...Maybe I have to read the news more. Apparently this has been in the works for some time now.

John Kerry "Excommunicated", according to Vatican response



The Catholic bloc has traditionally voted Democrat. That trend is changing though. In 2000, the Catholic vote was split in half between Gore and Bush. Now, if this is all said and done the way it looks to be...

How will this effect the Catholic vote?

Do you expect devout Catholic voters that support Kerry to still vote for Kerry, or do you think that they will vote ABB?

*Bonus Question*: Is the Vatican still politically powerful, and if so, what implications do you see it having on future elections?

I thought I saw that Gore won 53% of the catholic vote in 2000?

I expect Kerry to carry the catholic vote by a slightly larger margin...like 55-45.

No other Christian group within the US sides against the pope more then the catholics. Catholics more then any other christian denomination supported gay marriage.

Catholics in the US have a love for the Vatican and the catholic church but it doesnt overly influence their politics. A devout catholic like Kerry I think would be slightly more appealing then Gore was.

Let me preface my answers by stating that I was raised in a pretty typical American Catholic home, and I have since left the Church behind. I'll let you decide if that background leads to any bias in my response.

1. I don't think this will have much, if any, effect on the Catholic vote. My experience has been that the typical American Catholic tends to be a pretty independent type. She may have a great deal of respect for the Pope, but strongly disagree with the official Church policy concerning female priests; he may attend Mass every Sunday and be a faithful member of the Knights of Columbus, but be a strong supporter of contraception and gay rights. Here's some evidence that there really is no such thing as "the Catholic vote" anymore:

Bush, Kerry, and a battle for Catholics



2. I doubt this will change the minds of very many Catholic voters. Bush already has the vast majority of votes among those who are very devout Catholics (or Protestants) with socially conservative views. (For lack of a better term, the Religious Right.) Kerry already has strong support among more moderate Catholics. This situation won't change the balance.

3. I think that any announcements coming from the Vatican about American politicians will, if anything, tend to backfire. As a minority within a Protestant nation, I think that Catholics tend to support a strong separation of church and state. (Those with long memories can recall when Catholic students in American public schools were expected to follow along when teachers led them in Protestant prayers.) Most would tend to resent the Pope telling them which way to vote, no matter how much they might revere him as a spiritual leader.

This is now nuttiest in addition to being he longest election in history. Having been a searcher for much of my life--born in a Baptist environment, converted to Catholicism briefly and settled on the Unitarian Church (though I no longer attend) and an agonistic position, I find this outrageous. When Kennedy ran in 1960, he practically disavowed his faith and proclaimed his belief in separation of church and state. Part of the concern was that Kennedy would be taking orders from Rome. Now, 44 years later, it seems Rome is trying to call the shots in a U. S. election. If profanity were allowed on this board, I would have some very strong words for the clerics involved in this. You’ll just have to use your imagination if you want to know what I’m really thinking.

I'll bet Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison are turning over in their graves.

I think this may actually create a backlash in Kerry’s favor. Here’s why:

In the mid to late 1970s, I hung out with a group of British nurses. Most of the English were Protestant and most of the Irish were Catholic. There was one Irish prod as they were called, who roomed with two Catholic nurses. Although they were engaged in war at home, everyone seemed to get along in the environment of the U. S. One night, after a nearby bar closed, one of the young ladies told me. “BoF (I bet you didn’t know they called me that then) I’m engaged to a paddy, I’m going home to marry him in about a year. The church tells us we’re not supposed to do certain things. But we’re over here to have fun and were going to do them anyway.” I laughed.

American Catholics ignore the churches teaching on contraception and divorce. The impression I get is that they think priests should be allowed to marry.

I have long thought that substantial numbers of Catholics would break with Rome and form an American Catholic Church, much as Henry VIII did in founding the Anglican Church.This may be the catalyst that hastens such a split.



I saw something earlier that implied that Catholic who voted for candidates who supportabortion rights commit sin and are required to go to confession. The cynical answer would be to vote for the candidate of your choice and if one committed a sin by doing so—go to confession if it makes you feel better.



Abuse of children by priests and cover ups by bishops have weakened the church’s credibility in the U. S. In an “enlightened” age, I doubt the Vatican has that much power in the U. S. This decision should weaken it even more.

Note: I hope this doesn't sound anti-Catholic. I still have fond memories of the Irish nurses I made friends with in the 1970. One of those nurses just retired to Ireland after working in a Fort Worth hospital for more than 30 years. We communicate by email. I was very adamant in my support of Kennedy in 1960, though 18-year-olds were not allowed to vote then. I also wrote a paper in graduate school on anti-Catholicism in the 1960 presidential election. I was outraged at the narrowness of people who opposed Kennedy because of his Catholicism. If someone had told me that something like this would come up forty years later, I simply would haved shook my head in disbelief. But the ugliness I would not have thought possible has happened.

That said, the church needs to tend to its own business and but out on anything dealing with the current election.

And yes, I'm angry as I post this.

I'm still voting for John Kerry. If the Church wants me to confess that as a sin after the election, fine. I'm still going to do it.

After hearing this news, my first thought was to spray paint on the side of my church "Physican Heal Thyself," but it's nothing I'm going to do.

Excommunication is within the Church's right. If that's what the Church wants to do, there is effectively nothing that I or other Catholics who disapprove of the action can do.

I am pro-life. But there is no way that I am going to vote for George W. Bush on the basis of my pro-life stance. Bush may be a man of Christian principles, but during election time his actions and the actions of his party could easily be attributed to the most cynical and self-serving heathen (My apologies to any heathen fellow posters; I know you have principles, too!).

Life-affirmation and Christian principles are supposed to be one and the same. These principles should extend from life's beginnings to its end. A consistent approach to the sanctity of life not only includes being against abortion, but being for poor children, that they have enough to eat, a good education, shelter, and adequate medical care. It means not having a government put people to death to send the message that killing is wrong. It means not trumping up excuses to invade a country that didn't declare war on our country; in other words, it means not picking fights with those who aren't fighting with you. It means being a good steward of the environment, making sure that we leave earth healthier for humans and other species than we found it. It means not letting the government be dictated to by those with wealth and power to the detriment of the people.

Bearing these things in mind, I believe that John Kerry has Christian principles, and that he actually has a more, if you will, Christian approach to addressing the problems of this country than George Walker Bush.

The Catholic church is not a democratic organization. The United States is supposed to be. My conscience tells me that voting for Kerry will do more to benefit the inhabitants of this country than voting for Bush will.

Many Catholics will undoubtedly vote according to the dictates of the Church. But I see this as no excuse to put my brain or my heart on automatic pilot when I enter the voting booth.

I am a Unitarian-Universalist who is routinely invited to attend Catholic Services. I am constantly informed that even as a non Catholic, I am entitled to attend services, take communion, etc., that no one will question my beliefs or refuse me communion.

This action seems very hypocritical on the part of a church which has allowed sexually abusive priests to transfer to other parishes.

At the Democratic Headquarters where I volunteer, the argument we are asked to put forth to people opposing Kerry's position on abortion is:


I will not presume, however to comment on how any individual Catholic person's vote would be affected.

I expect most American Catholics will vote however they like, regardless of Vatican announcements. Others might abstain from voting to save their souls from harm, possibly questioning their loyalties and responsibilities. I have my doubts that any will vote for Bush for his anti-choice stance, given that he's also very pro capital punishment. But I can be wrong there.



The motivations for devout Catholics will be varried, as explained above. The difference between dogma and practical application shows up very clearly in the Catholic Church, of which I was once a member. Not a very good one. Actually, a pretty bad one. Never could swallow the whole thing, not even at Confirmation.

So what the heck, I was never a real member.



It probably has the same political clout it had in 1960, which is to say not a whole lot. The Catholics I've known have lived their lives according to their faiths, consciousnesses, and practical situations -- as most people do -- despite the declarations of some old celibate guy in white robes chosen by other old celibate guys in red robes located in Italy.

But now my cynicism shows. Hey, it's pretty amazing that this Church has lasted through the Dark Ages, through the Renaissance, through the Age of Enlightenment and into the modern times. As a political influence, few can match the staying power of The Holy Roman Empire.

Except maybe fundamentalist Islam? That's certainly had a huge effect on our politics, way more so than the Vatican, and more rapidly than anyone could grasp while it was happening.

Overall, the use of Vatican dogmatic technicalities doesn't surprise me for this election. How can Kerry be Catholic and pro-choice at the same time?

Or, how can anyone be a public official and Catholic at the same time?

And, how can anyone claim to be spiritual and pro-choice at the same time?

Or spiritual and pro-capital punishment? Pro-war?

Aye, we are sometimes walking contradictions, eh? Real Zen paradoxes.

So the question evolves into which candidate knows he is a real Zen paradox? Not Bush; that's been determined beyond doubt.

Anyway, the attempt to make abortion a key voting issue has been attempted and failed. This late in the game, with early voting already happening, it's just too late.

Titus,

Perhaps we should both take the time to follow up on your sources before jumping to conclusions!

Checking the rules, Prohibited items on America’s Debate include:


A quick Internet search finds inflammatory defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language as:


My original response was made in a hurry this morning as I had to take my daughter to school, and I was committed to volunteering today at the local Democratic Headquarters. My wife was stressed by the news, and so we asked about it while we were at the Democratic Headquarters. They had heard nothing of the sort, and thought perhaps it was an “Internets Rumor.” They checked the major news sources online, and found no mention of the story…

Coming back home, I found the time to check your link to De Fide, and what I found appears to be a one man effort to file suit within the Catholic Church against John Kerry. In fact, it includes a request for “support.”


I tried a Google Search to learn how widely reported this story was:

It led me a bit astray... Sedevacantism Refuted, for instance is a web site where someone is actually discussing whether a person can be a Heretic and remain a Pope. Apparently, there are Catholics who are confident that they know their religion better than the Pope, and the College of Cardinals which elected him.

The Washington Times reported the story as follows:
Kerry cited in Catholic heresy case


Gullibility isn't in the dictionary treated it lightly,


News Hounds, “We watch FOX so you don't have to,” posted Kerry The Heretic:


Do I expect devout Catholic voters that support Kerry to still vote for Kerry, or do I think that they will vote ABB?

I put my 2 cents worth in on another topic, Soldiers Refuse Unsafe Mission, a couple of days ago, and I was reminded that having no military experience, I really should not be debating military orders and military justice. Point taken. I don’t have the Vatican on speed dial, and as a Unitarian, my local Parish Priest probably would feel no obligation to phone the Pope on my behalf to verify this story. Still, as a protestant, the claim by Marc Balestrieri that the Vatican has excommunicated John Kerry on his behalf, seems less credible to me at the moment than George W. Bush did standing under a banner declaring "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." Of course, weeks before the election, he is on a "Victory Tour" and telling his base that "That's the great thing about a campaign. All the speculation ends on Election Day." I might accept that statement from all but a very few politicians; but W is one of the few that must realize that all the speculation didn't end on Election Day. We're two weeks short of the next election day, and I still hear on a daily basis that he stole the election...

Perhaps some of our Catholic Readers could try to verify this excommunication story better before we continue to explore its impact.

How will this effect the Catholic vote?

As this is a totally bogus story, it won't affect the Catholic vote in the least. For a start, there is no such thing in canon law as an "automatic excommunication". Further, De Fide is what might politely be referred to as the "lunatic fringe" of the Catholic Church in America (though "nutbags" was the first term which leapt to mind). Among most American Catholics they are a laughing stock, and their rants on heresy will only make any impact on their own membership - who are already "converted" to their judgemental positions. I imagine that several embarrassed dioceses are politely attempting to ignore the ludicrous "canon lawsuits" being touted by De Fide and that they will soon be (if they haven't already been) consigned to oblivion.

It is seriously unlikely that the Vatican will get involved on any level. The Holy See has already refused to dirty its hands with the ridiculous attempts to deny John Kerry communion. I suspect even the Holy Father wishes that these idiots would just shut up and go away.

Do you expect devout Catholic voters that support Kerry to still vote for Kerry, or do you think that they will vote ABB?

Those who were already going to vote for Kerry will. And any Catholic who would be affected by Kerry's position on abortion rights (either way) is not an "undecided voter".

*Bonus Question*: Is the Vatican still politically powerful, and if so, what implications do you see it having on future elections?

That's a pretty big bonus. Politically powerful globally? In South America? In Africa? Implications regarding which elections? Those in Italy? France? Ireland?

If you're talking about American politics and elections, the Vatican itself is probably somewhat less powerful now than it was fifty years ago. Though, even then, most American Catholics voted - and were encouraged to vote - their consciences. The influence of the Vatican itself will probably continue to dwindle over the next fifty years - not that it has much impact anyway.

Earlier this evening, Cube pointed out the credibility problems with the story I linked to. He graciously allowed me to get wind of it and rectify it myself. Lol, but just getting in from a long day at work, I put it off for a few hours.

So let me say this... the article I linked to appears to be very misleading. I should have held off on this until the major news outlets, which I admit I myself thought was strange that they didn't pick up on this, broke the story. No more jumping the gun because it's on Drudge....

I do find the accusation against me of trying to enflame or deride Catholics disturbing. Many people here can vouch that I would not dare attempt such a thing (my mother was raised Catholic and her mother still is). In fact, Cube pointed out to me when I discussed this with him that I might have "stirred a hornet's nest" but I was susprised at the amount of positive and construction discussion that followed. Religious tolerance is an ideal I can trully say I adhere to. Although I may not agree or even like certain things about a faith, I would fight and die for any American of any faith or denomination. Curmudgeon, your the first and only so far to make the statements you made. And while your concern is a little jumpy itself, it's nonetheless appriciated in the fact that it shows how concerned AD'ers are to protect the integrity of this fourm.

But with all this said and done, the questions I posed for debate are still valid questions. We talk about voting blocs all the time, and the Catholic voting bloc will be an intergal part of the 2004 election. We could easily transfer this into the hypothetical, or ignore it completely. The truth is, Catholics will play a big part, IMO, in whether John Kerry is elected or not.

That said, I apologize for jumping the gun. Once burnt, a lesson learnt I guess...

I too jumped the gun on this. As an 18 year old in 1960, I saw the ugliness that religious issues can inject into campaigns. I regret that it has surfaced yet again. That said, I don't think Catholics will vote as a bloc.

I was also encouraged last week when I learned that the Rev. Joel Gregory, former pastor of First Baptist Church Dallas--the last time I heard FBCD was the largest protestant congregation in the country--is supporting John Kerry. Perhaps Christian conservatives may not be the bloc we think.

Regardless, I think Bush has managed to create the most divided people in my lifetime. Certainly there was as much anger during the Vietnam era--anger about the war, anger about the four kids murdered by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State University. Open demonstrations and the work of returning Veterans like John Kerry created a sort of self-catharsis for the period. The hate and anger is embedded in this election and there is no catharsis, no safety valve of demonstration. It's just sort of sitting there, stagnating, festering giving us no apparent way out.

BoF,

Is that handle pronounced "Boff" or "Bofe" or "Beuf"?

Anyway, excellent point. Since 1960, it seems that people aren't defining themselves into narrow, one-issue voting blocs as much as before. The assumption that Catholics would be for/against a candidate on one issue isn't held up by the statistics cited. Some will vote Kerry, some Bush, and I suppose some Libertarian, some Green, and so on. You know, kinda like the rest of the country?

Another thing to keep in mind is that we don't have reliable statistics regarding religion and voting, or any other demographic and voting. It's all inferred from exit interviews and stat analysis after the fact.

So if I were to be an analysist looking at voting stats versus reglion stats for a given place, and if I were to be *looking* for corelations between religion and voting, I might be able to see a bloc relationship between being Catholic and voting some particular way.

Yep, and if I were to be not looking for religion/voting corelations, I'd not see them.

It seems like a shortcut way for demographic analysis to figure out something from nothing, sell it to politicians (get on the campaign gravy train), and give talking heads something to ramble on about. Meanwhile, the whole idea of blocking voters this way or that is just a bunch of hooey.

That's why Reagan surprised everyone. Hey! Those blue collar types must have swung over!

Or blue collar changed from working with hands (primarily) to working with minds. Computers, you know? Lots of Republicans working the trenches of computerdom before the stat analysits and talking heads had a clue.

Catholic. What does it mean for votes? Maybe nothing.

Thought it interesting that this has turned out to be another swirl of air from a questionable source. Perhaps that is the only concrete thing to be said about politics these days -- distrust all stories until verified.

Maybe more people are getting that fundamental?

I am thankful to know that this is merely wishful thinking on the part of some zealots with nothing better to do than cry heretic. It is a serious thing to work diligently (or even feverishly in this case) to get someone kicked out of their church, no matter which church it happens to be. "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7) comes to mind.

But this does remind me of the whispering campaign that was conducted against John McCain in the South Carolina primary of 2000 when he was trying to become the GOP presidential nominee. Rumormongers on any side should be exposed for what they are and discredited. If a person actually believes the story it is one thing, but there are some cynical people in all campaigns who know the truth and don't care that the truth is not in what they are repeating.

To the zealots in question and their willing cohorts, I would direct this quotation from the book they profess to love: "There are six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him; Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood; A heart that plots wicked schemes, feet that run swiftly to evil, The false witness who utters lies, and he who sows discord among brothers" (Proverbs 6:16-19).

There is a positive side to this type of occurrence--we find out who these people are and we can avoid them thereafter.

I think this is a Catholic internal matter being worked out within a community of believers who accept with trust and faith the teaching authority of its leaders.
Practicing Catholics are eager to seek guidance, assistance, understanding and believe that Christ speaks through the teaching of the Church. When something is taught to be harmful to one's life and others (sin), it is avoided out of trust, not arrogantly despised as "someone else telling me what to do".

This is an individual Catholic layman asking Church leaders wether there is sufficient evidence to raise an inquiry on some Catholics who are opposing the Catholic community's teaching in public. Unless Bishop Sean O'Malley decides to hear the case of heresy against John Kerry, or publicly acknowledge that Kerry's pro-abortion stance has isolated him from his own Catholic community, I do not think it will greatly affect the Catholic vote as a whole.

However, I think many people underestimate the Catholic voter in 2004. As a practicing Catholic, having lived in three different states (NJ, FLA, MA) in the last six years, and attending many Catholic churches, I have definitely seen an increase in fellow Catholics taking public stands for their faith. I've also seen a greater reluctance to accept the "personally opposed, publicly support" deception offered by some Catholic politicians. Not a grass roots poll, just my observations.

Marc Balestrieri, head of a conservative Catholic group called De Fide, is on a quest to point out "the growing misunderstanding by Catholics that they can publicly call themselves Catholics and support the right to choose abortion." But the Holy See has not made a comment one way or the other.

There is a divide not only in America, but also in the Church over this issue of abortion and life. A decision to excommunicate Kerry would lead to the excommunication of half of the Church, and ultimately lead to an Anglican division of the Church.

Does this change the votes? This month's Catholic Digest (like Readers Digest, only Catholic) there is a spiritually based Q&A sessions with both Bush and Kerry, introduced by a write up on the spilt Catholic vote. The article claimed that Bush shared more in common with Catholics who attend Church regularly, then they do with Kerry.

The Church has yet to rule whether or not to excommunicate those who are pro abortion, and probably will not rule before the election.