• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope to US Speaker Pelosi: Reject abortion support

A politician's upbringing determines their moral compass, so I can partly accept what you're saying. However, when presented with a life or death situation that affects the entire country, and if the will of the people contradicts your Catholic faith, what do you do? Side with your faith?

A politician whose faith overrides democratic decisions should not be a politician. I respect if you disagree, but secular institutions have been tainted by religion enough as it is.
Like...give an example where this could occur. :confused:
There is nothing in Catholicism that contradicts the Constitution--there is no possibility where this might occur. A person who lives his/her Catholic faith and is elected according to his/her positions, is not going to face this hypothetical "problem" you propose.
 
Like...give an example where this could occur. :confused:
There is nothing in Catholicism that contradicts the Constitution--there is no possibility where this might occur. A person who lives his/her Catholic faith and is elected according to his/her positions, is not going to face this hypothetical "problem" you propose.

I can think of only one. The death penalty. Thou shall not kill. A true Catholic governor might feel he has to pardon every man sentenced to death in his state.
 
I can think of only one. The death penalty. Thou shall not kill. A true Catholic governor might feel he has to pardon every man sentenced to death in his state.

No he wouldn't.

The death penalty is not contrary to Catholicism.

From the Catechism:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
 
I can think of only one. The death penalty. Thou shall not kill. A true Catholic governor might feel he has to pardon every man sentenced to death in his state.

I am not aware of any time where the CHurch has definitively taught that th Death Penalty is a violation of the Catholic faith or where a Pope has spoken ex cathedra about the topic.
 
Heh.

Well, that's certainly not what this ex-Catholic was taught.

But, how exactly would there be no other way to avoid capital punishment when life in prison is an option?
 
Heh.

Well, that's certainly not what this ex-Catholic was taught.

But, how exactly would there be no other way to avoid capital punishment when life in prison is an option?

People often have different opinions about interpreting Church teaching and the Pope has often spoken against Capital Punishment. However, I do not believe it has been taught as an official teaching of the Church (meaning it is in the Cathechism) or that the Pope has spoken ex cathedra about it. I didn't even see anything in the index of my CCC about it.
 
I guess different parts of the world choose to teach a different version. I was taught that only God has the right to take a life. Which was consistent with subsequent teachings that both the DP and abortion are an abomination.
 
Governors do not sentence a person to death, nor do they carry out executions. A governor who does not act to stay an execution is not committing a sin. To NOT act, does not make one culpable of the action that occurs.

As a Catholic, I can't think of an instance where the death penalty would be appropriate, but, if I was in a situation where I was defending my life or my children's life...you betcha, I'd be willing to be an executioner and I'd be fully justified in doing so.
 
I guess different parts of the world choose to teach a different version.

Catholicism is the same, everywhere and for all time. What is true now, has always been true. In some respects, however, our understanding of that truth has been made more clear.
 
But if the Pope himself speaks out against it, doesn't he hold the ultimate authority as the representative of your god on Earth? If he really was chosen by God, then the words he speaks are also God's words.
 
But if the Pope himself speaks out against it, doesn't he hold the ultimate authority as the representative of your god on Earth? If he really was chosen by God, then the words he speaks are also God's words.

Not every word he utters...:doh

The pope is a man--a very holy man, but he's a man. When he speaks "from the chair of Peter" (ex cathedra, as ludahai already mentioned) then it is with the authority granted him by Jesus where He said, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Only then is the pope speaking infallably on matters of faith and morals.


More in the Catechism...


Capital Punishment
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]
 
I can think of only one. The death penalty. Thou shall not kill. A true Catholic governor might feel he has to pardon every man sentenced to death in his state.

If that was within the powers granted by the specific state, I honestly don't see the conflict.
 
Catholicism is the same, everywhere and for all time. What is true now, has always been true. In some respects, however, our understanding of that truth has been made more clear.
The first two statements are wholly untrue.
The third is very debatable.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


If a politician ran for the position on the premise that they were a catholic and was voted in, then yes, they should follow their 'faith' when making decisions.

If the politician just happened to be catholic, without being part of their platform, ran for and was elected to the position, then they have no business supplanting the voice of the people with that of their religious convictions.
 
Not every word he utters...:doh

The pope is a man--a very holy man, but he's a man. When he speaks "from the chair of Peter" (ex cathedra, as ludahai already mentioned) then it is with the authority granted him by Jesus where He said, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Only then is the pope speaking infallably on matters of faith and morals.


More in the Catechism...


Capital Punishment
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]

Well, either way, it's certainly not the kind of punishment the church approves of at all. My point about the Governor commuting death sentences to life in prison still stands. As a Catholic, regardless of the fact that NOT acting would not make him a sinner, isn't it possible that he would feel the need to pardon the criminal, in keeping with the Catechism? It's entirely possible and even logical to me.
 
Well, either way, it's certainly not the kind of punishment the church approves of at all.
That is true.

My point about the Governor commuting death sentences to life in prison still stands. As a Catholic, regardless of the fact that NOT acting would not make him a sinner, isn't it possible that he would feel the need to pardon the criminal, in keeping with the Catechism? It's entirely possible and even logical to me.
He may feel that "need"--but, as a Catholic, he is not compelled to. I (unlike Ms. Pelosi dispite her claim) am an ardent Catholic and I might feel regret if my state was one that was a death penalty state and I was Governor...but I would not act against the laws of the land--that also would be wrong. We are to respect civil authority.

The duties of citizens

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.


and...

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52
 
Last edited:
That is true.


He may feel that "need"--but, as a Catholic, he is not compelled to. I (unlike Ms. Pelosi dispite her claim) am an ardent Catholic and I might feel regret if my state was one that was a death penalty state and I was Governor...but I would not act against the laws of the land--that also would be wrong. We are to respect civil authority.

The duties of citizens

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

and...

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52
What is the source of the green text?
 
Is that on the authority of "Coolguy"? I guess the only appropriate response, then, is....coolz.:roll:
:doh
If one has bothered to study the history of the catholic religion they know it isn't based on my own authority and also know the answer given in the following exchange is accurate.


Catholicism is the same, everywhere and for all time. What is true now, has always been true. In some respects, however, our understanding of that truth has been made more clear.

The first two statements are wholly untrue.
The third is very debatable.
 
Not if I don't believe he'll sand for my beliefs.

Being part of a religion means you are supposed to abide by a set of beliefs


And since the Catholic Church has no vote in our elections then it is not the duty of any politician Catholic or otherwise to follow what the church says or preaches.

If they claim to be of a particular faith then it is their duty to abide by their faith. Voter should take this into account when voting for a politician just like you take into account whether or not a politician is a liberal or conservative.

And if these politicians were elected on the premise that they were going to further the agendas of their constituents and not those an organization then you'd be completely right. But as it stands it is not the duty of any politician to further the agenda of the Catholic church.

Politicians are elected on the premise that they have a certain set of beliefs/ideologies and whether or not those beliefs/ideologies closely match yours when you go vote for them. If I vote for someone who claims to be against illegal immigration, gay marriage, socialized medicine, globalization, outsourcing, and other issues I am for or against, then that is what I expect when I elect him to office. Catholics should call her out if she falsely pretending to be a catholic.


Jebus H. Jimenez did you really need to repeat yourself three times? Do you not understand that it is not Nanci Pelosi's duty or for that matter that of any politician Catholic or otherwise to push the agenda of their church but that of their constituents irregardless of the faith/beliefs of these constituents?

Do you not understand that if you prescribe to a faith then you are supposed to abide by that faiths beliefs,rules and etc, regardless if you are a politician or not, You do not flush your views down the toilet because you got elected to office? Of course you don't you are a atheist who thinks beliefs are something to be tossed under the bus. IF she claims to be a catholic then she should act as one and if not quit falsely claiming to be a catholic.

If someone was running around claiming to be a liberal and they voted with conservatives on almost every issue and voted against liberal issues ,would say that individual should refrain from calling himself a liberal since he was not upholding liberal beliefs/ideology?
 
Do you know what we are asking the saints to do when we pray the litany of the saints?

Don't you ask God for things when you pray to him? How is this any different than praying/asking a saint for something?
 
You ignore ... the fact that if everyone lived by the teachings of the Faith, there would be far fewer problems in the world than there are now.
This could be said about most religions. Some more so than catholicism.
If all had the same religion, and held to the tenets of that belief system,
"there would be far fewer problems in the world than there are now".

Should we debate which one would be the best?
 
Don't you ask God for things when you pray to him? How is this any different than praying/asking a saint for something?

Only God grants prayer requests--Catholics know who is God and who are friends in the Body of Christ. Catholics don't ask saints to "do something" except to pray on our behalf. You ask friends to pray for you? Catholics have friends in high places!
 
A politician's upbringing determines their moral compass, so I can partly accept what you're saying. However, when presented with a life or death situation that affects the entire country, and if the will of the people contradicts your Catholic faith, what do you do? Side with your faith?

A politician whose faith overrides democratic decisions should not be a politician. I respect if you disagree, but secular institutions have been tainted by religion enough as it is.

Secularism and athiesm, in the Western sense are as much metaphysical and spiritual platforms as Catholicism. Also you again treat representatives as delegates, they are elected to exercise judgement including against the current opinion polls and hold a Rousseauian "general will", potentially totalitarian view of democracy, society and the people.
 
Back
Top Bottom