[RJT]

MG,

My argument was not that great. I’ll admit to that especially now that you suggested an example of the conflict that can arise. I don’t see it ever becoming an issue though. Stem cell and abortion and things of that nature - the politician usually makes his stance known when campaigning - either with his or against his own Religion.

Either way it really gets into a matter of whether a representative should make decisions on how he thinks his constituents should vote an issue or if he should represent how they want him to vote. This is more of a political issue than Religious. And is a debate in itself.

Of course, if the politician votes by rote of the Church’s position then he needs to be upfront with that to begin with. We take that risk with even an atheist - that he doesn’t vote the way a billionaire banker wants him to versus what others think is right.

My main point was that the Pope does not rule by decree. Your example of contraceptives is really a theological issue relating to God’s relationship to man and the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, things of that nature. The Pope doesn’t simply issue a decree. There are processes, over periods of time. The voters are going to know where the politician stands on the issue.

So long as a politician’s belief does not conflict with the Constitution then his opinion, whether he arrived at it on his own or from teachings of the Church, is the same as anyone’s else.

Yours here for example:

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I reckon the pope position in this case IS immoral and bad news for a humanity plagued with an overpopulation problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can argue against your position without using the Church if I wanted to. Something like this is subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is "be wary of voting for a politician that is catholic, for you are really voting for the pope", unless he is a bad catholic that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly have that right. In fact as you know that was a big fear when JFK was running for President.

The other reason it shouldn’t be much of a concern is that being a devout believer and an elected politician are for all practical purposes mutually exclusive - at least now adays. The closest thing to that, that I can recall is Jimmy Carter (not specifically Catholic, but very Christian). With him, where his polices failed it was not because of his Religion, but for whatever other reasons. None elected officials are another story. Here I can see not having to “sell one’s soul” to hold the position. Or probably more often the case, not being a snake in the grass to begin with.

RJT