Should politicians toe their church line?

Deseret Morning News ^ | 11/29/03 | Elaine Jarvik

[ex-snook]

"Should politicians toe their church line? "

NO if they disagree.

Should the church point this out? YES

[JohnnyZ]

Should the church point this out? YES

And smack them down however they see fit.

[Petronski]

YES. Religion is an ethos. Claiming affiliation with one--claiming to follow its teachings--and then breaking from them is just a shabby and deluded lie.

Churches should expose and disavow any such shabby deluded liars.

[Dutchgirl]

If Christians vote for Christian candidates to represent their views in government, they should absolutely insist that their Christian views are represented, just as any other constituency should hold their elected representatives accountable.

I have just lately been discovering Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran Minister/Martyr who stood up to the German churches that failed to oppose Hitler. a timely quote..." A prison cell, in which one waits, hopes...and is completely dependent on the fact that the door of freedom has to be opened from the outside, is not a bad picture of Advent. "

[I still care]

You are right. If you say you are a Catholic, Moslem, or Jew, but don't believe and follow your faith, that is intellectual and spiritual dishonesty.

If you don't like your faith, find one you think is more true, but stop saying, "I am a Catholic/Jew/Protestant", because you aren't. And it's a lie.

Those lies expose more of the candidate's personality than they think. When Clark says, "I am a religious man but I left my church over a bike path", well, truly religious people know pretty much exactly to make of that.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"When Clark says, "I am a religious man but I left my church over a bike path", well, truly religious people know pretty much exactly to make of that."

"truly religious people know pretty much exactly to make of that"....yes, that the poster has mixed up Dean and Clark.

[Cicero]

The bishops have a DUTY to publicly rebuke politicians who seriously violate the teachings of the Church. That doesn't mean that a bishop can instruct a politician how to vote. Most issues are prudential, and a bishop be sure which way to vote any more than anyone else. Buton some supremely important issues he can and should tell a politician that he has a choice whether or not to remain in the Church. He can vote as he thinks best, but if he votes completely contrary to Church teaching he is no longer a Catholic in communion with his Church.

As it happens, "procuring an abortion" results in automatic excommunication, according to current Papal teaching. A Catholic politician like Kennedy who regularly votes in ways that result in the killing of babies will presumably end up in hell unless he repents before dying. And it's not a good idea to say, "Well, I'll do anything I like and then repent just before I die," because few people other than condemned criminals know exactly when they will die.

By publicly excommunicating Kennedy, the Archbishop of Boston would only be making public what Kennedy has already done to himself. In fact, it would be much more charitable to Kennedy to chastise him publicly than to let him go on as he is now. Public excommunication might constitute a wakeup call that would finally get Kennedy to think about repenting his ways.

The same goes for many other nominally Catholic politicians.

[JohnnyZ]

yes, that the poster has mixed up Dean and Clark

Although Clark has his own set of issues.

[muawiyah]

".... unless he repents before dying..."

That's antimonianist belief, not Catholic doctrine at all.

There really isn't any chance at all for Kennedy to "truly repent" anyway. His soul is already fully in the grasp of Satan, and that's just the way Ted likes it!

[GovernmentShrinker]

I can't think of a more efficient way to drum up opposition to religious politicians than to have their religious leaders go around trumpeting the notion that these politicians will be obliged to vote to impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.

[Petronski]

...to vote to impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.

In that world, the only vote that would be satisfactory would be the amoral vote, because casting a vote consistent with a moral view would be an attempt to 'impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.'

That strikes me as something of a false dichotomy.

In this world, someone who claims to be Catholic, but doesn't vote Catholic, ought to be exposed as not being Catholic....i.e., kicked out, so the world knows his claims of Catholicity are faked.

[JohnnyZ]

".... unless he repents before dying..." That's antimonianist belief, not Catholic doctrine at all.

Calm yourself, there was no statement of doctrine. It should be clear that Ted Kennedy could still go to heaven.

[EGPWS]

the nation's bishops agreed to ask a task force to study whether the church should punish those Catholic politicians who vote contrary to church teachings on such issues as abortion,.

Gee's, talk about mastering the ability to pass the buck!

[EGPWS]

It should be clear that Ted Kennedy could still go to heaven.

"Could" is the oprerative word in your statement.

[JohnnyZ]

"Could" is the oprerative word in your statement.

He could also give up drinking.

[JohnnyZ]

talk about mastering the ability to pass the buck!

I believe they formed a task force so they would develop a consistent method of dealing with these . . . problem children. If each bish does his own thing it can get confusing real quick for the flock.

[EGPWS]

He could also give up drinking.

And "hell could freeze over" too!

[Dutch Boy]

Ditto....

You either believe and belong or you don't. If you have faith in a religion you have faith. It's not meant to be ala'cart.

[gcruse]

"Well, I'll do anything I like and then repent just before I die," because few people other than condemned criminals know exactly when they will die.

Of course not.  That's why you have Purgatory.