Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion

[rlg94086]

You are totally off-base GreenJeans. Catholics are supposed to vote their conscience. Our conscience is supposed to be formed by the teaching of the Church. We are all supposed to follow *de fide *Chuch teaching; however, that doesn’t make us “tools of Rome.”

You may be correct that a faithful Catholic politician may have a tough time getting elected in liberal constituencies, but I don’t think a faithful Catholic politician would be unelectable, in general.

It is a sin for a politician to vote against their conscience in order to get elected. We are a representative democracy. This does not mean that the elected politician has to vote according to his constituency’s desires. It means the constituency elects a person to office whom they think best represents them. IOW…you get to know their conscience…what they believe…how they act…and you elect them, expecting them to do as they say and believe.

Only an anti-Catholic bigot questions a faithful Catholic’s allegiance to his/her country versus allegiance to Rome.

Voters are not inclined to vote for someone who chooses to represent views that are not their own. If the voters in a district agreed with the pope, then the legislator would be voting according to their desires. If they didn’t agree with the pope, then the voters would probably kick him out.

It would also be very hard for an honest Catholic candidate to get elected if the opposition could simply paint him as the tool of Rome. Ths has not been a problem in American politics for a while. But if the pope gives a directive, and the Catholic legislator follows it, there is a good case the Catholic can be shown to have more loyalty to the pope than his constituents. Voters don’t like that.

If Catholic politicians voted with the Chruch, it is quite likely there would not be very many left, and the guys who replaced them would vote for exactly what the Church opposes. It’s a very interesting political and religious situation.

 

[dmelosi]

I do not put my salvation in partisan politics thank you. Eliminating Partial Birth Abortion will not save lives. That baby will still be killed. Just a diferent procedule will be used. This speaks volumes about the Republican party. The left’s exaggeration and fanatism will be their undoing.

The democratic party has made it seem like it is not a life, but simply a part of a womans body that she can do with what she chooses.

Just not sure what you mean about speaking volumes about the republican party.

I do apologize for thinking that you argued that way because of partisanship.

 

[GreenJeans]

Abortion was focred down out throats by a Liberal Suprem Court and in no way refelcts the will of the people. It would tak a 2/3 majority of overturn it.

Sure the people want it. By 1973, a dozen states had liberalized their abortion laws. Abortion on demand was available in New York and Hawaii. The ball was already rolling at the state legislative level. If the abotion forcs had been smart, they would have let the legislators do their work for them.

Look at the recent election in South Dakota. Voters rejected an abortion ban 55% to 45%.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

I agree it is not always the case. And the case you cite is internal to the US. How do you think Catholic politicians would fare if it could be shown they take orders from the pope?

Excuse me for putting it this way, but I don’t see why that should even be something that concerns us as Catholics. If a Catholic politician wants to be regarded as “Catholic”, then that self-attached label should have meaning. Rick Santorum didn’t care if it went over well, and he eventually got sent home, but that’s far better for his soul and for Catholic politicians who show integrity than to take the Pelosi/Kerry route of complete disregard for the faith.

The worst that could happen to these politicians is that they don’t get re-elected. On the other hand, they might get reelected because people do respond to integrity over falsehood in my view.

 

[GreenJeans]

You are totally off-base GreenJeans. Catholics are supposed to vote their conscience. Our conscience is supposed to be formed by the teaching of the Church. We are all supposed to follow *de fide *Chuch teaching; however, that doesn’t make us “tools of Rome.”

You may be correct that a faithful Catholic politician may have a tough time getting elected in liberal constituencies, but I don’t think a faithful Catholic politician would be unelectable, in general.

It is a sin for a politician to vote against their conscience in order to get elected. We are a representative democracy. This does not mean that the elected politician has to vote according to his constituency’s desires. It means the constituency elects a person to office whom they think best represents them. IOW…you get to know their conscience…what they believe…how they act…and you elect them, expecting them to do as they say and believe.

Only an anti-Catholic bigot questions a faithful Catholic’s allegiance to his/her country versus allegiance to Rome.

Faithful Catholics may be obliged to vote their conscience. I don’t disagree that is their rule. However, the voters aren’t obliged to leave the guy in office if he does so.

I also agree that a legislator does not have to vote like his constituency wants him to vote. But I observe the constituency tends to throw out the folks who don’t.

This would be especially the case where one could be tarred for caring more for the pope than constituents. That was historically used against Catholics when it was unwarranted, and in those years it was still very effective. How do you think elections would go if it were shown to actually be true?

 

[GreenJeans]

Excuse me for putting it this way, but I don’t see why that should even be something that concerns us as Catholics. If a Catholic politician wants to be regarded as “Catholic”, then that self-attached label should have meaning. Rick Santorum didn’t care if it went over well, and he eventually got sent home, but that’s far better for his soul and for Catholic politicians who show integrity than to take the Pelosi/Kerry route of complete disregard for the faith.

The worst that could happen to these politicians is that they don’t get re-elected. On the other hand, they might get reelected because people do respond to integrity over falsehood in my view.

Perhaps it shouldn’t concern Catholics. That’s the business of the Catholic politician. But it will concern voters.

If the objective is to eliminate abortion, then depleting legislatures of Catholic politicians doesn’t do much for the cause.

 

[estesbob]

Sure the people want it. By 1973, a dozen states had liberalized their abortion laws. Abortion on demand was available in New York and Hawaii. The ball was already rolling at the state legislative level. If the abotion forcs had been smart, they would have let the legislators do their work for them.

Look at the recent election in South Dakota. Voters rejected an abortion ban 55% to 45%.

If your thesis is right then we need to get Roe V Wade overturned ASAP. I am perfectly willing to lett each State set their own abortion laws. Interesting that those who support abortion fight tooth and nail to keep the voters rfrom having a say.

If, BTW, you think the South Dakota Vote was significant you didnt follow it very carefully.

 

[GreenJeans]

If your thesis is right then we need to get Roe V Wade overturned ASAP. I am perfectly willing to lett each State set their own abortion laws. Interesting that those who support abortion fight tooth and nail to keep the voters rfrom having a say.

If, BTW, you think the South Dakota Vote was significant you didnt follow it very carefully.

I agree. Roe is bad law.

I would also oppose a SCOTUS decision outlawing abortion. That would also be bad law.

I note the anti-abortion folks told us the SD action was very significant until they lost the election.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Perhaps it shouldn’t concern Catholics. That’s the business of the Catholic politician. But it will concern voters.

If the objective is to eliminate abortion, then depleting legislatures of Catholic politicians doesn’t do much for the cause.

That’s assuming that the legislatures will be depleted, and I don’t see anything making that case.

 

[GreenJeans]

That’s assuming that the legislatures will be depleted, and I don’t see anything making that case.

The basis for that idea is that the opposition to a Catholic politician can tar him as an agent of the Vatican if he can be shown to vote as instructed by the pope. It worked in this country for 150 years. Perhaps we will have a test case.

Now, if one thinks the voters will welcome a representative who follows orders from Rome, then they will obviously disgree with my ideas.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly, and also because many of our leaders do little about it.

John Kerry visited Arkansas, and the question was put to the Diocese of Little Rock, “Will you give him communion if he steps up to the Altar?”

The answer was, “We don’t want to put politicians under pressure?”

Huh? In every Catholic church in the land there are people who cannot take confession – Catholics who have divorced and remarried, Protestants married to Catholics and so on. The Diocese doesn’t care about putting them under pressure!

There are apparently two different Catholic Churches in this Diocese – one for ordinary people, and another one for the rich and powerful.

 

[Tom317]

John Kerry visited Arkansas, and the question was put to the Diocese of Little Rock, “Will you give him communion if he steps up to the Altar?”

The answer was, “We don’t want to put politicians under pressure?”

Huh? In every Catholic church in the land there are people who cannot take confession – Catholics who have divorced and remarried, Protestants married to Catholics and so on. The Diocese doesn’t care about putting them under pressure!

There are apparently two different Catholic Churches in this Diocese – one for ordinary people, and another one for the rich and powerful.

Yes, so is there any wonder that lay Catholics do whatever they want?

 

[estesbob]

John Kerry visited Arkansas, and the question was put to the Diocese of Little Rock, “Will you give him communion if he steps up to the Altar?”

The answer was, “We don’t want to put politicians under pressure?”

Huh? In every Catholic church in the land there are people who cannot take confession – Catholics who have divorced and remarried, Protestants married to Catholics and so on. The Diocese doesn’t care about putting them under pressure!

There are apparently two different Catholic Churches in this Diocese – one for ordinary people, and another one for the rich and powerful.

The Democrat party used to be the Party of the Catholics. When they started their slide into deviancy in the late 60s the Bishops were loathe to criticize those they had voted for and become friends with. Roe V Wade would have been stillborn if the Bishops had declared any Catholic politican supporting abortion would be excomunicated.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

The basis for that idea is that the opposition to a Catholic politician can tar him as an agent of the Vatican if he can be shown to vote as instructed by the pope. It worked in this country for 150 years. Perhaps we will have a test case.

Now, if one thinks the voters will welcome a representative who follows orders from Rome, then they will obviously disgree with my ideas.

I’m not sure if it’s your intent, but you’re basically using the bigoted histrionic lines that have been used against Catholics. “Following orders from the Pope” is such an exaggeration and a distortion, and yet you seem to be intimating that that’s precisely what would happen.

In terms of the ideas you seem to be proposing, it simply sounds like an expedient excuse for lack of integrity. I’m not seeing how that constitutes a good leader.

 

[Tom317]

I agree it is not always the case. And the case you cite is internal to the US. How do you think Catholic politicians would fare if it could be shown they take orders from the pope?

Catholic of all stripes are to live their faith. If Catholic politicians did that, the Pope would not have to make any statements. The truth is, Catholic politicians who support abortion are not really Catholic, they simply want the Catholic vote…hypocrites down to their shorts.

 

[Tom317]

I’m not sure if it’s your intent, but your basically using the bigoted histrionic lines that have been used against Catholics. “Following orders from the Pope” is such an exaggeration and a distortion, and yet you seem to be intimating that that’s precisely what would happen.

In terms of the ideas you seem to be proposing, it simply sounds like an expedient excuse for lack of integrity. I’m not seeing how that constitutes a good leader.

He is an anit-Catholic, you should keep that in mind when you respond to him.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by GreenJeans
If a Catholic legialator chose to represent the pope’s views rather than his constituents’ views, I doubt he would be a legialator very long. I also suspect the voters would then be wary of electing Catholics.

If you follow that logic, then all Catholic politicians should vigorously push for more abotions – just to prove they aren’t controlled by the eeeeevil Catholic Church.

When I ran for Congress in '04 I found a lot of people who were neither Catholic nor pro-abortion.

My position on abortion is based on the concept of Human Rights. All living human beings have a right to live. If some of us don’t have that right, none of us have it. If society or the government decides when we get that right, it isn’t a right at all, but a mere privilige that society or the government can revoke or refuse.

 

[Tom317]

It is better, imo, to have less legislators who call themselves Catholic (when in fact they are not), then to continue this ridiculous game of allowing these people to create scandal without ever saying or doing a thing about it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Perhaps it shouldn’t concern Catholics. That’s the business of the Catholic politician. But it will concern voters.

If the objective is to eliminate abortion, then depleting legislatures of Catholic politicians doesn’t do much for the cause.

Is it your position that filling legislatures with pro-abortion politicians who call themselves “Catholic” is a better tactic?

 

[rlg94086]

It wouldn’t be true. Following our faith doesn’t mean “caring more for the pope than constituents.”

What disturbs me though is that you are implying Catholics should vote contrary to their conscience in order not to look like they care more for the pope and to get elected!

You don’t have a problem with that? You prefer Catholics to go against their conscience?

You don’t fight anti-Catholic bigotry by becoming non-Catholic.

Faithful Catholics may be obliged to vote their conscience. I don’t disagree that is their rule. However, the voters aren’t obliged to leave the guy in office if he does so.

I also agree that a legislator does not have to vote like his constituency wants him to vote. But I observe the constituency tends to throw out the folks who don’t.

This would be especially the case where one could be tarred for caring more for the pope than constituents. That was historically used against Catholics when it was unwarranted, and in those years it was still very effective. How do you think elections would go if it were shown to actually be true?