Politicians and Catholics and Catholic Politicians: The Mess

[LRThunder]

I suspect the Church will muddle on just fine without me. Just as I am doing equally fine without the Church.

As far as abortion rights, I take a property rights stance. This means that in the cases where a foetus cannot survive outside the womb (first 3 months), abortion should be legal for any reason because the foetus does not have the right to demand hospitality in his mother’s womb. After the first 3 months I ratchet up the requirements, there should be a good medical reason for the procedure because only a couple more months and a Caesarian can be used and the infant delivered with a chance for life. I would not allow any abortions after the 5.5 month stage, though I would allow, of course, Caesarians at any point after 5.5 months for any reason. Again, the foetus has a better than average chance at survival after that point.

As for laws regarding rape, assault, murder, these are about protecting the rights of citizens and providing for an orderly society, not morality or religion per se.

Ah, so fetuses are property? Didn’t slaveowners used to use that argument re: keeping slavery legal?

 

[mikew262]

A politician is no more authorized to act amorally than anyone else. A vote in Contgress or a state legislature is a formal act. If it furthers the killing of innocent human beings it clearly is an immoral vote.

Theoretically, a politician is elected to represent the people who elected him. He is obligated to vote according the majority wishes of those people. If these folks are primarily pro-choice, and if he/she is honestly doing their duty, then they should vote according to those people’s wishes. Same way if most of his electors are pro-life. If he/she can’t honestly vote the way his electors want, then he/she should resign.

 

[a_cermak]

Ah, so fetuses are property? Didn’t slaveowners used to use that argument re: keeping slavery legal?

Did you even read what I wrote? The property is the woman’s womb. In my opinion, the foetus has no right to it. Just as a property owner doesn’t have to accept squatters living on his property even if he throws them out they will freeze to death.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The property is the woman’s womb. In my opinion, the foetus has no right to it. Just as a property owner doesn’t have to accept squatters living on his property even if he throws them out they will freeze to death.

I am so very sorry for you. I just cannot accept that a person who calls himself a Christian–meaning a follower of Christ, who suffered and died on the cross for all people, born and unborn, could be able to express the above statements and not see that they are as far from the teachings of Christ as the pits of hell are from the gates of heaven.

Please,** please ** sit back for a minute and instead of trying to rationalize, **listen ** to God instead of to the lies of Satan. For your soul’s sake. Don’t you realize that on judgment day you are going to be judged, not on whether you yourself ever had an abortion, but on the fact that **you didn’t speak up for the least ones. . .therefore, you did not speak up for Me. **

If I do nothing else in this life, may I always speak out, and do whatever is humanly possible, to stop the holocaust of the innocent unborn. Forgive us, O Lord, help us to stop the madness, forgive us our sins and our failings for the least little ones, forgive us our pride and our contempt and our blindness.

 

[LRThunder]

Did you even read what I wrote? The property is the woman’s womb. In my opinion, the foetus has no right to it. Just as a property owner doesn’t have to accept squatters living on his property even if he throws them out they will freeze to death.

The difference between a squatter and a fetus should be obvious: a squatter chooses to trespass on someone’s property; unborn babies have no choice in being conceived.

 

[mary_bobo]

Theoretically, a politician is elected to represent the people who elected him. He is obligated to vote according the majority wishes of those people. If these folks are primarily pro-choice, and if he/she is honestly doing their duty, then they should vote according to those people’s wishes. Same way if most of his electors are pro-life. If he/she can’t honestly vote the way his electors want, then he/she should resign.

Good thought, but not what is happening. Constituents be darned, the Congress votes the way the leadership wants them to vote, most of the time. If they don’t they get no help in the next election. Don’t forget, re-election above all, including fetuses.

 

[mary_bobo]

It is fascinating to read how some justify the killing of innocent babies so that they can live as they wish—devoid of morals. Aiding and abetting is a crime in most cases, and if these representatives are not aiding and abetting in these cases, what else can you call it? Those who leave the church because they do not agree with Church teaching are not Catholics to begin with. They will be welcomed with open arms in some other churches. I don’t think St. Peter will welcome them with open arms.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As far as abortion rights, I take a property rights stance.

Ah, yes – the old “human beings as property” argument. When you ride out in your cottonfield, you expect to see your property standing, hat in hand and saying, “Good morning, Master.”

As for laws regarding rape, assault, murder, these are about protecting the rights of citizens and providing for an orderly society, not morality or religion per se.

An, and on that note you feel that it would be legal to murder a French tourist or rape an illegal immigrant?

Murder is murder. The citizenship of the victim does’t matter.

 

[dwc]

Did you even read what I wrote? The property is the woman’s womb. In my opinion, the foetus has no right to it. Just as a property owner doesn’t have to accept squatters living on his property even if he throws them out they will freeze to death.

As a woman, a pro-life feminist, I could not disagree more with this statement. The fetus didn’t just end up in mom’s womb. Except in the cases of rape and incest, which account for a very small percentage of abortions, the fetus got in mom’s womb because she chose to engage in sexual intercourse, knowing full well the possible consequence. She invited that fetus there.

To say that despite all that it is necessary for a woman in this situation to have the right to kill that fetus because, otherwise, she is some how denied freedom or equality is such a condescending attitude to have. It assumes that women are somehow too inept, irresponsible or incompetent to handle their own sexuality without an available back up plan, even if the back up requires sacrificing human life.

It’s just garbage. We should be held responsible for our sexual choices and the corresponding consequences. Just like men are held responsible for their choices – a night of fun results in a baby, the men should be responsible for that baby, financially and otherwise. The woman should also do that. To allow either gender an out is wrong, but it is a far greater injustice if that out results in death.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yep.

The property is the woman’s womb.

Nope. Human organs cannot be legally bought and sold. The womg is not “property.”

In my opinion, the foetus has no right to it.

Wrong. A child does have a right to parental care.

Just as a property owner doesn’t have to accept squatters living on his property even if he throws them out they will freeze to death.

In this case, your “property owner” invited the tenant in – and a landlord most certainly does not have the right to turn tenants out into the cold to die.

 

[mikew262]

Good thought, but not what is happening. Constituents be darned, the Congress votes the way the leadership wants them to vote, most of the time. If they don’t they get no help in the next election. Don’t forget, re-election above all, including fetuses.

Thats why I added “theoretically”.

 

[pig_boy]

Thats why I added “theoretically”.

I’m not even sure if I agree with your theoretical angle. The voting public doesn’t determine the views of the candidate. The candidate determines their views and then the electorate either elects the individual or sends them home. It’s seems like a fairly unprincipled candidate who would simply find the views that are most likely to get them elected and say they would vote in that manner even if they personally were opposed to the positions.

Also, I don’t understand the distinction between public/personal life that was raised by an earlier poster. Are we saying that our public life is not to be influenced by our faith? And what exactly constitues our public life?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not even sure if I agree with your theoretical angle. The voting public doesn’t determine the views of the candidate. The candidate determines their views and then the electorate either elects the individual or sends them home. It’s seems like a fairly unprincipled candidate who would simply find the views that are most likely to get them elected and say they would vote in that manner even if they personally were opposed to the positions.

Having run for political office (1st Congressional District of Arkansas in '04) I assure you the voting public does determine the views of the candidate. A candidate who has money hires polling companies, does focus groups, and works hard to tell the public what the public wants to hear.

 

[pig_boy]

Having run for political office (1st Congressional District of Arkansas in '04) I assure you the voting public does determine the views of the candidate. A candidate who has money hires polling companies, does focus groups, and works hard to tell the public what the public wants to hear.

So are you saying the voting public determined your views?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So are you saying the voting public determined your views?

Nope – I didn’t have the money for polls and focus groups. And I didn’t win.

We recently had an attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment here in Arkansas – the ERA is as dead as a hammer, but in New Mexico, ratification of this dead horse was used to overturn controls on abortion.

Many state representatives proudly supported it as co-sponsors – until they got a blizzard of calls from the public and withdrew their support.

 

[pig_boy]

Having run for political office (1st Congressional District of Arkansas in '04) I assure you the voting public does determine the views of the candidate. A candidate who has money hires polling companies, does focus groups, and works hard to tell the public what the public wants to hear.

Nope – I didn’t have the money for polls and focus groups. And I didn’t win.

We recently had an attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment here in Arkansas – the ERA is as dead as a hammer, but in New Mexico, ratification of this dead horse was used to overturn controls on abortion.

Many state representatives proudly supported it as co-sponsors – until they got a blizzard of calls from the public and withdrew their support.

I’m not arguing your point that often times politicians are shaped by their “supporters” and vote in a manner that is in their best interest for election. But a politician should not divorce themselves from their votes by saying it is the will of the people. Ultimately they cast the vote and are accountable for it. It may be the will of the people, but you are not always required to follow the will of the people. Maybe if the will of the people conflict your moral beliefs, you should consider finding another job. If I had a job as an accountant and the CFO wanted me to help him embezzle money, I couldn’t morally do it (even if I’m personally opposed) because it’s the will of my boss. I thought there was a quote or something from Mother Theresa where she said something about being faithful rather than successful. (How’s that for being specific). I think that can easily apply to politicians in these cases. You’re called to faithfulness in all aspects of your life (public and private).

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not arguing your point that often times politicians are shaped by their “supporters” and vote in a manner that is in their best interest for election. But a politician should not divorce themselves from their votes by saying it is the will of the people.

What politicians should do, and what they actually do are two different things. The Constitution of the United States, with its Separation of Powers and its famous system of Checks and Balances is a superb realization of the weakness of human nature when in a position of power.

Ultimately they cast the vote and are accountable for it. It may be the will of the people, but you are not always required to follow the will of the people. Maybe if the will of the people conflict your moral beliefs, you should consider finding another job.

You won’t find many serving politicians who will accept that principle!

If I had a job as an accountant and the CFO wanted me to help him embezzle money, I couldn’t morally do it (even if I’m personally opposed) because it’s the will of my boss. I thought there was a quote or something from Mother Theresa where she said something about being faithful rather than successful. (How’s that for being specific).

There’s Mother Theresa, and then there’s Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Do you see a difference between the two?

I think that can easily apply to politicians in these cases. You’re called to faithfulness in all aspects of your life (public and private).

I can give you a long list of “Catholic” politicians who have deeply compromised the principles of their faith to gain and remain in office.

 

[mikew262]

I’m not even sure if I agree with your theoretical angle. The voting public doesn’t determine the views of the candidate. The candidate determines their views and then the electorate either elects the individual or sends them home. It’s seems like a fairly unprincipled candidate who would simply find the views that are most likely to get them elected and say they would vote in that manner even if they personally were opposed to the positions.

The elected official is supposed to be representing his/her constitute’s interests and vote accordingly. This is the theory under a democratic government. Does it happen this way in reality? Maybe, depending upon where you live. If they don’t, then the system allows them to voted out of office.

 

[pig_boy]

The elected official is supposed to be representing his/her constitute’s interests and vote accordingly. This is the theory under a democratic government. Does it happen this way in reality? Maybe, depending upon where you live. If they don’t, then the system allows them to voted out of office.

The question we are asking basically is whether a Catholic politician is selling their soul to secure a job? They are being asked to support positions that are in direct opposition to their religious beliefs because it is the will of the people. That is a position that absolutely cannot be justified by the politician in any way. Our form of government does not require you to poll your constituency and then vote according to the result. We are not a direct democracy. It allows the office holder to vote in the manner they see fit. If they are thrown out of office by their constituency, that is fine. But the belief that they have to vote how the population desires is insane.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The elected official is supposed to be representing his/her constitute’s interests and vote accordingly. This is the theory under a democratic government. Does it happen this way in reality? Maybe, depending upon where you live. If they don’t, then the system allows them to voted out of office.

That’s the whole theory behind our system of government. Earlier systems relied on the innate nobility of the King and his nobles. That didn’t work.

Our system recognizes human failings, and provides protections – including voting them out of office, Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.