Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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: 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: 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: 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: 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


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


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


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


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: 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: 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: madprof98
Another article from the Deseret Morning News owned by the LDS Church disseminating Church-approved propaganda. Sorry. Lived in a LDS-dominated town. The Church powers-that-be have openly stated they want good LDS members in office so that politics will go the way the LDS Church wants. And I've seen the LDS majority destroy dissenters.
51 posted on 11/30/2003 9:55:59 PM PST by Victoria_R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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