Should clerics interfere in politics?

Follow that......

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

Sorry. Haven't actually got a clue.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

No.