Attempt to clarify misconceptions of the yahoo article on Ratzinger.

[merh]

We went through all of this during the election. Ratzinger's quotes as found in the yahoo article were taken out of context and Ratzinger's/the Vatican's position were not as limited as this article would make one believe.

New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign
WASHINGTON (AFP) - German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."
<snip>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=3&u=/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus

The twisted interpretation of Radzinger's letter was used by some of the Catholic leadership, but not all. The Vatican's position was "if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful."

Most priests misinterpreted this message (as did the yahoo story that has been all over the threads in the last couple of days). That was not Ratzinger's or the Vatican's position.

Cardinal Ratzinger's note underlined the principles involved for the Catholic voter.

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons," he said.

http://www.jknirp.com/thavis3.htm

In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on other issues outweighed the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful. (eg voting against Bush because of the war, his stance on capital punishment, his lack of support for social programs that help the less fortunate survive, his lack of health care for those in need, his support of torture and his endorsement of those that crafted the torture policy, et cetera.)

It was the US Catholic Church leaders that twisted Ratzinger's words and gave in the the weed, they sold out Catholics and our nation for 30 pieces of silver (faith based initiatives and tort reform to protect their dioceses from the litigation they faced due to their abusive and sick priests).

Basically, Ratzinger's letter said that Catholics should take responsibility for their actions, under Church law, if they are divorced, if they support programs that are not sanctioned by the Church (abortion, euthenasia, etc), then they should not try to receive the sacrament of communion.

Further, prior to the election, the Vatican released a public statement that a pro-bush/Anti-Kerry lawyer had hoodwinked them.

Vatican Says Anti-Kerry Lawyer Hoodwinked Them
Oct 20, 11:17 AM (ET)
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A conservative U.S. lawyer's attempt to enlist the Vatican in his drive to declare Senator John Kerry a heretic over his abortion views backfired Wednesday when the Holy See said it had been hoodwinked.

Marc Balestrieri, head of a conservative Catholic group called De Fide, has been pushing for the Church to rule that the Democratic presidential candidate has inflicted excommunication on himself because he supports a woman's right to an abortion.

Balestrieri caused a stir in the United States this week when he asserted in interviews and on his Web site that he had won an unofficial and indirect green light from the Vatican.

But Wednesday, the Vatican denied his assertions, which received widespread coverage in major U.S. media.

(snip)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1120059

Moral of the story folks - the media twists the truths and the bad guys lie to us all the time. (WMD's in Iraq.) Don't always believe what is written until you double check the source. Especially when the information is available on the internet and/or on old threads here on DU.

Peace

[geek tragedy]

1. He pretty much advised/ordered priests not to give Kerry communion.

To hell with the old reptile.

[merh]

3. When did he do that and when was Kerry denied the

sacrament?

I am not familiar with that, could you provide a link? :shrug:

[imenja]

5. I suggest you try reading her post

because that is not what it says.

[ElectroPrincess]

11. I did, but as important I read the letter that was distributed to the

parishes in No VA. It was smarmy beyond words.

The only aspect that covers them is one small paragraph that simply states that "it's OK" you vote for a candidate IN SPITE of his/her pro-choice stance. However (and this is big), it spends the rest of the letter in an outright rant-mode intimating that "hell and damnation" will come upon any Catholic that chooses to vote for a candidate BECAUSE OF his/her pro-choice position.

I was disgusted and almost quit my Parish and attending Mass over this letter. However, I will NOT give up my faith because there's always been corrupt leadership to be found even at the highest levels withing the Catholic leadership hierarchy.

There is more to being a Pro-Life Catholic than simply opposing Abortion. And BTW, who DECLARED that being against Abortion *requires* that we push laws that force people to behave as such? If not, Kerry had made it clear that he personally opposed abortion but would NOT vote contrary to his constituent's wishes. IMO, issue resolved to reinstate his "Good Catholic" status as well as all his Catholic Supporters' rationale.

Remember fellow liberal Catholics, these men are mere mortals. We must never give up our beloved faith. I believe (and pray) that sanity will return to the leadership with time. :(

[merh]

38. As I pointed out, many in the leadership of the Church here

twisted Ratzinger's words and emphasized what they wanted to be considered "the issues" and totally neglected the other issues or the real issues.

It was not Ratzinger that wrote the letter you reference, it was members of the the leadership here in the US.

Apparently, many letters were exchanged on the issue. The Ratzinger letter, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles”, is considered confidential, as are other letters between the Vatican and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.. It was leaked, but others discussing the issue in greater detail have not yet been leaked. Some links below that may help you.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/citw.cgi/past-00187

http://www.jknirp.com/thavis3.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/148/story_14893_1.html

This site is Ratzinger's Fan Club (I found it last night, I am not necessarily a fan, but I am willing to give him a chance, that is all we can do at this point) and it has links to a lot of his writings, you may be able to find more here.
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Ratzinger_Online.html

Bottom line, the Catholic Church puts the responsibility on the individual. As a nomad Catholic, I don't agree with the church's stance on many things, the access to sacraments being one of them. If the sacarments are gifts from God, through which I am to gain greater access to his love and understanding, then why should I be deprived of them when I need them most, when I am at my lowest, when I am sinning?

Actually, the biggest contention between the US leadership and the Vatican was divorced catholics, should they be denied the sacrament.

The Pope chastised the weed on the war, has publicly denounced capital punishment and torture. That was a heck of a lot more than he did with or against Kerry. The Vatican tried not to chose sides. If they had chosen sides, Kerry would have been excommunicated and they would have released a public statement loudly proclaiming his ex-communication due to his stance on abortion and enthusenasia.

[MrModerate]

2. So Ratzinger left himself some wiggle room . . .

While making it obvious that the senior heirarchy of the church considered voting for Kerry a "sin."

It just makes him more of a hypocrite and a politician of the -- dare I say it -- GWBush school.

[jfs1000]

4. Please use reason

I understand the distatse for the catholic church. But why would Benedict XVI give a crap about Bush?

This guy is German, and doesn't care much about the political dynamic in the USA. His letter to Bishops actually helped kerry. It didn't make it a sin to support him, which the rethugs tried to say.

Now, I am very critical of the bishops in some of these archdioceses. If the church can stop Liberation theology, then it can silence Bishops for trying to influence the American political process on religous grounds. The church has a right to take stands on issues, as do all interest groups, but they can't support candidates which is what they did in November.

After initally being disappointed in Rats' election, I can say now I think he will surprise us. You won't see a change in women priests and married priests, which is irrelevant if you aren't practicing Catholic. But you can bet your ass he isn't going to let the church be used as a pawn of the Republicans again. You will see him become very critical of these evangelicals very soon.

The church is out to protect the church. Local politics be darned.

[merh]

6. It is wonderful to read your words.

I welcome you to DU with open arms. :hi:

Lately, reason has not come into play here, just a lot of unsubstantiated rhetoric and contempt.

:pals: I believe it will settle down and with posts like yours, I am even more confident it will.

[ElectroPrincess]

12. NO WAY!

I love my Parish. However, have you heard of "Separation of Church and State"? I hope and pray that we are NOT encouraged to become a political *soundboard* - otherwise I agree with the Agnostics and Atheists = REVOKE our (The Catholic Church's) TAX FREE charitable status.

NO! We can't have it both ways. It's time for the Right Wing USA Catholic Bishops to serve those in need, both spiritually and physically, but LEAVE the POLITICS to the ****SECULAR**** Government.

BTW did I use enough astricks to emphasize the importance of a secular USA run government? :hi:

[merh]

44. I like your idea of revoking the tax free status of the Catholic

church, all churches, that become politically active and take the stances that could influence elections.

I think you used just the right amount of astericks and I agree with your view - SECULAR USA government - separation of church and state! :thumbsup:

[leftchick]

15. well there is that interesting Neil Bush connection

To the new Pope....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1411847&mesg_id=1411847

[imenja]

23. what does that prove to you?

seriously?

[leftchick]

28. it proves nothing to me except

what a "coincidence" that Neil Bush (BFEE) once again pops up out of nowhere and this time connected directly to the new Pope? :eyes:

[imenja]

57. I'm sure you could find Bush connections in many places

Including with some of your favorite Democrats. When people come from wealthy families, they end up sitting on all kinds of boards.

You do realize the Born Again Christians hate Catholics and consider the Pope the anti-Christ? Did that little fact escape you somewhere along the line? Have you never heard them announce that Catholics are not really Christian?

[leftchick]

59. you seem irritated with me

I am a Liberal Catholic and I have come to no conclusions regarding the new Pope. I am most certainly aware of the disdain the fundies have for those of my faith. Do you know what I am aware of because of the previous post? :eyes:

I am just looking at what is out there and learning. I find this connection to the BFEE most intriguing. Sorry if it ruffles your feathers.

[imenja]

61. I get irritated at the conspiracy theories overall

not just you.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

58. no doubt

but he isn't a political appointment and not a single one of us can do a damn thing about it. So my question is, why all the fuss? What is the point?

[fishwax]

31. I think that is very naive

<<This guy is German, and doesn't care much about the political dynamic in the USA.>>

The United States is the world's great hegemonic power. It's not as though nobody outside North America really cares or has an interest in who our leadership is or what direction our country takes, since it will undoubtedly have an effect on them through our military positioning, our foreign spending, our cultural export, or in some other form. It's like saying Jaques Chirac is French, and doesn't care much about the political dynamic in the USA.

You might be right about Ratzinger being a surprise. I hold out hope that he won't be nearly as conservative as people expect him to be. But to pretend that he doesn't care about what happens outside the Vatican is naive. The US certainly isn't the center of the Catholic world, but we are the most powerful military, commercial, and cultural force, and anyone who's trying to lead an international institution of the size and scope of the Catholic church has to have an awareness and an interest in what's going on here.

[Lerkfish]

36. why give a crap about Bush? maybe his relationship with Neil Bush?

your defense is predicated on the assumption that Ratzinger doesn't care or know about the Bush family, and also assumes he would have no stake in Bush getting elected.

Listen, I know you want to defend the pope because he's the pope...but glossing over problems does not solve anything, either.

[imenja]

7. I realize you think you as an American are the center of the earth

and that as a result nothing is more important than an American presidential election, but I can ensure the Vatican does not see it that way. The American capacity for egocentrism continually amazes me. I doubt they cared much about the outcome of the election. And if the intent had been to steer it toward Kerry, why would the Pope have spoken out so frequently against the Iraq War?

[fishwax]

32. I don't think that's a fair or accurate characterization

It isn't egocentrism to say that the American presidential election actually does have an effect on world affairs, and as such anyone who has a strong stake in world institutions has an interest in the U.S. election.

The U.S. certainly isn't the center of the Catholic world, and I think it's egocentric to expect that, for example (as many American Catholics do), the church would change policy on something like married priests to help with the priest shortage here, when the priest shortage isn't really a problem for 90% of the church's population.

But it isn't egocentric to be aware that the U.S., for good or ill, is the lone superpower with unparalelled commercial, cultural, and military power. Anybody running an international organization the size and scope of the church certainly had a stake in the election.

[MrModerate]

37. Thanks -- saved me drafting a reply

Rightly, wrongly, or indifferently, we ARE the 800-pound gorilla, and since our leader would lose a battle of wits with just about any other gorilla, any prudent world leader keeps his/her eye on us.

What the apologists above don't seem to get is that Kerry is *exactly* the type of Catholic that scares the Vatican spitless: liberal, thoughtful, post-reformation, and pro-choice. Of course Rome sided with the dumb cluck who proves daily that he's just as hidebound as they are.

[Helga Scow Stern]

8. Thank you very much for this clarification, merh.

The real story is always important. This makes a big difference in my assessment of this Pope!

[CentralEuropeanDude]

22. That's an ugly manipulation! Is Karl Rove involved? n/t

[merh]

45. You are welcome.

:hi:

I am not saying Ratzinger is a saint, or the best choice for pope. I too would prefer a more liberal guy in the role. Actually, I nominated Rev. Cheesehead for the job, she is Methodist, but was willing to change over to Catholic, if we let women have active roles in the church, and if she were pope, that would be a natural transition.

I just hate it when people on this forum believe the "spin" of the corporate media. Why they like being "roved" is beyond me.

[Helga Scow Stern]

9. Nominated! This must be seen by all. n/t

[pnorman]

10. Here's another news item recently referenced recently on DU:

New Pope Intervened against Kerry in US 2004 Election Campaign
Agence France-Presse

Tuesday 19 April 2005

Washington - German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it."
>
>
>
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042005Z.shtml

If there's a DU "Credo", I'll cheerfuly admit to not having read it. But I sense from following DU these past few years that, this would be part of it: "NOTHING is inherently "Sacred, so long as the discussion is conducted with a measure of mutual respect to each other." Frankly, I find the above news report a lot more compelling than the one this thread is about. That one reminds me a lot of Ari Fleisher.

pnorman

[ElectroPrincess]

13. Thanks, I was about to bring this up. You're "the man" PNOR. /eom

[pnorman]

14. You're quite welcome, EP.

It's still subject to debate, but that AFP article seems a lot MORE compelling, and a lot LESS Fleisher-like than the other. Potentially, the good Cardinal could have done at LEAST as much for Bush in '04, as Nader did in '00.

But his HJ connection is what troubles me the most. Granted, many if not most here would have made the same Good Career Move, under those harsh circumstances. But there were a whole lot of Germans in his same age group, who did NOT: http://www.holocaust-trc.org/faces.htm

So we now have a man who's the Supreme Pontiff to over a billion, and a Moral Compass to probably an equal number. But a bunch of "juvenile delinquent hooligans" (as many Germans still regard them), summoned up MORE moral courage than Ratziger was able to. That he's now an avowed "hardliner", makes that contrast even more significant.

pnorman
On edit: Here's another DU thread applicable to this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3512353

[pnorman]

16. Here's some more fuel for the flame:

By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com

Thursday 21 April 2005

Cardinal Ratzinger handed Bush the presidency by tipping the Catholic vote. Can American democracy survive their shared medieval vision?

President Bush treated his final visit with Pope John Paul II in Vatican City on June 4, 2004, as a campaign stop. After enduring a public rebuke from the pope about the Iraq war, Bush lobbied Vatican officials to help him win the election. "Not all the American bishops are with me," he complained, according to the National Catholic Reporter. He pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops to step up their activism against abortion and gay marriage in the states during the campaign season.

About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S. bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion were committing a "grave sin" and must be denied Communion. He pointedly mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" -- an obvious reference to John Kerry, the Democratic candidate and a Roman Catholic. If such a Catholic politician sought Communion, Ratzinger wrote, priests must be ordered to "refuse to distribute it." Any Catholic who voted for this "Catholic politician," he continued, "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." During the closing weeks of the campaign, a pastoral letter was read from pulpits in Catholic churches repeating the ominous suggestion of excommunication. Voting for the Democrat was nothing less than consorting with the forces of Satan, collaboration with "evil."

In 2004 Bush increased his margin of Catholic support by 6 points from the 2000 election, rising from 46 to 52 percent. Without this shift, Kerry would have had a popular majority of a million votes. Three states -- Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico -- moved into Bush's column on the votes of the Catholic "faithful." Even with his atmospherics of terrorism and Sept. 11, Bush required the benediction of the Holy See as his saving grace. The key to his kingdom was turned by Cardinal Ratzinger.
>
>
>
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042105H.shtml

pnorman

[Charon]

33. fuel

Reason 176 on why we lost the last Presidential Election. How many more can we find before some one realized the reason for the last Presidential defeat was that more of them voted for him, than we voted for Senator Kerry.

[pnorman]

50. MORE fuel for the flaming

Pope's home town witnessed Nazi atrocities against Jews
By Tony Paterson in Traunstein

22 April 2005

Pope Benedict XVI grew up in a German town in which Polish and Hungarian Jews were once massacred on a death march through its streets by SS guards. It also had a Nazi concentration camp on its doorstep.

The disturbing account of Nazi rule in Bavarian Traunstein, where the Pope went to school and spent the years of his youth, is in a brief history of the town by a local author, Friedbert Mühldorfer, available in the town library. The book, seen by The Independent yesterday, reveals atrocities, expulsion of Jews, widespread use of slave labourers, persecution of anti-Nazis and details of the camp on the town's outskirts. Somewhat remarkably, none of the events described appear to have been mentioned in the Pope's autobiography, Milestones, which was published in 1997.

The most shocking revelations concern 3 May 1945 when the new Pope may have been in the town. Thousands of starving, mainly Jewish, prisoners were marched from the concentration camps of Buchenwald and Flossenberg in advance of the invading Red Army.
>
>
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=631896

3 May 1945 was too late a date to be relevant by itself to this discussion, but the rest of the article certainly IS relevant.

pnorman

[CentralEuropeanDude]

20. do you read your links?

click "Go to Original" at
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042005Z.shtml

it's the same yahoo story
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=3&u=/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus

[imenja]

24. Your "original" is a yahoo story

Not the letter itself. She addresses the Yahoo piece above.

[CentralEuropeanDude]

26. Yes, but it's the same story

and not "another news item".

http://www.truthout.org
New Pope Intervened against Kerry in US 2004 Election Campaign
...

http://story.news.yahoo.com
New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign
...

do i misunderstand something?

[pnorman]

29. RATS! I got nailed!

There's no excuse for not cross-checking those articles (printing out if necessary). But I believe my main point was sustained. That article (from both sources) was a lot more compelling to me than the Catholic News one ... the one I had likened to Ari Fleisher.

And the other one about HJ service was even more significant (again, to me). About the latter, here's a good discussion in "Greatest": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3518825

It neither reinforces my point nor refutes it, but it provides detailed background, from a knowledgable source. But as I said, there WERE people of Ratziger's age group who DID resist. As Supreme Pontiff, he would be routinely expected to command that same sort of sacrifice from his flock ... to the death if necessary.

pnorman

[merh]

39. Again, that article takes the entire letter, or rather letters, out of

context. The questions asked of the Vatican/Ratzinger, dealt with abortion and euthenasia, thus the Vatican responded to the questions and pointed out there were other issues to be considered.

Oddly enough, the most contentious issue discussed and referred to by the Vatican was that of a divorce Catholic being allowed to receive communion. Once that issue came up, the US Bishops became concerned that the Vatican's stance would be used as a "partisian issue" in political races.

When in doubt, go read other sources, not just an article that is interpretating the writings. :hi:

[sandnsea]

17. Sporadic Bishops actually

The US Bishops issued a statement along the lines of what you said. Local Bishops used it to choose to refuse communion, as is actually their right anyway. Ratzinger issued a second letter saying the US Bishops had it right, Catholics could consider "proportionate reasons" in making their vote. No matter how many times Catholic Demcrats tried to get that message out, the media kept harping on voting pro-choice was a sin and Kerry was a bad Catholic. I blame our media for not presenting the whole story.

[pnorman]

30. Whatever the Vatican hierarchy had "intended".

they are no dummies and must have known FULL WELL how it was being played in the USA, and during that epochal election. They could have easily sent out a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS "correction". That they failed/declined to do so, is significant.

pnorman

[sandnsea]

48. I agree

The media could have reported what they actually said too, though. Instead of only focusing on how a couple Bishops interpreted it.

[markus]

18. The catholic heirarchy was clearly complicit in the Bush election

There was this controversy, which put the word out that pro-choice Catholics were at the brink of excommunication.

There was the vicious rush to move to the forefront of the anti-gay marriage amendment movement, which was a transparent ploy to bring out the wing-nut vote.

The Catholic *church* is, in my view, a pro-Republican institution. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. People who chose to remain in the church, that's fine. But don't get all Persecuted on us when we attack the church as an institution.

Based on my views of the institution, there is enough in that article to support the assertion that Ratzinger and the U.S. Bishops intervened in the election to benefit Bush and the Republicans.

You can't seperate the pro-life movement from the GOP. If you think you can, try talking to the pro-life Democrats who's opponents are routinely endorsed by the right-to-life organizations in their state.

[harris8]

19. Thanks for posting this info, merh!!! nt

[merh]

46. You are welcome.

And welcome to DU, harris8! :hi:

[imenja]

21. The Math: This letter did NOT give Bush the election

Argument: Ratzinger tipped the election because of a letter. This smacks of a Republican plant. You all are falling for something that doesn't make sense based on the math. 52% of Catholics voted for Bush, the rest Kerry. So we are talking about 3% of the Catholic vote. Is 3% of the Catholic vote enough to have tipped the entire election to Bush? No. There are approximately 72 million Catholics in the US (of all ages, including children). Let's generously calculate that 50% of them vote. 3% of that number is 1.2 million. Bush won by over 3 million votes, more than double that 3% of Catholic voters.

Even that calculation assumes that the entirety of that 3 % of Catholic voters actually made their decision based on an idea that a Catholic politician should not receive communion, when the letter actually said that Catholics should base their vote on a range of issues: A Catholic would only be considered sinful and unworthy of the sacrament if he or she voted for a politician EXCLUSIVELY because of his stand on abortion.

This is an effort to play into anti-Catholic prejudice and divide the Democratic party base, and you folks are swallowing it hook line and sinker. The Republicans won't need to worry about raising campaign funds in 2006 when the Democrats get done eating their own. You've got to hand it to them. The Republicans are smart bastards. They know hatred is the most powerful force in American politics on both side of the isle. What is unfortunate is that most Democrats aren't smart enough to see through it. You've (plural) let them set the agenda on everything, to the point where Americans define politics in terms of GOP talking points: so-called "moral values" issues over social justice, peace, and poverty. That clearly is the case for most on this discussion board.


Then there is the obvious point that while Americans believe ourselves to be the center of the universe, we are not. The American Catholic Church is at best peripheral to the Vatican. The idea that they would be so concerned about an election of ours to try to sway it in favor of a candidate whose foreign policy and wars they frequently denounced is entirely absurd. It speaks to the tremendously inflated sense of self-importance Americans demonstrate with frightening regularity. There is a world beyond our own borders, and most Catholics reside there.

[fishwax]

34. Your figures are off (and you use the wrong figures)

I present the following just for the sake of full disclosure and an accurate sense of what happened in the 2004 election. I'm not trying to blame Ratzinger or to fuel the fire of anti-Benedict sentiment, but just to have actual data out there for public consumption. Maybe it's not fair to say the new pope cost Kerry the election, but it's also not accurate to say it had no effect, according to the numbers.

Bush received about 16.6 million Catholic votes (52%).
Kerry received about 15.0 million Catholic votes (47%).

If you reverse those, and Kerry had won 52% with Bush 47%, it would have been a swing of 3.2 million votes, and Kerry would have won the popular vote (by very thin margins).

The small 5% point difference isn't the number we should look at in determining the effect of the Catholic vote. Rather, we should look at the difference between the Catholic vote now and the Catholic vote in historical trends. The Bush/Catholic vote versus historical trends show a definite swing.

In the last three election cycles, those numbers were, in fact, pretty much reversed. Clinton won the Catholic vote by about 48-41. Gore won the Catholic vote by about 50-46. Now Bush wins the Catholic vote by 1.6 million votes. Take those votes away from Bush and give them to Kerry, and the result is different.

The hard numbers for the 2000 election were 12.9 million for Bush and 13.7 million for Gore. Bush got 3.7 million more votes in 2004, while the dem candidate got 1.3 million more votes, a net gain of 2.4 million Catholic votes for Bush. And that's running against a CATHOLIC candidate.

Not only that, but in April, according to informal polls, Catholic voters favored Kerry by about the traditional margins. (This isn't supported by the link I've shared below, but I believe I saw similar polls in June as well.) But after the summer campaign against abortion and gay marriage, and after Ratzinger's letter (however the media may have distorted it), the election results were quite different.

Finally, we must consider that Bush won the popular vote by 3 million votes, but he won the PRESIDENCY by less than 110,000 votes in Ohio. There are over 11 million catholics in Ohio. Twenty Six percent of Ohio voters (about 1.46 million) identified themselves as Catholic. 55% of those voted for bush and 44% for Kerry, meaning Bush won the Ohio Catholic vote by 160,000 votes. Had the Catholic vote in Ohio gone as it did in 2000, when Bush won by only a 50-47 margin, that would be a swing of about 117,000 votes, enough to give the state to Kerry.

Most of the first few paragraphs comes from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University:
http://cara.georgetown.edu/Press112204.pdf

The information in the last paragraph can be found on CNN's 2004 election page: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html

I found the VNS exit polls for 2000 here:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elect_2004/battle_states/ohio.html

[imenja]

60. it's time we looked at the Democratic party to understand the loss in 2004

I appreciate your providing the actual numbers, since mine were only general estimates. To use your calculations, the difference in the Catholic vote in the two elections is 2.4 million, not enough to swing the election. Pointing to Ohio, I think, is unsound. That importance of Ohio comes from the fact the Kerry campaign focused most of it's efforts on only three states. It is a result of their poor campaign strategy.

I understand that you aren't doing this in your post, but one the things I find disturbing is that efforts to blame the Catholic Church for Kerry's loss are yet one more effort on the part of many on DU to focus on external circumstances for the Democratic loss of power rather than examining problems within the party itself. I have no doubt that Kerry lost Catholic voters for the same reason Democrats have lost working and middle class voters across the nation: they have abandoned a socially responsible platform because they are beholden to corporate interests. They did not stand up for peace, for combating poverty, or much of a socially conscious position at all. As a result, Catholics, like most American voters, tended toward the candidate that did stand up for some issues that matter to them.

Blaming Catholics isn't going to help Democrats win future elections. It will achieve the opposite. People need to start taking a hard look at the party itself.

[fishwax]

62. I can definitely agree

Particularly your analysis in the 2nd paragraph about standing up for peace, combatting poverty, addressing genuine social concerns, etc. I'm Catholic, personally, and those are the issues that matter to me, largely because of my upbringing in the church, no less. And I totally agree with you that democrats need to look within, and that it's foolish to blame catholics, just like I think it's silly to blame naderites for 2000. But while I don't blame them, I do think that the letter (and particularly the media play of the letter) had an effect on the election. I just consider it a factor. There were lots of factors, and that was one of them. Certainly not the deciding factor, and just because it's a factor doesn't mean its accurate to assign blame.

Don't know if the way I explained that makes perfect sense or not, but it's been a long day ;)

This newfound bond b/w the catholic and evangelical voting blocs in support of the republican party greatly saddens and concerns me, I must confess :(

[imenja]

64. I also am concerned about the Catholic-Christian Right alliance

It's akin to the Christian Right's alliance with Jews over Israel. It's never a good idea to form alliances with people who believe you are destined for eternal damnation.

I don't know what we as Catholics can do about it, other than to make clear that the Bishop of Denver and those who share his views do not speak for the entirety of the Catholic faith.

[Clark2008]

25. What bothers me most about this is that American Catholics

are afforded, by the Constitution, the right of the separation of Church and State.
How did Ratzinger equate that right into his diatribe? Does Ratzinger, who is not American, understand that one can be both pro-life in their personal choices and through their faith, and pro-choice, politically?
I, myself, wouldn't have an abortion, I wouldn't advise any young girl I know to have one (unless its for medial reasons, in which case, I would defer to her doctor) and I do not advocate its use. However, I do not want Congress, a political party comprised mostly of men with no possibility of knowing each and every woman of child-bearing years in this vast country, to make a decision for every woman - period.
I can compartmentalize this issue, but I don't think Ratzinger - and the anti-choice fundies - can.

[seabeyond]

27. totally innocent with no partisan, why wasnt death penalty

killing human being already out of body and breathing in the note. or preemptive war for that matter

[merh]

40. He addressed the issues asked - abortion and euthenasa.

In addressing those issues, he discussed divorced catholics being allowed to receive the sacrament. Have you read about that in any of these articles?

Bottom line, the discussions were more entailed that what has been reported, the other issues were discussed, just not reported and accepting the media and some of the US catholic's leadership of the letters and discussion is not accurate.

The pope came out against the war in Iraq, he was more vocal in his opposition to the weed's stances (the war and capital punishment and torture) than he was on any of Kerry's stances.

[seabeyond]

55. but that is not how the catholics played it here

simply, they played politics. (if i am going to call baptists on it, i am going to call catholics on it. not personal) we didnt hear much at all from the catholic priests that so opposed their conservative brothers. i understand this. politics were played. i am looking at the religion and i am seeing a religion put the screws to a member (kerry), in loyalty alone that is offensive to me. and not spiritual. my view i see them rejecting a soul the opposite of christ and what their job and mission is.

my point.

people are bothered. so, i am allowed. i am not catholic. you dont have to convince me of your religion, and you cannot demand i validate and justify your religion, not my job. you know people not practicing arent going to agree with you. if they agreed they would go to the religion.

you are asking people that are bothered by things that have happened to say you are right, we are wrong. we are not allowed to feel what we do

you as a catholic are working so hard to protect your religion, like the fundies. i hear the same arguements from them. i hear a prosecution towards christian. i have tons of baptist friends. love em all. or they wouldnt be friends

i AM a christian

i work and play with catholics and have always supported your religion

i have never agreed with your policies. or the popes. like him saying rock and roll is bad. i dont think so., i get to say that

the catholic vote swayed for many reason, our culture is different, fear is the message, people flocking to religion for many reasons, some the democrats created ourselves.

i dont mind taking blame. i dont mind talking about mistakes. doesnt make me or beliefs bad. will only way to make it better

[merh]

65. I am trying to provide folks here with all of the information or at

least access to the information. If you want to be closed minded, judgmental and opinionated, then that is okay. Have fun.

"you as a catholic are working so hard to protect your religion, like the fundies. i hear the same arguements from them. i hear a prosecution towards christian. i have tons of baptist friends. love em all. or they wouldnt be friends"

I am not working to protect my religion, I am not here to defend my religion. I am merely pointing out that there are misconceptions that are being promoted by many, including some of the catholic leadership. Read all of my posts, you might find that I have not defended anyone's position. I simply like having ALL the information before me prior to reaching a conclusion and I thought others might like to do the same.

Remember, judge not lest ye be judged! :hi:

peace

[seabeyond]

66. i have been reading

i am on your side. i am not judging. lol. and i am not closed minded or opinionated. i have spent more of my time listening to catholics and baptists in the last decade, shoot lifetime. so please dont create me as that. that is not where i am coming from.

i have a catholic "shiavo type" group coming to town. i am gathering my catholic friends to see what is being created by this group. it is just local, but a lot of local, across the country creates what we are seeing.

generally i am pretty good at communicating, generally people see i can value and appreciate another persons belief, i respect another persons beliefs, even in disagreement. i am sorry, that there are some on the board that feel i am hostile to their religion. i have tried communicating otherwise, but just is not seeming effective. so, i wont try anymore

[sniffa]

35. this is absurd

i understand the need for some to apoLogize and defend the pope sequeL, but pLease don't say he did not try to infLuence the fLock in the 2004 eLection.

[merh]

41. No one is apologizing for the Vatican's/Ratzinger's positions.

I am just asking why folks carelessly believe the MEDIA, which has notoriously distorted the facts. Go to the sources, read the Vatican's statements on all of the issues and determine for yourself who they chastised more, Kerry or the weed.

[PATRICK]

43. The media did its part, then the heat came on the Vatican

Some in Rome and the American Synod of Bishops reacted furiously to this
reversal of their careful stance from on high. Just because, once burned the RW Curia element got a little more circumspect and defensive don't think they suffer too many limits now. the former bishop from a diocese of a radical RW winger in Colorado(?) who resides in Rome seemed to front
a rebuke against an obvious interference in American elections against Kerry. Nor is he or was he alone which may be why the new Pope has menaced "career bureaucrats" immediately. Nothing is that monolithical.

I hope similar pressure keeps even the long pent up plans of this Pope in line, but we'll see. Maybe the habits caution will remain or maybe not. That is one of the big questions, but worldwide grumbling, especially among bishops, would seem to suggest diplomacy is in order.

[Helga Scow Stern]

47. I see on this thread a lot of why Kerry lost the election--it was stolen.

[merh]

51. Exactly --

What I don't understand about our party (and many that post here) is why they do not appreciate what we did Election 2004. We won, they stole it, that means we don't have to cater to the right, we don't have to genuflect before the fundies, we don't have to move to the center, give up our pro-choice stance or our opposition to the war.

If we would appreciate what we have and what we did, we would stop this silly bickering, blaming the pope for the loss, trying to make sinister connnections between the vatican and the BFEE and blaming our candidates.

What the pope says or does influences Catholics, not the rest of civilization. If you don't like what he says, so what.

If he were as powerful as so many try to allege, we would never have gone to war in Iraq. Get that folks, he doesn't influence the world, only his portion of the world, and even then, the influence is not that strong. Catholics use birth control, they live in sin, they get divorced, they have abortions, they have condoned euthenasia, they are gay, they are straight, they are liberal and they are conservative.

[seabeyond]

67. and i couldnt agree with you more here

" is why they do not appreciate what we did Election 2004. We won, they stole it, that means we don't have to cater to the right, we don't have to genuflect before the fundies, we don't have to move to the center, give up our pro-choice stance or our opposition to the war."

i couldnt agree more.

[merh]

73. Glad we can agree on this.

I believe we agree on more than we disagree on. :thumbsup:

[Junkdrawer]

49. Not to worry. I think Ratzinger is very smart and he wouldn't send a...

letter without some way of later denying he was trying to influence an election. No "misconception" here.

[merh]

52. If he was trying to influence the election, he would have excommuncated

Kerry. He is known as a "knee capper" and the "enforcer".

Vatican Says Anti-Kerry Lawyer Hoodwinked Them
Oct 20, 11:17 AM (ET)
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A conservative U.S. lawyer's attempt to enlist the Vatican in his drive to declare Senator John Kerry a heretic over his abortion views backfired Wednesday when the Holy See said it had been hoodwinked.

Marc Balestrieri, head of a conservative Catholic group called De Fide, has been pushing for the Church to rule that the Democratic presidential candidate has inflicted excommunication on himself because he supports a woman's right to an abortion.

Balestrieri caused a stir in the United States this week when he asserted in interviews and on his Web site that he had won an unofficial and indirect green light from the Vatican.

But Wednesday, the Vatican denied his assertions, which received widespread coverage in major U.S. media.

[Junkdrawer]

53. "he would have excommunicated Kerry"???? Nah, he just wanted..

to flip 5%-10% of Catholics ( the Undecideds ), not permanently split the US Catholic church along party lines.

[merh]

54. Nah, but if you want to believe that then go right ahead.

Some people just like to believe the spin. :shrug:

Kerry won, they stole it. What does that do to your theory?

[Pallas180]

56. Thanks. Too bad the Vatican's denial didn't receive as much attention

as the proclamation of the bush liars

[merh]

63. Does the media ever give any one but the BFEE & their

twisted tales adequate coverage? I know Kerry doesn't think so, he has taken to video messages via email.

:hi: Good to see you Pallas. I enjoy your posts in the astrology forum. I am way too ignorant of the stars to ever post, but I do enjoy reading the threads and appreciate the fact that you share your expertise in the forum.

[Junkdrawer]

68. Here's the actual letter - Spin this....

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. <...> In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. <...> This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" <2002>, nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.



http://www.faithfulvoice.com/sandro.htm

[merh]

69. Don't have to spin it. This is one of many confidential letters

between the vatican and the US bishops. This letter was leaked, the others have not yet been leaked (as far as I can find).

I find it very odd or is it very telling that you leave out the most important part of that letter:

N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2004/07/ratzinger_on_co.html

Also, you neglect to acknowledge the Vatican's October 2004 public denial of this "harsh" stance as reflected in the post I provided you earlier in this thread. Ratzinger was the member of the pope's staff responsible for publishing the public denial .

[Junkdrawer]

70. So I can get communion only if I voted for Kerry for reasons other...

than I liked his stand on a woman's right to choose?

How could I have forgotten that part. Thanks.

[merh]

72. Have you been denied communion?

Stop dramatizing things and don't try to start a nasty battle here.

The vatican is a church complete with rules and regulations. If you don't like it don't go to mass.

Some of us discovered eons ago that we could be devote and faithful catholics and disagree with some of their stances. My faith, my religion is between me and my god, the church is there to give direction. When the direction it provides is faulty, it is my place to follow my heart and conscious, based upon the teachings of Christ, and not the misintepretations of man.

As discussed earlier in this thread, there are hundreds of thousands of practicing, devote catholics that use contraceptions, had sex before marriage, lived "in sin" before marriage, have been divorced, et cetera.
Those issues all violate the "stances" of the catholic church as does abortion and enthenasia.

For you to base your contempt upon one leaked letter, without having the benefit of reading the other letters exchanged on this issue, and while discounting the public statement denying the excommunication of Kerry, is just twisted and wrong.

Chill & Peace

[Junkdrawer]

74. The whole thrust of your original post was "Ratzinger's quotes...

as found in the yahoo article were taken out of context."

And then you neglected to post the original letter that started the controversy. Well, I dug up the letter and my opinion is that the yahoo article was way too soft on Ratzinger.

[merh]

75. I have provided links to the original letter and to sanctioned

Catholic Church (Vatican) articles discussing the letter. Guess you just ain't reading and that letter is just one of several letters and that article fails to mention that other letters and/or the Vatican's October '04 public denial of the crap as alleged in that article.

I stand by my posts and my contention that Ratzinger's and the Vatican's positions have been twisted by US Catholic Church leaders, the fundies and the press. If you believe the twists and the spins, I have but one last question -- "How does it feel to be roved?"

**Roved - to be punked, to believe the lies and the spin, to take to heart their distorted truth, promoted and published by them for purposes of realizing their evil agendas.

[Junkdrawer]

76. Ratzinger speaks for himself. n/t

[merh]

77. That's right, see the October denial of the bullshit!

n/t

[Junkdrawer]

78. So, we should only read the OFFICIAL Vatican Press Releases...

and not the leaked-but-confirmed confidential memos. Got it.

[merh]

79. The vatican did not leak the documents - US catholic

leaders did. If you take the time to read any of the materials I have linked, you will find that the Vatican intended that all letters regarding this issue be confidential. The vatican's only "PUBLIC STATEMENT" was the October '04 press release, denying the excommunication of Kerry.

The letter and all other letters on the issue were discussions on how to deal with the "hot topics." When bishops pointed out their concern that a "hard line" stance would put them in the middle of politics and would make them have to excommunicate hundreds of divorced Catholics, the hard stance was softened.

I would surmise the nuttball bishop in Denver is responsible for the leak. That is only a guess, but an educated guess, given that I have tried to read up on all of this and have been reading up on it since before the election.

"Roved"

[Junkdrawer]

71. dupe...