Do Catholics still support Trump

[HarryStotle]

Okay… but you are calling out the absurdity of your comments…

admonish
verb

1. warn or reprimand someone firmly.
   …
2. warn (someone) of something to be avoided.

Please note TO WHOM the warning or reprimand is directed. Understand that you reprimand “someone” to their person, not to everyone but the person.

I don’t see a user on CAF named Donald J Trump to whom you are speaking or reprimanding. So let’s just say your “admonishments” are completely ineffectual, at best, since he isn’t here to hear them. Why not phone or email the president if you are serious about him needing admonishment.

back·bit·ing
noun
malicious talk about someone who is not present.

Yeah, this pretty much describes what you are doing.

Recall that admonishing is done for the sake of the person whom you are admonishing for their own well-being. Admonishment is done because of loving concern for that person, for their good. I don’t sense that kind of love behind your admonishments.

Grousing to others isn’t a valid form of admonishment.

People are calling out his POSITIONS… as much as people my dislike the President personality… the objections are based on positions and acts, not shallow observations about his personality.

Actually I am reading both SHALLOW observations about his personality together with SHALLOW critique of his POSITIONS.

In case I am missing something, why not reiterate your MOST substantive critique of his position on what you think is the most critical issue and we’ll see how well it stands up to counter argument. And please do explicate what HIS position actually is, not what others tell you his position seems to be. Let’s stay away from setting fires to strawTrumpmen with incendiary language.

… as much as people my dislike the President personality…

Freudian slip?

 

[jfz178]

Plus we have separation of Church and State, as we should. Politicians have no duty to follow Catholic or even Christian social teachings. Where do we get the idea they should? Turn it around. Would you want them following Sharia? If not, you are just saying they should only follow the spiritual teaching you subscribe to.

And I doubt you will find any politician who follows Catholic or Christian social teachings all of the time. The most prominent Catholic politicians in my lifetime were the Kennedys and they were not even close. It is up to Catholic and Christian constituents to translate our social teachings into secular guidance to our elected representatives.

 

[HarryStotle]

He strongly advocated for torture during the campaign, even saying, and I quote, that he wanted to go “beyond water boarding”. The Catechism condemns torture as an intrinsic evil.

Citation, please.

To facilitate your quest, I’ll refer you to this article…

Library : The Church and Torture | Catholic Culture

From the article:

Finally, let us distinguish between different possible purposes of torture:
(a) for extracting confessions of guilt; (b) as a legally authorized punishment for criminals; (c) for extracting information; and (d) illegally, for sheer vengeance, sadistic pleasure, or intimidation of one’s adversaries.

First, it seems to me that the only infallible teaching we have on the subject is the intrinsic evil of 4(d).

In regard to 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) above, Church teaching so far is less absolute. The clearest case is probably 4(a), legalized confession-extracting torture. This was papally condemned as “totally contrary to divine law” as long ago as 866 as well as recently (implicitly in Gaudium et Spes and explicitly in the Catechism).

What specifically was Donald Trump speaking of with regard to water boarding? Wasn’t it an instance of 4(c) which is not regarded as intrinsically evil? In fact, something like it was permitted during the Inquisition.

One problem, it seems to me, is the proclivity of individuals to project their personal opinions onto Church teaching in order to give those opinions some air of authority. The other problem is the abuse of ambiguous words and the failure to make proper distinctions between all of the possible meanings of those words.

 

[HarryStotle]

Plus we have separation of Church and State, as we should. Politicians have no duty to follow Catholic or even Christian social teachings. Where do we get the idea they should? Turn it around. Would you want them following Sharia? If not, you are just saying they should only follow the spiritual teaching you subscribe to.

I suggest you keep “turning it around.”

Should politicians likewise refrain from following any kind of moral code if that code is found within one religion or other?

If the Church teaches that it is wrong to murder innocent people, should politicians then “turn around” and make murder legal in order to keep the Church and State separate?

Seems ludicrous to me.

Where will the ground for legal prescriptions be found if not in sound moral or ethical determinations? If those determinations happen to align with one religion or other, it doesn’t make sense to throw them out merely because they do.

You see no problem here?

 

[po18guy]

You are proving the point! Government takes money from others and gives to you. You then receive an education clearly biased in favor of trusting government.

It is not a complicated formula.

You would better serve this thread by showing first the measurable good that government programs do, as well as the harm that terminating them will do.

Do you honestly think that no one and nothing else will step into any gap? Who or what provided these “services” before the government took over? Are they even needed, or have they simply taken on a life of their own, as so many government programs have?

That Claiborne Pell grant has formed you well.

 

[boclucky14]

Apparently no one was able to be educated before the Pell grant. Or at least that’s what many people think today. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

It’s funny. College tuition is a perfect example of what government money does. Look at the price of tuition just a generation ago. Look at it now: https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/average-cost-of-tuition-and-fees-e1497032358292.png

The more free money we threw at it, the more the cost grew. Makes sense. If a college sees they can get free money via using students with government money, why would a college not take it? Why would a college not find something to spend the money on in order to keep more of that money?

Government money is what made college expensive. Now we want more government money to…what? Make it cheaper? That’s not going work. That’s literally the definition of insanity.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’ve belonged to this forum for a grand total of about two hours, and already someone has labeled me.

I suspect you misread the intention.

Merely because someone writes, “…liberals like to…” In answer to one of your posts doesn’t necessarily mean they are implying you are one. You may happen in this instance to agree on a point with a determinably liberal position, so the responder may have been warning of the pitfalls of pushing that point too hard.

 

[twf]

The Catechism is very clear. There is no room for debate here. It explicitly condemns torture for the use of extracting confessions. See 2297 to 2298. Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 5

I believe you are projecting preconceived Republican positions and reaching deep into history to justify your position. We are bound to obey the living Magisterium…and St John Paul II declared the Catechism a “sure norm”. The Catechism even calls the Church’s past position “regretful”.

Republican first, Catholic second is not better than Democrat first, Catholic second.

 

[angel12]

When people ask me why I support Trump, my answer is, “Because he is hated by all the right people.”

So, as long as the right people hate him, that justifies cheating his contractors, disrespecting POWs, walking in on contestant dressing rooms, bragging about committing sexual assault . . .
Obviously he was right. He COULD shoot someone in the street. You’d support that, as long as he was hated by the right people.

Astonishing.

 

[boclucky14]

He COULD shoot someone in the street. You’d support that, as long as he was hated by the right people.

You are being disingenuous and uncharitable to @jfz178. You really should be more charitable and attempt to better understand his meaning by what he said in a more charitable light.

 

[jfz178]

Please. Yours is the most trite rhetorical trick in the book, “appeal to extremes.” You offer the wildest hypotheticals you can think of, taking the argument places it is not headed. Who said anything about politicians not following any moral code, or of committing murder? I will not play your word games. I admit, I did the same thing with the Sharia comment, and I apologize, but I stand by the rest of my point.

I am not for politicians following a moral code because it is also a religious code. They should follow it because it is good governance, period. If it happens to coincide with religious beliefs, great. If it doesn’t religious people should lobby their representatives to express their preferences in a secular way.

Every single administration and every single Congress in the history of this country has sent military power out to kill people, including resulting innocent casulties and every alternative to Trump would have had to also. That is a provable fact. Most of the time, most citizens don’t even know it’s going on unless the mainstream media decides it is part of their narrative. You can call those operations murder as an editorial comment, but until there is a conviction in a court of law, that is just your opinion.

 

[Brendan]

Further, pro-life is not just “anti-abortion”; what about care for that child once it is born? How do you say you are pro-life and try to roll back funding for critical children’s health care initiatives? How do you defund opportunities for the poor? All that does is perpetuate the same cycles of poverty that drives women to abortion in the first place.

But it starts there. Nothing else can be done until that initial right is secured.

Pope John Paul II noted this in Christifidelis Laci

“The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination”

Until a government commits to securing the right to life, anything else they talk about is ‘false and illusionary’

 

[jfz178]

Again, an “argument to extremes.” Inventing things I never said. Not even worth a reply. Apparently you do not want deal with what I did say. You have to make things up to try to win your point. That is “astonishing.”

 

[godisgood77]

Please note TO WHOM the warning or reprimand is directed. Understand that you reprimand “someone” to their person, not to everyone but the person.

You’re being unreasaonble… as I stated earlier an you must have missed. The average citizen does not have ready access to the President. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to debate, criticize (one of the synomyms of admonish) and otherwise resist the policies and positions put forward by the President.

, why not reiterate your MOST substantive critique of his position on what you think is the most critical issue and we’ll see how well it stands up to counter argument.

From my previous post… you must have missed it… these are based on positions, actions and direct comments of Mr Trump…

I think this is the point of the thread…can a Catholic in good conscience support Trump? Many Catholics think not… due to the chronic lying, his very recent pro-choice stance, policies that hurt the people in favor of giant corporations, dangerous rhetoric potentially provoking war, treatment of immigrants,… not to mention being a sexual predator…

If you could simply respond to the first criticism of his lying, that would be great.

 

[OKi]

That’s your evidence? “Trump reportedly mocks Mike Pence’s views…” - don’t be silly.

 

[OKi]

This is what we avoided. ENJOY

 

[ProVobis]

Unless the Democrats fix it, most of the middle class will be paying higher taxes because any small gains they make are only temporary,

The Republicans have sold Americans a whole bill of bad goods. With higher interest rates projected, the interest payments on the deficit will alone be humongous. Why can’t we pay off the debt first so that $700 billion per year can be given back to the voters?

 

[Metis1]

You’re politicizing this, and I have no intention of debating this. To your question, let me mention just a few items: his record of adultery; his walking in on women and teens changing; his bragging about his affairs; his many racist comments; his persistent lying; his bragging how he can grope women’s genitals; his demeaning people including calling people names that we tell even children is morally wrong, etc.

Now, kindly show me where Jesus did or condoned such words and activity and I’ll take my words back. OTOH, if you just want to argue politics, I ain’t interested.

 

[ProVobis]

Would have made more sense to double the employee write-off for businesses. That is, if you want to increase employment and wages.

But, NOOOOOO!

 

[ProVobis]

Trump has failed so badly no American bank will lend to him. He had to turn to a foreign criminal bank for any loan.