Pope orders NJ laws to Conform to his Decrees

[tw]

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:

from NewsDay of 10 Apr 2004 Bishop raps governor on church issues

The bishop said it "gives him great annoyance" when Catholic politicians don't adhere to Catholic teachings and he specifically targeted McGreevey.

"When he refers to himself as a devout Catholic and supports legislation and programs that are contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father and the bishops, he is not a devout Catholic," Smith said. "He cannot compromise what it means to be a Catholic. I speak, as your bishop, for the devout Catholics of the Diocese of Trenton. Jim McGreevey does not."

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?

[wolf]

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.)

[Slartibartfast]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
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.'

snip

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.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Or he doesn't believe that his religious convictions should be foisted upon non-Catholics.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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

[Slartibartfast]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[richlevy]

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:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

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.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
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.

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.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by richlevy
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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[wolf]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
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.

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.