Celivia, "Why would the Pope have threatened politicians in the first place? There must have been some Catholic politicians in governments who have been supported a pro-choice abortion bill or the Pope wouldn’t have needed to make this threat." The latest remarks (the ones which drew my attention) were apparently the result of him being asked about a similar threat made by Mexican bishops. There was an earlier issue resulting from John Kerry's "after more than a dozen American bishops said they would not give him communion because he had voted for abortion." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2530790.ece

"My view *at this stage* is that a Catholic politician should change their power base or portfolio if their current one has to do anything with life issues" - agreed. I think that the popes remarks have made holding a portfolio impacted by those coments untenable for catholic politicians, and for that matter voting on abortion related issues.

Not so much for the inability to consider other peoples POV, most of our pollies don't seem to do well at that (or so it seems if they don't do what we want).

We don't and should not allow pollies to have a role in or vote on decisions in which they hold a personal stake and excommunication would seem to be a pretty big personal stake.

I heard the other day that the Rudds are taking steps to have their share portfolio transfered into a blind trust, not sure how you do that with church decrees.
R0bert

"but popes should have no place to make these threats to politicians especially not in countries that are secular or not primarily Catholic.
It’s distressing to think that an ultra conservative Pope could indirectly influence our policies."

Great point Celivia! Its also the reason why I attack the Vatican
on OLO, for its well known that they strongly disagree with us on
this and try to influence politics as much as they can, wherever
they can. They are a very political religion! The easiest way of
course to influence the law in various countries, is to put pressure
on Catholic politicians. I mean, excommunication could mean no
ticket to heaven! For those who strongly believe, thats a powerfull
armtwister. IMHO its misusing religion for political gain.

Hi Yabby, long time no see, glad you joined the discussion. Agree about the misuse of religion.

Well said, RObert. This would be a huge personal stake, a vested interest.

People,
I am confused since I came across the following Times article yesterday
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1618930,00.html

“Reporters … took his comments to mean that he endorsed the comments by Mexican churchmen that the lawmakers should be excommunicated.
But the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, later issued a statement approved by the pope clarifying the remarks. The statement said the pope did not intend to excommunicate anyone. Politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, Lombardi said.
"Since excommunication hasn't been declared by the Mexican bishops, the pope has no intention himself of declaring it," said Lombardi, who was on board the plane. "Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist. ... Politicians exclude themselves from Communion." ”

continued

They are saying that Ratzinger has not threatened to excommunicate the politicians, that his words were misinterpreted by the media.

Being excluded from communion, as far as I know, means that sinners have to confess their sin and then will be able to be part of communion again.
Excommunication is the ultimate punishment, it’s like being expelled.

Does that mean that Abbott would be able to vote in favour of abortion without jeopardizing his place in heaven- as long as he confesses this sin?
Is this really how it goes?
“Oops, sorry, I voted in favour of abortion, won’t do it again.”

The reason of my confusion is that someone who strictly belongs to the Catholic religion cannot ever personally vote in favour of abortion without instantly sinning whether they’re being excommunicated or not. This might count for other strict or fundamental religions as well.
If they do vote pro-abortion, then they do something that's very incompatible with their religion and they’re better off choosing a different religion (or none at all).
Why would you choose to be a Catholic if you don't agree with their stand on life issues?
You wouldn’t vote in favour of abortion if you wouldn’t believe it was right to do so.

I’m not that familiar with Catholicism but from what I understand is that with all these extra chances like confessions of sins it’s just like being on a strict carrot-only diet and secretly indulging in a chocolate bar; then, after having it wolved down, regretting it and making yourself run a mile to work the calories off.
You can keep sinning this way forever as long as you run the extra mile after the sin of eating the bar.

That’s probably why there are so many sinners in the Catholic religion- do something wrong and there’s always confession!
How moral is that?

"Why would you choose to be a Catholic if you don't agree with their stand on life issues?"

Long story there Celivia, but you'll find that there is actually an
enormous Catholics for choice movement. The way I've understood
it, the claim is that the Church was kind of hijacked by one sided
extremists. When the pope of the time brought in his Humanea Vitea,
which was all about this stuff, it seems the Vatican advisors were
saying that even the pill should be approved. JP2 was then a cardinal,
with a fanatical passion about this issue, due to his childhood.

He gave the pope of the time his radical solution and in gratitude
was elected as the next pope. JP2 then surrounded himself with
likewise thinking cardinals, which led to the election of the
present papa, who belongs to the same extremist club.

95% of people stay with the religion they were born with and were indoctrinated in. All I've ever read is that most Catholic ignore
Church teachings on family planning, abortion etc.

What amused me about the Brazil situation, is that the present papa
was lamenting that Brazilians were leaving the Catholic Church, to
join other Christian Churches. If his main concern was preaching
the Jesus story, surely he would be happy that they'd still go to
heaven! So its my opinion that the Vatican exists primarly to
increase its own power, influence and continuation through ever
more true believers. People accepting the Jesus story is clearly
not their primary motivation.

Celivia, there does seem to be some confusion about that. You will notice that the first site I referenced was a catholic worl news service. The current commentary seems to suggest that pollies are excluding themselves from communion until they renounce their previous actions/stance.

That still seems to leave a serious personal stake in the issue for catholic pollies.

I've been pondering parallels. The examples I've thought of are slightly more at arms length than this issue and just involve money rather than an immortal soul.

A pollie who supports mining and development would be allowed to hold a portfolio and vote on actions involving mining, one who held shares in a company which would be impacted by the decision would not be allowed to do so.

A pollie who loved the environment could be the environment minister but a pollie who held shares in an eco-tourism venture would not be able to vote on measures which impacted on the venture.

A prime minister who's wife ran a major employment business would have to take some serious measures to ensure that he was not seen to be involved in decisions which impacted on his wifes business (and that his cronnies did not see helping her business along as a way to gain favour).

R0bert