"The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established brothel, sculptors of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiatorgive it up or be rejected. A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God."
~ Hippolytus (170AD 236AD)

Animal sacrifice is protected as long as they follow certain health and animal protection standards. That seems reasonable to me. Exampe
Pederasty is a different thing because it involves violating someone against their consent, or with them not able to give consent. It's fairly obvious that you create and enforce an age of consent against everyone in order to protect those who cannot give it. Certain religions have tried to lower that age of consent for their own reasons. Example In some places it is lower than I feel comfortable with, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

I recently explained this to my son when he was misbehaving at a Boy Scout event. That when he puts on a uniform he is no longer a single young boy. He is representing all Boy Scouts across the world, past present and future. He's also representing the US because of the flag embroidered on his sleeve. The things he says and does while wearing that uniform are no longer his actions, but those of all Boy Scouts, the US, and other organizations.

A similar thing happens when one is elected to office. They are no longer a Catholic, or a Democrat, or a white person, or a man. They are the representative of the people who elected them. They are supposed to do their best to do what is best for their constituents. We can find many famous examples of representatives going against their principles, or political parties, or religions in order to uphold the greater good. Unfortunately it seems like this is less and less common these days which may lead to all the divisiveness we see recently.

This is the oath the President takes, all elected officials take a similar oath. Even government employees take a similar oath. You'll find nothing in it about parties, or religions, or beliefs.

Quote:

---

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

---

Quote:

---

A similar thing happens when one is elected to office. They are no longer a Catholic, or a Democrat, or a white person, or a man. They are the representative of the people who elected them. They are supposed to do their best to do what is best for their constituents. We can find many famous examples of representatives going against their principles, or political parties, or religions in order to uphold the greater good. Unfortunately it seems like this is less and less common these days which may lead to all the divisiveness we see recently.

---

Sanctioning murder because your constituents want it is upholding the greater good.

note: be careful, it's HIS position that it's murder.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Which God? And which version of worship of that God?
As someone who doesn't share your religion I can just as easily say that someone who is putting their faith before their duty to all people shouldn't take the oath either.

---

The God that many of these politicians claim to follow. They claim to be followers of Christ, yet choose to follow man instead. In our faith, we don't get such a luxury. We don't get to take off our Christian hat when we take up Caesar's sword.

---

If what you are saying is true that a Christian cannot dissacosiate their faith and execution of office (and we both know we can find many examples and people proving us both incorrect) can any Christian take the oath to execute their office to represent people of all faiths? Can they uphold the Constitution who's first amendment says that all religions are equal and one cannot be favored?

Quad Dog said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Which God? And which version of worship of that God?
As someone who doesn't share your religion I can just as easily say that someone who is putting their faith before their duty to all people shouldn't take the oath either.

---

The God that many of these politicians claim to follow. They claim to be followers of Christ, yet choose to follow man instead. In our faith, we don't get such a luxury. We don't get to take off our Christian hat when we take up Caesar's sword.

---

If what you are saying is true that a Christian cannot dissacosiate their faith and execution of office (and we both know we can find many examples and people proving us both incorrect) can any Christian take the oath to execute their office to represent people of all faiths? Can they uphold the Constitution who's first amendment says that all religions are equal and one cannot be favored?

---

I refer back to the quote posted earlier from Hippolytus. If it requires placing the ways of man above the ways of Christ, then no Christian should choose the ways of man.

There you go. If a Christian cannot be a representative in the US, then a US representative cannot be a Christian. The answer to OP is no.

Quad Dog said:

---

There you go. If a Christian cannot be a representative in the US, then a US representative cannot be a Christian. The answer to OP is no.

---

I'm not commenting on whether one has a relationship with Christ. I am saying that the way of Christ must always take precedent. That's pretty textbook Christianity. If one cannot fulfill their job while staying faithful to Christ, then they should step away from that job. Just like a Christian shouldn't be working at a strip club.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

At least he agrees with science and says life begins at conception.

---

To me, his position is worst possible one to take. it is pro-murder.

I can disagree with the logic that life begins at a different time than conception and yet still accept that it has merit. Joe's take, however, is horrifying.

---

I agree. I don't think Joe realizes that. I think his pro-life stance is possibly lip service and not genuine. (Much like many Republicans)

Quad Dog said:

---

Maybes he understands the difference between his personal beliefs and imposing those beliefs on the public he serves.
Joe Biden had a good quote about this in a debate I thought was good:

Quote:

---

My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court--I'm not going to interfere with that.

---

---

By this logic Biden would support the rights of two grown adults to conduct a knife fight to the death in the privacy of their own bedroom?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

A similar thing happens when one is elected to office. They are no longer a Catholic, or a Democrat, or a white person, or a man. They are the representative of the people who elected them. They are supposed to do their best to do what is best for their constituents. We can find many famous examples of representatives going against their principles, or political parties, or religions in order to uphold the greater good. Unfortunately it seems like this is less and less common these days which may lead to all the divisiveness we see recently.

---

Sanctioning murder because your constituents want it is upholding the greater good.

note: be careful, it's HIS position that it's murder.

---

If we group abortion, acts of war, and capital punishment all as murder, then Christains have been making the choice to murder for a very long time as the greater good.

Is it possible to still be a Catholic and not agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches

Contrary to some popular belief, it IS possible to remain a Catholic and disagree with some Catholic teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church rather stringently outlines how the conscience is to be properly formed and tested, in sections approximately 1776 - 1812 (easy for Americans to remember).
In matters as significant as the creation and destruction of human life, the Church is pretty clear as to when life begins. It is a rather grave matter to encourage or participate in an abortion. As others have stated, many if not most of the politicians who identify as Catholic are simply cultural Catholics. After all, it is rather difficult to gain a nomination within the Democrat party, especially in the Northeast, without supporting abortion. And Biden and others are not the first to discover the "workaround" by saying that they personally are against abortion but do not feel that they should tell others to follow the same path. I guess, in the end, God will have to decide their culpability in promoting abortion.

Whenever a politician comes out and states that there is a particular Catholic position on an issue, and their statement is incorrect, it is the responsibility of the Church to correct that statement and in so doing avoid misinformation. This is especially important if the person is widely followed, or if their statements were widely distributed. We saw this in the case of Nancy Pelosi, who tried to conflate Catholic beliefs with her personal beliefs and who misstated Church teachings while stating that she was an ardent Catholic.

Pelosi corrected by Bishop
Sorry, Nancy, we DO know when life begins

Quad Dog said:

---

I recently explained this to my son when he was misbehaving at a Boy Scout event. That when he puts on a uniform he is no longer a single young boy. He is representing all Boy Scouts across the world, past present and future. He's also representing the US because of the flag embroidered on his sleeve. The things he says and does while wearing that uniform are no longer his actions, but those of all Boy Scouts, the US, and other organizations.

A similar thing happens when one is elected to office. They are no longer a Catholic, or a Democrat, or a white person, or a man. They are the representative of the people who elected them. They are supposed to do their best to do what is best for their constituents. We can find many famous examples of representatives going against their principles, or political parties, or religions in order to uphold the greater good. Unfortunately it seems like this is less and less common these days which may lead to all the divisiveness we see recently.

This is the oath the President takes, all elected officials take a similar oath. Even government employees take a similar oath. You'll find nothing in it about parties, or religions, or beliefs.

Quote:

---

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

---

---

Isn't this begging the question? Because he's a rep he must support x, despite the fact that he chooses what to campaign on? So if he wants to represent people he must divest himself of Christian beliefs?

This isn't as trite as choosing the right beliefs to be a Christian or Catholic. This is about him explicitly abandoning his beliefs in his campaigns (because he wants to win). He's chosen government over God. It's not a stretch by Christians and Catholics to disavow him as such. It would be more puzzling if they continued to accept him despite his unwillingness to defend his faith and the morals he claims are right.

Edited to point out more fallacies: the continual burden you put on reps is an impossible one. One cannot represent all constituents as they often have conflicting desires (like republicans in his district); therefore, one must pick and choose which to represent. He is also free to run on Christian principles without relying on the Bible or Christianity to justify them. It is he who chooses not to do these things because he doesn't care about them.

Quad Dog said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

A similar thing happens when one is elected to office. They are no longer a Catholic, or a Democrat, or a white person, or a man. They are the representative of the people who elected them. They are supposed to do their best to do what is best for their constituents. We can find many famous examples of representatives going against their principles, or political parties, or religions in order to uphold the greater good. Unfortunately it seems like this is less and less common these days which may lead to all the divisiveness we see recently.

---

Sanctioning murder because your constituents want it is upholding the greater good.

note: be careful, it's HIS position that it's murder.

---

If we group abortion, acts of war, and capital punishment all as murder, then Christains have been making the choice to murder for a very long time as the greater good.

---

So we should continue to sin that grace may abound? Paul anticipated your whataboutism a long time ago.

Quote:

---

If we group abortion, acts of war, and capital punishment all as murder, then Christains have been making the choice to murder for a very long time as the greater good.

---

Yes, if we group 3 things that don't have any relation to each other, you can make anything say anything.

Sadly I agree with you. We must pray even harder for more courageous Church leadership. Let's not forget that the Rosary is a weapon.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

To answer OP- it matters not what Cuomo calls himself, he is not Catholic. In fact by his beliefs and actions he is excommunicated and cut of from the Sacraments.

---

He is Catholic by his baptism. The Church teaches that a baptized person is marked with the indelible seal of Christ and forever belongs to Christ and his Church. Even excommunication does not kick a person out of the Church, it is a remedial punishment in hopes of bringing the wayward back to orthodox teaching and beliefs.

Quote:

---

The real scandal IMO is the Cardinal has not publicly excommunicated him. Same goes for Pelosi, Biden, and anyone that claims to be Catholic yet support abortion. By not publicly denouncing these leaders by name, the Bishops and clergy abet grave scandal to the faithful and lead some to believe that they can support abortion and remain in Communion with the Church.

---

I certainly wish the bishops of the United States were more forceful in reminding wayward politicians of the Church's teachings on all Life issues but I also understand why they are gun shy in formally excommunicating a political figure,, iit would not be hard imagine the hue and cry about how the are interfering in the political process.