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

It is not difficult to argue validly at all. My argument is perfectly valid. Your argument is invalid.

Senator Kerry�s votes have a direct, substantive effect on women's decisions to choose abortion instead of life for their children. Kerry gives our tax dollars to groups that encourage abortions and perform them at low or no cost to women who cannot afford them. He may not be the one sucking the child into the sink or pulling him apart limb by limb but Kerry is the one making it possible by voting to force us to pay for it. I cannot see how you can even think otherwise, let alone attempt to argue such a position.

If, by chance, you mean me among the "some Catholics", if you have the impression that I am enamored of Kerry, you are mistaken.

I am, however, bothered, by folks who are eager to express opinions, with limited information and invented criteria, on who is Catholic. I am more bothered by those who venture and opinions about excommunication with no more solicitude than Bush exhibits on executions. I am utterly amazed that folks have a wish that people should leave the church. These things are part of breathing Catholicism, too!

My opinion is that if we are breathing Catholicism then we should be thinking seriously about how to get out of this abortion mess.

Here's an analogy:
I am standing on the top of a mountain and wish to descend to the valley. I have a plan for getting there, by rigorously avoiding stepping uphill; each time I take a step I take it in the direction that descends most steeply. Plainly, this strategy is poor. First, I may go over a cliff; Second I may find myself stuck in a local depression - a bowl, and never meet my goal. The fact is the simple strategy of avoiding a step in the wrong direction cannot be relied on to give the sought after result.

I have stated previously the path that I think holds the best hope to make abortion unthinkable in this country. Some disagree with me vehemently. Indeed I may be wrong. But my position is at least a considered one - weel within the Ratzinger nota bene ISTM - and not a knee-jerk never-step-uphill approach. No matter how zealously advocated, that approach has every likelihood of being unsuccessful; those using it are, IMO, inadvertently frustrating the solution to this problem.

Not when you refer to bills in which his vote was not decisive - and even in the minority.

Actually, I didn't have you in mind at all. I don't know your political affiliations. But I certainly have run across people who put their party affiliations before anything that the Church teaches. However, if I remember correctly, it is possible for an individual to excommunicate himself by behaviors or beliefs that are contrary to a specific Church law. In such cases, no action by the hierarcy to declare someone excommunicate would seem necessary. I am not wishing that anyone would leave the Church, but do wonder whether or not some have put themselves outside the Church by their actions. Of course in an extreme case where someone actually wishes the Church harm and stays within it to do as much damage as possible to it, I would hold the door open for them as they leave, wish them a fond farewell as they sail into the sunset, and say as they go, "don't let the doorknob hit you on your way out."

Djs,

Sorry, but your logic if flawed.


First, Kerry has successfully forced the use of taxpayer money to pay for abortions. If you wish to check just look up his votes to fund international family planning from 1992-2000 when he regularly voted to fund international �family planning� (through UNFPA) that included funds for abortions.

If you want evidence from the horse�s mouth about his plans regarding abortion turn on Larry King Live. Last month King asked Kerry what his first executive order as president would be. Kerry�s response didn�t have anything to do with issues such as the war on terror, the economy, education, or health care. Instead, Kerry answered: "Remove the Mexico City policy on the gag rule (regarding funding for abortion counseling) so that we take a responsible position on family planning."

Several times this past year Kerry has vowed to appoint only openly pro-abortion candidates to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. This would effectively exclude all believing Catholics from serving on these courts unless they joined Kerry in denying a primary tenant of Catholicism.

In either 2003 or 2003 Kerry voted to kill an amendment prohibiting the United Nations Population Fund from providing funds to organizations in China involved in coercive abortions and involuntary sterilization.

In 2003 Kerry voted against an amendment to prohibit federal funds from being used to perform abortions or provide abortion referrals at elementary and secondary schools.

Kerry opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Conner Peterson's Law").

In July 2003 Kerry provide a key vote to repeal President Bush�s ban on the use of federal funds to perform abortions in foreign countries. Luckily President Bush vetoed the bill and the Senate could not override it.


Second, whether or not his votes are decisive in funding and furthering the cause of evil is irrelevant. What is relevant is his intent. Considering that Kerry has declared abortion as a �basic human right� together with his voting record furthering of the cause of evil should make clear his intent regarding abortion.

Assume a hypothetical. Senator A cosponsors a bill which would legalize euthanize and which will provide federal funds to euthanize all people over 65 who wish to commit suicide but who do not have the funds to do so. The bill passes both houses and goes to the president but is vetoed, and the veto is sustained. Are you really suggesting that Senator A has no substantive effect on people being euthanized? Are you seriously suggesting that this senator (and those who voted with him) have not committed an immoral action?

Admin

To assess logic and relvance it would be nice if we were discussing the same topics.

I raised issues about the thread-topic of charges of heresy against, and possible excommunication of, Kerry. I advise against assumptions of obviousness on these charges, and for suspending judgment until fact finders and judges find facts and make thoroughly informed judgments.

I noted that the charge of heresy on the "private morality" grounds is fraught with complications.
I also suggested that direct substantive support of abortion, which leads to automatic excommunication (IIRC), is a difficult case to make. Your euthanasia example illustrates the case perfectly. The votes certainly cannot be considered to have a substantive effect, if they are in fact without effect - no euthansia being done. One cannot be claimed to have participated in that specific act of immorality, if that specific act did not happen.

That is not to say that the votes themselves are not immoral in their own right. But this takes us to another, murkier level: persistent public immorality that presents a scandal. As you yourself note, the key to the immorality is intent. And as I suggested earlier, this aspect will require some investigation.

You present a series of votes and references to statements that make a good case for further investigation, but do not make a compelling case about intent. To illustrate this point, consider Bush's citing of Kerry's votes on funding the troops in Iraq to make the case of a lack of support for them and/or a tendency to flip-flop. Many buy that case. In fact, however, there was not lack of support or flip-flop. Kerry voted for the appropriation measure that contained a tax measure to fund it, but against the bill that just added onto the defecit. Bush knows the truth of the votes, but also knows the truth of this campaign: only 40% of folks think he deserves re-election; therefore he must convince a lot of folks that the other guy is dangerously worse. Hence, the honesty-stretching attacks.

Thus, while it may be possible to cite votes and/or campaign rhetoric that supports the canonical case, it will require more thorough investigation and probably require direct testimony to genuinely assess intent. In the meantime, ISTM that there is little to be gained by prejudging the results of such an inquiry.

I agree that it is the competent Church authorities that will judge whether to excommunicate Senator Kerry. It is, however, not incorrect for the average Catholic to see the evidence the Senator provides us on a daily basis and to call him to account as we are called to call to account Christians who wander from the path of salvation. The person bringing the charge of heresy against Kerry is doing so because he is scandalized. We, too, should be scandalized by Kerry�s actions in public (and the actions of other who claim to be Catholic but openly ignore Catholic teaching). Above all, we are to pray for him that he may � like the rest of us � repent of his sins and be saved.

Investigation is always useful and appropriate. But we cannot speak as if we have no knowledge of Kerry�s intent. He has stated his intent repeatedly in speeches, votes and campaign promises. His actions clearly show that his intent is to acquiesce to and serve the culture of death.

The Church has placed the task of securing the right to life of all individuals as the paramount right that we, as Catholics, must work for. The Church also teaches us that this right to be born outweighs all other rights combined. The Church also teaches us that we cannot forget Jesus Christ and His Commandments when we enter the voting booth.

I agree that we cannot say that we have "no" knowledge of his intent, but disagree that we have adequate knowledge. Factoids are not knowledge, particularly in politics, as I illustrated above.


That, IMO, is far too harsh: it is a judgment not required by the facts; it is a judgment that you are not competent to make.

Largely agreed. And as I pointed out before, this imperative places a heavy load on us all. Avoiding a step in the wrong direction doesn't cut it any more than a feckless burying of talents.

djs is speaking as if it is possible that Senator Kerry is working some plan by which voting to fund abortions will lead towards a respect for life and the end to abortion. Kerry�s campaign promises are not factoids. They are promises of actions he intends to undertake if he is elected. If one states that he plans to fund murder and to restore funding to those who promote murder it is illogical to state that one has no real knowledge of that person�s intent.

I disagree with your opinion. One who votes to force taxpayers to fund abortions is acquiescing and serving the culture of death. I am perfectly competent to examine the record of Senator Kerry together with his campaign promises and judge that he actions serve the Evil One.

It is never a step in the wrong direction to support those who work to establish respect for life. It is a good thing to bury the talents of those who work against the respect for life.

Food for Thought

Excerpt from "Doctrinal Note on some questi...tion for the Doctrine of the Faith" [vatican.va]

Catholics ... have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a �grave and clear obligation to oppose� any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.[19] As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, �an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality�.[20]

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church�s social doctrine does not exhaust one�s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

btw the "largely" pertains to Ratzinger's, N.B., quoted on the "Moral Voting" thread, and amplified upon here:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/greeley/cst-edt-greel16.html

Dear Administrator:

As I like to say - how good it will be to stand before the dread judgement seat of Christ: so nice to appear before a judge Who is truly omniscient, after a lifetime with humans who just think they know it all.

Sheesh. Perhaps I spoke too parabolically.

Never taking a step in the wrong direction is not likely to enable you to reach your destination. If we wind up stuck with the compromise of endless killing in the "hard cases", you may congratulate yourself on having served the culture of death.

The strategy of "avoiding wrong move" is condemned in the parable of talents.

:rolleyes: I stipulated that we cannot say that we have "no" knowledge of intent.

Please provide a link to the entire text of Cardinal Ratzinger�s document. As I remember reading about this I believe that the Cardinal was speaking very generally to a condition in which all the candidates were pro-abortion. The Church teaches that the issues of abortion and euthanasia outweigh all other issues combined. His words must be understood in context.

I fear the dread judgment seat of Christ because of my many sins. I trust only His mercy.

I certainly do not �know it all� but I do know that it is sinful to vote for those who will further the cause of abortion. I believe that those who vote for pro-abortion candidates like Kerry have the blood of the innocents on their hands.

Amen, Amen, Amen.