Do Catholics still support Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter MamasBoy33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jig_Saw said:
The Pope was talking about direct support of these evils, not about who to vote for.
Click to expand...
isn’t that the question? when you vote for someone supporting abortion, are you supporting these evils? how can you say it is not direct support when you know a candidate will promote laws to allow abortions beyond current limits. your vote allows them to forward their agenda. in this past election, a vote for hillary would have allowed the expansion of abortion.
niceatheist said:
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
Click to expand...
give me an example, what would allow you to vote for an intrinsic evil supporting politician.

if i don’t like the immigration policies or the way a person treats the poor, is this a good enough reason to vote for a pro abortion candidate?
Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God’s children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue – or lack thereof – is a judgment not only on them, but on us. (usccb: living-the-gospel-of-life)
Click to expand...
 
The Court is pretty politicized, depending, I guess, on what one thinks of as “political”. Abortion is a definitely political issue, and it’s no accident that all Dem appointees are pro-abortion. Nor is it any accident that all Repub appointees (other than Kennedy) are prolife.

Without a change at the Court level, Congress’ ability to effect change is very limited; first because if the courts declare a “constitutional right”, there’s nothing Congress can do to countermand it. It is only because of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and (wonder of wonders) kennedy that partial birth abortion is not a “constitutional right” about which the congress and the states could do nothing.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
And exactly how many abortions did these judges prevent?
Click to expand...
Impossible to know. But for sure if they hadn’t voted as they did, partial birth abortion would now be the “law of the land”; a “constitutional right.” Some principles are not dependent on numbers for moral validity. Would you have been okay with partial birth abortion declared a constitutional right if the numbers were low?
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
We must pray for him and make due with the flawed sinner he is, like we all are. Those who think themselves better than him need to check their pride at the door.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should pray for him, you are right… our obligations do not stop there however, we are obliged to resist him and his policies when appropriate… unfortunately, that has and continues to be often.

The USCCB typically ways in on the moral issues… I recommend following their lead.
 
godisgood77 said:
Didn’t David repent?
Click to expand...
After the LORD sent Nathan to show him the light.
The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

“Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
(2 Samuel 12)
Click to expand...
Now take note: the LORD did NOT send a mob of raging citizens – wearing funny pink hats and suffering from David derangement syndrome – into the street and across the media world shouting, “David is not my king!” using an assortment of derogatory epithets.

He quietly sent his emissary Nathan.

It isn’t like a repentance by Trump, even a public one, is going to assuage his critics. Besides, isn’t he permitted to repent in the privacy of his own relationship with God? Would you want Trump or anyone else inserting themselves into your process of repentance and conversion? Do unto others.
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
we are obliged to resist him and his policies when appropriate… unfortunately, that has and continues to be often.

The USCCB typically ways in on the moral issues… I recommend following their lead.
Click to expand...
Which of his actual policies do you oppose on moral grounds?

And which USCCB bishop’s lead do you propose we follow?

I am unaware of the USCCB speaking authoritatively about anything for years and years. I am, however, aware that one or two bishops have said this or that on USCCB letterhead. But to be authoritative, the majority of them have to vote for it and then that resolution has to be approved by the Vatican.

So, one can say “bishop so-and-so” has said this about that". But just one or two bishops’ opinions do not bind Catholics in this country, even if they give their opinions on USCCB letterhead.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
And exactly how many abortions did these judges prevent?
Click to expand...
Impossible to know. But for sure if they hadn’t voted as they did, partial birth abortion would now be the “law of the land”; a “constitutional right.” Some principles are not dependent on numbers for moral validity. Would you have been okay with partial birth abortion declared a constitutional right if the numbers were low?
Click to expand...
I would not be content with partial birth abortion even if there was only one. But “not being content” does not translate to “promising my vote to the first guy to say the magic word regardless of his other qualifications.”
 
upant said:
isn’t that the question? when you vote for someone supporting abortion, are you supporting these evils? how can you say it is not direct support when you know a candidate will promote laws to allow abortions beyond current limits. your vote allows them to forward their agenda. in this past election, a vote for hillary would have allowed the expansion of abortion.
Click to expand...
The bishop’s voting guide says that the Catholic cannot vote for a candidate based on their support of so-called abortion rights, but there are a myriad of issues that a Catholic must consider and they may vote for a candidate that supports abortion rights in spite of this.

It’s up to each individual Catholic to weight these issues, despite what many claim around here.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Abortion is a definitely political issue, and it’s no accident that all Dem appointees are pro-abortion
Click to expand...
Fascinating.
How do you know that they re “pro-abortion” or “pro-life”?
What does that have to do with their work as a judge?
 
upant said:
if i don’t like the immigration policies or the way a person treats the poor, is this a good enough reason to vote for a pro abortion candidate?
Click to expand...
You talk of pro-abortion candidates. There are very, very few of them. There are many more who support legal access to abortion. The difference is not subtle. You also talk of political platforms as though there are self-implementing. That might make sense if people were not constantly talking about politicians failing to follow through on promises. At the same time, you neglect the outright dis-ingenuousness of people like Rep. Tim Murphy who lied about his pro-life position and literally supported abortion.

Overall, we have had many years of posturing and division since Roe v. Wade, and nothing that looks like a solution - and I am not talking about the empty gestures of outlawing one procedure so that another is used, or shaving a week on viability, whic may lead to more abortions. Solutions.

Because of this, you can hardly blame people for voting on other issues for which there is more likely to be some action, and thus, for which their vote matters.
 
The city government of Detroit did the same thing when the Superbowl was hosted there. Are those Democrats therefore racist and did the minorities on staff internalize bigotry, sexism and racism?
 
The city government of Detroit did the same thing when the Superbowl was hosted there. Are those Democrats therefore racist and did the minorities on staff internalize bigotry, sexism and racism?
F_Marturana said:
Did he disavow the three soft porn films he appeared in as cameo parts?
Click to expand...
I thought liberals were all about free love.
 
Yes, bigotry and racism ARE vile.

Along with their all-tolerant, open-minded name-calling. Will never forget how disgusting it was to see the names Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas were called on a website of “underground” Democrats.

Nothing but vulgar bullies, who expect everyone else to kowtow to them, because they’re so “sensitive” and “prim”. Not!
 
sainteriksrose said:
Yes, bigotry and racism ARE vile.

Along with their all-tolerant, open-minded name-calling. Will never forget how disgusting it was to see the names Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas were called on a website of “underground” Democrats.

Nothing but vulgar bullies, who expect everyone else to kowtow to them, because they’re so “sensitive” and “prim”. Not!
Click to expand...
Unless you have some evidence that I posted anything like that on this “underground website”, this is little more than whataboutery. I’m talking about the comments of a poster here.

So what do you think of the assertion that Sadiq Khan is going to impose Sharia law? Do you think that that was a bigoted comment; one that fed on Khan’s ethnic background and religion to make an unsubstantiated slur?

Or will you just hunt down some more bigoted Democrats as some sort of cover for the White Nationalist garbage that some are posting here?
 
Excuse me -

I didn’t say YOU posted it now, DID I?

I said that “delicate” little group known as the DEMOCRATS did.

And of course, the bullying name-calling always gives them away. Seriously hope many lawsuits result from their antics. Oh and boycotts. Which always work 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top