Catholic.com presidential poll

[Tomdstone]

You seem to misunderstand that because this country legally allows the murder of unborn children, the first step that needs to take place is for this travesty of justice (Roe v Wade decision) to be corrected. No real progress on this issue can take place until this happens. Hearts and minds need to be converted as well as our political decisions regarding…

Hillary goes in the other direction and says that your religious beliefs must be changed, presumably with reference to accepting abortion.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sure he does. He said waterboarding is torture and he wants to do that and ‘worse’. So, you disagree with Trump on what constitutes torture.

I believe you are basing this as an interpretation of his comments on Fox and Friends. It does ignore all the followup where he said that this is for ‘retribution’ and ‘to make them suffer.’ He made it very clear that this wasn’t a case of collateral damage. I would suggest watching Trump talk about it on the O’Reilly Factor as I think there can be no room left for doubt on his interpretation.

I believe that the USCCB (a careful reading of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship would dissuade you that the Church wants single issue voters) or Bishop Kicanas’ comments (who pointed out the complex issues Catholic face when making a vote) would mean that we are not on a Protestant track because you would never say that these organizations or individuals are anything but Catholic.

 

[dixieagle]

I am thinking 3rd Party presently. I am very interested in the American Solidarity Party. I’ll be keeping an eye on who they come up with. Their platform hits a lot of marks for me. Progressive and pro-life!

solidarity-party.org/

I will have to look into this party - have never heard of it. Absolutely no chance whatsoever I will vote for either Trump or Clinton.

 

[dixieagle]

WOW, I like these guys!

Wish we had some politicians following this platform!

I just checked it out; they are likely the closest of any party to many of my positions - pro-life, Catholic social teaching. I’ll have to check and see if they’re on the ballot in my state. I somehow doubt it.

 

[Tomdstone]

WOW, I like these guys!

Wish we had some politicians following this platform!

There is a lot to like in their platform. But I have a few reservations.

 

[Crossbones]

There is a lot to like in their platform. But I have a few reservations.

Is one of them that you never heard of them before today and just realized what an incredible small minority you are in America? Cause that’s what occurred to me.

 

[Joe_5859]

Frankly, I consider Trump to be a non-ideological person, like a lot of very engaged business people are. People like that are usually “pure practicality”. Their passion is to take things that don’t work and make them work better than anyone imagined they could. Trump’s life seems like that to me. He didn’t make his money selling out his country like Hillary Clinton has done. He made it by building things people were actually willing to pay for. His very first project in Manhattan, he said, was an old hotel that was full of prostitutes and drug merchants. He “tore it down to the steel”, he said, but preserving old decorative ceilings with considerable effort. The whole neighborhood changed. As his projects in Manhattan increased, so did the conditions there improve.

He took bad things and turned them into good things; moreover good things people were willing to pay for.

Trump is, by his statement, a Presbyterian. If you look up various writings by Presbyterian leaders, they’re as bland and uncertain as dishwater. One gathers he is not a very “good” Presbyterian. He just is what he is and gives it a nod here and there.

He has already said what kinds of Supreme Court justices he would appoint, and even named two he would appoint; constitutional devotees both. Why, if he is non-ideological, would he do that? Is he being a hypocrite?

Well, maybe, but more likely it’s just a practicality. If he wins, his re-election would depend on his doing things like that. Not being ideological, that would be just fine with him, and he would “make that deal”. At the end of this election, he will owe absolutely nothing to the radicals on the left that will turn the court into an insane asylum if Hillary wins.

He purports to hate political corruption. After all, it cost him a great deal of money over the years to live within a corrupt system. So, might he devote some of his efforts to “cleaning house” after the last eight years of frightful corruption in the current administration? Likely he would. He knows how needlessly expensive it is. It’s not cost-efficient.

I think a lot of Catholics won’t vote for him because he isn’t Rick Santorum. But I also think he could be the best thing that has happened to Catholics since 2008.

You do make a compelling case. I don’t think that Trump much cares one way or the other for social issues, but perhaps you are right that he will stick to constitutional conservatives just because it is practical to please his base.

Of course, my concern there is that—if the Senate has a majority of Democrats—it would be practical of him to appoint a compromise candidate. Though I suppose even his compromise candidate would be better than one chosen by Hilary or Obama.

I just realized that I haven’t heard much about the Scalia vacancy recently. People were all up in arms about the Senate putting it off but it seems people have moved on to other things.

 

[Tablefor9]

My vote won’t be a “for”. It will be the strongest “against” statement I can make. Unless some other option becomes clear to keep HRC out of the White House, I’ll take a anti-emetic and vote Trump.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sure he does. He said waterboarding is torture and he wants to do that and ‘worse’. So, you disagree with Trump on what constitutes torture.

I believe you are basing this as an interpretation of his comments on Fox and Friends. It does ignore all the followup where he said that this is for ‘retribution’ and ‘to make them suffer.’ He made it very clear that this wasn’t a case of collateral damage. I would suggest watching Trump talk about it on the O’Reilly Factor as I think there can be no room left for doubt on his interpretation.

I believe that the USCCB (a careful reading of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship would dissuade you that the Church wants single issue voters) or Bishop Kicanas’ comments (who pointed out the complex issues Catholic face when making a vote) would mean that we are not on a Protestant track because you would never say that these organizations or individuals are anything but Catholic.

It really isn’t right to tell Catholics that our Church’s teachings are other than what they are.

From the USCCB document you cited:

“…some issues involve principles that can never be abandoned, such as the fundamental right to life and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Others reflect our judgment about the best way to apply Catholic principles to policy issues…”

In other words, opposing abortion is an absolute. Other issues are matters of individual application of Catholic principles. So, for example, we might differ on the best trade policies, but not on abortion on demand.

Hillary Clinton is the most abortion promoting person who has ever run for president and is the only candidate promoting abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. Catholics cannot morally vote for her, period.

Now, since the Church has not defined “torture”, we do have some freedom in assessing those things that are “torture” versus those that are merely unpleasant.

What did Trump actually say. He said it’s “…sort of the least form of torture”, also characterizing it as a “minimal” form. Later, and presumably upon reflection, he said “…nobody knows what torture is…”, which is exactly correct. People (initially including Trump) don’t have a good definition of it by which one might judge this thing to be torture and that thing not to be.

I have asked many times on CAF for those who loosely apply the term to define “torture” in a practical way. Nobody ever does.

And the context of the “collateral damage” statement was that of collateral damage, not specifically targeting noncombatants for the sake of doing it.

And Bishop Kicanas has never said it’s acceptable morally to vote for Hillary Clinton or any other abortionist. He is a very liberal outlier in the Church, but he too says abortion is “gravely” wrong.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It really isn’t right to tell Catholics that our Church’s teachings are other than what they are.

From the USCCB document you cited:

“…some issues involve principles that can never be abandoned, such as the fundamental right to life and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Others reflect our judgment about the best way to apply Catholic principles to policy issues…”

In other words, opposing abortion is an absolute. Other issues are matters of individual application of Catholic principles. So, for example, we might differ on the best trade policies, but not on abortion on demand.

Hillary Clinton is the most abortion promoting person who has ever run for president and is the only candidate promoting abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. Catholics cannot morally vote for her, period.

Now, since the Church has not defined “torture”, we do have some freedom in assessing those things that are “torture” versus those that are merely unpleasant.

What did Trump actually say. He said it’s “…sort of the least form of torture”, also characterizing it as a “minimal” form. Later, and presumably upon reflection, he said “…nobody knows what torture is…”, which is exactly correct. People (initially including Trump) don’t have a good definition of it by which one might judge this thing to be torture and that thing not to be.

I have asked many times on CAF for those who loosely apply the term to define “torture” in a practical way. Nobody ever does.

And the context of the “collateral damage” statement was that of collateral damage, not specifically targeting noncombatants for the sake of doing it.

And Bishop Kicanas has never said it’s acceptable morally to vote for Hillary Clinton or any other abortionist. He is a very liberal outlier in the Church, but he too says abortion is “gravely” wrong.

Well sure the faithful Catholic is to oppose abortion. And I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise. But the document nevertheless says that the Catholic voter can still make the decision to vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, as long as in doing so, it is not the voter’s intent to support that position. And likewise says a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

But this back and forth seems to get nowhere. Because what other grave reasons one’s conscience may find, would seem to me to ultimately be between the voter and God. Not between the voter and Catholic Republicans on an internet website.

 

[Tomdstone]

Well sure the faithful Catholic is to oppose abortion. And I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise. But the document nevertheless says that the Catholic voter can still make the decision to vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, as long as in doing so, it is not the voter’s intent to support that position. And likewise says a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

But this back and forth seems to get nowhere. Because what other grave reasons one’s conscience may find, would seem to me to ultimately be between the voter and God. Not between the voter and Catholic Republicans on an internet website.

Is it all right to vote for a candidate who demands that religious beliefs on abortion be changed ?

 

[Crossbones]

It really isn’t right to tell Catholics that our Church’s teachings are other than what they are.

From the USCCB document you cited:

“…some issues involve principles that can never be abandoned, such as the fundamental right to life and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Others reflect our judgment about the best way to apply Catholic principles to policy issues…”

In other words, opposing abortion is an absolute. Other issues are matters of individual application of Catholic principles. So, for example, we might differ on the best trade policies, but not on abortion on demand.

Hillary Clinton is the most abortion promoting person who has ever run for president and is the only candidate promoting abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. Catholics cannot morally vote for her, period.

Other intrinsic evils that cannot be supported include racism, torture, targeting of noncombatants and support of gay marriage.

Now, since the Church has not defined “torture”, we do have some freedom in assessing those things that are “torture” versus those that are merely unpleasant.

What did Trump actually say. He said it’s “…sort of the least form of torture”, also characterizing it as a “minimal” form. Later, and presumably upon reflection, he said “…nobody knows what torture is…”, which is exactly correct. People (initially including Trump) don’t have a good definition of it by which one might judge this thing to be torture and that thing not to be.

Trump seemed to know that waterboarding is torture and evolved his position. I’m sorry to say that he knows what torture is, but realized he gave up a false premise of deniability by admitting he knows what torture is.

I have asked many times on CAF for those who loosely apply the term to define “torture” in a practical way. Nobody ever does.

And the context of the “collateral damage” statement was that of collateral damage, not specifically targeting noncombatants for the sake of doing it.

Again, he made it clear when questioned about it later that it was for ‘retribution’ and ‘to make them suffer’. There’s no doubting what he meant because he clarified his position. He intends on targeting noncombatants.

And Bishop Kicanas has never said it’s acceptable morally to vote for Hillary Clinton or any other abortionist. He is a very liberal outlier in the Church, but he too says abortion is “gravely” wrong.

It’s funny that the same few bishops get quoted over and over again supporting the view that it is never permissible to vote for abortion and it wouldn’t occur to me to insult them in any way. All bishops contribute to the teachings of the Church and, on this forum, we do not make disparaging remarks about clergy.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

The sky is falling!

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.
America! America!
God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

O beautiful for glorious tale
Of liberating strife,
When valiantly for man’s avail
Men lavish precious life.
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev’ry gain divine.

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

 

[Tomdstone]

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.
America! America!
God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

O beautiful for glorious tale
Of liberating strife,
When valiantly for man’s avail
Men lavish precious life.
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev’ry gain divine.

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

I suppose you can sing songs and ignore the fact that America is in real trouble when the two major candidates for president are Hillary and Mr. Trump.

 

[pnewton]

I dont know if this is a appropriate thread to put this out there, but…

Did you know that Clinton and Trump are both Christian?

Protestant, yes, but christian none the less. Though the same could be said about obama, but im not sure.

I am not sure of either, either. All I have to go on in discerning who to vote for are the fruits they have shown, which is why I will vote for neither.

 

[Tomdstone]

Did you know that Clinton and Trump are both Christian?

Hillary has demanded that our religious beliefs be changed, presumably to go along with her pro-abortion agenda.

 

[pnewton]

Clinton, of course. Proud to elect her as our next President.

Why “proud”?

Why not? So she supports the slaughter of the innocent. There were plenty who cheered human slaughter at the Coliseum. So the cheering now is done under the banner of women’s rights.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know that one can say Trump was a “supporter” of Hillary Clinton. More accurate, perhaps to say he was one of many “buyers” of Hillary Clinton.

I cannot see this as anything but spin. Buying her may have been his motivation, but he still supported her.