Would it be prudent for a Catholic politician to politically support Church?

[fakename]

Would it be prudent for a Catholic politician to politically support the Church (as in est. of religion)?

That is, would the virtue of prudence dictate that it be so or is it necessary that he do so?

 

[JRKH]

Prudent in what way? In the United States it would be political suicide to support an established religion (I assume that is what you meant by ext. of religion).

Peace
James

 

[MidnightSun12]

A Catholic politician who is elected to office is still morally obligated to uphold the values of the church (including the legislation that he/she implements). For example, in Canada we had a number of “Catholic” politicians who either helped ratify or supported the ratification of the gay marriage bill up here. I know of at least one Catholic bishop who came out to say that the souls of these politicians were put “in danger” as a result.

 

[fakename]

Prudent in what way? In the United States it would be political suicide to support an established religion (I assume that is what you meant by ext. of religion).

Peace
James

That’s what I mean.

And would it be moral suicide?

 

[JRKH]

That’s what I mean.

And would it be moral suicide?

No

 

[Leegal]

Would it be prudent for a Catholic politician to politically support the Church (as in est. of religion)?

That is, would the virtue of prudence dictate that it be so or is it necessary that he do so?

It is necessary that he live his life as a Catholic. He may express his position on certain topics such as a death penalty or abortion, as you may already be aware since the Republican primaries are in full swing now.

I don’t know what you mean by support? If by financial support, that would be prohibited by the First Amend. to the Constitution. Second, if a Presidential candidate, he, if elected, has little to no control how funds are spent. Congress is the keeper of the purse.

At the state level, it would be the legislative branch of each state that controls the purse strings. That First Amend. also prohibits too much government entanglement in religion.

If you mean can a candidate specifically state he will support the Catholic Church, it may be problematic because a candidate takes an oath of office (to support the laws and the U.S. Constitution). The Catholic Church also takes a dim view of breaking a vow or oath.

Historically, the Catholic Church had jurisdiction over all oaths. Our secular oaths came from and originated with the Catholic Church, when the Catholic Church was the center of early and feudal society and the center of all life before there was any concept of “nationhood.”

Think of Antonin Scalia as an example. Practicing Catholic, member of Opus Dei, but he must rule on cases that involve the death penalty and abortion cases (can’t think of any abortion case recently) but he has sat for and ruled on death penalty cases. He is sworn to uphold the laws of the country.

If a candidate said he supported the Catholic religion in the U.S., as the established religion, or he would like to see Catholicism established as the religion of this country, it would ring death to his career. Follow it - yes. Support it – no, as the established religion.

It was the claim about John Kennedy when he ran it 1960 – that he would be a servant to the Vatican first. Of course, that was not true.

 

[Leegal]

A Catholic politician who is elected to office is still morally obligated to uphold the values of the church (including the legislation that he/she implements). For example, in Canada we had a number of “Catholic” politicians who either helped ratify or supported the ratification of the gay marriage bill up here. I know of at least one Catholic bishop who came out to say that the souls of these politicians were put “in danger” as a result.

I never thought of this. Interesting question.

Then there’s the question of a true “moral conscience.”

 

[Leegal]

That’s what I mean.

And would it be moral suicide?

I would say that if a Catholic, after examining and forming his true moral conscience, could not support [some] of laws of this country and the U.S. Constitution, then he should not run for office.

Of course, a candidate for President will never be confronted with the abortion issue – or a marriage issue.

I think such questions are more problematic for Catholic judges than they are for Catholic candidates, except for Catholic governors.

 

[fakename]

user "Leegal":

If you mean can a candidate specifically state he will support the Catholic Church, it may be problematic because a candidate takes an oath of office (to support the laws and the U.S. Constitution). The Catholic Church also takes a dim view of breaking a vow or oath.

and yet, the Church seems to have been quite infallibly against the complete separation of Church and state. I know that the Church isn’t totally the state but there are accidental connections that are unconstitutional (like enforcing the belief in the religion) which are perfectly okay.

What argument is there against a having an est. church that tolerates other religions?

 

[Leegal]

and yet, the Church seems to have been quite infallibly against the complete separation of Church and state. I know that the Church isn’t totally the state but there are accidental connections that are unconstitutional (like enforcing the belief in the religion) which are perfectly okay.

What argument is there against a having an est. church that tolerates other religions?

Can you give me those accidental connections? It’s important to understand the First Amend. has been interpreted as “freedom to” and not “freedom from.” There a difference.

Once a country has an established religion, I would say that history has proven that the established religion is favored and often to the detriment and persecution of the minority faiths – even when allowed to practice.

Examples: N. Ireland (Catholics); Egypt (now the Copts being killed by Muslims); Iraq (under S. Hussein where the Shi’ite minority had the power over the Sunnis (the majority sect) and both sects want to eliminate the Kurds); and, of course, post-reformation England.

Originally Henry VIII did not start out to institute a new religion, but to be the Head of the Church in England – aside from or in addition to the Pope in Rome. However, pressures were brought to bear and eventually he (through Cromwell) began persecuting first the Catholics and then other Protestant religions.

 

[fakename]

to question 1) I think that accidental connections include the ability of a pope to command acts of the state that has left them derelict, or for a gov. to seek counsel from a clergy member.

to your argument against state-church est. I think you give a good case but how does it mesh with the Syllabus of Errors?

 

[Leegal]

to question 1) I think that accidental connections include the ability of a pope to command acts of the state that has left them derelict, or for a gov. to seek counsel from a clergy member.

to your argument against state-church est. I think you give a good case but how does it mesh with the Syllabus of Errors?

I still cannot answer the first. I do not understand the question. I need specifics. In what case has a government (our government) sought the advice of the Catholic Church. Actually, I do know one here in NY. But I want to understand your question.

I’m not familiar with the Syllabus of Errors, but a quick look seems to me that it’s not a call to establish the Church as the religion of any government. It removed and corrected errors where there was too much secular involvement in the Church, calls for liberalism, and where there was actual persecution of the Church by governments. In fact, the Syllabus ends with a restatement of Jesus’ words on “render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s and render unto God what is God’s.” It acknowledges that there is secular authority and there is Church authority. Secular authority is not to be disrepected by this Syllabus of errors.

Look at #77. It says the error was that it is not expedient for the Church to be a state religion. We look at the word “expedient” which can mean that the document could be saying (in the original) that it would be “inconvenient”, “improper” or “immoral” for the Church to be a state religion, and it was removed. There’s no proof either way and the statement is too strong an assertion. That does not call for the establishment of a state sponsored religion - nor does it negate the idea that some countries, such as the U.S, prohibit the establishment of one.

However, John Henry Newman said the Syllabus of Errors was easily misinterpreted too unless the original document being challenged was checked. So, what we have are excerpts from documents, of which parts are considered in error. So, without full reading of the whole of the listed documents we cannot know the context in which each error was made. In fact, John Henry Newman said the Syllabus itself was misinterpreted.

Please read here the section on Catholics, where John Henry Newman is quoted:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors#Catholics

Finally, the document ends with:

“The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation… The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights…”

 

[Leegal]

I can’t think of a current case where the Pope has commanded an act of state, so if you have an example, I would like to hear it.

As to the second part, the government of NYC has sought counsel with the Catholic Church. It bother me not at all.

For all of my life Times Square was a place to go. It is also 42nd Street and that’s the theater district of New York city a/ka “Broadway.” But it was always a dangerous area and also full of porn and prostitution and roaming gangs of kids, pickpockets and muggings. Heavily congested, but too much going on. It was also a place to get fake ID’s for kids. And then there was the drug use. Even going to the legitmate theater would mean being molested by someone.

At some point, the mayor, the city council and the Catholic Church entered into an agreement to rid this area of this blight. Actually, how they both accomplished this was through legislation and the power of the Church to clean up the area completely. And it took a long time, but it was accomplished in concert. Now instead of what I described, we have an area where the theater goers can go. Disney has a theater. Discovery has exhibits and there are real stores and restaurants. It’s always been a tourist area – now it’s a safe tourist area where families can come and not have their children see sex stores and porn theaters, and everything else I described. And it was the doing of both local government and the R.C. Church.

I see no problem. We did not establish the R.C. Church as the city sponsored religion – but where there were two combatants they were able to win the war on crime in this area.

 

[fakename]

To Leegal:

About Quest. 1: I’m just asking could the state could enforce canon laws/defense of Church property, which would seem to be a connection w/the Church but an indirect one, so that it is “incidentally” connected w/the Church’s functions?

Say that some cleric buys practices simony. The pope could ask a politician, as a layman, to use the law to stop the cleric?

 

[Leegal]

To Leegal:

About Quest. 1: I’m just asking could the state could enforce canon laws/defense of Church property, which would seem to be a connection w/the Church but an indirect one, so that it is “incidentally” connected w/the Church’s functions?

Say that some cleric buys practices simony. The pope could ask a politician, as a layman, to use the law to stop the cleric?

Well, England already has a law that covers simony outside of the Eccliastical law. I know of no such law in the U.S. I doubt the Pope could ask the U.S., but why would they need to when the Church has ways of dealing with priests who err.

Since the Church is tax exempt, one might say that the goverment protects Church property – and in the event of defacement, arson and destruction of Church property or vandalism, the government also has laws to protect the Church’s property.

If Church property remains tax exempt, the government provides a benefit in that money that would be spent for taxes can be used for other purposes. That holds true with most religions, or those that receive tax exempt status.

 

[fakename]

user "Leegal":

Well, England already has a law that covers simony outside of the Eccliastical law. I know of no such law in the U.S. I doubt the Pope could ask the U.S., but why would they need to when the Church has ways of dealing with priests who err.

I mean, that if the pope had no other way to stop it, wouldn’t he be in his rights to ask a layman-politician to use the law to aid the Church in this matter?

 

[fakename]

Also, I’m a little confused on how to interpret the Syllabus now that Leegal has brought up the many possible qualifications.

How do most Catholics or their priests interpret it?

What political advice is given by the Church re: following the Syllabus?

 

[fakename]

user "Leegal":

I’m not familiar with the Syllabus of Errors, but a quick look seems to me that it’s not a call to establish the Church as the religion of any government. It removed and corrected errors where there was too much secular involvement in the Church, calls for liberalism, and where there was actual persecution of the Church by governments. In fact, the Syllabus ends with a restatement of Jesus’ words on “render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s and render unto God what is God’s.” It acknowledges that there is secular authority and there is Church authority. Secular authority is not to be disrepected by this Syllabus of errors.

Look at #77. It says the error was that it is not expedient for the Church to be a state religion. We look at the word “expedient” which can mean that the document could be saying (in the original) that it would be “inconvenient”, “improper” or “immoral” for the Church to be a state religion, and it was removed. There’s no proof either way and the statement is too strong an assertion. That does not call for the establishment of a state sponsored religion - nor does it negate the idea that some countries, such as the U.S, prohibit the establishment of one.

However, John Henry Newman said the Syllabus of Errors was easily misinterpreted too unless the original document being challenged was checked. So, what we have are excerpts from documents, of which parts are considered in error. So, without full reading of the whole of the listed documents we cannot know the context in which each error was made. In fact, John Henry Newman said the Syllabus itself was misinterpreted.

Please read here the section on Catholics, where John Henry Newman is quoted:

having looked into the problem of interpreting the Syllabus I’ve come to the conclusion that the Syllabus is correct as stated but that it (and I’m not saying this applies now) sometimes can’t be applied because certain conditions make it worse to apply than not.

This is because I think the propositions that are the opposite of the ones attacked in the Syllabus are just good sense and obviously infallibly true, plus the interpretation offered by the good folks at The Remnant Magazine matches mine so the authority of a few good men gives weight to my conclusion.