Kerry Excommunicated?
 

I guess he was an Altar Boy for other reasons!
http://www.defide.com/news.html
Latest News
Press Releases

NEWS RELEASE No. 2

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DE FIDE 1223 Wilshire Boulevard, PMB 346 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Tel: (310) 917-2719 Fax: (310) 496-2843 secretary@defide.com www.defide.com

SEN. JOHN KERRY “EXCOMMUNICATED,” ACCORDING TO VATICAN RESPONSE
Kennedy, Harkin, Cuomo, Collins Denounced for Heresy

Monday, 18 October 2004

SANTA MONICA, CA – A Los Angeles based expert in Canon Law, the legal code used by the Roman Catholic Church, announced Friday on EWTN's the World Over Live with Raymond Arroyo that an important Vatican congregation has given an unprecedented boost to his case for heresy against presidential candidate John Kerry. Marc Balestrieri, JCL who has filed a formal case for Heresy against Kerry for his support of the right to abortion, revealed that he has received a written response prompted by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, affirming that Catholic politicians who persist in supporting the right to abortion are “automatically excommunicated.”

Mr. Balestrieri, Director of De Fide, said the Response was written by the Reverend Fr. Basil Cole, O.P., an expert theologian based in Washington D.C., who was delegated by the Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Very Rev. Fr. Augustine di Noia, O.P., to formally respond. As a result, the Response has encouraged him to expand his complaint to include four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians, both Democrat and Republican.

“I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith,” said Balestrieri. “The first: Whether or not the Church’s teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, with the denial or doubt of that dogma constituting heresy. The second: Whether or not the Church’s teaching condemning every right to abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, with the opposite error to that dogma heresy.”

In a four-page letter now posted at www.defide.com, Fr. Cole responded ‘Affirmative’ on both counts.

The Response is significant in that it represents the first time in modern history since Roe v. Wade in 1973 that such a clear reply is given to the Catholic faithful. Drafted under the auspices of the official Vatican Congregation with competency to decide doctrinal questions, it is entirely unambiguous and concludes:

“Consequently, if a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty (Can. 15, § 2) and imputability (Can. 1321, § 3) are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated according to Can. 1364, § 1.”

Mr. Balestrieri, a political independent, has repeatedly declared that his actions come to defend the Faith and Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal, not as one focused on an electoral outcome. Catholics confess to the real presence—the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God Himself—in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. “As early as today, Sen. Kerry, and all pro-choice Catholic politicians, who publicly call themselves Catholic yet who blatantly violate Canon Law by continuing to profess Heresy and receive Holy Communion, must publicly reject their abortion advocacy for the sake of their own souls, and the others they have scandalized. They have been excommunicated.”

Balestrieri went to Rome in late August and met with a dozen experts, all of whom confirmed the threefold unprecedented nature and scope of his canonical action in Church history: that it is a formal complaint for reparation for harm due to heresy; that this is analogous to a Common Law class action; and that the complaint was initiated by a layman. (In the past such actions regarding heresy would have been handled by the "Holy Office" vertically downwards, and would never have reached this point.)

Lacking guidance from the Vatican, he sought an appointment and was received by an official of the Congregation in its halls in Rome. On September 9th, less than ten days later, the Rev. Basil Cole, O.P., contacted Balestrieri to inform him of his delegation to answer the two questions. Three days later, the written Response was issued.

The Response states that any Catholic who denies or doubts the two main conclusions, after knowing of their existence, commits Heresy. The Response holds that the dogmatic force of the two propositions is “manifest,” a term not lightly used by any theologian. This means that one is dealing here not with a matter of a theologian’s personal opinion, but with two core non-negotiable Articles of Faith. The Response, therefore, is “official” and binding in that it simply restates infallible teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, already stated unequivocally by Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the CDF, and Tarcisio Bertone, then secretary of the CDF, in their own commentaries to the Professio Fidei of 1998. Hence the Response’s rapid and forceful content.

The Response goes even further in specifying that any baptized Catholic who publicly states, “I’m personally opposed, but I support a woman’s right to choose,” is in fact presumed by Canon Law to be guilty of heresy, with the burden of proving that he is not shifted to the violating politician. A Catholic who publicly professes the right to choose heresy is automatically excommunicated, not by any declaration of the Church per se, but by the acts committed by the individual, and thus being in a state of mortal sin is ineligible to receive any of the Sacraments of the Church, including reception of the Eucharist, marriage, absolution from sin, and even Christian burial until the error is recanted and excommunication is lifted.

The often cited "Cuomo" defense, “I am personally opposed but I support the right to choose” has now been cut in half: A pro-choice Catholic politician who says that he is “personally opposed” to the ACT of abortion itself still commits Heresy by publicly supporting the civil RIGHT to choose abortion.

The fact that the Response was provided to a layman at the request of the Undersecretary, in writing, and in only eleven days is considered unique by numerous Bishops familiar with the matter. The extensive detail of the response, decisively clarifying the matter was unexpected. Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF and receive an official reply. Such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public.

Balestrieri also announced that the Denunciation for Heresy, a kind of lawsuit under the Catholic Church's Canon Law, filed against Senator Kerry is now pending before Kerry's bishop, Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston, according to the head of the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston whom Balestrieri met with in person at the offices of the Metropolitan Tribunal at the end of July. The judge told him explicitly twice that the case had not been rejected, and that it was “now in the hands of the Archbishop.” At the same time, Balestrieri was informed that the Tribunal simply did not have enough time to properly handle the sheer number (thousands upon thousands) of Denunciations and Complaints from ordinary Catholics that have poured in by certified mail. He also clarified that the Archbishop had not yet decided whether to instruct the Promoter of Justice, whose job is similar to that of a prosecutor, to formally charge Kerry with Heresy or any of the five other ecclesiastical violations Balestrieri had denounced him for.

Balestrieri is asking all individuals and groups seeking to join his canonical actions, as a result of the Tribunal’s hesitation in handling the cases, for all future denunciations and complaints to be sent to Archbishop Sean O’Malley directly, in accordance with instructions which he will be sending out over the next few days, as posted on the DeFide.com website and sent to the thousands of supporters by e-mail.

With account taken of the developments and advice received while in Rome, Balestrieri has now decided he is able to broaden the actions he has filed to include other notoriously pro-abortion Catholic politicians of both the Republican and Democrat parties. Apart from amending his Denunciation and Complaint against Sen. Kerry to include the Response, four additional Denunciations and Complaints have been filed against Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts; Sen. Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa; Mr. Mario Cuomo (D), former Governor of New York; and Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine. They have been filed today in the five Ecclesiastical Courts of the five separate Dioceses of Boston (MA), Fall River (MA), Des Moines (IA), New York (NY), and Portland (ME). Balestrieri said the four have been chosen based on their consistent, extensive, and public pro-abortion records.

Balestrieri has appealed for the thousands of joinders to be vigilant for procedural updates and specific canonical instructions which he is sending out this week.

Contact: secretary@defide.com or www.defide.com for more information.



NEWS RELEASE No. 1

July 1, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Marc Balestrieri – (310) 917-2719 Total of (3) pages Website: www.defide.com E-Mail: news@defide.com

Heresy Lawsuit Filed Against John F. Kerry

LOS ANGELES, CA – An international non-profit association, De Fide (“of the Faith”) announced Thursday that its Director, Marc Balestrieri, J.C.L. has filed a Dual class-action Denunciation and Criminal lawsuit at Canon Law for the crime of Heresy against presidential candidate Senator John F. Kerry. The action, normally under the highest procedural secrecy, was filed before the Ecclesiastical Court of the Archdiocese of Boston headed by Archbishop Sean O’Malley on 14 June 2004.

Five other criminal counts are alleged in the Denunciation and Criminal Complaint: Diabolical Scandal Leading to Heresy; Formal and Immediate Cooperation in Heresy; Sacrilegious Abjection of the Holy Eucharist; Diabolical Scandal Leading to Murder; and Grave Harm to Public Morals and Contempt for the Faith and Ecclesiastical Authority.

The charges alleged are extremely grave, account taken of the fact that the Code of Canon Law provides for automatic latae sententiae Excommunication in the case of two of the six crimes alleged: Heresy under Can. 1364-1 CIC, and Abjection of the Sacred Species (Holy Communion) under Can. 1367.

The alleged Heresy is the “Right-to-Murder” doctrine directly contained in the “pro-choice” position supporting abortion rights. The Catholic Church considers all direct and voluntary abortions as simply another form of murder, condemned by the Fifth Commandment. It is the professional opinion of DE FIDE, based on 2,000 years of constant Christian teaching, most recently encapsulated in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae of 1995, that the doctrine promoting the right to directly procured abortion is a heresy in every canonical and theological sense of the term.

The suit comes less than two weeks after the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops formally warned Catholic politicians who support abortion rights to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The Bishops’ statement, however, stopped short of ordering Catholic bishops and priests to deny Communion, leaving the decision to withhold the Sacrament a matter of personal choice for each Bishop and his diocese.

The case is unprecedented in the history of the American Roman Catholic Church in three ways:

First, it is a lawsuit for Heresy, a public Ecclesiastical crime under Cc. 751 and 1364 of the Code of Canon Law. Moreover, never have the five other crimes alleged in the Complaint, especially Sacrilegious Abjection of the Sacred Species carrying the penalty of Excommunication reserved to the Holy Father, ever been adjudicated before.

Second, it is a Class-Action Criminal lawsuit. Never has a complaint been filed specifically alleging an aggrieved class, either acting in principal position, or as third-party joinders. The notoriety of Defendant’s actions easily support such a class. Canons 128, 1596, and 1729 of the Code permit an unlimited number of third-party aggrieved joinders to attach themselves to the complaint.

Third, it is a Dual-Denunciation for Heresy and Criminal Complaint for Heresy, not just a denunciation, which has never been done before, to the knowledge of experts, anywhere in the world, in living memory, in a vertical movement proceeding from the laity. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is usually the entity which investigates and tries suspected heretics. As stated by the Rev. Arthur Espelage of the Canon Law Society of America, this case is “truly unique…a nuclear missile.” Cfr. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1108-2541r.htm

Mr. Balestrieri decided to publicize the suit after having waited to see the statements and results of the Bishops assembled in conference in Englewood, Colorado. A graduate of the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, the oldest of Jesuit universities founded in 1551, he is fluent in five languages. He has practiced Canon Law both part-time and full-time for ten years. He currently is serving as a Defender of the Bond, Associate Judge, and Advocate for his home Tribunal.

Although some practitioners of Canon Law have stated that the Archbishop in the instant case has no obligation to prosecute the Defendant as a result of a mere denunciation being filed, after reviewing the Complaint, the same practitioners agree with DE FIDE that as this Denunciation has been filed simultaneously with a Bill of Complaint for the Repairing of Harm, the Archdiocese of Boston, or the Vatican, does have an obligation in justice and at Canon Law to decide the case. The Judge, once having received the libellus litis with a “semblance of the truth” of the facts alleged in the case, must proceed either by 1) judicial trial, or 2) extra-judicial decree.

The Plaintiff decided to risk his career and reputation for the sake of doing what he thought was an obligation and duty in conscience to defend the Faith and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist from attack and sacrilege, no matter what the cost. This decision was directly based upon three considerations:

First, the binding teaching of the Instruction of the Vatican on the Holy Eucharist, Redemptionis Sacramentum, promulgated this year: Article 183. Let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be defended from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out, etc.

Second, the grave lack of disciplinary measures mandated by Canon Law not being enforced by various Bishops vis-à-vis openly defiant Catholic politicians, in the instant case, Defendant John F. Kerry.

Third, in the most grave matters of a Life-Threatening Heresy promoting the “Right-to-Choose” Abortive Murder, and continuous Sacrilegious and Contemptuous reception of Holy Communion, the faithful are compelled to take action if their Pastors won’t

Religion is retarded. Especially this one.

Wow, what an informed and enlightened response.

The Vatican hasn't excommunicated Kerry. This post is just a wishful interpretation of a Vatican statement. One has to wonder whether the poster is sincerely concerned with the state of Catholic law or if they simply want to smear Kerry at every opportunity.

Now that is separation of church and state.

I know it's a misinterpreted article, but I really wanted to say that.

bah I really really wish the bishops would shutup. Seriously, I remember when they didn't have as much media outreach as they do today. They would preach to the flock (I'm Roman Catholic) but not have as big a media precense as let's say...the christian coalition. I think this is a silly grab for attention.

I just want to point out, as a Catholic, that the stupid bishops you hear in the media are, as usual with any religion, a vocal minority. Sad really, and it pisses me off because they make the rest of us look bad.

I think it's a good thing. But I don't really care about it all that much.

Well this sort of thing should have been done from the start. The Catholic church got WAY to wussy over the years, which has lead them to a path of irrelevance and scandal.

I'm no longer Catholic, but come on, if you think abortion is KILLING BABIES, then its not a 'church and state' issue. Its murder and they should have stood up to it a lot stronger then they did. “Abortion is wrong but we let unrepentant babies killers be members of the church” isn’t going to inspire anyone. In an attempt to stay relevant and with the times they gave up the moral high ground and made themselves less relevant.

This being said I don’t think the article means anything beyond some hype.

Yeah.. like an opressive self-hating organized religion is gonna sway MY vote....

Kerry wasn't gonna get it anyways!

Where were the people demanding catholics who supported the Iraq war, which the pope pleaded against, be excommunicated?

And the Death Penalty.

Why are Pataki and Guiliani not being threatened with Ex-Communication? They are both Pro-Choice, Catholic, politicians....

Ooh yeah. They're Republicans

Anything for the informed and enlightened catholic leaders.

Harkin is a Republican too. If you took the time to read the article you'd know that.

Bush is all for the death penalty, why aren't the bishops condemning him to hell?

WOW! The catholic church who couldn't be bothered to remove pedophile priests holds to the high moral ground, who can take this seriously? As previously noted the bishops don't care about the death penalty or war, or how the living live, who cares what they think? They are making themselves irrelevant.

The pope was wrong on the war.

I agree with the death penalty being unChristian, and I'm fully against it. But it's a speck of dust next to a beach ball compared to abortion.

in general terms, this has as much to do with john paul 2's desire to recreate the olde days of top-down command, in which directives travelled from rome and catholics followed.

which would get rid of the problems associated with the american catholic church in particular... you know.....having diversity of opinion must be irritating if you understand yourself as infallible in spritiual matters.

remember this is the same guy who shut down liberation theology, the only important movement to develop within cathlicism in 200 years, because he thought it communist. this is an absurd, reactionary pope, whose politics follow in kind.

but at least he is consistent: unlike american conservatives, who would endorse this ridiculous canon law suit and ignore john paul's
condemnation of the invasion of iraq
his opposition to the death penalty
and the weak pleas he is in a position to promulgate on the dignity of the poor
(weak because of the silencing of liberation theology)

which would mean that, despite the reactionary nature of john paul 2, at least he is not a hypocrite.
shame you cant say the same about american conservatives--particularly if you keep in mind the protestant fundamentalist core of their constituency, for which cathlocism is not christianity.

a pox on both their houses

This too shall pass. It's a handful of conservative Catholics trying to politicize things and raise a big stink. Nevermind that Catholic voters tend to be Democrat.

Oh... I like Kerry even more now!

I have absolutely no respect for the Catholics or anything they say.

Let them take responsibility for their own crimes before they point fingers at someone else.

SecretMethod, I know what you will probably say (vocal minority), but I am referring to maypo's post. If they actually lived up to their own laws, then I might at least be able to respect them. As it is... they have no ground with me.

And to bring it back to Kerry... our Pro-Choice legislation is very important to me, so this is even more reason to support him.

edit: My distaste for the Catholics is for the organization not the people that worship. I have no in born hatred for the guy living next to me that might be Catholic, but an organization that systematically protects pedophiles is repugnant to me.

A non-issue for me either way.

hehe, yeah, what's good for the goose...

pan, why not file suit against people supporting the war or death penalty?

This episode was started by a layperson; trend starters sometimes regret what they create...

I love how people lump the deliberate killing of children out of the selfishness of the mother on the same plane as the death penality.

Mind you I am playing devils advocate, I don't care about abortion and the problem with the death penality is we don't use it enough.

Come to any church in my town and tell them that.

I think for older catholics this is true in a good part. JFK being catholic was a big deal back then, and many of the trade unions seem to be heavily catholic as well.

Are you sure about your stance on abortion? The inflammatory way in which you phrased your description of abortion certainly belies your message.

ArchBishop Raaymond Burke of SaintLouis said because of his stances on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriages- he would not give communion to him...

thats almost as bad

Anything on EWTN (Eternal World Television Network) is tainted. They're ultra-conservative Marianist Catholics, headed and often hosted by Mother Angelica, the Nun You Didn't Want To Have For Homeroom. Before my cable provider dropped it, I used to watch -- not for laughs, but sort of a clinical study of how sick and hate-filled any religion can become in the hands of the wrong people. I don't think much of the Catholic hierarchy, but compared to Mother Angelica and the EWTN crowd, the Pope is a gay Episcopal bishop.

What do you mean by "bad?" Bad that a "man of god" is selectively enforcing aspects of church doctrine so as to influence an election or bad in the "Kerry is EEVVVILLLL" sense?

My theory is Abortion is the killing of INNOCENT life. Death Pentalty is not.


In "faithful citizenship" and recent bishop letters to parishoners it is noted that war and death penalty are not intrinsicly evil, and there are cases when it is justified, Abortion, samesex marriages and stem cell research are not.


John kerry preaching hes a catholic, when his stances are NOT that of the catholic church needs be be brought up by the MSM. Also to note is calling George W. Bush's stances " right wing idelogy" is almost insulting to a Catholic, because it is what the church and its doctrine teaches. To flaunt being a catholic and "choir boy" in the debates, while insulting us at rallys, and taking stacnes clearly NOT that of our church is wrong.

Vatican doctrine condemns the death penalty no matter what a single bishop says and the Catholic church has condemned the Iraq war. Doesn't supporting either make you a religious hypocrite? Or are you breaking from church doctrine? If so, I hope that you show patience for others who do the same.

See above statement....we wouldn't be harboring any anti-Catholic stances ourselves, would we?

Abortiion is one stance that the church makes itself very clear on, no ifs , and or buts.

John Kerry ( to my knowledge) isnt against the death penalty. He is FOR gay marriages, FOR stem cell research, and FOR abortion


and I am not a supporter of the death penalty- I never said I was... so how you made that connection is beyond me- i simply stated a theory that some use to present pro-deathpentalty arguments

I agree. It really seems to me like any pro-choice politician should be excommunicated if abortion is really to be considered baby-murder. The moral of the story is that Catholicism is nuts.

Well, he definitely isn't for gay marriage. He's made that clear.

You made a statement that seemed to downplay the Catholic Church's condemnation of the death penalty which read like a defense of the practice to me...my mistake.

As I mentioned before, it isn't quite honest to condemn a man for calling himself Catholic and breaking with church teachings when you yourself also disagree with some Catholic beliefs. I don't like to post about such deeply personal issues as your personal faith, but that is the truth.

Thats the problem though. The Faithful Citizenship calls for Catholics to help make law reflect our moral belief. I can pull out a page and quote if needed. John Kerry on the otherhand does not. He can't pay the Catholic card, and then go against it - thats all im saying. He brought this into play by calling catholic beliefs " right wing ideologies" - and thats the problem. He cant have it both ways- cant flaunt the "choir boy" title, and citisize it at the same time. Im not saying that John Kerry is or isnt a catholic, Im simply saying his views DO NOT REFLECT THAT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - right wrong, good or bad, ironincally the President, who is not a roman catholic- has views more in line with the persons that john kerry is trying to prove he is one of.

Some of your own views "DO NOT REFLECT THAT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." How can you criticise Kerry for actions that you, yourself mirror? How can you play the Catholic card?

Almost all of Bush's beliefs are "right-wing ideologies." Simply because there is some crossover with some Catholic beliefs doesn't make that statement untrue.

My views? As i stated above I oppose the death penatly, Im pro-life, Against stemcell research , and I wasnt in favor of the war ( though I realize now it was necessary). So how do my own NOT REFLECT THAT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
and
He was refering to stem cell research in that particular quote of " right wing ideologies"

Its called empathy.

If you think abortion IS murder its pretty easy to state it harshly. Abortion is killing babies.

Yes- its hard to see how anyone- at the least- could lift the ban on partial birth abortions- as no doubt kerry plans to do. If its 6 inches inside the body its abortion, 6 inches out and its murder...
:crazy:

Support for the war flies in the face of the Pope's statements and, as such, does not reflect the views of the Catholic Church.

That doesn't change what I already said. Just because there is overlap between a (American) right-wing ideological belief and a Catholic belief does not negate either of those labels.

So you support murdering babies?

Edit: before anyone gets upset, let me say that I'm trying to point out an inconsistency.

I didnt say I supported the war, I said I wasnt in favor of it- but I realize it was neccessary now. That isnt saying I supported it - just realized it was necssary.


saint thomas aquanis made the argument that there was such a thing as just war....



He said Bush's view on stem cell research was that way because " right wing ideologies" - when Bush has the reverence for life in stem cells- Thats the Catholic churchs same views- so kerry is saying having reverence for life in stem cells = right wing ideologies....

You don't support it (its still going on, if you haven't noticed) but you believe it's necessary? Really?

No, Kerry is saying that Bush's views on stem cells equal right-wing ideology. Can't we have a little nuance here?

What inconsistency? Its easy to 'think' like others do and use their language.

If I were a devout catholic then abortion would have to be murdering babies, period.

If I were a member of NOW I'd say.

A fetus is just an extension of a woman’s body, there is no independent life until it is born.

or I could be John Kerry and say

I think abortion is wrong but I support a woman’s right to choose.

or I could be Ustwo and say

I think abortion is tragic but Darwin works in mysterious ways.

By the examples given in this post, you were expressing the catholic stance, not the social darwinist example that you labeled as your own belief. I think that my confusion is understandable.

I support our troops- and I believe its neccesary. I believed at the start we might be better waiting on more nations- but not its evidedent that because they were being paid off France, Germany and Russia were not going to help... But being that I did not vote for/against the war, nor did I give the order to start it I have no control over it, and thus its a moot point. Mr. Kerry DOES/DID have control over voting for the war, he has control over gay marriages ( voted against the defence of marriage act) he is AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban, and against PRO-life policies. He wants to promote, and fund embyronic stem cell research.

Potentially he has the ability to lift the ban on the ltitle foothold Pro-Lifers have ( partial birth abortion ban) he will NOT defend the sanctity of marriage, and he will NOT protect unborn children, nor Embyros.


And yes i feel that by saying George W. Bushs views on embryos are extreme right - wing ideologies- he is stating that thesse views are extreme right wing ideologies.


TO flaunt he is a catholic when ALL OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT PERTAIN TO CATHOLICS THIS ELECTION HE HAs OPPOSITE POlITICAL VIEWS WITH.


As Catholics its been noted that we have to help make our moral views the Law.


Im not saying hes a bad catholic, Im saying its hypocritical use Catholsism to get ahead in the polls, when your NOT reflecting those views.


I would not be suprised if he is elected, and repeals the ban on partial birth abortion, he is excommunicated. Abortion is one of the things that a massive majority of catholics agree on, and in most practicing families it is a litmus test for politicians. When you say your Catholic, and your take stances that do not connect at all with the Church, your opening yourself up to these kinds of ridicule.


that said mr.kerry is a smooth talker, it gets a lot of play for republicans, but let me say- he could make a hella lotta money if he stayed in Law.


He never says hes "for gay marriage" - in fact he "believes its between a man and a woman" but at the same time says that " we have to afford homosexuals their costitional right to marry" - everyone hears what they want to hear.

Same for abortions - hes " pro- life " and belives " life begins at conception" but wont protect life- because we must afford women their "constitional right to choose".

He is pro - life - but he wont protect life
He isnt for same sex marriage personally- but he wont outlaw it


Jul 30, 2004: *"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development. That's what Roe v. Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land."

He stated - from my interpretation - correct me if im wrong- that we cannot infuse our moral beliefs into the Law- but thats precisly what the catholic church

"
To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good."

Faithful Citizenship

i suspect that John Paul II might see it differently. Regardless of whether or not you are a ranking official in the administration, supporting a war that the Vatican opposes goes aginst CAtholic thinking. I hate to burst your religious bubble, but that's the truth. Anyone could use the same equivocation to support any Catholic opposed idea..."I let my woman have an abortion, but I'm not on the supreme court so it's okay."

I guess since you're not a national politician that your own anti-catholic views don't count. Maybe I should pick up my lapsed catholic heritage....I never knew they had become so casual!

Speaking of hearing what you want to hear, Kerry has never, never endorsed a "constitutional right to marry" for gays. I don't agree with that, but it's the truth.

I never doubted your strict adherence to the abortion doctrine, I've just pointed out your divergence from Catholicism in other areas. What about your obligation in conscience to work against the war?

I'll work my way backwards




I have no obligation to work against the war since I have no control against the war. Again I remind you war is not intrinisicly evil. The Church's views are VERY clear on this, War isn't "good" but at the same time it should only be used as a very last option. Since both Canidates were "for" the war, it is clearly a non-sequitor in a political debate- but since this is about john kerry... how we brought George W. Bush and him being for the war into it... then we can get into it


"War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option."


from the Pope


Now we might as well drop this issue right here and now because there is NO way you could EVER prove war is a last option if you wanted to get nitpicky. Couldnt we have let hitler have France in WWII? He said he wouldn't trouble Britain if they left him alone ( essentially). Its a grey area, and its impossible for ANYONE other than God to decide if a war was the very last option. But as I stated both Canidates were " for" the war, the issue is how they went about it.

Again as I said above, he takes both sides. He cant vote AGAINST the defence of marriage act, and act like he isn't for giving gays rights to marry.

Its clearly another issue where if you arent FOR it - in the eyes of the Catholic church, your against it. If you are pro-choice- dont pretend your aligned with the Church... your not.

Amazing how any topic mentioning religion in any way becomes a brooding ground for flaming religions. Sad thing is, we aren't supposed to do that on the TFP, and our very own founder has been caught red-handed.

Has the pope endorsed this war or condemned it? No matter what statements there are dealing with just war on a CAtholic scale, this Iraq adventure doesn't meet that criteria.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/303/124.php
Can you doubt the words of the Pontiff? Why is this pronunciation selectively ignored? Given your earlier statements, you have a moral obligation to adhere to this. If being "powerless" in the face of an issue is a valid excuse, then I guess I can justify a whole lot of things that the church doesn't agree with.

Kerry has NEVER come out for gay marriage. Any statement to the contrary is just plain wrong.

As was implied above, if you don't oppose the war, don't pretend to be aligned with the church....you're not.

By not banning it he is not protecting the sanctity of marriage.

And again we've spun way off topic with this war issue, because mr.kerry voted for it- Both are wrong and will go to hell then?

But back to the issue in point-

Mr. Bush
PROS

Against abortion
For protecting the sanctity of marriage
Against stem cell research

Cons
Was for the war ( which ISNT INTRSINCLY EVIL)


Mr. Kerry

PRO
isnt "for" gay marriages

Cons

Against ban on partial birth abortion
wont answer if he'll use roe v wade in litmus test for Suprm Court
WONT protect the sanctity of marriage
Wants MORE embyronic stem cell research
Was "for" the war



And about gay marriages
"God established the family as the basic cell of human society. Therefore, we must strive to make the needs and concerns of families a central national priority. Marriage must be protected as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman and our laws should reflect this principle."
Faithful Citizenship




This was a thread about Kerry being Excommunicated- and his views in reflection to that of the Catholic church, I stated I wasnt for the war, and you say "I've just pointed out your divergence from Catholicism in other areas. What about your obligation in conscience to work against the war?"

:hmm:


But IF i voted for Kerry - id be supporting the war as well...

So assuming that there are degrees of evil

War is not intrinsicly evil. Abortion is. Stem Cell research ( via damaging embyros) is. Gay Marriage is.

As stated countless times, it is not ONLY our duty to make sure our laws reflect these beliefs. Stating that you will keep your beliefs seperate from the poltical process is ludacrious.

And if you need a History Lesson, as mr.kerry said it would be up to states to ban gay marriages

Q: You also said that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional.

KERRY: I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy. For 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states.

From Issues 2000.org


Abortion was left up to states until Roe V. Wade- and the supreme court did away with the states rights to outlaw abortion.as Ive said before- hes playing both sides. he believes its between a man and a woman, but at the same time wont protect it. He had a chance to do it. Defence of marriage act which he called " fundamentaly ugly".


and as to your " if you dont oppose hte war, dont pretend your aligned with teh catholic church.. your not"

I hate to pull a Clinton, but what your definiation of oppose?

I was not FOR it...

Oh and I was reading some Catholic websites and I noticed the following

Catechism of the Catholic Church," is that abortion is always wrong, while there may be circumstances -- although "very rare" in modern times -- when state-approved capital punishment is possible."

Personally, I think that gays should be able to marry. As for passing a constitutional amendment, we can't just amend the constitution to endorse every Christian belief, can we?

If you're a catholic, supporting this war goes against the words of the Pope.

But you now support it, as you thought it was "necessary" and you don't even pretend to work against it. The Pope has made clear the position of the Catholic Church as it concerns the Iraq war. Regardless of whether the Vatican has an escape clause regarding "just" war, they have chosen not to exercise it in this case. Your complaint revolved around Kerry claiming to be Catholic while taking non-Catholic stances. I've just tried to illustrate how that trait is not so uncommon even amongst his Catholic detractors.

I dont "support" the war. It think the war on terror is necessary - that doesnt mean i support it- I'm not for or against it- but it was necessary. I'm unsure about where by not even "pretending to work against it" has to do with this issue. I dont go to war protests- but that doesnt mean Im not against it.

If you support same sex marriage you are not following the Catholic Doctrine.

And yes actually according to the catholic doctrine we must "endorse" every catholic belife. as I quoted above its our duty to make sure that the law of the land reflects our own moral laws.


Plain and simple. If your not a Catholic(?) then this isnt worth discussing ( most non-catholics view the churche's belief at precisly what kerry calls it
extreme right wing ideology) and if you are Catholic I neednt be arguing with you as there are better ways for you to pertain the Churchs stances and beliefs - from your pastor. In which case How can you be for same sex marriage if the pope is against it? I feel it would be a bit hypocritical for you to critisize me for saying the war is necessary when you believe Gays should marry.

I believe that sometimes police must use force to capture a criminal- that it is necessary for them to do their jobs- but that doesn't mean I support their using it ( i would rather they didnt - but if they deemed they had to- then so be it).




Its a grey area and im having trouble explaining myself- but as i stated about it would be hypocritical for you to critisize me on it when you believe gays should marry.

Actually this wouldn't be social Darwinism but good old fashioned Darwinism.

I never claimed to be following Catholic doctrine...I'm only pointing out a perceived inconsitency.

I asked if every Catholic belief should be put into a constitutional Amendment. I'm pretty sure that most Catholics (and most other people of all religions) understand that there are better mechanisms for conveying religious morality then constitutional amendments.


I'm only playing devil's advocate, trying to point out the aforementioned inconsistency. Obviously you aren't getting or don't agree with what I'm saying. I'm sure everyone else is as tired of this argument as I am, so I'll give it a rest.

Good old fashioned Darwinism? How does that work? Do you victimize the weak, elderly or young because they are easier targets?

:rolleyes:

I don’t' think you understand what Darwinism is. In its true form, Darwinism isn't survival of the fittest in terms of being smarter, stronger, faster, whatever. Its the ability to reproduce. It doesn’t matter how you do this, as long as your genes get passed on to the next generation. If you do this by 'victimizing the weak' or setting up a daycare facility it doesn't matter, as long as you have kids who in turn reproduce.

Social Darwinism is thinking that the upper classes in society are the upper classes because they are better then the lower classes. They are smarter, more gifted, whatever. It is used by some as an excuse to exploit the lower classes, or not care about their issues. While there is some truth that more gifted individuals may rise above their peers in social status, it has nothing to do with Darwinism. In fact because the upper classes tend to have fewer kids, they are 'less fit' then the lower classes. Now one study did challenge this by looking at children fathered out of wedlock, aka bastards, and found that the higher your rank in society the more bastard children you had and in fact, by Darwinism, you would be more fit (it was done for Spain and Spanish Royalty) but I'd think that was more of a blip (plus I'm not sure how they determined parentage) then a true trend.

Now lets take abortion. Abortion is limiting someone’s reproduction. Without abortion they would have a child who would pass on their genes in turn. With abortion this does not happen. As far as Darwinism is concerned these people may as well be infertile as they do not have any viable offspring.

Those more inclined to have children will, while those who are not won't. As a long trend this could very well effect human evolution.

Darwinism is a theory that no longer applies to human beings in any regard, as those less able to survive in the current environment are given aid and thus made able to pass on their genes.

Marsupials seem to have done ok in regards to survival and the ability to thrive. And they have been practicing abortion since their evolution. The kangaroos, koalas, tasmanian devils, wombats and Opossum are all able to terminate their post gestation embryos. They do this when they are under pressure. Usually injury to the mother or a general lack of adequate food marsupial females have the ability to stop feeding which starves the embryo.

If you didn't notice, I was being more then a little facetious in my earlier post.

Darwinism, or natural selection to be more specific, is about the interplacy between the biological traits of organisms and their environment. Creatures that are better adapted biologically to their environment will proliferate, those that are poorly adapted will not. The human practice of abortion is hardly a biological trait and has little to do with the subject.

Which of the following groups is more likely to have more than 5 kids?
A. German
B. Latino
C. British
D. French

If you guessed B., you are correct (based on studies).

Which of the following countries is most effected by unclean water, causing sickness and death?
A. Britan
B. America (U.S.A.)
C. Japan
D. Combodia

If you guessed D., you are correct.

If you are born with a serious medical condition (i.e. heart condition, retardation, deformaty), which country would you likely die in?

A. Somolia
B. Iraq
C. Russia
D. All fo thee above

If you guessed D., you are correct.

Which countries are you likely to be exposed to radiation in?

A. Iraq
B. Japan
C. North Korea
D. America

A. is correct.

Modern influences on the evolution of man.

These influences have nothing to do with Darwin's theories, although they do showcase tendencies in human cultures and the global disbursement of wealth.

Not true. The selection criteria has been changed, issues that were fatal may no longer be, but the pressures are still there. The direction of evolution has changed, not the concept. Darwinism is not about being able to survive ‘in the wild’ its about being able to reproduce, period.


http://homepage.mac.com/daddysteve/....mb_202_269.jpg

One of them is a Marsupial, the other is a human. You will note they are phenotypically different. They have also followed different evolutionary paths. The unconscious decision of marsupials to terminate a pregnancy based on the chance of survival and environmental conditions bears little similarity to a female human in a western society having an abortion. Even in cases where a female human may well be unable to provide for her young, the social structure will allow it, even if the female human plays no role in the child’s upbringing. Therefore the selection criteria for a human female choosing abortion is different then that of a kangaroos, and is different then the infanticide of a gerbil or lion. All of these processes change the evolutionary path of the animal, but not necessarily in the same direction.

As stated before, darwinism is more then whether or not an animal can reproduce....it is about biological traits, environment and evolution.

No its not. Biological traits, environment, and evolution all effect the ability to reproduce, but its only the reproduction that matters. If your trait is to terminate your young, then it will effect reproduction, which can effect evolution. As genes wobble between extinction and fixation these traits matter, but only in how they effect reproduction.

i guess i've never fully comprehended the arguments that are some variety of: chimpankangypus's do it in their natural state, therefore, it must be beneficial or acceptable for humans to do it as well.

i've seen this proposed for such issues as capital punishment, abortion and homosexuality. that somehow if it's "natural" then it must be good... i'm pretty sure i don't buy that, at least not without one eye open. i'm fairly certain darwin would not have approved of it.

the problem is this: people only use this position when it helps their cause but are unwillingly to take anything beyond their preferred sample.

if natural is good, and we only need a few species from which to make an assumption: i propose we select our President according to the natural goodness found in the common beta fish.

So Wilt Chamberlin is the winner of the Darwin Olympics?

Its not about how much sex you have but how many children. If you have sex only 10 times in your life but you have 10 sets of twins out of it, you have done well geneticly (provided those children reproduce as well). I know Chamberlin wrote about how many 1000's of women he had sex with, but I do not know if those unions 'bore fruit' so I can not speculate as to his genetic fitness.

Indeed. I was just trying to inject some humor into the discussion.

You will have to forgive me, as the concept of evolution and Darwinism in particular is so wildly misconstrued, I've assumed the base knowledge is zero and hence I was unable to see the wheat from the chaff.

Well, I thought it was funny...

The study of natural selection focuses more on the passing of the traits that ensure reproduction.

From
Wikipedia:
Of course reproduction plays a part, but it is only one facet amongst many.

Not to slice rabbits here, but it is the ONLY trait that matters. All others do not matter unless they aid in reproduction. Calling it a facet amongst many speaks of your lack of understand of basic Darwinism. No matter how strong, how fast, how smart, how well fed you are, it means NOTHING if you do not reproduce. The passing of ones genes to the next generation is the center point.

Guys, It really sounds like you're saying the same thing, but splitting hairs over how to say it.