Critical Letter by Catholics Cites Boehner on Policies

[$tevie]

Having been raised a Quaker I can't begin to imagine a country where separation of church and state is defined as "religious people may not Speak Truth to Power".

[Grace62]

And having been raised a politically and socially liberal Christian in the heart of the Bible belt, nobody's gonna tell me to sit down either.

[August West]

I took RgrF's point to be that Boehner should not be influenced by his religion in his formation of public policy.I think that is a laudable abstraction, but a practical impossibility in the current era.

[rankandfile]

August West wrote:
I took RgrF's point to be that Boehner should not be influenced by his religion in his formation of public policy.I think that is a laudable abstraction, but a practical impossibility in the current era.

And yet, did not the current Pope tell Catholics in 2004 that they could not vote for John Kerry because he had been divorced?

I would appreciate clarification of this from those of you who know more about this than I do.

[Grace62]

August West wrote:
I took RgrF's point to be that Boehner should not be influenced by his religion in his formation of public policy.I think that is a laudable abstraction, but a practical impossibility in the current era.

Our constitution holds that laws cannot be based strictly on religious belief. That was the argument in Loving v. Virginia and in other important cases.

However, when making important decisions we all rely on conscience, do we not? If you are a person of faith and hold certain values, you cannot erase those from your decision making process. It's simply a part of who you are. That's an individual matter, not an institutional one.

[Grace62]

rankandfile wrote:
[quote=August West]
I took RgrF's point to be that Boehner should not be influenced by his religion in his formation of public policy.I think that is a laudable abstraction, but a practical impossibility in the current era.

And yet, did not the current Pope tell Catholics in 2004 that they could not vote for John Kerry because he had been divorced?

I would appreciate clarification of this from those of you who know more about this than I do.

It was over abortion and the distribution of Holy Communion.
This is what the Pope's letter said.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (meaning a politician or other person who supports abortion rights), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.


So, the Pope can say that if he wants. Notice that Kerry did not change his position on abortion. I don't know if his local priest or any others actually followed this, notice it does not call him out by name. There seems to be inference here that this is the Roman Catholic church, from Rome, making up an American lawmaker's mind for him. It's not. Kerry is free to do what he wants, he's an American. Pope is free to say what he wants to Catholics, he's the Pope. Listen, or don't.

Let's look at another way the Pope has inserted himself into US politics. In 2003, the late Pope John Paul II sent a letter to Pres. Bush saying that he opposed the Iraq war, noting that it did not meet the Christian standard for "just war." Like Kerry, Bush ignored it.

John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.

In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a "war of aggression" is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a "crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God," also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace.

John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.

[cbelt3]

OK, Basic FAQ:

Catholic schools and Universities employe lay persons who are not required to be of the Catholic faith, and are not subject to religious doctrine. They may be subject to a higher religious based moral standard, but that's on a contractual basis within the limits of the law. (My father was a professor at a Catholic University. One of his best friends and colleagues at the school was Jewish. And divorced twice. )

Catholics are *supposed* to adhere to the official Church Catechism. A huge majority of American Catholics do not adhere to all elements. Birth control is one biggie.

A letter from the Pope does NOT mean "This is the infallible word of God". The Pope only uses the concept on "Infallibility" very, very rarely. The last recognized one was in 1950.

Any church may 'recommend' to their flock that certain actions by a government is contrary to religious doctrine. Within the nebulous limits set by the IRS, without fear of loss of tax exempt status. The key is usually the definition of actions with regard to a "Candidate". Churches may therefore discuss issues without referring to a specific candidate.

So this is a letter by professors who happen to teach at a University where a specific politician will be speaking, and they are objecting to certain of his policies in writing. And exercising their freedom of speech.

Hurrah ! Freedom of Speech !

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Grateful11]

OT: Is ol' Boner going to cry during the Commencement Speech ?
The first I seen him cry on camera I about cracked up, I hope he
doesn't take up acting for a career.

[rankandfile]

Thanks, Grace.

I guess the "proclamation" in the letter may have had the effect of influencing some Catholics not to vote for Kerry, and that idea had morphed into my vague, inaccurate recollection. That was the reason I had asked the question in the first place.

I appreciate the work.

[rjmacs]

cbelt3 wrote:
A letter from the Pope does NOT mean "This is the infallible word of God". The Pope only uses the concept on "Infallibility" very, very rarely. The last recognized one was in 1950.

Yes, cbelt3, people make this mistake a lot. The declaration about the Assumption of Mary happened in 1954, and was a biggie. Infallibility didn't exist until the late 19th century, and it only applies to matters of teaching on dogma. There is LOTS in the catechism and in broader Catholic teaching that is not established as infallible, including teachings on celibacy in the priesthood, contraception, and the ordination of women. Although these matters are subsumed under matters on which there are official church positions and teachings, those teachings are not dogmatic in themselves. Of course, Catholics are still required to follow them, but Popes or ecumenical councils could change them at a future date.