The Pope on Politics

[Socrates]

[b]Catholics must be engaged in political debate, says Pope[/b]


Vatican City, Mar. 30, 2006 (CNA) - Speaking earlier today to a group of parliamentarians from Europe’s Popular Party, Pope Benedict affirmed the need for a Catholic voice in the public square that informs consciences and helps citizens act “freely and responsibly.”

The Church has come under heavy fire in recent years--particularly in the U.S.--for engaging in political debate where some say it has no place. Critics charge that many politicians worldwide seek to relegate faith life merely to the private sphere.

Benedict reminded the parliamentarians however, "that when Churches or ecclesial communities intervene in public debate, expressing reservations or recalling various principles, this does not constitute a form of intolerance or interference.”

He said that the Church’s political interventions “are aimed solely at enlightening consciences, enabling them to act freely and responsibly, according to the true demands of justice, even when this should conflict with situations of power and personal interest."

In this light, the Pope said that the main area of the Church's intervention in the public sphere "is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person.” “…She is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable."

[b]Here, he listed a number of principles for which Catholics must continue to fight. Namely, these are: "Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role; and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.”[/b]

While he admitted that "These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith,” he stressed that “they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.”

The Pope explained that “The Church's action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, irrespective of any religious affiliation they may have."

He closed by calling on the politicians "to be credible and consistent witnesses of these basic truths through your political activity, and more fundamentally through your commitment to live authentic and consistent lives."

[emphasis added]

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368[/url]

[Socrates]

I thought it would be a good idea to post this here, because in several debates, people have argued that we Catholics must not "legislate morality," and that we should not support legal efforts which define marriage as between a man and a woman, nor oppose homosexual civil unions, adoptions, etc.

The Pope apparently disagrees with that notion.

[Era Might]

Isn't all legislation a legislation of morality? Or most of it at least. When a politician says, for example, "We need to raise the minimum wage", aren't they making a moral judgment on NOT paying a living wage?

[Paladin]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 30 2006, 06:35 PM']Isn't all legislation a legislation of morality? Or most of it at least. When a politician says, for example, "We need to raise the minimum wage", aren't they making a moral judgment on NOT paying a living wage?
[right][snapback]928781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Very true, and something few secularists are able to admit. If a politician says he wants to help the poor, no one really questions him. But it begs the question: why should we help the poor? Why not let them rot? The only logical and correct answer is that we are morally bound to. Why are we morally bound to? Secularists would mutter something about humanism, but Jesus pointed out pretty clearly that whatever we to the least of His brethren, we do for Him.

A point well taken, I believe.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 30 2006, 07:42 PM']Very true, and something few secularists are able to admit.  If a politician says he wants to help the poor, no one really questions him.  But it begs the question: why should we help the poor?  Why not let them rot?  The only logical and correct answer is that we are morally bound to.  Why are we morally bound to?  Secularists would mutter something about humanism, but Jesus pointed out pretty clearly that whatever we to the least of His brethren, we do for Him.

A point well taken, I believe.
[right][snapback]928911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It would indeed be madness to disagree.

And what is saddening is that not just "secularists," but all too many who consider themselves devout Catholics, seem to buy into this mentality.

And the very issues that the Pope says Catholics are obliged to defend politically are exactly those that politically liberal Catholics tend to insist on voting contrary to Church teaching on.
(Note the recently discussed Democratic "Statement of Principles" in which "Catholic" congressmen preached on the importance of following Catholic "principles," while at the same time defending their pro-abortion voting with "primacy of conscience" bs.)

[Era Might]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 30 2006, 09:42 PM']Very true, and something few secularists are able to admit.  If a politician says he wants to help the poor, no one really questions him.  But it begs the question: why should we help the poor?  Why not let them rot?  The only logical and correct answer is that we are morally bound to.  Why are we morally bound to?  Secularists would mutter something about humanism, but Jesus pointed out pretty clearly that whatever we to the least of His brethren, we do for Him.

A point well taken, I believe.
[right][snapback]928911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly. I love the beginning of "Mere Christianity" where Lewis talks about natural law:

[quote]Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard."[/quote]

He sums it all up when he says that "feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not". Why? Because there is an objective standard written on the human heart, and it convicts us when we don't live up to it.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 30 2006, 05:35 PM']Isn't all legislation a legislation of morality? [/quote]Idealy yes!

[Theoketos]

Hey get your rosaries off my um er ovaries?

[Paladin]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Mar 30 2006, 10:46 PM']Hey get your rosaries off my um er ovaries?

[right][snapback]929153[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We heard that one up in Toronto praying in front of abortion mills during WYD. It's funny. As chantable and rhyming as that may be, it's basically saying "Don't pray for me!" Could anything be more paranoid or sad?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 30 2006, 11:12 PM']We heard that one up in Toronto praying in front of abortion mills during WYD.  It's funny.  As chantable and rhyming as that may be, it's basically saying "Don't pray for me!"  Could anything be more paranoid or sad?
[right][snapback]929340[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I once read somewhere, from a very unhappy man, that praying for someone else when it was not wanted was like somone blowing smoke in your face.

[dairygirl4u2c]

This thread needs an antagonist. I have a feeling if I were to be it, there'd be too many people responding and it'd get no where. I'd like to argue why, if one is not Catholic anyway, it is not necessarily philosophically irrational to vote against something you personally believe to be wrong etc. This should be qualifeid: Of course, as mentioned, in voting this way, it is a moral action and are voting against something you believe to be right. I'm speaking of the morality involved in deciding to allow for other ways of life, not the morality involved in the specific action per se. I mention this only because those posts above are keen on saying all legislation is morality legislation, which is true, but they are missing the point of why people say not to legislate morality. If anyone wants more clarification on the my view, or the liberal view if you wish, start a thread or declare yourself the only person who will debate. I'd choose Soc or Pap. Soc because his irrationally quick responses would ensure my victory, but his irratinoally quick responses would never allow him to realize it. And no one else would admit anything at the end; they'd just think I don't know, I'll just do what the Church says. Pap at least would get us somewhere with his rational and insightful responses. For that reason I'd pick Pap, but leave it open for Soc or anyone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 31 2006, 12:18 AM'] Soc because his irrationally quick responses would ensure my victory, but his irratinoally quick responses would never allow him to realize it.
[/quote]

[Socrates]

This article is actually posted primarily for the benefit of those Catholics who claim the law should not favor marriage between a man and woman over "gay unions" and the like. (See the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=41723&st=300"]"Homosexual Marriage"[/url] thread.)

Of course non-Catholics (and especially anti-Catholics) will not likely care much what the Pope has to say about this topic.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 31 2006, 02:18 AM']I'd like to argue why, if one is not Catholic anyway, it is not necessarily philosophically irrational to vote against something you personally believe to be wrong etc.
[/quote]
some "personal beliefs" are better than others.

[quote] This should be qualifeid: Of course, as mentioned, in voting this way, it is a moral action and are voting against something you believe to be right.  I'm speaking of the morality involved in deciding to allow for other ways of life, not the morality involved in the specific action per se.
[/quote]
Why would someone vote to legislate something they think is wrong? That makes no sense. If I truly believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent child, why would it make any sense for me to vote for a law that allows it? That's preposterous. Some would say it goes against the ideals of democracy to vote according to one's morals, but living in a democracy doesn't necessarily mean getting to do everything you want.
[quote]I mention this only because those posts above are keen on saying all legislation is morality legislation, which is true, but they are missing the point of why people say not to legislate morality.
[/quote]
Well, take the abortion issue I just mentioned. There are people out there who claim to believe that abortion is morally wrong. However, they also claim that they "would not want to infringe on someone else's choice" or "force their beliefs on others." However, that itself is a moral judgment, because they are implying that it is not moral to suggest that someone's personal beliefs are better than another's.
[quote]If anyone wants more clarification on the my view, or the liberal view if you wish, start a thread or declare yourself the only person who will debate.
[right][snapback]929451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Why do you think Socrates put this thread in the debate table? So that we could talk about coagulated milk, or pork-based eggs? Obviously this thread is open for anyone to debate this topic.

[Socrates]

Because of its relevence to certain current topics of debate, I thought I'd bump this old thread . . .

[dairygirl4u2c]

Allowing gay marriage by writing a law for it is completely different in my mind to banning sodomy. Proactively doing something v. banning something. Notice the Pope doesn't talk about how we need to ban sodomy, fornication, condoms etc. One might even argue the effect of condoms is worse than gay marriage, but he doesn't talk about it.
Banning murder is where something hurts others. banning hurting others v. banning hurting yourself

I think the discussion would be interesting to move into comparing cutting yourself and sex sins. That's stuff that I admit I'm not sure how to address, exactly. I think I'm for allowing people to cut and maybe kill tehmself, but for Catholics, I mean, I'm not sure how to respond.
I think most of you hard core conservatives though can't really say why you don't ban all sins, and choose whichever seems to be hotly debated, thus conforming to what you're suppose to beleive.

Edited March 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Budge]

The Vatican itself is a political organization.

of COURSE they will promote politics with their "nation" status and army of diplomats and body guards.

The church, and I point to evangelical and other churches, not just Rome has been compromised by politics especially in America.

Where platitutdes, and smokescreens are used by corrupt politicians to get votes and the same dastardly plans pursued behind the scenes,.

Christians need to speak up for what is right, but one thing your church does is use abortion and gay marriage as smokescreens. Nothing is ever really done like the Republicans who used abortion to get evangelical votes but will never change things. This is why Rome has no problem supporting and promotnig the biggest death culture organization in the world, the UN. Sure theyll protest some of their rulings, but they support them as an organization and that is what counts.

"Fight the culture" "Christians" have lost the plot, they do not understand that people and cultures change when they are converted to Jesus Christ. They somehow think using the rule of law on unbeleivers and the unregenerate is going to change things, when really all it has done throughtout human history is impose fascism and totalitarianism.

[Anomaly]

dairy,
I'm not sure what you mean in your most recent post.

Are you saying we shouldn't write new laws to allow gay marriage, but that is different from writing laws that ban sodomy?
I think in practical terms, we have to write laws that narrowly define marriage in order to ban gay marriage.

What people fail to realize, there are hundreds of laws prohibiting so called 'victimless' behavior. There are laws against prostitution, incest, polygamy, and other things that could be said it's between consenting adults.

When you stop to think about it, most laws are restrictive of choice and not always based on 'being harmful to others'. If I want to smoke dope, what's the big deal as long as I don't do any harm to others when I'm stoned. If I want to speed while driving, what's the big deal if the road is open and clear of others. If I want to hire a willing prostitute, what's the big deal if we arrange a business agreement. If I want to sell pornography, what's the big deal if I sell it to willing adults. If I want to drive a car without insurance, what's the big deal if I'm willing to pay for damage I cause IF I get in an accident?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree in practical terms you're essentially banning it. But you're not neceesarily proactively seeking to ban it. if you're changing what the constituion says in order to ban it by limiting it, i think that's essentially banning it which I dont' see why it's done. it depends on why you wrote what you did.


prostituion i'm not sure about because women are often victimized.
drunk driving isn't allowed because someone could be on the road.
drugs should be legal, at least in moderation. though i'm not sure about hurting yourself and cutting yoruself and this could be considered similar.

you don't explain why you odn't ban all sins, as they hurt themselves and indirectly others. is it based on the severity of the sin hat you choose to ban or not? does that mean you don't ban the lesser because you think people should be free to engage in those small sins?

Edited March 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221149' date='Mar 28 2007, 01:41 PM']i agree in practical terms you're essentially banning it. But you're not neceesarily proactively seeking to ban it. if you're changing what the constituion says in order to ban it by limiting it, i think that's essentially banning it which I dont' see why it's done.

prostituion i'm not sure about because women are often victimized.
drunk driving isn't allowed because someone could be on the road.
drugs should be legal, at least in moderation. though i'm not sure about hurting yourself and cutting yoruself and this could be it too.

you don't explain why you odn't ban all sins, as they hurt themselves and indirectly others. is it based on the severity of the sin hat you choose to ban or not? does that mean you don't ban the lesser because you think people should be free to engage in those small sins?[/quote]I purposly didn't say we should ban all sins. Certainly things are based on the severity of the 'sin' or act to choose what to ban. Arguablly, certain things deteriorate the fundamentals of society and are banned for that reason. For example, on prostitution, it could be said that laws be generated that protect women who choose to be prostitutes from victimization. OR, a real hurt from legal prostitution is that it weakens the bond of fidelity in marriage and promotes sexual promiscuity. Those effects have long term consequences on the make-up of society. But you and I are discussing it from philosophical principles. For Catholics, what's serious has already been decided and pointed out to them.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

Maybe we shouldn't have laws addressing any of these items. If we aren't going to have laws against masturbation, why have laws restricting pornography. Why can't 13 year olds buy pornography because they're going to masturbate anyway?

Edited March 28, 2007 by Anomaly