John Kerry's Heresy

July 10, 2004

John Kerry's Heresy

I posted here that Kerry’s straddling of the fence was unsustainable. He’s trying to portray himself a good Catholic boy, a follower of the Catholic faith, and yet he votes 100% pro-abortion.

“It’s hard,” Kerry told parishioner Frank Ward, a father of five and an abortion opponent. “It’s a difficult line to walk.”

Of course it is, John. Facing down our own hypocrasies is a very tough thing to do.

Kerry’s opposing views are starting to converge into a conflict. Marc Balestrieri, a canon lawyer, has filed suit in the Ecclesiastical Church of the Archdiocese of Boston. His criminal complaint alleges that John F. Kerry, as a baptized Catholic, has committed a court-martial offense under Cannon Law by professing the “Right-to-Murder heresy,” commonly known as the “Right to Life” doctrine.

Already, Marc has told other Catholic faithful that he’s come under heavy fire from several sources – the Democrat machine, some heavy players within the Catholic hierarchy, other Catholic canonists, and even some Republicans.

I think John Kerry should be forced to get off of that fence – he can’t be campaigning as a good Catholic boy and a follower of the Catholic faith, and at the same time voting against what the Catholic Church is teaching. Kerry’s made no secret of the fact that if he’s elected, he’ll only nominate judges that are pro-abortion.

He’s going to have to choose when it comes to abortion – his faith, or his politics.

And before you left-wingers that came here looking to download Michael Moore’s video for free go off on me on the abortion issue again, this was an abortion-nuetral post. I’m just pointing out this conflict:

The Catholic Church defines the beliefs of it’s members;
John Kerry says he’s Catholic and has those same beliefs;
but he votes against those beliefs.

I think Kerry could resolve the whole issue be resigning from the Catholic Church and just saying once and for all he’s pro-abortion. Then there would be no conflict at all.

(Thanks to Smurphy for the links. 🙂 )

Rate this:

General, Politics

abortion, Art, Blog, Father, Law, Politics, Republicans, sin

Posted by:

Michael

Follower of Jesus, conservative, freedom-loving patriot.

21 responses to “John Kerry's Heresy”

spinthemoon

July 10, 2004 at 5:13 pm

I’m no fan of Kerry, but isn’t the point of an elected official that he represent his constituents and not his personal beliefs? Should all elected officials either ignore what the people who elected them want or completely abandon their own spiritual family? Doesn’t make sense to me.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

July 10, 2004 at 7:41 pm

How do constituents choose their representatives? They vote for the candidate that best shares their values.

Are you saying that it’s perfectly OK for a candidate to say he believes in pro-life but votes pro-abortion? I suppose it’s ok for a candidate to make that distinction, but if one truly believed in pro-life (i.e. believed it was murder) then I would hope his conscience would prohibit him from voting for abortion.

The Catholic Church has made that perfectly clear that they consider this a grave sin and that politicians should be excluded from communion if they try to straddle that line. Now a canon lawyer has taken the next step of labeling Kerry a heretic.

The only way you can justify believing in abortion is that you don’t believe it’s a life being taken, but then you’d be at odds with the Catholic Church’s beliefs.

LikeLike

Reply
SMurphy

July 10, 2004 at 10:21 pm

Let us examine this in in a purely ontological context, setting aside for a moment the belief at hand.

A. Kerry professes to be Catholic, as such he is subject to certain canonical rules and regulations that the Church defines.

B. Kerry is telling us to elect him based upon his beliefs, part of those beliefs are defined by his claim to be Catholic. The other part are his own, which he is free to choose. However, those defined by his church to be law, he cannot choose.

So, we are left Kerry claiming to be Catholic, and ignoring basic rules that define the Catholic faith.

There is, contrary to previous assertions to the contrary, no possibility of re-defining the meaning of “is”. “Is” is. He IS Catholic, or he IS NOT Catholic. To claim Catholicism and a act contrary to canonical law is hypocrisy:

hyÂ·pocÂ·riÂ·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hyÂ·pocÂ·riÂ·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.

It is dilemmatic – he can choose right to life, and Caholicism or legalized abortion and renounce his faith. There is simply no third choice, except hypocrisy.

It points to the core problem that the man has – he is all things to all people, logic be damned.

LikeLike

Reply
spinthemoon

July 10, 2004 at 11:19 pm

Well, I don’t particularly buy that a candidate asks us to vote for him based on his personal beliefs. I think there can be a difference between what one believes is morally correct for an individual and what the role of government should be. I don’t have to believe that abortion is morally right or wrong to believe that the government has no place in making that decision for anyone.

LikeLike

Reply
Marty

July 11, 2004 at 11:38 am

What about separation of Church and State? Is it possible to be a Catholic and believe that abortion is wrong personally, and then decide that you must, as a politician, vote for what your constituents want you to? Isn’t that what a politician is? This is a tough one, I really don’t know what is right. Any other ideas?

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

July 11, 2004 at 2:25 pm

I don’t believe you can belong to a faith that has declared abortion to be a mortal sin and still be a politician that votes for it. A non-religious person might be able to vote that way though.

If your constituents are evenly split on the subject *and* you’re a Catholic politician, what should you choose?

LikeLike

Reply
spinthemoon

July 11, 2004 at 5:21 pm

Your mistake is that thinking a vote that doesn’t make abortional illegal is a vote “for” abortion. It’s not. It’s just a vote keeping the government from getting involved.

LikeLike

Reply
Marty

July 12, 2004 at 8:12 am

How can one be pro-life and pro-war? How do you justify either case where innocent lives are taken?

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

July 12, 2004 at 8:54 am

I’m not pro-war. I’m against Saddam killing a million people. I’m against allowing terrorists to organize and kill innocent people. And I’m for supporting our military in that fight.

War’s a terrible thing. In this case, not going to war was worse.

LikeLike

Reply
Marty

July 12, 2004 at 10:05 am

I’m with you on that Mike. We have to stop dictators and terrorists from killing people and god bless our military for making the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. They are heroes.
But I’m wondering why can’t we remove dictators like Saddam without having to kill so many people in the process (both foreign and American)? And why haven’t we caught Osama bin Laden yet? We have the most advanced military in the world, we spend billions of dollars and have hundreds of thousands of people in the armed service, and yet we can’t catch one little man. Why didn’t we wait until we caught Osama before we invaded Iraq? We know now that Iraq posed no immediate threat to us, so why did leave Afghanistan so quickly? And why didn’t we go after North Korea first, a country that really does pose a threat to Americans and really does have weapons of mass destruction? So many questions and so few answers.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

July 12, 2004 at 10:26 am

Sure, we know something different now. If we hadn’t gutted our CIA over the last 20 years, perhaps we would have had better information then. Did you see the news this last week of all the enriched uranium removed from Baghdad? There’s the material for WMD that we knew he had. Now we just have to find the chemical material.

– If you know of a way of conducting wars without killing people, you should share that information. We tried asking Saddam to step down; that didn’t work. We know that Saddam probably would have killed as many and would still be killing today. At least the killing has nearly stopped now.

– One little man is had to spot in an F-16. There’s a huge bounty on his head; he’ll be caught eventually. Already, though, terrorists cells are forced to operate without him. Catching or killing him won’t end the terrorism.

– I don’t follow you here. If he’s killing people, shouldn’t he be stopped immediately? Why would you suggest going after North Korea but not Iraq?

– The problem is Iraq was stopped before they were able to attack with WMD. North Korea already has a nuke (or so they say and we believe), and we know they have missile technology to get it at least as far as Japan. It would have been easier to stop them 10 years ago, but now it’s a lot more difficult. North Korea is crazy enough to attack Japan if we attack them.

– None of this has anything to do with John Kerry’s stance on abortion. 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
SMurphy

July 12, 2004 at 4:36 pm

Back to that topic,
My point is simply – Kerry is juggling inconsistant beliefs – talking out of both sides of his mouth and he somehow finds this acceptable. As for spinthemoon’s comments, how does one decide on a candidate except by personal beliefs? When push comes to shove, how’s he gonna act? Visions of “The buck never got here”.

Part of leadership is leading, getting out in front and showing the way, not wetting one’s finger and sticking it up in the air…..(aka focus group polling). Yes, I know everyone uses it, but just tell me how you think, and I’ll decide if I will vote for you or not. That’s how representative governments work. (or should anyway).
Be Catholic and Pro-Life or Be whatever and Pro-Abortion, not both.

LikeLike

Reply
Courtney

July 12, 2004 at 4:42 pm

‘In recent months, a variety of conservative Catholic groups have launched a campaign against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic who favors abortion rights. Some bishops have criticized Kerry and other Catholic politicians who support such rights, saying they should be denied Communion.

Yet the Sacramento bishop and other conservative Catholics have steered clear of publicly attacking Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps the nation’s most prominent Republican Catholic who favors abortion rights.

“Schwarzenegger is getting special treatment from those bishops in California. I don’t know why,” said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, a conservative Catholic group based in Virginia.’

Taken from http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040609%2D9999%2D1n9catholic.html

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

July 12, 2004 at 6:49 pm

He hasn’t gotten a free pass; it’s just that Arnold is in California which wants a pro-abortion governor out there. Californians aren’t going to raise a stink; worse case scenario is that Arnold switches to pro-life. Horrors! If he was running for President (which he can’t), I think you’d hear more noise.

Catholics are watching him, though; both he and his advisor, Warren Buffet, fund Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) which has been denounced by Catholic bishops. The Catholic League put out a statement last year, calling the two of them an “enemy of the Catholic Church.”

… searches for a link….
Here: http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030814_buffett.htm
and here: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1222712.html

LikeLike

Reply
Joe Kucharski

July 26, 2004 at 6:17 pm

The thought of John Kerry becoming President makes me sick. This man claims to be Catholic, yet he clearly rejects some of the Church’s most basic truths regarding abortion and homosexuality. If elected, he will become another Henry VIII and try to establish his own church and completely disregard the Holy Father as the rightful head. Also, the arguments people use in trying to refute the American Bishops for denying him communion are very weak and ignorant. First, some people say that a priest has no right to refuse anyone communion. However, this is wrong. If you believe that abortion is a mortal sin, then you must admit that any person who is involved with or contributes to abortion are living in mortal sin. The Church also teaches that one cannot receive holy communion with mortal sin on his soul. If he does, he commits the mortal sin of sacrilige. If you believe in these basic facts, then it is clear that priests have the right to refuse Kerry communion. Since he has made his pro-abortion views very clear, one can reasonably assume that he is not in the proper state to receive our Lord. By refusing Kerry and other Catholic politicians like him Communion, the Church is making a very public statement on something that she has always taught to be gravely evil. Kerry believes that his religious beliefs should not influence his decisions as a politician. However, he is so blind that he misses a very basic concept that even my little 8 year old brother sees. There is such a thing as objective truth, and objective truth can’t be changed. Murder is evil, and time can’t change that. It was evil a thousand years ago, it is evil now, and it will still be evil a thousand years from now. Abortion is murder, hence it’s evil. That fact that it is evil is an objective truth, and it will never change. Therefore, if a politician were to advocate for pro-life laws, he would not be some person who was just trying to force his personal religious beliefs down people’s throats. The truth is, opposing abortion is not merely a personal religious belief. It is promoting the objective truth that abortion is evil. If a certain politician was really Catholic, he would be advocating for pro-life laws, and he would have no reason to feel guilty. He wouldn’t be forcing forcing his own opinions on people, because the question on whether abortion is right or not is not an opinion. The fact that it’s evil is objective truth, and the Catholic politician would be doing the right thing. However, Kerry is denying this concept of objective truth. God help us if he’s elected.

LikeLike

Reply
Courtney

July 27, 2004 at 10:32 am

‘There is such a thing as objective truth, and objective truth canâ€™t be changed. Murder is evil, and time canâ€™t change that. It was evil a thousand years ago, it is evil now, and it will still be evil a thousand years from now. Abortion is murder, hence itâ€™s evil. That fact that it is evil is an objective truth, and it will never change. ”

Prove that abortion is murder. Then this conclusion will have some weight.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

July 27, 2004 at 1:25 pm

Given the weight of the possibilities, wouldn’t it be prudent to prove that it *isn’t* murder before terminating a fetus?

LikeLike

Reply
Peter

July 27, 2004 at 1:31 pm

Glad to see this kind of reasoning. Keep in mind that most medical textbooks said that abortion takes a human life because they knew that a new human was in the process of coming into this world. Also, as far as Kerry goes….as a “Catholic” politician it is a hard line to walk if you have no backbone. A real Catholic politician can take one of two viewpoints on the abortion issue. He can “tolerate” the law that he thinks is morally wrong…do nothing to support it and try to overturn it..or….he can “endorse” the law….vote for pro-choice issues…never support legislation that is pro-life. This is what Kerry as done as he damns himself….he could still be a Catholic and a politician…but he has chosen to be a hypocrite and vote against his conscience for political gain.

LikeLike

Reply
Courtney

July 27, 2004 at 4:56 pm

War is murder too. Anyone who supports war is supporting murder and is therefore a sinner.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

July 27, 2004 at 5:38 pm

Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, but He did not teach us to stand idly by while our neighbors are harmed. And the Old Testament is full of examples of violence used to further God’s plan and to right injustices. Christians serve as police officers and army infantry with no qualms about their service for their goal is to protect, not to kill.

War is an interruption in peace; the war will end when peace is restored. Terrorist attacks interrupted the peace; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are intended eventually to restore the peace. Ten thousand Iragis and a thousand Americans may have died, but it is readily apparent far more Iraqis would have died if we had not intervened.

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount calls for Christians to be peacemakers, so restoring the peace is not a sin.

LikeLike

Reply
Anonymous

October 19, 2004 at 11:50 am

😳 💡 😀 😎 😎 👿 😀 💡 😳 😛 🙄 😉 😥 😮 😆 😡 😦 ❗ ❓

LikeLike

Reply

About Me

Michael, a sinner saved by grace, sharing what the good Lord has shared with me.

Solomon, in the book of Ecclesiastes, said, “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.”

If you’re not living for the glory of God, then what you’re doing is meaningless, no matter what it is. Living for God gives life meaning, and enjoying a “chasing after the wind” is a gift from God. I’m doing what I can to enjoy this gift daily.

Got questions? I’m not surprised. If you have any questions about Chasing the Wind, you can email me at chasingthewind@outlook.com.

Chasing the Wind