I wonder how much the Reeps are paying this guy. Anyway, you'd think the Archdiocese of Boston in particular and the Catholic Church here in general have bigger problems to deal with right now than going after Kerry. Like stopping priests from molesting boys and bishops from trying to cover up the molestation rather than dealing with it properly.
It's very simple really; if you support abortion (murder of children) do not take eucharist. If you do, and take eucharist, that's heresy. He (Kerry) should be excommunicated. The Lord would Approve!
It's been way too long since the Vatican has pulled out the "Inderdict! shut all the diocese churches, refuse to give communion, no more burials, no more ringing bells, denounce the excommunicated every hour" fun and games. 1909 to be exact, huh... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08073a.htm A quite recent example of a general, local, and personal interdict, but of a purely penal nature, is the interdict placed by Pius X on the town and suburbs of Adria in Northern Italy, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, on 30 September, 1909, to punish the population of Adria for a sacrilegious attack made on the bishop, Mgr. Boggiani, in order to prevent him from transferring his residence to Rovigo. The interdict was to last for fifteen days, and contained the following provisions: "Prohibited are: (a) the celebration of the Mass and all other liturgical ceremonies; (b) the ringing of bells; (c) the public administration of the sacraments; (d) solemn burial
More likely Satan looking up and laughing! Just like soccer has rules, so too does religion; in this case, taking of the eucharist, by the Catholic Church. It's not rocket science to realize that this case (heresy) against Kerry has real merits. Let me make it real simple => If you are in favor of a crime (sin) that the Catholic Church forbids; i.e., abortion (murder of children), do not take eucharist, particularly when one such as Kerry is in a position of leadership (Senator running for President). Shall I repeat or did you misunderstand? More to the point; if Kerry, or anyone, supports abortion, they should remove themselves from Catholic Church as that position is untenable with the current dogma of Church. Kerry, however, wants it both ways. He wants to be Catholic, just not follow the rules! IntheNet
The Lord is looking at all of this right now the same way most people looked at the Celebrity Boxing match between Tonya Harding and Paula Jones. (In case you didn't get it the first time: He's laughing his ass off.)
Did you believe in Galileo's theories before the Church recently rehabilitated the guy? If so, you were a heathen infidel sinner, you unbeliever! Anyway, the American Church leadership lost 90% of their moral authority with the child sex abuse scandals. When the Church leadership has proven it has its own house in order, then they can go attack Kerry. They're at least a decade away from moving out of their glass house, though, and at this point, I doubt Kerry will lose many votes over this. Besides, if you really want to be a stickler for making your actions match the beliefs of your church, then every President and Congressperson in American history would have had to become atheists upon their election because the demands of the job dictate that you will eventually have to support something (a war, for instance) that goes against the teachings of Jesus.
When you play soccer do you use your hands or feet? Ahh... rules... one is suppose to kick the ball with your feet! Oh ok...rules...well... there are other "things" in the world with rules, such as religion. You just hardheaded or are you on Kerry's Campaign Staff?
If this LA lawyer doesn't get a hearing in Boston, he can appeal to a committee in Rome that, until 1965 was called the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
Dear Lord, Thank you providing us so much entertaining material to work with. Sincerely, The Repentant One
Who said this? The ever-increasing numbers of Catholics? Probably not. More likely the secular folks who scorn everything religious! The "child sex abuse" scandals involved a few priests and bishops and the Church has moved to address this issue and discipline those guilty, just like, for example, the Abu Grahib (sp?) prison scandal involved a few bad servicement and the Pentagon/Armed Forces has moved to discipline those involved and moved on... The American Church Leadership receives its moral authority from Rome, which, in turn, receives its authority from God. You liberals, atheists, and secularists like to bandy about such statements like "lost moral authority" without the foggiest idea what goes on in the Church! IntheNet
Charles M. Wilson, director of the St. Joseph Foundation in San Antonio, which has filed numerous complaints in church courts across the country on behalf of Catholic laity, doubts the Boston Archdiocese will respond to the case. The weak point of a "denunciation" suit, he said, is that the bishop need not take action. Usually a bishop will first investigate the case and determine whether the charges have substance, Mr. Wilson said, but Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston is under no obligation to prosecute the accused. An interesting topic, but I think what I note above will happen and then that Rome won't be getting mixed up in American politics during an election year.
DEATH TO THE HERETICS!!!!! Deu 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together. 1Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (yes, that is specifically about Marco Etcheverry)
I'm glad someone brought up Galilieo. It's only been 300 years since they put him in jail for turning their biblical stories upside down. "Hey, Copernicus; what if we are travelling around the sun and we are not the center of the universe? It would Explain a lot, ya know?" "Off to f'ing jail with you!!" Like Woody Allen said: "If God ever comes back to earth and sees what is being done in his name he is never going to stop puking."
I'm probably going to feel real foolish arguing with a sock puppet, but here it goes. I don't think Kerry has ever come out in "support of abortion." He supports laws that allow women to make choices in consultation with their doctors. In your theological mind, does it constitute sin to simply support a political philosophy that may allow others -- and not you directly -- to sin? If yes, then shouldn't all of the bishops and cardinals that KNEW about the molestation -- and simply transferred priests around their dioseces so that they could continue molesting children -- be forbidden from accepting (or giving) communion? I accept that the Church can make its own rules, and even that it could condem the actual actions related to abortions even if I don't agree with that position. The Church does not have to negotiate or bow to public opinion. But, if it is going to condem those who don't condem others, it might be time to look for other forms of worship where the clergy keep their condemnations to themselves and their trouser snakes in their pants. Last I checked, there was a God in heaven that stands in judgment. Why should the Church be able to deny sacraments to those of us who simply refuse to stand in judgment of others? I am a Catholic, and I have to say that the Church is venturing into very dangerous ground by getting involved in this type of politics. I have cringed deeply over the past couple of years of scandal, but continue to support the church. There are LOTS of pro-choice catholics out there, and the hypocracy of this move may very well drive many of us away.
I like this line of reasoning. In The Net, if one belongs to a Church denomination that is not Catholic, does one not receive one's authority from God?