Why trust a Catholic politician who must either betray his religious convictions or betray his electorate?

Question

Please read "his" as "his/her" - limitations on number of characters required the abbreviation (my apologies).

This question is prompted by Benedict's demand that Canadian Catholic politicians vote according to church policy rather than according to the will of the people.

Is a politician who votes against his/her religious convictions worthy of trust?

Is a politician who votes against the will of the electorate worthy of trust?

Does either betrayal (religion or electorate) make a politician trustworthy?

Answer 1

When there is betrayal one is not trustworthy.

Answer 2

I don't know how the Canadian system works precisely, but in the US we have a representative republic, so that really isn't an issue here. The elected official is not supposed to put their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing on a given day; they're supposed to vote their convictions. Therefore, in the US system, an elected official voting their convictions would not be betraying the electorate. Rather, it is to be expected (though we tend to have too many breeze gaugers). The electorate then has the choice to re-elect the person or not. That is why research of candidates' positions is so important. If politicians always took polls of the electorate and voted accordingly, there would be no difference among candidates and we wouldn't even bother having elections. Not sure how all this relates to the Canadian question, however.

Answer 3

I really wasn't aware that the Pope or any other religious leader would have a say in a political election, or that it would make a difference in how that politician voted. However, you are referring to Canadian Catholics, rather than voters and politicians here in the United States. We are a democracy, where there is freedom of religion, and freedom to elect representatives of the populace. Your question is one of particular ethics with which I am not familiar. So for me to make a statement either for or against the way a politician votes in your country, would not really be fair.

With regard to your last question, however, it would seem that the poor politician in question would be between a rock and a hard place. If he voted for one or the other, he would be guilty of betrayal in either event. So I can say this with a clear conscience: Whether or not he would be trustworthy to the people he represents, would have no bearing on the way he votes, because he wouldn't have had a choice but to betray either his religion or his electorate. He could still be a trustworthy representative, as this would reflect his own character as a person, and not a puppet who had to dance to the demands of either the Pope or the electorate. I hope this clarifies things for you.

Answer 4

While Benedict would like everyone to believe that the RC church is absolute, in reality, they do change their policies over time.

One example: in the early church, bishops and priests could marry, but not anymore. (Now, married Episcopalian priests who convert to RC can remain married while their spouses are living.) That is an arbitrary decision, not based on anything in the Bible.

If the Church itself never changed its own laws, then an argument could be made about unworthy politicians who vote against their religious convictions. But the convictions are not immobile.

An RC politician who follows the Church law absolutely should not really be in politics - it is incompatible with a constitution which keeps government and religion out of each other's sandboxes. Taking a hard line is not the way that compromises are formed.

However, an RC politician who uses his or her free will to make an informed, personal decision regarding differences between government and Church policies is more likely to be effective changing secular laws to more in line with RC beliefs.

A politician who votes against the 'will of the people' is also not much of a critical thinker. A politician should represent his or her constituents, but it not practical to take a poll before each poll. Plus: opinion polls have serious limitations. And legislation is often far more complex than any poll could accurately comprehend.

Just my $0.02

Answer 5

Wouldn't it be great if a politian actually came out and said:

"I am a Catholic and if I am elected, you can expect me to vote with the morals that the Catholic Church teaches. I am Pro-Life, no exceptions. I am for a Living Wage, no exceptions. I am for Social Justice, no exceptions. I am PRO GOD. I will vote to put the 10 Commandments up, I support prayer in school and I will do everything in my power to make sure it happens."

Then get elected and actually do it. For that matter, wouldn't it be great if a politician actually did what he/she said they were going to do in the first place?

There is an old joke that goes like this: "How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving." Sad that you can not even trust those that you are supposed to trust.

Answer 6

is there really a politician who votes based on what his/her electorates want on every issue? Seriously, c'mon. I can't believe we still have people afraid to vote Catholics into office because Da Pope may take over.

Answer 7

That's the same old argument they threw at John F. Kennedy in the early 1960’s. It doesn’t holdup any better now than it did then.

Answer 8

Wow, the last time I checked, I thought I was in the 21st century...

And there are also Protestant and Jewish politicians who know not to inflict their beliefs on everyone else.

Answer 9

why not just elect the pope & save ev1 the trouble?

Answer 10

that's why i didn't support Kerry -- he stood one way politically and another religiously - you can't have it both ways IMO.