Pope assails Canada's laws allowing same-sex marriage and abortion

[bebop + rocksteady 0]

No body likes Canadians anyways.

Cass (bebop the great)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Aah I see the demotion to Desk Clerk took. Sorry to see it man.

Politics... They love you when you are good... and demote you when you are down... I'll get my job back. LOL!!!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

The Pope is out of line to state that Catholic MPs must ignore the wishes of their constituents and vote the way the Pope says

Based on this article alone, I don't agree that the Pope quite said that. He blames Catholic politicians for 'yielding' to opinion polls. An alternative explanation for that can be that he is asking leaders to demonstrate thought leadership and not simply listen to opinion polls, but exercise their ability to influence said opinion polls.

JMHO.

Understood. The fact is, those seeking public office have the opportunity while representing themselves to the electorate to make known their own positions on such politically sensitve issues. I didn't get that the Pope was asking representatives to demonstrate 'leadership' - rather he was chastising them for failing to insist on the Catholic perspective while acting in Parliament. I got the impression that he did not believe that their responsibility to represent the wishes of their electorate were important if it disagreed with the Church's perspective. If a politician feels strongly about an issue, then it was his/her job to make their position known during the election campaign so their electorates had the choice to vote for or against them. Once they are elected they become the people's voice, not their own. There were politicians who were elected who do not support same sex marriage because their electorate do not support same sex marriage.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I didn't get that the Pope was asking representatives to demonstrate 'leadership' - rather he was chastising them for failing to insist on the Catholic perspective while acting in Parliament. I got the impression that he did not believe that their responsibility to represent the wishes of their electorate were important if it disagreed with the Church's perspective.

And you may be entirely correct in your interpretation. If correct, that would be out of line.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"In the name of tolerance your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, and in the name of freedom of choice it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario.

Such laws, he said, are the result of "the exclusion of God from the public sphere."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_U090802AU.xml.html

No surprise there. Heaven forbid he might have a new idea before he kicks the bucket.

[*Robert* 2]

i love logical debates!

[cmartyn 0]

Well, he was talking to Bishops.. whats he supposed to say. I mean, The Catholic church is clearly

anti-anything in the bedroom happening that was invented after 1350 or so.

And Canada is a bit shall we say beyond worrying about the odd pair of tits showing up on the 6:00 news.

Screw his opinion anyways. Nobody cares.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Well, he was talking to Bishops.. whats he supposed to say. I mean, The Catholic church is clearly

anti-anything in the bedroom happening that was invented after 1350 or so.

And Canada is a bit shall we say beyond worrying about the odd pair of tits showing up on the 6:00 news.

Good points:-).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, he was talking to Bishops.. whats he supposed to say. I mean, The Catholic church is clearly

anti-anything in the bedroom happening that was invented after 1350 or so.

And Canada is a bit shall we say beyond worrying about the odd pair of tits showing up on the 6:00 news.

Screw his opinion anyways. Nobody cares.

Yep. Add to that why would you take relationship advice from someone who's religion does not permit them to have a personal relationship (of any kind) with anyone.

Kind of like being told how to drive by someone who's never been behind the wheel.

Doesn't change my opinion that most of these priests who take the oath of celibacy have distasteful sexual preferences ranging from excessive wanking on one side of the scale, to child abuse on the other.

Edited September 8, 2006 by erekose

[desert_fox 32]

I think he is against birth control also......but who cares???

[Saddle Bronc 124]

One of Canada's strengths is that it places the values of compassion and tolerance above the traits of bigotry and intolerance. Canada has always (almost) accepted people for who they are as individuals rather than labeling them all the same and denigrating them under one ill-fitting description. A Member of Parliament is elected as a representative of his constituents - not to vote his own beliefs. If he is not able to represent honestly the majority wishes of his constituents then he is misrepresenting himself to the electorate and makes a mockery of the democratic process of the country. I worked for An MP and I know that many times he had to vote according to the wishes of the people he was elected to represent rather than as his own heart desired - that was his job and he took it seriously. At times it made him unpopular with his own Party but that is what a represntative democracy means.

That is a very rare bird actually--don't tell me you haven't heard the complaint that MP's "represent Ottawa TO the constituents" rather than "constituents IN Ottawa".

The Pope is out of line to state that Catholic MPs must ignore the wishes of their constituents and vote the way the Pope says because they follow a specific religious belief. There is separation of Church and State in Canada - in deed and not just a token word. If a religious individual cannot honestly represent the electorate, he should not run for office. He represents the people, not himself.

How about MP's who've repeatedly ignored their constituents' wishes for those of the party leader?

(it's easy to tell that it's because I'm Canuck that I take such issue)

Edited September 8, 2006 by CherryXS

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Hi Cherry,

There are good MPs and there are poor MPs, I definitely agree. I was very fortunate to work for one of the best. His motto - and one I personally saw him follow regularly was: "My Country first, My Constituents second, my party third". He had his own views on many things and there were times when they were at variance with our constituents. It was hard for him to do but he was well aware that he was elected to represent his constituents wishes in Ottawa - and our constituents were not shy in telling us their wishes. The hardest part is that there are always individuals of all perspectives - you had to go with the majority and that make those on the other side of the equation - especially if it was the one he personally followed, annoyed. There were days when we would have several hundred calls outlinging positions and we had to acknowledge and accept them all, which we did. There was one very serious issue where he definitely put his constituents needs and wishes first and it went against a high profile issue in the Government. It cost him a lot in terms of his party - probably a Ministership - but it gained him incredible respect from his colleagues and from his constituents. He served for five terms and was re-elected each time with significant majorities. He worked incredibly hard for his constituents and was on call and avaialabe 24-7 365 days a year and spent virtually every weekend back in the riding driving with his wife and 2 dogs 8 hours each way 2 and from Ottawa so he could keep his up with his personal community obligations. He had health problems during his last term and choose not to seek re-election. He is by far and away the best employer I ever had and has earned my absolute respect and admiration. I agree, he was a rare bird - but he epitomizes to me what Canadian democracy is all about.It can and does happen.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Kathryn41

[ChristinaM 0]

I think he is against birth control also......but who cares???

A very good and valid point.

"the exclusion of God from the public sphere."

Isn't that the whole separation of church and state thing, right there?!

[rasmussen 0]

Who cares? Believers care. He is the leader of the Church, God's Church here on earth. I listen to what he has to say and BELIEVE. Flame me all you want. Jesus Christ is our Risen Lord and he created the Church with Peter being the first Pope. The Bible speaks again and again that it is wrong to divorce and remarry and that sodomy is wrong. But I understand that unless you are a believer and seen God's good works, you would never follow the Lord. The law of Lord doesn't change. What what truth then is truth now! It is each and everyone of our rights to choose to believe or choose not to believe, but if a politician states he is a practicing Catholic, he can't have his cake and eat it too. No Catholic can say that they are pro-choice or pro-samesex marriage. The Bible has taught us those things are wrong and it would be a misrepresentation to the Church if someone identified themselves as Catholic and then blatently went against one of the principle foundations of the Church.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How about MP's who've repeatedly ignored their constituents' wishes for those of the party leader?

MP's are ultimately elected and accountable to the voters, priests are not. Yet they both exercise the same privilege of power.