The Pope on Politics

[Socrates]

[b]Catholics must be engaged in political debate, says Pope[/b]


Vatican City, Mar. 30, 2006 (CNA) - Speaking earlier today to a group of parliamentarians from Europe’s Popular Party, Pope Benedict affirmed the need for a Catholic voice in the public square that informs consciences and helps citizens act “freely and responsibly.”

The Church has come under heavy fire in recent years--particularly in the U.S.--for engaging in political debate where some say it has no place. Critics charge that many politicians worldwide seek to relegate faith life merely to the private sphere.

Benedict reminded the parliamentarians however, "that when Churches or ecclesial communities intervene in public debate, expressing reservations or recalling various principles, this does not constitute a form of intolerance or interference.”

He said that the Church’s political interventions “are aimed solely at enlightening consciences, enabling them to act freely and responsibly, according to the true demands of justice, even when this should conflict with situations of power and personal interest."

In this light, the Pope said that the main area of the Church's intervention in the public sphere "is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person.” “…She is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable."

[b]Here, he listed a number of principles for which Catholics must continue to fight. Namely, these are: "Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role; and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.”[/b]

While he admitted that "These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith,” he stressed that “they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.”

The Pope explained that “The Church's action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, irrespective of any religious affiliation they may have."

He closed by calling on the politicians "to be credible and consistent witnesses of these basic truths through your political activity, and more fundamentally through your commitment to live authentic and consistent lives."

[emphasis added]

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368[/url]

[Socrates]

I thought it would be a good idea to post this here, because in several debates, people have argued that we Catholics must not "legislate morality," and that we should not support legal efforts which define marriage as between a man and a woman, nor oppose homosexual civil unions, adoptions, etc.

The Pope apparently disagrees with that notion.

[Era Might]

Isn't all legislation a legislation of morality? Or most of it at least. When a politician says, for example, "We need to raise the minimum wage", aren't they making a moral judgment on NOT paying a living wage?

[Paladin]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 30 2006, 06:35 PM']Isn't all legislation a legislation of morality? Or most of it at least. When a politician says, for example, "We need to raise the minimum wage", aren't they making a moral judgment on NOT paying a living wage?
[right][snapback]928781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Very true, and something few secularists are able to admit. If a politician says he wants to help the poor, no one really questions him. But it begs the question: why should we help the poor? Why not let them rot? The only logical and correct answer is that we are morally bound to. Why are we morally bound to? Secularists would mutter something about humanism, but Jesus pointed out pretty clearly that whatever we to the least of His brethren, we do for Him.

A point well taken, I believe.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 30 2006, 07:42 PM']Very true, and something few secularists are able to admit.  If a politician says he wants to help the poor, no one really questions him.  But it begs the question: why should we help the poor?  Why not let them rot?  The only logical and correct answer is that we are morally bound to.  Why are we morally bound to?  Secularists would mutter something about humanism, but Jesus pointed out pretty clearly that whatever we to the least of His brethren, we do for Him.

A point well taken, I believe.
[right][snapback]928911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It would indeed be madness to disagree.

And what is saddening is that not just "secularists," but all too many who consider themselves devout Catholics, seem to buy into this mentality.

And the very issues that the Pope says Catholics are obliged to defend politically are exactly those that politically liberal Catholics tend to insist on voting contrary to Church teaching on.
(Note the recently discussed Democratic "Statement of Principles" in which "Catholic" congressmen preached on the importance of following Catholic "principles," while at the same time defending their pro-abortion voting with "primacy of conscience" bs.)

[Era Might]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 30 2006, 09:42 PM']Very true, and something few secularists are able to admit.  If a politician says he wants to help the poor, no one really questions him.  But it begs the question: why should we help the poor?  Why not let them rot?  The only logical and correct answer is that we are morally bound to.  Why are we morally bound to?  Secularists would mutter something about humanism, but Jesus pointed out pretty clearly that whatever we to the least of His brethren, we do for Him.

A point well taken, I believe.
[right][snapback]928911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly. I love the beginning of "Mere Christianity" where Lewis talks about natural law:

[quote]Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard."[/quote]

He sums it all up when he says that "feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not". Why? Because there is an objective standard written on the human heart, and it convicts us when we don't live up to it.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 30 2006, 05:35 PM']Isn't all legislation a legislation of morality? [/quote]Idealy yes!

[Theoketos]

Hey get your rosaries off my um er ovaries?

[Paladin]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Mar 30 2006, 10:46 PM']Hey get your rosaries off my um er ovaries?

[right][snapback]929153[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We heard that one up in Toronto praying in front of abortion mills during WYD. It's funny. As chantable and rhyming as that may be, it's basically saying "Don't pray for me!" Could anything be more paranoid or sad?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 30 2006, 11:12 PM']We heard that one up in Toronto praying in front of abortion mills during WYD.  It's funny.  As chantable and rhyming as that may be, it's basically saying "Don't pray for me!"  Could anything be more paranoid or sad?
[right][snapback]929340[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I once read somewhere, from a very unhappy man, that praying for someone else when it was not wanted was like somone blowing smoke in your face.

[dairygirl4u2c]

This thread needs an antagonist. I have a feeling if I were to be it, there'd be too many people responding and it'd get no where. I'd like to argue why, if one is not Catholic anyway, it is not necessarily philosophically irrational to vote against something you personally believe to be wrong etc. This should be qualifeid: Of course, as mentioned, in voting this way, it is a moral action and are voting against something you believe to be right. I'm speaking of the morality involved in deciding to allow for other ways of life, not the morality involved in the specific action per se. I mention this only because those posts above are keen on saying all legislation is morality legislation, which is true, but they are missing the point of why people say not to legislate morality. If anyone wants more clarification on the my view, or the liberal view if you wish, start a thread or declare yourself the only person who will debate. I'd choose Soc or Pap. Soc because his irrationally quick responses would ensure my victory, but his irratinoally quick responses would never allow him to realize it. And no one else would admit anything at the end; they'd just think I don't know, I'll just do what the Church says. Pap at least would get us somewhere with his rational and insightful responses. For that reason I'd pick Pap, but leave it open for Soc or anyone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 31 2006, 12:18 AM'] Soc because his irrationally quick responses would ensure my victory, but his irratinoally quick responses would never allow him to realize it.
[/quote]

[Socrates]

This article is actually posted primarily for the benefit of those Catholics who claim the law should not favor marriage between a man and woman over "gay unions" and the like. (See the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=41723&st=300"]"Homosexual Marriage"[/url] thread.)

Of course non-Catholics (and especially anti-Catholics) will not likely care much what the Pope has to say about this topic.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 31 2006, 02:18 AM']I'd like to argue why, if one is not Catholic anyway, it is not necessarily philosophically irrational to vote against something you personally believe to be wrong etc.
[/quote]
some "personal beliefs" are better than others.

[quote] This should be qualifeid: Of course, as mentioned, in voting this way, it is a moral action and are voting against something you believe to be right.  I'm speaking of the morality involved in deciding to allow for other ways of life, not the morality involved in the specific action per se.
[/quote]
Why would someone vote to legislate something they think is wrong? That makes no sense. If I truly believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent child, why would it make any sense for me to vote for a law that allows it? That's preposterous. Some would say it goes against the ideals of democracy to vote according to one's morals, but living in a democracy doesn't necessarily mean getting to do everything you want.
[quote]I mention this only because those posts above are keen on saying all legislation is morality legislation, which is true, but they are missing the point of why people say not to legislate morality.
[/quote]
Well, take the abortion issue I just mentioned. There are people out there who claim to believe that abortion is morally wrong. However, they also claim that they "would not want to infringe on someone else's choice" or "force their beliefs on others." However, that itself is a moral judgment, because they are implying that it is not moral to suggest that someone's personal beliefs are better than another's.
[quote]If anyone wants more clarification on the my view, or the liberal view if you wish, start a thread or declare yourself the only person who will debate.
[right][snapback]929451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Why do you think Socrates put this thread in the debate table? So that we could talk about coagulated milk, or pork-based eggs? Obviously this thread is open for anyone to debate this topic.

[Socrates]

Because of its relevence to certain current topics of debate, I thought I'd bump this old thread . . .