Bush - More "catholic" Than Kerry?

[Bruce S]

[quote]Friday, April 2, 2004 11:03 a.m. EST
Bush Echoes Catholics on Life

[b]NewsMax.com's Fr. Michael Reilly notes that President Bush has gone out of his way to defend values that Catholics hold dear, while Sen. John Kerry seems to be running away from his Catholicism.[/b]

As President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law yesterday, he noted, "we reaffirm that the United States of America is building a culture of life."

[b]In fact, the culture of life is a central theme in the preaching of Pope John Paul II and is becoming a central theme of the Bush presidency. [/b]

Along with the UVVA Act, the Bush administration has banned U.S. financial support to international groups that support abortion, signed the partial-birth abortion ban, extended legal protection to babies who survive abortions, and increased funding for abstinence education and alternatives to abortion.

The president also backs a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and favors limits on stem cell research.

[b]The record shows that by his words and actions, President Bush has done more to advance the Vatican's position on life issues than any other president before him. [/b]Consider Bush's courageous stands in light of the pope's own position as set forth in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a document he approved in January 2003.

"Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on" the principle of "respect for the human person," because "otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be nonexistent."

"In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals," the document continues.

"This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia [not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate]. Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo.

"Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights."

It's not hard to imagine President Bush agreeing with much - if not all - of the above statement.

So where does that leave Sen. John Kerry, the presidential candidate who in fact is actually Catholic?

Apparently Kerry couldn't disagree with the pope more. The Massachusetts Democrat supports abortion on demand, opposes school choice, voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposes a constitutional definition of marriage.

In the summer of 2003, Kerry responded to Vatican efforts to oppose gay marriage by stating, "I believe in the Church and I care about it enormously, but I think that it's important to not have the Church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America."

In February Kerry's wealthy wife, Teresa Heinz, boasted that Americans will eventually get used to gay marriage.

The Vatican had already explained clearly that to promote "the common good of society, according to one's conscience," has nothing to do with "confessionalism" or "religious intolerance."

[b]Is it any wonder why several leading Republicans have taken to referring to Bush lately as the "Catholic president"? [/b][/quote]

Edited April 6, 2004 by Bruce S

[dUSt]

It's unfortunate that a Catholic in good standing with the Church would be morally obligated to vote for a Protestant candidate over a "Catholic" candidate.

Please vote Bush.

[Iacobus]

"In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals," the document continues.

Both have laws and programs that run opposite to the fundamental contents of faith and morals. Both parties are bad. Hows about change in the parties comes with change in power?

[Bruce S]

[quote]Excerpt)

He (Kerry) added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

[/quote]

[Bruce S]

[quote]The American Catholic Politicians: Legates of the New Church
The Remnant ^ | April 15, 2004 Issue | Michael J. Matt


In her book, Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage, Sheila Rauch Kennedy, an Episcopalian, delivered an indictment against the post-conciliar Church back in 1998 that should have caused Catholics from here to the Vatican to cringe with embarrassment. Mrs. Kennedy, readers will recall, was refusing to roll over and accept the Archdiocese of Boston’s absurd ruling that her 12-year marriage to Congressman Joseph Kennedy, the son of slain US Attorney General Robert Kennedy, was never sacramentally valid.

Though the couple had divorced after twelve years of marriage it wasn’t until Congressman Kennedy wanted to marry again that the Archdiocese had to consider yet another set of “special circumstances” for the Kennedy clan. [b]Political expedience necessitated that the Congressman seek the cloak of legitimacy from the Church in order to help circumvent any potential roadblocks on his way to the governor’s mansion in Massachusetts that year. (Due to subsequent personal tragedy—the accidental death of Michael Kennedy in 1997—his gubernatorial bid was eventually abandoned.)

True to form, however, the Archdiocese granted the controversial annulment, much to the dismay of Mrs. Kennedy. [/b]Ironically enough, her battle against the Archdiocese’ decision—which she has since taken all the way to Rome—was as much an inadvertent defense of the Church’s pre-conciliar moral governance as it was a defense of the legitimacy of the two children which the Kennedy marriage had produced. Mrs. Kennedy was outraged by the two-faced politicking of the Church. Showing more integrity than the Archdiocese of Boston, in fact, she clarified a very simple concept which the new Church still seems incapable of grasping: >>>> continued:

[url="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/kerry.htm"]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/kerry.htm[/url]

Source:


Michael Matt has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper's editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church, as well as on the anti-Christian political trends in the world -- for The Remnant and other Catholic publications. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll), the co-author of We Resist You to the Face, and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to traditional Catholic groups in and around the United States and Canada. Mr. Matt has proven himself an outspoken opponent of a variety of anti-Catholic movements including  the culturally subversive forces behind the rock 'n' roll industry, the liturgical revolutionaries,  Freemasonry,  phony ecumenism, etc. Together with his beloved wife, Carol Lynn and their four children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Remnant is currently supported by the able journalism of regular columnists Dr. Thomas Droleskey, PH.D, Michael Cooper, Christopher Ferrara Esq., Dr. Thomas Woods, Ph.D, Michael Chapman,  Mark Alessio,[b] Robert Sungenis, Pauline Zingleman and dozens of other Catholic writers.[/b]

[/quote]

Edited April 6, 2004 by Bruce S

[Bruce S]

[quote]Blame the Bishops
The American Spectator ^ | April 6, 2004 | George Neumayr

[b]In America's political theater of the absurd, Protestant politicians receive communion from Catholic priests while Catholic politicians take communion from Protestant ministers.[/b] In 1998, Bill Clinton, a Baptist, slipped into the communion line at a Catholic Church in South Africa.[color=red][b] John Kerry, a Catholic, took communion this past Palm Sunday at an African Methodist Episcopal Church.[/b][/color] Clinton spent Palm Sunday in 1995 soaking up a standing ovation from Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony and his congregation in Los Angeles. Kerry spent this Palm Sunday soaking up an endorsement from pastor Gregory Groover. Normally opposed to the mixing of pastors and politics, Kerry didn't mind receiving Groover's endorsement from the pulpit: "We're thankful that there's going to be a revolution in this country…a new movement…And we say, God, bring him on, the next president of the United States."

Kerry's separation-of-church-and-state scruples don't apply to pastors who endorse him or third-world thugs like "Father Aristide." He reserves them for the head of his own religion. "I think that it's important to not have the Church instructing politicians," he said as he disregarded Pope John Paul II's teaching on abortion.

In early March Kerry stepped into a Protestant church to challenge the Christianity of George Bush. The ironies abounded: a Catholic in a Protestant church was citing James 2:14 (a verse Catholics use to argue against Protestantism) against a Protestant President who has "faith" but no "deeds" even as that Catholic argued in other settings that his own faith shouldn't influence his deeds.

There are two Protestants in the race, an official one and an unofficial one. Kerry is the anti-Papal one, protesting the teachings of the Catholic Church in a manner befitting Martin Luther. Kerry's reception of communion at an African Methodist Episcopal Church is appropriate: he is more in communion with the teachings of that church than his own.

As Kerry brazenly violates Church law -- canon law explicitly forbids Catholics from receiving communion in Protestant churches -- it is not clear if he is actively baiting his own church or just considers its prelates too feckless to pull the plug on his show of Catholicism while disobeying its teachings. It is a measure of his contempt and their carelessness that as the American Catholic bishops (with a few exceptions) sit on their hands -- dithering over whether to ban pro-abortion Catholic politicians from communion -- Kerry takes communion at a Protestant church. Would Kerry need to preside at a Methodist-Episcopalian service before they took action?

Last week the New York Times noticed that Kerry's checkered Catholicism is a problem for the bishops. It didn't notice that this is a problem the bishops made by long indulging pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Kerry's campaign used this defense in the Times story. "It's not once been an issue the campaign has run into in almost two years on the campaign trail," a Kerry spokesman told the paper. "He's given speeches at Georgetown, he's given speeches at Boston College, he's a graduate of Boston College Law School, and he has a long history speaking in Catholic institutions."

Instead of censuring pro-abortion Catholic politicians, the American bishops stigmatized the few of their number who censured pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Nebraska bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and a former bishop of San Diego, Leo Maher, were criticized by their fellow bishops for confronting pro-abortion Catholic politicians. The New York Times story reveals that this attitude amongst the American bishops still exists. Now it is St. Louis archbishop Raymond Burke who is the subject of episcopal whispers for having said that he would withhold communion from Kerry.

"Few bishops followed the example of Archbishop Burke in St. Louis, and two who did were far less direct. A Catholic official familiar with the bishops' thinking, who did not want to be identified, said after Archbishop Burke's sanction: 'Notice the resounding silence. I think many people would not consider that a pastoral way to approach somebody,'" reported the Times.

Here we go again: Whenever the bishops don't want to confront a scandal, they call their passivity "pastoral." For some reason they are proud of this "silence." Haven't they learned by now that passivity in the name of PR only leads to bad PR and silence only leads to scandal?

George Neumayr is managing editor of The American Spectator.

[/quote]

Doesn't Kerry's taking COMMUNION in a Protestant chuch AUTOMATICALLY excommunicate him?

[Bruce S]

[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040404/i/r23287178.jpg[/img]

[MagiDragon]

[quote]Doesn't Kerry's taking COMMUNION in a Protestant chuch AUTOMATICALLY excommunicate him? [/quote]

yeah, pretty much. The thing is though, that we don't know when he last confessed. Excommunication is something that a person does to themselves, they reject the Church, the Church says, alright, you don't wanna be with us, you aren't with us.

Granted, I *doubt* that Kerry would truly repent of having demonstrated a disrespect the the Eucharist, but that doesn't mean that he *hasn't.* (I'm an optimist ok? Don't say someone's bad unless you really gotta. OTOH, what he *did* is horribly shameful.)

Edited April 6, 2004 by MagiDragon

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

"My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am."

That is very Un-Catholic. geniuses misinterpreting Vatican II.

[Donna]

Bruce, you're going to make a great Catholic.

Oh dear Lord. Thank you, Mrs. legitimate Kennedy!

(Mr. Kerry fails to clarify that it is a properly formed conscience the Church refers to. But in the end, none of it matters, save that each soul is obliged always to refer to and keep natural law -which for the Catholic is supernatural law: Divine law).

And there are the Methodists [i]kneeling...communion rail...[/i]It make one seriously wonder whether they'll get it before "we" do.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]It make one seriously wonder whether they'll get it before "we" do. [/quote]


One cannot seriously wonder about this. Because without Apostalic succession they will NEVER get "it".

[dUSt]

Kerry sickens me.

If he's as faithful an Amrican as he is a Catholic, this nation is in big trouble if he should be elected.

[cmotherofpirl]

CAtholoc World news says Kerry is going to try to get refused Communion as a publicity stunt, to garner a sympathy vote from those who hate the Church.

[dUSt]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 8 2004, 11:13 AM'] CAtholoc World news says Kerry is going to try to get refused Communion as a publicity stunt, to garner a sympathy vote from those who hate the Church. [/quote]
Oh that'll be a great move. Gain a few anti-Catholics, lose all the faithful ones--but then again, with his pro-abortion stance, he's already lost all the faithful ones... Smart politician.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

"CAtholoc World news says Kerry is going to try to get refused Communion as a publicity stunt, to garner a sympathy vote from those who hate the Church."

He is a sicko, and if he pulls off this stunt, the Church should come out in being against him. How can a "member" of the Catholic Church use anti-Catholicism to get elected?