Do Catholics really want to be aligned with MAGA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gary1961
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
Which of the non-negotiables that have been discussed here are not “life issues”? All of those topics discussed here are inherently and always evil.
Click to expand...
Trump talked of torture but in the end, no torture happened under him. It was talk. Throwaway statements.

As for your statement on life issues, I will repeat as I have done numerous times, the Popes have emphasized the evil of abortion, every one of them in recent times. It seems to have more weight.
 
gracepoole said:
Perhaps pro-Trump rants should be dismissed outright, as well, then.
Click to expand...
Yes, they should be dismissed as well.

But accusing one of defrauding others, I don’t know if this is proven. And so on, is a whole different level.
 
Victoria33 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
Which of the non-negotiables that have been discussed here are not “life issues”? All of those topics discussed here are inherently and always evil.
Click to expand...
Trump talked of torture but in the end, no torture happened under him. It was talk. Throwaway statements.
Click to expand...
How would anyone know this would be the outcome during the general election?
Victoria33 said:
As for your statement on life issues, I will repeat as I have done numerous times, the Popes have emphasized the evil of abortion, every one of them in recent times. It seems to have more weight.
Click to expand...
And I’ll repeat, as I’ve done numerous times, that no one here is arguing that abortion is not always and inherently evil and can never be supported. All non-negotiables are always evil. All of them.
 
Victoria33 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
Perhaps pro-Trump rants should be dismissed outright, as well, then.
Click to expand...
Yes, they should be dismissed as well.

But accusing one of defrauding others, I don’t know if this is proven. And so on, is a whole different level.
Click to expand...
I think I’d agree, though I’m not sure if you’re referring to me, another poster, or something else altogether when referring to “defrauding others”?
 
Defrauding workers was stated above.
Also, the Popes almost, I’d say on a quarterly basis speak against abortion, it’s quite frequent actually. There is a lot of weight given to it.

When we start to talk about life issues, it seems we can start talking about the homeless on the street, nuclear reactors, etc.

And again, we are not told to vote only for a perfect candidate but for the least radical candidate.

_
While recent magisterial statements (none of them definitive and infallible) have reprobated torture, Catholic theologians and apologists still face a challenge.
Click to expand...

Torture is wrong, no doubt. I still don’t know if it is parallel with other evils.

Sleep deprivation is torture, torture includes many things. Even putting someone in a jail cell seems pretty bad on its own.
 
Last edited:
So I can’t get into another debate here about what qualifies as torture. Just as you may view those who bring up issues other than abortion as a means of justifying voting for pro-choice candidates, I view such debates about the definition of torture as a means of justifying voting for pro-torture candidates.

As for not being told to vote only for a perfect candidate, that is correct. We are also instructed that we MUST vote. I would ask, though, for a definition of what you mean by “least radical candidate.”
 
I was told, I don’t know this for a fact, that New Jersey had two candidates running against each other, Hugin and Menendez who are both pro-choice. I would compare there records then.

Or when Judge Jeannine Pirro ran against Hillary Clinton for NY Senate. Judge Jeannine was not for partial birth abortion, I believe I have read, so in this instance, on abortion, it looks like she would be the least radical candidate.
Back to the essay on torture, yes, I have read about the “ticking bomb” scenario. If this is not getting too off topic, someone plants a bomb, it could be a movie theater, bus station or anywhere. This topic is a bit nuanced it appears. I’ve read up on this in the past. I will not rehash it out.

(taking a break, will hope to return later)
 
Last edited:
Without going into specifics, I see President Trump as one who defrauds workers, mistreats the foreigner and the vulnerable. These belong in the top tier of Catholic issues because they are traditional among the worst things a person can do. Obviously, so are the other sins that cry to Heaven. I see the first one especially as applicable. And I will flashback to history. I said, and everyone knew, back in the primaries, Trump had the weakest record on abortion of any serious candidate, yet he was still nominated. So I do not accept that this issue is number one among the majority of that party. I could have voted for pretty much any other Republican.
 
pnewton said:
The teaching of a constant ethic of life may not be something you assent to, but you have no business or right calling it foolish
Click to expand...
I wonder if the a concern arising from the seamless garment sentiments might be that issues of quality of life seem to be given similar weight to the issue of living? Living is a prerequisite for having any sort of quality of life (and as definitions of what constitutes a quality life can vary quite a bit).
To give equal weight to these two issues may encourage some to think that the prerequisite right to life may be exchanged for a higher quality of life for those permitted to live.
 
pnewton said:
Without going into specifics, I see President Trump as one who defrauds workers, mistreats the foreigner and the vulnerable
Click to expand...
I thought you didn’t want to dredge up the presidential election.
I just wanted specifics.

I am still unclear as to what exactly your addition is.
 
You weren’t addressing me, but I’m not sure that the Consistent Life/Seamless Garment issues are entirely about just quality of life. The death penalty, war, and euthanasia are all key issues for consistent-lifers. And they’re certainly life-and-death issues!

I get what you’re saying, however. There’s no use arguing for a right to, say, housing when you can’t even advocate for someone to live that long . . .
 
My understanding is that euthanasia has traditionally been considered a pro life focal point with abortion. I do agree with your basic point and appreciate your elaboration.
May God bless you.
Amen.
jt
 
vz71 said:
I thought you didn’t want to dredge up the presidential election.
I just wanted specifics.
Click to expand...
I did not want to, and declined to answer, then you asked again. I knew of no other way to give specifics without being specific. Oh, and it was not a “rant” ( @Victoria33 ). It was an answer from Catholic teaching about sins that cry to Heaven can be practically applied… This thread has been pretty anti-Trump rant free, at least for the last few days, with the only emotionally-charged, logically-deficient ones being a couple defending the President.
jeannetherese said:
I wonder if the a concern…
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that you are correct, and it is a danger that some may use it to justify their politics. Rationalizing sin has always been easier than changing oneself.

However, the Church will not change.
 
Last edited:
This type of article is why I see FOX on the same level as MSNBC in reliability. I hate to see any pro-life organization flipping over to politics, but it has happened before. LifeSiteNews has become more associated with politics and religious alignment than it has life issues.
 
pnewton said:
I did not want to, and declined to answer, then you asked again. I knew of no other way to give specifics without being specific
Click to expand...
So you have no way to describe in detail an issue then to mention Trump by name without actually describing a specific action.

I am skeptical now that there really is some addition you would make to the 5.
 
We just had a party that couldn’t vote against infanticide in unanimity. We have a party where infanticide has surfaced throughout the years from time to time.

The thread with no article to back up the initial claim was hostile towards the president.

I know who I am wary about. Others can rationalize their dislike all they want. That’s not my department. I am glad for what the president is doing versus the plans of the other party.
 
You mean the 5 Catholic Answers made up? For that is what they are. Your are right that there is no addition I can make to those who take those five, not only as Church teaching, which they are not, but as superseding Church teaching. For the Church, there are not negotiable values, as Pope Francis has said. However, we do not vote on values, but on people. The Church has never said which values are something, if held by a Candidate, would be someone a Catholic could not vote for.

My answer are for those that are thinking more in line with the USCCB voter’s guide, past party politics, and just doing the best they can. I have already said that one of my top criteria is character, because without character and integrity, everything said or done by a candidate is unreliable. But according to traditional Catholic teaching the number is four, not five. I added the two that other lists miss.
 
pnewton said:
My answer are for those that are thinking more in line with the USCCB voter’s guide, past party politics, and just doing the best they can. I have already said that one of my top criteria is character, because without character and integrity, everything said or done by a candidate is unreliable. But according to traditional Catholic teaching the number is four, not five. I added the two that other lists miss.
Click to expand...
Character: The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another.

Using it as a guiding principle in voting allows one to make up their own personal list of features. I find “integrity” to also be a wishy washy term.

My preference is:
  • Do I agree with their campaign promises
  • Did they make a determine effort to execute on those promises
Why vote for someone who delivers on promises I don’t agree with? Also, when an official makes a determined effort to keep pledges but fails, I don’t think that reflects on their integrity though the media portrays it that way.

Example, Bush SR really did try not to raise taxes, But he was in a corner and signed the Dem bill because it was the right thing to do at the time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top