MSNBC’s Morning Joe rains hell on right-wing Christians for choosing Trump’s 'blasphemy' over Christ's teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProVobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
I don’t think so, and here is why. If a certain evil - a very serious evil like abortion - CAN be combated to a certain small degree, and a lesser evil (like gross corruption in the executive office) can be combated to a much greater degree, it might be a proportionate reason to chose the battle that seems more likely to be won first, and then turn our attention to the much harder battle of combating abortion.
Click to expand...
I take it this is your assertion that getting trump out of office is more important than abortion, with which I cannot agree on any level even if Trump was corrupt, which you and all the DNC’s horses and the DNC’s men have not proved.

It seems to me one can do more than one thing at the same time, but when it’s a matter of life and death, one should not neglect that issue for the lesser issue, even momentarily.
JimG said:
On abortion I think that Evangelicals are pretty close to the Catholic view.
Click to expand...
In the main, I believe that’s right.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Not true. “Prudential judgment” is not subjectivism or relativism.
Click to expand...
It is using the information available to determine the right course of action according to one’s well-formed conscience. Many people have issue with Bishop McElroy’s point of view and are trying to argue it away, but it seems to me that he has very valid points that the potential number of deaths from climate change is much greater than abortions and I have seen nothing that suggests this argument is invalid. In the meantime, while abortion remains illegal, racism is growing as well (see Bishop McElroy’s comment from the Times of San Diego)

A growing racist culture, he said, has “unleashed a poison of animosity against immigrants that paralyzes our politics so deeply that we cannot even find a pathway to protect young men and women who came to this nation as children and now thirst to be citizens of the only land they have ever known.”

So, if Bishop McElroy considers these to be significant moral issues for Catholics to consider when voting, then they are significant moral issues for Catholics to consider when voting. I find it very disturbing when lay people here and elsewhere suggest that he is in such grave error to be leading his flock to be damned. If CAF wants to become Church Militant or LifeSiteNews where there is basically nothing but Pope and Bishop bashing, they are welcome to it. Just take the name “Catholic” off the title.
 
drcube said:
Many people have issue with Bishop McElroy’s point of view and are trying to argue it away, but it seems to me that he has very valid points
Click to expand...
So, it seems, did the other bishops, including Abp Chaput. And rightly so. McElroy’s reasoning would justify killing a diagnosed sociopath because he “might” kill someone someday, despite his having no record of prior violence.
drcube said:
It is using the information available to determine the right course of action according to one’s well-formed conscience.
Click to expand...
With some protestant sects, that would be true. It’s not true of Catholicism, in which some thing are declared gravely evil and always to be avoided no matter what we think about them.

That’s one of the main things protestantism “Protest-ed”.
drcube said:
If CAF wants to become Church Militant or LifeSiteNews where there is basically nothing but Pope and Bishop bashing, they are welcome to it. Just take the name “Catholic” off the title.
Click to expand...
A terrible slander. After all, the bishops at the conference did not accept McElroy’s position. No Pope or bishop bashing in that. You’re just saying McElroy is the touchstone for determining whetehr anyone or anything is “Catholic” or not.
 
Ridgerunner said:
So, it seems, did the other bishops, including Abp Chaput. And rightly so. McElroy’s reasoning would justify killing a diagnosed sociopath because he “might” kill someone someday, despite his having no record of prior violence
Click to expand...
Again, we seem to be lacking in actual statements disputing what Bishop McElroy said. I am beginning to wonder if other bishops had concerns or the author of the article just assumed it without checking.
Ridgerunner said:
With some protestant sects, that would be true. It’s not true of Catholicism, in which some thing are declared gravely evil and always to be avoided no matter what we think about them.
Click to expand...
It would seem that you have issue with Bishop McElroy then as he seemed to be advocating this path.
Ridgerunner said:
A terrible slander. After all, the bishops at the conference did not accept McElroy’s position. No Pope or bishop bashing in that. You’re just saying McElroy is the touchstone for determining whetehr anyone or anything is “Catholic” or not.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said before, it isn’t slander if it is true. CAF could be starting down a very slippery path. I saved a document where the Church Militant people said they would never attack Pope Francis or allow it in their comments. Now, there is hardly any content that isn’t bashing Pope Francis or the bishops and the comments are nasty. If CAF isn’t careful, they will end up in the very same place. I can already see trends that way.
 
What he said was as follows.

I gather that you have never attended a prayer breakfast?

Many of them provide an opportunity for civic leaders to come together with the Church community and address the concerns of everyone involved. It is a time that we lift those concerns in prayer.

Your argument is that the person reciting the Biblical message was not a theologian, therefore, everyone just disregard the message? Seriously? I guess you never heard; "For where two or more gather in my name, there am I with them.”

The worst part is that you find laugher as a justification of his deeds? Remember, he (Trump) has also received chuckles when speaking of someone who had already passed and insinuating that they were in hell.

True, you’re a sinner and I am a sinner. But, we use to do a better job of respect and reverence. This would be a good time for a homily
 
vz71 said:
But it won’t stop Catholics from trying to justify support of pro abortion candidates.
Click to expand...
Nor will it cause the Republican to treat it as “preeminent”

I find the Catholic approach to abortion so unique. Some here will claim you must vote for the pro-life candidate or be damned.

But why do the Republicans, when given power do so little to stop abortion? The Supreme Court has been majority chosen by Republicans for decades, and Roe v Wade remains the law of the land. Republicans certainly don’t treat the issue as terribly important. When the Republicans take over, I know there will be tax cuts, but I don’t know anything will happen on abortion.

Why do we have to vote a certain way given how little Republicans actually do about abortion or be damned?

Why is the only solution to outlaw it? There are many alternatives that could greatly reduce abortions. Leaf has pointed out that free pre-natal care may greatly reduce abortion. If it is the worst thing ever that is ‘preeminent’ then all pro-life people should be for this, but nope. The only path is to outlaw it. I don’t see anyone proclaiming that if you don’t support free pre-natal health care you will be damned.

Why do we think outlawing it will work? Abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade and it still happened. Furthermore, many pro-life advocates claim that mothers wouldn’t be prosecuted. These are the people seeking the abortion and they won’t be criminally responsible? So, if you don’t vote for the pro-life candidate, you will be damned, but a woman who seeks abortion when it is illegal didn’t do anything legally wrong.

Why doesn’t the Church emphasize the sexual immorality as a pro-life issue? Six out of seven abortions in the US are performed on unmarried women. I have never heard anyone, especially the Church, point out the obvious connection between sexual immorality and abortion and emphasize that, to be truly pro-life, you should not have sexual relations outside of marriage. If it is the ‘preeminent’ issue, then you think the Church would be emphasizing this obvious connection. I don’t see anyone saying that if you don’t support making sexual activity criminal outside of marriage, you will be damned. . . .
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
Nope, we have to go back to the same old playbook that has failed miserably for the last 45 years which enables the racist and anti-science views but has no effect on abortion.
Click to expand...
And there it is.
Let’s smear the pro life side by association.

Vile and disgusting.
 
drcube said:
Right, 3+ years into the Presidency and nothing has happened yet.
Click to expand...
I don’t need to trot out the list.
It is long, has been posted many times, and you really do not appear interested.
drcube said:
Sure, because it’s worked for drugs.
Click to expand...
It has worked for a great many activities.
You can cherry pick of you wish, but you are on the losing side of that logic.
It has been long established that if one wants to curtail an activity, you make it illegal.
drcube said:
What’s vile and disgusting is that it’s true.
Click to expand...
And I am now muting this.
 
myhathaswords said:
Are you also against gun control…?
Click to expand...
Sorry but gun control is not a fair comparison. The Bible allows for self defense, and the Constitution specifically allows for citizens to own firearms. The Bible specifically states that abortion is an intrinsic evil, and there is nothing in the Constitution that states that aborting children is a right (despite what people try to read in to it).
 
MikeInVA said:
Sorry but gun control is not a fair comparison. The Bible allows for self defense, and the Constitution specifically allows for citizens to own firearms. The Bible specifically states that abortion is an intrinsic evil, and there is nothing in the Constitution that states that aborting children is a right (despite what people try to read in to it).
Click to expand...
Besides, you can disagree with the Church on things like gun control and that is prudential judgement. However, if you vote for a pro-choice politician, you are damned. So, the only thing that matters is abortion because it is the ‘preeminent’ issue no matter what Bishop McElroy might say.
 
@Ridgerunner, @vz71, instead of answering your posts in this thread, can I ask that we get back to the topic of this thread, which is Trump’s behavior at the National Prayer Breakfast, mocking the keynote speaker’s serious citation of the Gospel? On the other hand, if you prefer talking about who one may legitimately vote for, I would suggest that we continue that discussion in the existing thread in Moral Theology called “Can a Catholic be Democrat?”, which can be found here:
40.png
Can a Catholic be Democrat? Moral Theology
I’m allowed to vote next election, and I am more a democrat than a republican, can I vote for a democrat given the abortion stance? And might I add abortion rates have dropped when there is a Democrat president, and I have proof thanks
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
Besides, you can disagree with the Church on things like gun control and that is prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember reading about gun control in the catechism when I got to be serious about the faith. Could you please link a reference or the number. I thought the USCCB had a searchable version but it appears not. I’m genuinely curious.

http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/files/assets/basic-html/page-I.html

Re: the thread

The article said,
The “Morning Joe” host called out evangelical leaders and Republican lawmakers who clapped and laughed as the president attacked his enemies and made a mockery of their religious values during the National Prayer Breakfast.
Click to expand...
Other headlines say he attacked Pelosi and Romney. Can anyone provide links and the times for this. I scanned a transcript and I didn’t see any mention of Pelosi or Romney. All I could find was
But I can say that going beyond that, we’re grateful to the people in this room for the love they show to religion. Not one religion, but many religions. They are brave, they are brilliant, they are fighters. They like people, and sometimes they hate people. I am sorry, I apologize. I am trying to learn. It’s not easy. It’s not easy. When they impeach you for nothing, then you’re supposed to like them. It’s not easy, folks. I do my best. But I’ll tell you what we are doing.
Click to expand...
and
And Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you. But I don’t if Arthur’s going to like what I’m going to say. But I loved listening to you, it was really great. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
Is there more than what I found? The following is what I looked through.

WATCH Trump speaks at the 2020 National Prayer Breakfast

Donald Trump: Well, thank you very much. I am working very hard for you, I will tell you. And sometimes you don't make it easy, and I certainly don't make it easy on you. I will continue that tradition if I might this morning. And Arthur, I don't know if I agree with you. But I don't if Arthur's...
www.rev.com
 
myhathaswords said:
I don’t remember reading about gun control in the catechism when I got to be serious about the faith. Could you please link a reference or the number. I thought the USCCB had a searchable version but it appears not. I’m genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
Here is a statement about gun control at the USCCB website:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...-to-the-plague-of-gun-violence-2019-11-11.cfm

Now, you might think a USCCB statement will carry weight in a forum like this. It doesn’t. You will hear how this is a statement of a single bishop or how the bishops don’t understand this issue, etc.

What matters here is abortion. It is the ‘preeminent’ issue and hence the only issue that Catholics can consider when making a decision on whom to vote for because, if you vote for a pro-choice candidate, you will be damned. Now, this might seem out of line with another USCCB document on Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which states that Catholics are not single issue voters, but it’s okay. Abortion is not a single issue, they will say.

Now, of course, this truthfully leaves no room for Catholics to take any other political action on any other moral issue such as climate change, torture, unjust wars or racism like Bishop McElroy suggests. However, don’t worry because someone will provide an EWTN document or a post by some layperson to justify why it is okay to ignore the points of Bishop McElroy and he is wrong.

Which is probably why George Weigel is right to say to avoid the Catholic blogosphere.

www.catholicworldreport.com

New Year’s Resolutions for Concerned Catholics: A Few Suggestions

www.catholicworldreport.com www.catholicworldreport.com

I’d suggest spending less time on line unless it is at the USCCB site.
 
Nope. Being pro-life means you can forgive all behaviors as long as the person says they are not pro-choice.

BTW, many of the pro-life people do support abortion.
 
myhathaswords said:
Other headlines say he attacked Pelosi and Romney. Can anyone provide links and the times for this.
Click to expand...
Here is the quote that referred to Romney first, and then Pelosi.

“I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you,’ when they know that’s not so.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top