July 11, 2004
UNFAITHFUL:
John Kerry, in the Catholic Tradition: He's no Mario Cuomo. (Joseph Bottum, 04/26/2004, Weekly Standard)
Kerry's incapacity to excite Catholic voters with his Catholicism was captured perfectly in the tirade about religion and politics with which he began Holy Week. Asked by a reporter about his Catholic opponents, Kerry replied, "Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching? 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." [...]Perhaps Kerry's pronouncements about Catholicism and America are merely the children of Cuomo's and the grandchildren of Kennedy's. But at least his forebears knew they were negotiating difficult territory. "Surely I can, if so inclined, demand some kind of law against abortion not because my bishops say it is wrong, but because I think that the whole community, regardless of its religious beliefs, should agree on the importance of protecting life--including life in the womb," Cuomo pointed out, although quickly adding that he wouldn't ever actually make that argument. But when Kerry claims that pro-life teaching is inherently sectarian--when he suggests it is, as George Weigel notes, "something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent"--he has carried the separation of church and state into strange, new dimensions: The fact that the Catholic Church supports a position somehow becomes a reason a Catholic politician has to oppose it.
LAST YEAR, Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento rejected the claim of California's then-governor Gray Davis to be a "pro-choice Catholic"--and he was promptly attacked by Davis's spokesman for "telling the faithful how to practice their faith." Here's where Cuomoism always seems to end up these days: John F. Kennedy's promise that he would accept no orders from religious officials in the performance of his office has devolved into the idea that religious officials may not even instruct believers in the tenets of their faith.
Why would we want to elect someone who proudly proclaims he won't fight for what he believes in? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 11, 2004 8:39 AM
"... someone who proudly proclaims he won't fight for what he believes in?
Ah, but he will -- it is just that the only thing he truly believes in is that John F. Kerry should be President of the United States.
Posted by: jd watson at July 11, 2004 10:41 AMThat's easy--because he's not George W. Bush.
Posted by: jsmith at July 11, 2004 11:32 AMThe Catholic Church was pro-death penalty when I was a Catholic.
That's the problem with Christian morality. You can't depend on it for anything.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 11, 2004 1:48 PMHarry: The Catholic Church isn't anti-death penalty now. It wasn't pro-death penalty then. Keep up with the times, man.
Posted by: Chris at July 12, 2004 7:23 AMThe Catholic Church isn't anti-Death penalty?
Can anyone remember what Pope John Paul II had to cay in (Cleveland, Cincinnati?) during a visit five or so years ago?
If memory serves, he was very anti-death penalty. Of course, he might have only been speaking for himself, and was disinclined to fight for what he believed in.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 12, 2004 8:01 AMJeff:
Yes, he's personally opposed but obviously the Bible says otherwise. It can't then be immoral to execute, only inadvisable.
Posted by: oj at July 12, 2004 8:10 AMIt was certainly pro when I was Catholic, no matter what Chris thinks.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 12, 2004 2:15 PMPerhaps someone can google what the Pope actually said. If memory serves, the word "immoral" cropped up at least once or twice.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 13, 2004 7:16 AMCapital punishment can't be immoral per se.
Posted by: oj at July 13, 2004 8:32 AMHarry-
Most of the civilized world was pro-death penalty when you were a kid. Men were hanged for rape in those days. That's the problem with human beings, can't depend on them for anything.
OJ:
"Capital punishment can't be immoral per se."
Whether true, or your opinion, that isn't the point.
The Pope said it was immoral. One presumes that means something. It also presumes he will use his position to fight for what he believes in.
Or not?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 14, 2004 7:42 AMNo, he didn't.
Posted by: oj at July 14, 2004 8:16 AMYes, Tom, but you're supposed to be able to depend on your spiritual advisers for spiritual advice.
You might as well shoot crap.
If the death penalty was moral when I was a kid, it must still be; and also the contrapositive of that. Nothing has changed so much in the last 50 years that morality had to change.
The point is not which is the right position. The point is that the Church is bankrupt, got nothing to give on the subject of morality.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 14, 2004 5:27 PMNothing changed.
Posted by: oj at July 14, 2004 6:03 PMWell, what has the Pope said on capital punishment?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 15, 2004 7:05 AMhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html
Posted by: oj at July 15, 2004 8:09 AMOJ:
Thank you very much for that reference.
'If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.'
Whithin the US context, that sounds pretty unequivocal to me: capital punishment is immoral, even when richly deserved.
So is the Catholic church going to start excommunicating politicians who carry out death penalties, or fail to devote the appropriate amount of effort to stopping capital punishment?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 15, 2004 1:22 PMJeff:
Bloodless means are better--capital punishment isn't immoral.
Posted by: oj at July 15, 2004 4:36 PMHow is " ... public authority must limit itself to such means ..." not directive, and how does the Church get around to using "must" without a moral imperative?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 16, 2004 7:12 AM"If "
Posted by: oj at July 16, 2004 7:39 AMOJ:
Thanks for making my point. In the US, bloodless means are readily available to defend human lives against an aggressor.
For that statement to be worth anything, if the antecedent is true, the consequent must be also.
Therefore, the statement clearly considers capital punishment immoral.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 16, 2004 12:02 PM