Jump to content

Excommunication of politicians who support abortion


Recommended Posts

Recently the Pope made a statement which implied support for excommunication of politicians which supported abortion:

when an Italian reporter pressed him on whether he agreed that Catholic legislators who voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City should rightfully be considered excommunicated, he caused a fury that led his spokesman to try to downplay his response.

“Yes,” Benedict replied. “The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the (canon law) code. It is based simply on the principle that the killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going in Communion with the body of Christ. Thus, they (the bishops) didn’t do anything new or anything surprising. Or arbitrary.’’

Pope causes stir on abortion in Brazil

IMV this is an abhorent position for a number of reasons:

1. It clearly violates the principle of separation of church and state. It takes us back several centuries to a time when the church was intimately involved in politics, and theology was the basis for law.

2. Just as it is a well-established right that all human-beings are entitled to "freedom of religion" free from state interference, human beings should be entlted to reciprocal "freedom of politics" from their church. It is just as unjustified for a nation to sanction someone for their religious beliefs as it is for a church to sanction someone for their political actions.

3. The church is not just sanction its members based upon actions against its religious beliefs (ie it is not punishing politicians for commiting abortions), but it is sanctioning its members for actions they would permit others.

4. If politicians were to put religious servitude ahead of their consitituents best-interest it would justifiably give cause to those who would not elect a politician simply because of their participation in a certain religion. IOW, part of being a politician means that the constituents best interest shoudl trump pesonal religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't possibly expect to be a member of a club if you break all the rules, no?

This isn't a threat to seperation of Church and state. This is just the Church cleaning ranks of those that don't share their values. Nothing wrong with that.

A big problem is alot of politicans use their Catholic status for points (Martin comes to mind) while not at all promoting Catholic values. So it's nice to see them being held to account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently the Pope made a statement which implied support for excommunication of politicians which supported abortion:

Good!

Christians who want to enter politics should think twice about the agenda they'd want to support and push for!

If you're going to root for murder, you've shunned the teachings of your belief.

So you're excommunicated. What's the problem then???

Obviously your religion is not that important to you anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note will he be getting rid of child molesting priests as well?

One good way to prevent molestation of children is to do a better screening before accepting anyone into the priesthood. Prevention is the only way to go...and it will be hard, since perverts will try their best to get in, no matter what.

I'm all for PROFILING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church can't get enough priests as it is, if you take child molesters out of the equation they'd really be strapped for employees. Perhaps taking the abstinence thing out would be a better idea. You know, the most basic of animal drives...survival and sex. There really is nothing more to life. Tell someone they're not allowed to have sex, heck... you might as well tell them they're only allowed to eat once a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't possibly expect to be a member of a club if you break all the rules, no?

Actually they are not breaking the "club's rules". Their rules state goven individual actions. The politicians are not being threatned with excommunication for commiting abortions. They are being theatned with excommunication for giving others the freedom to choose for themselves.

This isn't a threat to seperation of Church and state. This is just the Church cleaning ranks of those that don't share their values. Nothing wrong with that.

If a religious institution can dictate to a politician what laws to pass under threat of explusion, you don't think that is a violation of separation of church and state?

If George Bush's church dictate to Bush that he should pull out of Iraq because it was not consistant with Christian values to be killing others, would that be a violation of church and state?

If you are correct, then the only politicians we should elect are those with no religious affiliation and the fact that the have one should make the suspect.

A big problem is alot of politicans use their Catholic status for points (Martin comes to mind) while not at all promoting Catholic values. So it's nice to see them being held to account.

So you are saying that a politician shoudl be forced to choose between his faith and his constitutents? You are saying that he should pass laws imposing his individual belief system on his constitutents? For example, if a politician personally believes that he must "keep holy the Sabbath", then he shoudl pass laws forcing his constituents to do so as well? Am I interpreting what you say correctly?

Personally I didn't see Martin playing up his status as a Catholic for points, so I'm not sure where you've concluded that from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good!

Christians who want to enter politics should think twice about the agenda they'd want to support and push for!

If you're going to root for murder, you've shunned the teachings of your belief.

So you're excommunicated. What's the problem then???

Obviously your religion is not that important to you anyway.

So should we assume that any politician we elect will either be legislating according to his religious beliefs, or will be a hypocrite?

What should a politician to do if his church changes it's stand on an issue? For example, some churches accepted SSM? Is the politician bound to legislate by church law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church can't get enough priests as it is, if you take child molesters out of the equation they'd really be strapped for employees. Perhaps taking the abstinence thing out would be a better idea. You know, the most basic of animal drives...survival and sex. There really is nothing more to life. Tell someone they're not allowed to have sex, heck... you might as well tell them they're only allowed to eat once a month.

It might eliminate those priests who have affairs with women.

But it wouldn't do any good for those who are pedophiles....and those who get turned on by 12 year-old altar boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good!

Christians who want to enter politics should think twice about the agenda they'd want to support and push for!

If you're going to root for murder, you've shunned the teachings of your belief.

So you're excommunicated. What's the problem then???

Obviously your religion is not that important to you anyway.

So should we assume that any politician we elect will either be legislating according to his religious beliefs, or will be a hypocrite?

That's for you - as a voter - to decide.

What should a politician to do if his church changes it's stand on an issue? For example, some churches accepted SSM? Is the politician bound to legislate by church law?

That depends on the individual....and what he really believes about Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's for you - as a voter - to decide.

It think in general voters have already decided, that the are more comfortable that politicians should not pass legislation based upon what their church dictates, and they do not consider politicians hypcocrites if the refuse to impose their church's belief system on others.

That depends on the individual....and what he really believes about Christ.

Well I wasn't speaking about only Christian churches I was speaking about churches in general. If it depends upon what he believes about Christ, then it may be that his belief system conflicts with the churchs dictates. It would seem that you would sanction him being kicked out of the church because of it, however no other member of the church is sanctioned.

If I made a statement that people have the right to make their own personal choice on abortion, should I be kicked out of the Catholic church? Should the rules be any different if I was a politician?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

should get a lot of god botherers out of politics then. On a side note will he be getting rid of child molesting priests as well?

Apparently not. According to doctrine child molesting is not severe enough an offence to kick you out, however, if you let others make their own choices on abortion, then you're booted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I wasn't speaking about only Christian churches I was speaking about churches in general. If it depends upon what he believes about Christ, then it may be that his belief system conflicts with the churchs dictates. It would seem that you would sanction him being kicked out of the church because of it, however no other member of the church is sanctioned.

If I made a statement that people have the right to make their own personal choice on abortion, should I be kicked out of the Catholic church? Should the rules be any different if I was a politician?

My answer to your previous statement is thus:

What should a politician to do if his church changes it's stand on an issue? For example, some churches accepted SSM? Is the politician bound to legislate by church law?

That depends on the individual....and what he really believes about Christ.

If the individual thinks the church is wrong about Christ....then why should he worry at all about being ex-communicated? He has choices to consider. Whether he considers the rule fair or not, or whether he agrees with them or not....makes no difference. If you buck the system, you face the consequence.

Should the rules be different if one were a politician? Given the power he wields in opening the gate and giving the go-ahead for slaughter...and with the knowledge that it is against the teachings of his church, I guess, yes. But then, it is the church who makes the rules. Not I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the individual thinks the church is wrong about Christ....then why should he worry at all about being ex-communicated? He has choices to consider. Whether he considers the rule fair or not, or whether he agrees with them or not....makes no difference. If you buck the system, you face the consequence.

betsy, I'm not really sure what you mean by being "wrong on Christ". If an individual doesn't agree with the church's position on a particular issue, such as birth control, abortion, SSM, etc, does that make them believe the church is "wrong on christ"?

Almost no one I know who is a member of a church accepts every single one of the church's teachings. Some disagree with church's positions on birth control, the ordination of women, etc. They still consider themselves part of the church and the church accepts them as such.

Are you saying that disagreeing with some part of the church's teaching should make you subject to some sanction even excommunication from that church? If that is true, that church is guilty or intollerance far beyond any other institution.

Should the rules be different if one were a politician? Given the power he wields in opening the gate and giving the go-ahead for slaughter...and with the knowledge that it is against the teachings of his church, I guess, yes. But then, it is the church who makes the rules. Not I.

We have certain expectations of institutions including churches. For example if a church encouraged racist behaviour would we be as quick to wash our hands and say that "they make the rules"? The Catholic church is supported by the state to the extent that they are a charitable institution and are partially subsidized by taxpayer dollars. To that extent they wish to continue that benefit they should be accountable to societal norms.

If the church expects that the state should not dictate the church's rules, than the church should not dictate the state's rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the individual thinks the church is wrong about Christ....then why should he worry at all about being ex-communicated? He has choices to consider. Whether he considers the rule fair or not, or whether he agrees with them or not....makes no difference. If you buck the system, you face the consequence.

betsy, I'm not really sure what you mean by being "wrong on Christ". If an individual doesn't agree with the church's position on a particular issue, such as birth control, abortion, SSM, etc, does that make them believe the church is "wrong on christ"?

Almost no one I know who is a member of a church accepts every single one of the church's teachings. Some disagree with church's positions on birth control, the ordination of women, etc. They still consider themselves part of the church and the church accepts them as such.

Are you saying that disagreeing with some part of the church's teaching should make you subject to some sanction even excommunication from that church? If that is true, that church is guilty or intollerance far beyond any other institution.

Should the rules be different if one were a politician? Given the power he wields in opening the gate and giving the go-ahead for slaughter...and with the knowledge that it is against the teachings of his church, I guess, yes. But then, it is the church who makes the rules. Not I.

We have certain expectations of institutions including churches. For example if a church encouraged racist behaviour would we be as quick to wash our hands and say that "they make the rules"? The Catholic church is supported by the state to the extent that they are a charitable institution and are partially subsidized by taxpayer dollars. To that extent they wish to continue that benefit they should be accountable to societal norms.

If the church expects that the state should not dictate the church's rules, than the church should not dictate the state's rules.

Our opinion is immaterial. The rules had already been made. By God.

The ex-communication is the rule of the Catholic church. The ultimate consequence in the Roman Catholic faith of wilfully disobeying the Word of God. If you don't believe that the Word of God matters....or if it even exists....then go your own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our opinion is immaterial. The rules had already been made. By God.

Assuming that God even exists, you equate the church to God and the rules of the church to the rules of Gold. If you look back at the actions of the church, its priests and what its members have done in its name, you will find them very un-Godlike.

The ex-communication is the rule of the Catholic church. The ultimate consequence in the Roman Catholic faith of wilfully disobeying the Word of God. If you don't believe that the Word of God matters....or if it even exists....then go your own way.

Oh I already have, and I couldn't give a damn what the church tells its own membes to do, but I resent it trying to influence legislation which will go beyond its own membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Assuming God exists" is a very big assumption. You say the actions of the church, its priests and members is very un-Godlike, but what does that mean? What is God actually like? Where do we find evidence of God's existence and how do we know what God is like?

I agree there is a distinction between God and religion; however, without God there is no religion and I'd venture to say without religion, there is no God. Let's face it, most people follow the religious label given to them by their parents/community. Since there is no evidence of God, the religions drive belief by labeling children before they can even understand these beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Assuming God exists" is a very big assumption.

You are also assuming that the western idea of god is the correct one. What happens if at the end you are there shouting "All hail the Lord" and the answer is "I Odin accept your veneration". There are lots of religions floating about touting for believers, and many more existed in the past. They cannot ALL be right so there will be a lot of red faces come judgement day...........:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our opinion is immaterial. The rules had already been made. By God.

Assuming that God even exists, you equate the church to God and the rules of the church to the rules of Gold. If you look back at the actions of the church, its priests and what its members have done in its name, you will find them very un-Godlike.

The ex-communication is the rule of the Catholic church. The ultimate consequence in the Roman Catholic faith of wilfully disobeying the Word of God. If you don't believe that the Word of God matters....or if it even exists....then go your own way.

Oh I already have, and I couldn't give a damn what the church tells its own membes to do, but I resent it trying to influence legislation which will go beyond its own membership.

So you find it "un-godlike." As I've said....your opinion is immaterial.

I resent the liberal secularism that uses its power. So what's the difference?

Vote! Vote for an upstanding guy like Chretien.....now there's a "christian" you could be proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't possibly expect to be a member of a club if you break all the rules, no?

If a religious institution can dictate to a politician what laws to pass under threat of explusion, you don't think that is a violation of separation of church and state?

I think most of us presume that a religious person will govern according to his or her conscience, which is certainly part and parcel of their religious beliefs. To suggest an observant Muslim elected to office would NOT oppose abortion, SSM and such is painfully naive. The NDP recruited Maher Arar's wife due to her name value - and quickly found that a woman who wears a burkha was not about to support same sex marriage or gay rights. There is a Mormon running for president in the US. Does anyone seriously think his religious beliefs are irrelevent to how he'll govern? Yes, charalatans like Chretien and Martin, who pretend to be religious but don't care about anything but votes, power and money, simply ignore Church teachings. But anyone who is clearly religious will judge issues with that as a base of judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Assuming God exists" is a very big assumption. You say the actions of the church, its priests and members is very un-Godlike, but what does that mean? What is God actually like? Where do we find evidence of God's existence and how do we know what God is like?

You're right. I used the term un-Godlike without defining what I mean by it. I mean the Christian perception of a maganmous and loving deity.

I agree there is a distinction between God and religion; however, without God there is no religion and I'd venture to say without religion, there is no God.

I disagree with you, at least by my definition of religion. Atheisim, by my definition is also a religion even though there is no god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism cannot be a religion, it's not defined by belief. It's defined by not accepting an appeal to the supernatural. Atheism is different for everyone and quite often atheists will argue with one another over conclusions.

Saying with solid certainty that there is no God is just as good as saying there is a God. There is no way to prove something doesn't exist. It was always thought that swans were white until black ones were discovered. It would've been impossible, before their discovery to say black swans absolutely do not exist. You can however prove their existence by finding them.

We can prove that white swans exist and black swans exist now because we've discovered them. As far as atheism is concerned, most will say that they've come to the conclusion that it makes no sense to believe in or worship God. In the same sense, it makes no sense to believe in Ghosts, sasquatch or the loch ness monster. There is no way of proving with absolute certainty any of these things; however, the lack of evidence to support belief in them and God makes their existence most unlikely.

Considering that religious belief and worship does little or nothing to stop oppression, torture, murder, genocide, molestation, etc. and in fact is often used to further advance these horrific things in our world, humanity has enough reason to say that religion is completely unreasonable and needs to defend itself. When you throw in the fact that most religions indoctrinate children before they're capable of understanding these beliefs, it becomes a question of child abuse and should make a rational person wonder why such harm is allowed to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you find it "un-godlike."

Maybe you have a better adjective to describe the molestation of children, the discrimmination against women, the burning of heritics, the forced conversion of natives and countless other acts which have been comitted by or with the support of the church. If you have a more appropriate adjective please pass it along and I'll happily use it.

As I've said....your opinion is immaterial.

Yes I know, you've said it many times. Maybe you can answer one fundamental question. Do you think there are ANY limits to the rules that a church can set? (For example can a church advocate murder?) If so, who sets those limits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism cannot be a religion, it's not defined by belief. It's defined by not accepting an appeal to the supernatural. Atheism is different for everyone and quite often atheists will argue with one another over conclusions.

I guess it depends upon your definition of religion. As I said, my definition includes any belief system including atheism. If yours does not, so be it.

Saying with solid certainty that there is no God is just as good as saying there is a God. There is no way to prove something doesn't exist. It was always thought that swans were white until black ones were discovered. It would've been impossible, before their discovery to say black swans absolutely do not exist. You can however prove their existence by finding them.

Actually I don't recalling saying with solid certainty that there was no God. Can you show me where I did?

Personally I woud classify myself as agnostic.

Considering that religious belief and worship does little or nothing to stop oppression, torture, murder, genocide, molestation, etc. and in fact is often used to further advance these horrific things in our world, humanity has enough reason to say that religion is completely unreasonable and needs to defend itself. When you throw in the fact that most religions indoctrinate children before they're capable of understanding these beliefs, it becomes a question of child abuse and should make a rational person wonder why such harm is allowed to be done.

What are you saying, that we should ban religions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...