AmericanPapist Comments
Perhaps you haven't heard of Msgr. James Lisante. Of course, there is no problem when a priest publically endorses a Republican, only when he endorses a Democrat. Double standard? You bet.
http://www.newsday.com/news/
prin...0,1916824.story
Yeah, I can see the double standard. After all, Msgr. Lisante's endorsement of a pro-life candidate is on a par with Father Pfleger's preaching race hatred. It's all clear to me, now.
Bill912, you miss my point.
Catholic priests should NOT be publically endorsing ANY political candidate.
Nope. I nailed it. You equated endorsing a pro-life candidate with the preaching of race hatred.
Endorsing candidates? Who the heck cares about some idiotic politicians when it seems that the parish priest has lost his interest in that guy - oh what is his name again - the one from Nazareth...?
Michaelus,
I agree. Somehow I don't see Christ endorsing a candidate.
Too much politics, too little pastors of souls.
At least he sports a Roman collar.
I think it will be difficult for Obama to put this genie back in the bottle. This is why our parents told us to choose our friends wisely.
Bill, you really need to get out more. I suppose you don't think the media isn't nearly 100% in favor of Obama? No bias, there of course. The Media's editorial and "news" positions are right in line with Obama's: pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-stem cell research, all the things the Catholic Church stands for right? Look, Pfleger is a self-loathing White who has aligned himself with The Abortion Party aka Democratic Party which in and of itself calls into question his bona fides as a Catholic priest. I'm shocked Cardinal George didn't toss this guy out years ago. Tom
Pfleger's lastest stunt is just another in along line of increasingly bizzare behaviors. If the past teaches anything, it's that these guys spin more and more out of control until they crash and burn. Cdl. George's move is a last attempt to keep P from going off the deep end, and taking people (some innocent, some dopes cheerleading him on) with him.
The closest priests should get to "endorsing" is telling people not to vote for pro-choice and pro-stem cell candidates. That's it. This is why people have wrong opinions about the Church-- because we only seem to get in the news when one of our priests has done something sinful or stupid.
CAUSA NOSTRAE LAETITIAE BLOG HAS CARDINAL GEORGE STATEMENT.
What concerns me is on the website of St. Sabina's, a parish that claims to be devoted wholeheartedly to social justice issues, there is not one mention about abortion. Not one. Don't get me wrong, racism is an abomination before God, but even racism pales in the face of the mass genocide of over 40 million unborn babies since 1973. Any Catholic priest who supports a candidate in favor of continuing this genocide should be removed. This isn't World War II, where Pope Pius XII couldn't punish pro-Nazi priests for fear of provoking Hitler; no Bishop is in danger of losing life or limb. For this reason, there is no excuse for the Bishops' failure to discipline priests who support this modern-day Holocaust.
MJ, just state your point. It's a great one. There is no need for pro-lifers to recite how oppossed they are to every other evil before they are allowed to make their pro-life point. I don't see Save the Baby Whalers saying, "As oppossed as I am to killing baby humans, we really need to save the baby whales."
They can just make their point, for what it is. So can we.
TJM,
No, I do not think I need to "get out more." It does not matter if the press is biased, priests should not be endorsing political candidates.
Otherwise, they should lose their tax exempt status, as should every other minister who does this sort of thing.
Lisante knew exactly what he was doing. He needs to be a pastor, not a politican.
Bill. What are you talking about? Priest don't have a tax exempt status.
They also don't lose the right to freedom of speech, as long as they don't endorse (Republican) candidates from the pulpit.
Mr. Peters, nice of you to comment on my actual statement, instead of, you know, playing games.
Bill912, that is what Lisante did. He was speaking AS A PRIEST at a GOP fundraiser ENDORSING MCCAIN.
Oh, Bill912, WWJWMTD?
Would Christ want a priest endorsing a political candidate at a political fundraiser? Hmm, call me crazy, but I simply don't think so.
Bill, Black pastors endorse Abortioncrats all the time from their pulpits. Please issue your condemnation of them as well and maybe we'll have a basis to engage in a rational dicussion. Tom
Msgr. Lisante was speaking from the pulpit at a GOP fundraiser? They were having a GOP fundraiser in a Catholic Church during Mass?
Prudentially speaking, perhaps priests should not endorse particular political candidates as a general rule. Politicians by nature must compromise and deal, whereas pastors have a duty to preach and uphold the highest standards. But as far as the tax-exempt status is concerned, there is no requirement that a priest refrain from political interventions, so long as he is speaking for himself and not as the spokesman for the church. Churches are subject to the prohibition in IRC 501(c)(3) against political intervention. Individual priests are not. Pfleger's problem was that he was endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. Lisante was not speaking on behalf of his church. How can a priest speak other than AS A PRIEST?
Bill. Chuckle chuckle. When I play games, you get to play, too. When I stop playing games, you lose. Chuckle chuckle. On with life, folks. :)
He calls the cardinal,George? I found that rather interesting.
It is true, our priests should not endorse a candidate but this is what they should all say about elections and especially about this upcoming election. "For Catholics to remain faithful to the Church they must never vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion when said candidate is running against one or more pro-life candidates period." This statement is short and concise and puts an end to the nuancing we hear from so many Catholics, priests included, who disregard the abortion holocaust that has been going on in this country since 1973. The bishops should put out a voters guide much like the one from Catholic Answers that leaves no ambiguity and wiggle room for cafeteria Catholics. The hope would be that combining this with much prayer and our Lady's intercession, the Democrats would not win another election until they eliminated their abortion plank thus ending the slaughter of the innocents. The Democrat party would then make itself more palatable to former Democrats like myself and also force the Republicans to become more in line with Catholic teaching on other issues in order to earn our votes. Then maybe deciding on who to vote for wouldn't be so cut and dried and we could debate lower ranking issues. Until that day life will remain the one issue that trumps all others.
What would Jesus do?
I pretty much agree with Patrick's post, but would add that it is difficult for most Catholics to understand the distinction between a priest speaking for himself versus a priest speaking on behalf of the Church. Clearly, there is a distinction between a church pulpit at Mass and a hotel podium at a fundraiser, but when that podium is used by the priest for the invocation the distinction diminishes, just as it does if the priest is wearing his collar when he makes his statements. It seems to me that any Catholic priest who wishes to publicly endorse or oppose a political candidate should (i) avoid wearing clerical garb when he does so, if possible, and (ii) publicly clarify that he's acting only as an individual citizen, not as a Catholic priest. While IRC 501(c)(3) rules do not identify precisely where the line is drawn in every context, it is imprudent to flirt with the line.
Vianney33,
Much as I loathe abortion and deplore its supporters and enablers, the statement you would have priests make is not in line with Catholic teaching, which is that it is impermissible for Catholics to vote for a pro-choice candidate because of his pro-choice views, but it is permissible to vote for such a candidate for other reasons, if they are proportionate. That calculus is at bottom prudential and the Church does rightly allow Catholics to exercise such prudence. This is not to say that all Catholics exercise it in good faith. Of course all too many exercise it incorrectly by placing too little weight on the gravity of abortion. But not all. For instance, a reasonable Catholic could in good faith support Obama over McCain if he believed (i) that McCain's pro-life views are largely a charade that would have little or no impact on judicial nominees or federal policies relevant to abortion and (ii) Obama will enact policies that are likely to have the incidental effect of significantly reducing thje number of abortions. Don't get me wrong -- that is not my calculus (indeed I passionately disagree with it), but it is a permissible one if undertaken in good faith. That said, I do believe that most people who endorse this calculus are not undertaking it in good faith. They are in reality not placing sufficient weight on the moral gravity of abortion and are exercising rationalization. But not all.
Both Pfleger AND Lisante are in the wrong. Priests should not be getting politically involved. Period. Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, made that quite clear.
The greater problem with Fr. Pfleger though is that he seems to have gone way over the schism line a long time ago -- is St. Sabina's even Catholic anymore?
But Msgr. Lisante also went beyond mere partisan politics. At the dinner in question, he engaged in a mock prayer as well. Whatever you might want to say about the propriety of political involvement of priests, a priest engaging in what is arguably taking the Lord's name in vain must always be condemned.
Pope John Paul II made it clear that priests were not to run for office. I'm not aware that he forbade priests to get involved in politics at all. Anyone?
"...(Msgr. Lisante) engaged in a mock prayer...arguably taking the Lord's name in vain..."
Evidence, please?
Commenting by HaloScan
