Public Officials Under God

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701043.html?referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email"]From the Washington Post:[/url]
[quote]When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he said some things about Catholic bishops that might, in today's climate, be condemned as insolence toward church authority.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act," Kennedy told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. "I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me."

Kennedy, of course, spoke those words in an effort to fight anti-Catholic bigotry. That was long before the 2004 campaign, in which John F. Kerry, only the third Roman Catholic in American history to be nominated for the presidency by a major party, found himself fending off certain prelates who said that his stand on abortion meant he could not receive communion -- and also meant that Catholics should not vote for him.

The episode caused anger, anguish and reflection among Democratic politicians who are Catholic. "People felt their faith was being questioned, and they were angry that ideologues were using the church for their own purpose," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.

Such reflections have produced a remarkable document that will be released this week, a "Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives." It is, to the best of my knowledge, an unprecedented attempt by a large number of elected officials to explain the relationship between their religious faith and their public commitments.

"As Catholic Democrats in Congress," the statement begins, "we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose."

The statement is only six paragraphs, which gives it clarity and focus. After a paragraph on Catholic social teaching about the obligations to "the poor and disadvantaged," the writers get to the hard issue, insisting that "each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

What's significant is that this is not a statement from pro-choice Catholics trying to "reframe" the abortion question. The signatories include some of the staunchest opponents of abortion in the House, including Reps. Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Tim Holden, James Oberstar and James Langevin.

In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room to disagree. "In all these issues, we seek the church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," they write in an echo of Kennedy. "In recognizing the church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes from being in disagreement with the church in some areas."

With any luck, this statement will provoke two debates, one outside the Catholic Church and one inside.

One of the troubling aspects of 2004 was the extent to which partisan politics invaded the churches and seemed to enlist them as part of the Republicans' electoral apparatus. But there is a difference between defending the legitimate right of churches to speak up on public questions and the hyperpoliticization of the church itself.

For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church's view. "Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues," DeLauro said. "But we're rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church."

If nothing else, these Catholic Democrats will haul out into the open a discussion with their bishops, with their fellow Catholics and with their constituents that has been festering underground. "We were silent for too long," DeLauro said. "And that meant you were defined by others, not by yourselves."[/quote]

I'm sure this will spark an interesting national debate.

[Ash Wednesday]

Here we go again with that "conscience" carp. Want to be a Catholic freely exercising your conscience? Form a correct one. Don't like the idea of a one-issue church? Stop supporting abortion.

Now I'm curious to hear how Catholic Republicans would respond to this, if they would.

[Akalyte]

Kennedy is in hell. Same place where all un-repentant liberals are going. Heretics. yeah kennedy had a conscience alright, he just loved smooching marilyn monroe in the oval office while his wife wasnt around. Just typical, and shame on those who dare to put kennedy's picture next to the popes.
Excuse my bluntness bunt he was a an idiot.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Akalyte

[Era Might]

[quote]My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic Church by [b]Pius XXIII[/b] and Pope Paul VI in [b]the Vatican II[/b], which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices.

--John Aquinas Kerry[/quote]

And then there's of course, our non-Catholic Christian friend Howard Dean, whose favorite book in the New Testament is Job.

ps: It's a sin to say anyone is in hell. And just as an historical note, we look at Kennedy's statement through the eyes of abortion, but we don't know for sure if he would have supported abortion. Remember that Roe didn't take place until a decade after he was shot.

[Ash Wednesday]

That is true -- when Kennedy made those statements -- questionable as they may have been -- abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage weren't even in the equation. It is very unwise for Catholic politicians to say such a statement is applicable today in the same way.

It doesn't seem like prelates in 1960 were somehow "softer" than they are now.

[Akalyte]

i'm done.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Akalyte

[Akalyte]

i wont be replying in the debate table again.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Feb 28 2006, 06:21 PM']It doesn't seem like prelates in 1960 were somehow "softer" than they are now.
[right][snapback]900215[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe it was an Archbishop in Louisiana who in the '50s or '60s threatened with excommunication any politician supporting racially disciminatory policies.

I doubt many politicians today would have a problem with that. But they can't see through their own blindndess and realize that this is not a joke for the Church. Innocent babies are being killed. She will stand up for them as much as she stood up for the oppressed during the Civil Rights movement.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Feb 28 2006, 04:07 PM']Here we go again with that "conscience" carp. Want to be a Catholic freely exercising your conscience? Form a correct one. Don't like the idea of a one-issue church? Stop supporting abortion.

Now I'm curious to hear how Catholic Republicans would respond to this, if they would.
[right][snapback]900211[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As a Catholic Republican, I agree with you.

If these "Catholic Democrats" were really concerned about being Catholic, they would stop supporting abortion.

And the whole "liberal Catholic" idea that supporting abortion (the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent human life) can be justified by supporting more socialistic government programs and the like is total BS. I've made my thoughts on this subject known many times on these boards.

[Socrates]

[quote]My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic Church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices.

--John Aquinas Kerry[/quote]

Ha! So Kerry is in conspiracy with [url="http://www.truecatholic.org"]Pius XIII (loony rad-trad anti-pope of Montana)[/url]!

I knew it!!

[photosynthesis]

[quote]It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church's view.[/quote]

looks like the author of this article thinks that democrats are more Catholic than republicans

[Ash Wednesday]

Yeah, I thought that was odd. I used to think in the same way, that somehow Republican candidates were less adequate with regards to those other "social issues." Both parties (at least once upon a time ) aim to achieve the common good, but just happen to disagree about how to go about doing that.