Should clerics interfere in politics?

No.

Well now, it all depends on what you mean by 'interfering'. It seems to me that anyone has a perfect right to express a view about political matters.

I have never heard of this cleric, but if has said this, I happen to think he is a plonker.

However, when clerics marched and spoke out against the Iraq War I happen to think they were right.

It doesn't seem tolerant to me to say that members of any group or institution should not declare their view.

Everyone is free to agree or disagree.

A catholic Cardinal and a Mormon millionaire make curious bedfellows.

The Rt Rev Michael Azir-Ali has stated that the "human rights agenda" is becoming totalitarian and is suppressing Christianity by preventing its public manifestations. He compares this so-called agenda to the atheist communist regimes of Eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin wall. ECHU judges are to rule on a case brought by a nurse and a BA check-in clerk who were not allowed to wear a cross at work and a registrar and a relationship councillor who were not allowed to opt out of professional tasks that went against their beliefs concerning homosexuality. In a statement to the judges the bishop claims that "increasingly aggressive secularism" means that Christians are being "vanquished" in the courts as part of a deliberate plan to drive their faith out of public life.

This example and the OP example suggest to me that secularism isn't half aggressive enough.

I don't think the Church should come down in favour of either candidate. They can say what they think is right or wrong but to endorse one will make some members of that Church feel they should vote that way.

Again it's a case of the Catholic Church interfering in secular life. The Cardinal seems to be missing the other things that Obama is bringing in like medical care. But as normal the Church is more bothered about it's traditions and rules than caring for the poor and sick.

(Please remember I am RC just not an RC apologist).

Don't know where I stand on this one.

Obviously everyone has a right to state their views. That some views should be given more credence because of a persons position is a harder question to answer. There are people whose views we may well respect because of that position, especially if they have shown themselves to be well informed or bring a wealth of experience to the issue. There are others who are simply 'plonkers' as Mice so eloquently put it!

Yet, I always feel sorry for Prince Charles when he speaks out over and issue he feels strongly about, and he is told he should keep his opinions to himself because of his position.

Nanadogsbody You may not feel quite so sorry for Prince Charles when the Government publishes the data about which potential laws he and the Queen were consulted about and, possibly, changed before they were voted on by Parliament.

Sound interesting * absent* ... when are they due to be published?

Nanadogsbody Supposedly the Cabinet Office must publish them – it didn't want to but the Information Commissioner has ruled that it should – within the next few weeks. It appears that both the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall have what is in effect a legislative veto.

I have done a quick google of Cardinal Thomas Dolan, and it seems that although it is usual in the US for clerics to become involved in political conventions and so forth, the wisdom of this is not universally accepted in the American media.

I think we should remember that this is American politics and they do things very differently over there.
Who are we to criticise them, when we have an unelected head of state?

Fascinating - didn't know that absent. Thought they were only head of state in name only, makes janeains point quite relevant.,

I have to admit that Pope Pius XII stayed remarkably out of politics during the war. He will probably be canonised eventually.

With the present Pope's enthusiasm for creating new saints left, right and centre, it's more likely to be sooner rather than later, unless someone takes his beatification stick away from him.

I googled ' Plebiscite of 1938 - the church's advice to Austrians'. I found this:

Solemn Declaration " We, the Bishops of Austria, declare of our own free will, and in conformity with our deepest convictions that which follows: We are glad to recognise that in the domain of racial and economic reconstruction, and also in that of social policy. the National-Socialist movement has accomplished marvels for the people and the German Reich, and notably for the very poor. We are equally convinced that the National-Socialist movement has warded off the (Wager of destructive and atheistic Bolshevism

They went on to advise the Austrians to vote for the German's proposals.

Why can't the non-catholic employees buy their own contraceptives?

Sorry. Haven't actually got a clue.

Follow that......

Or that?

Meanwhile Archbishop Desmond Tutu says that Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. Oh dear, what is the world coming to?

MiceElf - that should be a thread on its own. Its too big to be absorbed into this one.

You going to start it?

<Why can't the non-catholic employees buy their own contraceptives?>

With you on that one, JO4

I know it's nothing much to do with this thread, except possibly micelfs question but my 5-year old grandson was discussing his brother who is just starting to talk. "oh dear" he said "soon he's going to be asking me questions, like what's life all about?"

Your point is a good one VQ, but the I do think that in a church which numbers 1.18 billion, the range of opinions and views within that church are huge. It is such a pity that some members of the hierarchy appear in the media to represent the views of 'the church' when clearly they only speak for some. And a small some at that.

I hope this explains the issues:

Obama Defends Freedom of Religion: Be Not Afraid of Mitt Romney

By George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling On August 11, 2012
....

Do you believe in freedom of religion? President Obama does, and he is defending Americans’ freedom of religion against Mitt Romney and Fox News in the administration of his health care bill.

The president allows each woman to decide for herself whether or not to ask her insurance company to cover contraception. If this violates a woman’s religious principles, she would never ask. A woman would make such a request only if contraception fit her principles. In short, the President has guaranteed that each woman can act according to her religious principles. He has made a strong defense of freedom of religion.

In difficult cases, he has extended freedom of religion even further, beyond people to churches and houses of worship. Insurance companies are required to cover contraception with no co-pays for the women whose health care they are covering. This guarantees freedom of religion for the women covered, and does not affect insurance companies, which are neither people nor religious institutions.

What about hospitals, charities with a religious affiliation, and religious employers who have a moral objection to contraception? Women getting health care paid through these institutions will be able to obtain contraception from the insurance companies, not the religious institutions. Thus the president has found a way to extend freedom of religion not only to all women, but even beyond people to churches and religious employers.

This makes President Obama a remarkable champion of freedom of religion in contemporary American history.

Moreover, President Obama is very much in touch with the values of Americans. A recent Gallup Poll has shown that, in the US, 82 per cent of Catholics think that birth control is “morally acceptable.” 90 per cent of non-Catholics believe the same. Overall, 89 per cent of Americans agree on this. In the May 2012 poll, Gallup tested beliefs about the moral acceptability of 18 issues total, including divorce, gambling, stem cell research, the death penalty, gay relationships, and so on. Contraception had by far the greatest approval rating. Divorce, the next on the list, had only 67 per cent approval compared to 89 per cent for contraception.

Mitt Romney and Fox News, on the other hand, are proposing a huge backward step on freedom of religion. Romney has said he would support a bill that would allow employers and insurers to deny their female employees insurance coverage for birth control and other health services, based on the religious beliefs of the employers and insurers. As far as employers are concerned, this fits with President Obama’s policy. But the extension to insurance companies violates the freedom of religion that the President guaranteed to women.

In addition, Romney has said he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood, an organization that allows women freedom of religion by supplying contraception if they choose to ask for it. This would be another major blow to freedom of religion.

Incidentally, Romney’s ad, which falsely accuses the president of what Romney himself is advocating, namely denial of religious freedom, is entitled “Be Not Afraid,” using Biblical language, as if he were God or a prophet.

Given that 89 per cent of the American people support contraception, we have no reason to be afraid of Romney — unless we let him get away with his attempt to frame the President as being against religion. The President’s advance in promoting freedom of religion should be shouted from the rooftops

That is helpful

No I do not think that any religious leaders should make a public declaration of support or otherwise in political campaigns. They are absolutely entitled to their opinion and vote the same as me and you.. but not more.
Their job is supposed to be supporting the spiritual life of those who believe the same creed/belief and not their worldly decisions.