Politics in the pulpit

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another problem with politics in the pulpit is that what we are taught varies from priest to priest. I am blessed to live near several parishes. One good pastor is passionately prolife in that his primary concern is abortion. When he gets political during a homily, which he often does near election time, he uses every means in his power to say, “Vote Republican” without actually saying, “Vote Republican.” Another good pastor, however, is more of a social justice warrior, a seamless garment kind of prolife advocate. After hearing one of his politically slanted homilies one feels that a vote for the Democratic candidate is not only permissible but commendable.

Now one difference between us Catholics and many Protestant churches (the once saved, always saved types) is that we more strongly link voting with sin and salvation. How often have I heard, on these forums and elsewhere, “If you vote in a way that goes against Church teaching, you risk your eternal salvation.” But depending on which parish I happen to attend, the priest preaching will, with all sincerity, steer me toward either the Democrats or the Republicans (I’ve yet to encounter a priest who outright advocates third party voting from the pulpit in my limited personal experience).

Since individual priests all have different opinions, and these varying personal opinions often find their way into their homilies, I think it is better to leave politics out of their sermons as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
As has been explained before, the Catholic Church is a huge enforcement target perceived to have deep pockets. Most Protestant churches are barely able to pay expenses. If they were sued or forced to pay tax over politics they would simply go out of business. They are judgment-proof. The Catholic Church is not, as shown by the sex abuse victims who still continue to sue.

Furthermore, the government is unlikely to ever complain about a black church unless it is a front for a terrorist organization or some other grossly illegal activity.
 
Last edited:
The footnote to the verse says, “Stupid: not just senseless, for they were in danger of deserting their salvation.”

The funny thing is that it pretty literally is “just senseless”. So… artistic license on the part of the translators? 🤔
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
How do you arrive at this? I can recognize politics whether I generally agree or not. I’m sure others can too.
Click to expand...
Just something I’ve noticed talking to people. Your mileage may vary, but I’ve found that virtually everyone agrees that they don’t like “politics in the pulpit.” But if they’re hearing something they like, they don’t recognize it as “politics.” I’ve heard both liberals and conservatives do this, it’s not a partisan thing. I don’t even think most people do it consciously.
Click to expand...
It also depends on what one defines as politics.

If a priest decries racism and oppression within a homily some would call that politics where I would not.
 
christofirst said:
Another problem with politics in the pulpit is that what we are taught varies from priest to priest. I am blessed to live near several parishes. One good pastor is passionately prolife in that his primary concern is abortion. When he gets political during a homily, which he often does near election time, he uses every means in his power to say, “Vote Republican” without actually saying, “Vote Republican.” Another good pastor, however, is more of a social justice warrior, a seamless garment kind of prolife advocate. After hearing one of his politically slanted homilies one feels that a vote for the Democratic candidate is not only permissible but commendable.

Now one difference between us Catholics and many Protestant churches (the once saved, always saved types) is that we more strongly link voting with sin and salvation. How often have I heard, on these forums and elsewhere, “If you vote in a way that goes against Church teaching, you risk your eternal salvation.” But depending on which parish I happen to attend, the priest preaching will, with all sincerity, steer me toward either the Democrats or the Republicans (I’ve yet to encounter a priest who outright advocates third party voting from the pulpit in my limited personal experience).

Since individual priests all have different opinions, and these varying personal opinions often find their way into their homilies, I think it is better to leave politics out of their sermons as much as possible.
Click to expand...
That’s a nice and well-rounded post. Good to read such measure around here.
 
I have mixed feelings on this.

While on the one hand I would say yes, a priest should not be telling anyone to vote for a specific candidate, I don’t think there is anything wrong with telling people that candidates with certain stances are good or bad to vote for.

I remember hearing priests during mass say on the day of an election (because they always happen on Sunday in Poland) that he hopes people remember to take note where the presidential candidates stand on important Catholic issues before they choose who to vote for. One could also say ‘aaaah it’s obvious he is saying to vote for such and such a guy, because the other one has very anti-Catholic policies’. Well yeah, why wouldn’t he? It isn’t like he’s trying to frighten people into voting for somebody and saying that voting for anyone with anti-Catholic policies is a sin.

People who are in power influence the type of society we live in, and if some people want to make it a very anti-Catholic place with anti-Catholic laws, why wouldn’t priests speak out against it? Shouldn’t it be their duty?

Is it officially forbidden for priests to give their views on a political candidate, or just considered improper by many?
 
Again, please, point me to this fact in the platform. The word “infanticide” does not appear. I cannot find any reference to “abortion rights s the stage”.
 
Polak said:
Is it officially forbidden for priests to give their views on a political candidate
Click to expand...
The USCCB has a number of resources discussing “do’s and don’ts” at https://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/upload/2020-07-21-poli_activity_lobby_guide.pdf

In particular, one quote from the document asserts that:
A Catholic organization may not directly or indirectly make any statement, in any medium, to endorse, support, or oppose any candidate for public office, political party or PAC
Click to expand...
 
TheLittleLady said:
Again, please, point me to this fact in the platform. The word “infanticide” does not appear. I cannot find any reference to “abortion rights s the stage”.
Click to expand...
They obviously do not use the word “infanticide”. They rarely use the word "abortion " anymore. The wording was changed to “women’s healthcare and reproductive rights” in order to get more support and less opposition. If they call it healthcare it doesn’t seem as horrible as it is.

Page 42 of the Democratic platform:

Democrats believe every woman should be able to access
high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to women’s reproductive health and rights

Thought I might add on page 33:

and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which
provides vital preventive and reproductive health care
 
Last edited:
As I said above, 2 paragraphs in a 90+ page platform. Not the number one plank.
 
TheLittleLady said:
As I said above, 2 paragraphs in a 90+ page platform. Not the number one plank.
Click to expand...
Whether it is 1,2, 3 or #10 plank, it is still part of their platform and a huge part of their agenda. Also, as I am sure you would agree, 90 other pages do not indicate rank of importance of any part of their agenda. We know though, since it is something they so frequently talk about, it is of great importance to the Democratic party.
 
From what I have found, when the source of the news or blog or Facebook story or magazine article is red, they cast the blues as villans by promoting quotes about abortion.

When the source is blue, they do the same villanization of reds.

The smartest thing to do is really read the Forming Consiounces for Faithful Citizenship document as well as the actual platforms of both parties, also look at the American Solidarity Party in light of Catholic teaching.
 
TheLittleLady said:
when the source of the news or blog or Facebook story or magazine article
Click to expand...
It is not from the news, blogs or Facebook which I see abortion as a high priority with Democrats but from their very own mouths as they have promoted it over many years now.
TheLittleLady said:
The smartest thing to do is really read the Forming Consiounces for Faithful Citizenship document
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree it is important to read that. It is also important to form our consciences on good Catholic teaching through Scripture, Encyclicals, catechisms and good, Catholic, faithful, not afraid to speak the truth shepherd priests.
 
Last edited:
on_the_hill said:
What debates?
Click to expand...
I didn’t watch the debates but found this:

The exchange began with former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. also pledging that if the Supreme Court were to rule abortion unconstitutional, he would ask Congress to pass a bill codifying Roe v. Wade.

“It’s a woman’s right to do that. Period,” Mr. Biden said. “And if you call that a litmus test, it’s a litmus test.”


Only one of them said anything against abortion or trying to limit the number of abortions .

The article below says Gabbard argued for restrictions while keeping it legal:


The big exception was Gabbard. “I agree with Hillary Clinton on one thing,” she said. “In the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president and she said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, I think she’s correct.” As a presidential candidate, of course, Hillary Clinton effectively reversed this position, all but embracing abortion up until the end of pregnancy.

Last night, Gabbard defied the rest of the Democratic field, arguing that there should be restrictions in place.

“I support codifying Roe v. Wade while making sure that during the third trimester, abortion is not an option unless the life or severe health consequences of the woman are at risk,” she said.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top