Pope orders NJ laws to Conform to his Decrees
 

No Pope has ever done this. But the current Pope orders Catholics to enforce church doctrine in secular governments at the expense of American liberties. Kudos to the Governor of New Jersey who has choosen to work for people rather than the church: The Bishop of Trenton is doing exactly what the Pope has ordered. This being the same church as to promote hate against gays. Only Satanic institutions promote hate - according to Church doctrine. Which should McGreevey do? Support satanic hate of the Catholic Church - or promote the principles of America?

Is it satantic hate to hate the works of satan, which in the eyes of the catholic church defines pretty much anything that isn't okey-dokeyed via church doctrine?

Your argument doesn't hold holy water, tw.

(Of course, neither do I. It hurts.)

McGreevey claims to be a devout Catholic, yet he undermines the church's teachings.

The article says 'He also supports abortion rights, stem cell research, domestic partnerships and the death penalty, all of which go against Catholic church teachings and edicts.'

The reason why he politically supports those points, one is led to believe in the article, is because his constituency demands this of him. If he was to personally agree with those points, then it should be obvious he can't call himself a 'devout' Catholic.

But why then isn't McGreevey complaining or voicing his dissatisfaction when he is 'forced' to sign in something that he personally does not believe in? To work for something that is against a personal belief without even trying to express objection just is just plain wrong. Judges follow a set of rules (the law), and they sometimes complain when it obligates them to do something they personally object to. So do police, teachers, soldiers, or anyone else that is obligated to follow an external set of rules. Sometimes, these people find themselves obligated by their job to do something so against their personal beliefs that they resign rather than compromise what they believe. What would it take to make McGreevey resign in defiance of what his constituance want of him? It seems nothing would do this, because he is capable of supporting things that are henious to his self-professed devoted faith, and he doesn't bat an eye.

So McGreevey can't be devout in one of two ways. Either he doesn't personally follow certain church teachings, or, he does personally believes those teachings, but doesn't complain one bit when his constituants obligate him to work against those so called deeply held beliefs.

Lapsed would be a better adjective for him to use. Maybe he should find or create a religion he can better believe in.

Or he doesn't believe that his religious convictions should be foisted upon non-Catholics.

He's not undermining the church's teachings. He's not forcing any RC's to do anything. As Happy Monkey said he's just not forcing the church doctrines on the rest of the population.

What McGreevey is in effect saying with three of these issues (abortion, stem cell, and euthanasia) is 'I consider myself a devout Catholic, and this implicitly means I believe the church teaching that these are all murder, yet I'm not going to raise my voice when my constituents make me take actions that favor these issues.'

When Kennedy was campaigning for president, he said "But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

Is McGreevey violiating his own conscience? He doesn't seem troubled at all with his actions. Maybe McGreevey actually believes abortion is acceptable. If this is the case, then he shouldn't be claiming to be a devout follower of a religion that teaches otherwise.

Well, pleased to meet you. I never met an RC that believed 100% of the popes preachings before. Invariably, it's the pope says, but I.....
I guess it's your definition devout.

It'll be interesting to see if these same tactics are made against the death penalty.

The thing is, I don't buy 100% into the rc church's teachings, but I don't call my self a devout follower of the church

So it's still a matter of the definition of devout. Evidently he feels that the definition doesn't require him to impose his beliefs on non catholics.

This is reinforcing the arguments made when Kennedy was running for President, that devout Catholics, contrary to the principles of the Constitution, have a loyalty to a 'foreign prince', which might conflict with their loyalties to the United States.

The citizenship oath states:

Native-born US citizens do not have to take the citizenship oath, but the principles are assumed. The oaths of office throughout the US never included this line because noone ever factored in the Vatican.

We have a seperation of church and state for a reason. Our government is supposed to be self-correcting, in that everyone gets the government that a majority of its citizens deserved because thats who voted in the &*(*&^*& idiots running the place.

Right now, thanks to 9/11, we are running backwards to the 1950's, an age of public values and private hypocrisy. Even in this environment, any politician running as '%100 pope-approved' will find himself in the unemployment line. This is partly due to the fact that many of the religious conservatives in this country are Protestant, who do not want to see the Vatican setting US policy.

Is a person arguing in favor of their personal beliefs the same as the act of imposing them? A governor has to follow what his constituents demand of him, but it is impossible for the governor and the majority to agree on absolutely everything. Those situations where there is disagreement is where the governor should swollow his bile and back his constituents. But those situations are also the times when an governor that is honest with his beliefs would voice the fact that the stance is not in line with his personal beliefs. If he believe in the issue strongly enough, he should in some legal way attempt to swing public opinion towards what he believes, be this through debate, through joining and supporting specific organizations, through speaches, article, letter writing, any legal way.

Church and State should be seperate, but there is a narrow lane religious politicians must tread. If they believe in a certain religion, then they are going to have certain religious views and also some moral views. The religious views can't ever become part of the state, but the moral views can and do become law. I can name a few moral views that have laws- why is drinking legal and pot is not, why is poligamy or bestiality not legal, why is so much violence allowed legally on televison but a boob is not? Moral views are held by everyone, religious or otherwise. In general, morals views should never be imposed on others, but is that always the case? Allowing the death penalty when some people disagree with it means that that view is being imposed on those people and the government is killing in the name of the whole country or state, why then would this be allowed?

Politicians have a great deal of influence, they should never use it against the wishes of their constituents, but they do have the right to voice and defend their moral views. Those that profess a religion might find themselves obligated by its tenants to defend by all means possible(morally and legally acceptable means that is) certain moral views. The bishops and the Pope are calling the Catholic politicians on not defending their moral views to the extent that they could. By not doing so, they are being bad Catholics, or at least less than perfect Catholics. You say they should not impose their religious views on others. They shouldn't, but if their religion obligates them to explain, defend, proselytize, and support a set of moral views, then if they want to follow their religion then they should- as long as it is within legal means. If they don't, they shouldn't consider themselves followers in good standing of that religion.

Loyalty to the Pope as a religious leader is different from loyalty to a 'foreign prince' of another country. The Pope's master plan is up front and not concealed. Don't expect spies from the Vatican trying to steal nuclear secrets or top secret information.

I am far more concerned with presidents that are more loyal to oil and big business than to the people.

Kennedy made it abundantly clear how with him there would be no conflict of loyalties. If Kerry is elected, I doubt there would be much problem because it doesn't look like he is listening to the Pope anyway.

So your telling me your not a good RC unless you try to sway others to the popes edicts. You have to preach what you practice.
I don't think the politicians should be moralizing at all, therefore I would have to vote against anyone who calls themselves a devout anything. Sure cuts the field down.:(

Actually, it isn't different. The Vatican City is a sovreign nation ... a governmental entity all it's own, despite being surrounded by the city of Rome. They have 2000 years of power structure sitting in there. And quiet manipulation of the populace and governments under their belts, uh ... sashes.

The spies from the Vatican are out there grabbing scarier shit than the nuclear secrets. Don't ever forget that the Catholic Church is a medieval organization that survived into modern times. And they're real, where the Illuminati may not be ...

And they've never revealed the third and final prophecy of Fatima, either.

Any group has a right to define its own membership, particularly where membership in the group has certain essential tenets, a sine qua non of personal belief.

The Catholic Church is defined by certain beliefs, one of which is that the edicts of the Pope, when confirmed by the College of Cardinals, are the words of God. You may, and I do, disagree with the pronouncements of the Pope, but you may not do so and call yourself a Catholic. You have violated one of the essential, defining tenets.

It would be like joining the NAACP, and saying, “I want to be a member of your group, but I’m not really in favor of any of that civil rights crap. We should go back to separate drinking fountains and the 3/5 compromise.” In what sense am I a member of the group? I’m opposed to their defining purpose.

Kerry may consider himself a member of the Catholic Church, but his personal beliefs are contrary to those of the group that he professes to belong to. In what sense is he then a member? Why not just call a spade a spade and renounce his membership?

-sm

QUOTE]Originally posted by wolf


Actually, it isn't different. The Vatican City is a sovreign nation
[/quote]

And as american citizens, Catholics here are not allied with Vatican City or its leader in any political way whatsoever. The Pope wears two hats, the political and the religious. If the Pope ordered all Catholics in the world to form an army and invade Belgium, its not going to work at all because his word as a religious leader is listened to by Catholics when what he says has to do with religion and nothing else. The same as if he orders all Catholics to root for the Steelers, he can again be ignored because it has nothing to do with religion. He has no say over any of that. Maybe this kind of thing happened back in the Middle Ages, but it is long over.

I guess we should never have a Jewish president because he would be influenced by Israel. Some Buddhists are out because they follow the Dalai Lama, an exiled leader of Tibet. Don't Anglicans believe the King or Queen of England is the head of their church? That would be one more group. And then Catholics too of course.

It seems to me you have to look at the candidates very carefully and see where their loyalties really are. Just looking at their religion won't give you the answer to the question of whether or not they will be loyal exclusively to the people of the United States. If done right, a religious candidate can be true to their religion and yet still maintain American loyalty and representation of the people. I don't think this is easy, but it is possible. I wish I could point one out, but I am sure they exist at lower levels of government office. Kennedy might be an example of a president who falls into this category, but I don't know enough about his term in office to say this with certainty.

____
The spies from the Vatican are out there grabbing scarier shit than the nuclear secrets.
_____

and what might that be?


______
And they've never revealed the third and final prophecy of Fatima, either.
----------

If disseminating that information was significant to saving the souls of people, then they would have released it, or else the church would be going against its own basic stated purpose.

Any American politician that does not ban divorse is a hypocrite? In reality, many Catholics are saying the Pope is fallable - he is wrong - and that little people in the church are better Catholics than the Pope. IOW they say that little people represent the true Catholic Church - not some dictator called the Pope. After all, where in a relationship between a man and a god is the Pope?

These little people say their religious beliefs remains only between themselves and their god. Pope's job is only to facilitate that relationship; a consultant. Once the Pope oversteps those bounds - goes beyond an advisory position- then the Pope is wrong. The Pope is nothing more than a support function; to help good Catholics with their 'god relations'. Solution - let the Catholics elect the Pope either by electing their bishops or by direct elections. Or the Pope should just bite his tongue, stay silent, and therefore become a responsible world citizen.

Bottom line: according to the logic of OnyxCougar, then no Catholic can be permitted to hold an American political office. Catholics that hold political office would suffer a severe conflict of interest between two masters - the American people they work for verses a dictator in Vatican City. If OnyxCougar were correct, then no 'devote' Catholic could take the oath of office - without lying. According to OnyxCougar, all good Catholics could not uphold the Constituion of the United States.

Pope has no business interfering in "what is Ceasar's ...". When this Pope even violates that basic Biblical parable, then will god strike down the Pope? Of course not. Even god is smart enough to let others do as they wish. Even god is not so stupid as to interfere with the operations of a secular government - even the government in Vatican City.

Pope apparently is demented by a personal agenda; which happens when a man is in power for too long.

Re: Pope orders NJ laws to Conform to his Decrees
 

well clearly that's not so. even a cursory reading of church history shows that this is standard practice, with both secular and "Holy Empire" governments.

-sm

TW, dude, that's just not how the Roman Catholic Church works by its definition. It is not a democracy. If the people want the kind of change you are saying, they are going to have to jump ship and make their own religion. If they disagree so much then they are in the wrong place.

Re: Pope orders NJ laws to Conform to his Decrees
 

Please cite an example of when "Pope orders Catholics to enforce church doctrine in secular governments at the expense of American liberties." When did the Pope interfere in American secular government activities. Not any other nation. American. Please post specific examples.

Dude. Read the entire post before replying. Don't sample individual sentences and draw conclusions. If Pope has some secular governmental control of people in other nations, then Pope better damn well be democratically elected. Where, pray tell, did I even say the Pope IS democratically elected?

Please go back and first understand the context of that post. At no time did I say the Pope is democratically elected - stated or implied. Stated is that if THIS Pope wants to change the purpose and definition of the Church, then he better damn well be democratically elected.

It was until about 100 years ago when Pius12th IIRC, before he was pope, started writing cannon law. That's when the power of the church was moved from the people to the pope.

um... tw Dude :) I think you might have misunderstood his point. please continue.

You spent half your post leading up to saying that the laity of the church should elect bishops and the Pope as a solution to their discontent. I'm just pointing out that that's not going to happen because the church is not a democracy. Did I read you wrong or did you read me wrong?

Edit: added phrase 'and the Pope'

Or how about "recovering"? :p

The point was that the church is violating what previous Popes would not have done - try to manipulate the government of the United States. Read the original post and read that newspaper article from NewsDay to appreciate the context of this discussion.

If the church wants to pervert American principles, then we should advocate a democratic election of the Pope with the intent of making that Pope subservient to the American people - the largest source of Church wealth.
Making the Pope democractically elected was how to attack an institution that would pervert the Constitution of the United States. Yes, this Pope is attacking fundamental principles on which the Government of the United States is founded. We are not a Catholic nation. Church doctrine has no place in American laws. To subvert that enemy of America, we should force that Pope to campaign for office - either conform to democracy and American principles; or get out of American's lives where he does not belong.

I consider a Pope trying to enforce his religious concepts on me as a direct attack to my American liberties. This Pope has instructed his ambassadors to attack our political leaders - include NJ governor McGreevey. Other attacks on American politicians by church bishops and Cardinals were also listed in that article.

Nothing would more threaten a dictatorship such as Vatican City then to have its leaders democratically elected. Vatican City and especially this pope fears democracy. But then such fears exist when top management has been it power too long. The pope should have resigned maybe 10 years ago.

Some people just can't pull off a "dude".

Are you referring to Vatican I in 1869 under Pius IX? To my knowledge, the Pope was always considered the head of the RCC. Please try to find me the reference you are quoting.

Below are some quotes that support the idea that the Pope is in charge, starting with Peter the Apostle.


St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 131," 4th century A.D.)
"Rome has spoken. The case is closed."



Matthew chapter 16: (18)And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.



And please bear with the wordiness of the quote below, I have tried to figure out a way to shorten it, but I finally decided it is better left whole. The last line addresses your point.

St. Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Contra Gentiles" 13th century A.D.)-

"Hence He said to Peter before His Ascension, 'Feed my sheep' (John xxi, 1) and before His Passion, 'Thou in thy turn confirm thy brethren' (Luke xxii, 32); and to him alone He made the promise, 'To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. xvi, 19). Nor can it be said that although He gave this dignity to Peter, it does not pass from Peter to others. For Christ instituted His Church to last to the end of the world, according to the text: 'He shall sit upon the throne of David and in his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in justice and judgement from henceforth, now, and for ever' (Isai. ix, 7). Therefore, in constituting His ministers for the time, He intended their power to pass to posterity for the benefit of His Church to the end of the world, as He Himself says: 'Lo, I am with you to the end of the world' (Matt. xxviii, 20). Hereby is cast out the presumptuous error of some, who endeavour to withdraw themselves from obedience and subjection to Peter, not recognising his successor, the Roman Pontiff, for the pastor of the Universal Church." -

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?