Kerry. Again.

Kerry's candidacy and faith keep intersecting. Count on it to continue through November. Yesterday's New York Times documents the latest example.

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

Time to bust out the stick.

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

Well, you know, the truth hurts.

And, say what you will about the NYT, at least the editor let the acknowledgement that Kerry's out of step with the church slide through without any weasel qualifiers.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner.

"I have a list...."

"Name them."

"...of 205 known critics of John Kerry's Catholicism inside the State Department."

Actually, the question simply mentioned "conservatives," not "legislators" per se. It might be a tad inconvenient to point out the distinction, but it's there, unfortunately. Which is especially important, given all that we all know about how badly the Senator handles inconveniences, too.

Anyway, here's a good place to start looking for critics.

Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

You mean, like, er--you?

Then again, the position on capital punishment is somewhat less ironclad than the stance on abortion. As you very well don't know. Compare the following paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church--2267 with 2270. Note the difference between "rare" and "absolutely."

What? Oh, it's that blue and white book in the Religion section at Borders. Costs eight bucks.

Says "Catechism."

"Of The Catholic Church."

No, it's not "near the tantric books." You're thinking of a Jesuit bookstore.

Go to the "Christianity" section. When you see Bibles, you're red hot.

Bibles. You know, Jewish and Christian scriptures, frequently bound in leather, gold print on the spines?

Yes, "those." Look, just call me when you see one.

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman.

True, but consider this, Senator--you have all the skills of another Dodgin' Tod Tamberg, right down to the ignorance of Catholic teaching and complaints about criticism.

The more I think about it, Senator, the more I believe you have a future in diocesan bureaucracy. You just need to apply yourself.

"I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life."

Which would be wonderfully schizoid if you weren't so selective about what parts of your faith you leave at the church door on Sunday.

"My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII"

John Kerry, sedevacantist. And boy, are they burning up the anti-popes these days, or what? Last I'd heard, they were only up to Pius XIII, way out in his lodge in Unabomber country. I really must keep up.

"and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am."

Yes, the ol' conscience dodge, easily parried by pointing out that it has to be a formed conscience. I mean, the law had a problem with noted gourmand and man-about-town Jeffrey Dahmer following his conscience.

Such as it was.

More significantly, this is a significant "development" in Kerry's Catholicism that no one else seems to have noticed. Previously, he said he was "personally opposed, but...", a/k/a the "Granholm Manuever." Now he's claiming his conscience lets him stand in opposition to the Church. Very interesting....

Senator, no one's asking you to establish a Catholic theocracy with yourself as the most Thurston Howellish-Torquemada in history, so stop trying to hunt with the dog named Wall. Nope. We'd just like an explanation of why you let some Catholic beliefs inform your public stances and not others. For instance, how do you reconcile your faith with a refusal to protect those unborn children the mothers want to keep, for starters?

[Thanks to Otto for the Chicago Tribune link.]