----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:24 PM Subject: Re: The Vatican and the US elections
> At 08:04 PM 3/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: > >But how do you see Kerry being a candidate being an issue in the > >Vatican's name. > >The Vatican doesn't own anybody, nor does it control anyone's personal > >opinion. > >Issues of American governance are not the Vatican's problem. > > Kerry has become one of the most visible Catholics in the United States. > Moreover, he has publicly stated hat he finds no difference between > Catholicism and promoting abortion. Is that worded the way you mean it? Because I doubt any politician would claim that he "promotes" abortion. I could understand if he said that he found that his faith and his stand on choice were not mutually exclusive, but the way you write it sounds a bit mistated. > > Given that assisting in the procurement of an abortion is grounds for > automatic excommunication from the Catholic faith, surely the Catholic > Church has the right to note that it does not consider John Kerry to be a > Catholic in good standing. Since Kerry has held that position for many years and the Catholic Church waits until he is a presidential candidate to make an issue of it is a sign of meddling. If his bishop or his parish priest makes comment, I don't see that as much of a problem. But remember, the Vatican itself has made comments, and people who are close to the Vatican have made comments, and I do see that as a problem. The Vatican making comments is exactly as wrong as frex France or Germany stating a preference for a candidate since these individuals are mostly not US citizens and their loyalty is not to the US. In the case of those who are close to the Vatican (and I agree that this is a bit iffy), their loyalty is most likely to Church dogma and less likely loyalty to America and its tradition of choice. (Yes, I recognise that you yourself fight against choice in regards to abortion, but as things stand, there is choice in America ATM. I'm not trying to disregard that it is at issue also.) > Moreover, surely it also has the right to warn > the faithful that John Kerry is misrepresenting Catholic teaching? Sure! If it limits itself to correcting a misapprehension (or outright lie) on the part of a candidate and leaves it at that. But that is not what is happening here. What is happening is that a candidates character is being questioned, which is perfectly OK for you or I to do, but is not OK for foriegn powers, which in this regard the Vatican is. > > Your raising the old saws about Catholic plots to take over the country is > tantamount to prohibiting the Catholic Church from freely exercising its > relgion. LOL! Not quite what I was getting at. I'm claiming that they are trying to influence an election (from the Vatican) in order to promote their own agenda. But I don't believe it is a conspiracy, its more like they are simply promoting their beliefs without having thought out every implication of their actions. If they thought they had a shot at eliminating birth control in America they would try that too. On that thought, do you think that use of birth control is grounds for excommunication? I haven't heard much on that front for a couple of decades. > Under your principles, the Catholic Church could not > disassociate itself from any person claiming to be a member of this Church. > Surely they can. For me the issue is that they are being selective as to who and when they wield that power. And that is pretty much what worries me about the situation. xponent Abyss Politics Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
