From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:48:31 GMT

In article <Hq4cVB1w165w@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>
>> The prohibition is against priests running for office, not against the
>> Church participating in the political process. The Church has every right
>> and in fact, I would propose, a duty to preach the Gospel. In fact, all
>> Christians have this duty. To be, in need be, a voice calling in the
>> wilderness.
>>
>> Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
>> The American University
>> Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
>
>Which is precisely why the prohibition against clergy running for office is
>contradictory, IMHO.  If a priest can practice civil disobedience, it seems
>reasonable that the same heirarchy would encourage priests to work *within* the
>system to change it.

You seem to be identifying the "system" with the structures of legislative power.  It seems to me that is much to restrictive.  The "system", at least here in
the United States, consists of the organs of government, and the people who
are governed, who participate in the "system" by active voting and lobbying, and
in certain instances protesting, and in even more restrictive instances 
disobeying.  
So the question would seem to be whether a priest whose calling in life is
to administer the sacraments, and bear witness to the Gospel through teaching
by the authority of the Church, in particular his local bishop, can exercise
legislative power within the system without corrupting either his legislative
authority or his priestly function, e.g. Fr. Drinan and his pro-choice votes.
It seems that a priest can certainly, and should witness the Gospel by teaching
within the system.  But don't you see the difficulty, given the high profile
of a priest and the high profile of elective office, of separating the two functions?  If I remember correctly, I recall seeing Fr. Drinan on the House Select
Watergate Committee vote for the recommendation of impeachment of Richard
Nixon, wearing his roman collar.  Now questions naturally arise:
1) since he was wearing a Roman collar, was he acting as a priest, or as
a representative of the Roman Catholic church when he voted in favor of
the resolution?
2) Since it was a select commitee, it was specially selected by the House
leadership to investigate the situation.  Did the leadership have a politcal
reason for selecting a priest to sit on the committee.  Were they trying to
use the Church to lend authority and legitimacy to what they were doing?
....Fill in questions you like.
Even if the answers to these questions could be answered definitively in the
negative, you see the difficulty it places upon both the legitimate political
authority and the legitmate priestly role.  It seems then highly imprudent
to have priests occupying positions of political authority and legislative
authority and power in governments other than the Vatican (the Vatican being
somewhat of an anamoly to the norm of governments and nations.)

Peace, and Happy Advent,
John

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic