Can a devout Catholic be a good U.S. President?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I am following you here it seems we must deny what is true to get elected? How is that good in any way?
I think that any religious person, whether Catholic or something else, has to understand how to apply their religion to their job. A Catholic president should certainly support life affirming positions and do what he can to promote a culture of life. But he can’t apply Catholic policies or theologies to everything he does. He can’t consult Rome on security issues, for example. He can’t support policies designed to promote Catholicism over other religions.

Should a Catholic president fight against abortion? Of course. Should he work to outlaw divorce? A much more nuanced question - I think the divorce laws could use some reform, but a Catholic should not do that for strictly religious reasons. Should he oppress atheists or declare the U.S. a Christian nation? No, he should not. Everyone will draw these lines in different places and where voters think the lines are drawn will effect the ‘electability’ of a devout Catholic candidate.

Many Catholics face this every day and probably don’t even think about it. If you work in a book store should you refuse to ring up a copy of the Koran, or a book about Luther? Some may say yes, most would sell the book. The same decisions permeate all of our lives, they are just bigger and more public for elected officials.
 
I can’t agree with this, or perhaps you are being sarcastic?

How about - oops forgot we can’t mention names – suppose there was a guy running right now who is some kind of minister (say Baptist) with a masters degree in theology. Suppose most of his positions lined up pretty well with Catholic positions. He might have a chance.
If you are too honest, you wont survive in politics.

If you turn the other cheek, you wont survive in politics.

You cant be a devout christian be a politician at the same time.

You can pretend to be a devout christian in order to charm the christian majority, but you cant really act like one in politics.
 
I think that any religious person, whether Catholic or something else, has to understand how to apply their religion to their job. A Catholic president should certainly support life affirming positions and do what he can to promote a culture of life. But he can’t apply Catholic policies or theologies to everything he does. He can’t consult Rome on security issues, for example. He can’t support policies designed to promote Catholicism over other religions.
I do not think many would claim theology should be forced on others as that would contradict Catholic teaching. I am thinking more of moral issues. Like those who mistakenly claim abortion or euthanasia are simply sectarian issues or pronouncements from Rome.
Should a Catholic president fight against abortion? Of course. Should he work to outlaw divorce? A much more nuanced question - I think the divorce laws could use some reform, but a Catholic should not do that for strictly religious reasons.
Civil divorce is not contrary to Catholic teaching. Too many occur and the reasons for that may need to be addressed.
Should he oppress atheists or declare the U.S. a Christian nation? No, he should not.
I think the Church would agree with you.
Everyone will draw these lines in different places and where voters think the lines are drawn will effect the ‘electability’ of a devout Catholic candidate.
The problem, in part, is that too many draw the lines based on an incorrect understanding of Church positions.
Many Catholics face this every day and probably don’t even think about it. If you work in a book store should you refuse to ring up a copy of the Koran, or a book about Luther? Some may say yes, most would sell the book. The same decisions permeate all of our lives, they are just bigger and more public for elected officials.
None of that is contrary to Church teaching. I do not think the Church claims politicians must ban Protestant books.
 
Is it possible for a devout practicing Catholic be a good U.S. President, who upheld Church teachings especially in the lines of moral issues, such as abortion, stem cell, euthanasia, death penalty, homosexuality, etc?
Yes.
 
NOTICE:

Before the conversation heads that way, this is a reminder to all to neither mention nor allude to a particular candidate for office. Should you see such occur, please use the Bad Post Report (forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/report.gif) button to report it.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary
 
Pick any “pronouncement” from Rome. If it is a matter of morals then why would a Catholic deny a truth to get elected? How is that good?
No one is talking about denying any truth. I think you missed my point entirely. It is common throughout the Catholic blogosphere at least that everyone on the conservative right will not vote for any democrat, and one republican because of their stance or lack of stance on abortion. That is starting to become common knowledge…catholics don’t vote for candidates unless they agree with the Church.

Catholics now have this burden when they choose to run. Others assume that this candidate secretly may have positions he/she is not sharing because we all know, “they gotta follow the pope”. That is what these blanket non-endorsements lead to.

A person running for the office of President is not just representing Catholics, he/she represents the entire country, including all those that believe differently on any host or particular issue from Catholics. Today, abortion is still favored by a majority of the population. Whether you agree or disagree that is the truth. I can see why a candidate my well conclude that though it is personally offensive to them, they have responsibilities to the majority view as well. Again, he/she might decide that minority veiws need a voice. But it cannot be tied to being Catholic, otherwise we just will not be elected.

PS…anyone know why we aren’t allowed to mention an actual name for reference? I could have explained it much easier had I been allowed to use an example. Did I miss some read this or die memo when I signed up about political talk?
 
It is ultimately a matter of how one goes about things. Are they approached in a manner of good governance which takes into account the sensibilities of a people and the realities of humankind? Or is it a stronghanded emphatisist trying to impose and decry? The former has a genuine chance to work within the system for positive progress in achieving his goals according to his conscience. The latter would never have a chance at sucess.

In the end, the gist of what JFK was getting at was right.
 
No one is talking about denying any truth. I think you missed my point entirely. It is common throughout the Catholic blogosphere at least that everyone on the conservative right will not vote for any democrat, and one republican because of their stance or lack of stance on abortion. That is starting to become common knowledge…catholics don’t vote for candidates unless they agree with the Church.

Catholics now have this burden when they choose to run. Others assume that this candidate secretly may have positions he/she is not sharing because we all know, “they gotta follow the pope”. That is what these blanket non-endorsements lead to.

A person running for the office of President is not just representing Catholics, he/she represents the entire country, including all those that believe differently on any host or particular issue from Catholics. Today, abortion is still favored by a majority of the population. Whether you agree or disagree that is the truth. I can see why a candidate my well conclude that though it is personally offensive to them, they have responsibilities to the majority view as well. Again, he/she might decide that minority veiws need a voice. But it cannot be tied to being Catholic, otherwise we just will not be elected.

PS…anyone know why we aren’t allowed to mention an actual name for reference? I could have explained it much easier had I been allowed to use an example. Did I miss some read this or die memo when I signed up about political talk?
I am not arguing whether one is electable or not. I am saying a loyal Catholic would be a good president. Yes, the president must represent many diverse groups, but that does not mean each group holds correct views or such views are good for society.

Abortion is a perfect example. Leaders should not abdicate responsibility simply because many are confused.
 
I think the exact opposite. In fact, he may be why we have the CINO’s in politics we have today.
JFK’s speech was based upon solid reasoning of the Jesuit intellectual, John Courtney Murray, with whom he had consulted. The idea, really, was not to create the kind of seperatist, compartmentalized view of religion in life which has come to the forefront (pointing to JFK as justification) but simply to note that there are distinct roles for the religionist in the secular world. Just as in any other course of work, the Catholic (or any other believer of another faith system) does not exist in that position to impose his beliefs on the populance (and, here, I’m not talking about the Immaculate Conception or Trinity or something like that, but more secular concerns of moral action.) Rather, he exists to serve the needs of the job and people over whom he is responsible. Naturally, he can not entirely sepearate who he is and what he believes from that. But the decisions which he makes are not made as simple kneejerk impositions of belief, but rather in honest service to real circumstances at hand on the secular front.
 
Well, as the 1960’s and JFK showed, any Catholic needs to show a bit of independence from Rome to be elected President. The American people will not elect someone who they view as a proxy for the Pope (e.g. Pope says jump, politician says how high). In this case the Pope/Rome can be seen as an outside influence with unusually strong control over the United States government. The people of the United States want the President to be accountable first to them, not to someone far away in Italy.

JFK spoke of being detached from Rome and the people elected him the first (and only) Catholic President.
 
Well, as the 1960’s and JFK showed, any Catholic needs to show a bit of independence from Rome to be elected President. The American people will not elect someone who they view as a proxy for the Pope (e.g. Pope says jump, politician says how high). In this case the Pope/Rome can be seen as an outside influence with unusually strong control over the United States government. The people of the United States want the President to be accountable first to them, not to someone far away in Italy.

JFK spoke of being detached from Rome and the people elected him the first (and only) Catholic President.
I agree. The more Catholic heirarchy and laity berate in public and threaten catholic politicians, the more that the public associates catholic politicians as just being puppets of Rome. And that will be the end of Catholics being able to run at all. I wish some folks could understand the damage they are doing.
 
John of Kennedy will be remembered forever in the hearts of those who lived during his reign and future generations. He and Pope Benedict XVI both share a common belief, a separation of church and state and religious freedom. 🙂

“It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state as we understand it in the United States – that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion.” – (John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic and the 35th President of the United States letter to Glenn L. Archer, 23 February 1959)
and
*"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 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 helped lead 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 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 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, at both the lay and 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.
[snip]
“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 it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.” – * JFK’s address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, 12 September 1960
adherents.com/people/pk/John_F_Kennedy.html


"Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just. (ENCYCLICAL LETTER DEUS CARITAS ESTOF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON CHRISTIAN LOVE Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 25 December, the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord, in the year 2005, the first of my Pontificate. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI)
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
 
JFK’s speech was based upon solid reasoning of the Jesuit intellectual, John Courtney Murray, with whom he had consulted.
And he still is controversial.
The idea, really, was not to create the kind of seperatist, compartmentalized view of religion in life which has come to the forefront (pointing to JFK as justification) but simply to note that there are distinct roles for the religionist in the secular world.
I agree here.
Just as in any other course of work, the Catholic (or any other believer of another faith system) does not exist in that position to impose his beliefs on the populance (and, here, I’m not talking about the Immaculate Conception or Trinity or something like that, but more secular concerns of moral action.) Rather, he exists to serve the needs of the job and people over whom he is responsible. Naturally, he can not entirely sepearate who he is and what he believes from that. But the decisions which he makes are not made as simple kneejerk impositions of belief, but rather in honest service to real circumstances at hand on the secular front.
But the authentic kneejerk reactions are from those who see the Pope as the real problem, including self proclaimed Catholics.
 
Well, as the 1960’s and JFK showed, any Catholic needs to show a bit of independence from Rome to be elected President. The American people will not elect someone who they view as a proxy for the Pope (e.g. Pope says jump, politician says how high). In this case the Pope/Rome can be seen as an outside influence with unusually strong control over the United States government. The people of the United States want the President to be accountable first to them, not to someone far away in Italy.

JFK spoke of being detached from Rome and the people elected him the first (and only) Catholic President.
Again, I am not refering to electablity
 
John of Kennedy will be remembered forever in the hearts of those who lived during his reign and future generations. He and Pope Benedict XVI both share a common belief, a separation of church and state and religious freedom. 🙂
This is too much. I marvel that so many still swoon over this man.
 
Is it possible for a devout practicing Catholic be a good U.S. President, who upheld Church teachings especially in the lines of moral issues, such as abortion, stem cell, euthanasia, death penalty, homosexuality, etc?
yes
 
The real question is; Do we vote for someone who will do the will of the majority of voters or do we vote for the candidate because of his qualifications and integrity?
The candidate who voices the desires of the majority is good only if the majority desire the common good.
The candidate who voices his well formed conscience will desire the common good. The analogy is a family governed by the majority vote of the children or the wisdom of a parent. Often the majority does not posses the wisdom to choose the good but will most often choose self gratification.
Any Good person would make a Good President.
 
The reason Europeans started moving here in the first place was to get away from governments with theocratic ambitions.
No, it was the oppressive humans who cloaked themselves in theology that pushed Europeans here. Funny, they were all Protestant in the first 200 or so years…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top