Vatican response in Kerry Heresy case Olly!greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
MAJOR NEWS ANNOUNCED ON EWTN - THE WORLD OVER WITH RAYMOND ARROYOVATICAN RESPONSE IN KERRY HERESY CASE
HIGH-SPEED INTERNET VIEWING AVAILABLE AT EWTN.COM
REPEATS ON EWTN: SUNDAY 17 OCT AT 2 PM PST/5 PM EST; MONDAY 18 OCT 4 AM PST/7 AM EST AND 5 PM PST/8 PM EST
PRESS ARTICLES REPORTING CASE
The World Over with Raymond Arroyo EWTN Television Interview 2 July 2004
THE BEGINNING: FIRST PRESS RELEASE 1 JULY 2004
Kresta in The Afternoon WDEO Radio Interview 1 July 2004
HANNITY AND COLMES
Interview July 9, 2004 Edition
DE FIDE is a non-profit association founded specifically to use every available means of Canon Law to defend the Faith and Church from Heresy and other grievous crimes. To accomplish its mission, DE FIDE initiates lawsuits in Ecclesiastical Court to protect the rights of the faithful and unbaptized. The Association consists of a consortium of premier Canon Law experts around the world who work in tandem to achieve this goal.
On 14 June 2004 DE FIDE filed its first Libellus Litis (Bill of Complaint) in the Ecclesiastical Court of the Archdiocese of Boston. The Criminal Complaint alleges that United States Senator JOHN F. KERRY, as a baptized Catholic, has committed a court-martial offense under Canon Law by professing the Right-to-Murder heresy, commonly known as the "Right to Choose" doctrine.
The Complaint is currently under review by the Archdiocese of Boston. Once accepted, the arguments and evidence will be considered by a collegiate panel of three judges nominated to evaluate the merits of the case. When created, the Court will summon Defendant KERRY to trial for the presentation of any arguments the Defense may attempt to invoke.
As this criminal case is unprecedented both historically and procedurally under the new Code of Canon Law of 1983, all Catholic and Protestant Christians, even the non-baptized, may, and are invited to join this class-action suit.
It is hoped that the faithful and public at large will support the efforts of DE FIDE by participating in the action and contributing to the State of California Tax-Exempt Association.
* * *
The words De Fide are Latin for Of the Faith. As a Dogma, or definitive doctrine held by the Church to be part of Revelation, it is a core tenet from which no Catholic may dissent without incurring automatic Excommunication.
DE FIDE aims to stop the monumental scandal which has been ongoing for the past thirty-one years of baptized Catholic politicians claiming to be Christian while professing the life-threatening Right-to-Murder heresy.
The crisis is outrageous - it is completely unacceptable - it must be stopped. Otherwise, we, and our children, and our children's children stand more to lose than simply our lives: We risk losing our salvation.
Please help DE FIDE defend the Church and the Faith.
About DE FIDE
Created rapidly to deal with the burgeoning scandal of Catholic politicians supporting the "Right to Choose" murder and leading ever so more faithful into perdition, the site will have additional content posted daily.
-- - (David@excite.com), October 17, 2004
....
-- - (.@.....), October 17, 2004.
So what about the rest of the Catholic politicians? What about the conservative ones that are pro-death penalty? Why isn't everyone in Western Europe under investigation for heresy?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 18, 2004.
Why do some people never seem to learn, no matter how many times they are told the truth, no matter how many chances they have to read the Catechism and other ecclesiastical documents?The Catholic Church tells us that the following actions are INTRINSICALLY EVIL and can NEVER be justified:
abortion
euthanasia
embryonic/fetal stem cell research
sodomy (same-sex "intercourse/marriage/union")
human cloning
Not only is it mortally sinful to support any of the above, but it is mortally sinful to FAIL to work against the above (i.e., to be "pro- choice" on any of them, as are John Kerry and Ralph Nadir on ALL of them, I believe).But the same Church tells us that the following actions are NOT INTRINSICALLY EVIL, since they can sometimes be justified (and it is up to civil leaders to decide about the justification in specific cases):
(defensive) war
capital punishmentPoliticians who support, or fail to fight against, any of the five INTRINSIC EVILS in the first list are automatically in the wrong, and Catholics can almost NEVER vote for them without mortally sinning themselves.
Well-informed Catholic politicians who support (or fail to fight against) any of the above are sinning mortally and must not receive Holy Communion. Moreover, at least in the case of being "pro-choice" on abortion, they are likely to be guilty of heresy, according to the recent Vatican ruling. If guilty, it would mean that they have excommunicated themselves.By contrast, politicians who support either of the two actions in the second list (defensive war and capital punishment) are NOT automatically in the wrong, and Catholics CAN vote for them without sinning.
Any Catholic American at this forum who, despite being aware of what I have just explained, would STILL plan to vote for Sen. Kerry is walking down a slippery slope toward hell. (Note that I am not judging or condemning anyone, but just warning everyone.) Such people need to protect their souls, and millions of defenseless innocents, by not voting for anyone at all, if they cannot bring themselves to vote for President Bush.
The same is true about voting in ALL other political races, especially for the House and Senate, but even down to the most seemingly insignificant races for local officials. Anyone who supports one or more of the intrinsically evil acts, even if he is running for dogcatcher, does not deserve a single vote. An American can vote for such a bad candidate ONLY if his/her opponent has an equally bad, or even worse, combination of positions on the five sinful actions listed.
Clarification: Tolerating 2% of abortions (as Bush does) is bad, but it does not even come close to being "equally bad" as supporting 100% of them (as Kerry does). Moreover, Bush (unlike Kerry) takes the morally correct position on euthanasia, embryonic/fetal stem cell research, sodomy, and human cloning. CASE CLOSED.
-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), October 18, 2004.
You are correct in saying that the five listed actions are intrinsically evil, and direct participation in any such action while fully aware of the intrinsically evil nature of the act and while giving one's full consent, would therefore constitute mortal sin. However, outside of such cases of direct involvement, I'm afraid you are tossing around the term "mortal sin" far too freely.It is not mortally sinful to simply hold the opinion that an intrinsically immoral act is acceptable. There are a great many Catholics who have succumbed to the incessant pro-abortion rhetoric of our society, and who believe, in direct opposition to the teaching of the Church, that abortion is, at least in certain circumstances, acceptable. Such a belief, while objectively wrong, certainly does not constitute mortal sin. Further, any person who sincerely, even though wrongly, holds such a belief will obviously vote for candidates he/she believes are best suited to fulfill the responsibilities of the office. Such a vote, based on the dictates of a sincere, even though objectively flawed, conscience would not meet the criteria for mortal sin. The claim that it constitutes mortal sin to "fail to work against" an objective moral evil is likewise unsupportable. Are you actively involved in any anti-rape work? Anti-adultery work? Anti-slavery work? Certainly rape, adultery and slavery are grave moral evils, and we should recognize them as such; but the fact that we are not personally involved in any specific work to counter such moral evils does not in itself constitute mortal sin, if it constitutes sin at all.
You claim: "Politicians who support, or fail to fight against, any of the five INTRINSIC EVILS in the first list are automatically in the wrong, and Catholics can almost NEVER vote for them without mortally sinning themselves." Again, you overstate the case. The statement ""Politicians who support, or fail to fight against, any of the five INTRINSIC EVILS in the first list are automatically in the wrong" is correct; but "automatically in the wrong" doesn't imply "automatically guilty of mortal sin". No-one is "automatically guilty of mortal sin" because he commits an act which is an objectively grave evil. There are essential subjective components to mortal sin, without which the commission of an act, no matter how gravely immoral it may be objectively, does not constitute mortal sin. In any case, if a person has not come to the fullness of truth regarding such moral issues, but votes in a way that reflects his sincere sense of moral justice, then even though his conscience is imperfectly formed and indeed seriously flawed, he does not commit mortal sin by following its dictates; and all the more so when his act of conscience consists not of direct involvement in any immoral act, but merely voting for another whose consciance is likewise flawed.
In addition, lack of agreement with the Church on moral issues, while demonstrating a personal defect in our personal response to God's Word, does not constitute heresy. Heresy means open denial of a doctrinal truth which is part of the deposit of faith, or propagation of false doctrinal teaching, which is distinct from, though no more authoritative than moral teaching.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2004.
I totally disagree with each comment made above that contradicts what I stated earlier.The first part of the second paragraph is mind-bogglingly incorrect, letting some mortal sinners off the hook.
The second part of the second paragraph reveals a lack of reasonable thought. The implication should have been obvious that I was saying people must not "fail to work against" the five mentioned intrinsic evils when their vocation opens the door for them to do that work -- as in the case of politicians, the subject of this discussion. Even people like us, on the fringes, cannot "fail to work against" such things by, for example, contributing money to organizations who are working in the trenches.The first part of the third paragraph falsely accuses me of branding some guilty of mortal sin who are not necessarily guilty. I am well aware of the necessary components of mortal sin, and I was very careful to use verbiage that did rashly judge anyone. The second part of the third paragraph again wrongly lets some mortal sinners off the hook.
The final paragraph is also completely wrong, reflecting apparent flawed or incomplete seminary training. Any denial of a "truth which must be believed" (whether concerning faith OR morality -- not just faith) is "heresy." This includes, the Vatican has just now made clear, a politician's "personally-opposed-but" position. In this kind of heresy, the politician is not denying that abortion is seriously wrong, but he is denying the infallible doctrine that he must (vocally and by voting) oppose such a grave crime, rather than speak and vote in toleration of it.
Under other circumstances, I could say more. Unfortunately, I lack the time to elaborate beyond this, but I needed to go on record as saying that I had not been convinced, and could never be convinced, to withdraw my previous comments, since they are factual and not opinions.
The opposition I have encountered is heart-breaking. If even clergy hold such wrong ideas about morality and sin as those stated, it's no wonder how the nation has come to the verge of collapse. Many men of the cloth are failing to speak up and teach the laity the whole Catholic truth, because some reject the truth themselves, some don't know the truth well enough (as apparently in this case), and some don't have the guts to say what they know from the pulpit. Fortunately, a brilliant, holy, and orthodox priest in my parish had the guts on Sunday to come within an eyelash of saying just what I wrote above. Were he at this forum today, he would be suggesting a refresher course in morality at an orthodox seminary for my opponent.
-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), October 18, 2004.
Ask your priest whether he can personally make a definitive judgment that another person has committed a mortal sin, with no information other than the bare objective fact of "what the person did". If he correctly replies "no", then he should have no problem with anything I said.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2004.
I agre with Pellegrino. The invincible ignorance, while possibly having some validity, is being carried to ridiculous extremes. One would think that many of us live in coconut trees. We cannot "ignorance" our way into Heaven.
-- Tanya (littletanya@westernrt.com), October 18, 2004.
Paul,It is not mortally sinful to simply hold the opinion that an intrinsically immoral act is acceptable.
What if you dropped the words " not mortally" and said: "It is sinful to simply hold the opinion that an intrinsically immoral act is acceptable."? Would this be correct or not? Can one claim to be an educated Catholic and not have SOME obligation to act in a way that is not *actively supporting* something that is objectively wrong? There is a difference between someone who doesn't know about an issue and does nothing (like your anti-rape example) and someone who claims to know about an issue and actively votes for something he personally believes is morally wrong, isn't there?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 18, 2004.
Great post Pallegrino!Welcome to the forum.
-- - (David@excite.com), October 18, 2004.
I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty naive. So when I first heard about this I thought it was a joke.But then I read the definition of heresy and realized that's exactly what Kerry and other politicians who publically support abortion are doing.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@YAHOO.COM"), October 18, 2004.
The is the part that really struck me:"There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics."
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 18, 2004.
"What if you dropped the words "not mortally" and said: "It is sinful to simply hold the opinion that an intrinsically immoral act is acceptable."?"A: I would certainly agree that "It CAN be sinful to hold the opinion that an intrinsically immoral act is acceptable". However, as in all such issues, degree of personal culpability would necessarily rest on circumstances, particularly the opportunity or lack of opportunity for the individual to know the truth - which is precisely why no-one can judge whether a particular act, omission, or position is mortally sinful for another person.
"Can one claim to be an educated Catholic and not have SOME obligation to act in a way that is not *actively supporting* something that is objectively wrong?"
A: An "educated" Catholic (that is to say, educated in the truths of the faith) would not be in a position to claim invincible ignorance due to lack of opportunity. Such a person would presumably be more culpable for holding an intellectual position contrary to Church teaching than a person who had not received such formal instruction. I still doubt however, that merely holding a private intellectual position on an issue could, in and of itself, constitute mortal sin.
"There is a difference between someone who doesn't know about an issue and does nothing (like your anti-rape example) and someone who claims to know about an issue and actively votes for something he personally believes is morally wrong, isn't there?"
A: Indeed! As mentioned in the paragraph above.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2004.
Thank God we have you here Paul! You cut through the puffed-up partisan poppycock with your brilliant and clear exposition of what Catholic faith and moral teaching REALLY teaches, as opposed to those who see Catholicism as merely a bludgeon to use on their political foes.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 19, 2004.
Thank you, dear supporters.I stand by all that I said, because it is factual. Therefore, Catholics who have been planning to vote for Kerry (e.g., Scott and Steve), despite being aware of all the facts made known to them by the Church in the past and by Catholics on this thread, need to avoid committing mortal sin by not voting for him. Voting for him would further the devil's cause of great vice and abominable sins, such as abortion and infanticide (partial birth "abortion"). Without using a candidate's name, Cardinal Ratzinger, in effect, has explained that voting for Kerry would be absolutely forbidden in the current U.S. presidential race. You can be sure that what he wrote had papal approval.
My principal opponent says, "Ask your priest whether he can personally make a definitive judgment that another person has committed a mortal sin, with no information other than the bare objective fact of 'what the person did.'"
As I mentioned yesterday, my opponent is fond of using "straw men," making himself look strong by knocking down things that someone else has not claimed. He would have served God and the Church far better by helping to correct the errors of the person who started this thread, rather than by exercising pure pedantry by trying to nitpick my first message.
Neither I nor my parish priest claimed to be able to "make a definitive judgment that another person has committed a mortal sin", based only on the knowledge of "what the person did." The priest and I are not talking in generalities about sin and culpability, but about SPECIFIC sins (especially abortion) about which all Catholics by now should be very well informed. What I said about someone committing a mortal sin contains the unstated assumption that the person (e.g., Kerry or one who votes for him) KNOWS about the grave wrongness of abortion and the "personally-opposed-but" position, yet DELIBERATELY CHOOSES to do what is wrong. I didn't need to go into all that, when 99% of genuine Catholics are already aware of it with respect to abortion. I WOULD have gone into all that, if we were talking about some relatively obscure moral matter.
People need to be careful, at a discussion forum or even in parish life, to remember that even the seemingly best informed contributors, clergymen, and parishioners are fallible, having blind spots and gaps in their education. My main opponent has shown himself to be far better informed than almost everyone else on very many Catholic subjects, for example, the tenets of the Creed, the liturgy, the sacraments, tribunal-related matters, parish life and procedures, etc.. Moreover, he has been blessed by God with great skill in being able to communicate the correct knowledge that he has.
The danger, though, is that others may become so intoxicated by reading the good things that he writes that they may begin to think that he is right in EVERYTHING that he writes. In fact, he has several times shown that he has -- to use the phrase I used above -- "blind spots and gaps in his education" in the area of moral theology. He knows some things in that area, but not other things. This can be very dangerous, because he can sometimes lead trusting members of the laity toward believing things that the pope and the CDF do not teach. In the past, he has wrongly identified certain grave-matter acts as non-grave-matter acts, potentially leading some to think that they are sinning venially rather than mortally. In this thread, as Steve's sad comment makes clear, he presents so many loopholes that he can lead some Catholics into thinking that they may sinlessly carry out their plan to vote for Kerry.
Anyone who still harbors doubt about some of these matters should read a brief, new article in Catholic World Report (). There, we can see that a priest associated with Cardinal Ratzinger's congregation has effectively judged that Kerry has excommunicated himself for heresy. This is still at a preliminary and unofficial stage, but the writing seems to be on the wall.
-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), October 19, 2004.
Here is the link that I forgot to insert into my last paragraph.http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32830
-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), October 19, 2004.
Maybe I misread the definition of heresy. Is it only in reference to faith and doctrinal issues and not moral issues?
For example, would a priest who teaches that artificial contraception and euthanasia are morally permissible fit the definition of a heretic just as much as one who taught that Jesus is not divine?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.
Hi Everyone,I watched the repeat interview with the chap who filed the original petition on the World Over last night. It is extraordinary that the Congregation responded to this layman in 10 days! WOW!
What do you suppose the long term ramifications of this event will be, especially here in this country? What will the media do with it, if anything, or will they keep it under wraps until after the election?
This seems like a REALLY BIG thing to me (but I'm a novice). Is this really as big as I think it is? They chap says he is getting to file complaints against Tom Harkin, Susan Collins, and a host of other pro-choice Catholics!! I think IT'S HUGE!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 19, 2004.
What do you suppose the long term ramifications of this event will be, especially here in this country? What will the media do with it, if anything, or will they keep it under wraps until after the election?Unfortunately, I think this will never gain much heat. What, you expect Dan Rather to dig deep into this? Peter Jennings? Ha! The Vatican is already backing away from the whole thing. Read story here This gives the media a reason to dismiss the whole thing.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 19, 2004.
I agree with you Gail. I think it's huge too, but haven't seen or heard much about it outside of EWTN and this forum. It's definitely worth further thought and analysis.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.
Pellegrino,How do you know who I voted for? I have already voted.
Besides how can you assume whom I have voted for by my question. I just wanted to know why people aren't going to the courts about the other pro-choice politicians? Say my governor Joe Kernan?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 19, 2004.
It makes the blood in my veins freeze with fear how some priests are such miserable, hopeless pastors. If you are teaching your parishioners that disagreeing with the moral teaching of the Church breaks their relationship with God, you are a cancer to our Church. My faith, my intellect, my will, can never be perfect. The Church teaches that no matter how many mistakes we make, God has un-ending compassion and love. Why, then, would anybody who claims to dispense Catholic Theology teach that holding a false belief breaks their relationship with God?God help us!!!
-- brian (brian@brian.com), October 19, 2004.
So Paul are you saying that one can disagree with Church teaching without committing a sin? If so, then why are the Bishops making such a fuss over Kerry? Is this because abortion being immoral has not been declared by using excathreda?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 19, 2004.
“Catholics who have been planning to vote for Kerry (e.g., Scott and Steve)”Who said I was planning to vote for Kerry? I’m not, for your information. I was just correcting the absurd idea that voting for him is a mortal sin, and the even more absurd idea that anyone who votes for him is guilty of murder and automatically excommunicated. Take off your political eye-patch and look a what the Church really teaches, instead of spouting your pompous "I know best" distortion of Church teaching to support your chosen political party.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 19, 2004.
“The Vatican is already backing away from the whole thing. Read story here This gives the media a reason to dismiss the whole thing.” Read the story properly Brian. The Vatican never even approached the whole thing in the first place so they had nothing to back away from. They considered it too silly to waste their time with. It was the Vatican which “dismissed the whole thing”. The whole story is an attempted beat-up which exploded in the "Republicatholics" faces as soon as anyone seriously looked at the facts.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 19, 2004.
Steve,How nice of you to besmirch Mr. Balestrieri's case as an "attempted beat up," or a "republicatholic" plot rather than a defense of the Faith. He may be a wing nut. He doesn't seem to be to me, but I don't think you know any more about him and his case than I do. I have seriously looked at the facts. I don't pretend to be a canon lawyer but I certainly wouldn't say the case isn't without a look-see or "too silly to waste their time with."
Canon 751 reads: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith."
Canon 1364 reads: "An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1 n.2;...."
I still say the Vatican is distancing itself by trying to dismiss this whole thing. This is so much like the Passion of the Christ episode. The Pope remarked after watching the film, "It is as it was." but when this became Huge news, all of a sudden he didn't say it. In this case, Balestrieri got permission from both Undersecretary DiNoia and Father Cole to make the letter public. Now all of a sudden its big news, and the Vatican issues a letter with Father DiNoia making sure everyone understands that even though Balestrieri says Father Cole's letter is unofficial and is not the Vatican's position, it really is unofficial and is not the Vatican's position. Ok thanks.
And since the mainstream media shares many of your views, Steve, they will dismiss Balestrieri as a crackpot "republicatholic," the same as you do, especially with this letter from the Vatican. Somewhow I just don't see Dan Rather pursuing this story with the same gusto as he pursued Bush's National Guard status.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 20, 2004.
Sorry Brian, you seem like a good man but you’re grasping at straws. Maybe the Pope did actually say that quote about Gibson’s movie, maybe not; you have no grounds for stating categorically that he did say it. Obviously the Pope didn’t want a purported quote by him used in promoting the movie, otherwise every second moviemaker will be wanting to give him a preview and demanding a Papal review to promote their product.In the case of Kerry’s supposed “heresy”, as the report you linked to makes clear, what the Vatican did was just like saying “Don’t bother us with that, go and ask your parish priest”. It would be ludicrous to claim that what a parish priest then said is the official Vatican position. In this case the Vatican gave the enquirer the name of a canon lawyer in his own country, who had no connection to the Holy See. And ludicrously, many people, including some in this thread, then tried to claim that the canon lawyer’s letter was an official statement of position by the Holy See. THAT was why the Vatican had to issue a clarification pointing out that this claim is false. There’s nothing else to “investigate”.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.
Granted, the letter wasn't official. But the point is, what would the Vatican say given the facts of the matter? Is Kerry or any Catholic a heretic for believing and preaching that abortion is a right (i.e. a good thing to do)? If they are, isn't heresy a mortal sin?Does the Vatican know anything about this moral question that we don't? No.
Does the Vatican have any special graces of judgement about morality as taught by the Vatican - the Magisterium - over the centuries that we don't already know? No.
OK then, based on all that the Popes and CCC and encyclicals have stated over and over throughout the years on the topics of abortion, sodomy, embryo-killing research, euthanasia, and cloning... what would allow a Catholic in good faith to believe that people had a positive RIGHT to something which is immoral?
The Heresy is staring us in the face: Catholics in our country believe as true that which the Church has always taught to be untrue: people don't have a right to something which is immoral. You don't have a right to extra-marital sex. You don't have a right to sodomy or abortion or euthanasia or suicide or murder.
Maybe your country doesn't prosecute such crimes but that doesn't make them positive RIGHTS! Legality does not equal morality! The failure to prosecute doesn't equal moral goodness! To think it does is to believe as true that which is not.
And Heresy is a sin my friends. A serious one.
CCC 2088 "There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief..."
CCC 2089 "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."
If you believe as a Catholic that abortion is a sin but accept as an "American" that this sin is a positive human right (i.e. a good) then either you are adhering to a illogical position or you are lying about one of your beliefs or allegiances.
Now Heretics don't reject the faith completely (apostates do!) A heretic (Greek for "bent") holds fast to some part while twisting another piece. Arians were heretics - they accepted that Jesus came, preached what he did, died, and rose. But they didn't accept that he was God incarnate.
Julian the Apostate was a baptized Catholic who rejected the whole faith and became a pagan.
In our day and age those who reject Christianity to enter Wicca are apostates (though most perhaps never knew the faith to begin with).
In Kerry's case and others who vociferously reaffirm their faith and Catholicity we can't suppose them to be apostates - we can only go on what they make public to us: their actions and words.
It does appear then that inasmuch as abortion has ALWAYS been taught by Catholics to be an immoral act, going way back to 110 AD... and that sodomy is immoral (going way back to Exodus 1000 BC), that any Catholic who thinks such things are positive rights (i.e. goods) owed to other people by the State and fellow human beings, is believing and teaching as true that which is not. Ergo, that Catholic is a Heretic.
Or perhaps you can explain to me how someone can have a right to something which is immoral? Do you believe morality as taught by the Church is arbitrary rather than objective? If so, then dissent would be OK - merely a matter of opinion or taste. But it's not and the Church has never held morals to be "mores" (latin for customs).
If a person can become a heretic by believing that Mary wasn't immaculately conceived or that the Church is not one, or that the Holy Spirit isn't God... why couldn't a person become a heretic who believes that people have a positive right to do what is objectively wrong?
Every Sunday Catholics say the following words in the Creed:
"He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man."
The product of conception is a human being - to "terminate" a pregnancy is thus, to kill a human being - and thus is murder. No one, not the state, not an army, no one has the right, the positive good to directly intend to kill a completely innocent human being. If you think you do, you're a heretic.
Where the Southern slave owners sinning by treating people as cattle? By your arguments they were not subjectively bad even though objectively slavery is immoral. So being pro-slavery was OK subjectively insofar as the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for some men to own others?
So... is racism a sin? Homophobia a sin? Is polluting the environment a sin? How about not caring for the poor? If being OK with abortion or sodomy is fine and not a question of sin or heresy, how about being fine with offensive war? Or capital punishment for misdemeanors? Why not? If all it takes is the Supreme Court handing out a legal interpretation for Catholics to believe in new rights, nothing is theoretically off the table.
By this argument it was OK morally for a German to be a Nazi since the German Supreme Court ruled the Socialist Workers Party to be legal and thus, moral nes pas? Sure, objectively the Nazis were "bad" but subjectively the ignorant catholic SS guard will be given a pass 'cause he felt good about himself and besides some Bishops and priests could be found to say nice things about the party.
So much for an objectively formed Conscience!
Finally, is not heresy a grievious sin - a mortal sin?
Ah but only if you know better right? So ignorance is bliss...if you don't know better, you merely sin venially, if you do, you are in big trouble. Fine.
Let's say Kerry and others like him who pride themselves on being nuanced and sophisticated and intelligent are too stupid to know better...and those who vote for them and their platforms (available on line and in the press) are too stupid to read and listen to what they say they stand for (*abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, embryo- killing research, cloning). Their stupidity keeps them from mortal sin... but wouldn't they still be sinning by stubornly believing what the Church teachs is wrong and thus, still harmful to their minds and hearts and bodies to believe as true what is not?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.
What the Vatican did was just like saying "Don’t bother us with that, go and ask your parish priest".It would be ludicrous to claim that what a parish priest then said is the official Vatican position. In this case the Vatican gave the enquirer the name of a canon lawyer in his own country, who had no connection to the Holy See.Steve, you're probably a great guy yourself, but your statement here is just plain wrong. Undersecretary Father Di Noia is the 3rd in charge at the CDF. He personally delegated Father Cole, a consultant to the CDF, to respond to Balestrieri. Balestrieri received a letter from Father Cole some 10 days after his visit to the CDF office in Rome. Balestrieri did not seek him out.
Now apparently De Fide's press release, according to the Washington Dispatch was titled "Sen. John Kerry 'Excommunicated,' According to Vatican Response." This is a misrepresentation, I agree, even if the release itself mentions that the letter from Father Cole is unofficial. So the Vatican responds, and Father Di Noia says that Father Cole's letter is not the Vatican position. Fine. But then he goes on to say that Balestrieri "had no contact" with the CDF, yet Cole says he was asked to respond to Balestrieri’s questions by the CDF. So which is it? And Balestrieri has talked on the phone with Father Di Noia, the 3rd in charge at the CDF, yet "had no contact" with the CDF. Someone is either not telling the truth or is doing some serious parsing of his words.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 20, 2004.
The other stupid thing about this whole issue is the difference trying to be created between an unofficial response to a hypothetical and the official response to a particular case... if the hypothetical is identical to the actual case, then the conclusion must be identical too!Unfortunately bureaucrats hate having their hypothetical conclusions applied to real-world situations - because it causes a stir and heat and puts pressure on them in two ways: one they take flack for not teaching the truth up to now and two they take flack for publicly teaching as true what they apparently admitted was true in a private manner...
But has anyone in the Vatican or elsewhere argued successfully that a Catholic politician who has spent 20 years voting repeatedly for increased funding, promotion, and expansion of Abortion rights, who has voted for pro-abortion judicial nominees, who has spoken favorably to Planned Parenthood (nowhere required of politicians by Roe v Wade) etc. and no where ever counselled people away from abortion... isn't in serious trouble morally?
What we are seeing here is a failure by the bishops and priests and established theologians to stand up for the truth of the Gospel in difficult cultural situations where their stance would be instantly unpopular. It's the problem they caused back in 1968 by not standing up to the Zeitgheist and with the Pope in Humanae Vitae.
They were either too cowed or too ignorant of the situation to rise up and bear witness to the faith when it was challenged by hip young theologians and their minions in the Media and pop culture... and have spent the last 20 some years dragging their feet, doing the bare minimum for the Pro-life cause.
When was the last time any of you heard a well thought out exposition of Catholic sexual teaching from the pulpit? When was the last time your bishop was arrested outside an abortion clinic or called a local Catholic boy politician to task for outrageous behavior?
Look - the Church, i.e. Vatican, has through the Popes and encyclicals and Catechism made it abundantly clear that a person cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion and that being pro-choice isn't different than pro-abortion. If you think people have the right to choose an abortion, then you believe abortion is a positive good! And that belief is heresy.
It's not rocket science. It's not trinitarian theology. That more priests and bishops don't get this is a testimony to lots of things - their lack of philosophical training being one, and their lack of following the Pope's many clear statements is another.
That it's taken over 10 years for them to hold Catholic colleges and universities to Ex Corde Ecclesiae is a good example: clear Church teaching being sat on and not applied on the local level for fear of what a couple stupid (and I mean stupid) theologians and ex-nuns will have to say around the chancery or golf course.
This isn't POLITICAL. It's totally theological - if a Church can't enforce its own morality and theology among its own members and can't inform them what they ought to believe and how they ought to act, then what can a Church or voluntary society do?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.
Joe, even Kerry’s severest critics haven’t accused him of “believing and preaching that abortion is right”.According to the logic of your argument, if a law was proposed to make all extramarital sexual intercourse a criminal offence, then every Catholic legislator who voted against it would be a heretic!
Of course all the slave owners etc were sinning. But sin and heresy are two different things. SOME of the slaveowners also held that Black people do not have souls. THAT was heresy.
“Undersecretary Father Di Noia is the 3rd in charge at the CDF. He personally delegated Father Cole”. No. Fr Di Noia’s statement makes clear that in no sense did he, (or could he), “delegate” Fr Cole to speak for the CDF.
Joe, I don’t think anyone in the Vatican is suggesting that Kerry “isn't in serious trouble morally”. I repeat, that is a seperate matter from his supposed “heresy”
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.
Steve,So are you acknowledging now that Father Cole was delegated by Father DiNoia to respond unofficially to Balestrieri, rather than claiming the "Vatican gave the enquirer the name of a canon lawyer in his own country, who had no connection to the Holy See?" I never said that DiNoia delegated him to speak for the CDF. I said that Cole was delegated by the CDF in the person of Father DiNoia.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 20, 2004.
But you know what, Steve, the fact of the matter is that we, in this country, are heading towards Sodom and Gomorrah faster that a pebble cascading down Niagra Falls. And why is that? Because in our age of tolerance, wrong is right, right is wrong, white is black, and black is white.John Kerry, unfortunately, represents probably a good portion of "brain-dead, spiritually bankrupt" Catholics and other so- called "Christians," who claim that they can't -- by some mysterious law called "separation of Church and state" -- allow their consciences to guide them at the VOTING BOOTH! The truth is that their consciences have been seared as by a hot iron!
Does it really take a theologian to proclaim that if 'the Catholic doesn't believe what Catholics believe,' then the man ain't no Catholic! He has subverted his baptism, and descretated that Fair Name by which he calls himself. The man is a blatant heretic, a hypocrit, and an insolent LIAR! And Joe is right, if the pulpit was ablaze with the truth of God, instead of chicken-soup-for-the-soul sermons, then we wouldn't have 50 percent of the Catholics in this country voting for the holocaust to continue! IT IS APPALLING!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 20, 2004.
Brian you can stretch the word “delegated” as much is you like, it doesn’t make Fr Cole a “delegate”.Gail, I agree with everything you say, except that Kerry ain't no heretic. A sinner, a liar, a hypocrite, certainly. But not a heretic.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.
CWN published the original story...CNS published the 'rebuttal' -just so happens that CNS is an arm of the US Bishop's Conference...
CWN has not pulled or corrected thier story...
Quite interesting -huh Steve?
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 21, 2004.
So what’s your point Daniel? That CWN are recalcitrant liars? Or are you accusing the US bishops of being liars?
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 21, 2004.
Steve,-my point is that there is a conflict regarding the information and as a result there is potential confusion regarding Church teaching.
-as to 'who' is 'lying' -those are your words, I do not suggest the 'US Bishops' are lying -to quote Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- World Over Interview, 5 September 2003:
"I think it is clear the personal responsibility of the bishop is fundamental for the Church. And perhaps anonymity of the Bishops’ Conference can be a danger for the Church. Nobody is personally immediately responsible. It was always the conference and you do not know where or who is the conference."
If there is a liar the WHO is still an unknown. In fact, the CNS story uses several unnamed sources. It is a curious fact that in the CNS story there is anonymity regarding Truth? hmmm...
Who are these "Vatican officials contacted by CNS" or who is the "One Vatican official contacted by CNS" or the "one said" "You can incur excommunication 'latae sententiae' (automatically) only if you procure or perform an abortion"
If there is lying, WHO is personally immediately responsible? If one blindly follows anonymous teaching, WHO is personally immediately responsible?
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 21, 2004.
So according to this 'official' it is okay to vote for legislation legalizing the wholesale slaughter of unborn children! According to this 'official', the fact that Kerry voted AGAINST the ban on partial birth abortion does not preclude him from receiving holy communion! What about being an 'accomplice' in a crime.Boy, I hope someone gets to the bottom of this! This is enough to make your stomach rattle.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 21, 2004.
The Holy See has for decades strongly encouraged all bishops to speak and work through Bishops Conferences to coordinate their teaching. If an individual bishop wants to issue a statement dissenting from what his Bishops Conference agreed to, he is perfectly free to do so.As to who to believe, I prefer to believe the Bishops and the curial officials rather than an unauthorized beat-up by a media organization with no connection to the official Church.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 21, 2004.
Steve, I couldn't care less what Kerry's critics say or believe. I heard the man himself on the 3rd debate - he believes a woman has the right to an abortion should she so choose and that this choice is between "her, God and her doctor".Now, if that is his belief - it is heresy. How so? Well, God through the Church has revealed to humankind that abortion is always a grave sin. Now no human being has a RIGHT to sin!
No human being has some magical ability to create what is good or bad by whim or feelings or desire - yet Kerry seems to think that if a person wants to do X then even though X has been positively revealed by God as being objectively evil, the individual can somehow change its moral status!
Why isn't pollution something strictly between a company, the EPA, "and God"?
Kerry would have us respect objective reality and truth in all things but sexual morality? He would have us believe that his Catholic faith can be brought to bear on farm subsidies and welfare programs but not on sexual morality?
His actions are sinful - but his reasoning for making those votes in favor of abortion is what is heretical.
A woman forced to have an abortion by her abusive boy friend may be guilty of murdering her child - to a greater or lesser degree depending on her free will etc. But the politician who carried water for the Abortion industry, making it the only un-regulated medical industry in the country is also guilty and when he tries to justify it with a THEOLOGICAL THEORY, he strays into heresy.
For example. If I want to steal my neighbor's land and property, I would be committing the sin of stealing (against the 7th commandment). But if I preach a homily JUSTIFYING my crime based on a theological theory that human beings really don't have private property and thus I really didn't do anything wrong... I would be committing an act of heresy, which is also a sin.
Heresy comes into play when people try to JUSTIFY what the Church has already settled to be morally or theologically unsound or wrong.
Fr Feeny was convicted of heresy for trying to teach that extra ecclesiam nulla salus means all non-Catholics who die are ipso facto damned. He didn't personally damn anyone (nor did he have the "power") but he taught as true that which wasn't true. Sure, he was right on 99% of other Catholic teachings but that 1% that he came down on wrong was what made him a heretic.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.
The Roman Catholic Church's official news service quoted an unnamed Vatican official on Tuesday as saying John Kerry was "not a heretic" for his stance on abortion rights. These cowards who are selling out the legacy of the martyrs like John Fisher and Thomas More are going to answer to God for their actions. Remember the millstone story of the Lord.The article by The Catholic News Service also quoted an unnamed Vatican official as saying Mr. Kerry was not about to be excommunicated because "you can incur excommunication" automatically "only if you procure or perform an abortion."
The article came after a conservative Catholic canon lawyer who is trying to get Mr. Kerry excommunicated publicized a letter that was drafted at the request of a high-ranking Vatican official, a letter that the lawyer said indicated that Mr. Kerry should be excommunicated because he supported abortion rights.
-- M. Turner (Mops224@yahoo.com), October 24, 2004.
he believes a woman has the right to an abortion should she so choose and that this choice is between "her, God and her doctor".i hate that quote. the choice is between her and her doctor, no God involved. God made his decision on that a long time ago, so the question, for Him, is moot.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 24, 2004.
Sorry Joe but you’re fudging the point. I’ve never seen or heard any quote from Kerry saying abortion is anything other than morally wrong. Kerry (and many other politicians) say that although they regard abortion as immoral they do not want the State to make it illegal. This is an argument I strongly disagree with, but it’s not heresy. Saying that a woman should have the LEGAL “right” to an abortion is not the same thing as saying that abortion is MORALLY right. Are you saying that everything which is immoral must be made illegal in secular law? And that every Catholic legislator who opposes this course of action is a heretic?Certainly the civil law SHOULD be BASED on moral law, especially on something as basic as the right to life of all human beings. However it is NOT an article of the Catholic faith that civil law MUST exactly reflect the moral law, even in its most basic requirements, although the latter is of course very strongly to be desired.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 24, 2004.
Are you saying that everything which is immoral must be made illegal in secular law?That depends on how immoral it is, in the case of abortion, yes! What would you think about infanticide? Say the Congress wanted to make it legal to "change your mind" about having a kid and wanted to say a child would not be considered a person until age 2, before that the parents could have them euthanized and call it an abortion. Would you object if Kerry said that he was morally opposed to that, but would vote FOR it, as we are a secular society?
That sounds like something he'd do, btw, given his record on abortion.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 25, 2004.
actually steve,Are you saying that everything which is immoral must be made illegal in secular law?
if you add in one word here to make it "everything which is GRAVELY immoral must be illegal in secular law" then YES YES YES. this is a correct statement. the whole purpose of civil law is to enforce the infractions of the moral law. grave infractions are to be gravely forbidden in civil law.
And that every Catholic legislator who opposes this course of action is a heretic?
YES!!! If they are catholic then they truly believe it is wrong, and will jeopardize a person's soul, they MUST attempt to put an end to such action.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 25, 2004.
Frank of course I “would object” if Kerry voted for murder of neonates to be legalized, just as I strenuously object to his voting for murder of fetuses to remain legal. But in neither case would it make him a heretic.Something is either immoral or it’s not. Sure murder is a mortal sin. So are adultery, homosexual sodomy and sexual abuse of children. Plenty of Catholic politicians voted to legalize the first two of these without being accused of heresy. And you may say “well murder is the worst sin of all”, but some in this forum have argued that rape, or sexual abuse of children, is worse than murder.
And you are surely aware, though I also disagree strongly with them on this point, that Kerry & co. argue that they are trying to DECREASE the number of abortions, as they claim it would continue underground to a greater extent if it was illegal. As I said I think they're badly mistaken, but you can't claim that their actions spring from a heretical belief that abortion is a good and moral thing which they are trying to promote.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 25, 2004.
OK Steve, let's use the internet shall we?Exibit number one. Official statement from Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Applauds Senator Kerry's Unwavering Commitment to Women's Reproductive Rights Statement by Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Gloria Feldt
Washington, DC - Last night, in Tempe, Arizona, the site of the third and final presidential debate, Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Gloria Feldt released the following statement applauding Senator Kerry's unequivocal statements in support of women's rights:
"This evening John Kerry has again shown his complete and unwavering commitment to women's reproductive rights. In stark contrast to the current administration -- which refuses to level with the women of America -- a Kerry-Edwards administration will stand up for the fundamental rights of women domestically and globally, and ensure that women's health is a centerpiece of its agenda. That's why the Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed John Kerry for president.
"We must stop the Bush administration's war on choice.
"This president has restricted access to contraception and medically accurate sex education that can help reduce the need for abortion. He also he has consistently nominated anti-choice ideologues to the federal courts who are hostile to a woman's right to privacy and right to choose, painting a clear picture of what another four years of a Bush presidency would hold for women in this country and around the world."
The Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed John Kerry for president on April 23, 2004. That announcement marked the first time in the history of the nonpartisan, independent Planned Parenthood Action Fund that it had endorsed a candidate in a presidential race. For more information on the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood's political programs, go to www.plannedparenthoodvotes.org.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.
MASSACHUSETTS
Here is Planned Parenthood's score card for Senators
Now, Steve, if you are right that it's OK for Catholics to be pro- choice but anti-abortion (though there doesn't seem to be difference in the effect of such a stance) please explain why two senators, both Catholic, both legally fulfilling their roles in our Constitutional system, can have such different scores from Planned Parenthood?
MA Senate State Name Position Score MA John Kerry (D) Pro 100%
PENNSYLVANIA Senate State Name Position Score PA Richard Santorum (R) Anti 0%
You want us to believe that both Catholic senators believe that Abortion is immoral but differ in their estimation as to how to end this immoral activity? Kerry - claiming he thinks it's immoral in ONE debate in his 20 year history, has don't NOTHING to limit or end it, while everything to promote and entrench it as a right and good....whereas another Catholic Senator thinks its immoral and hence shouldn't be enshrined further in our system.
What's not happening here?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.
So let's connect the dots shall we? For 20 years a so-called Catholic senator goes out of his way to support Planned Parenthood - and gets a 100% pro-abort score. He goes above and beyond the call of duty so to speak - yet you think he believes abortion is an immoral choice?How many men go out of their way to support and promote a choice that they believe to be deeply immoral?
The internet is vast my friend. Shall I dredge up direct quotes of Kerry addressing IPPF and praising that "choice"? What then? Will you admit that those expressions of belief in abortion as a good would be heretical?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.
Quotes from John Forbes Kerry"KERRY: The president didn't answer the question. I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the 1st Amendment, or the 5th Amendment, or some other right that's given under our Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right. I don't intend to see it undone. Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it."
"...But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to make that judgment. You can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them
Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO Oct 8, 2004
No criminalization of a woman's right to choose "The Republicans want to criminalize the right of women to choose, take us back to the days of back alleys, gag doctors and deny families the right to plan and be aware of their choices - we Democrats want to protect the constitutional right of privacy and make clear that at the center of this struggle is our commitment to have a Supreme Court that will protect the equal rights, the civil rights, and the right to choose in this nation." Source: Keynote Speech to Massachusetts Democratic Issues Convention Jun 7, 2003
So clearly he thinks that abortion is a fundamental right - something enshrined in the Constitution on par with equal and civil rights... if this is his opinion, STEVE, can you continue to believe that he thinks abortion is immoral?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.
I repeat Joe, believing that abortion should be a legal right in the Constitution is NOT the same thing as believing that it is morally right. The Constitution is not the source of morality. Anyone who DID think it is WOULD be a heretic. No one doubts that Kerry is pro- abortion. The point which you seem to be unable to grasp is that he is not a heretic. As even that quote you give from Planned Parenthood mentions, people like Kerry think that what they are doing will “reduce the need for abortions”. He is mistaken, but that does not make him a heretic.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 25, 2004.
So, let's say, 50 percent or more of the people in the U.S., along with their powerful lobby, decide that it's time to send another minority to the chambers (Christians aren't well-liked in this nation). Well, according to Senator Kerry, he would be obliged to go along with the will of the people! And it's not REALLY so preposterous, is it? After all, Nazi Germany went along with Hitler's Final Solution, didn't they?And let's not forget that Kerry voted to ban the ban on partial birth abortion, a practice clearly abhorred by close to 80% of U.S. citizens. How come he doesn't "stand for the people" there? Most Americans wish for a ban on gay marriage, but Kerry is not standing up for them, is he? No, he's decided that his conscience can't convict him there either.
The man is an idealogical flip-flop, being paid big bucks by the abortion industry. He's nothing more than a "gun for hire." Only his ammo is "legislation-to-die-for."
Here's the real scary thing about Kerry . . . what will the activist judges get by with under his leadership? Absolutely anything they want. Do you think he'll step in like Bush did? No way!
Steve, here's a challenge for you: Find one person in the Bible, New Testament or Old, that hedged on principals, and got God's approval! Like how about the Good Lord just said, "That's okay, Moses, I know you had the 'will of the people to consider,' when they made that golden calf."
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 25, 2004.
Sigh! Gail, Joe et al, you seem to think I need convincing that Kerry is pro-abortion, a man who hedges on principles, a man who is clearly not a Bible hero. I agree with you. But these are beside the point. HE’s NOT A HERETIC! Btw the last time I checked, Christians (yes even practising Christians) were a majority, not a minority, in the USA.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 25, 2004.
HE’s NOT A HERETIC!his heresy lies not in his pro abortion stance... what makes him a heretic is the constant assertion that religion is subserviant to the secular government and that God's law should not guide the laws of men. THAT is wrong.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 26, 2004.
Not only that paul h, but he is leading a "schism." He and other Catholic politicians TOGETHER are leading Catholics into SCHISM by their repeated denial of the faith!
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 26, 2004.
From the St.Petersburg Times today:The Massachusetts senator is a Catholic who tends to keep his faith to himself, but later Sunday a speech outlining how his faith guides his priorities drew cheers.
"I know there are some bishops who have suggested that as a public official I must cast votes or take positions - on issues like a woman's right to choose and stem cell research - that carry out the tenets of the Catholic Church. I love my church. I respect the bishops, but I respectfully disagree," Kerry said.
"My task as I see it is not to write every doctrine into law. That is not possible or right in a pluralistic society. But my faith does give me values to live by and apply to the decisions I make."
So let's see here... he allows his faith to influence his decisions - when they have nothing to do with key non-negotiable issues like life, but then "respectfully" disagrees with clear, absolutely simple Catholic teaching on abortion?
Steve, the mere fact that he has gone OUT OF HIS WAY to PROMOTE abortion shows that he can't possibly think that he is really helping limit it! That's like thinking that Auschwitz was really a tool to stop anti-semitism since once Europe had no more jews, there wouldn't be a reason for Europeans to hate them.
No, LATELY he has been circumspect in his wording about abortion - but before he was quite vocal in claiming that abortion is a positive good - a right, as right and good as civil rights and equality.
That's what the heresy is - he believes women have some sort of power to choose to kill their offspring and that the Supreme Court was right in creating this right. If he didn't then he'd join the other Catholic senators in working on legal ways to limit abortion through education, alternatives, etc.
Nowhere did the Roe v Wade or Dolton rules dictate that Congress had to fund abortion here or abroad - yet Kerry has worked constantly to push federal funding! How could he do so if he really, really thinks it's immoral?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 26, 2004.
"I know there are some bishops who have suggested that as a public official I must cast votes or take positions - on issues like a woman's right to choose and stem cell research - that carry out the tenets of the Catholic Church. I love my church. I respect the bishops, but I respectfully disagree,"This always sounds so much like "i have a values system, but I'm willing to do ANYTHING to get your vote for president."
I dont want a person like this running our country. I want someone of firm values who USES those values to make decisions. Present me with two people who WILL use their values to make decisions and I will vote for the one who's values match mine most closely. THATS what democracy is about... not watering down ones policy to the point that its an inneffective medicine that anybody can swallow but being of character and allowing the people to decide what is right for america. Kerry doesnt care about getting the president with stalwart values who is best for the job in office. he cares about getting himself in office.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 26, 2004.
Steve,I'd agree with you that he's not a heretic in that he isn't saying "the Catholic church believes abortion is moral". If that's the source of this argument, it's probably a lot of wasted heat. OTOH, if the REAL question is "is this someone a Catholic should want as President", the answer is an unqualified NO. How could you put someone who has a litmus test for Supreme Court judges of continuing to kill American children into the Presidency?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 26, 2004.
If one is to consider that results count when judging a political policy and if Kerry seeks to follow Clinton’s social policy regarding actual abortion rates then please take note of this articlehttp://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/11/oped- stassen1011-5709.html
-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 26, 2004.
How can there be an "erroneous conscience" on the matter of a direct abortion? It is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that those who defend and/or promote direct abortion are as guilty of the crime as if they procured the abortion for themselves (Canon 2350 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law). The penalty for such a crime: excommunication — and this penalty is automatic. Therefore, the politicians we speak of are excommunicated Catholics — they are outside the fold, and have no right to the Sacraments (even the modern ones). This is so because they both encourage and make possible (by legal statute and by public funding) the procuring of direct abortions on the basis of a moral and personal "freedom" for such an act. Ever since the Church has had to legislate on such matters, never could it have been dreamt that Her laws on the subject of direct abortion would be impugned in a scandalously public manner by those claiming to be Her children, and that those claiming authority over these people would not bar the Sacraments to them. If God punished the immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from Heaven, what can we expect in our times?
-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.cim), October 26, 2004.
Meyer, I guess you haven’t heard the news. The 1917 code of canon law has long been superseded. And there are no “modern sacraments”. The 7 sacraments we have were all instituted 2000 years ago.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 26, 2004.
"I know there are some bishops who have suggested that as a public official I must cast votes or take positions - on issues like a woman's right to choose and stem cell research - that carry out the tenets of the Catholic Church. I love my church. I respect the bishops, but I respectfully disagree," Kerry said.He is a schismatic leading probably millions into schism with him! Steve, how does not NOT fit the definition of schism!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 26, 2004.
Steve,Why do you come to Kerry's defense? Do you defend the man -has he really ever been in question -is he not redeemable? --are his actions?
Kerry is a big boy -his final judgement is his alone -waste not your arguments on those who understand and attempt to be obedient to Truth -contact Kerry and give him a clue...
Kerry's conscience is unknown to both you & I -as is his fate... - to argue such issues is missing the point, maybe intentinally, much as one losing a debate argues terminology rather than substance...
The issues in question that Kerry supports, advocates and teaches by example are heretical -his actions are objectively in error -and he continues obstinately in his errors -period.
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 26, 2004.
Gail, even if he were a schismatic that would not make him a heretic.Daniel, I am not “defending” Kerry. I have continually made it plain that I strongly disagree with him. I just object to people thoughtlessly tossing unfounded epithets like “heretic” at him without considering the facts. By doing so they are exposing to ridicule their own otherwise strong case against him. “Heretic” has a specific meaning, it is not just an all-purpose insult for someone who disagrees with the bishops.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 26, 2004.
Hi Steve hope alls well, looks like the forum is keeping your hands full! Sheesh at first I thought the moon must be full, talk about the silly season, hurry up Nov 2. Pellegrino your evil attempts( re Paul M) to divide and rule will fall flat. You show all the understanding on Catholic moral teachings as your average newborn Burmese hamster. On whose authority, pray may I ask, should we accept your self styled theology on? Please present your credentials. To be continued...
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 27, 2004.
Howdy Cowgirl Gail hope lifes treeating you well, I meant to reply to you earlier when you mentioned my name in another political thread a while ago, but Ive decided to take Johnny Cash's advice!"Now this should be a lesson if you plan to start a folk group Don't go mixin' politics with the folk songs of our land Just work on harmony and diction Play your banjo well And if you have political convictions keep them to yourself"
Peace!
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 27, 2004.
Kiwi, my dear dear friend. I MISS YOU DUDE! You still riding those kangaroos down under? And how in the world did ya know I play a banjo!So you checked out that political thread, did you? And what pray tell, did you think?
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 27, 2004.
Steve.You say that the 1917 code of canon law does no longer have authority. It is according to what you point out that is important. Minor things can be changed but doctrine cannot be changed. Abortion leads to ipso facto excommunication, and that cannot be abrogated, even by a pope.It is an intrisic evil, it always was and always will be.
As for the sacraments, I did some studies on it and was surprised to find that the form has been changed, not on one but on all seven. Does that make them invalid? I don't know, but I certainly makes me uncomfortable.
When the Anglicans changed the form, they no longer had valid sacraments (according to the popes), so I still feel uncomfortable about it.
-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 27, 2004.
I did some studies on it and was surprised to find that the form has been changed, not on one but on all seven.well its a good thing you understand the difference between form and essense. the sacraments are NOT modern, they are the same as ever. Simple reflection on the essense of the sacraments' nature of being should reveal that.
Does that make them invalid? I don't know, but I certainly makes me uncomfortable.
good thing you have a pope who is led by the Holy Spirit to set your mind at ease then. There isn't a need to be uncomfortable with the sacraments, in current form or the antiquated.
When the Anglicans changed the form, they no longer had valid sacraments (according to the popes), so I still feel uncomfortable about it.
its not the anglicans changing the form that makes a lick of difference. it could be done in exactly the same manner by an anglican "priest" and most of the sacraments (except baptism/marraige) would STILL be invalid. The reason for this is not lack of form, but rather lack of the powers enumerated by apostolic succession, which is mandatory for the majority of the sacraments. as a seeming "trad" you SHOULD know this already.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 27, 2004.
Paul,I appreciate your quick response,but I resent you putting a label on as 'A seeming trad'. I Just want to know more about the Church and seek answers. I am not afraid of what I will find at the end of the search.
Paul, you are up on these matters, so would you please explain to me why they were changed. What was the need. I am truly puzzled about this.
-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 27, 2004.
Hi Gail I had no idea you played the banjo, though you might like Cash though being a country gal! Im still in Western Australia , Ive been promoted and now run my own crew doing exploration geophysical work looking for nickel and gold. Tough remote work, long stints of months at a time in the bush but good money. Im on break so I thought Id catch up with you all.Honesty I cant recall the thread beyond you asking "where the heck is Kiwi", but really I believe that the political spectrum in the US is so narrow that the distinctions between left and right in practical terms are often little more than cosmetic, with both parties being remarkable only in their similarity.
Your media from what I have read is virtually impotent and very shallow- little more than a propaganda machine for the establishment and any opposition to the many evil acts your governement/big business condones becomes an unspeakable truth, and I mean unspeakable. Those who dare speak out like Vidal or Choimsky are black listed despite many of their arguments being irrefutable they will never get an airing, its not in the "national interest" you see.
Personal moral issues, so much easier to deal with than "real issues" for the media beome the main focus, the whole process becomes corrupted by money.In true American style, "bigger is best", the whole process becomes a slick, tacky, overstated marketing campaign of catch phrases and throw away sound bites. I dont know Gail Im just very cynical re politics, its essentially a circus show where the characters remain the same to me controlled by the elite, who wish to allow us to feel involved. Believe in a party if you wish but politics isnt for me and the real power doesnt lie in the masses. ANyway its late Ive ranted enough for one day! God Bless Gail take care
ps make sure you have your say and register to vote now ;)
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 27, 2004.
Can anyone explain to me why Noam is considered an expert in everything especially geo-politics? I mean, I understand he had some breakthrough work on the development of reason in children but come on...what creditials does he have to be taken at anything other than his own word for things?
-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.
Those who dare speak out like Vidal or Chomsky are black listed despite many of their arguments being irrefutable they will never get an airing, its not in the "national interest" you see.Kiwi,
Don't fret, Chomskyism is alive and well (unfortunately) in the corridors of American "academic" institutions, media rooms, and other liberal bastions as well as all over the world. The New York Times has called Chomsky "arguably the most important intellectual alive." Between 1972 and 1992, Chomsky was the most cited living author and eighth most cited source overall, just behind Freud, Plato and the Bible. I doubt if that has changed too much in 2004.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 27, 2004.
being most cited *by the NYT no less doesn't make one an "intellectual"! Britany Speers is probably cited more often than Choam...does that make her an intellectual giant?Being famous isn't the same thing as being right - and in Noam's case, being an expert in child development doesn't make him an expert in geo-politics, economics, God and the public good.
Every time you see some talking head introduced as an "expert" on this or that on TV you have to ask yourself: why? Is so and so the very best mind on the subject or merely the ONLY person that channel was able to get at a moment's notice?
Having some experience with the Media I think it's mostly the latter not the former.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.
Hi Brian "PHEW" ! Ill take your word for it that the US public is well aware of the many acts of illegal state sponsered terrorism, (close to 300 since 1945 at last count, and that doesnt include millitary operations) your nation has carried out against legitmiate soverign nations.Normally because that nation has done something so outrageous as to chose a political ideology Washington doesnt agree with. HOW DARE THEY! LETS KILL THEM!I hope the US public is well aware that outside direct acts of terrorism ,it has also given support and training to many evil, evil men in the name of fighting poltical ideologies-Osmama Bin laden and Saddam being two notable examples. I hope they're aware of the innocent blood on their own hands. I rest easy in the knowledge that the US public is aware of the many instances whereby the US flouts UN resolutions and world court orders at will, all because it can. I hope the people of the US are aware of its voting record in the UN and dispiciable use of its veto power, (often the only nation to vote against, and block many resolutions on the environment, nuclear diarmament, arms control, human rights, Palestinain statehood etc etc). This occurs because as far as America is concerned, THEY WILL SET THE AGENDA FOR THE WORLD, not vice versa, theyre not about to be dictated to by something as superfluous as the will of the global community. If as seen as not in your "national interest", an interest defined not by moral principles or international law or the global good ,BUT by the power, greed and control of an unseen elite establishment then it wont happen, period .
I accept that "thats life", always has been always will be.Youre top dog, you are the worlds sole economic, poitical and millitary superpower and you can do as you wish. There is no "jealously" on my behalf or on most of the rest of the world who object to what they see as your empire building merely a sadness in the knoweldge that its not right or just and that it doesnt have to be this way. I cant say that if New Zealand wielded such enormous power we would be any better or worse.
(HA! look out Brian, we have an operational army of around 3,000 men, no tanks, no attack aircrat of any sort, no weapons of mass destruution of any sort, no submarines and a mighty fleet of two operational frigtes,... were coming to get YOU!
I believe that the principles your founding fathers established are of course very good and noble causes and for the most part the US upholds these. I wonder though what your founding fathers would think of the Patriot ACt, Homeland "Security", etc etc. I hope AMericans wake up to whats happening to their republic, a Orwellian 1984 prototype in the "land of the free".
Im quite sure to the average AMerican I sound like a complete left wing nut case, proof enough that real open debate in your media does not occur, and that the black lisiting of those whom oppose the "orthodox" history of your nation outside academic circles is very real. I have nothing against the American people, people are people. Its all too easy to dismiss such rantings as mere "anti AMericanism" but perhaps not very wise.
Peace!
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 28, 2004.
Hi Joe. I dont really know Chomskys credentials other than he was a leader in linguistics (sp?), and as such has a very good understanding of how words should be used most efectively to convey a point- and I knew of course he is revered by the left.I guess when I think about my personal favourite Christian writers (and arguably the two greatest Christian writers of recent times), Chesterton and Lewis, its interesting that they were not trained theologians but authors. The point is that what all good writers , such as Chomsky, Lewis and Chesterton possess, is the gift of clarity. Chomsky takes this gift of clarity and combines it with a remarkable general and historical knowlege knowledge and an enormous intelect, capable of striking logic.
Most importantly to me every assertion he makes referenced and in context. He is light years ahead of his conservative opponents and fellow liberal authors in this regard -one only needs to contrast his geo-political thoughts with someone like like neo concervative Robert Kaplan to relaise we are dealing with someone very special.
I have only read one of his books, "Hegemony or Survival" but his argumets are compelling and perhaps, although it sounds outlandish to say so, as the blurb suggests, "irrefutable". Unlike a Moore or to lesser extent Vidal he is no sensantionalist who plays fast and loose with the truth. You sense in the rational tone carryfully measured words he uses that here is man who values the truth.
I can only assume given your comments that you have not read his recent geo political works.
Peace!
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2004.
Hopefully you can decipher my broken english.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2004.
I totally agree with you Kiwi about the need for constant American vigilance over our freedoms from ever more intrusive government. I have been watching the whole Patriot Act thing very closely as one who remembers when the Bill Clinton Justice Department probed every single major pro-life organization back in the 1990's looking for conspiratorial connections with Oklahoma City and white gun nut extremists. They found nothing - but slapped the pro-lifers around anyway using the RICO statutes designed to counter the mafia.So far no otherwise law abiding American Citizen has been robbed of life, liberty or property by police welding the Patriot Act as an excuse.... and I tend to think that maybe it's only because John Ashcroft and not someone like Janet Reno is top dog at DOJ.
The only people hauled off to Cuba were caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan - not off main street USA minding their own business.
But your point is noted and I can assure you that lots of people are watching the situation closely for any sign of heavy handed intrusion.
People are especially interested in the 2nd amendment battles being waged and find it very interesting that those who favor bigger more intrusive government also are in favor of gun registration, confiscation, and heavy taxation on legal firearms....
Don't we all wonder why tyrants can do whatever they want in 3rd world countries? The answer lies in the fact that in those countries the general population is either disarmed or lightly armed.
The founding fathers in this country believed that every able bodied man was a member of the "unorganized militia" - and hence, every voting citizen was potentially also a soldier able to beat back tyranny with the same infantry weapons would-be tyrants would arm their hench men with.
In our Civil War well over half the officer corps of the standing army and many of the cadets in military academies seceded from the Union - without state and local militias the USA would have lost and the CSA would have survived with slavery to this day.
Thus Americans rightly realize that at the end of the day rights come down to government respect of the people - and respect ultimately rests on numbers voting (if law is still respected) or numbers resisting through the barrel of a gun if law is no longer respected.
In most angry political battles these days violence does not produce bloodshed - even in our society awash in guns - because most people realize that a) there is a political solution so shooting first is counter productive and b) the people and police do not tolerate those who shoot first. But if only one class or party were armed to the teeth... the temptation would be there.
This is why most Americans support keeping the 2nd amendment untouched and are afraid of absolute minorities undermining it via the courts.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 29, 2004.
Kiwi,When are you due back in the bush? Just kidding ;~) It's nice to hear your thoughts, some of which I happen to agree with. I appreciate that your anti-Americanism is confined to the activities of the government and not extended to the American people, the Joe- Six packs as they say. I think most who are anti-whatever government make the same distinction.
Your points about the American media being impotent and shallow are well taken. The television media is basically worthless. If one desires good analysis, he usually subscribes to certain magazines, reads certain books, or bookmarks certain websites. Where we differ, perhaps, is that you seem to think this is something peculiar to American society. I've been to New Zealand and the media didn't seem any different to me. I've been to Italy and France and the media didn't seem any different to me. I've been to Mexico and the media didn't seem any different to me. Just because Chomsky says he has been blacklisted does not make it so. In 2004 he has had 4 articles published in newspapers: one in the Khaleej Times, two in the Toronto Star and one in the New York Times. Maybe French newspapers are blacklisting him (sarcasm). He thinks the New York Times is more sympathetic to Zionists because Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman (NYT uber-liberal columnists) are Jews, and maybe so--I don't know. But they are much, much more sympathetic to Chomsky's views, and Michael Moore's,and yours Kiwi, than they are to George Bush's or mine.
Regarding your rant about American "terrorism" and the like. What's your solution Kiwi? I know, I know, a world run by the United Nations with them setting the agenda for the US. If the US would just should surrender its national sovereignty to a world court and subject its national security to a Chinese or French veto we could all breathe easy that the Yankee "empire builders" won't strike. But for an empire builder, deemed as the world's "sole economic, political, and military superpower" (your words), I would say the US is quite restrained. Being a Chomsky fan, you may be inclined to acknowledge only American misdeeds, as he does, or be an apologist for American foes, yet this is no better than "my country right or wrong" nationalism.
300 terrorist acts? Would you care to elaborate? OBL and Saddam getting support from the US. Yes, that makes a good sound bite, but is the fact that it was to aid Afghani militias against the Soviets or to curb the dangerous Khomeini government too contextual for you? Patriot Act--I pretty much echo Joe. Homeland Security--more bloated bureaucracy. I agree, our founding Fathers would blanch at the country we have become in many ways -- abortion on demand, federalism, pornography, etc. etc. It's crazy. You don't sound like a left wing nut. You sound like a mainstream liberal American. Enjoy your break and say hi to my brother and his family down in NZ. Yes, I have a Kiwi brother, sister-in-law, and nephews.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 29, 2004.
Hey Kiwi,How long are you going to be back on board with us?
Everytime I post anything remotely critical of our government (or suspicious) everyone here thinks I'm a conspiracy nut! That's why you saw my plea "Where the heck is Kiwi?" on that other thread. You see, some of the things you said a couple of years ago sort of predisposed me to see things from another angle NOW, post 9/11.
Do you hear alot of conspiracy theories about 9/11 in Australia. (I thought you were in New Zealand. Did you move?)
Gail
P.S. Wow, what an exciting life you live! A regular Crocodile Dundee you are! I was just kidding about the banjo, though I do play the piano and 12 string.
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 29, 2004.
Kia ora Brian!I know, I know, a world run by the United Nations with them setting the agenda for the US. If the US would just should surrender its national sovereignty to a world court and subject its national security to a Chinese or French veto we could all breathe easy that the Yankee "empire builders" won't strike.
No I don’t think that’s a fair or accurate appraisal of the role of the United Nations. I don’t think the UN is trying to set the agenda for the US at all, perhaps the WTO and the IMF, but not the UN. The UN does not question your nations right to "self defence" or threaten "national sovereignty", although scare mongers on the right love to paint such a scene. I think in quiet moment of mature reflection you would admit that no one is asking your nation to do such things.
Without wanting to sound like an broken record, the principle of "self interest" guiding nation states needs to have limits placed on it, as nations will, in trying to extend their sphere of influence power and control, often come into conflict with other. States will often act in immoral ways in order to extend their own power. The US cannot be exempt from international law when it suits its own interests, and you must recognise that in matters not related to national sovereignty you need to respect the will of the global community and the importance of international law.
For sure the principles your nation is based on, and your own domestic checks and balances ensure that you do not abuse your power as frequently or as openly as other nations may do. However to argue that because "it could be worse" international law is now irrelevant is , to my mind, highly irrational and highly dangerous.
The precedent of pre-emptive war, with no clear or present danger to your national security, set by the Bush administration in regard to the Iraqi war, (right or wrong), has enormous implications, in my opinion. Despite the good result achieved and the removal of an evil man, it has made the world a much less safe and secure place to live IMHO.
Clearly this is something we can disagree on, but you cannot dispute what has changed in the last four years is how the world views not only America but how America views the world. What has shifted is that those who were once moderate/sympathetic in their outlook towards the US are now far more critical and concerned. It has not so much deepened the divisions between the worlds pro/anti US factions but united them as a single voice- conservative , liberal, Christian, Muslim, secular alike. In your own nation from all reports the world is now a bystander to be consulted after the fact, (at best an irritating afterthought) and often, incredibly given the circumstances, a source of real pain and confusion- "why do they hate us?".
Being a Chomsky fan, you may be inclined to acknowledge only American misdeeds, as he does, or be an apologist for American foes, yet this is no better than "my country right or wrong" nationalism.
I don’t know if Ima fan, but re reading my reply to Joe it certainly sounds that way! I take your point Brian I don’t need to tell you how great your nation is. I think everyone knows just how great America is, I cant wait to visit, providing the Homeland depart let me in, but I think the pro BUSH position on this, a supposedly politically neutral Catholic board is already well represented, don’t you? The size of my cd collection and my fanatical devotion to the Seattle grunge music of the early to mid 90s and more recently alternative US country rock is a testament to that, America rocks. No one in the world can escape your cultural influence its everywhere in what we eat, drink smoke, wear, listen, watch, speak, think, desire ….the ironic global blandness of “ individualism” don’t get me started…
As I said I accept the reality of the position you are in as well as acknowledge the freedoms I hold are in no small part due to the sacrifices made by your nation in the two World Wars. Yet you cant let your own nations contribution to freedom mean we all owe you eternal fawning admiration wrong or right, we all paid the price for freedom, few made as great a sacrifice in lives, in per capita terms as the men of New Zealand. The success against Hitler had, arguably, more to do with Russia’s monumental sacrifices than your own nations significant, although belated, entry to the war yet Russia rarely makes such demands of such gratitude’s.
300 terrorist acts? Would you care to elaborate?
No I don’t have time today to dig out the records but I can do so and even provide the World Court orders that demand you stop mining the Nicaraguan harbour, and accuse you of terrorist activities in that nation, although you can confirm this yourself its all documented- we are talking mainly CIA covert operations, often in Latin America esp. 1980s against elected governments who either didn’t toe the Washington line or were simply considered as communist or socialist leaning. How are relations with Haiti these days?
Peace!
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2004.
Hi Gail Ive only got a few more days break but Im certainly making up for lost time online, Im an adict- I really miss the intellectual side of researching theology . Still I enjoy the feeling at the end of a day doing physical work, and while Im fit and young enough to do so, it beats working inside hands down. It really is WIld West stuff, no crocidiles though, just about anything else that stings or bites out here, as well as Camels, DIngoes, EMus and Kangaroos by the thousands.Yeah I heard a few 9/11 theories, but to be honest they seemed a little far fetched even for me! Funnily enough I saw the Manchurian Candidate at the movies last night I had no real idea what it was about other than I had heard Denziel Washnington was talking Oscar material, strange coincidence though after talking about corporate influence on politics, and a good movie. Please dont take anything I say too seriously Im just a loudmouth entertaining myself!
Back to talking about religion then... ;)
Courtenay
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2004.
Yeah, I know Kiwi. As I recall, one of my first encounters with you was you "telling me off" whilst you were drunker than a skunk! Boy, you really ticked me off! (And I think it was about politics too!) But you were such a gentleman the next day, and apologized "once you sobered up"!How's your journey of faith these days anyway? Last I remember, you were heading into some 'Christian-philosophical' stuff. What are you into these days -- theology-wise?
Gail
P.S. You guys don't eat kangaroos, do you?
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 30, 2004.
Ahhh yessss there are a few demons there for sure, probably still dormant but Ive managed to get the booze pretty much under control, without totlaly giving it away but I still have the odd "shocker" every now and then..Gail Im in limbo really- part of me wants to give everything and I mean everything, away and get really serious about my faith, the other part is telling me religion in general is insane. Bi polar or what! I am a weak man in some respects I think, I know all the reading of books wont change a thing unless I let God into my heart but its the "emotional leap" thing that bothers me- Im constantly anaylsing my reactions/emotions to prayer and reflection, trying to explain them. Yet I still believe so thats something to work from eh.
If you or anyone has been through this and has any thoughts Id apprecite them.My workmates are not the most god fearing bunch you would ever meet and I dont know any Catholics at all in AUstrlaia, religion here,like back home for my generation is simply non existant.
Peace!
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2004.
You're in good company, Kiwi, for it was the Apostle Paul who said "the good that I wish to do I do not do, and the bad that I do not wish to do, I do!" One would think that St. Paul had a bit of the bi-polar too!It must be very difficult for you, being isolated as you are, to feel a connectiveness with Christ's body . . . his Church . . . and with the head of His Church -- Himself! I must pray that God would bring godly influences into your pathway.
I think I had recommended Ravi Zacharias to you before, and I still do. He wrote a book about Oscar Wilde that carries a hypothetical conversation between Wilde and Jesus. If you interested, I will find it and link it to you. Oscar Wilde of course, was one interesting "bi-polar" fellow himself, though I doubt you come anywhere near to delving into the arts of the flesh, as did Wilde, and yet apparently when he came to the end of his life, he finally gave into the Call (or so they say). He had a great heart for Christ on one side, but ohhhh that dark side!
Let me know, I'll find it for you!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 31, 2004.