Maggie's Farm

'In his book "Render Unto Caesar," Chaput argued that it's the "political duty" of Catholics to "know their faith and to think and act like faithful Catholics all the time"'

So what's the point here? As people who are Catholic it is their personal duty to think and act like faithful Catholics all the time, yes. As American politicians it is their political duty to think and act in faith with the Constitution of the United States. Granted, there's debate as to their actions in that domain, in that context. However, political decision making should not be beholden to the dictates of a pope in Rome. I was too young at the time so I only have my (often) lying history books and my (often) lying elders to depend on for this information, but didn't we already go through this whole discussion with JFK?

While I agree concerning Mother Theresa, as far as I know she stuck to her business and her domain. One can agree or disagree in one's personal beliefs or within the domain of the church one belongs to. But once a person becomes a politician, they are making decisions for many people (quite possibly a majority) who do not belong to that faith.

One can be a practicing Catholic and uphold the constitution as long as the two do not come into conflict, that's the easy part. But as an elected representative an American politician has the responsibility to the constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts and as he thinks (or his constituents think) it should have been interpreted by the courts, regardless of their own personal faith. Obviously when the government comes in oppressive conflict with that religion, that is a whole different matter. By that I mean when the government is actively restricting someone's individual ability to practice their faith. But in their capacity as a politician it is not their responsibility to use their religious beliefs as a basis for imposing those rules on others.

To me there is no real problem in so far as the politician is acting in accordance with his responsibility as a political representative. My point is that as a Catholic (or Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist or Jewish or Muslim or Flying Spaghetti Monster whatever) a politician can personally behave in a manner consistent with their religion/belief system without having to take political positions that affect the lives of others based on what that religion tells them to do. I think it is a valid position to take that a religion only holds sway over a person and their personal behavior relative to society (JFK being a whole other can of worms...or not). Now The Dist raises a very valid point regarding the USCCB (which I have no interest in reading so I'll take his word for it). A religion is certainly entitled to overstep what a secular society would see as its bounds and this presents a dilemma for said politico. And while I would probably disagree with the vast majority of the positions that many of the specific politicos we are currently speaking of hold, I respect the dilemma that they may find themselves in and would not hold it against them for voting their political conscience over their religious one. In fact, I would expect it even if it went to my own political disadvantage. In so far as an individual politician's conscience is concerned I would not consider it hypocritical to behave in the manner described. I think it is valid, and The Dist touches on this re: "I imagined by now that we'd hear political masters calling for certain of their caucus to stop practicing Catholicism"...to say that this point can swing both ways.

Hope this is fairly coherent...Wifey took me out for a fine dinner at a very good steak house and I'm into a large Belvedere martini (made to my own specs), more than half a bottle of vino, and enjoying a touch of Balvanine and John Coltrane is tickling my senses...Not to condescend, but relatively speaking, it must really suck not being me right now.

Or maybe not, as I must say it again...Curse you MF spam filter!!