Does Randall Terry speak for American Catholics?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Jan 25, 2011.

  1. 63dot, Jan 25, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2011

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    http://www.goddiscussion.com/39449/anti-abortion-activist-runs-for-president-to-air-super-bowl-ads/

    Like him or not, Randall Terry, who has the power of a Cardinal rendered onto to him by the Vatican (or some say the conservative Pope), succeeded where nobody else did in the pro-life movement with Operation Rescue. I don't know, or care, if Terry becomes the Pope and the Church changes its rules. The Church should be allowed to run themselves and that's fine by me.

    Though I am a Christian and pro-life (but liberal in politics on dozens of other issues and thus not a Republican), I am bothered by a man of such a prominent religious position running for President in 2012. While Terry downplays his effect, he can gain a foothold in a recession economy presided by an unpopular president.

    In the past, men who have become ordained and moved up through the ranks have run for President and barely a peep was heard about separation of church and state. I have had discussions with my pastor on this issue where he, a liberal Democrat, has no problem mixing the two. However, in these times, this could be big news, especially since Terry can garner plenty of financial contributions. He's no regular "cardinal" or national vicar of Christ or religious figure/chief spokesperson, but in addition to what title he goes by this month, he has always had a strong level of support among conservative Protestants and Catholics. He is extremely charismatic and intelligent. On top of that, he has organizational skills that, well, a president should be expected to have.

    Does he deserve to go on Fox or the national news media and state the position of the Church and have the Vatican back him up, or is it the other way around having the Pope know that Terry speaks for at least the conservative part of the Catholic Church the Pope may be partial to?

    Also how do you feel about him talking what appears to be a point of view but then having Terry adamantly state his position is the position of the Vatican whenever anybody dare challenge him. The last time I checked, that power was given to a Cardinal as a spokesman for the Pope. So if Terry is the spokesperson for abortion issue in the USA, then should he run for the Presidency, or is that unconstitutional?

    Our founding fathers had a strong dislike for a theocracy and wanted to do anything they could to build a nation different than the style of a Church of England with its (then) political ties. It appears some Christians (mainly conservatives) have no problem going against what the founding fathers strongly believed in.

    thoughts??
     
  2. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #2
    Terry isn't going to get the nomination. He's a fart in a windstorm.

    In fact, I take that back. Farts serve a purpose in life. He doesn't. And I think the NFL would allow Janet Jackson's half-naked tit back on TV before they allow him to air gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
  5. 63dot, Jan 25, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2011

    63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #5
    If there's a challenge in the Democratic party, believe me, a high profile clergy member/activist/spokesperson can certainly stir things up lest we forget Rev. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jesse Jackson. What made them successful was their ability to mobilize people. Terry clearly has that.

    While Terry sitting at his expensive desk with world leaders in pictures in the background and making infomercials on Fox, not unlike Roberston in his heyday, many Americans unhappy with a ditz like Palin or a lukewarm Obama (50% percent don't approve I assume) can vote for Terry as a protest vote even though they may not hold his issue on abortion.

    Ross Perot rubbed a lot of people the wrong way but he was able to get a lot of traction and change the outcome of an election (probably).

    America is more angry at the Democrats of 2008-2010, and even more so that they were at the GOP in 1992, that Terry can get a foothold.

    Politics is a strange business and people who were not taken seriously, like McCain, can come in and steal a nomination most didn't think was within reach.

    What bothers me most about Terry is that he does not speak for my faith, nor my pro-life views. Does that mean I am going to suddenly become a neo or paleo-con who has to be lockstep against healthcare and the environment? What will happen when Terry starts speaking about other issues?

    The man is a big pain, no doubt, but he is the most credible threat since Palin (who nobody thought had any say after the election). There are people who think he not only speaks for the Vatican, but for Christianity (maybe even God).
     

    Attached Files:

    • url.jpg
      url.jpg
      File size:
      128.2 KB
      Views:
      15
  6. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    Okay, I'm confused. The OP made no sense to me. First of all, he's no cardinal and he has no "power of a cardinal" and the whole spokesman of the pope being a cardinal didn't really make any sense either. :confused:
     
  7. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #7
    I was reading a lot of blogs and have followed Terry for years. I don't agree with the man on many things, but I don't underestimate him.

    What got me all pissed off was when I saw him on Fox stating the position of the Catholic Church and having the commentators at Fox go on about his powers rendered onto him as a spokesperson. One liberal commentator, the lone one as is the case on Fox a lot, got trampled when he mentioned Terry is not a Cardinal or Priest.

    I fact checked his credentials and yes, he was given special designations given to him from the Vatican. Good for him and that's not the issue. Should the guy run for President?

    Just like he may not be America's spokesperson for Catholicism, the non spokesman for Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, seems to get quoted quite a bit and it considered a major religious leader and I have heard his name mentioned in the same sentence as the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury.
     
  8. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #8
    Odd. I would be pissed off, too. No one has "powers rendered onto him as a spokesperson." The only thing that can speak for the Church as a whole is the Magisterium and the pope if he chooses to speak ex cathedra (happened only about 17 times in 2,000 years).

    Could you provide a link? I've never heard of such a thing being granted to anyone. I'd be curious to learn more.

    I don't exactly understand this question. Anyone can run for president. He's a private citizen, he can do what he wants. Now, from the little I know of him, he seems like a wacko and I'd be terrified if he were president, but I don't get the question of whether he should run.

    I'm Catholic and I've never heard the name Terry Randall before now.
     
  9. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #9
    I take it you have never seen Fox News for more than 20 minutes. ;)

    He's not quite as big as Glenn Beck, but he's no stranger to taking command of the camera and dividing people along religious or political lines. Us liberals had Rev. Jackson putting his foot in his mouth and he finally discredited himself. Maybe it's a good chance for America to see what kind of extremist Terry is.

    Anyway, not a bad thing to do a tiny bit of research on Terry as Google has thousands of links on the guy. Let's just say a lot of people, regardless of religious belief, hold Terry in extremely high reverence as he spews far right rhetoric better than the best of the GOP talking heads. Fox considers him some sort of spokesman, and I guess he is if you put him in the camp of the extremely far right wing. The guys scares me and that's the last I will say of him.

    Anyway, this article (one of many) says it better than I can and I will leave this thread to PRSI and viewpoints that may be in concert with him (fivepoint? fullofwin? that's where you come in ;) ).

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=717
     
  10. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #10
    Interesting fellow. Well, I guess that article answers the question in the thread's title.

    As for the larger issue of whether a religious leader should run for office, I would say no, they shouldn't. What's interesting about Randall is that he's not a religious leader (he has not been ordained), but he seems to act as if he were. I would hope that if he ever mounted a serious bid for office that the actual religious leaders would forcibly come out and say he was not a religious leader and discredit him.

    The difficulty with a religious leader becoming an elected official is that you're muddying the actions of an individual in a post designed for an individual with an entire religion. The Catholic Church in particular is very wary about having any one person speak for the the entire church. I, for one, am very glad that in 1980 JPII demanded that all priests remove themselves from elected office.
     

Share This Page