Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should politicians toe their church line?
Deseret Morning News ^ | 11/29/03 | Elaine Jarvik

Posted on 11/30/2003 3:07:00 PM PST by madprof98

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 11/30/2003 3:07:01 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"Should politicians toe their church line? "

NO if they disagree.

Should the church point this out? YES

2 posted on 11/30/2003 3:12:52 PM PST by ex-snook (Americans need Balanced Trade - we buy from you, you buy from us. No free rides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Should the church point this out? YES

And smack them down however they see fit.

3 posted on 11/30/2003 3:18:41 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
YES. Religion is an ethos. Claiming affiliation with one--claiming to follow its teachings--and then breaking from them is just a shabby and deluded lie.

Churches should expose and disavow any such shabby deluded liars.

4 posted on 11/30/2003 3:22:09 PM PST by Petronski (Living life in a minor key.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
If Christians vote for Christian candidates to represent their views in government, they should absolutely insist that their Christian views are represented, just as any other constituency should hold their elected representatives accountable.

I have just lately been discovering Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran Minister/Martyr who stood up to the German churches that failed to oppose Hitler. a timely quote..." A prison cell, in which one waits, hopes...and is completely dependent on the fact that the door of freedom has to be opened from the outside, is not a bad picture of Advent. "

5 posted on 11/30/2003 3:25:38 PM PST by Dutchgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
You are right. If you say you are a Catholic, Moslem, or Jew, but don't believe and follow your faith, that is intellectual and spiritual dishonesty.

If you don't like your faith, find one you think is more true, but stop saying, "I am a Catholic/Jew/Protestant", because you aren't. And it's a lie.

Those lies expose more of the candidate's personality than they think. When Clark says, "I am a religious man but I left my church over a bike path", well, truly religious people know pretty much exactly to make of that.
6 posted on 11/30/2003 3:29:17 PM PST by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: I still care
"When Clark says, "I am a religious man but I left my church over a bike path", well, truly religious people know pretty much exactly to make of that."

"truly religious people know pretty much exactly to make of that"....yes, that the poster has mixed up Dean and Clark.
7 posted on 11/30/2003 3:35:11 PM PST by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The bishops have a DUTY to publicly rebuke politicians who seriously violate the teachings of the Church. That doesn't mean that a bishop can instruct a politician how to vote. Most issues are prudential, and a bishop be sure which way to vote any more than anyone else. Buton some supremely important issues he can and should tell a politician that he has a choice whether or not to remain in the Church. He can vote as he thinks best, but if he votes completely contrary to Church teaching he is no longer a Catholic in communion with his Church.

As it happens, "procuring an abortion" results in automatic excommunication, according to current Papal teaching. A Catholic politician like Kennedy who regularly votes in ways that result in the killing of babies will presumably end up in hell unless he repents before dying. And it's not a good idea to say, "Well, I'll do anything I like and then repent just before I die," because few people other than condemned criminals know exactly when they will die.

By publicly excommunicating Kennedy, the Archbishop of Boston would only be making public what Kennedy has already done to himself. In fact, it would be much more charitable to Kennedy to chastise him publicly than to let him go on as he is now. Public excommunication might constitute a wakeup call that would finally get Kennedy to think about repenting his ways.

The same goes for many other nominally Catholic politicians.
8 posted on 11/30/2003 3:54:57 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton; I still care
yes, that the poster has mixed up Dean and Clark

Although Clark has his own set of issues.

9 posted on 11/30/2003 4:01:56 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
".... unless he repents before dying..."

That's antimonianist belief, not Catholic doctrine at all.

There really isn't any chance at all for Kennedy to "truly repent" anyway. His soul is already fully in the grasp of Satan, and that's just the way Ted likes it!

10 posted on 11/30/2003 4:25:34 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Dutchgirl
I can't think of a more efficient way to drum up opposition to religious politicians than to have their religious leaders go around trumpeting the notion that these politicians will be obliged to vote to impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.
11 posted on 11/30/2003 4:31:24 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
...to vote to impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.

In that world, the only vote that would be satisfactory would be the amoral vote, because casting a vote consistent with a moral view would be an attempt to 'impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.'

That strikes me as something of a false dichotomy.

In this world, someone who claims to be Catholic, but doesn't vote Catholic, ought to be exposed as not being Catholic....i.e., kicked out, so the world knows his claims of Catholicity are faked.

12 posted on 11/30/2003 4:39:24 PM PST by Petronski (Living life in a minor key.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
".... unless he repents before dying..." That's antimonianist belief, not Catholic doctrine at all.

Calm yourself, there was no statement of doctrine. It should be clear that Ted Kennedy could still go to heaven.

13 posted on 11/30/2003 4:45:18 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
the nation's bishops agreed to ask a task force to study whether the church should punish those Catholic politicians who vote contrary to church teachings on such issues as abortion,.

Gee's, talk about mastering the ability to pass the buck!

14 posted on 11/30/2003 4:50:47 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
It should be clear that Ted Kennedy could still go to heaven.

"Could" is the oprerative word in your statement.

15 posted on 11/30/2003 4:53:46 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
"Could" is the oprerative word in your statement.

He could also give up drinking.

16 posted on 11/30/2003 4:56:21 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
talk about mastering the ability to pass the buck!

I believe they formed a task force so they would develop a consistent method of dealing with these . . . problem children. If each bish does his own thing it can get confusing real quick for the flock.

17 posted on 11/30/2003 4:58:38 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
He could also give up drinking.

And "hell could freeze over" too!

18 posted on 11/30/2003 5:01:03 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Ditto....

You either believe and belong or you don't. If you have faith in a religion you have faith. It's not meant to be ala'cart.
19 posted on 11/30/2003 5:04:57 PM PST by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"Well, I'll do anything I like and then repent just before I die," because few people other than condemned criminals know exactly when they will die.

Of course not.  That's why you have Purgatory.
20 posted on 11/30/2003 5:10:27 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
I believe they formed a task force so they would develop a consistent method of dealing with these . . .

Task force? Consistency?

If there is an issue of concern, isn't the Bible at hand to help resolve such issues?

Alas, the Churches way of resolving issues can be confusing at times.

21 posted on 11/30/2003 5:11:23 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
In the Catholic religion there is always repentatnce and salvation....one just needs to ask for it.
22 posted on 11/30/2003 5:13:58 PM PST by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The Deadly Dozen

Canadian Prime Minister Taunts Church: "I Am A Catholic And For Abortion"

Catholic Church asks Tom Daschle to stop calling himself a Catholic

On Catholic Politicians and Faith

Vatican Urges Catholic Politicians to Vote Along Church Lines

Senator Santorum on Being Catholic and a Politician

William E. Simon, Sr. and Jr. Devout Catholics, Philanthropists and Politicians

Deadly Dozen senator taken to task over claims of Catholicism

THE BISHOP AND THE SENATOR [author links to FR thread regarding Daschle in her online column]

Blood On Their Hands: Exposing Pro-abortion Catholic Politicians

MI Gov Granholm Proclaims June "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month"

Colorado Governor To Media:'WE LOVE OUR CHURCH' [Gov. Bill Owens

U.S. Senator Brownback and Commentator Dick Morris Join Catholic Church

PRIEST REFUSES COMMUNION TO KNEELING PRO-LIFE POLITICIAN [Richard Black, Virginia]

Kerry [Catholic} says he'll filibuster Supreme Court nominees who do not support abortion rights

Pope to MPs: Stop gay marriage

Vatican - Considerations regarding ... homosexual persons

CONFUSIONS ABOUT POLITICAL JUDGMENT AND THE MORAL LAW

Prelate says politicians who back abortion shouldn't go to Communion

Bishop draws fire for targeting Chrétien

Kennedy likens Vatican stance on gay unions to 'bigotry' (oh, go get a job, you little creep)

Ignorance or Malicious Intent? "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to..."

George Weigel on Authentic Catholic Citizenship, and the Duty of Catholic Politicians to Behave as Catholics

Conservative Catholics urge Church to challenge "dissenters"

[Robert F., Jr.] Kennedy to speak at Festival of Faiths (Environmentalism as religion)

Faithful Catholic Politicians

Catholic Bishops Eye Possible Crackdown of Pro-Abortion Pols

PETITION TO EX-COMMUNICATE PRO-ABORTION CATHOLIC ELECTED OFFICIALS

It is Time to Excommunicate the Politicians

Church vows to fight gay marriage: Catholics pressure pols

Should politicians toe their church line?

23 posted on 11/30/2003 5:14:07 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Seems pretty simple to me.

A politician who works the church for votes on Sunday morning and puts his religious affiliation all over his brochures, then votes against the tenets of his religion, is not only a liar, he's a traitor. He's getting a benefit from the church and then betraying it.

That's what you'd say about a man who was hired to work for a company, but sneaks around undermining his supposed employer and working for its largest competitor. Why should it be any different for politicians?

24 posted on 11/30/2003 5:14:55 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
In the Catholic religion there is always repentatnce and salvation [and money]....one just needs to ask for it.
25 posted on 11/30/2003 5:17:18 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
Politicians should vote according to their conscience and belief... and that means an anti-abortion stance for Christians. Compartmentalizing is lying--"Yes, I'll be for my belief on Sunday, but the rest of the week is mine"--that's not being a true follower, regardless of the Deity followed.

If people vote for those who will promote their own ethical and moral values, then it is truly government by the voice of the people. That's not the government forcing religion on the people--it's the people determining what values their elected government will uphold, and thus how society will be shaped. Those who differ have the right and responsibility to vote in officials who will uphold their own point of view.

I happen to be LDS... I don't vote for a person just because they're LDS--I look intelligently at their position, and if I find it contrary to what I believe the Gospels teach, I don't vote for them--and I write and let them know why I'm not voting for them. I do the same with any candidate who claims to be a person of faith.

One thing that doesn't happen in my church, though, is the clergy standing up and telling people how to vote on a particular topic. The most I have ever heard, in 30 years, is "Voting is a responsibility of every citizen. Please study the issues and candidates prayerfully, and make an informed vote." Even when moral topics have been hot around here, that's the whole "pressure" exerted on the church population. It's a whole lot less than the "party line" voting pressure to which I was subjected in college, in largely-socialist Western Oregon.

Regards,
26 posted on 11/30/2003 5:18:00 PM PST by Missus (We're not trying to overpopulate the world, we're just trying to outnumber the idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Wise words from a Catholic former president, worth quoting in full:

ADDRESS TO SOUTHERN BAPTIST LEADERS

I am grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only ninety miles off the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor's bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none -- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths, that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today -- the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of fourteen years in the Congress -- on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I attended myself) -- and instead of doing this do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we have all seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic Church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here -- and always omitting of course, that statement of the American bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts -- why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution at any time, by anyone, in any country.

And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland -- and the independence of such statesmen as de Gaulle and Adenauer.

But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience, or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate satisfied that I tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40,000,000 Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add with the oath I have taken for fourteen years in the Congress. For, without reservation, I can, and I quote "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution so help me God."

Source: New York Times, September 13, 1960.


27 posted on 11/30/2003 5:19:42 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
trumpeting the notion that these politicians will be obliged to vote to impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.

The United Methodist Women gave money (raised through "undesignated giving" )to lobby Bill Clinton to veto the ban on partial birth abortion. Many churches, under pressure from vocal radicals within their membership sponsor "social justice" agendas that have nothing to do with following Christ.

It is one of the strange quirks of Christianity that the Church thrives most when its members are willing to stand up to opposition and share in the suffering of Christ through persecution. In fact, if Christians are not facing persecution in this world, then we are probably not doing our job.

Although I am not a big fan of "bumper sticker theology" it is still a good question: "If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

For men like Thomas More and Deitrich Bonhoeffer, the answer in their times, was "yes."

28 posted on 11/30/2003 5:50:37 PM PST by Dutchgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Wise words from a Catholic former president

The guy who's the origin of the "leave my faith (if any) at the door" philosophy? Ew . . .

29 posted on 11/30/2003 5:55:27 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
In the Catholic religion there is always repentatnce and salvation [and money]....one just needs to ask for it.

What's that supposed to mean?

30 posted on 11/30/2003 6:07:54 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
What's that supposed to mean?

It has been found that "finances before conviction" has been a promoted concern with religious "foundations" in the past.

31 posted on 11/30/2003 6:15:44 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
The Kennedys annulments and support of abortion are clear examples of what you are saying. Many higher ups in the church have put power and money before doctrine.
32 posted on 11/30/2003 6:19:52 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Why is someone a "fake" fill-in-the-blank-religion, if they follow the religion's teachings themselves, but do not believe they should use the force of government to compel non-believers to act in accordance with said religion's teachings? If that makes them "fake" with regard to their religion, then religion is incompatible with the Constitution. It's a mighty slippery slope when government officials start using the power of government to impose religious practices -- just think of the religious police in Saudi Arabia, attacking women with electric cattle prods for letting their ankles show, and arresting people for not attending the several times daily mandatory prayers at the mosque? These nuts surely believe they would be "fake Muslims" if they didn't do these things.
33 posted on 11/30/2003 6:20:56 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
These bishops should spend more time cleaning up their own house than worrying about the way politicians vote. They don't kick out their child molesters but they're going to kick out politicos who vote wrongly.
34 posted on 11/30/2003 6:32:27 PM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
politicians -- like all citizens -- ought to inform thier consciences with the truth, search them, and live by them.
35 posted on 11/30/2003 6:33:39 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Would JFK been elected if he hadn't promised to "check his faith at the door?" I doubt it.
36 posted on 11/30/2003 6:35:54 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Of course not. That's why you have Purgatory

We are getting into unknown territory. But the traditional belief is that Purgatory is the place where venial sins and the remaining effects of confessed mortal sins are purged away. If you die with mortal sins on your head, you are in trouble. And there are few worse sins than being responsible for the murder of thousands of innocents.

Even this could be confessed and repented. I have no idea what the state of Kennedy's soul is, but it's also a traditional belief that if you confess sins with no real contrition and no intention of amending your ways, the confession is valueless. Kennedy obviously intends to keep voting for abortion every chance he gets, so it probably would do little or no good for him to confess his past sins in this area until he resolves to change his ways.

37 posted on 11/30/2003 6:45:52 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Au contraire, traditional belief of Catholics is that, with the sole exception of the "sin against the Holy Spirit" (and no one is absolutely sure what that is) there is always hope of contrition and amendment.

God's grace is a free gift, but things have to get very bad indeed before He withdraws the chance to repent and change your ways.

Except for strict Calvinists, who believe you are either elect or reprobate and nothing can change it, many Protestants would more or less agree with this Catholic position.
38 posted on 11/30/2003 6:50:21 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Would JFK been elected if he hadn't promised to "check his faith at the door?" I doubt it.

And you consider him a role model for sacrificing his religion for power?

39 posted on 11/30/2003 6:56:45 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
They can take any stand they like.

But if they want to call themselves Catholic they had better adhere to core Church doctrines. We're talking about a small handful of issues - not supplemental MOhair funding. Or even the war in Iraq.

Otherwise they probably need to consider another denomination more amenable to their views.

40 posted on 11/30/2003 6:58:08 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
And you consider [JFK] a role model for sacrificing his religion for power?

I know that I'd have to think seriously about voting for any politician who states that he will follow the dictates of his religion's prelate in matters of public policy. That means I'd have to study that religion's teachings on all the issues that might be involved in government as well as the specific prelate's views. It'd be easier just to vote for the prelate directly.

If politicians are going to toe the line of their religion, then their religion must become a part of the political campaign.

41 posted on 11/30/2003 7:09:38 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: breakem
The Kennedys annulments and support of abortion are clear examples of what you are saying. Many higher ups in the church have put power and money before doctrine.

Oh give it a rest on the "Kennedys guy their annulments' garbage! If you are familiar at all with the Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church, you'll understand that with every one of the Kennedy men, there was never a true marriage because NONE of them ever intended to be faithful to their spouses! They philandered continually, but the public never knew about it because the press kept their secrets.

If either party can be shown to have entered into the Sacrament not intending to abide by the promises made, there is no Sacrament, thus no marriage, thus, grounds to begin the nullification process. Their Civil marriage is handled by the divorce, the pronouncement that there was never a religious marriage is handled by the annulment.

As for the Bishops kissing up to politicians, well they are politicians too, as well as shepherds for their flocks. I just wish they'd start being LESS political and more pastoral!

42 posted on 11/30/2003 7:16:58 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
"Kennedys guy their annulments'

Hey, maybe I oughta start using that nifty spell checker! Guy = BUY!

43 posted on 11/30/2003 7:19:10 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
I know that I'd have to think seriously about voting for any politician who states that he will follow the dictates of his religion's prelate in matters of public policy.

No one has suggested anything of the kind.

If politicians are going to toe the line of their religion, then their religion must become a part of the political campaign.

You're weird. Many, even most, politicians feature their religious faith in their campaigns. But I think you're suggesting that anyone who actually believes the teachings of their religion should be regarded with extreme skepticism. That's anti-religious bigotry. Nice that you're honest about it. But it's scary.

44 posted on 11/30/2003 7:23:17 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
" 'Should politicians toe their church line? '

"NO if they disagree.

Should the church point this out? YES"

Exactly.

Everyone has free will, including politicians.

The church, on the other hand, has a duty to hold to its principles and excommunicate those whom it must.
Under United States law a private association (includes churches) can define and limit its membership. (Unless, of course, it is actually involved in interstate commerce and falls under civil rights laws as a public accomodation.)

45 posted on 11/30/2003 7:24:36 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
You are right - I meant Dean, but I mistyped. Sorry.
46 posted on 11/30/2003 7:26:48 PM PST by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Why is someone a "fake" fill-in-the-blank-religion, if they follow the religion's teachings themselves, but do not believe they should use the force of government to compel non-believers to act in accordance with said religion's teachings?

No one is suggesting that. Premarital sex, for example. Sinful, not illegal. And no one is suggesting otherwise. Why don't you try addressing the issue at hand?

47 posted on 11/30/2003 7:31:45 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
You're weird. Many, even most, politicians feature their religious faith in their campaigns. But I think you're suggesting that anyone who actually believes the teachings of their religion should be regarded with extreme skepticism. That's anti-religious bigotry. Nice that you're honest about it. But it's scary.

No, I'm not weird. I try to be an informed voter. If Candidate A says "I'm a good Catholic and will follow the precepts of my religion," then even if he does not run on a platform of anti-contraception I'd have to assume that he'd be anti-contraception anyway. It is not anti-religious bigotry to make that connection and vote one way or another depending on what the candidate's beliefs, whether specifically enunciated or implicit in his faith.

If you are in favor of a strong national defense and one candidate is a devout Quaker, isn't that going to affect your voting even if that candidate never directly refers to war in his campaign, based on the fact that Quakers are pacifists?

48 posted on 11/30/2003 9:06:45 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
This is what you said:

"I know that I'd have to think seriously about voting for any politician who states that he will follow the dictates of his religion's prelate in matters of public policy"

The implication is that you wouldn't think seriously about voting for someone who follows an unknown or changing philosophy that can't be researched? That would be fine? But someone who is religious, you gotta check them out real close? That's anti-religious. If you care about the Catholic candidate's opposition to handing out contraceptives to kids, for example, you should also care where his opponent stands on the issue. Otherwise you're just scared of, biased against (etc.) religious people.

Obviously a candidate's philosophy is a major thing to vote on. But you're saying you'd need to closely scrutinize religious people in particular.

49 posted on 11/30/2003 9:36:09 PM PST by JohnnyZ (Colgate Raiders Football -- 13-0 and advancing through the playoffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
But you're saying you'd need to closely scrutinize religious people in particular.

No, the topic just happens to be religious candidates. If a candidate said "I follow the precepts of Ayn Rand [or Karl Marx or fill in the blank]," then I'd equally want to find out what those precepts are.

50 posted on 11/30/2003 9:40:41 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson