The Black Madonna

So... shall ye sew?

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

motorola c350 driver.exe

I know I'm drifting off topic again, but this is getting aggravating for me. Besides, I don't have a Catholic-themed blog to vent on [Ed: Well... I do now], so I'll have to ask your indulgence while I get my frustrations out here. That said, it appears the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is tripping over his confirmation stole again.

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He 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.

This was brought to my attention by Steve, who asked in confusion, "Since I'm not a Catholic, how bad is what he says here?" My answer: Where do I begin?

There are several facets to Mr. Kerry's outburst that are revealing: his attitude toward episcopal authority, and toward his fellow Catholics, and his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches us with regard to the various issues he discusses. But he also appears to have misunderstood what his handlers have told him... I mean, what his catechism teacher and his spiritual advisors have taught him... about recent church history. Most importantly however, Mr. Kerry has revealed that he has spent many years (at least) away from any kind of immersion in Catholic culture.

It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on matters that are not central to dogma. It's another to intentionally misrepresent Church teaching, or to completely ignore it. Perhaps Mr. Kerry just misunderstands the difference between the Church's position on capital punishment and what it teaches about the issues of abortion and homosexuality. But the fact remains: capital punishment is legal according to Catholic doctrine, but opposed by Catholic bishops in the United States for humanitarian (and not strictly doctrinal) reasons. Meanwhile, abortion and homosexual acts are forbidden by the Church and all its bishops according to two thousand years of guidance under the Bishop of Rome. It is generally permissible to disagree with the bishops of the United States in the former case, but not with the pope and all the bishops in the latter two.

It should also be pointed out that even in the case of capital punishment, one might risk a decision by one's bishop that his support of the practice in his case is so extreme as to risk excommunication. And if such a decision were reached by a bishop, he would counsel the transgressor and warn him of the possible consequences. Such a warning would require the individual to rethink his position or submit himself to such a judgment by the episcopal authority. I have to stress that a Catholic would believe that the authority of the bishop in this kind of situation is binding and a Catholic would have to accede or admit that he is no longer a part of the Church. If the individual does not reform, excommunication ensures that he is deprived of eternal salvation. There is no debate.

Here is where Mr. Kerry does not take proper care to prudently make his case in the context of a faithful Catholic. He not only flaunts his willful disregard of episcopal authority, but to distract attention from his own "potential" transgressions, he accuses other Catholics of not being faithful to "Catholic teaching".

At this point, there could be little that Mr. Kerry would say that would make me think he is a mainstream Catholic. As if rising to the occasion, he actually does himself more harm by misstating the name of a previous pope. Make no mistake, for all you non-Catholics out there: this was no simple slip of the tongue. It is simply impossible for an adult Catholic to confuse "Pius the Twelfth" and "John the Twenty-Third". (I spell them out on purpose - say them out loud and try to get yourself confused.) More importantly, Pius XII was a controversial figure, having held the papacy during World War II. But John XXIII - the pope who called a revolutionary Church Council (Vatican II) - is beloved by Catholics the world over, and was beatified by Pope John Paul II (beatification is the step below sainthood). I can only imagine that any confusing of the two can only be achieved through years of avoiding serious discussion of all things Catholic.

UP
DATE: James Taranto coincidentally imitates us.

Kerry's last Catholic leg

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

As I pointed out previously, John Kerry has defended his position on abortion and same-sex marriage by asking of his detractors, "Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?" As if this bait-and-switch weren't lame enough, I indicated at the time that Catholic theology is far from defining capital punishment as intrinsically evil.

Now at a timely moment, Kathryn Lopez at NRO has dredged up from the bowels of the Internet an April 2001 essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles that breaks down the issue in fascinating theological detail. (hat tip: Catholics for Bush)

Both Lopez and Dulles argue against the death penalty, even while acknowledging the authority of the State to enforce it. While neither goes to this level in the linked articles, both seem to make the case that a politician who favors the death penalty is far from disqualified from earning a Catholic's vote. In reading Dulles' arguments, I would go so far as to say a Catholic legislator is well within church doctrine to support the death penalty in a general sense, as long as he lobbies to build in safeguards to ensure it is applied fairly and to shy away from its use in all but the most egregious cases.

In an interesting detail I was unaware of until now, it appears even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops aren't as keen on denouncing capital punishment as I had been led to believe. Dulles points out in a footnote that there was more than a little dissent on the matter when they made their "statement" against the practice in 1980.

The statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain. Thus the statement did not receive the two–thirds majority of the entire membership then required for approval of official statements. But no bishop rose to make the point of order.

In any case, Dulles makes a strong stand that one's support for or against the death penalty - a criminal matter between the State and a capital defendant - clearly has no relation to one's support for or against the taking of an innocent life in abortion. The only question remains: when will our bishops stand up and defend the faith?