BEWARE JOHN KERRY
By Michael J. Gaynor
Jul 31, 2004
The Pledge of Allegiance still refers to the United States of America as “one Nation, under God.”
It is a fitting acknowledgment that for Americans, faith comes first.
William Shakespeare did not know John Kerry, but he probably knew someone like John Kerry.
In Much Ado about Nothing, Shakespeare wrote:
“O! what authority and show of truth
Can cunning sin cover itself withal!”
John Kerry’s artfully crafted and ably delivered acceptance speech is proof that John Kerry is a very cunning sinner and will say virtually anything to win the Presidency.
John Kerry identified himself as a man of faith (without specifying what faith), while assuring listeners that he does not wear his faith on his sleeve.
In fact, John Kerry was baptized a Roman Catholic and served as an altar boy.
But, the politically ambitious John Kerry has been unfaithful to his Roman Catholic faith, for he has feared that faithfulness to it would make him unelectable.
In fact, John Kerry presumed to rebuke Pope John Paul II last year for urging Catholic politicians to produce public deeds worthy of the moral teachings of their Church. John Kerry assured his supporters that he would disregard the Pope's statement, even though he supposedly "believe[s] in the Church and care[s] about it enormously," because John Kerry believes that what is most important is "to not have the Church instructing politicians" (as though civil law was superior to natural law). According to John Kerry, Pope John Paul II's statement was "an inappropriate crossing of the line in America" that "President Kennedy drew...very clearly in 1960 and...we need to stand up for that line today."
Lest anyone think that John Kerry's criticism of Pope John Paul II was an unfortunate aberration (supposedly like his second wife lying about using the term "unAmerican" and then publicly telling a journalist to "shove it"), John Kerry again attacked the Vatican this year, this time for having the temerity to call for Catholic elected officials to oppose "gay marriage." John Kerry's position on "gay marriage" is typically crafted for perceived political benefit: John Kerry is personally opposed to both "gay marriage" and a constitutional amendment to stop it, determined to advocate opposing spiritua and secular lives and adamant that "t's important not to have the church instructing politicians.”
What is important to John Kerry is winning the Presidency, certainly not protecting either the innocent unborn or the sanctity of marriage, fundamental moral matters on which Pope John Paul II and the Vatican are obligated to speak out forcefully, whether politicians approve or disapprove.
Like Bill Clinton, John Kerry wanted to follow John Kennedy to the White House.
Like John Kennedy, John Kerry was not about to let his Roman Catholic faith hamper him.
John Kennedy ran as a presidential candidate who happened to be Catholic, not as a Catholic presidential candidate.
Like John Kennedy, John Kerry had a prior marriage that might frustrate him.
John Kennedy successfully kept his prior marriage secret. In 1960, he barely won, despite taking 80% of the Catholic vote, and would have lost if the voters had read that he had married a young socialite and his promiscuous ways had upset her to the point that she required institutionalization. (Lest the press find it, Kennedy operatives removed the pertinent page reporting the marriage from a society book available in some public libraries.)
John Kerry cannot conceal his first marriage, since he has two adult daughters by his first wife. But the only reference to the first Mrs. Kerry during the convention program was a reference to her as “mother” by one of the daughters.
If John Kerry’s first marriage was annulled, as has been reported, it would be helpful to the voters to discover the grounds for the annulment, just as it would have been in 1960.
Like John Kerry’s service as Michael Dukasis’s lieutenant governor, the termination of John Kerry’s first marriage was not mentioned during his latest introduction to the American people.
Perhaps John Kerry will release the annulment papers when the second Mrs. Kerry releases her last federal tax return.
What is evident is that John Kerry not only flip-flops, but tries to have it both ways.
For example, John Kerry, on one hand, calls for class warfare and, on the other, urges no negative attacks.
John Kerry promises to provide health benefits for all and the bill to those making over $200,000 a year.
For another example, John Kerry, on one hand, embraces President Bush’s preemptive war doctrine and promises to protect the American people from attack and, on the other, promises never to be misadvised, even when all of the world’s intelligence services are mistaken.
For those gullible enough to believe that, there is this bridge in Brooklyn available for sale.
Based on the current state of information, John Kerry stresses that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction in 2003 that would have justified war and imposes the burden of proof on the Bush Administration.
But, the United Nations resolutions put the burden of proof on Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein did not meet it.
In essence, John Kerry insists he would have done things better, even getting the French to cooperate, without explaining how.
This is the man who admittedly voted to fund the war before he voted not to fund it.
What would John Kerry have done to woo Jacques Chirac?
Does the second Mrs. Kerry have enough money to outbribe Saddam Hussein?
More importantly, John Kerry panders to voters and the innocent unborn don’t vote.
John Kerry, on one hand, unctuously urges President Bush not to divide the American people, and, on the other, pathetically promises women the right to kill their unborn babies for any reason or no reason, even though he suddenly professed to believe that life begins at conception (since Marc Balestrieri had denounced him as a heretic in an ecclesiastical court and that did not bode well for his presidential campaign).
On one hand, like a faithful Catholic, John Kerry asserts personal opposition to abortion: “I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception…."
On the other hand, John Kerry assures abortion supporters that they can have all the abortions they want. At the dinner hosted by NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, John Kerry passionately proclaimed, "We are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is no packing of courts with judges who will be hostile to choice."
John Kerry’s rationale for preaching against abortion and legislating in favor of it: “I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
In essence, the man who wants Americans to trust him to protect America from terrorists, but not unborn babies from death at whim, thinks the right to life of the unborn is an exotic notion unfit to be part of civil law.
But, John Kerry will strive mightily to impose his personal belief on the American taxpapers to provide financial benefits to the special interest groups with which he has allied himself.
What nonsense!
The truth is that John Kerry has categorically and consistently rejected the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on the relationship between natural law and civil law in order to win the support of pro-abortion and pro-“gay marriage” voters.
That is John Kerry’s political right as an American.
But it is well established as gravely sinful for a Roman Catholic.
As Pope John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae:
“The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: ‘Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse’. This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that ‘human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence’. And again: ‘Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law’.”
Pope John Paul II explained that “the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual.”
As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in its Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life: “[T]he lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent…is one and indivisible. There cannot be two parallel lives…: on the one hand, the so-called 'spiritual life', with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.”
The Doctrinal Note continued: “It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.” (Emphasis added.)
The Doctrinal Note emphasized that Catholic politicians “directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Emphasis added.)
John Kerry hates it, but a faithful Catholic politician may not compromise on fundamental matters. “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.”
John Kerry risks liability for violating truth-in-advertising laws when he poses as a practicing Catholic in a state of grace and full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Email Michael J. Gaynor
michnews.com |
