John Kerry excommunicated from Catholic Church

[dmp]

Would that 58% majority of protestants want divorce outlawed? I doubt it! Henry the VIIIth would be rolling in his grave!

divorce is not prohibited from a biblical standpoint.

 

[Isaac Brock]

divorce is not prohibited from a biblical standpoint.

While I cannot comment as I'm sure you and other posters know much more about Biblical doctrine, I do know that Catholics are not permitted divorce save for some pretty extrenuating circumstances.

 

[Bonnie]

divorce is not prohibited from a biblical standpoint.

Neither is it in the Catholic church. There is an anullment process that takes place.........All these so called progressive laws are really just a watering down of church laws by discenters like King Henry who decided to make the church fit his idea of morality.

 

[Isaac Brock]

So Isaac how then would you like to see the Christian polulation represented in this country?

By voting for the candidate whom he or she feels would best represent their interests just like any other voter.

 

[dmp]

While I cannot comment as I'm sure you and other posters know much more about Biblical doctrine, I do know that Catholics are not permitted divorce save for some pretty extrenuating circumstances.

Not really...

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[6] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Those are the words of Christ - clearly he's for 'staying married'. Yet he does make allowance for Divorce in cases of either spouse breaking their wedding vows.

Below is a loose-translation into modern english...

31"Remember the Scripture that says, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him do it legally, giving her divorce papers and her legal rights'? 32Too many of you are using that as a cover for selfishness and whim, pretending to be righteous just because you are "legal.' Please, no more pretending. If you divorce your wife, you're responsible for making her an adulteress (unless she has already made herself that by sexual promiscuity). And if you marry such a divorced adulteress, you're automatically an adulterer yourself. You can't use legal cover to mask a moral failure.

 

[Bonnie]

By voting for the candidate whom he or she feels would best represent their interests just like any other voter.

Okay then, so what is the problem with Christians voting for those politicians that represent their ideals?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Neither is it in the Catholic church. There is an anullment process that takes place.........All these so called progressive laws are really just a watering down of church laws by discenters like King Henry who decided to make the church fit his idea of morality.

From what I understand, it is against cannonial law. An annulment must prove that a marriage never existed in the first place to proceed.

 

[dmp]

The church may have 'other' laws...but what I posted above are the only binding contraints placed on our marriages.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Okay then, so what is the problem with Christians voting for those politicians that represent their ideals?

Nothing, where did I say it did? :huh:

For Catholics who believe strongly in the commandments of the Papacy it would make perfect sense. For everyone else, i'm not as sure.

For instance, I voted for a Catholic in my Provincial elections, but his personal beliefs have never interfered with how he represents me based on the platform he has given. Should he now be bound to cannonial law in his governance, I could not vote for him because I do believe in divorce, shopping on Sunday, civil unions etc. Same deal with voting for Canada's prime minister who is Catholic.

 

[Isaac Brock]

The church may have 'other' laws...but what I posted above are the only binding contraints placed on our marriages.

So it would seem from your perspective, but Catholic doctrine does not appear to agree with what you have posted.

 

[Bonnie]

From what I understand, it is against cannonial law. An annulment must prove that a marriage never existed in the first place to proceed.

The anullment process is one which psycholgists/priests do an intensive investigation to see if one or both parties were insincere in taking their vows in the church. Before two people marry in the church, they go thru meetings with the pries that is marrying them do lay everything out on the table as to what is expected of them such as fidelity to each other, the promise to raise any children as Catholics, baptisms, communion, etc. If the church after investigating finds that either of the two parties took their wedding vows without the intention of being true to those vows or not fully understanding the vows, the marriage is seen as never having taken place in the eyes of God. It is therefore null, and the parties are free to marry within the church once again. It is not something they do cavalierly, but rather takes a long time, and is taken very seriously by the church.

 

[dmp]

So it would seem from your perspective, but Catholic doctrine does not appear to agree with what you have posted.

if that is the case, Catholic Doctrine is not in compliance with God. As they say in the Army, however, Commanders can make the regulations 'more' restrictive, but not 'less'. Perhaps Catholics have decided they would prefer more strict rules of what defines a marriage.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And together, not alone, they make an electorate to which a politician has to represent.

Seeming as we're playing up political stereotypes enough, imagine an electorate with a bunch of interest groups, the gun nuts, tree hugging hippies, bingeing students, crumudgeons, yacht club yuppies and said Catholics. The yuppies, catholics and gun nuts band to support a Catholic candidate because the wacko lefty candidate was too busy spreading daisies and smoking up. Given the new cannonial laws, the rep must support repealing divorce laws, shopping on Sundays and making adultry illegal. Well the gun nuts are pissed because they can't get their guns on Sunday, the Yuppies are pissed off because they can no longer legally have their affair with the pool boy and the gold diggers can't divorce anymore.

Was democracy served? I suppose they got what they paid for, but why would we want to buy it now in the first place?

Firstly, there are no new canonical laws, that's just your hysteria.

Secondly, yes, people must prioritize their issues to form broad coalitions or else nothing happens. In society we must compromise.... But wait, this is your speech!

 

[Isaac Brock]

The anullment process is one which psycholgists/priests do an intensive investigation to see if one or both parties were insincere in taking their vows in the church. Before two people marry in the church, they go thru meetings with the pries that is marrying them do lay everything out on the table as to what is expected of them such as fidelity to each other, the promise to raise any children as Catholics, baptisms, communion, etc. If the church after investigating finds that either of the two parties took their wedding vows without the intention of being true to those vows or not fully understanding the vows, the marriage is seen as never having taken place in the eyes of God. It is therefore null, and the parties are free to marry within the church once again. It is not something they do cavalierly, but rather takes a long time, and is taken very seriously by the church.

And from what I hear, it is not guarunteed either. Those this is hear-say, a know the parents a good friend of mine from high school tried to get divorced after 20 years and was denied their petition.

 

[Bonnie]

Nothing, where did I say it did? :huh:

For Catholics who believe strongly in the commandments of the Papacy it would make perfect sense. For everyone else, i'm not as sure.

For instance, I voted for a Catholic in my Provincial elections, but his personal beliefs have never interfered with how he represents me based on the platform he has given. Should he now be bound to cannonial law in his governance, I could not vote for him because I do believe in divorce, shopping on Sunday, civil unions etc. Same deal with voting for Canada's prime minister who is Catholic.

Well if that's true either he is not a practicing Catholic, or you are more Catholic than you know Isaac...... :halo: But yes if he proclaims to be Catholic then the decisions he makes should be bound by what his faith teaches him, otherwise he's not Catholic, in name only perhaps, I just don't see how a politician can be both, it's a conflict.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Our founders were concerned with tyranny by the majority against individual's rights..

That is right. Individual rights are spelled out in the Constitution.

I hate the fact that millions of innocent babies are being aborted each year also, but you as an individual are not being forced to accept your desire to not have an abortion based on another's speculation even though you have the freedom to choose..

Right, I currently have the choice to not support abortion in my personal life. Others currently have the choice to support abortion in their personal lives.

If the legislation passed a law based on religious speculation that made abortion illegal, then those that speculated differently would be "forced" to accept another individual's speculation. I don't see why you don't get that......ohhhh, you think your own personal speculation comes from God.......

Why do you have to make it a "religious" issue? The majority of people in the U.S. believe in God but they make their political decisions for lots of different reasons. What about the Constitution stating that each person has a right to life, liberty, and a free lunch...oops, I mean the pursuit of freedom? I believe pregnant women to be carrying little human persons in their bellies, not just a glob of inhuman tissue. What about the baby's rights to life? That is not a religious argument.

Both the conservative position and the feminist position on abortion have polarising and unacceptable implications. Given those two extreme choices, the conservative may be the least worse of the two but the majority wants a more middle ground.

Feminazis, uh feminists, are definitely the polar opposite of conservatives, given that their organization is steeped in communism/totalitarianism. They are not proponents for the rights of all women; they are very selective about which women they will support. Communists have a very low regard for human life. The ends justify the means. The means they are using in the feminist groups is to teach women to have little concern for the family. Communists will do anything to weaken the family unit because the family (not to mention religion) stands in their way for control of the masses. Support of abortion is one method to weaken our free society. Sad to say but they have had quite some success with it.

John Kerry is a socialist. Next best thing to communism. Knowlegeable Catholics will not vote for him. Knowlegeable Americans will not vote for him.