Why Isn't The Vatican More Proactive Against Prominent Catholic Politicans Who Support Abortion?

[Vasian]

For a long time, there was a fear that a crackdown would cause an official out-in-the-open schism within the Catholic Church.

So the Vatican worked slowly to replace bishops and priests and to carefully require they give up civil elected positions and in other cases allowed priests to be relieved of their priestly duties and revert to non-clerical status.

Perhaps the progress was too slow.

The problem was that over time, there had been many abuses over a wide front including gate keepers at seminaries to prevent straight, orthodox, candidates from entering, for example.

There was a lot of action by the laity to marginalize some of the worst offenders. A lot of it never made the papers.

But things were so far out of control, it took a long time to get things restored. Still not there. But the Church does measure progress by centuries rather than by years or decades.

Frequently, Father Benedict Groeschel on his EWTN program “Sunday Night Live” interviews guests who are active in the renewal of the Church.

In fact, he has set up his own religious order, Fransiscans of the Renewal, that is one of the fastest growing orders on the planet.

Very informative.
Thank you.

 

[Vasian]

Vasian, Excommunications do happen especially to public persons who remain obstinate in scandal. Usually the protests and the evidence need to escalate to the attention of the Vatican and often the local Bishops are still in the process of making determinations for recommendation. Any organization that defers judgment to departmentalized sections requires more time to react as the discernment process is very deliberate. Keep in mind that all who give scandal publicly and obstinately in many cases incur excommunication according to Catechism without pronouncement from the Church according to their scandal and so the statement of punishment usually follows a Tribunal trial. It is not possible to receive Christ sacrilegiously without suffering a final condemnation so the statement of condemnation takes some time to attach itself to the person.

Thank you.

 

[elts1956]

The devil works in many ways. Methinks the Bishop goofed. No wonder people are afraid to say the truth. Those that do get punished. I would say this particular priest was a stronger leader than his Bishop who didn’t support him. As far as all the ankle nippers who reported his “great wrongdoing”, they need to be kicked out of the way.

Personally, I don’t believe those people (Catholics who voted for Obama) have to go to confession. There are some Catholics who went by their concience-not because he happened to be pro choice - there was nothing that said you could not vote for Obama - (regardless of how I personally feel)-I know that many who voted for him truly believed that he would help more than hurt - regardless of his stance on abortion. I know there are many on here that believe that abortion was the what should have determined Catholic votes but people were allowed to vote with their concience and many voted in good concience for Obama. I’m sorry but I don’t believe the Church has any right to say (and rightly they didn’t) - as a Catholic, you have to vote for Candidate X or Candidate Y. They can make reccomendations but if they did come out and say as a Catholic you must vote for Candidate X - if they did they would no longer be able to say they were not political and would no longer receive things like tax exemption. As it was, many came very close (including one Priest in our Parish) to saying or did say - as a Catholic, you can not vote for the candidate that supports abortion. As far as I know, with all the letters that were written to the Bishop here, he was censured for it.
God Bless
Rye

If the priest said bo’s name outright, I agree with you, but if he mentioned that one cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate that promotes abortion without mentioning a name, I don’t agree with you. We are talking issues, not personalities, a subtle difference in semantics used all the time by the left wingers.

A cleric’s first job is to lead his flock. If they don’t want to follow then that is their error.

 

[elts1956]

The Bishop had to cover his backside. Had he not censured the priest, and this continued then the church could wind up no longer being able to claim that they were just a religious organization and loose it’s tax exempt status - they would be considered a political organization and rightly so - if you’re going to endorse a candidate to your parishoners, you can no longer remain a solely religious organization- like it or not, that can change your standing. Goodness knows that if it was another organization like say another sect of Christianity and they were saying bote for Obama and it got out, then I garuntee you that people who are anti abortion would be crying from the rafters that they aren’t allowed to endorse someone publicly as a relgious organization. The street has to go both ways in this country.
God Bless
Rye

“Goodness knows that if it was another organization like say another sect of Christianity and they were saying bote for Obama”

Gee, I wonder if this did happen in Churches other than the Catholic ones. I do remember hearing of a guy named Wright who preaches in Chicago. I bet he didn’t keep his mouth shut.

 

[elts1956]

The Bishop had to cover his backside. Had he not censured the priest, and this continued then the church could wind up no longer being able to claim that they were just a religious organization and loose it’s tax exempt status - they would be considered a political organization and rightly so - if you’re going to endorse a candidate to your parishoners, you can no longer remain a solely religious organization- like it or not, that can change your standing. Goodness knows that if it was another organization like say another sect of Christianity and they were saying bote for Obama and it got out, then I garuntee you that people who are anti abortion would be crying from the rafters that they aren’t allowed to endorse someone publicly as a relgious organization. The street has to go both ways in this country.
God Bless
Rye

I have only to go back a few months to remember some of the things I remember going on with regards to the Catholic Church and voting for a Presidential candidate. There is one Priest in particular who had many people get up and leave - while a Pries may say that as a Catholic you should vote for the most anti abortion candidate or pro life candidate - he was not supposed to say - as a Catholic you shouldn’t vote for obama. After the election we had many people get up and leave at this Parish because the older Priest began saying during the homily that those that voted for Obama who were Catholic needed to get themselves to confession - while I understood why he was saying this, no one from the Church was supposed to come out and say “you shouldn’t vot for Obama” - although they came as close as they possibly could by saying they shouldn’t vote for the candidate that was in favor of FOCA. Obviously, a lot of Catholics went along with the argument that they had to use their conscience as a guide with regards to who they voted for. I have to wonder if more Bishops had come out and said " as a Catholic you can not vote for Obama and stay in good standing with the Catholic Church"- if it would have made a difference or had the exact opposite effect of what it was intended to have. Some might have been outraged enough to say the Church has no right to determine who I vote for - they’ve gone too far…- obviously, enough Catholics who voted, didn’t vote for Mc Cain - and as much as I would have prefered to see him win (although this had nothing to do with the abortion issue), I still respect although don’t agree with those that voted with their conscience and felt they could not in good conscience vote against Obama.

I know that I was kind of suprized when Pelosi went to speak with the Pope - although she quited down, from what I’ve heard, it didn’t stop her from going to Communion. I know my parents wonder a great deal why the Pope didn’t make it clear to the Bishop of her area that until she changed her stance with regards to abortion she could not receive Holy Communion- sorry if this became a diatribe but I never figured out why the Pope didn’t take a stand after speaking to her and let it be known she could not partake of Communion. She’s only one example. But it does make one wonder.
fds
God Bless
Rye

“There is one Priest in particular who had many people get up and leave - while a Pries may say that as a Catholic you should vote for the most anti abortion candidate or pro life candidate - he was not supposed to say - as a Catholic you shouldn’t vote for obama. After the election we had many people get up and leave at this Parish because the older Priest began saying during the homily that those that voted for Obama who were Catholic needed to get themselves to confession”. If for nothing else, they should have gone and confessed their sin of scandal. Good for the priest that chased some of the chaff out. Tolerance has its limits.

Pelosi’s archbishop knows what the Pope said, he just isn’t listening. People don’t want to hear the Truth any longer. After all, they have an individual conscience that can easily lead them astray.

 

[ryecroft]

After the election we had many people get up and leave at this Parish because the older Priest began saying during the homily that those that voted for Obama who were Catholic needed to get themselves to confession". If for nothing else, they should have gone and confessed their sin of scandal. Good for the priest that chased some of the chaff out. Tolerance has its limits.

Pelosi’s archbishop knows what the Pope said, he just isn’t listening. People don’t want to hear the Truth any longer. After all, they have an individual conscience that can easily lead them astray.

My point was that in order to stay a religous organization in the US that the clergy were not supposed to say they should specifically vote for Obama or Mc Cain - when the clergy goes and specifies which candidate, then they are no longer able to be considered just a religious organization - they have now become a very political organization and are no longer allowed to be just a religious organization which receives and are exempt from certain things. Ir has nothing to do with the truth - it has to do with the Catholic Church being considered a religious organization in the US. If they wish to back a specific candidate then they can no longer be a religious organization-

If the Church didn’t want people to use their consciences then statements should not have been made to say that people should and could use them. I’m not sure I understand how the sin of scandal applies to those that voted for Obama. I know you were being sarcastic, but those that went by what the church said with regards to conscience only did what they were told they could do. If someone came out and said “I’m voting for Obama because he’s pro abortion” then I could see this. If the Church didn’t want Obama in (and I’m not saying I wanted him in) - then the church should have weighed the cost of possibly stopping some abortions amd loosing certain privelidges as a religious organization - perhaps some Catholics saw they wern’t willing to loose certain privelidges in the US to help stop the abortions. I can see how many would see they were being told with the quote made earlier by the Pope that using their consciences meant that they had to decide for themselves what the most important issues to each voter were.

God Bless
Rye

 

[elts1956]

After the election we had many people get up and leave at this Parish because the older Priest began saying during the homily that those that voted for Obama who were Catholic needed to get themselves to confession". If for nothing else, they should have gone and confessed their sin of scandal. Good for the priest that chased some of the chaff out. Tolerance has its limits.

Pelosi’s archbishop knows what the Pope said, he just isn’t listening. People don’t want to hear the Truth any longer. After all, they have an individual conscience that can easily lead them astray.

My point was that in order to stay a religous organization in the US that the clergy were not supposed to say they should specifically vote for Obama or Mc Cain - when the clergy goes and specifies which candidate, then they are no longer able to be considered just a religious organization - they have now become a very political organization and are no longer allowed to be just a religious organization which receives and are exempt from certain things. Ir has nothing to do with the truth - it has to do with the Catholic Church being considered a religious organization in the US. If they wish to back a specific candidate then they can no longer be a religious organization-

If the Church didn’t want people to use their consciences then statements should not have been made to say that people should and could use them. I’m not sure I understand how the sin of scandal applies to those that voted for Obama. I know you were being sarcastic, but those that went by what the church said with regards to conscience only did what they were told they could do. If someone came out and said “I’m voting for Obama because he’s pro abortion” then I could see this. If the Church didn’t want Obama in (and I’m not saying I wanted him in) - then the church should have weighed the cost of possibly stopping some abortions amd loosing certain privelidges as a religious organization - perhaps some Catholics saw they wern’t willing to loose certain privelidges in the US to help stop the abortions. I can see how many would see they were being told with the quote made earlier by the Pope that using their consciences meant that they had to decide for themselves what the most important issues to each voter were.

God Bless
Rye

Many of the Bishops and clergy have failed to teach Catholics what a Catholic conscience is, especially in regard to great and important issues as regards abortion, homosexuality etc. I am not saying the folks that voted for bo are as culpable as someone who did vote for him because he supported abortion. But there is still a misunderstanding among approximately 56% of those calling themselves Catholic who did vote for bo as to what issues carry the greater/est weight. Economics, war (which I abhor) environment, cannot possibly be equal in weight and seriousness to the snuffing out of even one innocent baby. Until all Catholics get their priorities straight, until all our Bishops start fighting the pro death culture, we will continue to slide off the side of the cliff. Many of these clergy make a great show of an eleventh hour stand against this bill, or that, but how well have they been doing their job of teaching the Truths of the Church for the past fifty years? Not very well, in my opinion.

The sin of scandal comes into play because groups of people are like sheep, if one votes for bo, many will vote for bo, because they allow themselves to be led willy nilly into the mistake and evil of rationalism by others who don’t know which end is up either. Those indoctrinating others through misdirection or actions, whether intentional, or not, are giving scandal.

 

[Dameedna]

Because in a democratic society, politicans are voted for by the people, and therefore represent the people, not the church.

As soon as politicans start representing the church, and not the people that voted for them, They will lose the vote or democracy fails and you have theocracy and dictatorship that I suspect not even the vatican wants to support any longer. It is actually worse for the church in the long run.

The church can have it’s official stance on whatever it wants, but individual catholics are free to choose in good conciense what they want, and the church cannot interfere in political processes(although it still tries to of course).

If you don’t like abortion, then do something about it instead of expecting your church to. The power should be in the hands of the people and it will only change if you change the hearts and minds of the human population you are dealing with.

Don’t ever give up on democracy, and don’t start supporting theocracy. History should show you how badly that ends up.

 

[JimG]

If you don’t like abortion, then do something about it instead of expecting your church to. The power should be in the hands of the people and it will only change if you change the hearts and minds of the human population you are dealing with.

Don’t ever give up on democracy, and don’t start supporting theocracy. History should show you how badly that ends up.

Now this I agree with entirely. In a democracy, the power should be in the hands of the people. So let the people vote on abortion laws. If the people vote for restrictions, there will be restrictions; if they vote for no restrictions, there will be no restrictions.

But wait, the people can’t do that, after Roe v Wade. Because in an exercise of ‘raw judicial power,’ the Court took away the power of the people to legislate.

Now, the same end-run is being attempted with Prop 8. If you don’t like what the people say, take away their power.

 

[Vasian]

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly–through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word “democracy” come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of “pure democracy” at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state’s legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers’ opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is “the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of “refining and enlarging the public views” through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a “democracy.” This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more “democratic,” it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution’s authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Somewhere on CAF there is a discussion that Stalin had “smuggled” 1400 or so men who were Communists into seminaries. They worked their way up to positions of authority and did tremendous damage.

That may account for the reason why the Vatican hasn’t been more pro-active against prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion.

 

[Vasian]

Somewhere on CAF there is a discussion that Stalin had “smuggled” 1400 or so men who were Communists into seminaries. They worked their way up to positions of authority and did tremendous damage.

That may account for the reason why the Vatican hasn’t been more pro-active against prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Hello,

Can you explain your statement above?
The point you were making has escaped me.
Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Hello,

Can you explain your statement above?
The point you were making has escaped me.
Thank you:thumbsup:

The point is that a huge number of Communist agents were deliberately planted within the Catholic Church to cause sabotage from within the Church. So they could perform all manner of disruptive actions and skillfully defend those actions.

One of those disruptive actions could be to encourage “pro-choice” activity, to encourage people to have and perform abortions by not condemning abortion activity.

In other words, there were people within the Church hierarchy who deliberately weakened the Church and they did that by, among other things, declined to criticize prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Here is one article:

examiner.com/x-13299-Detroit-Traditionalist-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Communist-infiltration-into-the-Catholic-Church

These thousand plus Communists stayed in the clergy and brought in others and trained still others to follow in their footsteps.

 

[Vasian]

The point is that a huge number of Communist agents were deliberately planted within the Catholic Church to cause sabotage from within the Church. So they could perform all manner of disruptive actions and skillfully defend those actions.

One of those disruptive actions could be to encourage “pro-choice” activity, to encourage people to have and perform abortions by not condemning abortion activity.

In other words, there were people within the Church hierarchy who deliberately weakened the Church and they did that by, among other things, declined to criticize prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Here is one article:

examiner.com/x-13299-Detroit-Traditionalist-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Communist-infiltration-into-the-Catholic-Church

These thousand plus Communists stayed in the clergy and brought in others and trained still others to follow in their footsteps.

That is what I thought you were alluding to, and I agree.
So, even more so is the urgency for the Papacy to clean out, as it were those who are attempting to change The Church from within as it were, to something it should not be, and cannot become!!!

I wonder if there is a Catholic association of sorts that is defending The Church against such subversive activities?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That is what I thought you were alluding to, and I agree.
So, even more so is the urgency for the Papacy to clean out, as it were those who are attempting to change The Church from within as it were, to something it should not be, and cannot become!!!

I wonder if there is a Catholic association of sorts that is defending The Church against such subversive activities?

No idea.

Catholic Answers fills part of the gap in Catholic publishing and evangelization.

The Catholic League might be part of the association you are thinking about. You might want to drop them a line and ask.

Father Peter Stravisnskas used to be very active, but seems to have dropped off the face of the earth.

EWTN also fills in part of the gap.

Your question is a good one. I don’t know.

 

[JimG]

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy.

True, and not every State allows initiatives and referendums to the extent that some states like California do. The founders did not wish a pure democracy. They did not wish to have an imperial presidency. Neither did they wish to have an imperial Court, which is the direction we seem most headed for. The branches were intended to be co-equal, but if anything, the legislature, representing the people most directly, would have the most power. Now, it seems as though the legislature is rapidly losing–or ceding–its power to the executive branch and the Courts.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The point is that a huge number of Communist agents were deliberately planted within the Catholic Church to cause sabotage from within the Church. So they could perform all manner of disruptive actions and skillfully defend those actions.

One of those disruptive actions could be to encourage “pro-choice” activity, to encourage people to have and perform abortions by not condemning abortion activity.

In other words, there were people within the Church hierarchy who deliberately weakened the Church and they did that by, among other things, declined to criticize prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Here is one article:

examiner.com/x-13299-Detroit-Traditionalist-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Communist-infiltration-into-the-Catholic-Church

These thousand plus Communists stayed in the clergy and brought in others and trained still others to follow in their footsteps.

Check this book:

“Spies in the Vatican: The Soviet Union’s War Against the Catholic Church” by John O. Koehler, Pegasus Books.

Excerpts from a hard-copy review:

“One of the more vicious substruggles of the Cold War was the Soviet Union’s attempt to obliterate the Catholic Church … The KGB coopted Vatican officials of many levels, employing blackmail and agents who became priests for the sole purpose of getting high church assignments. … Koehler identifies by name a staggering number of priests who spied on their own masters either because of blackmail or ideological weaknesses. Soviet spy rings were vast and effective.”