Pope orders NJ laws to Conform to his Decrees

[jinx]

So that's the complaint with Kerry? He's not as good a catholic as he claims to be? I can live with that.... let his god judge him.

[tw]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
... when people call themselves "devout Catholic", I fully expect them to vote, act and behave in a way that coincides with the tenets of the Catholic faith.

Then you are an intolerant extremist who would impose your religious beliefs on others? Why would you want to be an extremist? Good religious people never impose their religious beliefs on another person. If the church says no abortion, then you can chose to have or not have one per your religious beliefs. But when the Church says no abortion and therefore you impose that church doctrine on another, then you become satanic. Once the pope orders lawmakers to impose church doctrine into US laws, then the pope is satanic - or just made a big mistake.

That is the OP. Trenton bishop is doing what the Pope has ordered. Pope wants power to make US laws. Violation even of the basic principles of religion - a relationship between one man and his god.

Believe what you want about your god and your church. It is your right. However once your religion says how another may act, then that doctrine even violates and attacks the principles on which the United States of America was founded and the US Constitution was written.

[Pie]

Originally posted by tw
Then you are an intolerant extremist who would impose your religious beliefs on others? Why would you want to be an extremist?

No, no, no. She's saying that she would expect the person who expressed himself as "devout" to behave in a manner that was consistant with *his* religion.

And that she could use that information to decide whether or not she felt comfortable voting for him.

I agree -- Catholics (and others of faith) are between a rock and a hard place. Either they agree with all of the questionable tenants of their faith, or they aren't very "good" Catholics.

- Pie

[richlevy]

An interesting addition to this thread is a recent decision by Catholic hospitals to continue to allow feeding tubes to be removed from some patients. This is allowed by the Bishops but has been denounced by the Vatican.

The hospitals are going to ignore the Vatican ruling until the issue is forced on them.

There are numerous articles, but

this is the one that did not require registration.

Once again, real world issues conflict with the religious ideal.

[Slartibartfast]

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

Ouch.

I bet that either came from the priest himself, or much more likely from the arch bishop running the dioscese. I wonder how common that was/is.

While looking up info on priests who do this sort of thing, I have found a website held by the Diocese of Las Cruces New Mexico. They quote a slew of pertinent Church doctrine as well as the Government laws on this issue.

A church that does endorse a politician risks losing tax exempt status.

http://www.dioceseoflascruces.org/ag.../polactvy.html

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'd bet that priests that did that are like the child molesters, a VERY small minority.

[Slartibartfast]

Call me obtuse, but while what you say seems straight, my sarcasm detector gave me a positive reading.

It could be because comparing child molesting to candidate backing feels a bit of a stretch.

[tw]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
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.

If it is written by a dicatorship, then you always trust it? If so, you advocate that politicians work for the subversion of the US Constitution. You (and the church article) advocate changing American government where ever it violates church doctrine? If the issue is to be decided based upon church doctrine, then you are advocating the subversion of the US Constitution. US Constitution - a document created by people who understood the evils of religious beliefs in government. Do you now tell me that US laws must be made according to strong decrees from another country's leader - the pope?

In order to make your arguments, you must repeatedly ignore a point that you cannot argue. Religion is a relationship between you and your god. Period. Instead you advocate religion as a political force that can be imposed even on other religions? So which one is it? Which do you believe? You cannot have it both ways. So far you have posted Catholic church religious dogma. When, pray tell, do you question- doubt - a fallible pope?

If you never question the pope, then you only demonstrate why religion must be kept out of government. Please, for example, show me where you find the church to be wrong. Please show us one reason why you could be trusted to impose religious beliefs on others - because you don't blindly follow a dicatatorship - the world's largest bureaucracy - the Catholic Church.

So far, all I read, "it is true because the church says so" - just as Germans said in the time of Hitler - another fallible dictator who also was treated as some kind of god - infallible.

[tw]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
A church that does endorse a politician risks losing tax exempt status.

So how do Jerry Falwell and the 800 Club, etc get away with it? Why is the right wing political agenda so embedded in the Republican party that those religious groups even have private reception areas in the Republican party conventions (something they are very careful to not let out since (was it) Frontline exposed the relatonship? Iif the Trenton Bishop can make a political speech against the NJ Governor, then why do you not openly and strongly criticize the bishop? Is it right only because the bishop is doing what the pope ordered? And yes, that is what the pope ordered - which is what the title of this post is about. Church leaders are to pressure Catholic politicians to impose church doctrine on US laws - by order of the pope about less than one year ago.

[tw]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
It could be because comparing child molesting to candidate backing feels a bit of a stretch.

The church condoned child molestation. It protected it people so that they could molest again. Regardless of how pure and holy you may think they are, the church protected child molestors and even put them back into positions where they could molest again.

"I could not be responsible for that crime because I did not know." Does not matter when it is the responsiblity of that person to know, when the facts are obvious, and when they did everything to, instead, not know. Its called giving aid and comfort to the enemy during war, and it is called being an accessory to the crime in civil justice. The church as a dictatorship would therefore protect and hide child molestors rather than admit to or fix the problem. Child molestation was found in every dioceses in the US. So obvious that news reporters could find it even when the church tried to block their investigation. Numbers vary from 4 to 12% of priests are pedaphiles. A responsible church - one that was not a dictatorship - would have had to acknowledge this. Unfortunately so many Catholics blindly believe anything from the church as to deny how rampant the church was a haven for pedaphiles.

In any other bureaucracy, the top managmenet would have been thrown out long ago. But the church is a dictatorship where followers blindly believe. Where the followers are not devout enough to see the difference between doctrine from a church bureaucracy verses the actual religion - as defined by the bible. Devout Catholic are found in organizations banned by the church.

Pedaphilia has a fertile valley in the bosom of the church. Even the current pope basically refused to deal with the problem even after all the American Catholic bishops were called to Rome just for this problem. Instead the church would ban grass root church organizatons that demand long needed reform such as "Voice of the Faithful". Dicatorships fear reform and groups that advocate reform.

Background - "Voices of the Faithful" is banned and condemned by the Catholic Church because VoF are critical that the church bureacracy even ignored pedaphilia - child molestation. The church instead began transfering funds so that lawsuites could not find church money - rather than admit how many pedaphiles exist in the church. IOW, Voices of the Faithful demand the church be a democracy - so that pedaphilia is not protected by the church. Blind and therefore not devout Catholics would deny all this. Blind Catholics simply believe everything in church dogma - also called the bureaucracy's doctrine. Those who blindly believe (are therefore not devout Catholics) meet a defintion called "accessory to the crime". By their silence,these blind followers made the church ripe for pedaphiles.

[tw]

Originally posted by Pie
No, no, no. She's saying that she would expect the person who expressed himself as "devout" to behave in a manner that was consistant with *his* religion.

A true American never uses religion or religious beliefs to select or vote for a political candidate. There is no place for religion in government. She is saying that a devout Catholic must do his job according to his religious beliefs. That is an outright and intentional anti-American concept.

A devout Catholic - whether he is devout by OnyxCougar's definition of the church decides you are devout OR by my belief that the church is only a consultant and the individual decides whether he is devout - uses none of his religious beliefs while in office. A devout Catholic, by either definition keeps religious beliefs out of government. To use any religious beliefs in office is to violate the oath of alligence to the US Constitution.

To which master does the politician obey - the church or the US Constituiton? "Give unto Ceasar only what is Ceasars..... " is a concept older than the church and Christian religions. A concept that right wing religious extermists fear in their agenda to save us from ourselves. A concept that OnyxCougar's posts condeming McGreevey must ignore - to blindly follow church doctrine.

A devout McGreevey would not have an abortion because that is a church decree that he believes in. But the same devout McGreevey has no problem with anyone else having an abortion - even if that other person is a Catholic. Fundamental extremists (blind believers) have a big problem with that other Catholic having an abortion because it is their mission to save everyone from themselves - the US Constitution be damned.

OynxCougar is obviously wrong when she mixes her religious beliefs or what she considered 'devout' into how she chooses to vote. Voting based upon religious considerations is what enemies of America - religious extremists - would have her do to help subvert the US Constitution. But moreso, the only reason OynxCougar gives for her beliefs is her religious beliefs. Catch 22 logic. Threat to secular government are people who use religious beliefs as justification to impose those beliefs on others. OnyxCougar only uses religious beliefs to justify her criticism of McGreevey. Good Americans praise McGreevey for not imposing Catholic doctrine on all other NJ Americans.

[Clodfobble]

Dammit tw, I'm starting to suspect you're being deliberately obtuse here. NO ONE is saying we should let the pope have control over our government. NO ONE has yet specifically stated in this thread that the pope is infallible.

All anyone is saying is... read this sentence carefully... the governor is a hypocrite by calling himself a devout Catholic. That one bishop in the article thinks this means he needs to change his vote, BUT it seems everyone here simply thinks that he should stop calling himself devout because it is a lie--he is not behaving in a devout manner, according to the definition of Catholicism. What you define as devout is NOT how Catholics define it. To put it another way, I am not a devout vegetarian who just chooses to keep her eating beliefs out of her cooking. I am simply not a vegetarian, and I would be hypocritical to call myself a devout one.

People vote based on what they believe is right. To be a devout Catholic equals a certain set of beliefs that you should fully expect him to vote according to. If the fact that he is a devout Catholic means you don't want to vote for him, great. Wonderful. Do that. But calling himself a devout Catholic (which is to say devout by the Catholic definition NOT BY YOURS) is hypocrisy if he doesn't behave like it. He should stop calling himself that.

[Beestie]

But calling himself a devout Catholic (which is to say devout by the Catholic definition NOT BY YOURS) is hypocrisy if he doesn't behave like it.

Egggggggsactly. Its typical politics - stick a label to yourself that will get votes but then vote the opposite way to get the votes you ailienate with the label. Between the two, you get elected and stand for nothing. Its worked for dems for decades

tw is attempting to turn this into an intellectual debate but there is no intellectual angle to it. Its a politician angling for votes and implicitly stating he is endorsed by the Catholic church and the Church is indicating it is anti-endorsing the candidate until his voting record is consistent with a candidate the church would endorse.

Nothing complicated about it.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by tw
If the church says no abortion, then you can chose to have or not have one per your religious beliefs. But when the Church says no abortion and therefore you impose that church doctrine on another, then you become satanic.

Don't elected officials get "abstain" votes? Ones they choose not to vote on for whatever reason?

Look. If you campaigned as a "devout Catholic" and then all the Catholics voted for you, how can you, in good conscience, (and in the following of your beliefs) vote that it's ok? When you ran for office, everyone knew you were a Catholic! Isn't that why you told everyone? So they would vote for the person who they think would present their side to the government? Isnt' that what an elected official does?

"Vote for me! I'm a DEVOUT Catholic". Untill I'm elected, and then all bets are off, I'll vote that it's ok to have an abortion, even tho the church I go to and THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR ME don't agree.

That is hypocrisy, tw. Or outright lying. (Like that doesn't happen.)

[tw]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Look. If you campaigned as a "devout Catholic" and then all the Catholics voted for you, how can you, in good conscience, (and in the following of your beliefs) vote that it's ok? When you ran for office, everyone knew you were a Catholic! Isn't that why you told everyone? So they would vote for the person who they think would present their side to the government? Isnt' that what an elected official does?

Chruch doctrine says there can be no abortion, no divorse, and no birth control. You are saying a devout (your definition) McGreevey must ban abortion, divorse, and birth control. Yes or no. Its not a complex question. Because he is a devout Catholic, then he must ban abortion, divorse, and birth control?