Re: [Goanet]Re: When and to what extent should priests/nuns be involved in politics?
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *--The Church should not get involved in partisan politics, except when a party is against human rights... Mario asks: Is the right to be born after conception a human right? During the last US Presidential elections, John Kerry, a Catholic who strongly supports abortion on demand, and even voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions, was warned by several US Bishops that he would be refused Holy Communion in their dioceses. These Bishops were strongly supported by the Vatican in taking this stand. Was this partisan politics, or just putting their foot down on a politician publicly defying a major doctrine of the Catholic Church, while professing to be a Catholic?
Re: [Goanet]Re: When and to what extent should priests/nuns be involved in politics?
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The Christian cannot be silent when there is rampant corruption, violence and injustice. Dear Fr. Ivo, I am in total agreement with your statement. Wished every Goan Catholic politician had the same view. Can the Goa Church help educate these people (The politicians as well as the people who voted them) with morals and values? Peace, Carlos
[Goanet]Re: When and to what extent should priests/nuns be involved in politics?
--- jose colaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It should then come as no surprise to anybody that John Paul II opposed the Latin American Liberation Theologians who had joined hands with Marxist Communists even to the point of supporting the violent overthrow of governments. George responded: The bigger issue is when and to what extent should priests/nuns/bishops/cardinals/popes be involved in politics? Further one may ask: when and to what extent should lay Catholics be involved in politics, another critical topic. Should their non-involvement in a world full of injustices be considered un-Catholic? *--The Catholic Church is not a political institution, but this does not mean that the Church cannot give its message and point out to Gospel values in the economic and political field (cf.Vatican II, LG 76). The Church has the right and duty of defending the human rights. Liberation Theology is an offshoot of Theology. It reflects on salvation as integral development and liberation from sin and from its individual and societal consequences. What is to be avoided is violence. Violence begets violence and is not a solution... The Christian cannot be silent when there is rampant corruption, violence and injustice. One school of thought says clergy should never be involved, they should be involved in spiritual matters and saving souls. However, the Vatican is a political state with ties to several countries. By its very set-up it cannot escape political involvement. However, the most common situation is a priest/nun in a local parish. If one believes, as I do, that religions and major institutions of the world need to liberate oppressed people (and I do not mean only political oppression), then it follows there should be some involvement. *--This is the message of the Gospel itself. Jesus was never silent. He challenged and changed...Saving souls means to teach and help to live in human dignity and struggle for human rights. The next question is when and to what extent? That is an idea I (and many others) struggle with. Where to draw the line? I would like to see others post their thoughts. *--The Church should not get involved in partisan politics, except when a party is against human rights... As much as I want to agree that the Church must be involved in every aspect of life in a country, I strongly oppose the involvement of the Church in active partisan politics. *--Exactly so. I do agree with you. Your seeming confusion here is part of the overall dilemma. On the one hand one cannot condone the Church's role in Poland and elsewhere and yet oppose the involvement of the Church in active partisan politics. I suppose much hinges on what one considers active and partisan and politics. Even if one removed semantics from the discussion, it is still a formidable phrase active partisan politics while trying to determine the church's role. Is all politics not active? Is it not partisan? Should the church be involved in inactive partisan politics? Should it be involved in active impartial politics? You see the difficulty *--The Church can always proclaim the sound principles in the political field (GS 76), but should not enter the field of partisan politics, except when human rights are at stake... John Paul II had already suffered under the Communist regime, therefore he fought for human rights and for the suppression of the Communist party in Poland... Ivo da C.Souza
[Goanet]Re: When and to what extent should priests/nuns be involved in politics?
Jose, if you want a serious discussion, cut the crap about George goes at John Paul II. I have changed the subject line in keeping with the topic. See my responses below. --- jose colaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It should then come as no surprise to anybody that John Paul II opposed the Latin American Liberation Theologians who had joined hands with Marxist Communists even to the point of supporting the violent overthrow of governments. The bigger issue is when and to what extent should priests/nuns/bishops/cardinals/popes be involved in politics? Further one may ask: when and to what extent should lay Catholics be involved in politics, another critical topic. Should their non-involvement in a world full of injustices be considered un-Catholic? One school of thought says clergy should never be involved, they should be involved in spiritual matters and saving souls. However, the Vatican is a political state with ties to several countries. By its very set-up it cannot escape political involvement. However, the most common situation is a priest/nun in a local parish. If one believes, as I do, that religions and major institutions of the world need to liberate oppressed people (and I do not mean only political oppression), then it follows there should be some involvement. The next question is when and to what extent? That is an idea I (and many others) struggle with. Where to draw the line? I would like to see others post their thoughts. As much as I want to agree that the Church must be involved in every aspect of life in a country, I strongly oppose the involvement of the Church in active partisan politics. Your seeming confusion here is part of the overall dilemma. On the one hand one cannot condone the Church's role in Poland and elsewhere and yet oppose the involvement of the Church in active partisan politics. I suppose much hinges on what one considers active and partisan and politics. Even if one removed semantics from the discussion, it is still a formidable phrase active partisan politics while trying to determine the church's role. Is all politics not active? Is it not partisan? Should the church be involved in inactive partisan politics? Should it be involved in active impartial politics? You see the difficulty Did it not strike you that A Catholic Marxist-Leninist Priest would be an epitomy of an Oxymoron? Logically, it could also follow that a Catholic Capitalist priest is an oxymoron. After all the Catholic church was around before Adam Smith and capitalism as we know it. It cannot now align with capitalism which would mean it was aligned with the wrong side prior to then. If it does align with capitalism now, what about the ills of capitalism? After all capitalism just killed a 100,000 people in Iraq. Regards, George
