Catholic.com presidential poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Savage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course it is your interpretation. I’m glad that we agree that Catholics should read the relevant readings, though. I am confident that they can come to their own conclusions.
 
Still interested to see that the people on this thread, mostly Catholics, support Trump over any other candidate, and more than twice as many as Hillary’s.

Will be an interesting election.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
Still interested to see that the people on this thread, mostly Catholics, support Trump over any other candidate, and more than twice as many as Hillary’s.

Will be an interesting election.
Click to expand...
Catholics love Trump; it is really amazing. I saw in an article (CNN I think) that Catholic love of Trump was a cause for concern to the Democrats, because working class / middle class Catholics in swing states are one of the main groups that affect election outcomes, push a candidate over the top.
 
Crossbones said:
Of course it is your interpretation. I’m glad that we agree that Catholics should read the relevant readings, though. I am confident that they can come to their own conclusions.
Click to expand...
“Coming to their own conclusions” is exactly what the Church does not encourage. When it declares something absolute, it does not mean it’s one choice out of a number of choices.

I think of Catholics really do read the statements of the Popes and other leaders of the Church, they’ll see that there are absolutes regarding some things, leeway in others, and the two should not be conflated.
 
Ridgerunner said:
“Coming to their own conclusions” is exactly what the Church does not encourage. When it declares something absolute, it does not mean it’s one choice out of a number of choices.

I think of Catholics really do read the statements of the Popes and other leaders of the Church, they’ll see that there are absolutes regarding some things, leeway in others, and the two should not be conflated.
Click to expand...
Anyone who reads the voluminous documentation we have posted knows a Catholic can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Nothing has been posted to refute this All we get us the usual demands that we interpret A document from a Bishops conference in the way they interpret it and demanding we accept their assertions of what a single Bishop really “meant” in a single interview he gave
 
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is one way this is in error. We vote for candidates, not against them. I only mention this because of the third party issue.
If Trump does as he says…
Click to expand...
The integrity of the candidate also can be a factor.
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.
Click to expand...
You and I believe this is clear teaching, but I have seen numerous that have arguing against the right of the USCCB to teach this.
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.
Click to expand...
There are several things that come close, for example the killing of hundreds of millions through war, the destruction of the planet as a whole, genocide. These all come close. So are they likely? Well, is ending abortion through Trump likely?
 
I do not accept that abortion alone is the sole measure of voting, or that this standard has been documented as Church teaching, except through a handful of individual statements.I do not understand how you can call statements from a bishop documentation and not statements for groups of bishops, especially since Cardinal Burke is the one most often quoted. His authority is within his diocese, at least it was when he had a diocese. He is a wonderful man, but my own bishop has written we are** not **to be one issue voter, does not isolate abortion, and upholds the teaching of the USCCB. That is where I get my marching orders.

I respect all the people here who are gritting their teeth and voting for Donald Trump out of their belief that it will strike a blow against abortion, without worse consequences. I am have zero respect for the sanctimonious self-elevation of their conscience as the absolute ideal by which all Catholics should be held accountable.

Eight years ago, then again four years ago, I heard the same rhetoric that the current election was **THE **election, the only one that mattered. God forbid that people of faith rebel against the Republican Party for their demotion of abortion to the least of issues, in hope of regaining lower seats and disabusing those in the party of this idea that they can nominate the least pro-life candidate in the field and just count on blind followers stepping in line. Any general worth his salt understands that once a battle is lost, it is best to consider the next step so that the war may be won. This too can be a valid consideration, though not the highest one.
 
pnewton said:
Yes, there is one way this is in error. We vote for candidates, not against them. I only mention this because of the third party issue.

The integrity of the candidate also can be a factor.

You and I believe this is clear teaching, but I have seen numerous that have arguing against the right of the USCCB to teach this.
There are several things that come close, for example the killing of hundreds of millions through war, the destruction of the planet as a whole, genocide. These all come close. So are they likely? Well, is ending abortion through Trump likely?
Click to expand...
I vote against candidates all the time, and in most instances, should. I’m not in love with Trump, I’m mostly against Hillary Clinton. Those are the only two who will be running, so there’s no choice.

The USCCB’s documents are binding in conscience in only a very few instances, and I think you know what they are. Otherwise, they are worthy of attention and respect. But they are almost never mandatory. I, for one, tend to pay them little attention the farther they stray from actually teaching Catholic doctrine. For an example, there was one letter issued by, I think two bishops, in which they endorsed Obama’s gun control proposal before he even said what it was. I paid that one no attention. On another occasion, one bishop issued a letter on USCCB letterhead condemning Paul Ryan’s advocating a reduction in food stamps. What he really did was propose an 8% INCREASE instead of the 12% the Democrats in congress wanted. I ignored that one too.

But when they actually touch on the teachings of the Church, one needs to pay attention, particularly when its endorsed by more than a handful of bishops.

If Trump appoints the kinds of people to the Supreme Court that he says he will, abortion on demand might very well be ended. With Hillary Clinton, there’s no chance at all, for generations.

I’ll vote for the chance and against the certainty.

And no, the U.S. indulging in genocide, starting a nuclear war or destroying the planet are so unlikely as to not warrant serious attention. But with Hillary Clinton, war in some lesser form is much more likely than it is with Trump. She seems to revel in it, and that should be disconcerting to everyone.
 
pnewton said:
I do not accept that abortion alone is the sole measure of voting, or that this standard has been documented as Church teaching, except through a handful of individual statements.I do not understand how you can call statements from a bishop documentation and not statements for groups of bishops, especially since Cardinal Burke is the one most often quoted. His authority is within his diocese, at least it was when he had a diocese. He is a wonderful man, but my own bishop has written we are** not **to be one issue voter, does not isolate abortion, and upholds the teaching of the USCCB. That is where I get my marching orders.

I respect all the people here who are gritting their teeth and voting for Donald Trump out of their belief that it will strike a blow against abortion, without worse consequences. I am have zero respect for the sanctimonious self-elevation of their conscience as the absolute ideal by which all Catholics should be held accountable.

Eight years ago, then again four years ago, I heard the same rhetoric that the current election was **THE **election, the only one that mattered. God forbid that people of faith rebel against the Republican Party for their demotion of abortion to the least of issues, in hope of regaining lower seats and disabusing those in the party of this idea that they can nominate the least pro-life candidate in the field and just count on blind followers stepping in line. Any general worth his salt understands that once a battle is lost, it is best to consider the next step so that the war may be won. This too can be a valid consideration, though not the highest one.
Click to expand...
Well, Obama was elected and he forced everybody in the country to pay for abortifacients. You do, I do, everybody who pays taxes does. I don’t like it, and I don’t imagine you do either. And, of course, he imposed the duty to provide contraceptives and abortifacients on the Little Sisters of the Poor. And he appointed two NARAL-vetted and approved justices to the Supreme Court. So, yes, who one votes for does matter. Had Romney won, that would almost certainly not have happened.

You may consider the battle against abortion lost, but I don’t. I never will.
 
Ridgerunner said:
“Coming to their own conclusions” is exactly what the Church does not encourage. When it declares something absolute, it does not mean it’s one choice out of a number of choices.

I think of Catholics really do read the statements of the Popes and other leaders of the Church, they’ll see that there are absolutes regarding some things, leeway in others, and the two should not be conflated.
Click to expand...
Well, you are coming to your own conclusion, so I don’t think that there is anything wrong with others having a well-formed conscience reading the statements of the Church and coming to their own conclusion. After all, the Church has absolutes about unjust wars, racism, same sex marriage, torture and targeting of noncombatants as well as abortion. I wonder if some are seeing leeway that isn’t really there…
 
Ridgerunner said:
I vote against candidates all the time, and in most instances, should. I’m not in love with Trump, I’m mostly against Hillary Clinton. Those are the only two who will be running, so there’s no choice…
Click to expand...
I do not think this is true here. I guess maybe I did not know there are states where there are only two candidates.
 
Well, there are precedents … what actually CAN a President do to foster pro-life?

President George W. Bush was very pro-life. Donald J. Trump could implement the same pro-life policies as former President Bush:

President George W. Bush was VERY pro-life, even though the Democrats fought him every step of the way.

PRO-LIFE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
  1. Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The appointments resulted in the upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 decision.
  2. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.
  3. Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation by announcing early in his administration that he would veto legislation that threatened pro-life policy.
  4. Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which made it a federal crime not to treat babies who survive abortion.
  5. Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.
  6. Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the unborn child as a separate crime victim if injured or killed during an assault.
  7. Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its involvement in China’s one-child policy which includes forced abortion and sterilization. President Bush sent a fact-finding mission to China which found that the nation’s one-child policy was indeed coercive in nature and that the UNFPA was an integral part of implementing that policy, placing the UNFPA in clear violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that prohibits any aid to any program that involves forced abortion or forced sterilization. Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the UNFPA were redirected to maternal and child health programs.
  8. Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion by instructing U.S. delegates to state at every appropriate opportunity that America does not regard anything in any document before the U.N. to establish any international right to abortion.
  9. Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments. Later vetoed legislation passed by Congress to permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
  10. Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. The measure provides funding to increase the inventory of cord blood units available to match and treat patients and to link cord blood banks so that doctors have a single source to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches. It also reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Registry.
  11. Launched public awareness of adoption campaign, working with the National Council for Adoption and pregnancy help centers across the country. The campaign sponsored conferences encouraging faith based communities to promote adoption and produced public service announcements featuring the First Lady urging the adoption of foster children.
  12. Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (www.AdoptUSKids.org).
  13. Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000; for special needs children, the credit was raised from $5,000 for qualified adoption related expenses to $10,000 for any adoption related expenses. This was done as part of the President’s tax relief bill.
  14. Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day.
  15. Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program, which provides health insurance for children in poor families. This allowed states to include pre-natal care in the health insurance they offer to poor children under the program.
  16. The Bush Administration did what it could to stop assisted suicide from taking further hold in Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows doctors to prescribe federally controlled drugs in lethal amounts to certain of their patients who say they want to die. Federal law holds that federally controlled drugs may only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Janet Reno decreed that assisted suicide was a legitimate medical purpose in those states that permit it.
During the Bush Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft changed that ruling, saying that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, thereby barring doctors from prescribing lethal drugs. A lawsuit was filed and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the drugs to be used for assisted suicide.
  1. Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition.
  2. Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress did not approve the full amount the Bush Administration requested.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Well, there are precedents … what actually CAN a President do to foster pro-life?
  1. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.
.
Click to expand...
On his first day in office Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy. It shows you what Democrat priorities are.
 
I find it odd that those who think that we should not vote for Trump think we somehow ‘love’ him as an option. If they do, I’m not sure which posters are being referred to as the ‘Trump-lovers’.

With that said, it is also important to keep in mind that based on the evidence, we can presume that Trump will not be nearly as pro-active for the pro-life movement as was George W. Bush.

Furthermore, it has been proven that Clinton has been, not only a supporter of abortion rights, but a champion of pro-abortion efforts. Sanders position on the issue was clarified to be 100% pro-abortion. Trump favors ‘the exceptions’ - new position to be sure, but clearly a position that is dramatically different than that of the Democats who favor abortion well beyond that.

The evidence I see on this thread is that of ‘Clinton-haters’ (with good reason), rather than ‘Trump-lovers’.

At least that is how I see it.
 
I am sad that 30 people on this poll want liberal supreme court justices.
 
jediliz said:
I am sad that 30 people on this poll want liberal supreme court justices.
Click to expand...
Possibly they haven’t even thought about that. The “democrat myth” of care for the poor and working people is still operative in the minds of some, like a 65 year old guy who still thinks Laetrile could cure all the cancers in the world if only the FDA would approve it.
 
Of those Catholics who believe there are proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports allowing a woman to pay to have her child killed I wonder if the age of the child matters? Is there an age the child reaches that makes this proportionate reason no longer proportionate or do they apply regardless of the age?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top