Catholic.com presidential poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Savage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Songcatcher said:
Bishop Robert McElroy:

"A second step in the moral conversion to the common good for voting requires discernment about how Catholics should prioritize the major elements of the common good in the United States today. If immigration, abortion, poverty, religious liberty, the family, war and peace, the environment, the rights of workers, trafficking in drugs and assisted suicide all constitute central elements of the common good, which issues are pre-eminent?

Many widely circulated independent Catholic voter guides propose that the concept of intrinsic evil provides an automatic process for prioritizing the elements of the political common good in the United States.

The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting.

The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading. The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts.**At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act. Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions.

This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. ** It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life."

americamagazine.org/issue/greatness-nation
Click to expand...
This is good. But like all Hillary supporters’ use of churchmens’ statements, it’s not complete because it really never compares the “evils”. In using the word “graver”, however, Bp. McElroy really is in line with the Popes and other bishops.

Now, what the analysis really needs is to show us how “racism” in America, as Paul Ryan sees it in Trump simply mentioning a Judge’s ethnicity, kills even more than a million children per year, and then we’ll have a “proportionate evil” allowing us to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Otherwise, it’s immoral to support her.
 
Crossbones said:
So, a vote for Trump is a vote for torture.
Click to expand...
Oh. Well, give us his definition of torture and we’ll see what he means by it. He never did say.

Nobody on CAF has done it yet, even for themselves. Everybody says the word, but nobody ever defines it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh. Well, give us his definition of torture and we’ll see what he means by it. He never did say.

Nobody on CAF has done it yet, even for themselves. Everybody says the word, but nobody ever defines it.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s look at what Bishop Cantu said:

“Yet we still hear some advocate for waterboarding and “enhanced interrogation techniques” (a euphemism for torture) as a way of extracting information.”

So, Bishop Cantu says that waterboarding is torture and Trump is calling for that or worse.
 
Crossbones said:
… “enhanced interrogation techniques” (a euphemism for torture).
Click to expand...
Very true. I cannot support torture, even though it was used during the Inquisition. According to Charles Lea, there were innocent people who were tortured by the Inquisition during that period. Of course, innocent people have been tortured recently as when, for example, the Americans decided to have Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, tortured. Even though later on he was found to be completely innocent of any links to terrorism.
 
Tomdstone said:
Very true. I cannot support torture, even though it was used during the Inquisition. According to Charles Lea, there were innocent people who were tortured by the Inquisition during that period. Of course, innocent people have been tortured recently as when, for example, the Americans decided to have Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, tortured. Even though later on he was found to be completely innocent of any links to terrorism.
Click to expand...
Most experts agree that torture doesn’t work.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Thank you Songcatcher for this. Saved me and maybe Crossbones from having to go back to Bishop Kicanas.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome, Sye. I thought you’d like it. I’ve been reading quite a bit by Bishop McElroy recently. The whole article at the link I posted is quite good.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
What is torture?
Click to expand...
Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain on someone in order to compel some action from the victim, or in the case of sadism in order to fulfill some desire of the person torturing the victim.
Possible reasons for torture include things like revenge, interrogation, forcing the victim to confess, or sadistic gratification.
Oftentimes dishonest political leaders use misleading euphemistic terms such as enhanced interrogation in an attempt to conceal the dirty fact that they are torturing people in violation of international law.
 
Tomdstone said:
Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain on someone in order to compel some action from the victim, or in the case of sadism in order to fulfill some desire of the person torturing the victim.
Possible reasons for torture include things like revenge, interrogation, forcing the victim to confess, or sadistic gratification.
Oftentimes dishonest political leaders use misleading euphemistic terms such as enhanced interrogation in an attempt to conceal the dirty fact that they are torturing people in violation of international law.
Click to expand...
That describes the drunk tank in Vegas.

Handcuffs hurt you know.
 
Tomdstone said:
Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain on someone in order to compel some action from the victim, or in the case of sadism in order to fulfill some desire of the person torturing the victim.
Possible reasons for torture include things like revenge, interrogation, forcing the victim to confess, or sadistic gratification.
Oftentimes dishonest political leaders use misleading euphemistic terms such as enhanced interrogation in an attempt to conceal the dirty fact that they are torturing people in violation of international law.
Click to expand...
Do dishonest politicians inflict pain on others to extract confessions, or to fulfill some dark psycho-sexual desire?

Would it be dishonest of a politician to use some form of interrogation to discover information on an impending terrorist attack that would be the next Oklahoma city, with young children fleeing the incendiary building like so many little candles?

Just because politicians are not always honest, it does not mean that we should not try to be honest in the insinuations that we make against them.
Sorry, I just don’t think that politicians were going home and masturbating about Gitmo.
 
Darryl1958 said:
Do dishonest politicians inflict pain on others to extract confessions, or to fulfill some dark psycho-sexual desire?

Would it be dishonest of a politician to use some form of interrogation to discover information on an impending terrorist attack that would be the next Oklahoma city, with young children fleeing the incendiary building like so many little candles?

Just because politicians are not always honest, it does not mean that we should not try to be honest in the insinuations that we make against them.
Sorry, I just don’t think that politicians were going home and masturbating about Gitmo.
Click to expand...
The dishonest part is where they use misleading euphemistic terms such as enhanced interrogation in an attempt to disguise the fact that they are torturing people in violation of international law.
 
Tomdstone said:
The dishonest part is where they use misleading euphemistic terms such as enhanced interrogation in an attempt to disguise the fact that they are torturing people in violation of international law.
Click to expand...
My willingness to be a mayrter like those who have been beheaded by Islamic men for their faith is something I am comfortable with because it’s my soul. What I’m not comfortable with is this idea that we can play Russian roulette with others souls as a country. Maybe that’s what trump means. The CCC indicates obeying governments comes under the 4th commandment. And in that way perhaps the government is parental in nature.

And what parent in finding a couple of rapists had broken into his house to hurt his children would not hurt one to find the location of another. Torture or not.
 
lynnvinc said:
That goes for all the Republicans, who are basically environment-hating, life-hating people, who would scrap all env regulations and make people drink and breathe poison and destroy the climate for agriculture.

How anyone can vote for any of them is totally beyond me. I just don’t understand how people can sacrifice their children and progeny. For what??
Click to expand...
This is easy to understand. Not all of us are so prejudiced. I know that there is no such thing as “all Republicans”. There are varying degrees of opinions on the environment within the Republican Party. Not all Republicans oppose environmental initiatives, just like not all Democrats are pro-abortion, especially to the extent Hillary Clinton is.
 
pnewton said:
This is easy to understand. Not all of us are so prejudiced. I know that there is no such thing as “all Republicans”. There are varying degrees of opinions on the environment within the Republican Party. Not all Republicans oppose environmental initiatives, just like not all Democrats are pro-abortion, especially to the extent Hillary Clinton is.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that there are many different theories on the environment and I don’t think anyone, GOP or not, wants to ruin it. That sounds like a propaganda phrase. Not all people who value the environment are fanatics.
 
There are varying degrees of opinions on the environment within the Republican Party. Not all Republicans oppose environmental initiatives,
Click to expand...
True, but as for Hillary or Donald, I don’t see where its much of an issue. Its really a non factor with both. When both start their conversation with an endorsement of fracking its in my mind rhetoric about mother nature. They could argue secondary points in a 2-minute response, but fracking, methane and poisoning the water tables wins the two minute dialogue.

The democrats in an optical illusion would like to imagine they follow Pope Francis. Neither have managed to accomplish that feet in this area. Lots of lies imho.
 
Songcatcher said:
Bishop Robert McElroy:

"A second step in the moral conversion to the common good for voting requires discernment about how Catholics should prioritize the major elements of the common good in the United States today. If immigration, abortion, poverty, religious liberty, the family, war and peace, the environment, the rights of workers, trafficking in drugs and assisted suicide all constitute central elements of the common good, which issues are pre-eminent?

Many widely circulated independent Catholic voter guides propose that the concept of intrinsic evil provides an automatic process for prioritizing the elements of the political common good in the United States.

The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting.

The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading. The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts.**At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act. Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions.

This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. ** It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life."

americamagazine.org/issue/greatness-nation
Click to expand...
So you are contenting that supporting the waterboarding of three terrorists is the moral equivalence of supporting the killing of over 50 million children? Can you show us where the Church explicitly sates this?

Even if one were to buy into the idea that Trump supports torture are they contending that 4 million people will be tortured to death during his regime? That he is going to require Nuns to actively support it?
 
pnewton said:
This is easy to understand. Not all of us are so prejudiced. I know that there is no such thing as “all Republicans”. There are varying degrees of opinions on the environment within the Republican Party. Not all Republicans oppose environmental initiatives, just like not all Democrats are pro-abortion, especially to the extent Hillary Clinton is.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon were the best on environmental issues than any other president to date. Bernie would have been great. With Clinton, we will have to put continual pressure on her…also to not be so pro-abortion, but at the least try to create conditions in which women do not feel they have to have abortions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top