Catholic.com presidential poll

[Crossbones]

Sounds like something you could find out by day tomorrow…

Let’s us know what you find.

As I’ve said. I proudly support my candidate… Bumper sticker and all!

Honestly, I couldn’t find out who is on the Illinois ballot and I looked today. I know in 2012, it was only the Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Green Party. And some of the parties haven’t chosen a candidate yet.

 

[Dwyer]

I’m going to vote for Trump because I don’t like Hillary Clinton’s (and the Democratic Party in general) position on Abortion.

Plus there is a United States Supreme Court vacancy that needs to be filled.

 

[Alex_H]

I feel dejected. It seems like neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really align with Catholic moral teaching.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That’s not what I said is it?

It’s a small small issue anyway but people love to point it out. Like I stated before, I voted for the original waterboarding administration. So did lots of people. Do I agree as a Catholic with torture. No. But on one hand we have enemies who wish to kill us and on the other the torture of babies on the other side of a two sided election.

I know you wish to debate this. But it is hardly fair given your reluctance to offer your personal choices here…

I don’t remember Bush campaigning about how we needed to waterboard and go beyond waterboarding in 2000, or 2004. I know McCain was against it.

Our choice this election is candidate 1 who is pro-choice and holds morally wrong opinions on many issues, and candidate 2 who is also pro-choice and holds morally wrong opinions on many issues.

Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for many, many — for millions of women,” Trump said in a news conference Tuesday night. “And I’ll say it, and I know a lot of the so-called conservatives, they say that’s really … cause I’m a conservative, but I’m a common-sense conservative.”

Trump said he would not fund Planned Parenthood “as long as you have the abortion going on,” but noted the “millions of people — and I’ve had thousands of letters from women — that have been helped.”

Do pro-life people say things like that? Do women in the thousands really write Donald Trump about their wonderful experiences at PP?

Why, why, why can’t it be categorically said, “No funding, they make a profit every year and don’t need funding”

I’m supposed to believe this fellow is pro-life?

Sorry. I can’t do it.

I didn’t want him as a candidate.

adding this link to an article, I think very good:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/05/disturbed-by-the-presidential-election-take-my-advice.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t remember Bush campaigning about how we needed to waterboard and go beyond waterboarding in 2000, or 2004. I know McCain was against it.

Our choice this election is candidate 1 who is pro-choice and holds morally wrong opinions on many issues, and candidate 2 who is also pro-choice and holds morally wrong opinions on many issues.

Do pro-life people say things like that? Do women in the thousands really write Donald Trump about their wonderful experiences at PP?

Why, why, why can’t it be categorically said, “No funding, they make a profit every year and don’t need funding”

I’m supposed to believe this fellow is pro-life?

Sorry. I can’t do it.

I didn’t want him as a candidate.

adding this link to an article, I think very good:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/05/disturbed-by-the-presidential-election-take-my-advice.html

Doesn’t the bible exhort us to “…put not your faith in princes…”? It’s foolish to expect politicians to be on all fours with my particular beliefs. They will never be.

In the upcoming election, there is a clear choice, in my opinion. Here’s Trump who opposes abortion except for the three exceptions of rape, incest and life of the mother. He also has named some excellent candidates for the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, there’s Hillary Clinton who supports abortion on demand, “changing my religion”, and who will unquestionably appoint pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court, or worse. Remember that her husband appointed Ginzburg who believes twelve year olds should be able legally to consent to sex. Her record includes a war against Libya, handing over countries to terrorists, gun running, handing billions of dollars to Iran and selling political influence to the likes of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, among others.

And some think there’s nothing to choose between them?

Do I find myself voting “against” candidates more than “for” them? Yes I do. If I don’t oppose the evil of a Hillary Clinton, then I’m responsible for the consequences of that failure.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I feel dejected. It seems like neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really align with Catholic moral teaching.

Of course not. No political party ever does. But some are more against Catholic moral teaching than others. When Obama persecutes the Little Sisters of the Poor because they don’t want to be instrumental in providing contraceptives and abortifacients for their workers and themselves, and when Hillary Clinton tells us we’ll need to “change our religious beliefs” to fit her agenda on abortion, then it’s pretty clear one ought to be extremely dejected if Clinton wins this election if one does not vote against her and for her only serious adversary.

Trump wasn’t my first choice. He was my fourth choice. But I would vote for a fifth or sixth in order to defeat Hillary Clinton.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Please tell us what your interpretation of what Bishop Kincanis’s interview is and where such an interpretation is backed up by any other member of the Magestrium. I dont see where he has contradicted any of the quotes and documents we have provided on this issue.

I don’t have an interpretation. I have his own words and Bishop Kicanas is a member of the magesterium as much as the member(s) that you quote. Here again are his own words:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm

So since you see no contradiction, then I will just assume you agree with the bishop when he says voting decisions are never easy and the decision is not a slam dunk. That the voter must weigh issues (plural) as well as consider the character of the candidate and what one thinks a candidate can actually do to affect society. And that you agree with Bishop Kicanas when he said as well that he is sure there isn’t a consensus among the bishops on whether a pro-choice vote amounts to formal cooperation.

I’m a voter. I’ve done these things. Weighed the many issues. Considered character and the potential effects on society. And I personally have concluded I am not at all impressed with having a character with the temperament and personality of a Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, as Commander in Chief. I also don’t think a 3rd party candidate can affect society as much since they are not going to be elected President.

I respect everyone’s right to vote according to their own informed minds and consciences and to even vote for someone who has no chance of being President or not voting at all.

I just personally though am now going to choose between one of those 2 candidates actually having a chance to be our next President. Because I once voted 3rd party in a major statewide executive branch race and of the 2 major candidates, the one I least wanted, ended up winning by just a mere percentage point. 3% of us voted 3rd party enough to have possibly swung the election the other way. So after that, I myself just can’t bring myself to risk being part of Donald Trump moving from his Manhattan Penthouse to the White House. I know my conscience could not live with myself if I did. And to my mind, voting for him or 3rd party or not voting would do just that. But again, I respect those who see it differently and who plan to vote 3rd party or not at all.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Of course not. No political party ever does. But some are more against Catholic moral teaching than others. When Obama persecutes the Little Sisters of the Poor because they don’t want to be instrumental in providing contraceptives and abortifacients for their workers and themselves, and when Hillary Clinton tells us we’ll need to “change our religious beliefs” to fit her agenda on abortion, then it’s pretty clear one ought to be extremely dejected if Clinton wins this election if one does not vote against her and for her only serious adversary.

Trump wasn’t my first choice. He was my fourth choice. But I would vote for a fifth or sixth in order to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Neither Trump nor Hillary were my first choices either. My first choice was Sanders. On the GOP side I’d have preferred Kasich or Bush.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…I once voted 3rd party in a major statewide executive branch race and of the 2 major candidates, the one I least wanted, ended up winning by just a mere percentage point…

The only time (in my mind) that one should vote 3rd party rather than the two major candidates is if you see little to no difference between the two majors.

I see very little difference between the two myself as neither seems able to tell the truth consistently…and I’m not talking ‘typical politically motivated’ liars. Both of the majors have serious truth-speak problems.

It really does boil down to the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t know. (figuratively speaking of course - I hope ).

The one I know (Clinton), I can’t vote for in good conscience given her known demonic stances. The one I don’t know (Trump) scares me based (in part) on the seemingly demonic rhetoric he uses. I get the whole difficult choice thing.

The one I don’t know has a slight edge to 3rd party for me at this point in the process. May God save us from disaster this election cycle. I hope it’s not too late for the nation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t have an interpretation. I have his own words and Bishop Kicanas is a member of the magesterium as much as the member(s) that you quote. Here again are his own words:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm

So since you see no contradiction, then I will just assume you agree with the bishop when he says voting decisions are never easy and the decision is not a slam dunk. That the voter must weigh issues (plural) as well as consider the character of the candidate and what one thinks a candidate can actually do to affect society. And that you agree with Bishop Kicanas when he said as well that he is sure there isn’t a consensus among the bishops on whether a pro-choice vote amounts to formal cooperation.

I’m a voter. I’ve done these things. Weighed the many issues. Considered character and the potential effects on society. And I personally have concluded I am not at all impressed with having a character with the temperament and personality of a Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, as Commander in Chief. I also don’t think a 3rd party candidate can affect society as much since they are not going to be elected President.

I respect everyone’s right to vote according to their own informed minds and consciences and to even vote for someone who has no chance of being President or not voting at all.

I just personally though am now going to choose between one of those 2 candidates actually having a chance to be our next President. Because I once voted 3rd party in a major statewide executive branch race and of the 2 major candidates, the one I least wanted, ended up winning by just a mere percentage point. 3% of us voted 3rd party enough to have possibly swung the election the other way. So after that, I myself just can’t bring myself to risk being part of Donald Trump moving from his Manhattan Penthouse to the White House. I know my conscience could not live with myself if I did. And to my mind, voting for him or 3rd party or not voting would do just that. But again, I respect those who see it differently and who plan to vote 3rd party or not at all.

Some people support Hillary Clinton and we knew that a long time ago.

You have given us quotes from the USCCB that do not support your position that Catholics can pick and choose which moral choices they wish to make; an attitude essential to voting for Hillary Clinton. The snippet from Bp. Kicanas doesn’t support it either, it’s just limited by the scope of the questions he’s asked.

It’s not supported by the Popes, or any bishop. Quite the contrary. And there should be no surprise to that, because that position is the heart and soul of moral relativism; something many sects accept, but which the Catholic Church vehemently does not.

The Church’s actual position is that abortion is an intrinsic and grave evil; that we cannot support candidates who promote it UNLESS the opposing candidate promotes an equally grave and intrinsic evil or a greater one.

Nothing could be more clear. Trump proposes banning abortion except in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother. Not good because the Church teaches those exceptions are wrong, and we should regard them as wrong. But Hillary Clinton promotes abortion on demand; that is, abortion in all cases. Additionally, Trump proposes prolife Supreme Court justices while Hillary Clinton proposes pro-abortion justices. Ultimately, the Supreme Court that long ago imposed abortion on demand on the populace is the only power that can remove it.

If one’s conscience tells one that he may support the greater evil for the sake of a lesser one, then if his particular religion tells him that’s how conscience is properly formed, then he ought to follow his own religion if he thinks it’s the church founded by Christ. But it’s not the way a Catholic should form his conscience. Not at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hillary pretending to be more responsible with her finger on the nuclear button after 1-million a year of the innocent isn’t much of an argument, thats 4X the amount of Japan and yearly. Further after her handling of national security with a private server, I cant see where the illusion of trust favors Hillary to any degree in fact highest unfavorable rating and due to trust. She’s a deeply flawed person who we should keep out of the white house with her human rights record. She’s no friend of the human race.

 

[JimG]

Never Hillary.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The only time (in my mind) that one should vote 3rd party rather than the two major candidates is if you see little to no difference between the two majors.

I see very little difference between the two myself as neither seems able to tell the truth consistently…and I’m not talking ‘typical politically motivated’ liars. Both of the majors have serious truth-speak problems.

It really does boil down to the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t know. (figuratively speaking of course - I hope ).

The one I know (Clinton), I can’t vote for in good conscience given her known demonic stances. The one I don’t know (Trump) scares me based (in part) on the seemingly demonic rhetoric he uses. I get the whole difficult choice thing.

The one I don’t know has a slight edge to 3rd party for me at this point in the process. May God save us from disaster this election cycle. I hope it’s not too late for the nation.

I understand. I don’t know about Trump but as for myself, I do see differences between the 2 parties today on many issues. Including but not limited to healthcare for the sick, economic issues and the growing income disparity between rich and poor and middle class, climate change and it’s affects on God’s environment, guns and others.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I understand. I don’t know about Trump but as for myself, I do see differences between the 2 parties today on many issues. Including but not limited to healthcare for the sick, economic issues and the growing income disparity between rich and poor and middle class, climate change and it’s affects on God’s environment, guns and others.

Unfortunately, Clinton has proven she doesn’t really care about the issues you detail here.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like Trump does either - he’s just unproven (and thus has a slight edge for me this election cycle - so far).

 

[Sy_Noe]

Some people support Hillary Clinton and we knew that a long time ago.

You have given us quotes from the USCCB that do not support your position that Catholics can pick and choose which moral choices they wish to make; an attitude essential to voting for Hillary Clinton. The snippet from Bp. Kicanas doesn’t support it either, it’s just limited by the scope of the questions he’s asked.

It’s not supported by the Popes, or any bishop. Quite the contrary. And there should be no surprise to that, because that position is the heart and soul of moral relativism; something many sects accept, but which the Catholic Church vehemently does not.

The Church’s actual position is that abortion is an intrinsic and grave evil; that we cannot support candidates who promote it UNLESS the opposing candidate promotes an equally grave and intrinsic evil or a greater one.

Nothing could be more clear. Trump proposes banning abortion except in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother. Not good because the Church teaches those exceptions are wrong, and we should regard them as wrong. But Hillary Clinton promotes abortion on demand; that is, abortion in all cases. Additionally, Trump proposes prolife Supreme Court justices while Hillary Clinton proposes pro-abortion justices. Ultimately, the Supreme Court that long ago imposed abortion on demand on the populace is the only power that can remove it.

If one’s conscience tells one that he may support the greater evil for the sake of a lesser one, then if his particular religion tells him that’s how conscience is properly formed, then he ought to follow his own religion if he thinks it’s the church founded by Christ. But it’s not the way a Catholic should form his conscience. Not at all.

If you’re referring to me, actually it couldn’t have been that long because I voted for Bernie Sanders. But anyway if such an interpretation of Catholic teaching in regard to voting is indeed the way you and a majority of others here describe it, then it’s good I no longer practice because I will have lost faith in such an authority on earth. As I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus wants me to vote solely on abortion. And ignore a multitiude of other issues and the character and temperament of a candidate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you’re referring to me, actually it couldn’t have been that long because I voted for Bernie Sanders. But anyway if such an interpretation of Catholic teaching in regard to voting is indeed the way you and a majority of others here describe it, then it’s good I no longer practice because I will have lost faith in such an authority on earth. As I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus wants me to vote solely on abortion. And ignore a multitiude of other issues and the character and temperament of a candidate.

Being reasonably cognizant of forum rules, I try to avoid directly addressing any poster other than in responding to something posed directly to me. Best to speak generally regarding most things.

But let’s think about this for a moment. Whatever reasons you have for not practicing Catholicism are your own, and I am making no inquiry into them. But let’s say, for example, that Hillary Clinton proposed euthanizing all Americans on their 65th birthday because the Medicare and Social Security systems are hopelessly insolvent, which they are. If she did that, you would not say “…I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus wants me to vote solely on killing all 65-year-olds…” You would never even question that any issue is equally grave or as intrinsically evil as the euthanasia proposal and wouldn’t dream of supporting that candidate because of the imagined “character” or temperament of the opponent. You would instantly reject Hillary Clinton on that basis alone and vote for her opponent even if you didn’t like his “character and temperament”. Moreover, you would be appalled that any candidate would ever even propose such a thing.

In Catholic teaching, the unborn are to be regarded as human beings, the same as are the 65-year-olds. Now, some belief systems do not accept that. Some, in addition to Catholics, do accept it. Christian protestant Fundamentalists largely do too.

It is only because of that rejection of the belief that the unborn are human beings that keeps far more people from recoiling in horror from Hillary Clinton than do. Same with Bernie Sanders, who is every bit as pro-abortion as Clinton is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but I just saw this and was astonished by it. Clinton is telling Californians that their votes in the California primary won’t matter because she has already won the nomination. Might be true, but what an incredibly foolish thing to say to voters.

huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-to-californians-y_b_10053848.html?yptr=yahoo

 

[pnewton]

I find this particular presidential choice very disappointing.

I, have voted since 1988. This will be the first time I’m voting third party.

I am also considering becoming a registered Independent, and not a Republican.

I was a Republican for life issues. The Republicans want Trump? I don’t think the life issues mattered much. There were candidates who actually were prolife with prolife backgrounds.

I suspect that the Republican party will loose a significant number of members this year, especially among the pro-life crowd. You simply do not relegate a top priority to a secondary check box without consequences.

Our choice this election is candidate 1 who is pro-choice and holds morally wrong opinions on many issues, and candidate 2 who is also pro-choice and holds morally wrong opinions on many issues.

One of the two agreed to say some pro-life things this year, after his pollsters told him he should. Have you actually heard him talk about this issue. It is so funny. You can hear the reluctance in his voice, as opposed to his enthusiasm when discussing Mexicans or Muslims.

PS - While this is not about your post, I would like to mention, lest we forget, Hillary Clinton is not mentioned in any Church teaching. The idea that voting for her is contrary to Catholic doctrine is always an opinion that requires at lease some predicating premise, also not found in Catholic doctrine. Only one Bishop has said there are no circumstances under which someone like her could receive a Catholic vote, in contradiction to those bishops that assembled Faithful Citizenship, btw. The Catholic position for voting for her is painfully thin, due to her grave evil, but not impossible.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Being reasonably cognizant of forum rules, I try to avoid directly addressing any poster other than in responding to something posed directly to me. Best to speak generally regarding most things.

But let’s think about this for a moment. Whatever reasons you have for not practicing Catholicism are your own, and I am making no inquiry into them. But let’s say, for example, that Hillary Clinton proposed euthanizing all Americans on their 65th birthday because the Medicare and Social Security systems are hopelessly insolvent, which they are. If she did that, you would not say “…I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus wants me to vote solely on killing all 65-year-olds…” You would never even question that any issue is equally grave or as intrinsically evil as the euthanasia proposal and wouldn’t dream of supporting that candidate because of the imagined “character” or temperament of the opponent. You would instantly reject Hillary Clinton on that basis alone and vote for her opponent even if you didn’t like his “character and temperament”. Moreover, you would be appalled that any candidate would ever even propose such a thing.

In Catholic teaching, the unborn are to be regarded as human beings, the same as are the 65-year-olds. Now, some belief systems do not accept that. Some, in addition to Catholics, do accept it. Christian protestant Fundamentalists largely do too.

It is only because of that rejection of the belief that the unborn are human beings that keeps far more people from recoiling in horror from Hillary Clinton than do. Same with Bernie Sanders, who is every bit as pro-abortion as Clinton is.

Well although I wouldn’t agree that the solvency of Social Security is hopeless, we can at least agree that indeed there is not a consensus among faiths, including among Christians, on abortion, on zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, on matters such as ensoulment and on the potential development of a human person, on personhood rights and women’s reproductive rights. Not nearly to the extent that there is on 65 yr olds. Not even close and with no other issue even remotely comparing. For some that might even be all the more reason under civil law to respect a woman’s right to choose as theirs and hers religious freedom dictates.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but I just saw this and was astonished by it. Clinton is telling Californians that their votes in the California primary won’t matter because she has already won the nomination. Might be true, but what an incredibly foolish thing to say to voters.

huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-to-californians-y_b_10053848.html?yptr=yahoo

I’m a Bernie supporter. He has done phenomenally well. Far better than I even expected. I think probably better than even he thought possible. But she has won over 3 million more votes than Bernie. She is going to be the nominee.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html