Hillary Clinton Thread

[Lily_Bernans]

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.

Then all the nurses and receptionists who worked in abortion clinics would have to be banned as well. And the people who work in the manufacture and dispensing of abortifacients. And the women using contraception. And those who have had an abortion. And the list goes on and on. As I said, it wouldn’t be long till there would be no one in the communion line.

Who did Christ minister to? Mostly sinners.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Which has no bearing what so ever as to whether a Catholic can licitly vote for either of the democrat Candidates for president.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

I had a similar thought.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Then all the nurses and receptionists who worked in abortion clinics would have to be banned as well. And the people who work in the manufacture and dispensing of abortifacients. And the women using contraception. And those who have had an abortion. And the list goes on and on. As I said, it wouldn’t be long till there would be no one in the communion line.

Who did Christ minister to? Mostly sinners.

The politicians have power to make a difference.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I had a similar thought.

You couldn’t be more wrong, but insulting me isn’t going to goad me into a discussion. Sorry. If you haven’t noticed, we have other posters who are going to vote Democratic, too. Do you think all of us lack confidence? If I did, I’d vote for someone else.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The politicians have power to make a difference.

I disagree with that, but that’s okay. We disagree, no big deal.

 

[Peter_J]

queenofheartscv;13809226:

Remember the story of John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother’s womb when visited upon by the Virgin Mary pregnant with Jesus? Pretty sure the soul is there before baby is born.

If the church can’t even be sure enough to say the soul exists before birth, I’m not sure I can be catholic anymore. Seriously.

Don’t worry.

Remember Our Lady and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived without sin. That means she had a soul at conception. Her soul was Immaculate at conception, not ensoulment.

I’m just glad that nobody has said “There’ll be riots.”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

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.

I’m flawed, too, but I can keep this as well. I would never attempt to influence your vote or ask you to justify it. As far as I’m concerned, your vote is your vote, and you don’t have to justify it to anyone by yourself.

 

[Tomdstone]

You couldn’t be more wrong, but insulting me isn’t going to goad me into a discussion.

You brought up the question yourself.

To me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You brought up the question yourself.

That’s not a question; it’s a statement. I don’t care who anyone else votes for; I don’t understand why anyone cares who I vote for. I’m one vote among many. That’s all. One would think I represent an entire swing state.

I"m not going to change my vote. I don’t expect you to, either.

And you know we’ve been warned to discuss the issues, not other posters. I’m not a political issue.

 

[Monkey1976]

Who did Christ minister to? Mostly sinners.

And what did Our Lord tell them to do?

“Go, and now sin no more”

He didn’t pat them on the back and make sure they could continue sinning with full public support.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s not a question; it’s a statement…

The word question can mean
an issue for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why can’t we just discuss issues?

To me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty.

Let’s discuss the issue. What are the aplenty proportionate reasons?

 

[JimG]

TV Networks Ignore Hillary Clnton Saying Unborn Have No Constitutional Rights

Media frenzy over Trump’s remarks; silence on Hillary’s remarks.

 

[zz912]

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.

This thread alone is over 108 pages long, with you a very active defendant of Clinton and Sanders. But you aren’t championing them or promoting their candidacies…

I’ll take your refusal to answer as proof that you know you can’t come up with a proportionate reason to support either of them that would pass the smell test.

 

[queenofheartscv]

TV Networks Ignore Hillary Clnton Saying Unborn Have No Constitutional Rights

Media frenzy over Trump’s remarks; silence on Hillary’s remarks.

Eh, you mean the media could be a little biased, just a little, maybe???

 

[zz912]

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.

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.

The Church has made such a rule. Canon 915.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

As to why it is not being enforced, you would have to address that question to the priests and bishops.

 

[Thorolfr]

In committing abortion, (thus in supporting it) we are, at absolute minimum, taking a tremendous chance of killing a human being. Now, if I wanted to fire a high-powered rifle into a crowded stadium a half mile away with iron sights and without aiming at a particular person, I could excuse myself by saying there is no certainty that I would hit anyone or kill them if I did hit someone. But there is, of course, a significant chance that I would. So am I really excused by saying “knowing there are unknowable variables of ballistics, air speed, percentage of human flesh to the whole arena, it is above my pay grade to know whether I’m killing anyone, so I’ll fire”.

No one would excuse that, ethically or morally. And yet, some use the mysteries around the timing of ensoulment (which again, the “Immaculate Conception” seems to make fairly clear) to excuse that very thing.

It’s interesting to me that many people who are opposed to abortion because in doing this act, there is a chance that an innocent human being is being killed because there is disagreement and uncertainty about when a fertilized egg becomes a human being, but some of these same people see nothing wrong with the death penalty.

And yet it is becoming increasingly clear that a significant number of innocent people have been found guilty of a crime and then have been executed. More DNA testing has resulted in such innocent people who were on death row being released. So shouldn’t we all be against the death penalty because of the very real possibility that an innocent person might mistakenly be put to death?

 

[queenofheartscv]

The Church has made such a rule. Canon 915.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

As to why it is not being enforced, you would have to address that question to the priests and bishops.

Well, if that is indeed a rule and not being enforced, it’s equivalent to not having a rule. Disappointing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m flawed, too, but I can keep this as well. I would never attempt to influence your vote or ask you to justify it. As far as I’m concerned, your vote is your vote, and you don’t have to justify it to anyone by yourself.

I’ll just discuss me here. (This ain’t easy)

My vote is my vote, and I have a civic right, as an American citizen, to cast it any way I want. I do not owe the government an explanation (not yet anyway). Nor do I owe any person an explanation except perhaps my wife and children who have some claim to knowing my moral choices and how I justify them.

I am, however, discussing the morality of voting on a Catholic site. If I am going to be part of the discussion at all (which I don’t have to be) then I have at least some obligation to my fellow posters to explain the positions I take. If I announce that I am going to vote for a pro-abortion candidate and feel that’s a moral choice, then there is nothing wrong with others asking me why I think it’s a moral choice. If I then say “I feel there are proportionate evils in not doing it” then nothing is wrong with someone asking what those proportionate reasons are.

It would be okay for me to then opt out of the discussion, for whatever reason I have. But as is at least believed on here, for every poster there are about ten “watchers”; people who don’t post but read the posts of others. If I keep saying “It’s a moral choice” but then never explain myself, even if asked why I think it, then those who don’t want “watchers” (sometimes also called “lurkers”) to be misled are obliged to address each assertion while never being able to actually explore the foundations of the assertion.

Now maybe the belief in the “watchers/lurkers” is misplaced. Maybe the fact that the “looked at” numbers are almost always at least ten times the number of posts, simply means that people who post often look at the thread without posting. But one sometimes sees posts by someone who says he/she was a “lurker” for years and is just now posting for the first time. So the belief might be quite legitimate.

I think people who have posted on CAF for years are sensitive to that. Many of us feel very responsible for what we’re telling (or not telling) those who only watch, at least as much as we do with those who do post. And most of us feel an obligation to at least attempt to defend Church teachings in doing so, in order to avoid even tacitly approving of scandal.

Enough said about that.