When Bloggers Run For Public Office
To what extent is a blogger’s published body of online writing relevant fodder for discussion when that blogger presents themselves for public office?
SUZANNE of Big Blue Wave is on a list of people “seeking nomination to be Family Coalition Party candidates”, to represent Nepean Carleton riding in the upcoming provincial election. This is essentially a one-issue party with no hope of taking a seat: however, elections provide their candidates with a useful opportunity to proselytize and fundraise.
SUZANNE has a number of interesting and deeply-held views. The one most relevant to her candidacy, however, is her belief that a Catholic policitician must follow the directives of the Church instead of the will of the people she/he represents, if those views conflict. We had an excellent discussion on the topic here (and have had others elsewhere.) I don’t want to be accused of taking her words out of context, so I suggest you read the whole thing. But here’s how she put it:
Sometimes constituents are wrong. As I said in my other post, MP’s must have some freedom to follow what they think is right. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be booted out if you disagree with them. I’m saying that MP’s have souls, too, and they have to live with themselves and what they vote for. You can’t make an MP purely into a voting machine, like a computer, without thought or conscience. That would be de-humanizing. If a politician is Catholic, he has the obligation to be Catholic in every aspect of his life, and this trumps any “rules†of any political system.
“Sometimes constituents are wrong”.
Umm…yes, no doubt. And sometimes they simply disagree with what the Vatican says. But in either case…I think most voters are under the impression that they’re choosing a representative, not a ruler.
I respect SUZANNE for articulating her position and her belief so plainly. But the notion that “I am right on this issue, my constituents are wrong, and I’m going to vote under the direction of my Church instead of the people I was elected to represent” strikes me as profoundly anti-democratic.
So two questions for the Bunkerium:
1) To what extent would it be fair ball to raise this specific issue during an election campaign, given that I live in the riding?
2) More broadly, is it fair to reference a blogger’s published work during an election campaign?
Fair smair, it is of course relevant because blog postings are in the public realm. But, in the case of Suzanne and other FCP candidates, who cares? They haven’t got a hope in hell of winning a seat. I thought of doing what you’re doing, but then figured it was work to no purpose. If it was a TORY, then that would be different.
April Reign created an aggregator for blogging candidates called NetRoots. Check it out and pass the word along.
SHE, of course, is there.
As to constituents being wrong. Of course they can be wrong. Look at Skeena-Bulkley Valley.
Whooee! I reckon all published writing is fair game. That’s one reason I turned down an offer to consider running for the Greens. My free-wheelin’ boogin’ style might come back an’ bite the party’s innocent ass.
WRT, the constituents being wrong, when my MP, Diane Finley, announced was going to vote against SSM, she said that her reason for doing so was that she’d received more input from the anti-SSM side and judged that to be the will of the majority of her constituents. I wrote to her an’ told her human rights can’t be dictated by the majority and that mob rule oughtn’t apply in human rights cases. I told her that sometimes a leader has to lead.
Seems like I might not be too far off from SUZANNE’s way o’ thinkin’. Ouch!
JB
“My free-wheelin’ boogin’ style might come back an’ bite the party’s innocent ass.”
I wonder how Richard Evans is now feeling about some his free-wheelin’ blogging style, now that he’s a candidate for municipal election. Oh, well…maybe there aren’t any Muslims in Calgary.
‘I wrote to her an’ told her human rights can’t be dictated by the majority and that mob rule oughtn’t apply in human rights cases.”
Very interesting point. But on whose behalf is a “leader” “leading” when an elected representative announces his/her intention of taking direction from the Vatican, with no guarantee for the electorate what that direction will be in the future?
The current member of Parliament for Nunavut (Liberal), and her predecessor, firmly upheld the Liberal Party’s position on firearms regulation, even though her constituents, almost universally, thought the legislation was an absurdity in one of the last ridings in Canada where some folks still hunt for a living… and I’m quite sure she felt the same way.
Had she arrived at her position through careful soul searching and announced that, given her own convictions, she was going to support her party’s position because she really believed it, I would have respected that. But I don’t feel that way about folks who agree to suborn their vote to another’s authority, be it party or religious leadership.
Anything already in the public domain is open season, no bag limit.
As far as politicians taking direction from the vatican rather than their constituents, if any of them feel that conflicted about their faith versus their job, which is to represent the electorate, they’re not fit to hold public office. Like pharmacists who can’t bear the thought of dispensing birth control — that’s fine, Walmart’s always hiring greeters.
I think that a candidates blog writings are fair game IF they are open about their real world identity.
This goes back to the “outing” discussion from a few days ago. Alotta people still blog anonymously, and if they decided to go ahead and run for office, then their candidacy should be judged according to what they have publicly stated.
RE; gun control – yeah that was pretty messy. When I asked her predecessor about it one day, he responded by saying “there will not be one less caribou, seal, polar bear, or whale shot because of this law, or one less Inuk who learns how to hunt”. I’m not crazy about the law, but that response made sense to me.
Actually, I disagree with you here. It is _representative_ democracy. It is impossible for an MP to represent the views of every constituent in his or her riding 100% of the time, so they don’t. Our elected representatives make compromises all the time — constituent demands versus party discipline, personal conscience versus popular opinion. There have been plenty of MPs who have chosen to go with their own conscience rather than the popular opinion of their constituents. Witness the free votes on same sex marriage and capital punishment. It is, in my opinion, our MPs jobs to balance their own judgement on what is the best decision in a vote, with the advice of his constituents.
Democracy remains because the voters have the ability to pass judgement on how their representative has performed. If the voters choose to appoint Suzanne as their representative, and if they decide, on balance, that she hasn’t served them well, they can vote her out in the next election.
All that being said:
This has happened in situations which are unfair. I remember that when Jack Layton was running to be mayor of Toronto, a term paper he wrote in university calling for the toppling of the capitalist system got circulated in the press and actually made news. Its relevance to the race was marginal, at best, but it still happened.
Unlike a term paper written years before, however, blogs are usually more current, and often open up a window on the character of the person who runs them. And a lot of our elections are about character. Therefore, I would say that it is _entirely_ relevant to raise the issue, since the debate goes directly to Suzanne’s potential conduct as an MP. It’s a debate worth having.
Oh, did you know her predecessor?
Frankly, I think it’s a debate that she’d welcome.
I agree. An MP or MLA is not simply an automaton with a phone and an abacus, endlessly polling constituents to establish what his/her position “should” be. But IF the wishes of the electorate are clear (e.g., the gun legislation example I cited above)…?
Absolutely. But doesn’t this imply that SUZANNE (upper case , James), or any other candidate in the same boat, has a moral obligation to level with the electorate prior to the election, and tells us: “Look, guys, if it comes down to your wishes or a Vatican pronouncement, you lose”? Or is it a case of Caveat Elector, and we should simply make that assumption about any Catholic candidate?
Well, here we are. The lines are open. Operators are standing by.
I’m not so sure about this one Throbbin
It would depend a lot on what they said anonymously verses what they were saying with their name attached to it.
“1) To what extent would it be fair ball to raise this specific issue during an election campaign, given that I live in the riding?”
Fair? You want to be fair during an election campaign?
“2) More broadly, is it fair to reference a blogger’s published work during an election campaign?”
There’s that word again…
Okay, snark off.
My answer to both questions is emphatically YES. Voters need to have as much relevant information about each candidate as they can get, whether from the candidate or his opponents. And in that sense, a religious bias that might put the candidate’s conduct athwart the best interests of the constituents really needs close examination. Any religion. Any bias.
And here’s food for thought: the pope is not just a religious leader…he is the head-of-government of a nation. He is in office for life, and that, in essence, makes him a dictator.
Any MP in this country who submits his will to the dictator of a foreign country ahead of all others is following a treasonous path.
Put that in someone’s pipe and see if they smoke it!
I feel that an MP should have a right to his own moral values, be they secular or religious. When you vote for an MP, you vote for a whole human being, a package deal. If on balance, you did not like the way your MP voted, you can choose to not vote for them in the next election.
You cannot ask an MP to suppress his moral convictions. That is dehumanizing. Every human being has the right to their personal conscience. Everyone should follow their personal conscience. A personal who does not follow his conscience on a matter of morality is not a person of integrity.
Well…yes. That’s probably why I’ll never run for office. That, and laziness. But yes, I don’t buy into the notion that we should jettison all our ethical principles to torpedo a political opponent (or make a profit, or get laid, or win a war).
Absolutely. But is it your intention to announce explicitly to the voters of Nepean Carleton that their wishes will be superceded by your conscience, or, more specifically, by Roman Catholic doctrine?
Well, I could just as easily ask a socialist “Is it your intention to tell the people that their wishes will be superceded by your socialist beliefs?”
Yes, I have moral convictions that I have no intention of betraying. I am sure that the voters of Nepean-Carleton would appreciate voting for someone with a core set of values who holds them in the face of adversity. That’s what integrity is, after all.
That being said, elected officials should be flexible on a wide range of issues. Not every issue is a black-and-white moral issue, and I’m open to the people’s input on these matters.
SUZANNE, you failed to answer the question. So I’ll ask again.
Will you announce explicitly to the voters of Nepean Carleton that their wishes will be superceded by your conscience, or, more specifically, by Roman Catholic doctrine?
“If on balance, you did not like the way your MP voted, you can choose to not vote for them in the next election.”
Sometimes the next election is too late. Especially if the MP got elected by lying. Or by hiding his real motives. I don’t need to know everything about the candidate — I don’t care, for example, if he hates spinach and loves baseball. But I damned well better know ahead of time if he intends to undermine my autonomy to run my own life as I see fit!
So, Suzanne…how do you answer the charge that by following the dictates of the pope against the wishes of your constituents…or even your own party… you would be engaging in treason?
“But is it your intention to announce explicitly to the voters of Nepean Carleton that their wishes will be superceded by your conscience, or, more specifically, by Roman Catholic doctrine?”
Damn, but I almost wish I were there so I could run the question up the flag pole in person and see who salutes…
“Damn, but I almost wish I were there so I could run the question up the flag pole in person and see who salutes…”
I AM there. It’s my riding.
“I AM there. It’s my riding.”
Guess I’ll just have to take the vicarious position, then, and doo my cheerleading thing from the Wet Coast. So…you gonna do the asking, then? In a public venue, I mean.
How about kicking the party out, surely you are aware that you’re not only going to be dealing with how the Vatican may want you to vote, balanced against how you think your should vote, all tied in with what your constituents may expect of you… your party is going to tell you how to vote on certain measures, and that is how you will vote if you want to remain within the party.
Morals and integrity? You are talking about entering the political arena, a place which has no room for either – I don’t doubt your convictions but you don’t seem quite shark enough to survive there long.
By all means, yes, voters need to know where candidates stand on important issues. Candidates who do or did blog provide that info in great quantities. This is good.
In SUZANNE’s case there is a ton of stuff. She is a fetus fetishist of the highest order. She is a homophobe. She is anti-feminist.
Oh and Catholic, bien sûr.
What more does any thinking person need to know?
I find it deeply distressing that so many people seem to equate democracy with voting. That is just so wrong.
Voting is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for democracy. There are other irreducible principles and structures that are supposed to be determining our public life. The problems with SUZANNE’S willingness to fuzz the lines between democratic public virtue and private conscience are, first, that that is unconstitutional in Canada or in any other genuine democracy; and second, that it threatens the conscience of every other citizen who doesn’t happen to be SUZANNE.
I agree SL – if there is a complete 180 on something, a public stance on an issue that is such a departure from their previous “anonymous” comments that it can be considered a betrayal of sorts, then I think it should be brought up.
However, having said that I think a digital anonymity should be protected and respected if that kind of betrayal doesn’t occur. Some modicum of discretion should be expected, right guys?
“Will you announce explicitly to the voters of Nepean Carleton that their wishes will be superceded by your conscience, or, more specifically, by Roman Catholic doctrine? ”
Have you stopped beating your wife, Balbulican?
Because that’s the kind of question you’re asking me. It’s full of assumptions that I do not get to answer by answering it directly.
I will say it again: a person must act according to his conscience, even if he’s an elected official.
Otherwise, it means the person is not a person of integrity.
If the voters do not like that person’s decision, then they are free to vote or not vote for that person.
Any other position presupposes that it’s okay for a person to not follow his conscience. That is wrong.
Or that people who believe in Divine Revelation should not stand for office. That is undemocratic. Any eligible voter should be able to stand for office.
How about kicking the party out, surely you are aware that you’re not only going to be dealing with how the Vatican may want you to vote, balanced against how you think your should vote, all tied in with what your constituents may expect of you… your party is going to tell you how to vote on certain measures, and that is how you will vote if you want to remain within the party.
Which is why a personal conscience is important. Because if the elected official sees the party stance is immoral, then he should follow his conscience.
Generally speaking, in my party, there is a large area of agreement on what might be termed “moral issues”.
I intend to follow my conscience on moral issues. My party will largely agree with my stances.
On non-moral issues, or on issues that are not set out in the party platform (because that’s what people are voting FOR), I intend to be open to the input of my constituents. My party tends to be open to the wishes of the constituents on these matters.
Morals and integrity? You are talking about entering the political arena, a place which has no room for either -
I understand your concerns, but notwithstanding the moral difficulties of the political life, someone has to do it. Again, this is a good reason why moral fortitude and following one’s personal conscience is important. That is how one builds integrity.
I don’t doubt your convictions but you don’t seem quite shark enough to survive there long.
But, if don’t try, you don’t get tested.
“I will say it again: a person must act according to his conscience, even if he is an elected official.”
Hee. SHE also talks about fetuses using exclusively male pronouns. ‘Coz menz is better.
SUZANNE takes order from Joey the Rat. And she is seriously confusing matters of private conscience and matters of human rights.
Read her blog. Then RUN.
“Have you stopped beating your wife, Balbulican?”
I have never beaten my wife, SUZANNE.
There you go. A clear, succinct, honest, and unequivocal answer to your question.
May I request the same level of honesty and clarity, please? You are running in my riding, and I would like to know where I and the other citizens of this ridings stand in terms of your decision making.
“{f the voters do not like that person’s decision, then they are free to vote or not vote for that person. Any other position presupposes that it’s okay for a person to not follow his conscience. That is wrong. Or that people who believe in Divine Revelation should not stand for office. ”
Absolutely wrong, SUZANNE. Everyone should follow their conscience, and everyone who believes in Divine Revelation should absolutely run for office if they feel driven to do so.
But many Catholic policiticians, like John Kennedy, believed that in presenting themselves for an election in a democracy, they were accepting the need to make political decisions on the basis of politics, rather than their own spiritual beliefs. Kennedy stated that explicitly during his candidacy, I was requesting the same level of explicit honesty from you.
There is a difference between a Muslim candidate and a Taliban candidate.
Well, I can tell you that, if I was fortunate enough to successfully run for office, there is one issue where I would vote my conscience, regardless of the wishes of the electorate. I cannot and will not vote in favour of restoring capital punishment, and if my constituents don’t like that, they can vote me out.
Absolutely, I think they do, if they are asked. If I’m asked point blank whether I support capital punishment or not, I would be dishonest if I said anything other than my firmly held beliefs. However, if the issue doesn’t come up, it only means that the voters, during the campaign, feel that there are other issues more important for parliament to deal with over the next four years. My obligation as a candidate is to address those issues, and something like my views on capital punishment may be irrelevant.
Though I think campaigns would work to give voters an overall view of my character, such that my own personal beliefs regarding capital punishment wouldn’t be a surprise. And with that in mind, I should note that Suzanne is running for a political party who hasn’t exactly tried to hide its social conservative agenda. Surely Suzanne has already met her moral obligation of expressing what her agenda is. If anybody votes for Family Coalition hoping for a pro-choice agenda in parliament, those people need to pay more attention to campaign literature.
But I think you’re not asking about Suzanne’s moral compass, but rather if Suzanne’s vote in parliament would be controlled from the Vatican. And in this case, I think you’re making a leap of logic. Right now, Suzanne’s moral compass is closely aligned with the moral compass as expressed in the Vatican, but that does not mean that she gets her marching orders from there. We have to assume, unless we can prove otherwise, that there is no connection; that there is a possibility — even if Suzanne can’t conceive of such a one — that the Vatican might issue a moral edict that deviates from Suzanne’s own compass, and that in that case, she would act by her own moral compass and not by the edicts of the Vatican.
We have accepted and honoured politicians who have followed their moral consciences in the face of public opinion. What you appear to be concerned about is control of our politicians by the Vatican, regardless of the moral conscience of our Catholic politicians. You are suggesting that Suzanne isn’t following her moral conscience, but is simply looking it up from the latest Vatican memo, and I don’t think we have enough evidence to back up that assertion. And without that, we’re left with one person with strong moral beliefs expressing views that the majority of the voters in her riding may be unlikely to share. What do we need to disclose that hasn’t already been disclosed?
Of course, we can just ask her: If there was a situation where the Vatican brought forward a moral policy that you personally disagreed with, and told all Catholic politicians to vote for that policy or risk excommunication, would you follow your own conscience, or would you follow Vatican policy?
Suzanne?
“There is a difference between a Muslim candidate and a Taliban candidate.”
Yes, that would be the perfect analogy to explain why a vote for SUZANNE is a vote for someone who does not respect secularity – indeed, who claims that it’s anti-religious discrimination.
Those of us who do not shove our spiritual beliefs down the throats of others do not support theocrats for public office.
An excellent point made about the ‘captial punishment’ issue and may I also add J. S. Woodsworth’s vote against Canada going to war in ‘39. Capital punishment at times has been supported by the majority of Canadians, and making war on Nazi Germany was not only popular but even in retrospect seems the moral thing to have done.
That being said, it appears that the current American adventure in Iraq would have been supported by a popular referendum – even thought based on lies, propaganda and bad reporting.
I do believe in democracy – even for those people I do not agree with; if there are enough Taliban in Canada to support an MP – then it is difficult for me to deny them one because I find their position distasteful. The same goes for anti-abortionists – the position infuriates me, but I find it very difficult to deny them the right to put their distasteful doctrine into the public forum to be supported or dismissed by the voters.
Two more quick points:
1)I agree with debeauxOs above, “Those of us who do not shove our spiritual beliefs down the throats of others do not support theocrats for public office.”
a2) Suzanne is probably running knowing she has no chance to be elected, so her candadicy is probably just to get her views into public consciousness. The opposite is true in this as well – it allows contrary opinions to be articulated and the vacuity of her position to be exposed.
That is exactly what I am asking, quite explicitly, and that was issue I raised in the post I referred to above. And no, I am NOT making a leap of logic: please read SUZANNE’S statements in that original discussion, and note her careful evasiveness in this thread.
But SUZANNE has called repeatedly for the censure and for the denial of sacraments to Catholic politicians who follow their own moral compass rather than that of the Vatican’s, James.
Let’s see if you have better luck than me. (And it’s SUZANNE!)
Whooee! I ain’t sure that hypothetical could happen. SUZANNE couldn’t possibly have a differing opinion with the Vatican on anything. The Pope is infallible and what the Vatican sez is what true followers beleive. No questions asked.
SUZANNE has been evasive in her clarifications. I reckon that’s the mark of a politician.
At any rate, her vote share will likely be in the same traditional territory as other FCP showings: less than 1%. Mainstream voters don’t vote fer fundamentalist fringe candidates. Their candidacy gives them a soapbox that they couldn’t otherwise afford. If there was a snowball’s chance in hell that SUZANNE would win and become an MPP, there’d be some cause for concern.
JB
Whooee! I ain’t sure that hypothetical could happen. SUZANNE couldn’t possibly have a differing opinion with the Vatican on anything.
That depends on the issue.
“Have you stopped beating your wife, Balbulican?â€
I have never beaten my wife, SUZANNE.
You did not answer the question “yes” or “no”.
“There you go. A clear, succinct, honest, and unequivocal answer to your question. ”
I gave a clear, succinct, honest question to your answer. But you do not want to give me an opportunity to contextualize the answer. You said that you do not beat your wife. Fine. I want the opportunity to frame my answer, too. Otherwise, I just think you want to corner me into an answer that you want, rather than see the bigger picture.
May I request the same level of honesty and clarity, please? You are running in my riding, and I would like to know where I and the other citizens of this ridings stand in terms of your decision making.
Okay: how about you being honest: have you stop beating your wife, yes or no?
You asked me a “yes or no” question, but I was not allowed to explain myself. I asked you a “yes or no” question, but you give yourself the right to explain yourself.
But many Catholic policiticians, like John Kennedy, believed that in presenting themselves for an election in a democracy, they were accepting the need to make political decisions on the basis of politics, rather than their own spiritual beliefs.
Well, if you want a person of integrity, then that person has to know what his principles are, in case politics are wrong.
That is what integrity is.
If John Kennedy believes X is wrong, but “politics” requires him to do it, is he a person of integrity if he does X?
He is not.
You cannot do what you know is wrong and be a person of integrity.
I’d like to address James’ concern:
If there was a situation where the Vatican brought forward a moral policy that you personally disagreed with, and told all Catholic politicians to vote for that policy or risk excommunication, would you follow your own conscience, or would you follow Vatican policy?
The pope doesn’t normally wake up one morning and decide to excommunicate people for breaching doctrine.
It takes a LOT to get excommunicated in the Church.
Excommunication is usually reserved to people who perform very serious moral acts– and even then it’s not enforced– and there’s only a small number of acts which merit excommunication.
It is also reserved to people who persistently flaunt Church authority in a major way.
It also takes a LOT to get communion denied.
Normally, the issues involved with these matters are patently black-and-white issues– e.g. pro-life and pro-family.
My party is there to present voters to vote for people who want to promote the pro-life point of view and traditional marriage.
So excommunication and denying communion are not a big issue in my party.
I would also like to address the issue of doctrinal development.
“The Vatican” is a word that is too vague to really describe Church authority. The correct word is “The Magisterium”. Because the Vatican, i.e. the Church hierarchy and bureaucracy, can say things that are not doctrinal and just plain wrong.
The Magisterium is the office of the Church that speaks on doctrinal issues. Catholic doctrines organically develop from understanding the doctrines of the past.
Normally, faithful and educated Catholics implicitly agree with one another to begin with, because they share the worldview of the Magisterium, and apply approximately the same principles to understanding doctrine.
So they usually agree with the pope to begin with. It’s rare for the pope to issue a pronouncement on doctrine that really contradicts what faithful, educated Catholics think. Because they usually see it coming through their own understanding of Church. doctrine. Sometimes the faithful get it wrong– which is why the pope issues doctrinal statements. But those statements are really more for dissenters than the faithful. You don’t need papal statements when the faithful agree. It’s only when a large body of Catholics contradict what has always understood to be true (and divinely revealed) that the Magisterium clarifies these issues.
This process takes decades, sometimes even centuries.
It’s not a matter of the “Vatican” issuing a memo to all elected officials to vote a certain way. It does not work like that.
But SUZANNE has called repeatedly for the censure and for the denial of sacraments to Catholic politicians who follow their own moral compass rather than that of the Vatican’s, James.
That’s right. Because being an elected official does not mean that you get to escape the spiritual consequences of your actions.
1)I agree with debeauxOs above, “Those of us who do not shove our spiritual beliefs down the throats of others do not support theocrats for public office.â€
Is it okay when left-wingers do it?
Nobody is forced to believe in Divine Revelation. However, there are people who are not religious who share my viewpoint. Don’t they have the right to vote for people who represent their views?
By all means frame your answer. I think you’ve provided quite a bit of frame. But you haven’t provided the answer th. I did.
You asked a question that cannot, because of its construction, be answered correctly with a Yes or a No. My question could.
Now you’ve also failed to answer the question as rephrased by James, who appears very sympathetic to your position, and who tried to reframe the question in a way you could answer clearly. Here, for your convenience, is the question posed by James – again.
Pretty clear, it seems to me. Not the least bit ambiguous. And you may already have answered it. Your response implies that you would follow Vatican policy. Is that correct?
Explanatory Note for Bunkerites: SUZANNE is fond of using the term “Magisterium” to describe the ultimate authority within the Church on matters of faith and dogma. It sounds pretty darned impressive…much more impressive than “The Pope And Some Bishops”, which is what it actually is.
I don’t think you’ve answered my question. I’m not asking about the likelihood of a dispute occurring between you and the Magisterium. I’m asking about what you would do if one occurred.
I’ll ask the question again, but first I’d like to point out that the denial of communion happens a lot more often than you imply. You say that it takes a lot to get excommunicated from the Church, but that hasn’t stopped American bishops from denying communion to Catholic presidential candidates due to their refusal to commit to a pro-life stance. A leading Canadian bishop suggested something similar for Paul Martin over the issue of same sex marriage.
It’s clear that Catholic bishops across this continent are able to exert a fair amount of local control. Consider, my Catholic wife has been excommunicated from the Lincoln diocese due to her membership in the Committee for the Ordination of Women. But that excommunication is not recognized by the bishop here, and she has been welcomed and takes communion in Catholic churches in the diocese of Ontario.
This isn’t the first time that the difference in approach of various Catholic diocese has manifested itself. Even though I was an Anglican, the Catholic church here in Ontario was satisified that I met all the conditions to allow a Catholic wedding after taking a fairly standard marriage preparation course. However, as the wedding was in Omaha, the rules of the Lincoln diocese applied, and they demanded (and the Ontario diocese had to rush to receive) a “disparity of cult dispensation” in order for the wedding to proceed. As far as the Ontario diocese was concerned, that dispensation was only required for a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian, but the Lincoln diocese had stricter rules.
So, denial of communion (which I call excommunication, but that may describe a more stricter incidence of above) does happen quite often and, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t take a lot to get excommunicated from the Church. Or, parts of it, at least.
So, I ask again, if the Magisterium developed a moral policy that you personally disagreed with, and suggested that politicians who didn’t vote with that policy be denied communion — as has happened in the United States over the abortion issue, and as has happened in Canada over the same sex marriage issue — would you follow your conscience, or would vote as the Magisterium tells you?
Aw, forget it, guys. You’re never gonna get a straight answer. She’s waffling so much there’s syrup all over the floor.
Seems that she is a politician, after all. At least in print. In person, who knows? Anyone going to an all-candidates’ meeting?
You asked a question that cannot, because of its construction, be answered correctly with a Yes or a No. My question could.
The question is misleading if answered “yes” or “no”. I can answer “yes” or “no”, or I can give the truth.
Your response implies that you would follow Vatican policy. Is that correct?
As I explained, I would probably agree with the Magisterium to begin with.
Explanatory Note for Bunkerites: SUZANNE is fond of using the term “Magisterium†to describe the ultimate authority within the Church on matters of faith and dogma. It sounds pretty darned impressive…much more impressive than “The Pope And Some Bishopsâ€, which is what it actually is.
Well, no. Pope and Bishops are people. The “Magisterium” is really an office, and the pope and bishops do not always in a magisterial fashion.
I’m asking about what you would do if one occurred.
As I explain, it does not happen because I normally agree with the Magisterium even before there is an announcement.
I’ll ask the question again, but first I’d like to point out that the denial of communion happens a lot more often than you imply
Not to Canadian politicians. I can think of a few cases; but their numbers pale in comparison to the actual number of Catholic politicians who openly contradict Catholic doctrine (and still claim to be Catholic).
You say that it takes a lot to get excommunicated from the Church, but that hasn’t stopped American bishops from denying communion to Catholic presidential candidates due to their refusal to commit to a pro-life stance. A leading Canadian bishop suggested something similar for Paul Martin over the issue of same sex marriage.
Suggested. It didn’t happen. Why? Because bishops and priests normally do not deny politicians communion.
So, denial of communion (which I call excommunication, but that may describe a more stricter incidence of above
Denial of communion and excommunication are two very different things. Excommunication is a canonical state that makes one ineligible for a host of things. Denial of Communion just means you’re perceived to be in a state of sin and you’re causing scandal to the Church.
So, I ask again, if the Magisterium developed a moral policy that you personally disagreed with, and suggested that politicians who didn’t vote with that policy be denied communion — as has happened in the United States over the abortion issue, and as has happened in Canada over the same sex marriage issue — would you follow your conscience, or would vote as the Magisterium tells you?
I do not disagree with the Magisterium. The reason why I tried to explain the process of moral doctrinal development is to show that it’s not a one-step process.
I don’t disagree with the Magisterium to begin with. I do not have to worry about my conscience contradicting Church doctrine, because I apply the same principles as the Magisterium to moral problems. Therefore it’s already in agreement BEFORE the Pope issues an encyclical on the issue.
My personal conscience is informed by the doctrines of the Church, and her principles of moral thinking. I don’t have to be told what to think, because I’ve already applied the same principles that I agree to and come to the same conclusion.
Ah, finally we have an answer:
And then…
So, despite suggesting that you are never in disagreement with the Magisterium, you are saying that there are moral decisions that you make based on principles within the Catholic Church “that you agree to”, suggesting that there are principles that you potentially do not agree with, and that you set aside when making your moral decisions. Which suggests that if the Magisterium applies those principles, you and the Magisterium could conceivably part ways.
That wasn’t so hard to admit, was it?
And hardly surprising, as well. The Catholic Church is a pretty big tent. I mean, do you find yourself in agreement with all the tenets of Liberation Theology? And, of course, you share the same religion as my mother-in-law, who wrote to her bishops and noted that their proscription against voting for pro-choice candidates essentially disenfranchised Catholic voters, since a total pro-life stance meant also voting against any Republican who supported a war that Pope John Paul II himself called ‘unjust’, or against politicians which supported capital punishment, or politicians who favoured fiscal policies which hurt the working poor.
So I put it to you that moral decisions are ultimately personal, and that the church has the right to advise, but not to dictate. After all, the Catholic Church, like all religions, is not God, or even an instrument of God, but an instrument of Man created to worship God. The Papacy’s rarely exercised powers of infallibility aside, given that the Church was created and maintained by humans (even a human like the Apostle Peter), the Church is as fallible as the humans who maintain it. Ultimately, we have to trust to our own judgment, as imperfect as it is.
So, though you seem loathe to say it, it seems that if the Magisterium followed a path that you disagreed with at a moral level, you’d follow your conscience. Which is the path a number of Catholics have already taken in pursuing their own moral journeys as best as they are able.
I take away precisely the opposite interpretation, James. As she stated, her moral sensibilities have been formed by the Magisterium; Suzanne can simply not conceive of a situation in which the Magisterium and she might be at odds, as a member of the Taliban could not conceive of an instance in which he might disagree with Allah.
Thanks, SUZANNE. Very interesting, and revealing, discussion.
To the original questions:
“1) To what extent would it be fair ball to raise this specific issue during an election campaign, given that I live in the riding?
2) More broadly, is it fair to reference a blogger’s published work during an election campaign? ”
Yes and Yes, which is why I’ll never run for so much as school trustee!
Very interesting discussion between you, SUZANNE/Suzanne and James. I doubt that she will win office running for a fringe party, but applaud her willingness to enter the fray. And since she’s not running for one of the mainstream parties, I doubt her blogposts will be a big surprise to anyone.
James, you raise very important issues, ones that I am glad to be able to elaborate on.
So, despite suggesting that you are never in disagreement with the Magisterium, you are saying that there are moral decisions that you make based on principles within the Catholic Church “that you agree toâ€, suggesting that there are principles that you potentially do not agree with, and that you set aside when making your moral decisions. Which suggests that if the Magisterium applies those principles, you and the Magisterium could conceivably part ways.
That wasn’t so hard to admit, was it?
I don’t think I was suggesting that there are moral principles within Church doctrine or Tradition that I disagree with. In fact, my whole point is that since I “signed on” with the Catholic Church, we do agree. The Magisterium and I, we think alike. If we did not think alike, speaking for myself, I wouldn’t be Catholic.
The Catholic Church is a pretty big tent.
It can be, because the Truth is so vast, and we are in a never-ending discovery of it. So there will be various perspectives on it on the journey to discovering the Truth, and in the course of that journey, people will contradict each other, but they do so in good faith and in submission to the Magisterium. But the tent isn’t open to ideas that are strictly condemned. I don’t want to get into a lengthy debate about the points you brought up. All that to simply to say that the Magisterium exists for a reason: to make clear what is and is not acceptable doctrine.
So I put it to you that moral decisions are ultimately personal, and that the church has the right to advise, but not to dictate.
All moral decisions truly are personal– hence the need to follow one’s conscience, which is the most fundamental law for anyone who wants to be a person of integrity. However, moral laws aren’t the creation of personal conscience. They are discerned and internalized as something external to one’s thought, not the product of one’s thought. I hope that makes sense.
It may seem like the Church dictates moral laws, but that is not how faithful, educated Catholics perceive the Magisterium’s role.
Catholic doctrine, in its substance, is not the fruit of the Church’s mind. It corresponds to Divine Revelation, or notions implicit in Divine Revelation.
I realize you do not believe that, but I am simply speaking of how Catholics perceive it.
In its discernment and formulation, you can say that it is the intellectual and spiritual fruit of the Church– after all, in contemplating truth,we’re applying our own intellectual and spiritual faculties, and these faculties will naturally have a role in what is discerned and how these insights are formulated and propagated.
The Magisterium doesn’t make up Divine Revelation. So in that sense, the Church doesn’t dictate what is believed. It’s not hers to make up, it’s her role to contemplate and defend it.
The work of discerning the Church is not solely the work of the Magisterium. It’s the product of all faithful, who contemplate the truths of the faith, based on what has gone before.
The Magisterium is inspired or fed, if you will, based on the faithful’s correct application of moral and doctrinal principles on the truths. So in that sense the Magisterium doesn’t dictate either.
All that to say that Catholic doctrine is not the product of one person– the pope. It’s not his doctrine. What he passes on is based on a collective understanding of what is true, again based on the correct application of moral and doctrinal principles.
That is why faithful, educated Catholics normally agree with the pope before he teaches definitively on a doctrine. He thinks like the faithful, and the faithful think like him.
The Papacy’s rarely exercised powers of infallibility aside, given that the Church was created and maintained by humans (even a human like the Apostle Peter), the Church is as fallible as the humans who maintain it.
The point that the Church would make is that the Church is as infallible as God makes it.
So, though you seem loathe to say it, it seems that if the Magisterium followed a path that you disagreed with at a moral level, you’d follow your conscience.
The thing is, I signed on to the Catholic Faith. So I agree implicitly, beforehand, on what the Church says.
Which is the path a number of Catholics have already taken in pursuing their own moral journeys as best as they are able.
But there’s more to it than just following your own conscience. When you sign up to be Catholic (or agree to continue being one), you’re agreeing to a set of philosophical and moral principles. Of course people are at different places in their particular cheminement, if you allow the French expression, and so some will be ignorant, and some won’t understand how certain principles apply, etc (which is why we need the Magisterium). But you don’t just become Catholic based on the fact that you’re following your conscience. You agree, beforehand, to certain philosophical ideas. You also agree, a priori, to certain historical ideas. The combination of reason and fact (and I don’t want to get into Catholic apologetics too deeply here) is what leads you to assent to the Catholic faith. That is core to being Catholic, and many Catholics are ignorant of this. When you agree to be Catholic, you are agreeing to certain philosophical ideas, certain historical facts which lead one to conclude that Divine Revelation (i.e. Scripture and Tradition) is authoritative. You don’t just make it up as you go along. There are beliefs that are rudimentary to being Catholic,and if you don’t get them, you don’t understand what Catholicism is or how to think like a Catholic.
Same problem here with comments going missing, but it’s a problem on a number of blogs. It seems the website spamhaus.org is adding a fair number of false positives in their IP lookup of known spammers, and that’s causing a number of blogs to shunt legitimate comments into the spam bin.
The blog kept eating my responses. I posted the response on my blog. Just as well, it was getting wordy.
“I am sure that the voters of Nepean-Carleton would appreciate voting for someone with a core set of values who holds them in the face of adversity. That’s what integrity is, after all.”
No, Suzanne, our little riding is the one that has elected Pierre Poilievre twice. Clearly the people here don’t give a damn about integrity or values. We want a smarmy publicity whore who will do and say anything to gain power and smear his opponents. We want someone to tell us they will cut taxes even if they don’t and someone who tells us how bad everything is even when its ok. Apparently we are idiots.
Well not all of us. I live in Barrhaven and I won’t vote for anyone this time. Good luck and if you happen to be in the Queensbury-Woodroffe area, keep and eye out for me and say hi.
Well not all of us. I live in Barrhaven and I won’t vote for anyone this time. Good luck and if you happen to be in the Queensbury-Woodroffe area, keep and eye out for me and say hi.
I most certainly will, vote or no vote
I lived in Ottawa once. Bussed to Woodroffe school from the Nepean area. Then lived near the experimental farm. I was in Grade 5, so that’s all I got.
You all fascinated? No? Oh well. You pushed all the Geographical Buttons.
SUZANNE and James, our sincere apologies for the weird omissions and repostings, and thank you for your patience. I will delete the duplicates now: Stageleft is down in the Engine Room now examining the dilithium crystals.
Arwen, I’m lightly fascinated, that’s my neighbourhood.
As James mentioned, Akismet (our SPAM filter that ties to the greater SPAM stopping socialist borg engines) has tagged a couple of comments incorrectly and shipped them off to the moderation pen. Usually I am more on top of this and check the pen regularly, but with the arrival of my daughter and grandson in the city yesterday afternoon blogging sort of fell by the wayside – as it will continue to do until they leave
If your comment does not immediately appear reposting it won’t help, we’ll be checking the moderation pen as time permits and release anything trapped in error.
SUZANNE, that’s an eloquent and clearly sincere expression of the relationship between your faith and your political positions.
The question that began this discussion – is a blogger’s body of work relevant for discussion when said blogger offers themselves for public office – seems to have been answered in the affirmative by pretty much everyone.
So the only unanswered question, to me, is – what is SUZANNE’s duty to the voters when it comes to informing them about the role that the Magisterium plays in determining her vote (as opposed to the wishes of her constituents)?
It’s a tough call, in the sense that the candidate doesn’t necessarily get to explain himself when asked point blank questions. In the age of the 4-second soundbyte, you can’t just say everything that I just said, which one reason why politicians “waffle”.
I feel that a voter has every right to know what I’m all about. But if what I have to say has to be communicated in a “packaged” fashion, you won’t get the whole picture– I have to communicate in the densest fashion as possible. The person asking a question has a frame of reference that is completely at odds to what the candidate is saying. So the two talk at cross-purposes in a sense. You were trying to find out if I’m going to follow Vatican memos on voting (an exaggeration, but sufficient for my purposes) and I’m thinking: it’s not like that at all.
I sense that many voters like a politician who is skilled in the art of what might be termed “dense communication”– saying what he wants to communicate, in spite of the framing of the question. I suspect that some voters feel that it’s a sign of shrewdness and worldliness, of someone who knows how to navigate the world of politics (and is therefore competent). Many people have to do this in their professional lives, and I suspect that when they see a politician adept at this form of communication, they get the impression the person is competent.
The downside is that the message and the big picture is mangled through this form of communication. The details are fuzzy and subject to interpretation.
People who know me will know my core principles that I am not willing to betray, and those points of policy on which I am flexible.
“People who know me will know my core principles that I am not willing to betray, and those points of policy on which I am flexible.”
That’s all fine for people who know you, but voters do not know you!
The question is, will you be honest enough to tell the voters that you will vote against their wishes if their wishes contravene the stance of the Catholic church and your personal core principles?
Yes. Or. No.
The question is, will you be honest enough to tell the voters that you will vote against their wishes if their wishes contravene the stance of the Catholic church and your personal core principles?
I will not vote against my core principles. That is the only way to be a person of integrity.
A voter has the responsibility to find out what he is voting for. One advantage of running in a smaller, values-driven party is that once you find out what the party is about, you have a pretty good idea what the candidate is about, unlike the Liberals or PC’s, where there is a big difference of principle and approach from candidate to candidate.
“A voter has the responsibility to find out what he is voting for.”
*grits teeth to the point of breaking a molar*
THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO DO!!!
NOW ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION!!!.
Will you tell the voters that you will vote against their wishes if their wishes contravene the stance of the Catholic church and your personal core principles?
Only to a degree, the larger responsibility/obligation is upon the shoulders of those looking for votes to tell the voter what sort of package they are voting for.
The politician markets themselves during the campaign process and it is not unreasonable for the voter to expect honesty in this, they rarely get it, but they have the right to expect it.
If a candidate is going to toe the party line because they think therin lies the best advantage for the constituency then they must say so, and explain to the people they hope to represent why they have made that decision. If they are not going to toe the line then they should tell the electoriate, and the party, that that is the case.
If their decisions are going to be based on one set of religious beliefs or another then the electoriate deserves to be told that right up front, if a candidate’s decisions may be subject to the will of their religious leader then that is also something that needs to be stated right up front.
– anything less is dishonest.
Will you tell the voters that you will vote against their wishes if their wishes contravene the stance of the Catholic church and your personal core principles?
I just spent several posts explaining my point of view. I cannot adequately explain what I’m all about if you want a 4-second soundbyte answer.
If their decisions are going to be based on one set of religious beliefs or another then the electoriate deserves to be told that right up front, if a candidate’s decisions may be subject to the will of their religious leader then that is also something that needs to be stated right up front.
If I think like the religious leader in question, to begin with, are my principles and decision the product of that religious leader?
That’s what I’m trying to get at. You seem to want to make it about the pope sending his instructions to faithful Catholic politicians. It doesn’t work that way.
“I just spent several posts explaining my point of view. I cannot adequately explain what I’m all about if you want a 4-second soundbyte answer.”
I’m not interested in hearing you “explain” anything until you answer the basic question,which has a YES or NO answer.
I’ll make the question even simpler, and more bare-bones. Will you be truthful about your intentions during your campaign?
But, by your waffling and side-stepping the question, which has been posed several different way, I deem the question to have been answered, and that answer is NO.
“You seem to want to make it about the pope sending his instructions to faithful Catholic politicians. It doesn’t work that way.”
Oh, yes it does, according to several of your comments on other threads, as well as posts on your own blog.
When Catholic Jack Kennedy ran for the presidency in 1960, he told a group of protestant ministers in Houston, Texas, that if there were ever a fundamental conflict between his Catholic faith and his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, he would resign his office. In the event he was elected the first Catholic president.
And that’s part of my whole objection to SUZANNE’S stance. Not only is it profoundly anti-democratic- but it’s actually going to undo a lot of the progress Catholic politicians have made. American voters were genuinely afraid that a vote for a Catholic meant a vote for Vatican veto on certain issues: and SUZANNE has confirmed that they are correct.