John Kerry excommunicated from Catholic Church

[shadrack]

The religious believe that it is their fundamental privilege and duty to see that our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices remain obedient to God's law so that legislation will be influenced to reflect God's law.

What the religious don't get is that their speculation on when a human ovum, embryo, or fetus is infused with a soul is not any more verifiable than another's speculation of when a fetus attains the status of person.

If the religious want U.S. law to look like their religious law, the only conclusion is that they want to force their own beliefs on the rest of us.

 

[dmp]

The religious believe that it is their fundamental privilege and duty to see that our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices remain obedient to God's law so that legislation will be influenced to reflect God's law.

What the religious don't get is that their speculation on when a human ovum, embryo, or fetus is infused with a soul is not any more verifiable than another's speculation of when a fetus attains the status of person.

If the religious want U.S. law to look like their religious law, the only conclusion is that they want to force their own beliefs on the rest of us.

when did this thread become about US law?

It's about "church laws" and those who claim a church must subscribe to those 'laws'.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The religious believe that it is their fundamental privilege and duty to see that our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices remain obedient to God's law so that legislation will be influenced to reflect God's law.

What the religious don't get is that their speculation on when a human ovum, embryo, or fetus is infused with a soul is not any more verifiable than another's speculation of when a fetus attains the status of person.

If the religious want U.S. law to look like their religious law, the only conclusion is that they want to force their own beliefs on the rest of us.

The people of the U.S. have the right to make any laws they see fit as long as the laws don't conflict with the Constitution. Citizens can make laws based upon their religious beliefs or they can make laws based upon their godless beliefs. It is a democratic process and making law based upon religious beliefs does not constitute a theocracy in the U.S.

If a person believes that life begins at conception, then he has every right in this country to vote for a law based on that belief just as another person who doesn't believe in life at conception can vote for a law based on that belief.

The majority wins. The losers can always then conclude that they are being "forced" if they want to, but that is the way our society operates.

I hate the fact that million of innocent babies are being aborted each year but the current law says that they can be aborted. Until we can vote that law out, I guess you could say that I am being "forced" to accept such heinous godless practices in my country.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The religious believe that it is their fundamental privilege and duty to see that our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices remain obedient to God's law so that legislation will be influenced to reflect God's law.

The lefty libs believe it is their fundamental privilege and duty to see that the moral fiber of our country deteriorates to the point where individuals can no longer take care of themselves due to their utter inability to make responsible choices, so they must be dependant on government, good little group thinkers chanting, "That's not fair".

What the religious don't get is that their speculation on when a human ovum, embryo, or fetus is infused with a soul is not any more verifiable than another's speculation of when a fetus attains the status of person.

If the religious want U.S. law to look like their religious law, the only conclusion is that they want to force their own beliefs on the rest of us.

What the lefty libs don't get is that in their zeal to crush individual responsibility, they destroy any hope of the perfect society they claim to desire.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I think the one point that has been missed is that if excommunication becomes the new norm in how how the Catholic Church deals with "secularist" catholics in politics, it does bring forth a new standard for Catholic politicians.

Now Catholics must uphold civil law under the same beliefs and values as their own Cannonial laws. Politicians are now held accountable to their personal religious beliefs rather than the beliefs of their consituents. That is a slippery slope and while it is the Catholic Church's right to do so, it may result in the elimination of Catholic politicians as they will be unable to reconcile their personal religious duties while ensuing the responsibilities of their own consituents.

I think this might end up backfiring for the Church.

 

[dmp]

It's not a slippery slope - it's common sense.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think the one point that has been missed is that if excommunication becomes the new norm in how how the Catholic Church deals with "secularist" catholics in politics, it does bring forth a new standard for Catholic politicians.

Now Catholics must uphold civil law under the same beliefs and values as their own Cannonial laws. Politicians are now held accountable to their personal religious beliefs rather than the beliefs of their consituents. That is a slippery slope and while it is the Catholic Church's right to do so, it may result in the elimination of Catholic politicians as they will be unable to reconcile their personal religious duties while ensuing the responsibilities of their own consituents.

I think this might end up backfiring for the Church.

This is holding them to the beliefs of their constituents actually. If the catholic vote didn't matter, this wouldn't be a big deal. THis is democracy in action.

 

[Bonnie]

I think the one point that has been missed is that if excommunication becomes the new norm in how how the Catholic Church deals with "secularist" catholics in politics, it does bring forth a new standard for Catholic politicians.

Now Catholics must uphold civil law under the same beliefs and values as their own Cannonial laws. Politicians are now held accountable to their personal religious beliefs rather than the beliefs of their consituents. That is a slippery slope and while it is the Catholic Church's right to do so, it may result in the elimination of Catholic politicians as they will be unable to reconcile their personal religious duties while ensuing the responsibilities of their own consituents.

I think this might end up backfiring for the Church.

And so the remedy to that is for the church to just sit back and say nothing in the hopes of not disenfranchising anyone?
That's equivalent to parents being told your kids are going to screw up anyway, you may as well sit back be their friends so they don't get mad at you! Absurd!

Politicians should be able to reconcile their beliefs to how they conduct their professional lives.........Most of us do it everyday in every decision we make, whether we succeed or not we still try. What good is a Catholic politician being elected to office, if they don't have the guts to act on that faith? They may as well be card board cut outs, with movable hands that wave!!
And since when are laws like Roe V Wade not subject to scrutiny and even being overturned? Politicians change and add laws all the time, so now the constitution is a monolithic document? A politician runs on his beliefs, ethics, and ideas all at the same time, it's their job to make perfectly clear where they stand in all those areas, and then let the people decide who they want. If it so happens a Catholic politician runs on the premise to overturn Roe V Wade, and people hear that and put him/her in office, then whats the problem......?? The people have spoken!

 

[Isaac Brock]

This is holding them to the beliefs of their constituents actually. If the catholic vote didn't matter, this wouldn't be a big deal. THis is democracy in action.

How so? Cannot a catholic politician have consituents primarliy of another faith? If that's so, then a catholic would appear to have a conflict between their Catholic beliefs and their democratic obligations of the rest of their constituents.

 

[Isaac Brock]

It's not a slippery slope - it's common sense.

How so?

 

[dmp]

How so?

Common sense dictates those who profess certain beliefs should display those beliefs in practice.

 

[MrMarbles]

I agree with Isaac. It's either going to create a fanatic state, or the slow removal of catholic beliefs in America. The Vatican is forcing the hands of politicians, but they might not have the royal flush needed to win.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree with Isaac. It's either going to create a fanatic state, or the slow removal of catholic beliefs in America. The Vatican is forcing the hands of politicians, but they might not have the royal flush needed to win.

These are not the only options.

 

[dmp]

I agree with Isaac. It's either going to create a fanatic state, or the slow removal of catholic beliefs in America. The Vatican is forcing the hands of politicians, but they might not have the royal flush needed to win.

Forcing the hand? wha??

Look - this shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp...If John Kerry claims to 'be' a Catholic - follower of Catholocism, then it's honest and right for the Catholic Church to hold him to his claim; to BE a Catholic, one has to "DO" catholocism...which speaks against Abortion, and other issues Kerry supports and agrees with.

Why do liberals have such a horrible time comprehending absolutes?

 

[Isaac Brock]

And so the remedy to that is for the church to just sit back and say nothing in the hopes of not disenfranchising anyone?
That's equivalent to parents being told your kids are going to screw up anyway, you may as well sit back be their friends so they don't get mad at you! Absurd!

Politicians should be able to reconcile their beliefs to how they conduct their professional lives.........Most of us do it everyday in every decision we make, whether we succeed or not we still try. What good is a Catholic politician being elected to office, if they don't have the guts to act on that faith? They may as well be card board cut outs, with movable hands that wave!!
And since when are laws like Roe V Wade not subject to scrutiny and even being overturned? Politicians change and add laws all the time, so now the constitution is a monolithic document? A politician runs on his beliefs, ethics, and ideas all at the same time, it's their job to make perfectly clear where they stand in all those areas, and then let the people decide who they want. If it so happens a Catholic politician runs on the premise to overturn Roe V Wade, and people hear that and put him/her in office, then whats the problem......?? The people have spoken!

While I understand what you say, I believe you missed the thesis of my post. I'm not debating whether or not the Catholic church has the right to excommunicate members who hold such views. I'm not debating that Catholic points of view do not have the right to be a part of the political landscape.

I'm debating that fact that Catholic politicians no longer will able to provide secular services if they so choose. They are, in essence, a vessel for the Papacy, nothing more. While that may sit fine with some people, it is not a situation that other Christians, Jews and even Muslims have to deal with. I do believe that, that dynamic will erode Catholic legitimacy on politics.

 

[dmp]

I'm debating that fact that Catholic politicians no longer will able to provide secular services if they so choose.

Such as?

They are, in essence, a vessel for the Papacy, nothing more. While that may sit fine with some people, it is not a situation that other Christians, Jews and even Muslims have to deal with. I do believe that, that dynamic will erode Catholic legitimacy on politics.

Here's the problem we face; do we do what is Right by our God, or by the whims of political correctness? If a Catholic cannot be honest to their faith AND be in public service they should not run.

 

[Bonnie]

I agree with Isaac. It's either going to create a fanatic state, or the slow removal of catholic beliefs in America. The Vatican is forcing the hands of politicians, but they might not have the royal flush needed to win.

The Catholic church does't need a royal flush to win anything...........This is not a war! This is the church holding true to it's beliefs, and holding it's members to those beliefs as well. Any person that wants can leave the church, the church is not forcing anyone to stay a member.
Unlike laws the church is a monolithic establisment not subject to change as morality does. If people want a secular politician then they can vote for one( and there are plenty in office) just as easily as they can vote for a poltician of faith.
The fact that religious people dissagree with you, and wish to elect polticians that dissagree with your ideas of a secular non moral, anything goes society doesn't mean they are forcing anything down your throat, the are exercising their right to vote just as you are. Are you suggesting that all ploiticians just throw out their beleifs so as not to not have the masses intrude upon the small circle of non beleivers??? Now who is the intolerant one??

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How so? Cannot a catholic politician have consituents primarliy of another faith? If that's so, then a catholic would appear to have a conflict between their Catholic beliefs and their democratic obligations of the rest of their constituents.

You're getting hysterical. People have a right to claim they are a certain religions. Churches have a right to excommunicate people. The people have a right to know. Let the chips fall where they may. Maybe your buddy marbles is right, maybe this will massively weaken the church and the church will rue the day they "forced the hand of the politicians". I doubt it though.

 

[Bonnie]

The Catholic church is not a popularity contest.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The Catholic church is not a popularity contest.

What a great quote!


I could see this as a great caption on a poster with the pope wearing a leather jack with a marlboro in his mouth.