Kerry’s hypocrisy on using religion

Kerry’s hypocrisy on using religion

John Kerry has criticized George Bush for seeking help from the Vatican, pushing US bishops to become more active in cultural issues, like gay marriage. Maybe it’s an attack of conscience or guilt that a Methodist has more affinity with the Church than a self-proclaimed Catholic does.

“Bush’s overt attempts to use houses of God as political organizations, and now lobbying the Vatican to play election politics, crosses the line,” Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan said yesterday. “While people of faith are important to the foundation of America’s value system, politicians should not exploit religious organizations for personal political gain; dimming reelection prospects are included.”

The hypocrisy! As if Kerry and every other Democrat doesn’t overtly campaign in mainly black churches, nevermind the fact that Kerry has suddenly rediscovered his Catholicism and brings an entourage with him whenever he goes to Mass. This hasn’t escaped the Bush campaign’s notice.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt replied: “During this campaign, John Kerry has repeatedly gone to churches and quoted Scripture from the pulpit, and used Bible verse to attack President Bush in the most inappropriate ways. This is just the latest example of a baseless attack from John Kerry.”

  • Whoa!  Hold on a minute!  Did the Vatican not make its position clear on this.  Whoever gave Kerry communion should be called on the carpet.  This is not a judgement call.  The man is pro-death.  He is not a Catholic in good standing.

    It’s no wonder anti-Catholicism is rearing its ugly head all over the country.  This just makes us look stupid.

  • Apparently the position is not clear, Deacon Mike. Just read the thread on “Bishop Sheridan clarifies.” What most bishops have actually said is that pro-abortion Catholics should refrain from going to Communion, but they’re not going to deny it to them if they approach because no one can know the content of a man’s soul.

    I know, it sounds stupid to me too, but there it is.

  • This is from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

    “John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a /wp:comment_author_email>
    2004-06-16 12:41:50
    2004-06-16 16:41:50
    If it’s not possible to make a judgment, then why does canon law require bishops and priests to make judgments. Canon 915 is only one example:

    “Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the impostion or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” (Canon 915) How are they to know who is obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin if they can’t make a judgment?

    As for your other comment, I don’t understand what you’re saying. You assert that both sides are bad, but you don’t say in what way. You say patience is needed, but you don’t say to what end. Why should we be “patient” about educating people? Educate them! Don’t wait! Do it now! There is no reason to wait except to give cover to Kerry and other pro-abortion politicians.

  • Thank you for your comments, Anne. You wrote:

    Both sides of the political spectrum have gone haywire in courting sides. Both sides of the political spectrum are seducing difficult sides to get their way.

    I agree—when partisan politics gets mixed up with the issue of the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it’s a bad thing.

    However, I’m not interested in partisan politics. Not at all. I don’t care whether it’s a Republication or a Democrat who is being told he should refrain from communion. What I care about is reverence for Our Lord’s Body & Blood, and obedience.

    Have you ever studied canon law such that you can so easily reject Dr. Peters’ assessment of canon 915? If you are certain that one can never deny communion, then could you let us know when canon 915 applies? Or is that canon just useless verbiage?

    I am not being sarcastic—I am taking your comments seriously. We are discussing a serious subject, so I do expect serious, well-thought-out answers from you, especially as you are convinced of your position.