Posted on 10/18/2004 9:57:38 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
bttt
Dear el_chupacabra,
Mr. Balestrieri filed a case specifically against Mr. Kerry in the ecclesiastical court of the Archdiocese of Boston.
He personally asked two questions of the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith (CDF) whether a Catholic politician who upholds the legal right to abortion is automatically excommunicated.
The CDF asked an American theologian to reply to Mr. Balestrieri. The theologian replied in the affirmative.
There isn't a lot of wiggle room, as the the theologian specifically holds that the "personally opposed... but can't impose my morality by law," opinion is heresy and formal adherence to this view incurs automatic excommunication.
I'm sure Mr. Kerry (and Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Pataki, and others) will go down swinging, refusing to recognize the truth of this. I'm also reasonably sure we will not see Thunder from the Vatican prior to Nov 2 concerning this.
But I think in the not-too-distant future, it will become clear that pro-abort Catholics have read themselves out of the Catholic Church. Officially.
sitetest
Seems to me if this were the case that a WHOLE lotta Catholics would be in the same boat. hmmmmmmmmmmm
Essentially what this article is saying is that John Kerry excommunicates himself (ipso facto excommunication) by refusing to adhere to a very serious Church ruling; namely, that abortion is the murder of a child, and that to be part of it in any way violates God's Commandment "Thous Shalt Not Kill". This Church teaching applies especially to Catholic politicians because they are civially empowered to either continue on or put an end to abortion. When they unrepentently fight for "choice" they sin gravely and place themselves outside of Christ's Community.
So to answer your question, it hurts Kerry, and it hurts him plenty. Especially when you're considering the state of his eternal soul.
THANKS!
Dear sinkspur,
Mr. Kerry's excommunication needs the same official declaration as the neighborhood abortionist's excommunication. That is to say, it is self-evidently true, needing no recognition from higher authority.
Nonetheless, to me the actions of the Vatican show that they are likely moving in that direction, of an official recognition of the excommunicated status of pro-abort politicians. And sooner, rather than later, although I don't think before Nov 2.
sitetest
Anti-Catholic zealots, by and large, are already voting for Kerry. This country has come a long way from 1960. No thinking person is under any illusions that the pope is pulling Kerry's puppet strings.
Thanks mostly to the pro-life movement, but also to changing demographics, evagelical Christians and Catholics are now more acquainted with each other. I think many evangelicals today are familiar enough with the Catholic faith to understand that there are requirements to be a Catholic and that Kerry doesn't make the cut.
Many people who don't like the Catholic Church are not afraid to vote for Rick Santorum, a genuine Catholic. They know exactly where he stands on the issues.
True, in that abortion providers (doctors/ nurses/ pregnant woman/ parter, if in the picture) excommunicate themselves ipso facto (in technical terms, they are excommunicate "latae sententiae); but that verdict does not apply to the regular person who may hold a pro-choice opinion in his/her heart and does not speak it publically. But a public official such as Kerry, et al, opens himself to this judgment.
Shazaaam!
You may be right, though JPII has been reluctant to pull the trigger on excommunication. And it could backfire if the Church made a big deal of it before the election.
There's no chance that O'Malley will do anything.
There's a difference between being anti-Catholic and being a bigot. Most pro-life non-Catholic Christians are not bigots. The real anti-Catholic zealots are the feminazis, the college professors, and the rest of the liberal elite.
"Thousands upon thousands"? When did this start? I never even heard of such a thing until it was reported that Balestrieri had filed his. (I wonder if they're all about Kerry . . .)
Dear sinkspur,
The trigger's already been pulled. The CDF has made certain that the Church's position is clear and unambiguous, if presented quietly: pro-abort Catholic politicians are automatically excommunicated.
Mr. Kerry is currently in a state of self-excommunication.
All that is missing, and it isn't quite necessary, is the official recognition by name. Which is formally redundant.
I believe that Archbishop O'Malley may have few choices in the matter. It has been reported that when asked, even CARDINAL MCCARRICK admitted that a pro-choice Catholic politician incurs automatic excommunication.
sitetest
Bingo!!! We have a winner!
I'd qualify that by saying they aren't Catholics, they are CINOs.
Read replies #5, 18 and 58 at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246841/posts
or check this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
He said at the last debate, "We're all God's children." There's an exception, for him, if you're a baby in the womb!
It's *his behavior* (lack of prepentence and repudication for his pro-baby killing voting) that makes him in a state of heresy and "excommunicated" and *not* an action by the Church. They don't have to formally say it. That they took the case is interesting.
For political purpoes, I hope this doesn't get officially resolved until after the election because I think the controversy could HELP Kerry.
No declaration is necessary. The excommunication is "latae sententiae," and the letter makes clear that the burden of proof is on Kerry to demonstrate that the conditions under which the excommunication occurs do not exist.
It was not "debunked". Get your facts straight.
Kerry has incurred latae sentatiae excommunication.
Formal excommunication proceedings by the Church are very rare but automatic excommunication like this is common -- you don't hear about it because there's no public announcement from God on the matter.
If they excommunicate Kerry, shouldn't they excommunicate the rest of the cafeteria Catholics?
The only issue I have (being that I am a new Catholic) is that I believe God gives us "free will" and while I don't want any of my tax $$$ going to abortion, how do you stop a woman that clearly doesn't want her child by not sabotaging the pregnancy either by an abortion or causing the pregnancy to end by other means?
I would never vote for Kerry but I think I can understand the problem one would have when you have someone that clearly doesn't view life beginning at conception. I do, so of course I am pro life and advocate all the things that would do away with Roe vs Wade. I think it's up to the states to decide. If Rhode Island is inhabited by a bunch of atheists and they want Abortion on demand. Fine but you won't see me living there. If I did, I would protest and try to change the state law..
So back to the ruling... it concerns me a little bit b/c there are probably some people that (unlike Skerry) that really are Pro Life but are representing a bunch of atheist feminazis and trying to separate the Pro Life stand with the "others" that cling to Roe vs Wade.
That's my rant. I just don't see this as a way to solving our problem. Yet, I don't like people who are hypocrites taking credit for things they clearly don't beleive in.
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.