Catholic politicians using rumor to campaign

  • Thread starter Thread starter kmaaj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kmaaj

Guest
I’m trying to look at this from an objective viewpoint and applying the Words of Jesus, St. Paul, and Church teaching.

The words of the president, as reported by The Atlantic, are all secondhand and from sources that insist on anonymity. While on the other hand, sources that claimed to be there insist it did not happen and they had no problem stating so publicly.

As it sits, as a Catholic, I have to write off the allegations as rumor. Whether I am inclined to believe them or not, they are technically “rumor”. Yet Joe Biden (and other prominent Catholic politicians) are embracing the claims of the article as fact. And they are perpetuating what is clearly rumor as fact.

I don’t intend this to be a political discussion, though I’m well aware that’s where it may go. I just want to know: is it mortal sin for a Catholic politician to spread rumor?
 
That is between the politicians and God. I don’t use rumors to decide who to vote for. I like to look at what they’ve done compared to what they had said they will do, or have said they’ve done. To me this is a clear choice.
 
But when you hear what is clearly rumor talked about as fact at the dinner table by -Catholics-, are you willing to identify it as rumor?
 
If I question something being discussed about any candidate, I would raise that question if the person I’m speaking with is willing to partake in a rational discussion. If they are irrational or overly emotional about politics, I would change the subject.

How would you handle it?
 
Last edited:
kmaaj said:
As it sits, as a Catholic, I have to write off the allegations as rumor. Whether I am inclined to believe them or not, they are technically “rumor”.
Click to expand...
That is not an appropriate instance of the word “rumor”, which is, according to the dictionary:
  1. talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
  2. a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
#1 does not apply because there is a discernible source. It is the reporters at the Atlantic. #2 does not apply because the Atlantic is the authority for the truth of the story. These reporters affirm that the story was confirmed to them by multiple witnesses to the event. Journalistic standards do not permit reporting a story as verified unless it has been confirmed by multiple sources.
 
kmaaj said:
While on the other hand, sources that claimed to be there insist it did not happen and they had no problem stating so publicly.
Click to expand...
Did they state it didn’t happen, or did they state that they didn’t hear it. Were those people with the President the entire day. Hearing every word that came out of his mouth. Some of these were over two years ago or more. Do you remember every word that comes out of everyone you are with and every conversation. Very doubtful on either.

Secondly, what is the credibility of the people who said they didn’t hear it? Have they been truthful in the past on statements they have made.

Not only did the Atlantic verify the sources, several other news organization verified the source including Fox news.

So you don’t like the fact that Biden or other politicians use news stories as reported in their campaign. Do you hold politicians which you favor to the same standard. What about if that politician simply pulls nonsense out of the air and spouts it off. Does that bother you?
 
kmaaj said:
are embracing the claims of the article as fact.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you listen to what Biden said, he did not embrace the article as fact. He said, “if the article is true…”.
kmaaj said:
The words of the president, as reported by The Atlantic, are all secondhand and from sources that insist on anonymity.
Click to expand...
It’s not clear they are “second hand”. And, anonymous doesn’t mean “untrue”.

The Watergate source was anonymous for decades, for example, but was truthful in their information.
kmaaj said:
is it mortal sin for a Catholic politician to spread rumor?
Click to expand...
See above, not spreading a rumor.

Discussing an article in a newspaper that has been independently confirmed by other news outlets.

There is no sin in discussing publicly available information about a public person.
 
Maybe, but if you leave out potentially exculpatory information, then…?
 
1ke said:
Actually, if you listen to what Biden said, he did not embrace the article as fact. He said, “if the article is true…”.
Click to expand...
He has an ad playing on Twitter now that does not make that distinction.
 
Skeptical all the way. Whether Trump or Biden, or ANY news. I try to wait days, till the truth comes out. It is so often that the Media lies, that I do not trust them often.

I like to give the Casey Anthony case. I think she did it, I think she did all of it. Why? The news I got gave me that information.

Yet, the people in the courtroom who had ALL the information. Found her not guilty.

Talk about Media Bias. Then Nick Sandman, and don’t get me started on Trump. The very night he won election, I remember some friends immediately showed me news that Trump had dropped Pro-Life from his platform, within one hour of being elected. That was just one of the way too many to count.

For Biden, the media os on the man side. They defend Biden. So, it is hard to know the truth with the Media we have today.
 
farronwolf said:
Secondly, what is the credibility of the people who said they didn’t hear it? Have they been truthful in the past on statements they have made.
Click to expand...
If that is your standard, how are we to test the credibility of the anonymous?
farronwolf said:
Not only did the Atlantic verify the sources, several other news organization verified the source including Fox news.
Click to expand...
The Atlantic did not seek out the other side. Fox did.
 
1ke said:
There is no sin in discussing publicly available information about a public person.
Click to expand...
It is not “publicly available information”. It is repeated hearsay that has been refuted by people willing to go on the record…one of whom is not necessarily a friend of Trump but is known for his integrity…whether you agree with his politics or not.

I see at least 3 journalistic ethics violated here by the Atlantic:

 
Last edited:
kmaaj said:
40.png
farronwolf:
Were those people with the President the entire day.
Click to expand...
Huckabee and Bolton said they were.
Click to expand...
How would even know that they were able to hear every word the President spoke? How can they be sure of their memory?
 
Last edited:
 
Back to the actual intent of the topic.

I believe it is best to just wait. Biden was accused of racism on one particular statement he made about Blacks and Hispanics. On the first day, I was a bit agitated, but waited. Then someone cleared the message up. And I personally did not find it racist after that explanation.

So waiting definitely helps.
 
kmaaj said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
How would even know that they were able to hear every word the President spoke?
Click to expand...
If that is your standard, then apply it to the anonymous as well.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between saying you heard something and saying you didn’t hear something. It is like the difference between saying “I found a dime in the grass” and “I didn’t find a dime in the grass.” In the first case, the person can be quite sure there was a dime in the grass. In the second case, the most the person can say is that he didn’t see one. That does not mean it was not there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top