Senator John Kerry Excommunicated?

[Evan]

DominvsVobiscvm:

If the quote from Evangelium Vitae appears to us to fulfill the conditions for an ex cathedra statement, why doesn’t the Vatican official who penned the unofficial response see it that way?

What is lacking?

My understanding is that, the pope does not want to make ex cathedra pronouncements on infallible teachings of the church. That would require him to repeat everything the church teaches. The teaching on the abortion has been consistently taught since the late 40’s. And when the church teaches something over a long period of time in that way, it is considered infallible and does not need to be reiterated since it is part the our Sacred Tradition.

By the way, thats AD 40, not 1940.

What is lacking is that he did not DEFINE this as an article of faith, he DECLARED it only:

• I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church"* (Evangelium Vitae 62)

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t see how this is problematic on any level. Kerry said he would put Judges on the Supreme Court who would uphold the Roe vs. Wade decision, despite the fact that he has the legal power to do otherwise. This isn’t a situation in which a person assents to what they are powerless to stop, but rather a case of a person actively supporting that which they have the power to stop. The first objection is easily cleared up in light of this, as his personal values are clearly that abortion should be legal; any statements that he is personally against it are valueless because he has the *personal *authority, if elected, to appoint Judges who would not uphold the Roe vs. Wade interpretation. Kerry is under absolutely no legal obligation to appoint pro-abortion Judges.

Now if this were a matter of a police officer who was protecting an abortion clinic, you would have a point (though it could still be argued), but we’re talking about someone who is above the level of government that a police officer is obligated to. A police officer must uphold the law, and doesn’t have the power to appoint Judges to change it, and therefore shouldn’t (necessarily) be held morally accountable, but Kerry is in a VERY different position. So long as the law was in place, he would be obligated to submit to it, but as soon as he was able to appoint Judges he would have to appoint anti-abortion Judges (which is absolutely the right of the President to do so) in order to maintain his Catholic credentials. Since Kerry has stated adamantly that he would not do this, I can’t see any way that he can stand against a charge of heresy. The only way he could fully seal his coffin would be to get elected and do exactly as he’s said he would do, and at that point the Church would have to act, IMO.

 

[The_Barrister]

mtr01:

Well, the legitimacy of the “law” aside (remember that Brown v. Board of Education was also decided this way), the sad fact remains that abortion is currently legal in this country. Otherwise, every abortion provider, let alone everyone who has obtained an abortion would currently be in jail for murder. As it stands right now, anyone for any reason can obtain an abortion under full protection of the law.

Again, the problem is not the legitimacy of the so-called right, but the fact that it is currently legal in the US to obtain one. Given that reality I stand by my earlier assesment in that I see it problematic in excommunicating someone for advocating someone’s right to choose an act that is currently legal (again, not that I agree with this position.

Moral relativism rears its butt-ugly head. As Catholics, we are under standing orders not to obey laws that are contrary to our morals. CCC 2032. If a bare majority of the Supreme Court said that it was okay to “own” dark-skinned people, would you be here protecting a politician who “privately opposed” to slavery but would support your right to own a slave? Of course not. So don’t apply that ill logic to abortion.

mtr01:

I would agree with you if Kerry had publicly said that he is favor of abortion, or that if abortion was illegal he would strive to make it legal. As neither of these conditions are met, I will respectfully disagree.

The Second Vatican Council was abundantly clear on this matter. “Nor, on the contrary, are
they any less wide of the mark who think that religion consists in acts of worship alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations, and who imagine they can plunge themselves into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced from the religious life. This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age. Long since, the Prophets of the Old Testament fought vehemently against this scandal and even more so did Jesus Christ Himself in the New Testament threaten it with grave punishments. Therefore, let there be no false opposition between professional and social activities on the one part, and religious life on the other.” Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes), 43.

You can’t be one thing privately and another thing publicly. An informed conscience doesn’t work that way.

mtr01:

Again, I don’t see how persons who are personally opposed to abortion could be excommunicated. If they were, half of the Catholics in this country would be as well. I see this as more of a pastoral/catechetical problem. Also, how would such excommunication increase anti-Catholicism (aside from those who are excommunicated)?

“I don’t see how persons who rob convenience stores could be put in jail. If they were, half of the robbers of convenience stores would be in jail.”

There seems to be a disconnect in your mind between those who are automatically excommunicated and those who are publicly excommunicated. Those who believe differently from what the Church teaches on abortion, having intentionally reached that decision through no undue coercion, are automatically excommuncated.

Those who intentionally cause great scandal by intentionally and knowingly misleading millions of Catholics as to the teachings of this Holy Church, thereby placing millions of souls in grave danger, ought to be publicly excommunicated as per canon law.

 

[cradlecatholic]

Lest there remain any doubt that Kerry deserves to be excommunicated for actions he has already taken, just go to www.aboutjohnkerry.com/resources/catholic.htm to see what he has already voted for and failed to vote against.

 

[HagiaSophia]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Mutant, did you read the unofficial response by the Vatican, and the quote from Evangelium Vitae? Sounds *ex cathedra * to me.

So, is John Kerry really excommunicated, as I understood?

You may wish to read Fr. Basil Cole’s response at:

mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/blog.htm

As I read Fr Cole’s statement I do not think this matter is as cut n dried as it appears to be on many websites. It commences:

Several weeks ago, Fr. DiNoia, the undersecretary for the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith, asked me to communicate with Marc Balestrieri about a question concerning abortion, excommunication and the like…

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

What is lacking is that he did not DEFINE this as an article of faith, he DECLARED it only:

What’s the difference?

 

[Exporter]

Yes, the Archbishop has all the ammunition he needs to excommunicate Sen. Kerry…but…

Will the Archbishop actually comply with Church Dogma? I am sorry to say that I believe the Archbishop is in the hip pocket of the Kennedy Clan and the Democrats in Mass. If it was up to the Bishop of San Antonio,TX- it would take about two weeks before Kerry would be gone.

 

[amarischuk]

As I was packing to go teach in Taiwan I happened to (okay, I was packing books and couldn’t resist) open Aquinas’ Treatise on Law (with into by Rlaph McInerny) to question 96, second article “Whether it belongs to human law to repress all vices”

I realize that Catholic socio-political teaching has changed significantly since Aquinas; however, the greatest Thomist and Catholic political analyst of the 20th century Jacques Maritain would indeed have an interesting interpretation of the Catholic position on this:

On the contrary, We read in De Lib. Arb. i, 5: “It seems to me that the law which is written for the governing of the people rightly permits these things, and that Divine providence punishes them.” But Divine providence punishes nothing but vices. Therefore human law rightly allows some vices, by not repressing them.

I answer that, As stated above (Question [90], Articles [1],2), law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be “possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country.” Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.
Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

travel-net.com/~billr/Summa/FS096.html#FSQ96A2THEP1

Even the last section (in classic medieval fashion) concerned with the breakup of society IF a vice were permitted, doesn’t seem to ring true to the abortion debate as society has not noticably broken up because of it.

I am playing devil’s advocate here, but Kerry, by maintaining that it is not the role of the government to legislate in this matter does have a theological leg to stand on, provided that he does not openly support abortion.

And anyone calling for the excommunication of a vast number of Catholic politicians should read W.R. Southern’s “Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages” to see the negeative consequences of overusing the excommunication card.

Adam

 

[theMutant]

DominvsVobiscvm in post #26:

What’s the difference?

None. The First Vatican Council did not give the specific language required for making an ex cathedra declaration. This is the point I made in my poll on whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis contained an infallible ex cathedra statement. All of those who argued against the position failed to show in what way the statement in question failed to meet the criteria defined by Vatican I. I feel that the same will be the case regarding the statement in Evangelium Vitae.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Shuck:

I agree somewhat with you.

In large part, whether or not a State should suppress a certain voice is left to the prudential judgement of the sovereign. It’s also up to the prudential judgement of the Church.

Thus, in the Middle Ages that Church did not insist that States outlaw prostitution. It was felt by many Churchmen, like Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, that more and worse evil would result from its suppression than its existence. So, while they considered it to be mortally sinful, they often insisted that States keep it legal, and in fact regulate it. (In fact, many brothels in the Middle Ages were controlled and regulated by bishops, some even by the Vatican.)

Today, the Church’s prudential judgement is otherwise.

I suppose, hypothetically, the same thing could apply to abortion. The Church insists that it be kept illegal, but I suppose a situation could arise where it’s suppression would cause more evil than good (i.e. the same number of abortions, but in less sanitary conditions).

Meantime, though, we Catholics have to obey the Church’s prudential judgement on the matter.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

None. The First Vatican Council did not give the specific language required for making an ex cathedra declaration. This is the point I made in my poll on whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis contained an infallible ex cathedra statement. All of those who argued against the position failed to show in what way the statement in question failed to meet the criteria defined by Vatican I. I feel that the same will be the case regarding the statement in Evangelium Vitae.

If this is so obvious to you and I, then why isn’t it to this Vatican theologian? Or even Cardinal Ratzinger (with regard to Ordinatio Sacardotolis)?

 

[Matt16_18]

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.

Republicans also publicly support the right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

“We oppose the public funding of abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”
2004 PIERCE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PLATFORM

“Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.”
George W. Bush on Abortion

“We oppose abortion, but our pro-life platform does not include putative actions against women that have abortions.”
2004 Republican Party Platform

No Catholic can cast a vote to support the Republican position as it now stands. The Catholic Church teaches these “exception clauses” for abortion are unacceptable, and immoral.

 

[whosebob]

amarischuk:

Even the last section (in classic medieval fashion) concerned with the breakup of society IF a vice were permitted, doesn’t seem to ring true to the abortion debate as society has not noticably broken up because of it.

JMJ + OBT​

I think many would and could argue convincingly that society has broken up “because” of it and a number of other attitudes and laws that have fostered the culture of death. John Paul II has been making a big fuss about this very thing. Mother Theresa, were she still alive, would probably click on this website and make such an argument in this very thread.

amarischuk:

I am playing devil’s advocate here, but Kerry, by maintaining that it is not the role of the government to legislate in this matter does have a theological leg to stand on, provided that he does not openly support abortion.

Now, permit me to ask, in all seriousness, how you would argue the matter if the word “abortion” were substituted for at the very end of the above paragraph with “murder of homeless, orphaned, mentally disabled black children under the age of three” or with “euthanasia of individuals with advanced cases of Alzheimers?” I don’t think any Catholic could successfully defend such positions as having “theological legs to stand on.” And I am not convinced at all that Aquinas would have ever entertained abortion as being in the same category of moral weight as prostitution, even though they are both mortal sins.

I don’t mean to attack, but I don’t think that your statements, even though they are logical are at all sound or consonant with Apostolic tradition.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Matt16:

It is morally licit to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

A vote for a candidate is not an endorsement, tacit or otherwise, of all of what he believes in or stands for. It’s simply a choice of, out of the possible candidates for election, who would you rather see run the country. If I thought he had a chance of winning, I’d vote for the candidate of the Constitution party. Since I don’t, I’ll vote for Bush, whom I consider the lesser of two evils at the moment. In my humble opinion, a vote for any other more “conservative” candidate is really a throw-away vote for Kerry.

I wish I were wrong.

 

[whosebob]

DominvsVobiscvm:

It is morally licit to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

JMJ + OBT​

I do agree with you – was this a response to my post in response to amarischuck? I don’t see the connection, and I am only saying so because I’m not sure if you were inviting me to work through a point you’re raising.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I was responding to Matt16_18.

 

[cabaret]

I must say that I find this all more than a little troubling as a precedent. In my time, I’ve voted for a number of candidates who happened to be Catholic but I’m left with the feeling that it might never be possible for me to do so again and I’m sure that I’m not the only non-Christian/non-Catholic voter to feel this way.

It’s one thing to vote for somebody who is following his/her conscience while bearing in mind that he/she is also the representative of those of us who don’t follow the same code of beliefs, it’s quite another to vote for somebody to be the Vatican’s representative for your district. What starts with abortion ends where?

In many parts of the world, this sort of decision could end up making Catholics unelectable. Obviously, that’s nothing I’d lose a lot of sleep about but it would seem a pity.

 

[The_Barrister]

cabaret:

I must say that I find this all more than a little troubling as a precedent. In my time, I’ve voted for a number of candidates who happened to be Catholic but I’m left with the feeling that it might never be possible for me to do so again and I’m sure that I’m not the only non-Christian/non-Catholic voter to feel this way.

It’s one thing to vote for somebody who is following his/her conscience while bearing in mind that he/she is also the representative of those of us who don’t follow the same code of beliefs, it’s quite another to vote for somebody to be the Vatican’s representative for your district. What starts with abortion ends where?

In many parts of the world, this sort of decision could end up making Catholics unelectable. Obviously, that’s nothing I’d lose a lot of sleep about but it would seem a pity.

That’s a fair statement.

Faith, whether it’s Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, agnosticism or any other faith, must inform the conscience of the man (and I mean “man” in its human-kind form, not sex/gender-specific). A faith that does not inform the conscience of a man is not real faith at all, but is simply a matter of convenience that could be put on or off at a moment’s notice.

How can anyone trust a man who is not defined by something as important as “faith” ? How can anyone trust a man who is willing to use his “faith” as a political pawn to pander for votes? I believe that Bush is defined by his faith. Kerry is not. Bush acts in a consistent manner as shaped by his faith. Kerry does not.

On the issue of excommunication, I agree that this document only confirms Church teaching on heresy with respect to the issue of abortion. It is not, itself, an official (or even an unofficial) notice of excommunication. It is, however, a shot over the bow of the Kerry lifeboat.

 

[Evan]

DominvsVobiscvm:

What’s the difference?

…a response to…What is lacking is that he did not DEFINE this as an article of faith, he DECLARED it only:

The terminology for these in fallible pronouncements often use the phrase ‘I define and declare xxxx’.

Dictionary says: DEFINE: determine the nature of
DECLARE: announce publicly or officially

The nature of abortion (mortally sinful) has been defined for 1900+ years. The public anouncement of such a fact can be reiterated by every pope and it does not make it any more or less true. But it does bring it to the forefront of public understanding of the gravity of the action.

 

[Apologia100]

Matt16_18:

Republicans also publicly support the right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

“We oppose the public funding of abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”
2004 PIERCE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PLATFORM

“Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.”
George W. Bush on Abortion

“We oppose abortion, but our pro-life platform does not include putative actions against women that have abortions.”
2004 Republican Party Platform

No Catholic can cast a vote to support the Republican position as it now stands. The Catholic Church teaches these “exception clauses” for abortion are unacceptable, and immoral.

The Church also teaches that it is acceptable to vote for a partial solution if a complete solution is a political impossibility.