March 28, 2004

CHOOSE:

A Test of Kerry's Faith: The candidate's policies are at odds with church canon. Will there be a price to pay? (KAREN TUMULTY AND PERRY BACON JR., Apr. 05, 2004, TIME)

Kerry and other Catholic politicians have long argued that their religious beliefs need not influence their actions as elected representatives. That position is what provoked New York's Archbishop John Cardinal O'Connor in 1984 to castigate New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro, who are both pro-choice.

If anything, the church is getting tougher. The Vatican issued last year a "doctrinal note" warning Catholic lawmakers that they have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." When Kerry campaigned in Missouri in February, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke publicly warned him "not to present himself for Communion"—an ostracism that Canon Law 915 reserves for "those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin." Kerry was scheduled to be in St. Louis last Sunday, and told TIME, "I certainly intend to take Communion and continue to go to Mass as a Catholic." [...]

Most Catholic officials expect that the church's response to Kerry's candidacy will vary from diocese to diocese. You may not see many Catholic bishops appearing at Kerry photo ops this campaign season, and there's a possibility of some uncomfortable moments on the trail. "All you need is a picture of Kerry going up to the Communion rail and being denied, and you've got a story that'll last for weeks," says Father Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America.

For now, theologians say, Kerry's conduct is principally a matter between the candidate and his own Archbishop. Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley has given him Communion in the past; the Senator took the sacrament at O'Malley's installation last July. More recently, however, O'Malley has said that Catholic politicians who do not vote in line with church teachings "shouldn't dare come to Communion." But between the gay-marriage debate in Massachusetts and his efforts to repair the damage from the sexual-abuse scandal that began in his archdiocese, O'Malley already has a plateful of controversy. Kerry, for his part, is planning to avoid stirring any up. "I don't tell church officials what to do," he says, "and church officials shouldn't tell American politicians what to do in the context of our public life."


Senator Kerry's position, like that of all putatively Catholic politicians who are permissive on social issues, is patently absurd. The Church defines the morality of its members. If you can't accept that then you aren't a communicant.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 28, 2004 1:37 PM
Comments

Like other pro-choice Catholic politicians, Kerry uses his religious identification as a political bonus, so he certainly isn't going to leave the Church by choice. He'll have to be given a shove.

Posted by: brian at March 28, 2004 3:50 PM

It would be interesting to hear Kerry's response to a question about the 'origin' or definition of morality. Of course, most politicians would probably wet themselves upon hearing that question.

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 28, 2004 8:48 PM

Once again, with the timing and dexterity of a 3-year-old ballet dancer, Kerry manages to follow up this Time Magazine piece by quoting scripture in a St. Louis church to implcitly criticize President Bush.

Under normal circumstances, it's a item that would die a silent death in the media outside of Fox News. But because it connects up with the story in this week's Time, odds are it's going to get at least a little play on Monday in outlets that normally would touch discussing Kerry's disconnect between his political voting record and the church he belongs to.

Posted by: John at March 28, 2004 9:56 PM

It says something about a man who cannot even follow the basic tenants of his faith, yet insists on remaining a part of it and publicly castigates its clergy for preaching it.

Posted by: Vea Victis at March 29, 2004 12:00 AM

If Senator Kerry was in a Baptist Church on Sunday in St. Louis, when did he go to Mass? Was he anywhere near a Catholic Church on Saturday afternoon?

Posted by: Bartman at March 29, 2004 1:58 PM

As -- and PJ probably has a better grasp of the finer points of Catholic theology than I do, so take this with a large crystal of salt -- the taking of communion by a man who is excommunicate by the nature of his own acts is a nullity, it doesn't matter what external acts Kerry undertakes.

And I'm aware that the Catechism doesn't explicitly make fervent, unyielding support of murder a crime excommincable latentiae sententia, but let us not kid ourselves here: Support and aid to mass murder has always been one of the understood grounds of taking the slow path to Nessus.

Posted by: Chris at March 29, 2004 6:46 PM

On another thread, when I objected that Catholics don't get to choose their bishops, Orrin said that the Catholics, not the bishops, are the community.

If that's so, and community determines -- as Orrin says -- then on some issues Kerry is, literally, more Catholic than the pope.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 30, 2004 1:12 PM

He was chosen a bishop?

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2004 1:18 PM

Make up your mind.

Are Catholics a community that define morality, or a herd of sheep obliged to follow the shepherd?

You've taken both sides within the past 24 hours.

And you jeer at Kerry for flipflopping.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 30, 2004 6:34 PM

We are sheep.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2004 7:31 PM
« CANADA IS NOW OFFICIALLY PARODY-PROOF (via Tom Morin): | Main | CLARKE V. CLARKE: »