Catholic.com presidential poll

[Yeoman]

But knowing that a majority of Catholics are democrats I’m not surprised. Tell me, who is your candidate?

That was once true for historical reasons, and it’s partially true now for demographic reasons, but it’s not as true in any event as it once was.

This year, 2016, Pew states that 37% of Catholics are GOP or lean GOP, and that 44% are Democratic or lean Democratic. The Democrats have gained 7% with Catholics since 2012, when they were nearly equal. Why that is, I’m not sure, but Trump’s style may have something to do with it. 19% of Catholic are independent.

I can believe that as I’ve been all three. I was a Democrat while young when a Democrat in my state didn’t have to be hostile to life. I switched to independent when it became clear that you had to be a social liberal and support some extreme things to remain in the Democratic Party and I couldn’t accept that. Most of the other Democrats in my state did the same thing, or went GOP. I ultimately joined the GOP. I’m thinking of going back to independent as there are a lot of things about the GOP here I cannot support, but then I wouldn’t get to vote in our primary.

Catholics were Democrats, we have to accept, as we came from immigrant groups, by and large, whom the Democrats favored with patronage. We stayed there for historical reasons and because we conceive of the Democrats of being the party of the poor and the working class, but we really ought to rethink it. To a large extent, the Democratic Party has become the party of the highly urban, formerly Protestant, white upper middle class/lower upper class, and its focus reflects that. Not much of a place left for people who, for example, are blue collar, but sincerely Catholic, and maybe hunt and fish, which would have been a lot of Democrats in my state. We don’t have much of a home in the GOP either.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…will he be really willing to appoint conservative judges when doing so will affect his business practices negatively? Or is he going to “negotiate” the nomination process…

This is an excellent point and something I struggle with regarding Trump. It seems to me that it is likely that he will ‘negotiate’ the nomination process, if not on the Scalia nomination (which may very likely be a pro-life choice), but may not remain consistent with the next choice (most likely Ginsberg due to her advanced age) which unfortunately might not move the needle on the life issue.

With that said, while Trump will likely negotiate his nominee (though it could result in multiple pro-life justices when all is said and done), Clinton will have a litmus test for her nominees to ensure that they will uphold Roe v. Wade.

 

[anon67074017]

It annoys me to see all these Catholics who think that Donald Trump is too liberal. He is not liberal. He is a conservative populist. This is similar to Vladimir Putin of Russia. Both Trump and Putin want to defend the unborn.

 

[pnewton]

Well maybe not her whole career.

“One thing we know that does not work is offensive, inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes all Muslims,” she said, adding, “Another thing we know that does not work, based on lots of empirical evidence, is torture.”

I was referring to the children still in the womb, not Muslims. Surely their torture and killing concerns all people of faith.

 

[pnewton]

They can also enjoy the position of having to explain to their children and grandchildren why they didn’t oppose the killing of unborn children when they had the chance.

This is wrong on so many levels. It pre-judges others most of all. Taking a moral stand contrary to the conscience of* another *person is not wrong. How you assume that one who votes (in this case for anyone other than Trump) does not oppose abortion?

I have no problem explaining my position to my children now. Heck, I can explain the positions of others from a Catholic moral standpoint. The Catholic Church does not condemn me for it, nor does God. Why must I face judgmental condemnation from Catholics here?

 

[Ridgerunner]

That was once true for historical reasons, and it’s partially true now for demographic reasons, but it’s not as true in any event as it once was.

This year, 2016, Pew states that 37% of Catholics are GOP or lean GOP, and that 44% are Democratic or lean Democratic. The Democrats have gained 7% with Catholics since 2012, when they were nearly equal. Why that is, I’m not sure, but Trump’s style may have something to do with it. 19% of Catholic are independent.

I can believe that as I’ve been all three. I was a Democrat while young when a Democrat in my state didn’t have to be hostile to life. I switched to independent when it became clear that you had to be a social liberal and support some extreme things to remain in the Democratic Party and I couldn’t accept that. Most of the other Democrats in my state did the same thing, or went GOP. I ultimately joined the GOP. I’m thinking of going back to independent as there are a lot of things about the GOP here I cannot support, but then I wouldn’t get to vote in our primary.

Catholics were Democrats, we have to accept, as we came from immigrant groups, by and large, whom the Democrats favored with patronage. We stayed there for historical reasons and because we conceive of the Democrats of being the party of the poor and the working class, but we really ought to rethink it. To a large extent, the Democratic Party has become the party of the highly urban, formerly Protestant, white upper middle class/lower upper class, and its focus reflects that. Not much of a place left for people who, for example, are blue collar, but sincerely Catholic, and maybe hunt and fish, which would have been a lot of Democrats in my state. We don’t have much of a home in the GOP either.

I left the Dem party because of abortion, but never became anything else.

One small correction. In 2012, most white Catholics voted Repub. The Hispanics made the difference.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is wrong on so many levels. It pre-judges others most of all. Taking a moral stand contrary to the conscience of* another *person is not wrong. How you assume that one who votes (in this case for anyone other than Trump) does not oppose abortion?

I have no problem explaining my position to my children now. Heck, I can explain the positions of others from a Catholic moral standpoint. The Catholic Church does not condemn me for it, nor does God. Why must I face judgmental condemnation from Catholics here?

I do not condemn you. I do not prejudge you.

I condemn actions that are clearly wrong, and characterize them in the ways they can only be characterized. Not opposing evil=not opposing evil. Supporting an intrinsic evil=supporting an intrinsic evil. Not hard.

Neither do I accept the concept of absolute primacy of conscience. That’s not Catholic, it’s relativism for which I think we can thank Protestantism. We are assumed to have well-informed consciences, consistent with the teachings of the Church, not just consciences.

And I don’t think any of us can ever assert that God does not condemn any number of things we do. Doesn’t the bible say “…even the just man falls seven times a day”? Better to admit it even when we don’t like doing it.

 

[estesbob]

This is wrong on so many levels. It pre-judges others most of all. Taking a moral stand contrary to the conscience of* another *person is not wrong. How you assume that one who votes (in this case for anyone other than Trump) does not oppose abortion?

I have no problem explaining my position to my children now. Heck, I can explain the positions of others from a Catholic moral standpoint. The Catholic Church does not condemn me for it, nor does God. Why must I face judgmental condemnation from Catholics here?

You appear to advancing the" Primacy of Conscience" fallacy The Church categorically rejects this :

1745 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit,** aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55**

**1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.**

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

 

[pnewton]

You appear to advancing the" Primacy of Conscience" fallacy The Church categorically rejects this

You know what does not appear in the Catechism? The word “fallacy” or any thing that contradicts one bit what I said. Do you know what does appear? "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. " Note the period at the end of the sentence. In the context above, I must obey my conscience or, " If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. "

Your quote is a passage I have read dozens of times and follow to the best of my ability. It is a teaching of the Church. If I said one thing contrary to this teaching, please point it out, I have pointed out that the Catechism does not call it a fallacy.

 

[estesbob]

You know what does not appear in the Catechism? The word “fallacy” or any thing that contradicts one bit what I said. Do you know what does appear? "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. " Note the period at the end of the sentence. In the context above, I must obey my conscience or, " If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. "

Your quote is a passage I have read dozens of times and follow to the best of my ability. It is a teaching of the Church. If I said one thing contrary to this teaching, please point it out, I have pointed out that the Catechism does not call it a fallacy.

Note the emphasis on a well formed conscience and the statement that a person who does not avail himself of Church teaching is responsible for any evil they support. .Ones conscience is not a get out of jail free card

 

[AllieT]

Trump. A third party vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance or non-vote is a vote for Hillary Clinton. I wouldn’t be able to live with that. At least voting for Trump would make me feel I did what I could to prevent a currently confirmed - pro-abortion-on-demand candidate from winning.

 

[pnewton]

I do not condemn you. I do not prejudge you.

That’s good to know.

When it comes to Catholic teaching, I like to go to the Catechism first. I am quite aware of what is says about the role of the conscience. I am fully aware of the sin that can be incurred in deliberate indifference in informing this conscience, or by deliberate self-deception. I am not referring those that do that. I am referring only to Catholics that strive to follow the teaching of the Church, and to learn more about that teaching.

Moral theology is really being put to the test this election.

 

[pnewton]

Trump. A third party vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance or non-vote is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Are you saying that if someone who might vote for Hillary Clinton were to vote for a third party, that they are also somehow still voting for Hillary Clinton?

Can you show your math?

I say this because this slogan will appear many times this year. It is factually and logically inaccurate.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Luckily I think trump is going to win. So those people who abstain from voting will have the benefits of the pro life appointees. And the moral high ground to rail against him. I know many people who never vote who enjoy this position…

That’s some very hopeful thinking! Everybody I knew had similar high hopes the past two elections. And we got Obama both times.

If Hillary wins, which is the likely case, then I won’t have to feel guilty having voted for Trump, because I won’t have voted for him.

For me: No Hillary. No Trump.

 

[chero23]

Are you saying that if someone who might vote for Hillary Clinton were to vote for a third party, that they are also somehow still voting for Hillary Clinton?

Can you show your math?

I say this because this slogan will appear many times this year. It is factually and logically inaccurate.

It’s just a mind game that they use to mess with you, make you feel guilty.

 

[chero23]

Had read this yesterday and saw it more at depth today.

To paraphrase former Secretary of State bob gates who was in Bush and obamas cabinet, did not speak of Trump.

Trump, well what I can I say.

yahoo.com/news/trump-fires-back-at-ex-sec-of-defense-gates-he-knows-nothing-about-me-151530691.html

 

[Sy_Noe]

Are you saying that if someone who might vote for Hillary Clinton were to vote for a third party, that they are also somehow still voting for Hillary Clinton?

Can you show your math?

I say this because this slogan will appear many times this year. It is factually and logically inaccurate.

Did you mean if someone would vote for Hillary instead of Trump but votes 3rd party, that they are helping Trump by not voting for Hillary? Or in reverse, if they would otherwise vote for Trump and not Hillary among the only 2 with a chance of being the next POTUS and they vote 3rd party instead, that they then are helping Hillary by not voting for Trump? Maybe ask Democrats if it’s mathematically possible that just enough Nader voters would have chosen Gore over Bush in a 2 person race to secure him FL and saved the nation and the world from 8 yrs of George Bush. I seem to remember Republicans not long ago fearing a 3rd party run by Trump against their nominee and now more recently if I heard right, the RNC chairman saying a 3rd party run against Trump would be disastrous for the party’s chances of taking the WH in the fall.

 

[TMC]

If one considers opposition to abortion, mandated contraception and homosexual marriage being " to be to the right “you are correct. It is unfortunate that the Democrat party has so embraced the culture of death that their is no place other than"the right” for Faithful Catholics to go

No, I mean generally politically to the right. Most posters here advocate limited government, conservative fiscal policies, individualism, and other right-leaning positions. Politically speaking, this is a very conservative forum.

 

[pnewton]

Did you mean if someone would vote for Hillary instead of Trump but votes 3rd party, that they are helping Trump by not voting for Hillary?

No. I said that such statements are inaccurate.

 

[josephback]

I think the support for Trump in the poll given his public statements shows a disordered sense of priorities.