Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Thread

[sallybutler]

I am pointing out your interpretation of the document is not correct and you will not find a quote by a single member of the magisterium that agrees with it. Archbishop Chaput commented on this back in 2098:

And here’s the irony. None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They’ve been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ‘‘get beyond’’ abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won’t be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues.This is a great sadness. As Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George said recently, too many Americans have ''no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can’t be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.’’

Did you re-read the paragraphs I listed?

Generally, in the English language, when one gives a list of examples, they are considered equal or at least so similar that they all serve to give proof of the subject at hand.

When the bishops tell me I can not vote, I do not know how else to interpret it. They also say candidates, not parties.

Since I am apparently not reading it correctly, could you direct me to a Reading Faithful Citizenship for Dummies that goes through this document paragraph by paragraph and sentence by sentence. One book/document only. I feel like I am not smart enough to understand what they wrote (sorry Soeurs du Sacre Coeur de Jesus,I apparently was not paying attention during my classes).

 

[estesbob]

Did you re-read the paragraphs I listed?

Generally, in the English language, when one gives a list of examples, they are considered equal or at least so similar that they all serve to give proof of the subject at hand.

When the bishops tell me I can not vote, I do not know how else to interpret it. They also say candidates, not parties.

Since I am apparently not reading it correctly, could you direct me to a Reading Faithful Citizenship for Dummies that goes through this document paragraph by paragraph and sentence by sentence. One book/document only. I feel like I am not smart enough to understand what they wrote (sorry Soeurs du Sacre Coeur de Jesus,I apparently was not paying attention during my classes).

One can not distill Catholic teaching on abortion based on their interpretation of a paragraph in a document issued by a Bishod conference Again if you can find a member of the Magestrium that backs up your position please post it

 

[sallybutler]

One can not distill Catholic teaching on abortion based on their interpretation of a paragraph in a document issued by a Bishod conference Again if you can find a member of the Magestrium that backs up your position please post it

If the Bishops did not mean those paragraphs, why did they write them?

I am not interpreting, I am paraphrasing. There is a difference.

Please look at each paragraph I listed and tell me that the Bishops did not say what they said. Don’t go to other documents, let’s just look at this one for now.

 

[estesbob]

If the Bishops did not mean those paragraphs, why did they write them?

I am not interpreting, I am paraphrasing. There is a difference.

Please look at each paragraph I listed and tell me that the Bishops did not say what they said. Don’t go to other documents, let’s just look at this one for now.

Please reconcile your position with the direct quotes I posted Or tHis:

1. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
2. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope BEnedict XVI

 

[GaryTaylor]

Please reconcile your position with the direct quotes I posted Or tHis:

1. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
2. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope BEnedict XVI

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia??

 

[sallybutler]

Please reconcile your position with the direct quotes I posted Or tHis:

1. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
2. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope BEnedict XVI

Why do you keep changing the subject away from
Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship? Is it not a good document? Are the Bishops wrong?

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Why do you keep changing the subject away from
Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship? Is it not a good document? Are the Bishops wrong?

Reading Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, we find:

“28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.”

This paragraph ends with note 3 attached to it.

Note 3 states:

““When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise, or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of* fundamental and inalienable ethical demands*, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia…Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death” (Doctorial Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4).”

This sure looks a lot like what estesbob has posted.

DGB

 

[sallybutler]

Reading Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, we find:

“28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.”

This paragraph ends with note 3 attached to it.

Note 3 states:

““When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise, or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of* fundamental and inalienable ethical demands*, Christians must recognize that what is ae isst stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia…Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death” (Doctorial Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4).”

This sure looks a lot like what estesbob has posted.

DGB

And yet paragraph 29 says you cannot use this to ignore other issues.

So, basically, anything related to human life, from conception to a natural death is important. Anortion, pre natal care, marriage, education, health, workers, capital punishment, torture, environment, all of these are things we need to consider.

And as far as abortion is concerned, the Bishops state that if both candidates are okay with abortion in any way, shape, or form, you can choose to not vote for either or look at the totality of their characters and positions.

Until someone tells me that this document is not valid, I will look at the totality of the document. And, according to it, abortion is NOT the only issue in the world.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What difference does it make? If he wants to be critical of her policies and performance, fine. To criticize her ethnicity and call her “Pocohantas” is offensive to Native Americans.

Why is she claiming to be Native American when she isn’t?

 

[sallybutler]

Why is she claiming to be Native American when she isn’t?

According to the genealogy records, her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee.

After many years of people hiding their Native American ancestors, people started being proud of them. Starting in the late 60’s, they were no longer cosidere skeletons to be kept in the closet.

Much like my married next is Butler, which would lead one to believe I married into a family with English ancestors. You would be wrong. They changed their name from Breton to Butler about three generations back in order to pass as English instead of French. Maine went through a period of time when the people of French heritage were treated much like people of Spanish heritage are currently being treated.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

And yet paragraph 29 says you cannot use this to ignore other issues.

So, basically, anything related to human life, from conception to a natural death is important. Anortion, pre natal care, marriage, education, health, workers, capital punishment, torture, environment, all of these are things we need to consider.

And as far as abortion is concerned, the Bishops state that if both candidates are okay with abortion in any way, shape, or form, you can choose to not vote for either or look at the totality of their characters and positions.

Until someone tells me that this document is not valid, I will look at the totality of the document. And, according to it, abortion is NOT the only issue in the world.

And for all of the other items listed in paragraph 29, who is to say that the stance of one party on these items is any better than the other. For abortion, there is no doubt.

DGB

 

[sallybutler]

And for all of the other items listed in paragraph 29, who is to say that the stance of one party on these items is any better than the other. For abortion, there is no doubt.

DGB

You are not voting for a party.

 

[estesbob]

Why do you keep changing the subject away from
Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship? Is it not a good document? Are the Bishops wrong?

It is a good document Your interpretation of it and selected out of context quoting is what is wrong

 

[CHRISTINE77]

According to the genealogy records, her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee.

After many years of people hiding their Native American ancestors, people started being proud of them. Starting in the late 60’s, they were no longer cosidere skeletons to be kept in the closet.

Much like my married next is Butler, which would lead one to believe I married into a family with English ancestors. You would be wrong. They changed their name from Breton to Butler about three generations back in order to pass as English instead of French. Maine went through a period of time when the people of French heritage were treated much like people of Spanish heritage are currently being treated.

Ha ha ha so I am one 1/64 French what of it. Goofy! what it your point? I think she got special status for “being” an American Indian. Liar.

 

[sallybutler]

It is a good document Your interpretation of it and selected out of context quoting is what is wrong

Thank you for approving the document. I will disagree with you that I was quoting things out of context, but I will agree that my interpretation does not match your interpretation.

 

[Mulligan2]

The ironic thing is that he isn’t a conservative at all… just an unprincipled opportunist who will manipulate gullible voters for his purposes.

You’re almost being too kind in your assessment.

 

[Mulligan2]

I think that all Catholics should carefully read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and review the comments of bishops in determining how to vote instead of relying on the personal interpretation of Church teaching of the posters at this website.

I suspect you’ll be disappointed with Catholic voters in 2016 as well. As you know, there is a difference between how you or anyone else believes that a Catholic should vote, and the way that they actually vote. Many times the “Catholic vote” has been an indicator of the final electoral college winner. Catholics preferred President Obama over Senator McCain and Governor Romney. I didn’t vote for either McCain or Romney, but I believe they are decent people. I cannot say the same about Mr. Trump. I just don’t see any way that Mr. Trump will win the Catholic vote in 2016. He’s insulted Mexicans, many of whom are Catholic, and his comments about women have been crude and unbecoming a serious presidential candidate. He’s certainly not the face of America that I want portrayed to the rest of the world. We’re better than that.

 

[Little_Sheep]

I suspect you’ll be disappointed with Catholic voters in 2016 as well. As you know, there is a difference between how you or anyone else believes that a Catholic should vote, and the way that they actually vote. Many times the “Catholic vote” has been an indicator of the final electoral college winner. Catholics preferred President Obama over Senator McCain and Governor Romney. I didn’t vote for either McCain or Romney, but I believe they are decent people. I cannot say the same about Mr. Trump. I just don’t see any way that Mr. Trump will win the Catholic vote in 2016. He’s insulted Mexicans, many of whom are Catholic, and his comments about women have been crude and unbecoming a serious presidential candidate. He’s certainly not the face of America that I want portrayed to the rest of the world. We’re better than that.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I will be dumbstruck if a majority of Catholics vote for Trump. Truly, I cannot even begin to imagine that happening.

 

[mary_bobo]

You are not voting for a party.

I beg to differ. A party that a candidate belongs to has a great deal to do with his/her policies. That is why Paul Ryan is having such a hard time endorsing Trump.

 

[Seamus_L]

Rubio all-in for Trump, sorry for personal attacks foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/29/rubio-all-in-for-trump-sorry-for-personal-attacks.html?intcmp=hpbt2
I'm surprised !