Should Sister Deirdre Byrne become president one day?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fidem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fidem

Guest
I mean, she is a nun, doctor and was an army colonel. What else do you need? Would it be contrary to her religious vows?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
St. Pope John Paul II declared in the late 1900s that religious were not to seek political office, if I remember correctly.

ICXC NIKA
 
Never heard of her. 🤔 Not sure any of those things really make her qualified.
 
Off by about 8 decades. It was perhaps the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

And to the OP: no! Why would she suffer such a demotion? She would have to forsake religious life!
 
Last edited:
Fidem said:
What else do you need
Click to expand...
… public policy skills? 😛

Also I agree with the others. Happy as I might be to vote for a dark horse with no policy-specific experience (especially if I think the candidates with policy experience intend bad policies)… I don’t know if in good conscience I could vote to subject a consecrated religious person to that particular political hell.

Surely a nun deserves better than to be president.

She deserves a garden and to be left alone with her Lord.
 
Last edited:
She seems absolutely lovely.

So I don’t imagine God will see fit to punish her with the presidency.

😉
 
Certainly not! Although she might be useful as an advisor on occasion.
 
Loved her speech at the RNC especially the line: “I’m not just pro life, I’m pro eternal life”. Yes, she is impressive and effective in her witness but she has already served her country. Let her now serve God as He has called her into the religious life.
 
Anesti33 said:
That’s not how decades work. That would’ve been 1908, 1909. 1983 was in the late 20th century.
Click to expand...
Quirk of language:

I think 1900s means any date starting with ‘19__’, whereas 19th century means 1800-1899.

So I think you’re both referring to true things, but I think (someone correct me if I’m the one who has it backwards, please) that this is the distinction.

Edit: I think I just realized what you mean, Anesti. You mean 1900s as the single decade covering 1900-1909? And you’d think of the numbers from 1910-1919 as the 1910s?

I wonder if this is a regional thing. Where I’m from, the term ‘1900s’ or ‘1500s’ is usually meant more broadly to refer to a whole 100 years unless further specified. But I can see how it might make sense to use the more specific understanding! So if that’s a local thing where you live, I think that’s objectively pretty reasonable. Just a word of warning though that online you might baffle barbarians like me (and maybe @Fauken) for whom such a number denotes something much broader by default.

PS that’s right @Fauken, I tagged you just to call you a barbarian. 😛
 
Last edited:
Yeah, 1900 through 1999: 1900s.

The mention of St. JP2, seems to me, should have made that obvious, as he was pope from 1978 to 2005.

The confusion surprises me a wee bit. When we hear “1800s,” do we usually think of 1800 through 1809?

ICXC NIKA
 
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.

Jack Chick hated the Catholic Church, but I have hope that he was not culpable. Despite his many errors, his zeal for the salvation of souls was sincere, and I am inclined to believe he was a victim of a con artist rather than a willful deceiver.
 
The Vatican does not allow priests to hold elected office, for decades now, and I’m pretty sure there would be a similar problem with a member of a religious order doing the same.
 
Some priestly commentator (Sheen?) once said that fewer than 100 people really hate the Catholic Church, but many hate what they mistakenly believe to be the Catholic Church.

Let’s all hope that Mr. Chuck found mercy and made it to Purgatory.

ICXC NIKA
 
Anesti33 said:
It was perhaps the 1983 Code of Canon Law .
Click to expand...
Canon Law only addresses this issue for the ordained; it doesn’t specifically apply to those in religious life who are not in holy orders as well, but that doesn’t mean it would be permissible. There are other items in Canon Law and elsewhere that would make it highly improbable for any religious to hold office these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top