www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Heresy Complaint Filed against Kerry in Ecclesiatical Court

I have to agree with you. It is my understanding that when someone dissents from Church teaching, he becomes a Protestant. The difference between the original Protestants and the Catholic dissenters today, is that the original Protestants couldn't agree with Church teachings, so they had the integrity and intellectual honesty to leave.

I think zeal, among lay people, for excommunication is totally misplaced.

All Catholics fall short in praxis and, probably, in belief, at least at the level of grapsing dogma. Is Kerry a "dissenter"? You might not like the way he votes, but can you tell me the dogma from which he dissents?

[QUOTE...the original Protestants couldn't agree with Church teachings, so they had the integrity and intellectual honesty to leave... [/QUOTE]
Wow. I am glad that people try, as best as they can, to hold to the Faith, rather than taking such a fancy to their own ideas that they even dare to invent a new church. That is not integrity or honesty, it is rank foolishness and narcissism.

And you think the overweaning pride of the dissenters is not "rank foolishness and narcissism?" The current "Protestants" don't want to leave the church, just get it to admit what they believe to be its errors. The original Protestants realized they were not in agreement with the Church and left. The modern dissenters, while they may not consciously want to corrupt the Church with their errors, still suffer from incredible pride - or a total lack of shame - I haven't decided yet on that one. The dissenters want to stay since they are right and the Church is wrong - or so they think. Now as for Kerry, I don't follow him that closely so I don't know the degree to which he dissents from Church teaching on abortion. But if he actually does dissent on this teaching, then I would think Catholics should put the faith first, and their politics second in terms of supporting him. I belong to a political party, but I am Catholic first, and a party member second - in fact, that party is much lower down the list than that in terms of priority. I think God someday will ask whether or not I kept his commandments. He won't be all that impressed because my political affiliations kept me from doing so.

Djs, this is not some personal opinion of mine. It is the teaching of the Church that those who know what the Church teaches and outright refuse to accept this cannot consider themselves Catholic. What do you mean "premature"? Could I, at a later time, "pontificate" upon this point with your approval? Somehow I don't think so. Your issue is not with me, it seems, but rather with the Church.

Because of his unbridled support for hideous crimes against humanity such as abortion, and because he knows full well what "his" Church teaches and has basically told the Church to shut up (and her flimsy bishops have basically listened), Kerry obviously dissents from the Church's teaching on abortion, among other things.

This is hideous! This is unbelievable. It is nothing short of demonic. I hope and pray that John Kerry somehow does not grasp the gravity of his position and that somehow our God can show his soul mercy, hopefully before his death. But Kerry's support for the murder of innocent children (and that is exactly what it is) while he refers to himself as "Catholic" is dishonest. He is insinuating that to support abortion and to be a Catholic aren't mutually exclusive. This is such a terrible affront to Christ, His Holy Mother, and the Church that the whole thing literally makes me sick to my stomach. I cannot fathom any other reaction.

Logos Teen

djs,

I here would agree with canonist Pete Vere's assessment of the heresy in question:

The heresy in question is that the topic of abortion is one of private morality, and that one can legitimately be privately opposed to abortion while defending and promoting a public "right" to dismember and butcher a child in the womb.

Just to comment upon the original protestants/reformers. If you recall history, the Continental reformers did not originally set out to leave the Church. they actually wanted to reform the Church from within. Their positions became usurped/championed by the secular princes as a way of distancing themselves from the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was allied with the Pope to protect the Papal States, and as a result of this political manipulation the protestants/reformers left the Church. Separated from Rome, their "reformist" positions became outlandish and untenable from the Catholic/Orthodox Faith. Henry VIII divided the Church in England from Rome because of political intrigued. I cannot imagine why Henry would not have been granted an annulment, other than the Pope was under pressure from Emperor Charles not to declare the marriage null (Catherine of Aragon was an aunt(?) of the Emperor.) Again politics split the Church of Rome. This is not to say that Henry was entirely a "victim".

You are correct that the original Protestants did not set out to leave the Church but to reform it, just like the dissenters of today. It amazes me how many want to reform the Church, when it is their own lives and misguided theologies that most need the reforms. While I agree that much of the Reformation was political, I still maintain that there was a huge element of pride involved. When individuals believe their own opinions and judgements are of greater value than tradition handed down from the Fathers, that's pride.

Teen, you are wrong. My issue is with you, and all armchair inquisitors, not the church. I accept the pontification of the Pontiff, and the oversight of the Episcopate - who, for the moment, have not excommunicated Kerry. He is a Catholic, and it is an error to claim otherwise. If there is a trial for heresy, or some analogous action against Kerry, I don't doubt that those empowered to investigate the charge will do so thoroughly and thoughtfully, attaching due seriousness to the question, rather than just asserting "obviousness".

As I have noted before, the key question is related to the specific detalis of "support" in the context of our liberal democracy, in which we aim to restrict the realm of government mandate. It may very well be that upon examination of the question we arrive at a principle more sweeping that that of abortion=murder, but one that says liberal democracy is per se incompatible with the Catholicism, and thus Kerry's position is heretical. I think it would be difficult to argue, however, that any abortion has been caused by Kerry or that any vote of Kerry been of any substantive effect on any individual's having or not having an abortion. But, like byzanTn, I cannot say that I have a sufficient knowledge of Kerry's full thoughts on abortion or on government to be sure. Fortunately, the ultimate assessment of the situiation will be in the hands of people who wll seek to have a sufficient knowledge before rendering a judgment.

ByzanTn: Without a specfic case of dissent, it's hard to say. I think, that your two scenarios, however, are too limited. I think that people who stay ultimately, at some level, realize, that the Church is the Church - where would one go? And that is markedly better than supposing - so great a sin against the Holy Spirit - that one could simply invent a new Church.

The problem of "private morality" is certainly most grave in the context of abortion, but the principle also comes into play, for example, in contraception, divorce, obscentiy, etc. Would charges of heresy be appropriate for a Catholic who voted against government intrusion in matters of contraception? If so, I think that the fundamental issue here is that liberal democracy is itself heretical.

It is not difficult to argue at all. Senator John Kerry has voted numerous times to spend federal tax dollars to pay for abortions for poor women. The continuing claim of the Democrats is that if federal dollars were not provided to poor women for abortions then these women would be forced to give birth to children they don�t want. Back in June Senator Kerry was one of the sponsors of bill S.2334 (Title X Population Control Program of the Public Health Services Act). If passed this would direct $1.2 billion to groups like Planned Parenthood to pay for �abortion and contraceptive services�. Kerry himself has argued that these women would be denied access to their constitutional right to abortion if federal funds were not provided. Senator Kerry�s votes do have a direct, substantive effect on women's decisions to choose abortion instead of life for their children.

djs,

Is abortion on the same level as divorce or contraception? I would argue that they obviously are not and that abortion is a much more heinous evil and is not comparable to the other issues you mention. Putting abortion on the level of contraception or divorce trivializes the evil it is.

DTB:

Of course not. Did you not read my saying that in my post? But the criterion you posted was on the issue of "private morality". So is the idea, now, that "private morality" is not inherently heretical? But only rises to the level of heresy in in the case of grave immorality?

I should have been more specific. "It would be difficulty to argue validly..."

I think what bothers me most about all of this, is that some Catholics seems so enamored of a candidate or a particular political party, that they forget they are Catholics. Doesn't being Catholic always have to come first? And aren't we supposed to believe, practice, even breathe Catholicism and make it a concrete reality in all our actions?