Talk:Catholic Church and politics in the United States/Archive 1

Francesco Rutelli Reference

He´s a former far-left militant and only recently become a catholic. The reference to him it´s no NPOV. There´s not any source that shows is current stance on the issue.81.193.222.101 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Rutelli stance on abortion might have changed, since now he opposes legal euthanasia, like the italian language Wikipedia shows clearely. "A settembre 2006, nell'ambito del dibattito sull'eutanasia riproposto dal Presidente Napolitano, ha dichiarato la sua contrarietà alla "dolce morte" «finché c'è speranza per il malato», ribadendo anche la necessità di evitare l'accanimento terapeutico."Mistico (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion / Partial Birth Abortion Difference

It should be noticed that one thing it´s abortion, other his partial birth abortion. It´s much more controversial since it kills a human fetus. Many politicians who support abortion, don´t support partial birth abortion. However, the Catholic Church hierarchy seems not to make very difference on that.Mistico (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life / Pro-choice Roman Catholics Congressmen and Governors Correlation

I ask someone, if possible, to show reliable sources that document the correlation betwen the pro-life and pro-choice Congressmen and Governors who claim to be Roman Catholics both from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. I´m sure most Republicans are pro-life and, strangely, for a party so much conotated with the Catholic Church in the past, most Democratics are pro-choice. From the Wikipedia itself we can see there´s only a pro-life Roman Catholic Democratic senator, Bob Casey, Jr. in a total of four, that include two Protestants and a Mormon.213.13.244.249 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone identifies as Catholic then we should treat them as Catholic, even when they don't agree with everything the Pope says. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not being tendencious in here. This issue is so controversial, and those who disagree with the Catholic Church doctrine, not the pope, can be denied communion because of this. According the Church doctrine they are under a severe mortal sin for supporting a legal crime.81.193.214.72 (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For articles on politics and religion, we need to be strictly pedantic here. The media wants to confine the issue to pregnancy only. However, "pro-life" also means, for the RC church, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and anti-euthanasia. While many Republicans politicians probably oppose euthanasia, they would need to credibly oppose war and capital punishment, as well. Not clear to me how they would oppose war, but that is part of "pro-life". Student7 (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholics have the right to support the death penalty, as its recognized by the Church.85.244.227.3 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the pope doesn't. While they are a bit understated about it, considering the fact that most Americans support it, clearly the bishops think it violates the commandment "thou shalt not kill". Most of us don't get to ~~pull the switch~~ administer a fatal injection or vote on a jury, so it may not be a "personal problem" in actuality. But it is still a "belief" of the Church. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other religions and secret societies

I find it somewhat unfair that Catholicism is currently singled out as a religion in its relationship to American politics, since it tends to revive the old idea that Catholicism is a hostile, foreign element in US society. To be more equitable, there ought to be consequent material on Judaism and American politics, Protestantism and American politics and Freemasonry and American politics. Those three social forces put together are arguably much more influential than anything Catholic in the United States. ADM (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be articles on these topics under different titles. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practising and Non Practising Roman Catholic Vote

I think this also should be mencioned, because most evidence points that most Catholics in the USA aren´t practising or feel any special connection to the Church.81.193.214.72 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 election as repudiation of bishops who characterized abortion as a grave sin

There is an anonymous editor who insists on deleting this sentence "Some Catholic commentators viewed the 54-45% majority of Catholic voters choosing Obama in the 2008 presidential election as a repudiation of certain bishops who had warned that voting for Obama, a pro-choice candidate, could constitute a grave sin."

What do other editors think? Is this sentence appropriate for this article?

--Richard (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is based in some unnamed commentators supositions. It makes not a lot of sense to state that without any logical basis.85.240.21.159 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The broad issue is without doubt a major point in the intersection of American catholicism and American politics, at least for the last few years and will likely be for several more. A mention thus seems appropriate, although with due caution to not becoming Wikinews. That said, the word "repudiation" seems somewhat unideal; while it may have been used by "Some Catholic commentators" (was it???), it could also be expressed as a disconnect, an evengelization failure, etc. (see , for example, this Catholic commentator's views) In the end we should follow the sources, but I strongly doubt "repudiation" by itself is the best description. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many pro-life supporters, like Senator Bob Casey, Jr., openly endorsed Barack Obama. That proves that despite their pro-life stance, they saw that there were other more important issues at stake at the presidential elections. The reference to "some Catholic comentators" seems biased and unsourced. I could pick some openly pro-life activists, like Rick Warren himself who also endorsed Obama.213.13.240.74 (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to begin with, voters factor in dozens of things that have nothing at all to do with their religion or their church. So the fact that most Catholics went for Obama doesn't necessarily indicate a repudiation of anyone - any more than voting for Reagan or Bush necessarily indicated a repudiation of priests and bishops who focus on social justice.

On the broader question, the Catholic Church as an institution within the U.S. has long been uncomfortable with both parties. They like and support Democratic initiatives on poverty, racial equality, health care, but they also distrust it over the abortion issue and in general as the more secular of the two big parties. On the other hand, they like and support the Republican initiatives on abortion and gay marriage, but they dislike its unquestioning loyalty to capitalism and its individualistic rather than community-focused view of economics.

Like most Americans, Catholic voters (those whose political beliefs are in line with their church) probably decided that after the financial crisis, economics - where the Vatican is more in line with Democrats - had to be the priority. Prioritization doesn't mean repudiation. 216.15.41.45 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, guys... I don't think you're reading the sentence closely enough. Assuming that the assertion is accurate (i.e. that some bishops warned that "voting for ... a pro-choice candidate, could constitute a grave sin"), then a majority of Catholics voting for Obama suggests that they either didn't believe that voting for a pro-choice candidate really constituted a grave sin or that other issues trumped the gravity of the sin. Either way, this is a repudiation of the position put forth by those bishops. --Richard (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also can question since Obama isn't a Catholic and the Catholic Church in the past openly excommunicated those who joined Freemasonary and Communist Parties, since the Catholic Church punishes with automatic excommunication everyone involded in an induced abortion, why it never issued a similar stance for the so called pro-choice Catholics.85.240.21.159 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article we get a sense of confusion because some parts are misleading. Most Americans who call themselfs Roman Catholics aren't practising, and to show statistic numbers for those who supposedly voted for a candidate or another, should reflect that.85.240.21.159 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so fix it by providing the statistics based on citations to reliable sources. --Richard S (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a Catholic Inspired Political Party in the USA

The article states: "There has never been a Catholic or religious party in the U.S. similar to Christian Democratic parties in Europe and Latin America." There was never really any attempt to create such a similar party? This needs some expansion.85.240.21.159 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, be bold and fix it. --Richard S (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the only religious party in US history was a short-lived Mormon Party in Illinois in 1844. Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democracy might be a Catholic inspired political doctrine but it is not certainly only for Catholics. If you look at Europe you will notice that there are Christian Democratic parties in Protestant countries like Norway and Sweden.82.154.84.222 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Communion and Excommunication of the Catholics who Support Abortion

This has been a contencious question among the Church, with only in some cases the Church taking action against the politicians who call themselfs Catholic and support legal abortion. Nevertheless the current pope, when he was still cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated that the Catholics who support abortion aren't worthy of taking and should be denied communion: "1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83)." "5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist." "6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."[1] This is what the Catholic Church preaches. In practise this rarely has been done. The current pope and the Catholic Church in Portugal didn't refuse communion to the current President of Portugal, who despite being openly pro-life and had voted twice in a referendum against abortion, didn't vetoed the law that legalized it in Portugal in 2007. In 2011, pope Benedict XVI visited Portugal and didn't even mentioned the abortion question to him during his visit, at least openly. In the United States, only in some cases, the denial of communion has been done. So, the Catholic Church, despite being one of the leading institutions of the pro-life movement across the world, and the fact that states that all people involved in a induced abortion are openly excommunicated, in this precise case, "doesn't practise what it preaches". This is to clarify some questions people might ask while reading this entry and some statements done in the Talk Page.78.29.136.192 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, some priest actually gave President Clinton, a Baptist, communion when he got in line once!

Anyway, no priest is going to say, today, that he knows for sure that anyone lined up for communion hasn't "just been" to confession. The communicant has been informed of the injunction. It is up to them to avoid serious sin by taking communion under false circumstances, if they are indeed false. It is not incumbent upon the priest to ask each communicant whether he is in a state of sin or not. S/he is expected to know that s/he is supposed to be. Student7 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Bill Clinton, despite being a Baptist, once went for communion in a Catholic mass, at least, once. I also know that Hillary Clinton, a Methodist, when she visited Portugal, she went to pray eyes closed in the Fátima Shrine. These are just some of the many examples of religious hipocrisy that can be found in the United States. My point is that the Church tends to be deliberately ignorant in most cases of politicians who call themselfs Catholics and openly support abortion. This is not a forum for debate this matter.213.13.244.32 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church Vs. Democratic Party

It should be noticed that before 1973, most American Catholic politicians were pro-life and really supported the Catholic Church stance that life should be protected by law since conception. But nowadays most Catholics tend to align more with their political parties. Most Republicans are pro-life and most Democratics are pro-abortion. The article should notice that the Democratic Party tends to be nowadays a alternative religion for Catholics, since they follow more their political stance then the one from the Church.82.154.81.219 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with this statement, but it sounds WP:SOAPBOX even for the talk page. Should this discussion be deleted? Student7 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement is false. a) Before 1973 very few politicians mentioned the issue and very few if any mentioned "protected by law since conception". "pro-abortion" is a loaded term that Democrats reject. "alternative religion" is nonsense. Rjensen (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet while the assertion may be badly stated, it is true that many people see abortion politics through this lens (i.e. the view that conservative Republican evangelical Christians and Catholics are pro-life and secular liberal Democrats are pro-choice). I think the current section on abortion doesn't do an adequate job of placing the Catholic Church's pro-life stance in the context of the overall abortion debate. We should, for instance, discuss the fact that pro-life evangelical Christians and Catholics do find common cause on this issue even while differing on other theological and ecclesiological points. We should document that the pro-life Christians (Protestant and Catholic) tend to cast pro-choice advocates as secular, non-Christian or non-Catholic. Then, we should present "the other side" of this POV lens, e.g.. the fact that not all Christians in the United States take a pro-life position and that there are pro-choice Christian Republicans. Of course, we should not spend too much time on the non-Catholic part of this topic but we do need to place the Catholic position in the overall political context. I would really like to see statistics as to how many Catholics actually support the Church's position on abortion. I expect that it would be a majority but I'm curious as to how solid the majority is. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the Catholic Church began to oppose abortion around 1900, but in 1900-1970 they were MUCH more focused on attacking contraception. (However the Catholic laity rejected the bishops and practiced birth control anyway.) The white evangelicals did NOT oppose abortion before 1970. But the two religious groups formed a political coalition in the 1970s and the evangelicals suddenly began to oppose abortion. (see the Critchlow book). Both groups were 70-80% Democratic before 1970. That changed--today Catholics are 50-50 and white evangelicals are about 70% GOP. Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That's a good start. Got sources to back it up? I'll try to look for some but I need to leave right now so it may be later today or tomorrow before I get to it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoa. What people give out medals for nowdays were considered felonies (not even misdemeanors) around 1900. It was unnecessary for any religion to take a stand against abortion in 1900, because it was considered murder. Where are the public "stands" against murder in 1900? They aren't there because it was illegal, just as murder is today. But abortion was switched from "naughty to nice" and therefore religions had, to their surprise, "take a stand" against something that routinely called for a long prison sentence before 1900. (more like 1960+)

There are records of early Church fathers opposing abortion (the Romans were in charge and allowed it). Student7 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion was never murder. It was an illegal medical procedure. It was not considered a sin by Catholics before 1900 or so. The evangelicals tolerated it until the 1970s. Ministers in 1900 certainly did condemn murder, larceny fornication, blasphemy and all sorts of sins. Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Church has condemned abortion since St. Peter. See Didache chapter II. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Church rejected the "Didache" as apocraphal by about 400AD aand stopped using it or citing it. Historians say that's because its teachings were no longher accepted by Christians (The ethical provisions "were too archaic to be reconciled with contemporary practice" says van de Sandt, The Didache (2002) online p 3. The Catholic Church in Europe and US tolerated abortions (before quickening) as late as the 1880s, then changed its position. Rjensen (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this show your plain ignorance! Read some History books and articles about this very controversial issue. The Catholic Church always opposed abortion as a crime, in a way or another.85.244.227.3 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about abortion being "merely" illegal. But it was illegal for a reason.

The Didache was rejected as part of the canon. because it was too late (same as "The Shepherd of Hermas"). But not rejected for content. It was lost until the 19th century. It is "accepted" today, but I don't think you disagree with that. Student7 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What abject ignorance some Wikipedia users show about the Catholic doctrine! Since the beginning abortion was always deemed as a crime by Christianity, and all official stances by the Catholic Church show that.85.240.22.80 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that Tertullian documented this early on, in response to a "baby-eating" (fetus-eating) accusation against early Christians. Pagan Romans did not care for this, neither did the Greeks. Jews, from which the Christians derived, would have been horrified. Seems unlikely that it was ever "legal."

Having said that, is it germane to this article? Student7 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly named article

"Politics" refers to the production of laws (statutes) by those elected to office. This article is almost entirely comprised of "Elections", except for brief remarks on parochial schools in Oregon, Prohibition. Blaine amendment seems to have been omitted.

When I tried to correct the name, it was changed back. I started to edit a copy of this to rm "politics" (turning it into two correctly-named articles) but could hardly find anything to rm. Mostly elections. Little "politics." Student7 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "politics" works best. "elections" are only a subset of politics, which includes all sorts of activity from party affiliation to campaigning at election time to lobbying Congress, to debating the issues. Politics includes the Labor movement for example, which is covered here. It includes debates on parochial schools, which are well covered, and the Supreme Court, and issues of gay rights and abortion, birth control and immigration--etc etc. The term "Elections" is too narrow, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it rolls up into "Politics" at the high level. Other editors including myself have found that it is nearly useless at the low level because articles considering everything as "politics" winds up as magnets for mere commentary that is not particularly relevant to anything and conveys no useful information. Clearly segregating articles into "Elections," and "Governance" (Government) leaves no room for junk that is irrelevant. The media has largely caused this problem by presenting everything as "political" when it is just people talking. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Church and politics in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923233927/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231232033/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholic.org/views/views_news.php?id=19737&pid=0
Corrected formatting/usage for http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/041406/041406h.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Catholic Church and politics in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]