Do Catholics still support Trump

[Jig_Saw]

The prudential judgement, from a properly formed conscience, doesn’t bother me as much as the taking the issue off the table a priori since the evil of war is considered non-intrinsic (to Latins).

Many overestimate the formation of their consciences. These are usually the same people that traditionally complain about the lack of formation of others.

But the bishops did speak out against the Iraq War. That gets lost today for some reason.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Of course.

But when you have Catholic news networks rationalizing what torture could be, of course Catholics will be confused.

At least trump called it torture.

It’s funny because someone was telling me how EWTN calls it down the middle when I called it Catholic Fox News.

 

[F_Marturana]

I used to watch but stopped around 5 years ago when I had no TV for about a year. I thought I’d start again, so I checked out a certain news personality twitter feed.

My diocese has a Catholic cable channel. I’ll watch that instead. They rerun Bishop Sheen.

 

[anon65111186]

Even outside of elections, an employee may try make a determination of a candidate for employment based on an interview, an essay, even social media.

This is assuming a employer/ employee relationship is analagous to a voter / president relationship, which of course it is not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But the bishops did speak out against the Iraq War. That gets lost today for some reason.

Which part of the war, and which bishops?

Of course, Pope JPII also spoke out against the beginning of “Phase II” under GWB. After it started, however, he never did. Possibly it was because in his statement he said he thought the UN would resolve it, or should. Of course, he didn’t know how suborned the UN was at the time with petrodollars.

 

[dvdjs]

Which part of the war, and which bishops?

John Michael Botean was memorably direct. Forbidding the participation of his flock under pain of mortal sin.

 

[Ridgerunner]

John Michael Botean was memorably direct. Forbidding the participation of his flock under pain of mortal sin.

He’s certainly entitled to his opinion. For Latin Catholics, however, neither the Pope nor any bishop made such a declaration.

 

[F_Marturana]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.last...cd4v1yrUUph0rhii1fAnJ/amphtml/pagina.amp.html

 

[upant]

would have beat Hillary in the primaries.

no one would have beaten hillary. the collusion between her and the dnc just about guaranteed her nomination.

I personally consider to be a misapplication of Pope Benedict’s teaching.

how?

but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

define proportionate reasons.

I don’t know why.

maybe something to do with all the freebies

Did the majority of those voting for him do so because of the five non negotiables anyway?

nope, never hillary

 

[Jig_Saw]

how?

The Pope was talking about direct support of these evils, not about who to vote for.

 

[PaulinVA]

Approaching 10,000 sealed indictments have been registered in the United States as part of the takedown of the cabal. (3)

These indictments are thought to cover child, human, gun, and drug trafficking, pedophilia, child sacrifice, bribery, corruption, and similar crimes.

…

High-ranking politicians like Hillary Clinton and John McCain are allegedly wearing orthopedic boots to hide ankle monitors.

…

 

[niceatheist]

define proportionate reasons.

You would have to ask Benedict XVI for specifics, but reading his missive, it suggests that a Catholic could be in good standing, and vote for, say, a pro-choice candidate, if in the balance, that Catholic felt there were aspects of the other candidates that they could not support. In other words, the Cardinal’s position when writing was that a Catholic is permitted a nuanced view of voting; or to put it more bluntly, the Five Non-negotiables is not the Church’s position at all, but rather a position taken by laypeople who are trying to impose their own black and white view of voting by asserting their private view is a formal Church position.

 

[PaulinVA]

would have beat Hillary in the primaries.

no one would have beaten hillary. the collusion between her and the dnc just about guaranteed her nomination.

Sorry, sitting Vice President trumps (!) the former SecState. DNC was trying to keep Bernie the Socialist out, not Hillary in.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You would have to ask Benedict XVI for specifics, but reading his missive, it suggests that a Catholic could be in good standing, and vote for, say, a pro-choice candidate, if in the balance, that Catholic felt there were aspects of the other candidates that they could not support. In other words, the Cardinal’s position when writing was that a Catholic is permitted a nuanced view of voting; or to put it more bluntly, the Five Non-negotiables is not the Church’s position at all, but rather a position taken by laypeople who are trying to impose their own black and white view of voting by asserting their private view is a formal Church position.

“…that Catholic felt…” That’s protestant, not Catholic.

Pope Benedict said one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate if there were “proportionate” reasons counterbalancing it. What, in your mind, is proportionate to killing 50 million children and counting?

 

[SuperLuigi]

1. He’s a straight white male from the South
2. He’s running against a Democrat

No, we’ve seen them. They were humans, not vegetables.

This right there is your indication how seriously the non-Moore take this----and how much they really care about the victims.

Also quite possibly how much evidence there really is.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Pope Benedict said one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate if there were “proportionate” reasons counterbalancing it. What, in your mind, is proportionate to killing 50 million children and counting?

1. Republicans control all 3 branches of government. Abortion is still legal.
2. Racism
3. Torture
4. Unjust Wars

It seems like the bishop’s document on voting is more balanced than what some might like here, but it doesn’t highlight the serious issues and, in the end, you recognize neither party is particularly close, so you are left to your own conscience to sort it out.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You would have to ask Benedict XVI for specifics, but reading his missive, it suggests that a Catholic could be in good standing, and vote for, say, a pro-choice candidate, if in the balance, that Catholic felt there were aspects of the other candidates that they could not support. In other words, the Cardinal’s position when writing was that a Catholic is permitted a nuanced view of voting; or to put it more bluntly, the Five Non-negotiables is not the Church’s position at all, but rather a position taken by laypeople who are trying to impose their own black and white view of voting by asserting their private view is a formal Church position.

“…that Catholic felt…” That’s protestant, not Catholic.

Pope Benedict said one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate if there were “proportionate” reasons counterbalancing it. What, in your mind, is proportionate to killing 50 million children and counting?

I’m not Catholic, so I’m the wrong person to ask. it sounds to me like that’s a question each Catholic will have to ask themselves, but under no circumstances is some CAF declaration to be confused with the Church’s position.

 

[PaulinVA]

No, we’ve seen them. They were humans, not vegetables.

This right there is your indication how seriously the non-Moore take this----and how much they really care about the victims.

Also quite possibly how much evidence there really is.

Not really sure what you are trying to say. I was replying to JamesK1, who advanced the conspiracy theory that all the women accusing Moore were plants. Instead of dignifying that assertion with a rebuttal, I just posted something sarcastic.

I believe the women.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Republicans control all 3 branches of government. Abortion is still legal.
Racism

This is the worst apology for abortion of all. The congress can’t ban abortion. Only the supreme court can do that. Obama appointed two abortion-supporting justices. Trump has had the opportunity to appoint only one justice, believed to be prolife. The only prolife justices are repub appointees. The Dem appointees in the partial birth abortion case all voted in favor of partial birth abortion. All Repub appointees voted to uphold state bans on it.

But Trump did reinstate the Mexico City Policy, so at least this country is not supporting it abroad.

Which Repub candidates supported racism in the last election?

Which supported torture or unjust wars?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not Catholic, so I’m the wrong person to ask. it sounds to me like that’s a question each Catholic will have to ask themselves, but under no circumstances is some CAF declaration to be confused with the Church’s position.

I think you’re right. You’re not the one to ask, as it does not clearly appear you know the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

There is no CAF declaration. There is only the position of some posters.