Politicians and Their Faith. Practice or Political Practicality?

During the Vice Presidential debates, moderator  Martha Raddatz asked the two contenders about abortion and how their faith informs their lives. VP Joe Biden said,  “My religion defines who I am...”  He is, like Paul Ryan, a Catholic. Unlike Ryan, it appears he decides which doctrines and dogma he decides to accept.

The longer quote:

"I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others…"

Not being Catholic I had to look up "de fide": De fide (of the faith) is a "theological note" or "theological qualification" that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.[1] (Wikipedia Dictionary)

This also, to my understanding, something revealed by God. Apparently the issue of abortion doesn't qualify. 

To my greater point, politicians often separate their faith from their politics. This causes me severe cognitive dissonance. If your faith informs and defines you, how can you in practice ignore the values, beliefs or teachings of your Faith or Church?

Biden's answer is typical; he refuses to impose them on others. The Kennedy's are all pro abortion and nearly all have gotten divorces against the doctrine of the Church they claim to belong to. Nancy Pelosi, another Catholic has even said abortion is an unsettled matter in the Church, and doctrine has developed only in the last fifty years.

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.  And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months.  We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.  Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.  There’s very clear distinctions.  This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.  And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.  As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…"

 The Catholic Church teaches life begins at conception. It has been since at least 70 CE.  

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Catechism in paragraphs 2271, 2272, and 2274, and explicit in 2322:

 "From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life."

If a politician claims to belong to a religious institution, or claims belief in the teachings and values of their stated Faith, when they say, like Biden, their Faith defines them, they should walk the talk. It's not a matter of forcing beliefs on others. Such people deciding to be politicians, regardless of political affiliation, should vote issues according to their Faith if they state it's what defines them. They should run for office stating they cannot vote for pro abortion laws or State funded abortion because of religious beliefs. The same with any issue. They should tell the public their affiliation and beliefs when they run for office, and that they obey and practice them. Biden saying his Religion informs his life, then not acting on that, makes him both a hypocrite and a liar. These people's politics and lust for power inform their lives, not their Church or their Faith.

What church or what religion one practices is a matter of choice. Belonging to a Church is voluntary.

If one disagrees with those teachings, dogma, doctrine, another Church should be found. To do anything other than that is hypocritical and cowardly.

 From the debate:

http://youtu.be/KOpb9irG3Cw

Religion of the State vs Religion of God

Alleged journalist and Leftist political hack, and anti Christian bigot Chris Matthews, said when the Catholic Church sued against the health care mandate to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion against religious belief and tradition, asked "Do you think they’re all Republican, the bishops?" Matthews himself is a Catholic, or claims to be, and definitely a Democrat. A 2011 Pew study showed 48% of Catholics are Democrats as opposed to 43% Republican.

Leftists\Democrats, are myopically political, so even see religion as politically motivated. They're incapable of knowing, or even seeing it's the other way around. Religious people put God first, in everything we think, say, and do. What we get then are Democrats that claim to be Catholic supporting abortion and gay marriage, even advocating for it. Nancy Pelosi, asked by  Christopher Goins of CNSNews.com,“Many of the people that are opposed to gay marriage cite their religion as the reason why they're opposed. You're a Catholic that supports gay marriage. Do you believe that religion and the idea that you can support gay marriage can be separated? And how do you grapple with the idea that you support gay marriage as a Catholic?” Her answer:  "My religion has, compels me--and I love it for it--to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that. "  That despite the very clear teaching and position of the Catholic Church to the contrary. Plus her dismissal several times of the Constitution and not being bound by it.

Back to the point of the politics informing Faith, Matthews has said: "I think there are people who have chosen to convert to the Catholic faith because they don't like the liberal positions taken by their sectarian groups. That's a fact. So, you can write that down. No, you can write that down."  Huh? People join the Church because of political reasons? Certainly makes my point. I wonder too why he doesn't quit the Catholic Church since it's against everything he's for. What studies is he referencing?

There have been several Democrats that have held office, claiming to be Catholic, yet passing legislation for abortion, sterilization and contraception against the teachings of the Church they claim to belong to. Plus use taxes to pay for these against the will of citizens that object to these practices.  The rationalization for it is they don't want to enforce their beliefs on others, but they will force obedience to the healthcare mandates,  claim separation of church and state is in the Constitution (it's not), and claim the Establishment Clause is to protect citizens from religion (it doesn't).  I'm sure we can all come up with long lists of things the government forces we citizens to do that are against our beliefs.

If these politicians were true practitioners of their religion, when campaigning would say they cannot vote for certain things because it's against their faith belief, then follow though in practice if elected. Truly religious people put God first, and He informs how we act. Politics trumps religion for Leftists\Democrats, and if a politician put his\her politics before religion, God, and the Church they should quit the Church, and state their religion is the State. If they don't they're immersing themselves in hypocrisy and should stop throwing stones at people that proclaim Faith and make errors in judgment and behavior at odds with their usual behavior and beliefs.

   

Protestantism, Catholicism and Authority

Another great thought piece by Fr Barron. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

I have a profound distrust of anyone in authority of anything. The officials of a sporting event are being critiqued by the fans (congregation) so the abuse of power is severely limited. Protestant ministers have only moral authority to go on, and many are kicked to the curb when the congregation finds them saying and doing the wrong thing, making the wrong calls. There was a pro basketball ref, one of the most respected of all time, that after many years, got caught making wrong calls on crucial plays for financial gain. If it weren't for fans, the congregation, demanding constant monitoring of the refs and umps, would that ref have been caught? Or would the officiating hierarchy give him a pass? I don't know so much the inner workings of the priesthood of the Catholic Church, but looking in I see slow movement when it comes to correction or punishment.

I do see, in my Protestant tradition, congregations turn away, and whole churches and ministries go down because a pastor says and does wrong. It seems more of a direct democracy, a direct cause and effect. I like having a direct say in whether or not a Protestant "religious authority" can remain as such, and not have the hierarchy decide, exclusively, the fate of that pastor or other authority.

When this comes to preaching and teaching word of God, or interpretation, I think Fr Barron is right. These are people that have dedicated their lives to this. God uses the layman too, and sometimes He uses that person to correct the Pastor or Priest. 

Like I said, once again Fr Barron gets us thinking.