Catholics in public life must adhere to Catholic teachings, says Prendegast

[saintjohnxxiii]

catholicregister.org/item/18190-catholics-in-public-life-must-adhere-to-catholic-teachings-says-prendegast

If Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is setting limits as to who can belong to his party, the Catholic Church also sets limits on who belongs to the Church, Prendergast said.

The Catholic Church “expects adherence” to her teachings, because she believes they are “the teachings of Christ,” he said. “The teachings of Christ are not just for me; they are for the good of everyone.”

Spot on

 

[christus_vincit]

In other words - Catholics actually have to be Catholic.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well imagine that.

 

[NekoNecro]

So…Basically Catholics cannot serve in representative governments unless they serve in a theocratic party. That’s what I’m getting from this since pretty much every party in every country has at least one thing on the agenda the Catholic Church thinks is immoral.

…What? If this is the case it’s true. If a politician’s electorate want something and he can’t do it (lets say legalize gay marriage or provide free condoms) then he’s going to get ousted or not voted in in the first place.

I sure know I wouldn’t vote for a politician who can’t actually do what I voted him in on the understanding his party would do.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

So…Basically Catholics cannot serve in representative governments unless they serve in a theocratic party. That’s what I’m getting from this since pretty much every party in every country has at least one thing on the agenda the Catholic Church thinks is immoral.

…What? If this is the case it’s true. If a politician’s electorate want something and he can’t do it (lets say legalize gay marriage or provide free condoms) then he’s going to get ousted or not voted in in the first place.

I sure know I wouldn’t vote for a politician who can’t actually do what I voted him in on the understanding his party would do.

Actually no it doesn’t mean that at all. What it does mean is that there are some issues that are far more serious than others and they are called the non-negotiables. Abortion is one of them.

 

[Nacho45]

Catholics must be unwavering Catholics at all times. It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Path_Finder]

Catholics must be unwavering Catholics at all times. It makes perfect sense to me.

Absolutely. Catholic politicians should reflect the faith. Prayers to do so.

 

[agnes_therese]

In other words - Catholics actually have to be Catholic.

What a concept!

 

[NekoNecro]

Actually no it doesn’t mean that at all. What it does mean is that there are some issues that are far more serious than others and they are called the non-negotiables. Abortion is one of them.

Exactly, which while I’m not for free abortions for everyone either is the same thing.

I’m in the UK at the moment so I’ll use Parliment for convenience. Say I vote for an MP, who in this constituency holds a weekly “drop in” to hear what it is his constituent voters want.

Let’s say he’s a Catholic unaffiliated with a party (it does happen), an independent. What if for the next few weeks his voters come in saying “we want you to campaign for freer availability of abortions”.

It is his job and obligation to do this, if he does not he is cheating his voters. He receives a striped from parliament to do what they want. But of course, he’s a Catholic, so he can’t do it. Which means he can’t do the job of representing the desires and needs of his constituents.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

If we are consciously aware that our tax dollars fund abortions, is it our obligation to no longer pay taxes?

Before someone quotes “Obey the law of the land” in order to feel comfortable about it, let us consider that abortion is a mortal sin.

Are we to commit mortal sins or fund mortal sins knowingly if that is what the law of the land says?

It was once unlawful for Christians in Rome to practice Christianity. Was it a sin to go against the “law of the land” when they did that?

Just more confusion and reasons for us to fall head long into our bouts with scrupulosity. Lets pile on the big pile of stuff that we are not allowed to do, and what we are not allowed to do, in order to avoid eternal damnation. As if there is any such thing as a perfect Catholic out there.

Well, time for me to bite my fingernails again.

 

[ProVobis]

If we are consciously aware that our tax dollars fund abortions, is it our obligation to no longer pay taxes?

Wouldn’t do much good. The Fed would simply print the money. Oh, wait…

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Exactly, which while I’m not for free abortions for everyone either is the same thing.

I’m in the UK at the moment so I’ll use Parliment for convenience. Say I vote for an MP, who in this constituency holds a weekly “drop in” to hear what it is his constituent voters want.

Let’s say he’s a Catholic unaffiliated with a party (it does happen), an independent. What if for the next few weeks his voters come in saying “we want you to campaign for freer availability of abortions”.

It is his job and obligation to do this, if he does not he is cheating his voters. He receives a striped from parliament to do what they want. But of course, he’s a Catholic, so he can’t do it. Which means he can’t do the job of representing the desires and needs of his constituents.

Let me answer you your question with my scenario. Lets say that I am running for Parliament. I would announce during the election campaign what I stand for (against abortion) and if I get elected with that as part of my platform then no matter who may contact me, I will vote for my conscience and I don’t see changing my views for any obligation on the part of my constituents.

 

[mikekle]

If we are consciously aware that our tax dollars fund abortions, is it our obligation to no longer pay taxes?

Before someone quotes “Obey the law of the land” in order to feel comfortable about it, let us consider that abortion is a mortal sin.

Are we to commit mortal sins or fund mortal sins knowingly if that is what the law of the land says?

It was once unlawful for Christians in Rome to practice Christianity. Was it a sin to go against the “law of the land” when they did that?

Just more confusion and reasons for us to fall head long into our bouts with scrupulosity. Lets pile on the big pile of stuff that we are not allowed to do, and what we are not allowed to do, in order to avoid eternal damnation. As if there is any such thing as a perfect Catholic out there.

Well, time for me to bite my fingernails again.

The sad fact is in todays world, not that many so called christians are willing to stand up for their beliefs in such ways, it really makes me question what these people will do when they must really stand up for their beliefs or face death, prison, torture, etc!! I presume alot of people will suddenly become atheists! LOL

 

[Yause]

So…Basically Catholics cannot serve in representative governments unless they serve in a theocratic party. That’s what I’m getting from this since pretty much every party in every country has at least one thing on the agenda the Catholic Church thinks is immoral.

From what I read, things are a bit more complicated in Canada, where Archbishop Prendergast is speaking from. Unrestricted abortion is deeply ingrained, so no political party is willing to challenge it (not the right-wing Conservative Party, let alone the Liberals). Consequently, the Church has been very tolerant of politicians who hold positions contrary to Catholic teaching.

On the other hand, Prendergast is now speaking out because Trudeau has broken the status quo (a “neutral” position on abortion, with the effective result being the protection of abortion rights given the desires of the public) by mandating that all future members of his party must absolutely support pro-choice. On that issue, it’s the political party that has actually stamped out any room for debate, which is frankly baffling.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

Exactly, which while I’m not for free abortions for everyone either is the same thing.

I’m in the UK at the moment so I’ll use Parliment for convenience. Say I vote for an MP, who in this constituency holds a weekly “drop in” to hear what it is his constituent voters want.

Let’s say he’s a Catholic unaffiliated with a party (it does happen), an independent. What if for the next few weeks his voters come in saying “we want you to campaign for freer availability of abortions”.

It is his job and obligation to do this, if he does not he is cheating his voters. He receives a striped from parliament to do what they want. But of course, he’s a Catholic, so he can’t do it. Which means he can’t do the job of representing the desires and needs of his constituents.

If he was voted into office with full knowledge that he was Catholic, (and chooses to follow the teachings of his Church) than his constituents are asking him to do something against his conscience. It’s up to him to use the opportunity to explain his position and why he cannot do that for them. Is there a recall process in the UK? I suppose that’s an option. Or, he could step down. The most likely response is that people may say they didn’t realize the politician was REALLY Catholic. If a public figure states that they of any religion, the next question from the media is usually about abortion so people should have a clue as to where the politician stands before they vote for him. Those politicians willing to stand against abortion but actually still care about the poor are getting very rare, IMO.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

The sad fact is in todays world, not that many so called christians are willing to stand up for their beliefs in such ways, it really makes me question what these people will do when they must really stand up for their beliefs or face death, prison, torture, etc!! I presume alot of people will suddenly become atheists! LOL

Oh there are many that would gladly boast that they would never betray, or they would gladly give up their life for Christ.

That is one of those…exalting of ourselves situations. During the Last Supper for instance, when Christ told them that one of them was going to betray, they all said to themselves…“surely not I.”

Peter during the supper, boasted out loud that he would never betray. In other words, he was exalting himself to sainthood.

One disciple however did not do that. He was the one that reclined on Jesus’s chest and asked…“Who is it?” Or, “Is it I?” Well, when we read about which disciples were at the foot of the cross the next day, it was that disciple. The one “Whom Jesus loved.”

That was a poignant moment too. Peter later asked Jesus, after the resurrection about the disciple that “reclined at the table.”

I say all of that to remind we must refrain from exalting ourselves.

Anyway, yeah I am always conflicted and suffer a lot from doubt, confusion, and scrupulosity. These are the types of questions that I wonder about. Is it a mortal sin to willingly pay taxes, knowing they are funding essential murder? Why not if it isn’t?

Are we to obey the law of the land, even if that law is to sin? Were Christians sinning when they disobeyed the law of the land in Rome when they illegally practiced Christianity and witnessed to people? No. They weren’t.

Anyway…there you have it.

 

[mikekle]

Oh there are many that would gladly boast that they would never betray, or they would gladly give up their life for Christ.

That is one of those…exalting of ourselves situations. During the Last Supper for instance, when Christ told them that one of them was going to betray, they all said to themselves…“surely not I.”

Peter during the supper, boasted out loud that he would never betray. In other words, he was exalting himself to sainthood.

One disciple however did not do that. He was the one that reclined on Jesus’s chest and asked…“Who is it?” Or, “Is it I?” Well, when we read about which disciples were at the foot of the cross the next day, it was that disciple. The one “Whom Jesus loved.”

That was a poignant moment too. Peter later asked Jesus, after the resurrection about the disciple that “reclined at the table.”

I say all of that to remind we must refrain from exalting ourselves.

Anyway, yeah I am always conflicted and suffer a lot from doubt, confusion, and scrupulosity. These are the types of questions that I wonder about. Is it a mortal sin to willingly pay taxes, knowing they are funding essential murder? Why not if it isn’t?

Are we to obey the law of the land, even if that law is to sin? Were Christians sinning when they disobeyed the law of the land in Rome when they illegally practiced Christianity and witnessed to people? No. They weren’t.

Anyway…there you have it.

It seems to me churches today are simply not willing to fight some of the fights that need to be fought, such as should christians be paying taxes if they know its going towards murder?..I kinda think the church wants to keep a sort of good relationship with Govt and the local cities, when they really should not be concerned about this at all.

 

[zz912]

So…Basically Catholics cannot serve in representative governments unless they serve in a theocratic party. That’s what I’m getting from this since pretty much every party in every country has at least one thing on the agenda the Catholic Church thinks is immoral.

…What? If this is the case it’s true. If a politician’s electorate want something and he can’t do it (lets say legalize gay marriage or provide free condoms) then he’s going to get ousted or not voted in in the first place.

I sure know I wouldn’t vote for a politician who can’t actually do what I voted him in on the understanding his party would do.

I can’t speak to foreign political parties, as I’m ignorant of most of them. But an example here in the US is the Republican Party. There is nothing in the party platform that is contrary to the Christian faith. So a Catholic could be part of the party in good conscience, and not be a member of nor advocate for a theocratic state.

I would bet that there are political parties in every country that would be acceptable for a Catholic to be a member of and not advocate for a theocracy.

 

[zz912]

Exactly, which while I’m not for free abortions for everyone either is the same thing.

I’m in the UK at the moment so I’ll use Parliment for convenience. Say I vote for an MP, who in this constituency holds a weekly “drop in” to hear what it is his constituent voters want.

Let’s say he’s a Catholic unaffiliated with a party (it does happen), an independent. What if for the next few weeks his voters come in saying “we want you to campaign for freer availability of abortions”.

It is his job and obligation to do this, if he does not he is cheating his voters. He receives a striped from parliament to do what they want. But of course, he’s a Catholic, so he can’t do it. Which means he can’t do the job of representing the desires and needs of his constituents.

This is silly. In your example, the MP has constituents of EVERY stripe and belief. They hold collectively every single platform and position. He is elected as a representative form a government, that the people send him into office to represent them. They aren’t a direct democracy that votes on every issue. They elect someone to vote on issues for them. Since every political viewpoint is held by his voters, he can’t possibly do what all of them want. That’s impossible. He should hold to the values and views that he proclaimed in the election cycle that his voters agreed to by voting for him.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I can’t speak to foreign political parties, as I’m ignorant of most of them. But an example here in the US is the Republican Party. There is nothing in the party platform that is contrary to the Christian faith. So a Catholic could be part of the party in good conscience, and not be a member of nor advocate for a theocratic state.

I would bet that there are political parties in every country that would be acceptable for a Catholic to be a member of and not advocate for a theocracy.

I disagree. Republicans tend to be on the the pro life side and pro family, but they fail in some of their policies towards the poor. There is no perfect political party. If only we had someone true to all of the teachings of the Church. Oh wait, then he’d be a Pope.