This debate is striking to me. (Without having read the full thread) I’m struck by the apparent dichotomy that is proposed here:
1. Either it’s important what she believes about Catholicism or...
2. Her religious views have nothing to do with her political views.
I’m sorry, but at least as of right now, I have a problem with #2. I have actually spoken about this before, before even the 2010 elections.
Increasingly anymore, as I continue to take my faith, my humanity, more seriously, I cannot see how it is reasonable to say something to the effect, “My faith, my questions about my ultimate destiny, my humanity, are ‘important’ to me, but only as long as they don’t get in the way of my political views.”
Doesn’t anyone see a problem with that kind of statement? If one’s politics are separate from one’s faith, where do you think such political views come from? I submit they can only come from one place: The World, or, as Fr. Giussani puts it, the “powers that be”. There is no “independence” apart from God. There is no “freedom”, true “freedom”, apart from God. Either one believes that, or religion, one’s faith, is just something tacked on to make oneself feel better, but it isn’t really real. It isn’t truly something that one knows is a fact. That is, God isn’t really, truly, *real*, again, He is just a nice idea thought about on Sunday.
Sorry, I must reject #2 above for these reasons. With all this said though, this is still a moment where Rep. Bachmann can shine. It’s a fact she left that ecclesiastical group a year ago. If she simply comes out and says, “I left it because if its bigoted stance against Catholicism”, or something like that, then it is all resolved. It would be certainly more than anything Obama has said wrt his affiliations, but beyond that, it would be a reasonable statement to make.
Am I concerned about leftists trying to drive a wedge between conservatives? Yes. But quite frankly, I’m more concerned about living a lie, and indeed, that is what #2 is above, for me. I can no longer say, my faith is separate from my politics, because, to put it bluntly, then I have no reason that is reasonable, to believe my politics are correct.
Politics, as every human thought, must flow from one’s faith to be reasonable. My faith comes first, THEN my politics. My politics don’t dictate my faith. If I then say, it’s ok to vote for someone who not only disagrees with my faith, which is one thing, but is virulently opposed to it, that is an unreasonable position.
It’s basically saying my faith isn’t real,’not as real as politics’, which as I explain above is foolish. For me.
Does being a member of the Catholic church automatically get one into heaven where all non-Catholics go to hell like the Catholic teaches?
Then this means non Catholics cannot vote for Catholics and Catholics cannot vote for non Catholics.
I reject the infallibility of the Pope but I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and I hope that all Catholics also believe as I do in the Nicene Creed. (I exclude the liberal Catholics) We cannot let this divisive thread try to split the conservative movement. I found this extremely interesting and use it as a way to emphasize our similarities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
Perhaps 15th Century disputes could be left in the 15th Century.
What one does manifests what one really believes, and the religion of most politicians appears to be that self-serving pragmatism, whatever will get hem elected.
While you see it is as virtuous for a politician to renounces his/her membership in a church that sees Rome as false, i would see that as wrong if done for political purposes, as well as wrong in itself in this case (though that does not mean the view of the pope being THE anti-Christ is right), and your request would be akin to us demanding that a Traditional Catholic recant his/her belief that outside formal submission to Rome then one cannot be saved.