Catholic bishops instruct voters

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

How is this different from rock stars holding concerts like Vote for Change and telling people who they should vote for?

The difference is that the concert promoters and the acts that preform at the concert pay taxes, the church doesn't.

I would say that if any tax exempt organization, Greenpeace or the Roman Catholic Church, uses their podium to sway voters in a certain direction their tax exempt status should be revoked.

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

The difference is that the concert promoters and the acts that preform at the concert pay taxes, the church doesn't.

I would say that if any tax exempt organization, Greenpeace or the Roman Catholic Church, uses their podium to sway voters in a certain direction their tax exempt status should be revoked.

Wasn't Vote for Change put on by a non-profit political group? I didn't think those groups paid taxes.

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Wasn't Vote for Change put on by a non-profit political group? I didn't think those groups paid taxes.

It may have been. Well if it was and the bands where pushing a message to vote a certain way then the proceeds should be taxed and the non-profit should loose it's tax exemption.

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that even non-profit organizations, like Vote for Change, still had to pay taxes. That only charitable organizations, ie Meals on Wheels, Red Cross, Salvation Army, where tax exempt.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

24 posts and not a single sex joke..not bad.

soulsinging

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The article didn't say anything about going to Hell if you vote the wrong way. It just said which issues the church feels is important. Either way it is still using your position to promote the cause you believe in.

you're not catholic are you? this isn't "these political issues are important to us." the catholic church has very specific stances on what is moral in the political arena and violating those morals is a sin.

prism

soulsinging wrote:

you're not catholic are you? this isn't "these political issues are important to us." the catholic church has very specific stances on what is moral in the political arena and violating those morals is a sin.

right. people need to remember that the Catholic Church still to this day will tell people that if they use birth control or get a divorce they are violating those morals and they WILL go to hell for doing it. so why would it be a stretch for people to believe that if they don't vote according to what the Church says that they're a sinner with a one-way ticket to hell?

Derrick

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

24 posts and not a single sex joke..not bad.

I'm surprised they didn't list "age of legal consent for boys to be 8" under the requirements for an approved candidate.

(always happy to help!)

gimmesometruth27

Kel Varnsen wrote:

How is this different from rock stars holding concerts like Vote for Change and telling people who they should vote for?

maybe because there is not a concept of separation of rock and roll and politics....

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Derrick wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't list "age of legal consent for boys to be 8" under the requirements for an approved candidate.

(always happy to help!)

Ahh...much Better lol

gimmesometruth27

from usatoday.com

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-11-14-bishops-meeting_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

BALTIMORE — The nation's Catholic bishops Wednesday approved a statement on the nature of "faithful citizenship" that hammers home the "intrinsic evil" of abortion and reminds Catholic voters that their choices in the 2008 elections "also may affect" their salvation.
Politicians and public officials also are cautioned that their "spiritual well being" is affected by their actions.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrapped up its fall meeting here by nearly unanimously approving a long version of the statement and a shorter, more conversational version to be inserted in parish bulletins.

Both stress life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, artificial contraception and racism are "evils" that can never be supported.


USA TODAY ON POLITICS: Excerpts of the bishops meeting

Yet there's also room for a prudential voter, seeing no candidate in line with Catholic teachings, to weigh other critical moral issues such as poverty, peace, or social justice.

It is "a summary of Catholic teachings; It is not a voter guide," said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, in presenting the results of seven committees input.

It is intended to offer "theological, not ideological" framework on "what it means to be a Catholic and an American, a believer and a voter."

The language sternly reminds Catholic voters, "if they fail to form their consciences they can make erroneous judgments."

The statement says voters can go astray because of "ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of the mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching."

"Nothing new here except the process," said an expert on church politics, the Rev. Thomas Reese, of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

Although the bishops have issued a statement on "faithful citizenship" before every presidential election year since 1976, this is the first time it was presented to the full body of bishops for approval.

Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, S.D., tried but narrowly failed in proposing an amendment that said salvation would be in danger if a voter made "wrong" choices.

He told the bishops in Wednesday's discussion, "if we do not warn our people that choosing intrinsic evils will have an impact on their salvation, then we will truly fail as teachers,"

But DiMarzio questioned, "Are we ready to give the impression that one vote could endanger a person's eternal salvation?" He reiterated that the statement and bulletin insert are "trying to form consciences, not trying to judge them."

The bishops ultimately agreed to softer language: "It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens have an impact on general peace and prosperity and also may affect individual salvation." Still, the statement acknowledges, "in today's environment, Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and few candidates fully share our comprehensive commitment to human life and dignity."

None of the five Catholics currently running for president follow Catholic pro-life teachings. Although this document does not address whether they should receive communion, they are reminded, "the kinds of laws and polcitis supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being." The bishops also say, "Catholics are not single issue voters" and steer people to also examine candidates' stances on human rights such as food, shelter, health care, education and meaningful work, support for traditional marriage, care for the environment and efforts toward peace.

"The use of the death penalty, hunger, lack of health care or housing, human trafficking, the war in Iraq, and unjust immigration policies are some of the serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act," the statement said.

"As bishops, we vigorously repeat our call for a renewed politics that focuses on moral principles, the defense of life, the needs of the weak, and the pursuit of the common good. This thinking of political participation reflects the social teaching of our Church and the best traditions of our nation."


nothing like hanging salvation over the heads of the faithful. to me it sounds like they are trying to manipulate the catholic faithful into voting for a particular type of candidate or they are going to hell.

surferdude

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

nothing like hanging salvation over the heads of the faithful. to me it sounds like they are trying to manipulate the catholic faithful into voting for a particular type of candidate or they are going to hell.

..and Greenpeace tries to guilt and scare you into voting for a particular candidate or type of candidate. Really it's no different.

I don't think the church is making anything up or adding new doctrine by reminding their congregation that they are accountable for their actions including voting. As such your actions should follow your beliefs and morals. Any church that adheres to the bible in any conceivable way would not go anywhere near to saying that the church has the authority to judge and condemn you to hell and I don't think a single church goer believes this either. At worst the church uses scare tactics which is ultimately the exact same tactic used by Greenpeace.

So why do we think it's fine when Greenpeace uses scare tactics on their followers but it's not alright when a church does the same? They both have the same lack of power of damnation.

Ahnimus

Everyone is brainwashed by some ideology or another.

The rest of us, don't vote.

gimmesometruth27

surferdude wrote:

..and Greenpeace tries to guilt and scare you into voting for a particular candidate or type of candidate. Really it's no different.

I don't think the church is making anything up or adding new doctrine by reminding their congregation that they are accountable for their actions including voting. As such your actions should follow your beliefs and morals. Any church that adheres to the bible in any conceivable way would not go anywhere near to saying that the church has the authority to judge and condemn you to hell and I don't think a single church goer believes this either. At worst the church uses scare tactics which is ultimately the exact same tactic used by Greenpeace.

So why do we think it's fine when Greenpeace uses scare tactics on their followers but it's not alright when a church does the same? They both have the same lack of power of damnation.

yes it is very different. there is a separation of church and state. period. the minute the church tries to influence politics and elections by telling their members who to vote for they are infringing on that principle. i have read stories of bishops telling their flock that there are serious consequences and their salvation is at risk if they vote for a candidate or social issue that is not in step with the catholic teachings. that sure as hell sounds like a threat to me.

i have never heard of greenpeace threatening anyone for voting a certain way. i am in the midwest and am 1000 miles away from the nearest ocean so greenpeace's activities have never applied to me. my point is that people should be able to vote their conscience without threats about what will happen to their souls in the afterlife, if there is such a thing.

me, i vote my conscience, if a church or greenpeace or anyone tries to dictate who i vote for, they can all blow me.

surferdude

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

greenpeace or anyone tries to dictate who i vote for, they can all blow me.

So you think Greenpeace and just about every enviro group is out of line for saying there are consequences for our actions. Interesting.

Kel Varnsen

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

maybe because there is not a concept of separation of rock and roll and politics....

Since when does a priest or preacher talking politics violate the concept of the separation of church and state (it is not like the church is government run). From what I know about about US government the Separation of Church and state is based on the first ammendment which should give bishops the right to support anyone they want.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

..and Greenpeace tries to guilt and scare you into voting for a particular candidate or type of candidate. Really it's no different.

I don't think the church is making anything up or adding new doctrine by reminding their congregation that they are accountable for their actions including voting. As such your actions should follow your beliefs and morals. Any church that adheres to the bible in any conceivable way would not go anywhere near to saying that the church has the authority to judge and condemn you to hell and I don't think a single church goer believes this either. At worst the church uses scare tactics which is ultimately the exact same tactic used by Greenpeace.

So why do we think it's fine when Greenpeace uses scare tactics on their followers but it's not alright when a church does the same? They both have the same lack of power of damnation.

it is vastly different from greenpeace. greenpeace might appeal to your emotions and guilt but does not tell you your very soul is at risk any time you vote.

but i do agree that a church raising awareness of church morality is reasonable. i just don't like the idea of saying "you cannot vote for person x becos of y." to me, that is akin coercion or bribery.