www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Heresy Complaint Filed against Kerry in Ecclesiatical Court

I edited my earlier post to give the location of the Ratzinger article, which has been alluded to many times on this and other threads.

Agreed. But you show no fear in rendering verdicts outside the scope of your knowledge.

I suppose that many many of us do.

Certainly those who vote for Bush despite his misrepresentation of himself as pro-life - perhaps they actually adhere to the pro-war, pro-execution, pro-deferred payment, anti-social policies anyway.

Certainly those who "think" they are voting to get judges who will advance the pro-life cause, failing to realize that the gains they hope to make, such as prohibition of post-viabilty abortion, are already possible and have been enacted in several jurisdictions.

Certainly those who aim for a ritualistic purity in advocating single issue politics, or eschewing the political fray altogether, thus enhancing the polarization of our politics and cementing this ugly status quo.

djs wrote:

Kerry has stated that acceptance of the "right" of abortion is the litmus test of all judges he will appoint.

As was recently reported, Roe v Wade was nearly overturned by the Supreme Court a few years back until Kennedy changed his vote. With Kerry packing the judiciary (and the Democratic party shamefully filibustering against pro-life judge appointees) the chance of overturning Roe v Wade will be almost nil.

Politics is a dirty business. I don't really like either candidate. But, I think Catholics have a greater chance of impacting Bush to change some policies (war, social issues, etc.) than impacting Kerry to appoint pro-life judges.

Kerry counts on the support of Catholics who don't believe abortion is an important issue anymore.

I have every right to form my own conclusions and to encourage others to adopt those conclusions.

I adhere to the pro-war and pro-execution policies of President Bush. The Church teaches that one can hold these positions and remain a good Catholic. The fact that Iraq is now freed from a tyrant who murdered 700,000 people convinces me of the justness of his actions.

I adhere to a policy in which our government pays expenses as they occur. I believe, however, that the War on Terror justifies a temporary allowing of deficit spending just like FDR allowed deficit spending during WWII.

I disagree that the social policies of President Bush are anti-social.

If a candidate was Pro-Life and willing to work for life yet wrong on every single other issue, I would vote for that candidate. I believe that it is the only moral choice for people who call themselves Christian.

Partial Birth Abortion Laws are ineffective when it is possible to travel across state lines to a state in which they are still legal. Phone books in states with laws attempting to save lives are filled with yellow pages advertisements encouraging women to cross state lines to states where such procedures are legal. I hope every state passes a partial birth abortion law as a step towards outlawing abortion. But the protection for life must also be respected at the federal level.

Regarding judges, all the legislative restrictions respecting life are worthless if a Supreme Court strikes them down.

Respect for life is the primary issue upon which all other rights are built. Those who think that supporting pro-abortion candidates is a way to depolarize politics are only fooling themselves.

I have seen this attributed to him, but not the quote. He has is fact said recently that this is not a litmus test with him.

If you think that overtuning RvW takes us back to Ozzie and Harriet, please reconsider.

Where would this take actually us? IMO, opening the question of legality of abortion to the states would guarantee the availability of abortion in the US till kingdom come. Many states will outlaw it, and it will cease to be an issue there; many will not outlaw it and the pressure to do so will be reduced. Don't forget that it took a nation-wide perspective to outlaw invidious discrimination practices. We are IMO better off with a uniform practice against which there is continuing pressure for its uniform end, rather than getting stuck in the "bowl" of having some states continuing the practice with little pressure against them - and doing the practice for people from other states.

... where winning trumps truth, and does so because the voters reward it.

That is the view that is cultivated by Republican stratesgists and pundits; the communion controversy was launched by the American Spectator crowd. But I think that the Catholic social ethos is alien to the Republican ehtos. Instead, we have the contrived effort of Novak and ilk to refashion Catholic perspectives to match the Republican ethos. Well, at least we get to keep more of our money.

IMO, over the long-haul it would be easier to get Democrats to extend the mantle of human rights to the unborn, because it dovetails with the ethos of that party over centuries. But that will never happen as long as people litmus test their votes against Democrats, who then must rally immoderate elements to win.

That phrase was already tired when the administrator misused it to characterize Hritzko's comment.

I believe it's a very important issue. I believe, however, as incognitus noted an Hritzko assented, that this issue requires sustained effort not simply a vote. It is not going to be solved by pulling a lever. It will be solved by changing people at the grass-roots level. It will be solved not by defeating opponents, or by dividing people - charging them as heretics. It will be solved by winning opponents over, and by unifying people - changing them into advocates.

The politics of polarization, in particular, polarization of the members of the church are not helping to solve this problem.

The outlawing of post-viability abortions was upheld IIRC in the Casey decision by the Supreme Court. I agree with your thoughts on the problem of crossing state line, as indicated in the above response to DTB.

I don't know if it is possible or not. But if we don't, we can forget about solving this problem. People who think we can solve this problem by voting for people who simply claim the label pro-life, and have no plan for reconciliation and consensus development are fooling no one.

On June 1, 2004 U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the federal district court in San Francisco issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ban with respect to Planned Parenthood and the other groups that filed that lawsuit. Judge Hamilton found that the federal �Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act� ran contrary to U.S. Supreme Court rulings, especially Stenberg v. Carhart, handed down in 2000. In Stenberg, five Supreme Court justices said that Roe v. Wade required states to allow an abortionist to perform a partial-birth abortion essentially whenever he sees fit. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act will probably take several years to get to the Supreme Court.

I agree. Voting for people who claim to be pro-life but are not is fruitless. Luckily the current president has been managing to get at least some pro-life judges appointed at the federal level. He is not perfect but he will further the cause more than someone who votes not only to fund abortions but to require Catholic hospitals to perform them or lose reimbursement for providing healthcare for Medicare/Medicaid patients.

The problem of abortion will never be solved. At least, not until the Second Coming. We will always have to teach the truth and advance the pro-life position whenever and wherever we can. When we are lax we will loose ground. When we are vigilant we will gain ground and save lives. We can never stop.

I believe that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. The Constitution protects the right to choose and to make their own reproductive choices in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God.

I will defend this right as President, as I have throughout my career, and will appoint only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

Taken from the Kerry campaign website. [johnkerry.com]

-- Ed

Thanks for the documentation.

djs wrote:

We are better off with a uniform practice of allowing abortion as a right??????

It is precisely because many Catholics consider abortion a non-issue that the Democratic Party is in the state it is today. Is there an organized resistance to the Democratic Party's pro-choice position? If so, is there even a website for pro-life Democrats seeking to restore that vision to the Democratic Party?

I wonder whether "many Catholics consider abortion a non-issue" BECAUSE it is legal. A few short decades ago, when abortion was still not legal (and therefore, acceptable) to the public mind, people were horrified enough at the act that someone who was known to have aborted her child for convenience, or job security, or anything other than the threat of imminent death to herself, would be a social outcast, far more so than bearing a child out of wedlock. While I by no means advocate shunning, I merely point out that America has reached the point where what the law can give you equals what is proper and right. No one stops anymore to consider whether the law SHOULD give these things. Since it DOES, that is a new "moral certainty" for most people. This applies to abortion, civil litigation where it no longer matters whether you were at fault in your own injury, provided you have a glib lawyer, corporate law, etc.

The problem is people say that morality shouldn't be legislated...well, of course it should! In the sense that the sort of amorality that leads to the murder of innocent souls is not a matter of choice, but a matter of the people choosing to protect their most vunerable citizens. Murder is murder, and the social evils that spring from callously disregarding life, because you have been raised with the concept that it is both legal, and a RIGHT, are incalculable.

Gaudior, in certainty that life is far too precious a commodity to be devalued like that.

Very good points here. The point of civil law is to establish an objective standard of behavior. When one transcends that standard, there are penalties for that transgression.

As Cicero once said, salus populi suprema est lex.

It is difficult to argue that the good of the people is served by allowing a signficant portion of that people to be murdered "legally" on a daily basis. It is apparent Kerry will do little to stop this carnage if he is elected.

The current President is clearly in this category as well. The Catholic respect for life extends from conception to grave.

That being said, it is difficult to argue one is pro-life while willfully engaging his nation in a war which is neither just nor justified, as has been reiterated by our Holy Father, and thus willfully participating in the needless death of your own good men as well as the civilians of the country receiving your agression.

When you send men to war, you send them to kill. That's the basic idea.

Pro-life in its widest, most Catholic sense, includes protecting unborn children as well as adults, and as well as caring for the sick, old and infirm.

No. My Holy Father has spoken otherwise about the unjust nature of this war, even recently directly to the President, after the alleged "conclusion of hostilities".

When it comes to following faith or person, I will opt for faith. I do not believe one can profess to be a Catholic and at the same time adhere to a "pro-war" viewpoint which the Church has clearly spoken to as being unjust and unjustified.

Very good points here. The point of civil law is to establish an objective standard of behavior. When one transcends that standard, there are penalties for that transgression.

As Cicero once said, salus populi suprema est lex.

It is difficult to argue that the good of the people is served by allowing a signficant portion of that people to be murdered "legally" on a daily basis. It is apparent Kerry will do little to stop this carnage if he is elected.

The current President is clearly in this category as well. The Catholic respect for life extends from conception to grave.

That being said, it is difficult to argue one is pro-life while willfully engaging his nation in a war which is neither just nor justified, as has been reiterated by our Holy Father, and thus willfully participating in the needless death of your own good men as well as the civilians of the country receiving your agression.

When you send men to war, you send them to kill. That's the basic idea.

Pro-life in its widest, most Catholic sense, includes protecting unborn children as well as adults, and as well as caring for the sick, old and infirm.

No. My Holy Father has spoken otherwise about the unjust nature of this war, even recently directly to the President, after the alleged "conclusion of hostilities".

When it comes to following faith or person, I will opt for faith. I do not believe one can profess to be a Catholic and at the same time adhere to a "pro-war" viewpoint which the Church has clearly spoken to as being unjust and unjustified.

The daily atrocities still going on with loss of life speak for themselves. The lack of order speaks for itself. The incredible profit margins of oil companies in the last two years speak for themselves.

Dear Admin:

Stenberg v Carhart, hinged on specific aspects fo the tested statue (1) it lacked a health exception and (2) its broad language imposed an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose abortion.
I can't comment in detail on the broad/vagueness aspect; this is a generic criterion by which all sorts of laws fail to pass constitutional muster. It should b enoted that the "undue burden" is a softer criterion than "compelling interest". This less strict test emerged in the Casey decision. The rulings tend to be on narrow grounds, and don't necessarily the great scope that you imply.

He has ruled out seeking a pro-life constituional amendment and advocates choice in "hard cases". The abortion rate rose during his term. If you like his the rest of him, fine.


Dear Ed: Thanks for the reference; I googled with "litmus test" and couldn't find it coming from Kerry. I would call your link clear on the point.


Dear DTB:
To the extent that it keeps national pressure on to extend human rights and end it entirely, the answer could be yes. No doubt this is very difficult - like Churchill not evacuating Coventry.

I disagree totally. If, for example, there are many Catholics who support Catholic social teachngs and find the platform of the Democrats more consonant with them. But disagree on other issues, notably abortion. By bolting to the Republicans they diminshed the pro-life voice within the Democratic party enormously. That factor cannot be overlooked in assessing "the state it is in today". So they get Republican social ethos and very little on the "family" issues. (btw: the talking heads are spouting the notion, that I mntioned here earlier, that the Republicans are dumping the stem cell restrictions after the election; support for the marriage amendment is tepid, judging from the Senate debate. But at least you'll get some tax break.)

If you google "democrats for life" you'll get ca. 4000 hits.

djs,

Thanks for the suggestion. The first one I went to had some great links:

Cardinal George on both Democrats & Republicans:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-card08.html

The other a transcript of "Hardball" grilling a Democratic spokesman about whether they'll allow a pro-life speaker at the Convention:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5443572/

To be honest, the pro-life Democrat site seemed anti-Kerry to me...

Diak, thanks for the post.

I think that the war is both just and justified. We have freed 50 million people from a murderous tyrant who has killed one million people. It certainly would be preferable never to have to take up arms but there are times when we must to do and the current war on terror is one of those times. At any rate, considering the current war on terror a plague worse then abortion (with 40 million dead) is too big a stretch to take seriously.

Regarding the Holy Father�s teaching, I respect it greatly. We can�t forget that he encouraged Hussein to disarm and to cooperate with the international community. He didn�t. Unlike the Church�s position on abortion, individual Catholics are free to support the war on terror. Defending one�s nation is not pro-death. Supporting abortion always is pro-death.

And our faith teaches us that abortion is the most serious offense, more serious than all the others combined.

The Church has spoken definitely on abortion. It has not done so on the war. In fact, the new Patriarch of Baghdad has thanked America for removing Hussein and giving them a chance to build a free country.

I am glad that the Church has not spoken definitively on this issue. I see the same flaws in their approach as I did when they would condemn the United States for taking a hard line against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The daily atrocities still going on with loss of life certainly do speak for themselves. They are horrible. Yet there are less people being killed each day now then there were during the reign of Hussein. And, if one reads past the agenda of the partisan press, things are moving in the right direction.

It is my understanding that President Bush believes that it is better to appoint judges to the court that will overturn Roe v Wade and throw the issue back to the country to engage in a discussion. He is not actually against a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. He simply believes that that since there is no way of passing one in the current culture it should be saved for the future.

Yes, I disagree with the President on the exceptions for the �hard cases� and I pray that he will change his mind. But as much as I dislike his position on the �hard cases� he is working to save lives by reducing the number of abortions. This is unlike Kerry who has promised to guard the court created �constitutional right� to abortion and to force us taxpayers to pay for abortions.

I am not sure where you are getting your stats, but the Planned Parenthood folks have been complaining about the effectiveness of the pro-life forces in reducing abortions (which is resulting in less financial profit to them).

At one time the Democrat Party was concerned about the weakest among us. Now it�s primary concern is safeguarding the right to kill the innocent in the womb and forcing the taxpayers to pay for it.