Kerry Takes Communion despite Vatican Decree

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Neserk, Apr 24, 2004.

  1. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #1
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Did I hear someone say "theocracy"? Bow to the mad mullah! Kerry is DELIBERATELY going against Jesus' pronouncements on abortion. Hmm, let me see if I can find the link in the Bible....
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
  4. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #4
    Of course its a theocracy, all churches are. As far as I'm concerned John Kerry is free to hold any beliefs he wants to. The Catholic church is free to exclude him if he doesn't want to follow thier beliefs. Whats the big deal?
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    I agree the Catholic Church has more important moral issues to deal with, such as illegal war-making...
     
  6. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #6
    Actually considering the sanctity of Communion in the eyes of the Church it is a big deal, and as far as I have seen the Church is against war.
     
  7. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #7
    i guess this is just the vatican wanting to play a little bit politics... they don't like those "pro-choice" thing because there isn't something like that in the catholic choice...and of course women are less worth for some of them...

    austria is 87% catholic and and the catholic chruch hadn't a change when abortion was introduced (decades ago)...and now it is widly accepted ...with majority "pro-choice"
    sure the catholic church are always making comments about it and how "bad" it is but that's it ...they don't try to influence the politics during a election
    in law it is clearly reglemented as something between a woman and her doctor and it is a complete private thing.... if the catholic curch here would openly attack a politician because of his decisions and even refuse communion, the media,press,students,members of other religions,and local members of the catholic church would criticise them and tear their opinion apart, because church needs to be kept out of politics

    this is absolutly a wrong move by the catholic church,this will hurt their reputation bad...
     
  8. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #9
    First off the Vatican said no such thing. This has been misreported from the beginning.

    The person who said this was Cardinal Francis Arinze, who is a Vatican official. Cardinal Francis is a conservative cardinal from Nigeria, and was not speaking for the pope.

    Other pro-choice Catholics include: George Pataki, Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Ridge.

    Finally, if Republicans really hate the Constitution and the separation of church and state so much, why don't they simply come out with an anti-Constitution platform at the convention? They can invite God to speak at the convention, and if God doesn't show up we will know they are fakers.
     
  9. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #10
    The Catholic church has always been pro-life, and frankly it has NOTHING to do with the equality of women. That is something I am really really sick of being accused of.

    I can agree to disagree with people on the abortion issue because I realise that for many non-religious people they view the embryo/fetus as not a human life until some later period. The Catholic Church however teaches that human life begins at conception. I'm not saying which is right, just pointing out what the difference is.

    I have never once met anyone who thinks that we should ban abortion because women are inferior. Its not about that. As far as I'm concerned the woman has freedom over her body as long as its just hers. She can go out and have sex all she wants, its her choice. However as soon as a baby is involved its not just her body anymore and its not just a choice. She CHOSE to have sex knowing full well that it was possible to become pregnant.

    Now again I realize that many don't feel that it is a human being at conception and that is where the real argument lies. Accusing people who are pro-life as somehow being against women is an inflammatory argument meant to take peoples attention away from the real question. When does life begin. Obviously its not a clear cut answer, and even if we ignore the fallacious anti-woman argument, its not like the abortion question will go away.

    The only reason the idea of choice comes up is because of the ambiguity of when the embryo/fetus becomes human. Imagine for a second that we could somehow prove life began at conception, that there was no debate on that (its not realistic, but just go with it for a second). Do you really think that people would still be trying to claim it as a choice? As far as I have experienced the people I know who favor abortion do so because they feel its not a human being yet, not because they think a mother should be able to kill her own child. Likewise the Pro-Life (take a cue from the title) side feels that it is a life, an innocent one with no way to defend itself, that is under attack. The agenda of the Pro-Life side has never been one of repressing women.

    Now, you may not feel that the Catholic Churches position on abortion is the right one from your perspective, but the Church has always held the same belief on abortion, its not something new. You don't have to agree with it, but you could atleast stop accusing those who have that view of things which we are not doing.
     
  10. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #11
    What if we had a law that said a doctor can not fix a broken bone on an athlete? Why? Because he chose to play the game and therefore must live with the consequences.

    What if we said all smokers must die from lung cancer -- doctors are not allowed to treat their condition because they chose to smoke and therefore must die.

    The "choice" issue is not relevant. We all make choices, but most of us are allowed to go back on those choices.

    People in the 70's were closer to this issue than today because they knew what the reality was: women were going to get abortions -- in back rooms, under horrible conditions. Or, they were going to go to Europe to get the procedure done, if they could afford it.

    The issue isn't whether abortion is morally defensible -- you can argue that in church or in your homes. This is a legal issue: do women have the right to abortion in this country? My position is the same as Kerry's: I am fundamentally against abortion, but believe a woman has a right to choose.

    Kerry's position seems perfectly consistent with both the Vatican's position AND U.S. laws.

    Finally, this isn't the religious board, this is the political board. People who want to change laws based on their religious beliefs ought to take a civics lesson. If you outlaw abortion based on religious grounds, then why would you object to changes in the laws based on amish beliefs, islamic beliefs, druid beliefs? This is about one groups saying that their religious beliefs trump other people's religious beliefs.
     
  11. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #12
    I forgot to address this part of your statement so here goes.

    Why should the church stay out of politics? If you want to keep the Church out, lets start keeping other interest groups out, like Greenpeace, the NAACP, the ACLU, unions, etc. All these groups have different agendas, and politics is the way they try and get those view through. As long as every group has the opportunity to present there views thats EXACTLY what they should be doing.

    The Catholic Church has very clear teachings on the morality of abortion. For those who aren't Catholic its not an issue, but if you are a Catholic and you are going against those teachings the Church has every right to criticize and refuse you participation for it. In addition the Church has every right to call upon its members to try and right what it sees as social injustice. Question. Lets go back to before the Civil War. What if the Church had told all Catholic politicians that they should oppose slavery, something else it considered morally wrong. Lets say you had a politician, a senator lets say who was Catholic and favored slavery. Would the Church be out of line calling for that Senator to oppose slavery? Absolutely not.

    Now Kerry is completely free to hold whatever beliefs he wants. If he wants to be pro-choice thats his right. BUT he can't claim to be both pro-choice AND part of a group whose teachings are pro-life. It would be like the NRA revoking someones membership if they tried to pass a law banning all guns.

    Also, its not like the church is advocating that we overthrow the government and install a theocracy, or that Kerry violate the law. We aren't talking about bombing abortion clinics here (something the church is very very much against).

    If you are going to ask the Church to stay out of politics then I want the Pro-Choice movement to stay out too. I want animal rights activists and labor unions not to be able to voice their views. I want big buisness and the media out. In short no one with an opinion is allowed to use it in politics. Oh wait. That doesn't work.

    Government isn't math. There isn't a right or a wrong answer, there is only the will of the people. So long as a law is Constitutional it can be enacted regardless of where the idea came from. This idea that religion isn't allowed to interact with politics is absurd. The only thing its not allowed to do is to be allowed to silence all opposition completely. The Church has not only the right, but the responsibility to try and convince others that its views are the better one, just as the opposition has the responsibility to do the same. Thats democracy, thats freedom. In this country at least you don't get to keep someones view out just cause you don't like it. Thats freedom. Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. Our Constitution holds that people don't have the right to silence something just because they don't like it. Thats why Nazi's are allowed to hold their views, no matter how much we disagree with them. Or the NRA, or any other group. Heck, I don't like some of what I see on TV (South Park) but I support their right to have the freedom to say it. (With in reason obviously). And so long as the church doesn't come marching in and force us to have no abortions they have every right to try and convince others that abortion is wrong AND to expect members to hold to that view (not saying that all Catholics are expected to go out and hold anti-abortion protests, just that they are expected not to be supporting abortion).
     
  12. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #13
    A society exits because it is based on a collective set of morals that the people feel are necessary to protect that which they as a society hold are important.

    We have laws that ban killing. Should we allow someone whose moral outlook is ok with killing other people? Aren't we repressing cannibals rights?

    No you say, because they are infringing on other peoples rights to live. Which is EXACTLY what the pro-life group believes. Abortion to us isn't a matter of allowing a woman to change her mind about the car she bought, its about the right of the baby to life.

    Your examples don't work because in both cases the actions of the person involved (playing sports and injuring themself for example) only affect that person.

    What if a person were driving down the street and they ran into another persons car. They made a choice, maybe it was a mistake, but they don't get to just drive away and not have to deal with the consequences.

    Some people don't feel that stealing is wrong, they think they are entitled to stuff for whatever reason. Imagine someone who felt that way walked into a store and took something. Is it ok for them to take it? Well who are we to foist our views of right and wrong on them. Obviously their view is its ok to steal right? WRONG. It affects someone else. Maybe they get away with it a bunch of times (like having sex and not getting pregnant), and then one time they get caught (got pregnant!). To a person who believes that abortion is wrong, its like saying they should be able to get away with shoplifting without being punished. Just as society feels its wrong to take something from someone because you are hurting them, so too do those of us who are Pro-Life feel that you are killing a child and no matter how inconvenient, or troublesome it is, its still wrong.

    If we lived in a society where no one could place limits on anyones actions because they might have different beliefs we would live in anarchy. Even the idea that its not ok to do things when they adversely affect other people (i.e. theft, or murder) is itself a moral judgement. What you are saying to that person is that human life is more important than there freedom, which is a value judgement.

    This is not to say that we should allow religious or any other views to simply be enacted en masse. Of course we shouldn't, that would be just as bad. Anarchy on the one side, totalitarianism on the other. Democracy is the balance between those two extremes.

    In a society such as ours it is my responsibility to try and convince the people and their representatives that abortion is wrong if that is what I feel. It is your responsibility to convince them it isn't.

    Pushing aside the argument merely because it has some religious background is just as arbitrarily biased. What you are saying is that my views are somehow less important than yours. There is this stigma that religious views are somehow different than other belief systems, and it is simply not true. ALL belief systems whether they are labeled as religious or not are still based on assumptions and beliefs held by the individual or the group.

    You comment that it is about one groups beliefs trying to trump anothers, and you are right. BOTH sides are saying that they are right and the other is wrong. Which one do we choose?

    What makes the pro-choice argument superior? According to your argument it shouldn't be because it is foisting one groups belief system on another. But you say they are still free not to get abortions right? It doesn't affect them. Only it does, because the pro-life group feels that it is murder. If you say that we should allow one group to perform an action as long as they other group doesn't have to thats like saying you don't get to be against shoplifiting because you don't have to do it.

    To draw the analogy further I'd like to ask this. Does someone who is not in the military have the right to criticze the war? By your logic they don't, because they aren't involved and they don't have to be. Only the people directly involved should have the right to criticize or have an opion. This is one of the arguments I hear Pro-Choice and especially women make. You don't have to have a baby so you shouldn't get a say. If we lived ina some kind of place where what we did didn't affect others than fine, live and let live. But in the real world it doesn't. Just as you are allowed to have an opinion on the war and voice that view and try and convince others of it, so too should ALL people in our society get to have a say in this issue because it does affect all of us.
     
  13. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #14
    A church or a group has the right that says you will abide by our rules even when not here or you will no longer be a member of our church or group, or for that matter other punishments short of being kicked out as well. I don't agree with the Catholic faith and I don't agree with their position on abortion however they do have the right to say you are against abortion or else. Or else being limited to what is in their actual power to implement such as excommunicate, expelling etc.

    Kerry has the right to be pro abortion in fact I myself agree with him on this particular position. However His church has the right to condemn him for it.

    I said this before and I'll say it again the right giving freedom of religion, which some people like to call seperation of church and state, was not written to protect the government from the church. Just like freedom of speech was not written to protect the government from the press. I've yet to hear anything about seperation of the press and state.
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #15
    The Vatican is playing politics, something it really has no business doing. Kerry's choices concerning his adherence to his religion are between he and his god.
     
  15. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #16
    Krizoitz you have a few good points in there thanks for your comments but i just can't take thise black&white thing with catholic church

    i believe in evolution, the catholic church does not
    i have nothing against abortionlike the catholic church
    i have no problem with pre martial sex as opposite to the catholic church
    i am in favour for the use of condoms to prevent AIDS etc., the catholic church don't like them because people are not allowed to have have sex without having children...
    i am pro-women-as-priests compared to the catholic church
    i believe the pope can make mistakes, the catholic church does not
    i don't believe in heaven and hell either...

    so if i follow your argumentation...i am not catholic:
    i was raised catholic but i don't take everything as "right" a priori... i have no problem with being critical with church and _other_ institutions.... if it's greenpeace,the party i voted last election,people who are against genitic modified food, etc. i am for a free press but i know that there are borders in free speech ...

    i am just very afraid of religious based laws.... because you can't argue against belief...because belief doesn't respect other opionions...in the past there were so much hate,war,murder in central europe because of following blindly some churches.... i just can't ignore that

    BTW: in austria and germany you have to pay 1-2% of your monthly income to the catholic church if you are catholic as a tax..... perhaps of this the catholic church doesn't very critizing politicians...they fear the loss of money...
     
  16. Neserk thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #17
    I'm a bit confused on that point. My stepson goes to a Catholic Elementary School and he is taught evolution as part of his science curriculum. I thought the Catholic Church had conceded that in fact evolution is a valid theory for how we all got here...
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    If women are equal in the Catholic church, why can't they be priests?
     
  18. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #19
    If men are Equal in this world why can't they bear children?
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Cause that a biological law. Kinda like 'why can't I ignore gravity?'. Nothing you can do about it. Now answer my question without resorting to another question.
     
  20. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #21
    Like most pro-lifers you did not even bother to read my post. I am not in favor of abortion. The issue I addressed is two fold: one, I am pro-choice -- that doesn't make me pro-abortion; two, you want your religious views to trump every other view. Sorry that's not the way its supposed to be done in this country.

    I know it is hard for you to see how someone could be morally against abortion personally and not want to see abortion made illegal. But I don't see that its that hard. I could tell you about many positions people hold where they are against something but don't want it made illegal (smoking, drinking, gambling, etc.)

    This issue is certainly different because it involves a fetus. But it's not my fetus, its not your fetus, its a woman's fetus. You want to make a woman into a child bearing machine, and a lot of women I know will tell you where to go.

    I do not want to live in a society where the state is in complete control of who lives and who dies. It is bad enough that we have capital punishment in this country and that those of us who do not believe in capital punishment are not allowed to serve on juries in capital cases.
     
  21. Neserk thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #22

    This is something I don't understand. There is not one word in the Hebrew Bible or the Christian bible that addresses abortion, even though they existed at that time. Further, the closest thing we have is a law in Leviticus which expressely recgonizes the difference between a fetus and a viable human being. It states something along the lines that if a woman who is pregnant is struck and killed then it is life for a life. But if she is okay and the fetus is harmed then the father of the unborn will demand a price for it. That is not life for a life.

    So, the only thing the bible tells us is that life prior to birth is not of the same value as life after birth. Seems to me that the mother carrying the child is the only one who has a right to determine if the fetus will make it to a living, breathing creature. If we are going to go on what the bible says and what it does not say.
     
  22. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #23
    First, you are completely wrong about my views. Personally I think homosexual marriage is morally wrong but I am not against it being legal. Why? Because it doesn't hurt anyone. Its completely between the two people involved. Abortion on the other hand is murder from my perspective and those who are Pro-Life. I am against it in the same way I don't think a person should be able to kill their children, or frankly anyone at all.

    You're right its not my fetus. But that doesn't make it any less of a human being in the eyes of some one who is pro-life. And its not and never has been about making women a child making machine. I repeat yet again, for someone like myself who is Pro-Life its about exactly that, a life. The woman CHOSE to have sex, knowing full well that she could get pregnant, even on birth control its a possibility. The baby didn't choose to be concieved. Why does the womans life trump the babies (again we are assuming it IS alive, that being the Pro-Life position after all). The only way I can see for someone to reasonable believe that the fetus can merely be disposed of would be if they really felt it was not yet human. Otherwise we are talking about murder for convenience sake.

    You claim that you don't want to live in a society where the government can say who lives and dies. Fine lets get rid of all laws against murder, because again to a Pro-Life person thats exactly what abortion is. Not only is it murder, but its the murder of the most innocent of life possible. You yourself claim you are against capital punishment. This has always puzzled me. Why is it that a criminal, someone who has chosen to break the law, and kill other people, has more right to live than an innocent baby who has done nothing wrong at all, just happened to have a mother who didn't want to deal with the consequences of her actions?

    In conclusion, I am not trying to tell you what to believe on abortion. I'm trying to point out that if one accepts the premise that human life begins at conception then abortion is indefensible. Obviously if you feel it is not so then the argument is not going to hold for you. However to those of us who are Pro-Life its not about foisting our views on anyone, its about protecting the innocent who can't protect themselves.

    Thats how a good society functions, the strong protect the weak. Its why you have things like Child Protective Service, who can remove a child from an abusive home. Its not my child its the womans child, but that doesn't give her the right to violate that childs rights.

    And I'll point out yet again no matter what the law is on this issue one side is foisting their religious views on the other. Just because your views of what is or isn't life don't come from the teachings of God doesn't make them any less religious btw. Again I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, I'm saying that for those of us who are Pro-Life its not about taking away the rights of the woman, we just feel that murder isn't a right.
     
  23. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #24
    Thats not true, the church has said that God created the world, and that he could have done it through evolution.

    This is a comon misconception that many people have. The idea of Papal infallibility is a very limited one. It isn't what most people think, that the Pope can't make mistakes. It in fact a rare occurence, and has only been used once in the past 130 years in regards the Immaculate Conception.

    For info check out this article from Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

    From the rest of your points it seems clear you doon't believe as the Church does and I have no problem with that. I think people are free to choose their beliefs, right or wrong though they may be in the end. Forcing religion on people is a bad bad idea.

    I also understand your hesitation about religious based law, and for the most part I agree. For example I don't think there should be laws against pre-marital sex because they would be based solely on religious grounds. I personally think homo-sexual marriage is wrong, but again I don't think you can oppose it legally or that their should be laws (or heaven forbid a constitutaionl ammendmant) against it.

    When it comes down to abortion we are talking about a very fundemental thing however, life. If one accepts that the fetus is alive and human than abortion is just another name for murder. Its only because the action is ending the life of an innocent that I feel the law should protect the fetus.

    I also understand your fear based on war and suffering. In my mind organized religion is merely a tool that should be PART of ones faith life. It shouldn't be the whole part though. If you are Christian you believe that God gave us free will. He gave it to us so we could choose whether or not to follow him and he wants us to make that choice, but not blindly. Faith is not completely blind as some might claim it to be.

    If it were God wouldn't provide us with teachings such as the Bible or teachers such as Jesus. He would merely say I am God, follow me or go to hell, and that would be that.

    I feel that one must question their beliefs in order to trully understand them. Just as a good student will explore what a teacher says and sometimes challenge it so must a person of faith explore the teachings.

    Unfortunately many people abuse this and use religion as an excuse to do terrible things. But its not just religion, nationalism, and other ideologies can be used the same way.

    Its like science. Science is neither good nor evil, its merely a tool and how it is used determines the right or wrong of the action.

    BTW I don't think taxes should go to the church, people who don't believe in the church and don't belong shouldn't have to support it.
     
  24. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    I say it's a non-issue whether you're Catholic or not.

    Millions of Catholics are pro-choice. Denying someone communion is but a symbolic gesture.

    If Kerry really had done something serious against Church doctrine, they'd respond in a serious way -- by excommunicating him. This isn't going to happen.

    All that's happening here is a few higherups are getting ahead of themselves and stepping out of line, abusing their power and making empty threats to make a point and an example.

    It's nonsense and a non-issue.
     

Share This Page