The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

A mis-statement of my position. God’s truth does have something to say about saving the whales, but the Catholic Church does not have an official whale-saving policy that all believers must follow.

The Church provides all the applicable principles, it is up to “all believers” to properly research and arrive at what constitutes proper “whale saving policy.”

OK, then what is the one and only valid whale saving policy? There isn’t one. There is a general admonition to care for God’s creation. But as for the details of exactly how that should be done, it is a matter for prudential judgement. Faithful Catholics can disagree about what the best way is to save the whales, or even how saving the whales should be ranked with other issues, like feeding the poor. What if the poor like to eat whales?

Similarly, there are general admonitions about what a proper leader of a nation should do and the role of citizens in relating to their leaders. But those admonitions are nowhere near specific enough to decide if any particular impeachment is a proper activity for the legislature. That is another matter for prudential judgement.

In it he argued for keeping one’s Christian beliefs free from specific secular causes, so as not to make Christianity just another special interest, like saving the whales, or lowering taxes.

Beliefs are NOT “free from specific secular causes.”

Yes, I did a poor job a summarizing the book. But since you have read it - several times - there is no need to summarize it. You know what it says. And I think Lewis would speak against the idea that if you don’t save the whales exactly in the manner I believe is best, you cannot be a Christian.

 

[HarryStotle]

Yes, I did a poor job a summarizing the book. But since you have read it - several times - there is no need to summarize it. You know what it says. And I think Lewis would speak against the idea that if you don’t save the whales exactly in the manner I believe is best, you cannot be a Christian.

Well, now you are moving the goalposts.

You initially claimed Lewis would be against “secular causes” such as saving the whales.

C.S.Lewis wrote a book called “Mere Christianity”. In it he argued for keeping one’s Christian beliefs free from specific secular causes, so as not to make Christianity just another special interest, like saving the whales, or lowering taxes.

Now you are claiming he would be for secular causes like saving the whales, just not for any particular manner of doing so.

I would disagree with that, as well.

If he would be for saving the whales he would be for the most effective and efficient method for doing so, which means he would be for “exactly in the manner” that would best bring about the saving of whales.

What he wouldn’t do is absolve everyone, including himself, from the obligation to work out the details from whichever source turns out “is best.” He would not walk away from the obligation to save the whales on the pretext that no one can provide a proper solution.

Ergo, he would not be “for keeping one’s Christian beliefs free from specific secular causes,” he would be for engaging those secular causes by using Christian principles/beliefs to assess and determine how those secular causes ought best be resolved.

 

[Rau]

If he would be for saving the whales he would be for the most effective and efficient method for doing so, which means he would be for “exactly in the manner” that would best bring about the saving of whales.

Which is a judgement call and a nuanced thing. Eg. It does not mean all whales to be protected at all times in all places. The most effective means requires a means that places that goal (save whales) above others that might slightly detract, but not prevent it.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If he would be for saving the whales he would be for the most effective and efficient method for doing so, which means he would be for “exactly in the manner” that would best bring about the saving of whales.

Which is a judgement call and a nuanced thing. Eg. It does not mean all whales to be protected at all times in all places. The most effective means requires a means that places that goal (save whales) above others that might slightly detract, but not prevent it.

The “judgement call” assumes there is, when all is said and done, the best judgement or several.

It doesn’t just assume that all judgements are equal merely because someone ventures to offer them.

There are good and, most often, best answers.

To say those all are a “judgement call” or “nuanced” is often a placeholder for those who don’t want to admit there is a better judgement on offer than the one they gave put on the table.

This may or may not be a good thing, and those individuals may or may not be correct in their assessment, but that doesn’t change the reality that “judgement calls” can be bad, indifferent, good and best.

That acknowledgement ought to be the first principle.

This is the problem with both epistemological and moral relativism – the tendency to default to “We disagree, therefore there is no right answer.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is a difference between there being a “best” judgement and knowing what that best judgement is.

 

[HarryStotle]

There is a difference between there being a “best” judgement and knowing what that best judgement is.

Correct. However, the unwillingness of some (many?) to admit what might be best is often a pretext for not agreeing to the judgement from someone else.

The question is: How do we know or can be reasonably certain when a judgement is the best?

But also: How do we know when it is merely our own intellectual pride (or other precognitive bias) that keeps us from admitting when someone else’s judgement is best?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There’s no simple answer to those questions.

 

[Rau]

To say those all are a “judgement call” or “nuanced” is often a placeholder for those who don’t want to admit there is a better judgement on offer than the one they gave put on the table.

There is nothing on the table here. Personally, I think it’s pretty clear that for complex problems, it is not straightforward to arrive at a single “best” plan with any certainty.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

To say those all are a “judgement call” or “nuanced” is often a placeholder for those who don’t want to admit there is a better judgement on offer than the one they gave put on the table.

There is nothing on the table here. Personally, I think it’s pretty clear that for complex problems, it is not straightforward to arrive at a single “best” plan with any certainty.

Claiming it is not “straight forward” to arrive at a single best plan is a different story from claiming…

OK, then what is the one and only valid whale saving policy? There isn’t one.

Again, the distinction is between …

a “best” judgement and knowing what that best judgement is.

…or the best plan and knowing what that plan is.

The fact that the plan is not known does not mean there isn’t one to be known.

Sometimes, “there isn’t one” amounts to abandoning the inquiry or search for one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sometimes, “there isn’t one” amounts to abandoning the inquiry or search for one.

When I said “There isn’t one” with regard to whale saving, I did not mean there is no good policy for saving whales. I meant that the Catholic Church has not defined one good policy for saving whales. So there isn’t one official policy on whale saving taught by the Church.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Dawnia:

Guess we’ll find out after the next election on whether his reputation or those of the Dems will be hardest hit.

From where I’m sitting, many people who can’t stand Trump are planning to vote for him. They see the impeachment as nothing more than the Dems scrambling to get Trump out because they know he’s going to easily win re-election. (I don’t have their same faith that he’ll win, but having seen what the Dems are offering, I wouldn’t be surprised.)

Anyone who believes that, whether you’re pro or anti-impeachment, is being pretty naive. The Dems know very well there’s no hope of a conviction in the Senate. It’s likely one or two Dems will break ranks, and with the high bar of 67 Senators having to vote for removal, even if a few Republicans break ranks, it isn’t going to happen.

This is about going into an election year being able to say “Donald Trump is so bad we even had to impeach him, and the Republicans are so bad, they didn’t remove him from office.” None of this is actually about removing Trump, because the math is entirely against that.

I think Americans are smart enough to see what this has been all about and I doubt many opinions about Donald Trump will change. Many will see the strength
he has shown to stand up to the bullies (the democrats).

@niceatheist

 

[Ana_v]

I would like to read an article titled “The Catholic Case Against the American Revolutionary War”.

#MakeAmericaGreatBritainAgain

 

[Ana_v]

My response to the article is simply to share this as a reminder to all:

 

[Horton]

@Rau, @LeafByNiggle

Not one of you were able to answer the questions without bringing Trump or the GOP into the answer. Why is it so difficult for those on the left to talk about Democrat campaign platforms without bringing Trump or the GOP into the conversation?

 

[josie_L]

I
understand that both sides will use tactics in their own favor in these things. However, using the process of Impeachment for things that aren’t crimes and saying they are, impeaching without hard evidence, and now playing games with turning it over to the Senate, goes beyond anything that I’ve ever seen in terms of “tactics.” As I said, they play dirty.

And one has to wonder why it is the Democrats are delaying the impeachment process if Trump is as tyrannical as they say???

They are THEMSELVES impeding the process, which is counterproductive to their aims!!

Go figure!

 

[Elizabeth3]

And one has to wonder why it is the Democrats are delaying the impeachment process if Trump is as tyrannical as they say???

They are THEMSELVES impeding the process!!

Go figure!

I have read speculation that the impeachment end-game seems to have other motives as well. One is using the impeachment vote as a way to get the courts to rule in their favor to give them access to the Muller grand jury investigation and reports. They will claim they need the info for trial in the Senate whereas before they were unlikely to win. They want access to try to find “something” more they can spin because they are on shaky ground as it is with the current sham.

 

[josie_L]

I have read speculation that the impeachment end-game seems to have other motives as well. One is using the impeachment vote as a way to get the courts to rule in their favor to give them access to the Muller grand jury investigation and reports. They will claim they need the info for trial in the Senate whereas before they were unlikely to win. They want access to try to find “something” more they can spin because they are on shaky ground as it is with the current sham.

Oh, I don’t doubt there are other motives involved.

The question is how long will they delay the process without raising the suspicions and ire of their base???

I mean if Democrats don’t take their claims of abuse of power and obstruction seriously then who will pray tell???

 

[Maximus1]

It I about removing him either way.
Democrats know if they can bring a full trial before the public it will damage Trump and GOP

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@Rau, @LeafByNiggle

Not one of you were able to answer the questions without bringing Trump or the GOP into the answer. Why is it so difficult for those on the left to talk about Democrat campaign platforms without bringing Trump or the GOP into the conversation?

The title of the thread indicates it is about impeachment. I suggest you keep to the topic of the thread.

 

[Horton]

Then why do they not get on with it?