Hillary Clinton Thread

[Ridgerunner]

Because it’s remote material cooperation with evil and carries no culpability. Hillary Clinton isn’t going to be performing abortions or pulling people off the street and driving them to abortion clinics, etc. Voting for her isn’t going to change the mind of anyone who opts for an abortion. If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, Hillary Clinton isn’t going to try to talk her into one.

So, let me understand this. If I give a gun to a person whom I know to be paranoid schiz, I have no moral culpability in doing it if the receiver shoots a person instead of a squirrel.

Voting for Hillary Clinton is exactly promoting abortion. The person doing it is as much a moral participant as the nurse who hands the abortion doctor the knife, the person who sells the knives to the abortion clinic knowing what the clinic is, and the person donating to Planned Parenthood knowing what its “work” is. The difference is that Hillary Clinton wants you and me to pay the doctor, not her.That’s like saying it’s okay to hire a “hit” as long as I can make someone else pay the hit man.

And she will indisputably appoint justices to the Courts that will not only keep abortion legal, but will reverse Gonzales vs. Carhart that allows for bans on partial birth abortion. Those justices will be just as guilty of partial birth abortion as the “doctor” and so will Hillary and so will those who support her, knowing full well that she will advance the cause of abortion on demand and force others with the power of the state to participate.

It really is amazing to me the rationalizations that are used to promote what some know for a certainty is evil.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

How would you know that, BTW?

How does one person know what another plans to do?

 

[estesbob]

The culture of death may have started with contraceptives, but the protestant denominations have all accepted them now, thereby assisting the prolongation of evil. Abortion may have come as a result of contraceptives and the sexual revolution.

The Catholic Church is the last bastion of truth. If our priests see no wrong with supporting pro-abortion candidates like hillary, it is no wonder that we can’t reverse the trend.

If there comes a day when our church formally legitimizes contraceptives, abortion, gay marriage, the church will have been dead. I don’t care how many dollars it gives to the poor.

Correct:

A*t this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant parents and grandparents to better integrate into and prosper in American society. But it’s not the same anymore.Nonetheless, there are among Democrats some pro-lifers, but they are, unfortunately, rare. *

Cardinal Burke

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So, let me understand this. If I give a gun to a person whom I know to be paranoid schiz, I have no moral culpability in doing it if the receiver shoots a person instead of a squirrel.

Voting for Hillary Clinton is exactly promoting abortion. The person doing it is as much a moral participant as the nurse who hands the abortion doctor the knife, the person who sells the knives to the abortion clinic knowing what the clinic is, and the person donating to Planned Parenthood knowing what its “work” is. The difference is that Hillary Clinton wants you and me to pay the doctor, not her.That’s like saying it’s okay to hire a “hit” as long as I can make someone else pay the hit man.

And she will indisputably appoint justices to the Courts that will not only keep abortion legal, but will reverse Gonzales vs. Carhart that allows for bans on partial birth abortion. Those justices will be just as guilty of partial birth abortion as the “doctor” and so will Hillary and so will those who support her, knowing full well that she will advance the cause of abortion on demand and force others with the power of the state to participate.

It really is amazing to me the rationalizations that are used to promote what some know for a certainty is evil.

That should answer your question:

ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?RecNum=328804&Forums=5&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=cooperation&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

As I’ve said many times here, I need no excuses, rationalizations, etc. to vote for the Democratic candidate.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No, I’m not a part of Hillary’s or Bernie’s campaign committee, and I don’t have to justify my vote to anyone but God. When one of them starts paying me, I’ll start campaigning for them.

I’m not out to change anyone’s mind. Vote for the candidate you think is best, just as I did and will do.

Perhaps I’m being uncharitable, and I would hope that not only you but God would forgive me if I am, but I feel that another reason you won’t present what you think are proportionate reasons is because you do not feel confident enough that if you did present your reasons, that those reasons wouldn’t be dismantled as not actually not being proportionate enough.

 

[estesbob]

To me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty. I wouldn’t vote for any of the Republicans except under duress. And my conscience is clear with my vote. Even my pastor supports Clinton. And BTW, I voted for Sanders. I will vote for the Democratic candidate be it Sanders or Clinton.

*]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante*

And we’ve been over all this before. Every person has to follow his or her conscience and vote for the candidate he or she thinks is best.

*1745 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and **guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.*55

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. **Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.**

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

 

[queenofheartscv]

If the Church is really serious about the pro-life movement, why has it not publicly denied communion to pro-abortion politicians and lawmakers such as Nancy Pelosi? A couple who are divorced and remarried are told, no you can’t take holy communion, and yet a politician who has power to strike down laws killing innocent babies but chooses not to has no problem whatsoever in the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How does one person know what another plans to do?

In Hillary Clinton’s case, we know exactly what she plans to do because she has made it abundantly clear. She is going to appoint justices to the supreme court who will follow her philosophy, which includes permissive partial birth abortion. She supports abortion on demand. She supports the HHS Mandate, claiming some of us must “change” our religious beliefs. She supports Planned Parenthood without exception for their ghoulish selling of baby body parts. She supports forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide abortifacient coverage for their workers. And she supports forcing all of us to participate in her promotion of those evils.

Her warmongering is, of course, another subject, but if she laughed (as she did) at the torture and killing of Khaddaffi, and mocked it, can one even remotely imagine anything other than that’s how she views the torture and death of others she deems unnecessary on inconvenient?

 

[Ridgerunner]

That should answer your question:

ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?RecNum=328804&Forums=5&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=cooperation&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

As I’ve said many times here, I need no excuses, rationalizations, etc. to vote for the Democratic candidate.

One would think you would need them badly, since it’s morally indefensible.

Reading your article, it’s obvious that the reasons for mediate or remote participation in evil must be proportionate. We already know there are no proportionate reasons in this election to support abortion on demand. Nobody is proposing to kill a million innocent persons annually, and other than Hillary Clinton, nobody has announced their intention to promote it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If the Church is really serious about the pro-life movement, why has it not publicly denied communion to pro-abortion politicians and lawmakers such as Nancy Pelosi? A couple who are divorced and remarried are told, no you can’t take holy communion, and yet a politician who has power to strike down laws killing innocent babies but chooses not to has no problem whatsoever in the Church.

I wrote Fr. Serpa here for a friend who is Catholic, divorced and remarried, but separated from her second husband. Fr. Serpa said she may take communion as long as she and her husband are living chastely.

I don’t make the rules. She is living chastely. She and her husband live on different coasts, and she’s not dating, which would not be permitted.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

One would think you would need them badly, since it’s morally indefensible.

Reading your article, it’s obvious that the reasons for mediate or remote participation in evil must be proportionate. We already know there are no proportionate reasons to support abortion on demand.

Discussing other posters is against the forum rules. Please do not discuss me. You don’t know what I need or don’t need; I don’t know what you need or don’t need.

Again, I don’t need excuses or rationalizations.

 

[queenofheartscv]

I wrote Fr. Serpa here for a friend who is Catholic, divorced and remarried, but separated from her second husband. Fr. Serpa said she may take communion as long as she and her husband are living chastely.

I don’t make the rules. She is living chastely. She and her husband live on different coasts, and she’s not dating, which would not be permitted.

Yes a divorced person can receive communion as long as they are single and living a chaste life. Why can’t the church make it a rule that pro-abortion politicians cannot receive holy communion? Wouldn’t that send a message that the church is for real, that we really want abortion to be stopped?

I don’t know, just my grievances.

 

[grotto]

Why, then, is it okay for someone to support a person like Hillary Clinton, who not only advocates that very thing, but wants you and me not only to pay for it, but to provide it for others?

---

Nope! It is NOT okay to support any candidate of the Democrat Party because it has mandated that abortion is good and will be supported at any time in the life of the unborn baby per the request of the woman-mother.

The tag team that has been spouting their excuses/justifications to vote for the Dems are purely false. When one of the team has exhausted their ability to prevent pro-abort propaganda, they offer complimentary remarks to their teammate and drop names of well respected clergy as a ruse to further their educated theological status.

Praising Hillary or Bernie as moral leaders when they have self exposed their beliefs - is ridiculously stupid. There are no uplifting facts to offer supporting Hillary and Bernie has nothing to offer but one difference between the two - Bernie has not been proven to be a habitual liar.

Counting the hours in the days now until they “come for Hillary”! Can you imagine what it must be like to be around her when the doors are closed and she lets loose of what has got to be on her mind? :tsktsk:

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes a divorced person can receive communion as long as they are single and living a chaste life. Why can’t the church make it a rule that pro-abortion politicians cannot receive holy communion? Wouldn’t that send a message that the church is for real, that we really want abortion to be stopped?

I don’t know, just my grievances.

She’s not single; she’s remarried and separated, but living chastely. Fr. Serpa said as long as she is chaste, that’s fine as regards taking communion.

Saying people who are pro-choice can’t take communion would be a difficult rule to enforce. No one knows how many women who have had an abortion, or who believe in abortion are in the communion line. Many Catholic women use contraceptives, too, but still take communion. Some rules look fine on paper, but enforcing them would be an impossibility. And one can’t ban pro-choice politicians without banning all who are pro-choice. Most people aren’t going to admit it.

And then, even if the Church did that they’d probably have to ban other people who go against Church teaching. Since we’re all sinners, it wouldn’t be long until no one was left in the communion line. I understand that people in a state of mortal sin shouldn’t receive the Body and Blood of Christ, but really, who needs Christ more than sinners? Who did Jesus minister to? Sinners, mostly.

 

[queenofheartscv]

She’s not single; she’s remarried and separated, but living chastely. Fr. Serpa said as long as she is chaste, that’s fine as regards taking communion.

Saying people who are pro-choice can’t take communion would be a difficult rule to enforce. No one knows how many women who have had an abortion, or who believe in abortion are in the communion line. Many Catholic women use contraceptives, too, but still take communion. Some rules look fine on paper, but enforcing them would be an impossibility. And one can’t ban pro-choice politicians without banning all who are pro-choice. Most people aren’t going to admit it.

You think it’s easy to enforce the rule about divorcees? I’m clear about the rules because my husband had to go through the annulment process. If your friend is already separated from her second husband, it’d be easy to be chaste and receive communion. Other couples who are just living their lives have to wait sometimes 2 or 3 years before an annulment is granted and communion is available to them.

It’s not fair. Politicians who enable abortion should be held to at least the same standard.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Discussing other posters is against the forum rules. Please do not discuss me. You don’t know what I need or don’t need; I don’t know what you need or don’t need.

When one initiates discussion of one’s personal beliefs as establishing a principle, and claims authority to do so, one invites response to that principle. I realize this is not a court of law, but some principles of human interaction can reasonably be taken as universal. If some testimony is closed to evidence, but the one who had the right to object introduces it himself for his own purposes, then the objection is waived and the other party has the right to explore it further.

In other words, discussing other posters is a shield, until it’s used as a sword. Then it’s a sword. I have tried very hard to avoid discussing any poster personally and, I think, have largely succeeded in doing so. But assertions of personal justification invite negative comment as to those justifications. One (including me) should avoid it unless it’s essential to the discussion. On the other hand, one really shouldn’t assert personal justification without expecting it to have invited challenge.

Here’s a thought about a sub-principle. If a poster refrains from claiming superior authority to comment on matters discussed here, others ought to refrain from commenting on that claim. Does any poster think that is unreasonable?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You think it’s easy to enforce the rule about divorcees? I’m clear about the rules because my husband had to go through the annulment process. If your friend is already separated from her second husband, it’d be easy to be chaste and receive communion. Other couples who are just living their lives have to wait sometimes 2 or 3 years before an annulment is granted and communion is available to them.

It’s not fair. Politicians who enable abortion should be held to at least the same standard.

I think there are probably a lot of people taking communion who shouldn’t be, according to Church rules. My friend was very concerned about it. She had been taking communion and was horrified that she might have violated a Church rule. I told her to ask our pastor, but she didn’t want to do that, so I asked Fr. Serpa. But banning people for their thoughts is going too far. The Church can’t become the thought police. In the end, everyone has to answer to God anyway. No one gets away with anything.

 

[queenofheartscv]

I think there are probably a lot of people taking communion who shouldn’t be, according to Church rules. My friend was very concerned about it. She had been taking communion and was horrified that she might have violated a Church rule. I told her to ask our pastor, but she didn’t want to do that, so I asked Fr. Serpa. But banning people for their thoughts is going too far. The Church can’t become the thought police. In the end, everyone has to answer to God anyway. No one gets away with anything.

No it’s not banning people for thoughts, it’ll be disciplining politicians who make public stances contrary to church teaching and who put innocent lives in jeopardy.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

When one initiates discussion of one’s personal beliefs as establishing a principle, and claims authority to do so, one invites response to that principle. I realize this is not a court of law, but some principles of human interaction can reasonably be taken as universal. If some testimony is closed to evidence, but the one who had the right to object introduces it himself for his own purposes, then the objection is waived and the other party has the right to explore it further.

In other words, discussing other posters is a shield, until it’s used as a sword. Then it’s a sword. I have tried very hard to avoid discussing any poster personally and, I think, have largely succeeded in doing so. But assertions of personal justification invite negative comment as to those justifications. One (including me) should avoid it unless it’s essential to the discussion. On the other hand, one really shouldn’t assert personal justification without expecting it to have invited challenge.

Here’s a thought about a sub-principle. If a poster refrains from claiming superior authority to comment on matters discussed here, others ought to refrain from commenting on that claim. Does any poster think that is unreasonable?

If you’re talking about me, I didn’t assert any justification. In fact, I declined to do so and said I don’t need justification, rationalization, etc. to vote Democratic.

I was discussing the fact that the Church does not teach a specific time when an unborn human receives an immortal soul, but that was not to justify anything. I am anti-abortion, not pro-abortion.

So, if you mean me, I have no idea what you’re referring to. Sorry.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you’re talking about me, I didn’t assert any justification. In fact, I declined to do so and said I don’t need justification, rationalization, etc. to vote Democratic.

I was discussing the fact that the Church does not teach a specific time when an unborn human receives an immortal soul, but that was not to justify anything. I am anti-abortion, not pro-abortion.

So, if you mean me, I have no idea what you’re referring to. Sorry.

I have no comment, as it would require discussing one or the other of us or both, and I’m determined not to do it henceforth. Being human, of course, I’m flawed, but I think I can keep this one.