While a group of American Catholics gave a press conference to denounce the war in Iraq from a religious/moral standpiont, the Archbishop Sean P O'Malley of Boston gave his own soundbyte when he declared that no true catholic could support a pro-choice candidate and urged the democratic party to swich sides on this divisive issue. The question is, did either side have the right to publicly put their church in the political fray?

Strictly adherent God-fearing Catholics are in a pickle. According to major authorities of their church they're wrong to support democratic candidates who will continue to support abortion rights. They're also wrong to support candidates who will continue occupation in Iraq (as most republican candidates claim they will). Either way their going to hell, 'course being raised catholic myself I can say that that's where we all figure we're going anyway.

The question is, are religious leaders overstepping their bounds in doing this? Sean O'Malley has stated publicly that any politician who takes stands contrary to his own beliefs should be excommunicated from the church, saying that it is imperative that a politician follow their own moral principles derived from their beliefs. Yet while recently the first Muslim was elected to the legislative branch, he's not demanding a return to prohibition (under Islam it is illegal to drink alcohol), nor should he. It is his job to represent his constituents, not try to conform America to his own moral code.

As a practicing Catholic, I can't believe that voting for a pro-choice Democrat would be worse than voting for a pro-Iraq or pro-death-penalty or anti-immigrant Republican. I go to church to worship God, not to find out how I should vote. I take church teachings seriously in my own life, but I don't need to feel that I'm electing a leader who will make God's law the law of the land. So to me the bishops trying to excommunicate Democratic voters (contrary to popular belief, not something they have the power to do) seem just as silly as the non-Catholic ministers I've seen in the past telling the faithful that God demands they care for the environment.

Abortion, war and the death penalty have always been conflicting. It has always seemed to be that if one supports abortion rights, they should also endorse the death penalty and war. Death is the result of all 3 of these. Similary, if one takes a pro choice position, they should also protest war and the death penalty. Pro life means pro life at any stage.

As a Christian, then, I can be neither Democrat or Republican. I am always forced to choose the lesser of evils in any election.

"The question is, are religious leaders overstepping their bounds in doing this?"

Yes! Nothing turns me off faster than my religious leaders trying to shove me in one direction or another. They should talk about religion and values (perhaps even issues, eg: with pro-life causes), but elections are outside their realm of expertise. Telling me that I should support a candidate or party based on theology is ludicrous. I have studied political science, I inform myself about the candidates' positions, and I make sure I vote in every election. The decision I make is up to me. I will be the one discussing it with God if the issue ever comes up (though I doubt it will) and I'm not about to defend someone else's conscience.

If they are Irish Catholic mostly they are just pickled.

Lets get the IRS off it's collective ass and start revoking the 501 C3 EXEMPT TAX STATUS of all religious organizations that start to "meddle" in Politics. IRS rules clearly PROHIBIT those organizations claiming TAX EXEMPTION STATUS from "all politicial activity"! You wanna play politics then ya gotta pay like everybody else does.

Glad to see my post garnered so much attention, and that the sentiment seems unanimous. I too believe that priests should stay out of politics. Although preaching against practices (death penalty, abortion and I'll even throw in gay marriage) is within the purview or priests, so people can know what's a sin and so forth, attempting to dictate voting decisions is way over the line.

I believe that you are all forgetting one very important and what should be dear to all of our hearts issue. It doesn't matter who a priest, preacher or anyone else supports. And it doesn't matter if they talk about it in church. They are entitled the same right to free speech that everyone else is, and we all are free to make our own choice in the end. If we limit the free speech of the church then we sure as hell better start limiting the free speech of Rap artists who's lyrics( i won't call it music) polute the air ways with filth and irresponsible behavior. Don't think for a minute that that trash doesn't affect the minds of those who listen to that garbage. Yet those who would put down the church's for their role in politics would be the same ones justifying and supporting the free speech of moral decay.

Groveramherst:

It is his job to represent his constituents, not try to conform America to his own moral code.

Agreed, but it is also possible to swing too far in the other direction and be a slave to the latest poll.

"A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion." ~ Edmund Burke

about those Catholics.

The tradition in American Catholicism that the church would not attempt to tell its members how to vote (lest it be perceived as un-American) was an historical exception peculiar to this country. Throughout its history the church hasn't been in the least reticent about telling Catholics what political positions they should and shouldn't take and telling Catholic political leaders what they must and must not do. This includes many democratic nations, e.g., Italy (where Pope Pius XII forbade Catholics to vote communist) and Spain (where the national primate forbade Catholics to support the secular constitution of the Second Republic).

Days late and dollars short as usual. too bad i didn't see this post when it was fresh.

nevertheless, Groveramherst, not unanimous.

amy wrote :
"The question is, are religious leaders overstepping their bounds in doing this?"
Yes! Nothing turns me off faster than my religious leaders trying to ..blah blah blah...

who knew. that's the location of the over-stepped line-- wherever amy is turned off.

the various US Catholic diocese issue voters' guides. in them, they remind the Catholic voter of the obvious-- the heirarchy of values is human life because all other freedoms presuppose life. they list candidates and their stated positions sometimes including endorsements from groups like Emily's List, National Right to Life, UAW, etc., the diocesan voters' guides do not direct voters for or against particular candidates. neither do priests from the pulpit.

the Catholic bishop (as successor of the apostles) has a responsibility to the faithful to reiterate the consistent teaching of the Church. very simply stated, when a Catholic public official has stated clear support for abortion, s/he has seperated her/himself from the unified teaching or 'communion' of the Church. s/he has already ex-communicated themselves, whether the Bishop publicly states it or not.

most pro-choice Catholic politicians are entirely unconcerned whether or not they are in communion with Church teaching. so, while the above posters are moderately bent out of shape about it, the politicians themselves don't care.

finally, to address the issue of pro-life-- or just anti-abortion. there are very many Catholics who are pro-fetal-life; tough on crime, but still, pro-convict-life; and anti-war (except in the case of a most stringently applied just-war criteria.) we are also pro-social programs (especially programs that will help children in poverty households-- it's a natural extension of pro-life sensibilities);pro humane imigration laws; and interested in laws respecting the environment to sustain human life.

i'm one of them. we can't get a suitable candidate. we're often faced with the terrible decission to cast a moral vote and vote for the best guy who has no chance of winning, or to cast a strategic vote-- to vote for the lesser of two evils to keep the greater of the two out of office. damned fun politics, this two party system.

see? you're barking up the wrong tree. why not take your complaints to the Detroit Democrat churches. they name names all the time and they stay as tax exempt as the ASPCA.

addendum to Fritz:

yup. this bound and gagged at the pulpit thing is pure American invention.

If a priest or minister endorses a candidate in church, he/she is violating the law and theoretically could result in the church losing its tax exempt status.

Of course, it they don't want the benefits of that tax exempt status, they can say whatever the fuck they want from the pulpit.

Of course, nothing stops them from clearly signaling their recommendation without actually naming the candidate. And, just in case there is any room for doubt, they can publicly endorse a candidate in a non-official capacity -- like showing up and being televised at a rally for the candidate.

All of this is really a joke, and I think they should just dump the rule anyway.