Reply #56: who would "enforce it?" . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

any "enforcement" would be w/i the Roman Catholic Church, itself.

By that is meant that if a politician disobeyed the Pope's edict, then that individual is at the "mercy," if you will, of the Pope, or Bishop who has enunciated the Pope's directive.

Typically and historically, the individual is "denied" the "sacraments" of the Church (which may be necessary for eternal salvation, btw), or an individual may be "excommunicated" from the Church (tossed out). I am not saying that this would happen, but am merely saying what has happened to persons who have disobeyed the Church's tenets (here, the Pope).

Already, some bishops, archbishops have announced their intentions of "what happens" next . . . a denial, if you will, of the "blessed sacrament of communion" to those politicians who disobey the "teachings/tenets of the Church."

http://www.archatl.com/archbishops/donoghue/20040804.html

This is heavy stuff b/c Roman Catholics . . . to deny a Roman Catholic the "sacred sacraments" may mean an eternal damnation. Please note that I stated "may mean."

All that said, John Kerry stands steadfast for separating his religion from his politician life. Here Kerry states his position:

"As a Catholic, I have enormous respect for
the words and teachings of the Vatican, but
as a public servant I've never forgotten the
lasting legacy of President Kennedy, who
made clear that in accordance with the
separation of church and state no elected
official should be 'limited or conditioned
by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.'
I represent all the people of Massachusetts,
and they expect me to speak with respect
for all of their views and values.''
-- Senator John F. Kerry (2003)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_poli.htm