Extremely disappointed with Catholic Answers

  • Thread starter Thread starter petinley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anrakyr said:
No you don’t, the Supreme Court can not and will not overturn it.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t happen to have a pick for this year’s Super Bowl would you? (And while we’re at it, can I call you from the blackjack table at the Wynne in a couple of months?)
 
A link about the phrase, “lesser of two evils”: The Lesser of Two Evils - Catholicism.org
A quote from that link:
" This may come as a revelation to political pragmatists, but Catholics may not choose any evil. None — period. There is a principle in Moral Theology — the principle of double effect — which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil."
 
bob4 said:
" This may come as a revelation to political pragmatists, but Catholics may not choose any evil. None — period. There is a principle in Moral Theology — the principle of double effect — which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil."
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. JPII in Evangelium Vitae refutes this absolutist interpretation.

In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences…

This is an example of choosing the lesser of two evils: voting for a law even though it still allows some abortions if it is more restrictive than the alternative. We can, and we should, take actions that lessen the harm that would otherwise occur…by choosing the lesser of two evils.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Perhaps Spanish-speakers are not as put off by, shall we say, vigorous discussion, as English-speakers are?
Click to expand...
Is “vigorous discussion” how you characterise the (first Trump/Biden) debate? It was an embarrassment.
 
Last edited:
Why will you vote for?

A third party who won’t win?

A guy who as campaigned on keeping abortion enshrined in federal law?
 
Soubirous1 said:
if you want accurate numbers of probability go to vegas odds.
Click to expand...
Have they posted the odds of one of them calling the other a ‘clown’ in the next debate? Just curious… 🤣
HomeschoolDad said:
Was the discussion any more boisterous than what you see sometimes in the British Parliament? That’s what it made me think of.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. It reminded me of a kindergartener’s sandbox meltdown…
Fauken said:
Guys, while this is a thread about politics, this thread is about CA’s handling regarding them and not politics in general.
Click to expand...
This! 👍

I’m hoping that @petinley comes back and explains why he thinks CA is endorsing a particular candidate.
 
Miiiils said:
Why will you vote for?

A third party who won’t win?

A guy who as campaigned on keeping abortion enshrined in federal law?
Click to expand...
Great. More “third party will never win so you need to vote for my candidate instead!” As if we didn’t have enough.
 
petinley said:
They claim that they do not endorse or support a particular party, but with the way they have been pointing people away from a third party which IS in line with Catholic teaching(the American Solidarity Party) and only needs to gain momentum to make it’s worthy candidates viable, they are obviously, but covertly, endorsing the Republican Party despite the fact that their presidential candidate is possibly the biggest con man in the United States history.
Click to expand...
Could you give specific references or examples of them pointing people away from the American Solidarity Party?
 
Last edited:
adamhovey1988 said:
but right now, we finally have a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade BECAUSE of President Trump.
Click to expand...
What we finally have a chance to do is to continue dismantling the Voting Rights Act, role back environmental regulation, remove health care as a right, undermine confidence in all the American institutions, such as the Post Office, the FBI, the CDC, the NIH, scientists, diplomats, health care workers, etc., embolden right-wing extremist para-military terrorists, reduce taxes on the rich, dismantle the public safety net, further divide the nation, and the carrot is the promise of overturning Roe v Wade - a promise that Trump hardly ever talks about. But apparently a baby carrot is enough. We don’t need a full sized carrot.
 
You actually want to get a CAF thread back on topic?!?!?

😅
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Possibly. I think Trump prevailed in the discussion (it’s not a “debate”) but both of the men “showed themselves” from time to time. None of us are perfect.

Was the discussion any more boisterous than what you see sometimes in the British Parliament? That’s what it made me think of.
Click to expand...
I was saying that all night last night! I’m American, but I watch Parliament for kicks sometimes.
By the way, I don’t think it was even a discussion, it was an argument!
 
With the battle lines so clearly drawn it really should be no surprise that a Catholic organization would support the Pro Life Republican party as opposed to a leftist political ideology that is in opposition to the life teachings of Jesus as depicted in the five Catholic non negotiables. A secondary concern would be the threat to religious liberty by the left that could hinder the ministry of Catholic organizations in proclaiming the teachings of Jesus. All Catholics should remember the Kavanaugh persecution and Feinstein’s anti Catholic questioning of Judge Amy Barrett.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Perhaps Spanish-speakers are not as put off by, shall we say, vigorous discussion, as English-speakers are?
Click to expand...
Is “vigorous discussion” how you characterise the (first Trump/Biden) debate? It was an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
Actually, while it was vigorous (to say the least), there wasn’t much “discussion” about it.

What is so hard about “no interruptions”?

That’s one thing I like about Poland. In Poland, everybody gets their say, one person at a time, everybody else listens, and nobody interrupts. Or at least that was my experience, in intimate family environments. Things get discussed as in-depth as the speaker judges to be necessary, and there is no such thing as “cutting to the chase”. Very refreshing.
 
I’m a little surprised at how little endorsement there has been for the Solidarity Party as it’s very aligned with Catholicism. I realize the debate about third party votes needing to be considered but here is a party that really does align…and crickets. No alternative party will ever even have a chance of becoming a large influencing voice if it’s never encouraged. It seems for some Catholics that it’s more important to re-elect Trump than actually go with true Catholic values and that’s a bit of a shame. The Catholic vote is still influential but not if it isn’t harnessed.
 
I thought my initial post was pretty plain about this, but I’ll explain it again. The Catholic Answers hosts point out that voting for a pro abortion candidate isn’t acceptable (and rightly so) so that leaves out the Democrats. What’s left? Republicans and third party candidates. So then they go on to subtlety, but clearly lead the caller and listeners away from the idea of voting for a third party candidate who is pro-life. They promote the Republican party by process of elimination. Clever, but transparent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top