Of course the pope has always been the head of the church. But the power of the church was always in it's base (bishops) until the revision of cannon law in the beginning of the 20th century, according to pius12's biography.

Here
is an article covering the Vatican statement addressing politicians



And here is the Vatican statement itself. Note that the statement was not written by the Pope, it was written by others but approved for release by the the Pope.

Which completely ignores the fact that devote Catholics believe first and foremost in their relationship to their god. The Pope and his bureacracy - some of whom are child molesters - is not the religion and not important to devout Catholics. Only those who worship a church bureacracy would have a conflict between political office and their religion. Only those who worship the church and its pope, in reality, worship a false idol. The truly devout worship the god - and do not put false idols (ie pope) before it - the first commandment.

You clearly were not raised Catholic.

The infallibility of the pope is a major piece of Catholic doctrine.

Lotsa catholics don't believe the child molestation charges, either.

uh, no.

You have no idea what you are talking about in this post. You sound like you had one of those Chick Tracts shoved down your throat. Find yourself a vaild source of information before spouting bullshit.

Right on the money Onyx. I've read some Catholic articles where they argue that the defining point of a politician is their position on abortion and that this superscedes every other point because of how strongly the view on abortion should be held. This opinion is not held by all Catholics. It should be important to note that the Catholic bishops and clergy have never backed a candidate (to my knowledge), they have always left voting to the conscience of the people.


Now, I'm not sying it's impossible to be a politician and a devout anything, but I am saying that if a politician declares and runs for office on a platform of "I am a devout (insert religion here)", then the voters voted that person in with the understanding that he will make decisions and vote based on his/her morals, which are directly related to that religion. If the person does NOT hold to their religious tenets and beliefs, then they can no longer call themselves "devout", and can be chalked up to politicking to the demographics of that religion solely for the purpose of getting that position.


I think it would be wrong for a politician to run on a platform of their religion. They should run on the issues, and be consistent with their religion. Oh, and I would love it if they followed 'thou shalt not bear false witness'.

Let me ask this and see if someone answers, what difference is there between an athiest candidate that is against the death penalty and defends that position when compared to a Catholic candidate that does the same? Would the Catholic be accused of bringing religion into the argument? What if the topic was abortion or something else?

The name for this thread is entirely bogus. The Pope didn't have anything to say in that article. It was an American Bishop raising all the ruckus.

When I was a kid, the priest always told the congregation who to vote for, at mass, on the last Sunday before election day.

Doctrine meaning that it is an interpretation by a religious bureacracy; not the teachings of that religion's god.

First, if the pope was really infallible, then it says so in the bible. The bible does not make that claim. Instead a religious bureacracy invents a claim that the pope is infallible. IOW the bureacracy has brainwashed its weaker followers. Better (thinking) Catholics need not believe that bureaucratic decree.

Second, if the Pope is infallible, then the pope would be a god. But a "god pope' violates the 1st commandment about false gods. Therefore the pope must only be a man - and therefore is fallible. The bureacracy's doctrine is wrong either way - either by being in conflict with the 1st commandment (god's decree) or because statement was made in error by a fallible man called a pope.

Devout Catholics need not believe interpretations from a bureacracy - concepts that are not even based on the bible. Instead devout Catholics hold concepts fundamental in Catholic religion above anything a church bureaucracy may invent - the infallible pope.

Not all Catholics dispute this infallibility claim. It is their right to believe the pope is infallible. It is their right to believe doctrine if they want - including bureacracy decree that priests cannot marry because god says so. Just more doctrinefrom the bureacracy that is not found in any fundamental Catholic concepts. Devout Catholics believe in the religion before they believe inventions from a religious bureacracy.

Conclusion: devout is simply an interpretation of that person about himself - having no relationship to what the church bureacracy says or fears. You cannot tell me I am or are not devout. I cannot make a valid claim on you. To do so would violate the principles of religion - a relationship between one person and his god(s).

Church cannot, in all honesty, tell us that you are or are not devout. Church bureacracy can only tell us whether THEY feel THEY are devout. Each individual makes that personal decision because religion is a relationship between the one person and his god(s). The Church has no right to tell you what your religion is - especially when their doctrines (infallible pope and priests cannot marry) are not even based upon biblical teachings. Church doctrine is simply how that bureacracy personally believes.

Is church bureacracy devote? Only each individual in that bureacracy can make that personal decision. To say otherwise is to say anyone can impose their religious beliefs on another - a violation of what religion is about.

Unbelievable! I actually agree with tw on one part of this issue. Ones level of devotion really is an internal construct having little to do with where you stand on individual church precepts. The Catholic Church is an almost unconceivably large organization. From hardcore lefties in South America to over the top right wingers in Africa the church is broad. I oppose abortion and the death penalty, but support marriage for priests and gays (think I'll leave that clause as written). My brother-in-law is devout, but is pro-death penalty. Our Catholicism informs our conscience but does not make our choices. Despite my personal opposition to abortion, I understand that its not an issue to be won by legislation or judicial pronouncement. Nobody wants to see women dying from botched illegal procedures and only a few want abortion to be as common as it is. What I want is for folks to be honest with themselves about the reality of abortion.

One little adjustment on the bible issue. Catholics are not as tied to the bible as other Christians. We have a couple thousand years of thought by some pretty bright people, which we consider important as well. Society is evolving and the Church is evolving. By necessity, the Church must go slower than society in general to try to avoid societies' more atrocious mistakes. I don't want democracy in my church, it's shown itself to be of a certain limited usefulness in society, but it is too prone to radicalism for the Church. I could be wrong on gay marriage as Kerry could be on abortion. Does Catholicism inform his conscience? If it does, I think he is more qualified to be President, not less.

There are two sources of Catholic Church doctrine. One is the Bible, the other is tradition. From the beginning of the Church, it has been accepted that the Pope cannot make a mistake when it comes to certain rulings. This tradition has been carried by the Church from the past to present, as have many others. It is consistent with scripture, as all the doctrine should be.

Catholicism stands on two legs. The people of the Church are the caretakers of handed down tradition. Both scripture and tradition define Catholicism and _cannot_ be separated from it. If you argue that all you need is scripture, then you have broken away from the Catholic Church and are now in some Protestant denomination.

You love the word bureaucracy, and you seem to think that being one somehow invalidates everything it generates. Yes, the Church is a structured organization (bureaucracy) and it suffers from the problems of large scale human groups, but that would not change the fact that if it was inspired by God it would have a form of divine guidance. As a Catholic, you are supposed to follow Jesus, and then His apostles. The apostles founded the Catholic Church, they didn't just wander around creating mini-religions scattered to the wind, they created a unified whole.


This does not follow. Infallibility does not make one omniscient or omnipotent. It does not even make one a holy or a good person, because these are separate things. And God is the only one to be worshipped, not an infallible human that obeys God. Infallibility is bestowed on the Popes by God, it is not something they have innately, and it does not make them a god. It is a declaration that on very specific questions of faith, the Pope cannot make a mistake because God won't let him.

You are saying God can't make someone infallible? I would think that is well within His powers. Now getting tw to understand is outside God's realm because of Divinely created free will and all that jazz.


You are basically saying Catholics can ignore the Church and just go with what they believe, and then this is somehow what it means to be a true Catholic. How would that work?

Please tw explain then. What should a devout Catholic believe? Are there any beliefs whatsoever that are set in stone and should be common to all Catholics, or is absolutely everything open to interpretation? Master, who has Catholic nature?


________
Not all Catholics dispute this infallibility claim. It is their right to believe the pope is infallible.
-------------

One group of Catholics broke off from the RCC and became the Orthodox Church on argument about the Pope's infallibility. Note what I have said before, if you disagree, go make your own religion. To be Roman Catholic you follow the Bishop of Rome and accept his divine mandate to rule the Church and set the rules.


What fundamental Catholic concepts? What religion? From who? From scripture? And where did this Bible come from? It was compiled by the early Church. By using that Bible you are validating the Church and its ability to make at least some decisions regarding a Catholic's faith. If you want to separate yourself totally from all Church influence you are going to have to find yourself another book to read.

If you call yourself a devout Jainist and I see you eating steak, I can call you a bad Jainist because it goes against the most basic fundamentals of Jainism. If you call yourself a devout Catholic and I see you going against its most basic fundamentals I can call you a bad Catholic. Claiming to be part of a religion implies you follow its precepts. Following 59 out of 60 rules still means you are breaking one rule.

There are many Catholics that believe many church teachings but disagree on several points. They have to ask themselves is their point of contention a fundamental part of Catholic teaching and dogma, or is it a secondary point.
If they disagree on a basic Catholic tenant yet still believe all the others, I would think they should consider carefully why they put so much faith in so many other things and yet can’t accept the one. I’ve heard from a devout Catholic -an honest to God real one that does her best to be a true Catholic- the solution to this, and it is not pretty. Obey the Church anyway, even if you think it is wrong on that issue, then pray to understand.

Tw, you say that it is the individual that makes the rules of their religion, so if they disagree with a rule of the religion they profess, they can declare it not to be a valid rule to begin with. That works with people that follow ‘pick and choose’ personal spirituality. If you choose to follow an established religion, you are accepting its teachings as your own. If you pick some and reject others, you are not completely joining that established religion, you are staying at its edges.

Yes absolutely a person has the right to choose their religion, or even parts of several religions, or no religion at all, but once you call yourself a follower of a particular religon you are accepting that you are playing by an outside set of rules, and unlike a democracy, you might not be able to vote to change that rule you don't like. Whether or not you follow that rule is your call, but then you have to consider what you really believe.

Church policy and dogma changes over the years. The way any change starts is that a few people disagree, and convince enough others to change the official church position. Do the agitators start out as hypocrites, but then become devout? Are the people who never accept the change now hypocrites?

All human organizations change over time. People who attempt to fix percieved flaws in an organization can be just as devoted to the organization as those who do not think there are flaws.