Gransnet forums

News & politics

Should clerics interfere in politics?

(42 Posts)
Greatnan Sun 02-Sept-12 07:51:46

Cardinal Thomas Dolan of New York appears to be endorsing the Republican campaign because he disapproves of Obama's refusal to allow some Catholic institutions to refuse to supply contraceptives to non-catholic employees.
Is this a wise move on Dolan's part?

janeainsworth Sun 02-Sept-12 17:55:09

This is from the Los Angeles Times:

[Quote] To be fair, Dolan expressed a willingness to offer a prayer at the Democratic convention as well. He insists that his participation in the Republican proceedings is not a partisan gesture. The cardinal's spokesman said that, before accepting, Dolan told convention organizers that it was standard church practice for the local bishop of the area to offer a blessing. [Quote.]

As I said before, things are different over there. It is really not like the Archbishop of Canterbury blessing the Conservative party conference, or the head of the Roman Catholic Church endorsing the Labour Party conference.

Nonu Sun 02-Sept-12 17:54:29

MiceElf CSL - great

Greatnan Sun 02-Sept-12 17:53:40

That's O.K. then - I know you are on the right side.

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 17:52:05

For me of course.

Greatnan Sun 02-Sept-12 17:35:49

Which way would Jesus have voted?

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 17:25:36

Yes, my knowledge of the Catholic church is extensive. And clearly very different from your experience.

Greatnan is right, there have been dreadful cover ups which everyone knows about and there is no excuse for any of it. The consequence has had one good outcome, however, and that is that many Catholics, in Ireland in particular, do not accept the Authority of the church in the shape of the hierarchy in the way in which they used to. The primacy of the individual conscience has always been a doctrine of the church. These days that doctrine is assuming its rightful place.

This man you provide a link to, is an apologist for the Republicans. Of course he will put his own slant on things. He's 'hoping' he's asserting, but he doesn't know.

The sad thing is that many Catholics and many others won't vote at all. It's the same here. But, partly for historical reasons, partly because the Catholic population is more working class and partly because the policies of Obama chime with the ideal of social justice, the catholic population who vote in the forthcoming elections in the USA are far more likely to be Democrat.

vampirequeen Sun 02-Sept-12 16:49:36

www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicnews/2012/08/former-vatican-diplomat-predicts-catholic-swing-toward-gop/

This is written by a guy who should be in the know.

Greatnan Sun 02-Sept-12 16:36:10

I think the church lost a lot of its authority with the cover-up of child abuse. Apparently most catholics use some artificial method of birth control, so they are ignoring that rule.

vampirequeen Sun 02-Sept-12 16:32:48

Have you spent much time with Catholics, MiceElf? You may be fortunate and know Catholics who are able to make their own decisions but the ones I know are very swayed by what the Church says.

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 16:23:14

No they won't.

A cardinal is not the church. The church is the worshipping community. And its members do have minds. Most will have no idea at all what this plonker has said, some will listen and ignore, and a few, who would have supported the
the Republicans anyway, will vote for Romney. But by and large the catholic community in the USA, such as it is, is Democrat.

vampirequeen Sun 02-Sept-12 16:15:42

A priest is a very powerful man within his parish and a Cardinal is even more powerful. Catholics look to them for leadership and guidance so they have to be careful what they say. By coming out against Obama he has overstepped the mark but the damage is done. A lot of Catholics will vote the way they think the Church wants them to.

NfkDumpling Sun 02-Sept-12 13:05:21

Spot on nanaej.

Romney sounds more right wing than Bush and with his god on his side if he gets in things could get really scary.

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 12:42:49

What Annodomini said.

absentgrana Sun 02-Sept-12 12:33:31

It is indisputable that clerics, like everyone else, are entitled to have political opinions. However, I think it is almost always inappropriate for them to use their role as a cleric and as figure of authority within their religion to promulgate their opinions. There are occasions – Desmond Tutu's stand against apartheid, for example – when it is anything but inappropriate. Consequently, I do not think that they should be censored by others but I do think that they should show some wisdom and discretion.

annodomini Sun 02-Sept-12 12:28:07

If they agree with me they should speak out; if they don't they should keep their mouths shut. grin grin

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 12:11:04

I'm inclined to agree about a declaration supporting any particular candidate or political party. But they have every right to speak on any single issue. In the same way that nurses' leaders, for example, have a right to speak on issues which concern them, or the leaders of the CBI to speak on economic matters or the representatives of charities to speak on issues of concern. It becomes dangerously like censorship to declare that someone has no right to speak out on issues of concern.

nanaej Sun 02-Sept-12 11:56:23

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.

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 10:45:18

That is helpful

Greatnan Sun 02-Sept-12 10:42:09

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

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 10:41:47

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.

Nanadogsbody Sun 02-Sept-12 10:25:37

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?" hmm

janeainsworth Sun 02-Sept-12 10:24:00

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

With you on that one, JO4

JO4 Sun 02-Sept-12 10:19:20

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

You going to start it?

MiceElf Sun 02-Sept-12 10:16:31

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

Nanadogsbody Sun 02-Sept-12 10:14:02

Or that?