Posted on 06/09/2004 7:04:05 AM PDT by Theodore R.
The Soul of John Kerry
May 25, 2004
Communion is the central sacrament of the Catholic Church. So once again the question arises: Should the bishops deny it to Catholic politicians who promote abortion?
The issue has heated up because of John Kerry, a Catholic so tepid that until this year few have thought of him as having any religion at all. Suddenly he’s saying his religion is important to him, even though he seems to skip Sunday mass to attend Protestant churches — not so much to worship as to campaign.
Of course a church has the right to deny its sacraments to anyone it deems unfit to receive them, including politicians. The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is “an unspeakable crime.” Kerry has displayed more public enthusiasm for abortion, which he calls a basic right, than for his Church, from which he distances himself. And now he covets the Church’s embrace?
Sure, Kerry’s a hypocrite, comes the reply, but wouldn’t the bishops also be hypocritical if they enforce the ban on abortion but not on, say, capital punishment? But the Church officially condemns abortion; it doesn’t forbid capital punishment in principle. Pope John Paul II has merely given it as his own considered view that in our time capital punishment is no longer defensible. His personal judgment carries weight, but it doesn’t have the status of an official teaching of the Church.
Obviously there are other differences between abortion and the death penalty. Executing a murderer is morally symmetrical — it invokes the ancient rule of an eye for an eye — in a way that killing an unborn child is not. If millions of innocent people were executed without trial every year, there would be a clear parallel. Otherwise, the analogy is strained.
The biggest difference is that even a mass murderer is entitled to a trial. His humanity entitles him to that. He isn’t sentenced to death just because someone wants him killed. He gets due process of law and the presumption of innocence; he gets a lawyer to make a case for his interest; he has to be proved guilty and deserving of execution.
If the judge or a single juror can be shown to have a bias against him or something to gain by his death, the trial is invalidated. His fate must be decided impartially.
All these civilized inhibitions are absent with abortion. The child is sentenced to death by a single interested party who wants him destroyed. His own interest isn’t represented. Even his father has no say. The decision is totally arbitrary; the mother needs no justification beyond the mere desire to be rid of the child.
To Kerry, this is as it should be. He professes to be “personally opposed” to feticide, yet nothing about its nature or the ease with which it’s procured horrifies him, or even disturbs his conscience.
You might think seeing is believing, but even pictures of aborted children bounce off liberals like Kerry the way the Abu Ghraib photos bounce off Rush Limbaugh. They get angrier at the people who show them than at what the pictures show.
Recently a group of Catholic Democrats in Congress objected to any move by the hierarchy to discipline pro-abortion politicians. Considering their own party discipline, this was rich: the Democrats tolerate no real disagreement on abortion, and won’t allow anti-abortion speakers at their own convention.
Indeed, a chief difference between the Catholic Church in America and the Democratic Party is that the Church puts up with a lot of dissent. And having weighed the consequences, Kerry will sooner defy his Church than his party. He gives the impression of a man who sold his soul so long ago that he has no idea where to go to get it back.
That seeming soullessness may even be a political drawback. He’s already notorious for straddling issues and reversing positions. Is there anything left he won’t compromise?
We live in the age of the plastic conscience, and we are used to seeing people “reinvent” themselves in middle age. The idea of maintaining a consistent character over a lifetime is passé. Why go on being the same old person when you can hire consultants and focus groups to show you the way to a whole new self?
Someone has observed that gaining the whole world while losing your soul is a net loss. He obviously wasn’t thinking like a politician.
Joseph Sobran
He might examine it if he could find one.
my main beef with this is that the position of the papacy is that american politicians who are pro-choice be denied the sacraments. why should this apply to politicians only and not all pro-choicers?
My thoughts exactly. Kerry has a soul?
"They looked and found one?"
Great minds...
Every now and then Sobran writes a good column.
He gives the impression of a man who sold his soul so long ago that he has no idea where to go to get it back.
That is a good quote.
It is like the difference between character and reputation. Reputation exists in the minds of other people, who see you appearing to do the right thing. Character is the effort to do what is right even when nobody is looking.
It does apply to all pro-choicers but the church relies on the honor system. They need the revenue. Populous policy makers don't have honor or shame like the rest of us, nor are they big sources of church donations.
It should and will once the Vatican and the American bishops begin to do what is right regardless of the consequences. The idea that you can be Catholic and pro-choice is an oxymoron.
That said, this is an excellent column by Mr. Sobran.
but therein lies the problem: in the US, spousal abuse is illegal, but abortion is legal. isn't this a case where the catholic church is trying to create some defacto policy by propogating religous doctrine into the political realm?
most conservatives are pro-life in that we believe abortion is immoral. most conservatives are also constitutionalists in that we believe the constitution should be followed regardless of ones personal beliefs. this paradigm, one where activism is *rejected* implies that regardless of one's personal opinions or religous convictions, the constitution must be upheld with regards to abortion. until the day comes where it is correctly interpreted or a constitutional amendment banning abortion is enacted, any politician that believes in our system of government should support a woman's right to abortion because it is (at least presently) constitutional.
so that's where your argument falls, in my opinion: any politician that abuses his spouse should be prosecuted by the law because it's illegal. any politician that supports abortion is immune from punishment because (1) it's not illegal to state an opinion; and more importantly (2) abortion is constitutional.
Um, yes. Needed the revenue.
There's also the point that the Church does not do background checks on her members. Nor does she monitor their activities.
Thus, Joe Sixpack, who professes to be Catholic but votes pro-choice is by definition unfit for the Eucharist. But, if chooses to receive it, it is his own soul that bears the sin. The Church has, hopefully, impressed upon him the sinfulness of the action he supports, and the consequences thereof. He has chosen to ignore her teachings.
The key factor is that the common 'joe' does not bring public scandal, since his ACTION is private. If I contribute to NARAL, the sin and scandal are mine and mine alone. The priest does not quiz me prior to communion. I know the rules.
If Kerry, Daschle, or ANY other 'Catholic' politician campaigns for abortion and THEN attempts to cash in on their 'catholicism,' on the other hand, the scandal is PUBLIC, by their own hand, and for their own gain, I might add.
They have been given a choice; Christ promises eternal life, and the abortion lobby promises temporal power. They've made their choice.
They'll no doubt live with it. Probably quite well. Can they die with their choice? There's the rub...
This misses the point. Nobody is saying that Kerry's support of abortion is legally punishable or unconstitutional. The highest authority in the Catholic church, last time I checked, was not the US constitution, but an authority much higher than that. The church is certainly not bound by the constitution or laws of any nation; it is and should be free to take whatever actions it feels necessary (within the bounds of law) to promote its teachings.
The legality of the issue at hand is irrelevant to the Catholic Church. At one time in the U.S., abortion was a crime as well. In that context, it can be said that spousal abuse is only illegal because we haven't legalized it yet.
most conservatives are pro-life in that we believe abortion is immoral. most conservatives are also constitutionalists in that we believe the constitution should be followed regardless of ones personal beliefs.
Most conservatives may believe that the Constitution should be followed regardless of our personal beliefs, but "following the Constitution" and "respecting all U.S. Supreme Court decisions" are not the same thing. In fact, the basic premise of Roe v. Wade is so utterly flawed that even many people who support abortion rights today are now admitting that the 1973 decision was basically just made up out of thin air and has no grounding in Constitutional law. This has nothing to do with religion, either; the simple truth is that I have no obligation to respect the authority of a government that doesn't even abide by its own rules.
any politician that abuses his spouse should be prosecuted by the law because it's illegal. any politician that supports abortion is immune from punishment because (1) it's not illegal to state an opinion; and more importantly (2) abortion is constitutional.
Nobody is calling for John Kerry to be arrested and prosecuted under the law for his support of abortion. We are talking about a religious organization (of which he claims to be a member) telling him that he doesn't meet even the most rudimentary requirements for membership in that organization. If John Kerry called himself a life-long member of the Boy Scouts of America and yet never attended a single meeting, never wore a uniform, and couldn't even start a campfire if you gave him a can of gasoline, a pile of dead wood, and a box of matches -- well, nobody with an IQ over 40 would criticize the Boy Scouts of America if they told him he was full of sh!t.
It does. No more beef.
I read a letter to the editor in our paper today that said even Judas wasn't refused the Body and Blood of Christ at the Last Supper. I was thinking Judas left before that to betray Jesus, so I went back and checked the Bible. The person who wrote the letter was right. I'm not sure what to make of that.
"Abortion" is not "constitutional." What has been declared UNconstitutional are state laws that prohibit abortion.
Of course, this is a lie. A lie is a lie, even when the liars involved are on the Supreme Court.
In any case, the Constitution is utterly irrelevant to the issue between Kerry and the bishops. Kerry publicly declares support for abortion. This makes him a bad Catholic, even a non-Catholic. Therefore he should not be given Communion when he presents himself for it. This would be true if Kerry lived in England, Pago Pago, or on the Moon. The U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court have absolutely no connection to this question.
I didn't know he had access to an electron microscope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.