Catholic Church Issues Spiritual Guidelines For Voters
The country's Catholic bishops have approved a document entitled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," essentially a guide on how Catholics can maintain their faith in the context of voting in the upcoming election. The guidelines do give Catholics an escape clause if they want to vote for a pro-choice candidate, saying that it must be despite that position and because of "other morally grave reasons."
Another cardinal, Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, is not being so flexible. Saying that the Democratic Party is "extremely insensitive" to the church's positions, he's openly criticizing the support that many Catholics give to Democratic candidates: "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."















Personally, I'm an atheist so I don't have a dog in this fight.
But the Catholic Church is against abortion, capital punishment, and the war in Iraq.
Why do the leaders of the Catholic Church only care about a candidate's stand on abortion?
And, if any Catholic wants to help me understand THIS insanity:
Why in the world would any Catholic listen to any bishop anyway, when the bishops in the Catholic church were involved in the rape of Catholic children?
November 15, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Churches should stay out of politics PERIOD. I am a practicing catholic and I used to support the church because it was consistent at least on being anti-death penalty, help the poor and anti-abortion.
However, the catholic church has become blind to all other issues, other than abortion, and the only potential explanation is politics. It saw the alleged political power of the wacko christian fundamentalists and wants to get that same type of alleged political power. So, it is abandoning all of its principles for politics.
Clearly the democratic platform is far more in line with any legitimate religion than the republican platform. If you take abortion out of the equasion, how is the republican party platform in tune with any legitimate religion??? Kill adults, no health care, screw the poor, screw minorities, screw helping people, etc. How is that possibly a pro-religious platform?
November 15, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
By some remarkable coincidence, I happen to think that the Catholic church can sometimes be "extremely insensitive" to the positions of thinking people in general. So perhaps the excellent Bishop O'Malley and I are even on that one.
November 15, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first three post are great. How often do we go 3 for 3?
November 15, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this actually legal? I don't think it is. It shouldn't be. Churches making political recommendations should lose their tax-exempt status, period.
November 15, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, voting for a Democrat borders on scandal, while a priest molesting boys and a cardinal covering it up, what does that border on? Divine?
November 15, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree shohannah, that's why all those crooks professing to be "christians" that are running all over the white house and rallying the republican base should lose their tax exempt status. They aren't legitimate religions anyway.
By the way, the IRS tried to take away the tax exempt status of a church in LA because the pastor spoke out against the iraq war from the pulpit. But all this other political garbage is allowed with a wink and a nod. Kind of outrageous.
November 15, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Religions can, and probably should, take political positions. That was one of the driving forces behind the Civil Rights Movement. Under our political system thry can do so as long as they restrict their activity to advocating positions not politicians. When the religions become political advocacy groups they should lose their tax exemption. Anything else is unfair.
If you form a political party you have to pay taxes. If a church acts as a political party distributing voter guides and the like with a slanted set of questions it doesn't? This is a form of establishing religion -- giving it a
preferred place in society.
The churches already have a built in advantage anyway. Their congregants atttend weekly for other reasons and are captive audiences for their leader's political views.
It can, however, backfire. The Wichita preachers who preached anti-abortion 24/7 for 365 days of the year lost their pulpits.
The death of a fertilized egg which is what happens to over 50% of fertilized eggs naturally anyway is not worth any harm whatsoever to an existing human and family.
The biggest moral failing of Rome is not so much the personal failings involved in the rape of the children but rather the millions of deaths caused by their opposition to birth control. This lead to their rejection of condoms both for prevention of unwanted pregnancies and prevention of AIDS.
November 15, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sort of "edict" to the faithful is precisely the sort of thing that Protestants traditionally stoked the fires of anti-Catholicism with and chuch leaders should put the brakes on such foolishness for the sake of the polity as well as the church itself. For decades, Protestants feared and reviled the possibility of Cardinals or Popes dictating to their followers how they should vote as well as dictating policies that elected Catholic officials would pursue. The bigotry against Catholics and the fears of Protestants about it was a major obstacle for JFK. It is tragic that the church hierarchy should begin acting in precisely those ways in such a reactionary and frankly, shortsighted manner. What is wrong with all of those old men anyway? And how do they presume to guide their people on moral issues when their house is still not in order regarding the whole child abuse issue? It's a very sad statement about both how ossified and myopic the Catholic Church hierarchy has become as well as how our politics have degenerated in recent years.
November 15, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The guidelines do give Catholics an escape clause if they want to vote for a pro-choice candidate, saying that it must be despite that position and because of "other morally grave reasons."
Is this the reason behind not holding pedophile priests resposible? In other words...sure raping children is wrong...but if people new about it, then they would be less inclined to go to our church...then they would be damned to hell...isn't that worse than a little raping?
November 15, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
To quote the Monty Python boys:
"Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irrate. . ."
The scandal here is 'the church' commenting on the political. While it is not illegal, it is low-rent.
November 15, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boston and Massachusetts Catholic voters are clearly sophisticated enough to separate their religious views and their political views. Cardinal O'Malley has already lost that battle.
I found this interesting:
"O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers."
November 15, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, some of the preoccupation with the lightweight Catholic hierarchy is a form of anti-Catholicism. Ever notice the disproportionate influence of Baptists in the US? Ever consider how minor American-style Christianity is among Christians worldwide? Are we pretending that American Protestant denominations don't engage in the same behavior?
That said, it is obvious that the Catholic hierarchy is mainly concerned about power. Unfortunately for them, they have taken to imitating the Spanish Catholic Church, which is down to something like seven percent attendance. What has been the Pope's response to the historical failures of the church in Spain and its craven behavior before the powerful? Canonize some dubious people.
November 15, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera defended the party, which he called "a big tent party," and he pointed out that there are 104 Catholic Democrats currently serving in Congress, including two who are vocal opponents of abortion rights, Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania and Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio."
O'Malley made his comments in an interview just after the US Conference of Catholic Bishops voted overwhelmingly to approve its quadrennial statement offering guidance for Catholic voters, declaring abortion, cloning, and embryonic research to be "intrinsically evil" and warning that support for such acts could endanger a Catholic voter's salvation. The bishops have issued similar documents prior to each presidential election since 1976, but this year decided to place a special emphasis on the importance of opposition to abortion because of concern among some bishops that the issue might get lost in the flurry of statements by the bishops on other topics such as poverty and the environment.
"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many," the bishops declared in the document, called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."
November 15, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Damien (great name for a Democratic Party spokeshole BTW) LaVera forgot about Bob Casey being denied a speech at the convention because he was pro-life -- some "big tent party" you guys got there -- 2 vocal pro-lifers. The GOP, on the other hand, may NOMINATE a pro-choicer in 2008.
November 15, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"First you get down on your knees,
fiddle with your rosaries,
bow your head with great respect,
and...
Genuflect! Genuflect! Genuflect!"
November 15, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bishops will never know how many of their official followers are simply ignoring these edicts.
November 15, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
God Knows.
November 15, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Catholic Church has a history of torture and extermination. It has been a party to genocide. More recently, it has been implicated in the cover-up of child abuse on a shocking scale. The Catholic Church encourages the spread of AIDs and increasing overpopulation by spreading anti-contraceptive dogma. The Catholic Church is obsessed with the moral status of zygotes, but has been relatively silent on matters of war and environmental destruction that cause great suffering to innocents that are developed beyond a few dozen cells.
Despite all of this, many deeply empathetic individuals have been very devout Catholics and have served the poorest and most downtrodden of the world. That cannot be denied. However admirable these individuals are, they are used as tools by the dogmatists rulers of Catholicism, such as Grand Inquisitor Ratzinger, to invoke a moral authority that they simply and plainly lack.
November 15, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake D
Don't hold your brath waiting for the Juliani nomination. Once the voters start paying attention they will notice that he is mentaly unstable, and less honest than Nixon. Even GOP primary voters are not stupid enough to nominate him. He would fare even worse than Sen Clinton in the media spotlight of the general election. If y'all are stupid enough to nominate him the maps will be solid blue during election '08 coverage on your favorite network.
November 15, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink