Do Catholics still support Trump

[upant]

Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church should know that the 5 non-negotiables are not the real teaching of the Church.

hmmmmm…

To the participants of the Congress promoted by the European People's Party (March 30, 2006) | BENEDICT XVI

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S PARTY
ON THE OCCASION OF THE STUDY DAYS ON EUROPE
Hall of Blessing
Thursday, 30 March 2006

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.

with a candidate who is arguably not only amoral, but so narcissistic as to be an opponent of all morality and culture that opposes his vulgarity.

you misspelled her

 

[F_Marturana]

What about the $200,000 fine he had to pay for moving African Americans off the floor in his Casinos when certain guests would come?

 

[F_Marturana]

If you recall, TRUMP DID NOT BACK -MOORE. That was Steve Bannon’s Guy

Check Trumps twitter. He did back Moore.

 

[F_Marturana]

Pornography

Did he disavow the three soft porn films he appeared in as cameo parts?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I’m too busy laughing at kasich being a solid republican to read the rest.

The only good option in that primary was Cruz. But trump has played the game better than any republican president since Reagan.

 

[PaulinVA]

I’m too busy laughing at kasich being a solid republican to read the rest.

The only good option in that primary was Cruz. But trump has played the game better than any republican president since Reagan.

Kasich is closer to being a statesman than Cruz. Cruz is too intransigent to get respect or to get anything done.

Right on about Trump, though. He certainly did play a lot of people. Enough to get elected, in fact!

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Kasich I felt was too wishy washy, particularly on gun control with a big issue with me.

Cruz in my opinion was the best, he had a solid agenda and good ideas. Unfortunately he isn’t entertaining or engaging, and to really understand his policies you have to want to listen to more than 30 second sound bites and read more than a meme.

The fact that our choices came down to trump and Hillary to me proof positive of why representative governments fail.

 

[petra22]

Weak journalism standard & lack of critical thinking materials to educate their viewers or readers.

You are lumping a whole group into “deplorable” when not all fit that category. And you ignore the negative and absolute misinformation of many of the MSM. Please, open your eyes and let some sunshine in…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Even some liberal writers think so.

Why Trade Deficits Matter

Economists and politicians frequently overlook their role in whether Americans are working, and where.

www.theatlantic.com

The importance of prices is entirely relative to the ability to pay them. So, for example, the cost of living in Mexico is about 1/3 what it is here. But so is the GDP/capita. It doesn’t matter whether a hamburger costs ten cents or ten dollars. It only matters whether you have the price.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think there are that many economists who believe a trade deficit in and of itself is some sort of crisis that needs fixing. And I don’t think there are many economists out there who think the solutions wouldn’t be worse than the supposed problem, because the solutions all mean a great many consumer goods go up in price.

Some liberal writers as well as some conservatives think so.

Why Trade Deficits Matter

Economists and politicians frequently overlook their role in whether Americans are working, and where.

www.theatlantic.com

The importance of prices is always relative to the ability to pay them. The cost of living in Mexico is about 1/3 what it is here. But so are wages. It is not important whether a hamburger costs ten cents or ten dollars. What’s important is whether a person has the money to buy it.

 

[PaulinVA]

Kasich I felt was too wishy washy, particularly on gun control with a big issue with me.

I think the country moves forward when people compromise. Ideologues have trouble playing well with others.

Cruz in my opinion was the best, he had a solid agenda and good ideas. Unfortunately he isn’t entertaining or engaging, and to really understand his policies you have to want to listen to more than 30 second sound bites and read more than a meme.

Cruz is an obstructionist Ideologue. Ideologues have trouble playing well with others. They don’t have a lot of success in getting legislation passed if their party doesn’t control both houses and presidency. Even then, they have trouble.

The fact that our choices came down to trump and Hillary to me proof positive of why representative governments fail.

The reason we were left with Hillary and Trump is that Beau Biden died. Uncle Joe would have run if his som hadn’t died, and would have beat Hillary in the primaries. With that threat, the Republicans might have gotten their act together. Trump won with 35% of the primary voters because the RNC refused to take control and winnow the huge primary pack. A small number of Republicans took over the party in a perfect storm.

 

[Jig_Saw]

hmmmmm…

Hmmmm, I think most CAF readers know that the “5 non-negotiables” refer to the CAF voter’s guide, written by a layman, which I personally consider to be a misapplication of Pope Benedict’s teaching.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I guess I’m an obstructionist then. I have no desire to accommodate or compromise with the left/establishment. They’ve been running the show for the better of a century in this country. Progressivism needs to be rolled back and defeated. Not compromised with.

 

[niceatheist]

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

• Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[dvdjs]

Hmmmm, I think most CAF readers know that the “5 non-negotiables” refer to the CAF voter’s guide, written by a layman, which I personally consider to be a misapplication of Pope Benedict’s teaching.

Here is a decent, if not perfect, essay on this subject:

Loading…

www.patheos.com

This is the real problem of this non-negotiable stuff — it has stilted and stunted the American Catholic conscience, giving it the leeway to indulge an infantile reasoning wherein right political participation means nothing more than avoiding intrinsic evils — and we need not really think about immigration, death penalty, or the oppression of the poor. But if we are morally responsible when we vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, then we are morally responsible when we vote for a candidate who supports a non-intrinsic evil. Moral responsibility for our votes does not flow from the intrinsic/non-intrinsic evil of the acts and positions we vote for, such that you sin when you vote pro-abortion, but do not sin when, knowing it is unjust, you vote in favor of an unjust war. Moral responsibility for our votes flows from the act of voting as such. When we vote, we agree to be represented by a person, binding ourselves to his policies, such that, where he acts and decides, there we are likewise. We grant him the chance to speak on our behalf. When he promotes evil, intrinsic or non-intrinsic, we, who knew of his policies and voted for him, are in some way responsible — just as we are in some way responsible for any good that he promotes.

 

[Axsenex]

I got plenty of sunshine with BA degree in Political Science & the best part? It’s signed by President Obama

Even better? He hired Deaf woman to work in the White House & I knew her very well. She is a great person with positive attitude & worked hard to help deaf people in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Irma. I’m still reading stories about the Trump Administration & their horrible treatment toward Puerto Rico. I hope they would recover as soon as possible & prayed for them.

What Trump got to offer for my people? Zero

This is why most of us literally at Trump when he thought he could buy us off with empty promises. We knew his business discriminated against us & belittled one of us. He didn’t care about the Deaf Community.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The publication seems aptly named.

The quoted portion basically says that voting for something that’s evil in itself, all the time and every time (intrinsic evil) is equivalent to voting for something about which prudential judgments can legitimately vary (e.g., unjust war…which ones are they?)

 

[petra22]

All I can say is you are reading the wrong stuff. All very negative. There are positive stories out there as well.

 

[dvdjs]

The quoted portion basically says that voting for something that’s evil in itself, all the time and every time (intrinsic evil) is equivalent to voting for something about which prudential judgments can legitimately vary (e.g., unjust war…which ones are they?)

Nope that is not what quote said at all. And, should you read beyond avatar and quote, you will find that it is not what the article said. I am actually surprised that you missed the author’s point.

 

[Raxus]

If you only watch one pseudo news show “the Sean Hannity Trump appreciation hour” then of course it seems like he’s normal. If you venture out and read other conservatives that aren’t on the Trump Train you see a clearer picture.

You’re assuming that I, among others, don’t take in the news from all sides? That’s your bad. I look over HuffPo, CNN, Rachel Maddow’s screeches and shows like The Young Turks to balance what I get from Fox and other right-leaning publications. I’m still convinced that much of the negativity about Trump is simply wailing and gnashing of teeth over the elite Left media / Hollywood bubble not getting their way.

Seriously, how a serial womanizer and well known cad can cause Catholics to say that it might not be so bad to walk in on women changing.

He’s been a cad for as long as he’s been in the lime light. 71 year old leopards don’t change their spots.

Serial womanizing and acting like a cad have been Presidential traits long before Trump took office. He’s still a better alternative in a thousand different ways than Hillary would have been.