Catholic.com presidential poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Savage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like we are at a stalemate.

There are pro-life conservatives who love Trump.

There are pro-life conservatives who don’t like Trump, but will vote for him anyway.

There are pro-life moderates who will vote for Trump because his presidency will reduce abortions, and Hillary’s presidency will do everything it can to expand abortion.

There are pro-life liberals who will vote for Trump for the same reason.

And there are pro-life leftists who will ONLY vote for the leftist candidate (in this case Bernie or Hillary), whatever their stance on abortion is.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Except that “all the bishops and popes” have not said what you and estesbob say.
Click to expand...
Well, go ahead and quote any who have said the opposite (with a reference), and I’ll be happy to read it. So far, though, nobody has done that.

But the truth is if you look at the statements that have been offered so far, none contradicts the other.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Well, go ahead and quote any who have said the opposite (with a reference), and I’ll be happy to read it. So far, though, nobody has done that.

But the truth is if you look at the statements that have been offered so far, none contradicts the other.
Click to expand...
Crickets chirping…
 
chero23 said:
She did have a speech yesterday, which Trump replied by acting like a 5 year whose parents denied him going outside. (doing a temper tantrum)
Click to expand...
But she didn’t answer questions What is she afraid of?
 
It’s been 180 days since Hillary’s last press conference
Click to expand...
She can’t do a press conference, she would need to plead the fifth and bring a lawyer. 🙂

Were waiting for Kirby and Jen Psaki to give us the “latest” liberal spin about Iran…
Iran is the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism and ISIS as “the greatest threat globally,” according to the US State Department’s annual report on global terrorist activity published Thursday.
Click to expand...
ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4811499,00.html
“America has continued its enmity towards Iran since (the 1979 Islamic) revolution … It is a huge mistake to trust evil Britain and the Great Satan (the United States),” Khamenei said in a speech broadcast live on state TV marking the 27th anniversary of the death of the revolution’s founder, Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini.

“We will not cooperate with America over the regional crisis,” he said, adding that: "Their aims in the region are 180 degrees opposed to Iran’s.
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
But she didn’t answer questions What is she afraid of?
Click to expand...
Oh IDK what she’s afraid. Thankfully I am not her or in her staff.

But the question does arise bobestes. If she has a press conference in the next days. She gives details to lets say… foreign policy. You don’t necessarily agree with it, but she lays it out.

Will you complain or give credit?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Except that “all the bishops and popes” have not said what you and estesbob say.
Click to expand...
Ridgerunner said:
Well, go ahead and quote any who have said the opposite (with a reference), and I’ll be happy to read it. So far, though, nobody has done that.
Click to expand...
Logic alert. To show that all bishops have said something, or not, then all bishops and popes would need all relevant quotes posted. As it is we always have Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and its balanced approach. At bare minimum, it stands as a statement from those bishops who wrote it.
 
pnewton said:
Logic alert. To show that all bishops have said something, or not, then all bishops and popes would need all relevant quotes posted. As it is we always have Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and its balanced approach. At bare minimum, it stands as a statement from those bishops who wrote it.
Click to expand...
Problem is you cannot even find one of the bishops who participate in producing this document who supports the interpretation we have seen presented.
 
Theo520 said:
It’s been 180 days since Hillary’s last press conference

Surprise: Hillary Camp Planted Suggested Questions at ‘Unscripted’ Events
Click to expand...
I don’t blame her. It takes a page from obama’s success. Obama has a sympathetic press and still takes no unapproved questions.

Trump has taken the idea of " taking on the press". And it works for him. It reinforces his “outsider” image. Hillary is not running as an outsider. Her plan (like almost every candidate ever) is to control tightly the information that gets out there. If I were her the best move would be to never hold a press conference that she didn’t have to. And if she does completely control who is there and what the questions will be beforehand. Like Obama.

The press is a joke. Anyone who thinks there is a young Woodward out there is living in the past.
 
estesbob said:
Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this only applies when the candidates stance on abortion is the same. If you can find a single member of the Magestrium that supports your interpretation of this document please post it. And please. something clear and direct like this. Please note he adresses the sentence you quoted in the second paragraph
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”*

Cardinal Edmund Burke
Click to expand...
It seems to me that this isn’t Catholic teaching per se, but the Cardinal’s prudential judgment based on that teaching.

Of course, if one candidate supported legalized murder of every fifth 3 year old and was a proud supporter of expanding that legalization, I wonder how many devout Catholics would be supportive of that candidate. Especially when said candidate has made comments like this: “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” (to expand “reproductive health care”).

At the moment (barring some rapid rise of pro-life 3 party candidate out of nowhere) it seems to me the candidate who has given indications of limiting murder at least in some instances would be the clear choice.
 
CrossofChrist said:
It seems to me that this isn’t Catholic teaching per se, but the Cardinal’s prudential judgment based on that teaching.
Click to expand...
See the following from Archbishop Chaput (back when he was in Denver):

I think they (2 people who voted for Obama) were making imprudent, wrong judgments, but they weren’t taking anti-Catholic positions, no.

And later on:

There are a lot of Catholics who voted for Obama who should receive communion.

pewforum.org/2009/03/17/the-political-obligations-of-catholics-a-conversation-with-the-most-rev-charles-chaput-archbishop-of-denver/
 
CrossofChrist said:
See the following from Archbishop Chaput (back when he was in Denver):

I think they (2 people who voted for Obama) were making imprudent, wrong judgments, but they weren’t taking anti-Catholic positions, no.

And later on:

There are a lot of Catholics who voted for Obama who should receive communion.

pewforum.org/2009/03/17/the-political-obligations-of-catholics-a-conversation-with-the-most-rev-charles-chaput-archbishop-of-denver/
Click to expand...
So ? Does he say it is OK for a Catholic to vote for a pro-adoption candidate? He seems to be saying the exact opposite.
 
estesbob said:
So ? Does he say it is OK for a Catholic to vote for a pro-adoption candidate? He seems to be saying the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
If it wasn’t okay for a Catholic to vote for Obama, shouldn’t they be denied Communion and wouldn’t the Archbishop have said they were taking an anti-Catholic stance?
 
CrossofChrist said:
If it wasn’t okay for a Catholic to vote for Obama, shouldn’t they be denied Communion and wouldn’t the Archbishop have said they were taking an anti-Catholic stance?
Click to expand...
Obviously the context is voting for Obama in spite of his pro-abortion position, not because of it.

And for the record, I personally could not vote for a person as socially left as Obama or Clinton, at least in our current political situation.
 
estesbob said:
Problem is you cannot even find one of the bishops who participate in producing this document who supports the interpretation we have seen presented.
Click to expand...
I do not know what you mean by interpretation. I was only referring to the literal meaning. I do not see how this needs any clarification:

“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.”

Clearly the intent is what makes this sinful. I do not need to find additional quotes from a bishop where he says the same thing as an “interpretation”. If I cannot be relied on to understand the English here, how can I understand the English of the interpretation. How can I be relied on to understand the trite quote of Cardinal Burke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top