 rocket at Kerry's boat, Patrol Craft Fast-94. Tom Belodeau, manning the twin 50-caliber machine guns at the rear of the boat, opened fire on the VC, wounding him. The VC fled behind a hooch. Kerry ordered PCF-94 to shore, leaped out of the boat, pursued the VC, and finished him off.

I can envision grizzled infantrymen shaking their heads. "He got the Silver Star for that?"

Kerry had an advantage most servicemen do not. Medal recommendations have to be made by the commanding officer of the unit in which the heroism took place. Kerry was the commander of PCF-94. Presumably, Kerry's medal recommendation was made by the commander of the squadron to which PCF-94 belonged. But Kerry's commander wasn't there. The evidence he had of the heroism of Lt (jg) John F. Kerry came chiefly from the after action report of Lt. (jg) John F. Kerry.

Shortly after being awarded the Silver Star, Kerry took advantage of a provision in Navy regulations that permits a sailor who has been wounded three times to obtain early release from his combat tour. For Kerry � since his wounds were so minor � this was taking advantage of a technicality. There is nothing wrong with this. Many officers similarly situated would have done the same. But it wasn't heroic.

To recap: Kerry was a double volunteer. As a swift boat commander, he was brave and able. But I am unaware of any soldier or Marine who was awarded a decoration of any kind � much less the Silver Star � just for killing a wounded man who was running away.

Though it is being hyped far beyond what it warrants, Kerry's Vietnam service was honorable. What is not honorable is the way Kerry � in testimony before Congress in April, 1971 � falsely accused his fellow Viet vets of routinely committing grisly war crimes. Nor does it speak well of Kerry that in several demonstrations he marched under the flag of the Viet Cong. It is one thing to oppose the war in Vietnam. It is another to cheer for the enemy.

In the senate, Kerry has a reputation for trying to have things both ways. Kerry exhibited this tendency early on at an antiwar protest in which he flung medals over a fence at the White House � but the medals weren't his own. Kerry says now that he is proud of his Vietnam service. But he said then that he was ashamed of it.

If Kerry plans to use his war service as a credential, he also should also be held to account for his behavior in its aftermath.

Rose, although your article has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion here, I can say this. At least he was there, which is something neither our appointed president and vice president can say. And wounds are wounds, the only suffering GWB had in his National Guard time was a hangover. Moe

Christ is Risen!
Truly He is Risen!

Yes indeed, Bill!

In fact, this was so scandalous that a friend of mine watched that election and e-mailed the campaign headquarters with some slogans, none of which were at ALL complimentary. And he is a "devout" Republican...but it does disgust anyone to see their politicians taking such a line as this...endorsing pro-murder canidates, for political reasons.

NONE of which is correct. On the other hand, I would rather see a President who made his POLICY anti-abortion than someone who chooses to publicly allow murder, while calling himself a good (insert religion here).

It is simply wrong.

Gaudior, thinking it is about time the Vatican, the Phanar et al start holding politicians accountable.

Unfortunately Cardinal Arinze's statement makes the issue just another gray area in the matter of church doctrine. At least Archbishop Burke of St Louis understands that allowing Senator Kerry to take Communion in his diocese would be a grave offense to God.

Sure, politics is a dirty scandalous business.
We have no one to blame for this but ourselves.

We ridicule reflection and nuance, we demand sound-bite philosophy and black-and-white posturing. (Cf Theresa Heinnz Kerry's comment on having to be 100%; or Bush's inability to reflect on his mistakes.)

We even eagerly consume the topsy-turvy white-is-black and black-is-white of dirty scandalous campaigns. Now Kerry is a war wimp and Bush and Cheney are valorous. :rolleyes:

Given our shock, shock about the the workings of politics, how on earth does anyone feel that they have the singular sure political path to eliminating abortion? IMO, the social darwinists will never actually do it, and the authoritarians will never be able to.

But in the meantime they play us like violins, and actually prevent us from reaching this goal.