"There's a problem with John Kerry"
I've discussed before how some of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded have endured the test of time, and how we've outgrown some prejudices that ought never have been a part of the Party of Lincoln in the first place. One of these positions was the initial anti-Catholic stance of most Republicans early in our history. Thankfully, we have outgrown that, and in fact we have long since reversed the trend with more and more practicing Catholics moving from the Democrat Party.
Note my differentiation by saying: "practicing". A good deal of the "Catholic vote" is still going to the Democratic Party. The problem is those people aren't Catholics as anyone should define them. Unlike many other religious or social affiliations, there actually is a simple litmus test for being Catholic: one must be a member of the Body of Christ, and the outward symbol of that membership (if I dare call it a mere "symbol") is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. What is beyond the understanding of many once-a-week and twice-a-year Catholics is even some of them aren't Catholic either. Without this becoming a long theology lesson, suffice to say there's a lot of faith required behind that act, and a lot more action required behind that faith, before your card is punched.
Especially in America today, we Catholics don't spend a whole lot of time talking about this self-amputation of our members, primarily because it would require us to make judgements about the nature and character of the faith of our brothers. But the Church does have a mechanism to shield the faithful from the most egregious of our erstwhile brethren, lest they drag us down with them: excommunication. By saying publicly that someone is not worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist at this moment because of the example of his words or actions, the Church can show the faithful a clearly negative example of what it means not to be in union with the Body of Christ.
Here's where we get back to politics. Any political party not run exclusively by practicing Catholics will have policy positions that may run counter to Catholic teachings. And for many years, the Democrat's concentration on social welfare seemed to be as close a fit as one could make with Catholic doctrine. But those days have come and gone. Liberation theology has been repudiated as a serious economic system, leaving bare many of the Democrats' social positions - abortion primary among them - as seriously anti-Catholic in nature. Not to be rebuffed so easily, many Catholic Democrats have insisted that Rome ignore their voting records and rhetoric, trying to separate their public acts from their "private beliefs". (Nevermind for now the hypocritical concept that one should advocate something they personally disagree with.) But recently, bishops and priests have become more vocal in stating that they may need to use excommunication to chastise Catholic politicians who advocate positions contrary to the teachings of Catholic doctrine.
Believe it or not, this brings us to: Wictory Wednesday.
For the fourth time in American history*, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is Catholic (or, at least, he says he is). But John Kerry has suggested that his Catholic faith is his "bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am," even though he takes the standard anti-Catholic Democratic position on euthanasia, homosexual "rights", and (of course) abortion.
Every Wednesday I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven't done so already. And if you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you. This Wednesday, I'd like to especially encourage practicing Catholics to help fight the distortion of the Catholic perspective peddled by the anti-religion opposition. While I feel it would be a clear statement renouncing these secularist Catholics, we can't count on the bishops to go so far as to excommunicate a Democratic nominee in the middle of an election.
If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign. And don't forget to e-mail PoliPundit so that you can be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which is part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:
* In reverse order, the previous three Catholic nominees for president were: John Kennedy (1960), Al Smith (1928), and Charles O'Conor (1872).
EDIT: I added a line in the sixth paragraph that completes a thought I left floating in the wind.

Comments
Beauty post. great background on the issue. I seriously wasn't aware Kerry was a Catholic, but I recall some religious something around the time Dean walked that plank. I'm Catholic, but won't just jump on a Catholic candidate. Kerry will claim to be progressive in his religion, but really is, as you say, a once-a-year church-goer. Demands some more looking into...
Posted by: Scott S | March 31, 2004 12:50 PM
Thanks, Scott. Go git 'em.
Posted by: Chris | April 1, 2004 09:00 AM