Kerry and being excommunicated.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So there is a canon lawyer in california who is trying to charge kerry for hersey among other charges for his liberal positions, esp. for his views on abortion and homosex.

if he wins, kerry will have a trial in one of the most conserative (not parishes, the larger thing that i have now forgotten) in the country, and may result in kerrys excomm, and excomm for something that is considered basicaly non ex cathedra.

so if this happens (and i give it 2-1), what should kerry do in terms of defending himself, and what are the implications of his politics when it regards religion, and the larger public conciousness--do we think that the old idea of catholics and foreign powers have anything to relate.

(also can we talk about the nature of god and how it will determine this election on both sides.)

― anthony, Monday, 19 July 2004 04:05 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040630-111108-2541r.htm (i know its a shit link, havent found much else)

http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42196,00.html
Ratzingers letter to catholic bishops

i cant find the pdf of the complaint anymore

― anthony, Monday, 19 July 2004 04:12 (twenty-one years ago)

This is wrong. If it happens, it naturally sets a dangerous precedent that states that the Church doesn't care if you've been a passionate follower for years or even decades, that if you happen to disagree with a few key leaders up at the top when it comes to certain issues that you're risking forceful exit from the faith.

This isn't supposed to happen. If Kerry had been found to denounce any part of the main tenet of Catholicism, if he had stated that he didn't believe Jesus acted as Savior during his crucifixion, or if he had stated that he didn't believe Jesus continually acts as Savior through his good graces, or if he had stated that he didn't believe that Jesus will save us during Judgement Day, then that's obv going to be grounds for excommunication. But to threaten excommunication on one of the issues that it's not even clear Pope John Paul II has made his stance clear on is SO WRONG.

And if they're going to excommunicate people for believing there's any sort of rational reason for someone getting an abortion, there goes about 80% of the faithful. If they're going to excommunicate people for believing that homosexuality is a natural trait and there's nothing wrong with it, whoops, about 50% of the faithful goes right there. If they're going to excommunication people for believing totally in a woman's right to choose, oops, there goes 40% of the faithful. You know, the Church's faithful population is aging. I don't see a heck of a lot of young people at the Masses I go to. The young are going to be more likely to not have a problem with a woman's right to choose and with the GLBT community. I would've figured the Church would be more intelligent in this situation. I guess not.

― Many Coloured Halo (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 19 July 2004 04:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I suspect that higher-ups in the Church would find a way to quash this. If a religious entity was thought to be acting in a political manner, they'd risk losing all sort of govt. protections, and the party they're trying to screw wouldn't look kindly when issues relating to, oh, pedophile priests came up.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Monday, 19 July 2004 04:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh yeah, and where are the papal bulls? If a Catholic isn't supposed to believe in equal rights for GLBT, or isn't supposed to believe in a woman's right to choose, why hasn't Pope John Paul II (or any other pope in the past) issued a papal bull stating his position on the issue? The last papal bull that was issued was issued WAY back in the '50s and restated the holiness of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. I think you'll recall that the only statements the pope makes that are supposed to be viewed as his infallible pronoucements are the papal bulls. Everything else should be viewed as just the pope's own personal beliefs and shouldn't be treated as divine words from God.

Damn. I was taught this my sophomore year of HS! Were these archbishops even AWAKE during this part of religion class?

(xpost)

I hope you're right. I mean, it's not beyond my own personal realm of understanding and I do believe it could happen, but yeah, still, I hope you're right.

― Many Coloured Halo (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 19 July 2004 04:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The I.R.S. has become very interested in this bill. Though this article is two years old, the bill itself is still being discussed.

I.R.S. agents spying on preachers from the back pews. This situation just gets ickier and ickier.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 19 July 2004 04:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Still the old guard hangs on like grim death, reduced to making a noisy, over-publicised bloody nuisance of itself, demanding to be sucked up to like in the Good Old Days when folk just did what they were told and the Bishop was God's representative on earth.

Surely the Vat has more important things on its agenda than this sort of petty nonsense and will tell these big-fish-small-pond losers to pull their heads in.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 19 July 2004 04:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i wonder what the subtext to this obsession with abortion is, esp. in realtion ot celibacy

― anthony, Monday, 19 July 2004 05:06 (twenty-one years ago)

every day i find new reasons to hate people.

― Kingfish von Bandersnatch (Kingfish), Monday, 19 July 2004 05:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Anthony I think it's symbolic. Abortion heads the list of issues on which the battle for influence/control has been lost.

Also by making such a big deal of it the church has backed itself into a massive corner. It has alienated millions it knows it won't get back, even if it does make concessions, which would only cost it the support of some of its 'rump' who share its obsessions. To use an analogy more apposite here than most other contexts, it would be throwing good money after bad.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 19 July 2004 05:27 (twenty-one years ago)

(not parishes, the larger thing that i have now forgotten)

Is it diocese?

― The Dreaded Rear Admiral (Leee), Monday, 19 July 2004 05:38 (twenty-one years ago)

yes it is

― anthony, Monday, 19 July 2004 05:40 (twenty-one years ago)

thinking about the invention of childhood, how there was not even a concept of this until the cult of the sentimental in victorian times, how we used to kill babies and/or send them off to orphanages as late as the 19th century (i have read stats as high as 70 per cent in Vienna and Venice), it is interesting that we have pushed back the concept of "childhood" is v. new (as new as family, etc)

i keep trying to relate this to the rabid pro life movement that has come up in the last little while, but my brain wont make the obvious jumps, someone make them for me.

― anthony, Monday, 19 July 2004 05:50 (twenty-one years ago)

All Your Questions Answered

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 19 July 2004 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, I think this piece also gets right to the heart of these kinds of things (if it uses a different context to make its point):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRAN.html

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 19 July 2004 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.