Catholic.com presidential poll

[Crossbones]

Thank you for the reminder, Crossbones.

I think it is an important article to read for a deeper understanding of the views of this bishop. Let me post the link:

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

One interesting point is that Bishop Kicanas questions whether a legislator voting for pro-choice legislation is formal cooperation with evil.

BISHOP KICANAS: One is, what is the level of cooperation involved in a legislator voting for legislation that encourages, or allows, intrinsically evil acts? Is that formal cooperation, or isn’t it? That’s a critical question, because if it is formal cooperation, then serious consequences flow from it.

[snip]

INTERVIEWER: Do you think there’s a consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote [in the legislature], in itself, amounts to formal cooperation?

No, I’m sure there isn’t. There may not be anything the conference itself will be able to decide on that issue. It’s really a larger question.

So, while some around here will claim that voting for a pro-choice politician is formal cooperation with evil, here is a bishop questioning whether a pro-choice vote in the legislator amounts to formal cooperation with evil and admits there is no consensus among the bishops on the issue.

Perhaps that explains why Forming Consciences isn’t specific enough (there is no consensus among bishops) and they insist on looking at other works instead that say what they want to hear such as voter guides from organizations not run by bishops.

It’s worth remembering that the vote approving the document was overwhelming (210-21 with 5 abstentions), so there are bishops that are not happy with this document and may provide quotes that are contradictory to it because they do not support it. That, of course, is their prerogative as bishops.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it is an important article to read for a deeper understanding of the views of this bishop. Let me post the link:

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

One interesting point is that Bishop Kicanas questions whether a legislator voting for pro-choice legislation is formal cooperation with evil.

BISHOP KICANAS: One is, what is the level of cooperation involved in a legislator voting for legislation that encourages, or allows, intrinsically evil acts? Is that formal cooperation, or isn’t it? That’s a critical question, because if it is formal cooperation, then serious consequences flow from it.

[snip]

INTERVIEWER: Do you think there’s a consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote [in the legislature], in itself, amounts to formal cooperation?

No, I’m sure there isn’t. There may not be anything the conference itself will be able to decide on that issue. It’s really a larger question.

So, while some around here will claim that voting for a pro-choice politician is formal cooperation with evil, here is a bishop questioning whether a pro-choice vote in the legislator amounts to formal cooperation with evil and admits there is no consensus among the bishops on the issue.

Perhaps that explains why Forming Consciences isn’t specific enough (there is no consensus among bishops) and they insist on looking at other works instead that say what they want to hear such as voter guides from organizations not run by bishops.

It’s worth remembering that the vote approving the document was overwhelming (210-21 with 5 abstentions), so there are bishops that are not happy with this document and may provide quotes that are contradictory to it because they do not support it. That, of course, is their prerogative as bishops.

There are 449 bishops in the U.S., so fewer than half voted.

But regardless, the question is not whether voting for Hillary Clinton is “formal” cooperation with evil. That’s not necessary. A Catholic cannot support an abortion-promoter unless faced with an equally grave evil to be opposed by doing so. The USCCB document itself says that. It has been so quoted on here previously.

From the document: “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.”

So, insisting on “formal” cooperation is a red herring, and Catholics should not swim away with it.

 

[Crossbones]

There are 449 bishops in the U.S., so fewer than half voted.

But regardless, the question is not whether voting for Hillary Clinton is “formal” cooperation with evil. That’s not necessary. A Catholic cannot support an abortion-promoter unless faced with an equally grave evil to be opposed by doing so. The USCCB document itself says that. It has been so quoted on here previously.

From the document: “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.”

So, insisting on “formal” cooperation is a red herring, and Catholics should not swim away with it.

Unfortunately for us, the ‘pro-life’ party has a bad habit of giving voters a reason to vote for the pro-choice candidate for other morally grave reasons.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately for us, the ‘pro-life’ party has a bad habit of giving voters a reason to vote for the pro-choice candidate for other morally grave reasons.

What are those morally grave reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton that are equally grave with her promotion of the killing of a million innocent children per year?

 

[Crossbones]

What are those morally grave reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton that are equally grave with her promotion of the killing of a million innocent children per year?

Haven’t we been through this many times? I know you reject the idea that Donald Trump is calling for torture, or that he meant targeting noncombatants when he talked about targeting noncombatants, or that the Iraq War was an unjust war, or the idea that simply making abortion illegal while not punishing the women seeking abortions will have a minimal affect on the number of abortions.

Why don’t we just let the lurkers and newcomers go search up one of our many conversations on these issues and use their prudential judgement in conjunction with their well-formed conscience to determine how to vote in the upcoming election?

 

[estesbob]

There are 449 bishops in the U.S., so fewer than half voted.

But regardless, the question is not whether voting for Hillary Clinton is “formal” cooperation with evil. That’s not necessary. A Catholic cannot support an abortion-promoter unless faced with an equally grave evil to be opposed by doing so. The USCCB document itself says that. It has been so quoted on here previously.

From the document: “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.”

So, insisting on “formal” cooperation is a red herring, and Catholics should not swim away with it.

And a multitude of Bishops have laid out what those grave mortal reasons are-an opponent more pro-abortion than they are You will not see one single Bishop giving any reason other than this as being a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

 

[Darryl1958]

Haven’t we been through this many times? I know you reject the idea that Donald Trump is calling for torture, or that he meant targeting noncombatants when he talked about targeting noncombatants, or that the Iraq War was an unjust war, or the idea that simply making abortion illegal while not punishing the women seeking abortions will have a minimal affect on the number of abortions.

Why don’t we just let the lurkers and newcomers go search up one of our many conversations on these issues and use their prudential judgement in conjunction with their well-formed conscience to determine how to vote in the upcoming election?

When Qaddafi was tortured to death, Hillary Clinton laughed about it, and took credit for it.
How is that holding the moral higher ground on the issue of torture?
The distinctions between HRC and Donald are potato potahto.
That is at best a draw when it comes to proportionality.

 

[Crossbones]

When Qaddafi was tortured to death, Hillary Clinton laughed about it, and took credit for it.
How is that holding the moral higher ground on the issue of torture?
The distinctions between HRC and Donald are potato potahto.
That is at best a draw when it comes to proportionality.

I personally agree with in that I do not believe Clinton is an acceptable candidate, however, I believe that all Catholics should gather the relevant information including documents like Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the many comments by bishops and, with a well-formed conscience, decide how to vote instead of depending on my or anyone else’s personal interpretation of Church teaching.

 

[FollowChrist34]

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Trump is now 5.2 points down to Clinton in Real Clear Politics polling - pretty darn close to (in?) margin of error territory. Boy oh boy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Haven’t we been through this many times? I know you reject the idea that Donald Trump is calling for torture, or that he meant targeting noncombatants when he talked about targeting noncombatants, or that the Iraq War was an unjust war, or the idea that simply making abortion illegal while not punishing the women seeking abortions will have a minimal affect on the number of abortions.

Why don’t we just let the lurkers and newcomers go search up one of our many conversations on these issues and use their prudential judgement in conjunction with their well-formed conscience to determine how to vote in the upcoming election?

When the teachings of the Catholic Church or its leaders are misrepresented for the purpose of inducing Catholics to vote for abortion, one has an obligation to state the truth. Moral relativism and subjective moral judgments are not Catholic.

Let’s see, how many times have I asked on these threads for a workable definition of torture only to be met with absolute refusal to do so. The justness of the Iraq War is highly debateable, and it has been debated many times on here as you know. And the Church is not pacifist and does not demand that there be no collateral damage in a war.

In any event, Trump is Presbyterian, not Catholic, and his expressions about such things undoubtedly derive either from that very loosely defined doctrine or from the meanings assigned them by the culture. He probably isn’t even aware of Catholic nomenclature for those issues. Nor does he, as a protestant, claim that he does.

But even if one regards waterboarding as “torture”, it doesn’t kill, many undergo it voluntarily and only three people were waterboarded who didn’t volunteer for it. Set that against Hillary Clinton’s promotion of the deaths of a million unborn children annually. There’s no “proportionality” to that. I realize you don’t accept proportionality when it comes to voting for a candidate who espouses an intrinsic evil, but the Catholic Church does and Catholics who know what the Church teaches do too.

 

[Exiled_Child]

Trump is supposed to meet with Henry Kissinger today, which to me sounds like the kiss of death for Trump. My impression of Donald Trump is that he hasn’t a clue about what’s actually going on in the world, or about how the mechanics of power at the Presidential level actually work. In fact, he seems to get all his information from the newspapers, which is laughable for someone running against powerful lifelong political figures who are actually in the know. It’s an interesting article, but one needs to read between the lines. Will old power/real power decide to initiate Trump into the inner circle? Or at least into one of the inner circles? Surely Kissinger would be the one to either “yea” or “nay” Trump’s future. And it’s no conicdence that this article is from Reuters, either, although it’s relaying information from an article in the Washington Post.

Donald Trump to meet with Henry Kissinger: Washington Post

reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-kissinger-idUSKCN0Y803S

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is scheduled to meet on Wednesday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the Washington Post reported on Monday, citing three people close to Trump.

The meeting in New York comes after weeks of telephone conversations between Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Kissinger, who was a top adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the Post said.

Last week, Trump met with former Secretary of State James Baker, who told a congressional hearing on the same day as the meeting that Trump’s foreign policy proposals would make the world a less stable place.

Trump has been criticized for suggesting the United States should rethink the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and that Japan and South Korea should consider getting nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

 

[Crossbones]

When the teachings of the Catholic Church or its leaders are misrepresented for the purpose of inducing Catholics to vote for abortion, one has an obligation to state the truth. Moral relativism and subjective moral judgments are not Catholic.

Let’s see, how many times have I asked on these threads for a workable definition of torture only to be met with absolute refusal to do so. The justness of the Iraq War is highly debateable, and it has been debated many times on here as you know. And the Church is not pacifist and does not demand that there be no collateral damage in a war.

In any event, Trump is Presbyterian, not Catholic, and his expressions about such things undoubtedly derive either from that very loosely defined doctrine or from the meanings assigned them by the culture. He probably isn’t even aware of Catholic nomenclature for those issues. Nor does he, as a protestant, claim that he does.

But even if one regards waterboarding as “torture”, it doesn’t kill, many undergo it voluntarily and only three people were waterboarded who didn’t volunteer for it. Set that against Hillary Clinton’s promotion of the deaths of a million unborn children annually. There’s no “proportionality” to that. I realize you don’t accept proportionality when it comes to voting for a candidate who espouses an intrinsic evil, but the Catholic Church does and Catholics who know what the Church teaches do too.

I appreciate the obligation you feel on making sure the Church teaching are not misrepresented as I feel one myself, but I do not believe I am misrepresenting Church teachings. The information is there for all to see and I encourage all to read through the teachings of the Catholic Church as well as comments made by the bishops. I’m sure Catholics will well-formed consciences can discern these readings and determine for themselves how to best vote without our personal interpretations of Church teaching.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I appreciate the obligation you feel on making sure the Church teaching are not misrepresented as I feel one myself, but I do not believe I am misrepresenting Church teachings. The information is there for all to see and I encourage all to read through the teachings of the Catholic Church as well as comments made by the bishops. I’m sure Catholics will well-formed consciences can discern these readings and determine for themselves how to best vote without our personal interpretations of Church teaching.

Oh, I have no problem at all with Catholics actually reading what the Church and its leaders say. Lots of that has been on here already. The problem I have, and as I have said, is the erroneous spin sometimes given to it by Clinton supporters.

And, of course, just “voting one’s conscience” is not according to Catholic teachings either. One must actually inform oneself as to what the Church teaches and give them precedence over one’s “gut instincts” or “self interest” which sometimes serves as “conscience” to many.

If one does, it’s quite plain that a Catholic cannot, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who supports abortion on demand unless there is an equally or more grave evil to be avoided in doing so. And further, that when one candidate promotes abortion on demand and another opposes it for reasons other than (the otherwise unacceptable criteria of) rape, incest and the life of the mother, one must vote for the other, not the one promoting abortion on demand.

 

[pnewton]

Just as one can weigh the probability of a candidate being elected, one can weigh the probability of the impact a position will have on abortion. I use abortion since that is the most common issue that single-issue voters use. To go to the proverbial dog catcher for example, one candidate that was wishy-washy on the issue, or did not express an opinion, but believed in treating animals with kindness might be preferred over the candidate that wanted abortionists imprisoned but believe in saving money on “euthanizing” animals by beating them to death with a bat.

How does this apply to this election? Well, the likelihood that a candidate will commit some lesser crime against humanity, whether by torture or by a policy to kill of family members of terrorists, might be weighed against his likelihood of affecting an actual change on abortion. This is a real issue this year in the Republican Party. In the past, they have been the champions of allowing pro-life issues, or at least one-pro life issue. This year, abortion has not been a priority, but relegated to a much lower tier of importance, as flag-waving and economic advance have become priorities over the life of the innocent. If nationalism trumps abortion during the primary, it is quite reasonable to question just how effective a Republican president could be in taking the high moral ground. This effectiveness can be balanced by the likelihood of him taking other innocent lives in other ways.

I can’t vote for either of these two. I would like to point out that that all the garbage about a vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary has a flaw. If the ballot were only the two, and I had to vote, I do not know who I would vote for. I do not think I am the only one.

 

[philipl]

Well? I myself am in a strange place as a Republican who hates Trump.

I am going to vote Trump. I hope he follows thru with what he says he is going to do. He is a deal makers and he seems to know how to get the best part of the deals. Why the USA always gives away their position of power is beyond me. We have created laws that empower our enemy and weaken the USA. China is not our friend. Yet we have built their economy over the past 20 years. If we continue to makes the same type of deals with other countries we have been making of the past 20 years, our country no longer have the influence it once enjoyed. Just imagine China as a world power? That is very scary.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just as one can weigh the probability of a candidate being elected, one can weigh the probability of the impact a position will have on abortion. I use abortion since that is the most common issue that single-issue voters use. To go to the proverbial dog catcher for example, one candidate that was wishy-washy on the issue, or did not express an opinion, but believed in treating animals with kindness might be preferred over the candidate that wanted abortionists imprisoned but believe in saving money on “euthanizing” animals by beating them to death with a bat.

How does this apply to this election? Well, the likelihood that a candidate will commit some lesser crime against humanity, whether by torture or by a policy to kill of family members of terrorists, might be weighed against his likelihood of affecting an actual change on abortion. This is a real issue this year in the Republican Party. In the past, they have been the champions of allowing pro-life issues, or at least one-pro life issue. This year, abortion has not been a priority, but relegated to a much lower tier of importance, as flag-waving and economic advance have become priorities over the life of the innocent. If nationalism trumps abortion during the primary, it is quite reasonable to question just how effective a Republican president could be in taking the high moral ground. This effectiveness can be balanced by the likelihood of him taking other innocent lives in other ways.

I can’t vote for either of these two. I would like to point out that that all the garbage about a vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary has a flaw. If the ballot were only the two, and I had to vote, I do not know who I would vote for. I do not think I am the only one.

If a person who is prolife refuses to vote against the abortion on demand candidate, that is helpful to the abortion on demand candidate. No escaping that.

If Trump does as he says, and appoints prolife justices to the Supreme Court, that will do more for the prolife cause than anything, including the prolife measures ordered by Bush.

One needs to remember that Bush appointed two prolife justices, whereas Obama appointed two pro-abortion justices. Adding to it, Obama is still trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to enable abortifacient use for their workers and themselves.

The president can make a lot of difference when it comes to abortion. And among those things, appointment of supreme court justices is paramount in importance.

 

[Crossbones]

Oh, I have no problem at all with Catholics actually reading what the Church and its leaders say. Lots of that has been on here already. The problem I have, and as I have said, is the erroneous spin sometimes given to it by Clinton supporters.

And, of course, just “voting one’s conscience” is not according to Catholic teachings either. One must actually inform oneself as to what the Church teaches and give them precedence over one’s “gut instincts” or “self interest” which sometimes serves as “conscience” to many.

If one does, it’s quite plain that a Catholic cannot, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who supports abortion on demand unless there is an equally or more grave evil to be avoided in doing so. And further, that when one candidate promotes abortion on demand and another opposes it for reasons other than (the otherwise unacceptable criteria of) rape, incest and the life of the mother, one must vote for the other, not the one promoting abortion on demand.

I feel that there is often an erroneous spin put on the Church teachings around here. That’s why I think it is best to point people to the appropriate resources and trust that they can read them and understand the teaching using their well-formed conscience to determine who to best vote for. Note that I didn’t say using ‘gut instincts’ or ‘self interest’. I apparently have more confidence in Catholics to do so than you do.

I am confident that a Catholic can determine the weight to put on abortion without your personal interpretation, but thank you for offering it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I feel that there is often an erroneous spin put on the Church teachings around here. That’s why I think it is best to point people to the appropriate resources and trust that they can read them and understand the teaching using their well-formed conscience to determine who to best vote for. Note that I didn’t say using ‘gut instincts’ or ‘self interest’. I apparently have more confidence in Catholics to do so than you do.

I am confident that a Catholic can determine the weight to put on abortion without your personal interpretation, but thank you for offering it.

The very core of our disagreement is the same as the disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholicism does not teach that morality is subjective, whereas the very nature of Protestantism is that it is. (" I protest").

The Church’s teaching is very clear; that we cannot support a political candidate who supports abortion on demand unless, by doing so, we’re opposing an equally or greater grave evil. In this election, there is no evil greater than the promotion of the killing of a million innocent unborn children per year. Nothing even comes close.

We can reject the teachings of the Church, but if we do, we’re not acting in a Catholic manner.

 

[Crossbones]

The very core of our disagreement is the same as the disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholicism does not teach that morality is subjective, whereas the very nature of Protestantism is that it is. (" I protest").

The Church’s teaching is very clear; that we cannot support a political candidate who supports abortion on demand unless, by doing so, we’re opposing an equally or greater grave evil. In this election, there is no evil greater than the promotion of the killing of a million innocent unborn children per year. Nothing even comes close.

We can reject the teachings of the Church, but if we do, we’re not acting in a Catholic manner.

I understand the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. That doesn’t mean that people interpret Church teaching the way you interpret Church teaching. You have made your case based on your personal interpretation and I appreciate that. I think that all Catholics should review these writings carefully and used their well-formed consciences to determine how to vote in the upcoming election.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. That doesn’t mean that people interpret Church teaching the way you interpret Church teaching. You have made your case based on your personal interpretation and I appreciate that. I think that all Catholics should review these writings carefully and used their well-formed consciences to determine how to vote in the upcoming election.

No. It isn’t my interpretation. Not a single Catholic source you cited says anything different from what I have said. And many a source cited by me and others say exactly what I said.

It’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s a matter of what they actually said or didn’t say.

And I, too, encourage Catholics to read the relevant writings of the Popes and other Church leaders concerning the duty to oppose abortion politically. If they do, they will see that there is no difference at all in what I am saying and in what the Popes and other leaders are saying.

What I do not encourage is for them to rely on misinterpretations that make it seem they can properly just make up their own minds about what are more important issues than others in this election, or that Catholic leaders say that. They don’t.