"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has identified George W. Bush as a heretic on grounds of Bibliolatry, Symbolism, Sacrilege, Schism, Pelagianism, Abandonment of Apostolic Succession of Bishops, Dishonorings the Mother of God and Denial of the teaching authority of the Church, with possible additional charges of Donatism, Hussism, and Jansenism. (All of which makes voting for him grounds for excommunication. . .latae sententiae, automatically."

Do you have a smart answer for him (before the election!). Thanks.

-- John Schneider (bookman56374@yahoo.com), October 29, 2004

Answers

I htoguth heresy only counted for peopel actuallyWITHIN the CHurch, or former members. I mean, under this, you can say Sikti, a freidn of mine, is a heretic... He is Hindu and has been all his life...

Bush was never Catholic, Never baptised Catholic, Neer confirmed Catholic, bnever taken the eucharist, and never relaly proffessed beelif in Apostolic succession... as a result he coidl not abandon apostolic succession adn cannot be a heretic, he is simpley outaide the Catholic Church.

-- ZAROVE (ZARIFF3@JUNO.COM), October 29, 2004.

Kind of makes you wonder why any Catholic would consider him a champion of their cause. Put finger to lips, hum, move finger up and down vigorously: produce moron noise.

Go back and read the words of Gregory XVI, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pope St. Pius X. Start reading. The entire American experiment has its origins in shipwreck of the Catholic Faith.

Blessed Karl von Habsburg, intercede for Holy Mother Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 30, 2004.

Thankyou Deacon Paul the poor man is more than a few sheep short in the top paddock. I see Emerald has mentioned Karl von Habsburg can you tell me if beatification is considered an infallible declaration?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2004.

Mr. Schneider, most of the premises of the passage you quoted are ridiculous. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the CDF rarely comments about the status ("faithful," "heretical," "schismatic," "dissenting") even of someone who claims to be a Catholic, and the Congregation NEVER comments about the status of someone who has never claimed to be a Catholic, such as President Bush.

Nevertheless, it is true that President Bush, like all baptized protestants, is technically a "heretic." The day he was baptized, he became a Catholic, because there is only "one Baptism," a sacrament that makes a person a member of the Catholic Church. As soon as he "obstinately deined" a dogma of our faith, however, he excommunicated himself -- and that may have happened shortly after his baptism, unless he was baptized as an infant.

However, since he was invincibly ignorant and unaware of all this (that he had been baptized into the Catholic Church, that he was forbidden to deny dogmas, etc.), he was only guilty of "material heresy," and thus did not commit a mortal sin. Quite different is the case of a person who calls himself a Catholic, yet proceeds knowingly and obstinately to deny a dogma. Such a one is guilty of "formal heresy," excommunicates himself, and is likely to have committed a mortal sin.

The final part of the quotation, Mr. Schneider, flows from sheer ignorance. The Church has not taught that a Catholic who votes for a heretic (whether formal or material) is excommunicated (whether by "latae" or "ferendae sententiae"). Such a Catholic may SIN by voting for an excommunicated candidate, but any sin (if there is one) would not come from the mere fact that the candidate himself had been excommunicated. Instead, a sin would come either (1) from the voter's knowingly and intentionally supporting the evil policies of the candidate or (2) from the voter's knowingly and intentionally choosing not to support a different candidate who favored proportionately less evil or no evil at all. That is why it would be gravely sinful for a Catholic (having full knowledge of the facts and his duties) to vote for Senator Kerry.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), October 31, 2004.