Trump and the Catholic Vote

[JimG]

Trump and the Catholic Vote - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

 

[ProVobis]

Trump woos Catholics on abortion but may lose them on life

 

[Nepperhan]

Obama won a plurality of the Catholic vote twice. I believe the difference between the two presidents is that Trump is getting the votes of some Hispanic men who previously voted for Obama. This may change with the re-election campaign.

I think that Trump trying to get Catholic votes is just pandering-- he never was anti-abortion until he entered the political arena, to my recollection. Further some of his support among the far right is distinctly anti-Catholic. Finally his stance on the death penalty (and his refusal to apologize to the youths he said deserved death but were later found to be not guilty) has soured many voters, Catholic and non-Catholic.

 

[JimG]

From the American Spectator article:

“Earlier this month Politico ran a piece suggesting that Trump had done little to “reward” Catholics. In fact, he has done a great deal. He ended the legal nightmare of the Little Sisters of the Poor, has lifted Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate, stocked the courts, including the highest one, with religious-freedom-defending originalists, and opened up countless administration jobs to social conservatives.”

 

[Nepperhan]

“Earlier this month Politico ran a piece suggesting that Trump had done little to “reward” Catholics. In fact, he has done a great deal. He ended the legal nightmare of the Little Sisters of the Poor

That’s a court case. Trump has no power over that.

stocked the courts, including the highest one, with religious-freedom-defending originalists

I and many Catholics oppose some of his court appointments. The problem which many conservatives won’t address is that religious freedom is for everyone.

opened up countless administration jobs to social conservatives.”

I and many Catholics consider that a negative.

 

[Ender]

The president’s appearance at this year’s March for Life is the kickoff to an expected ‘Catholics for Trump’ campaign that will focus on abortion over immigration, climate change and inequality.

The difference here is that support for abortion is a moral evil. Differences of opinion on immigration, climate change, etc are not. There is a Catholic position on the former, but not on any of the latter.

 

[TMC]

The difference here is that support for abortion is a moral evil. Differences of opinion on immigration, climate change, etc are not. There is a Catholic position on the former, but not on any of the latter.

This is the constant drumbeat from the right wing - that the Church has the moral authority to teach on abortion and gay rights, but lacks the moral authority to teach on immigration, care for the poor, the death penalty and pretty much every other issue of consequence. That is simply untrue, and Catholic voters that close their eyes to the breadth of the Church’s teaching are kidding themselves, at best.

 

[Kobayashi-Maru]

In this picture of a thousand words, Pope Francis sums up how I generally feel about President Trump

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ender]

This is the constant drumbeat from the right wing - that the Church has the moral authority to teach on abortion and gay rights, but lacks the moral authority to teach on immigration, care for the poor, the death penalty and pretty much every other issue of consequence. That is simply untrue, and Catholic voters that close their eyes to the breadth of the Church’s teaching are kidding themselves, at best.

This is true only to the extent that it is vague. Yes, the church does have not just the right but the responsibility to “teach on” public issues, and she has done so. There is a limit, however, to the extent of those doctrines. She presents us with guidelines and objectives. What she does not do, however, is present us with policies.

We are told to help the poor. We are not told to raise the minimum wage. We are told to welcome the stranger. We are not told to have open borders. The reason the church speaks differently about abortion and gay rights is that those issues deal with things that are evil per se. Building a wall is not.

There are no church doctrines on the proper solution to most political issues, including immigration and care for the poor. Those are in fact our responsibility to resolve, not the clergy’s.

 

[TMC]

Exhibit A of the phenomena I just described.

 

[Ender]

Exhibit A of the phenomena I just described.

If you have a rebuttal argument you’d like to make, I should like to hear it. “You’re wrong” is not much of a response. As an example, here’s an argument supporting my position.

I suggested that it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree. (Fr. Neuhaus)

 

[TMC]

If you have a rebuttal argument you’d like to make, I should like to hear it. “You’re wrong” is not much of a response. As an example, here’s an argument supporting my position.

Amusing from someone whose position is that the Church’s teaching is not important in any of the areas where the Church disagrees with the hard right. The Catechism is not separated into “optional” and “mandatory” sections.

Any Catholic voters who actually want to know what the Church teaches on these topics should avail themselves of the Church’s actual teachings. A good place to start is the USCCB’s voting guides, available at their website: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...onsciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title.cfm. Yes, issues like abortion are certainly featured in the Church’s teaching and guidance, but Catholics are not free to ignore the Church’s teachings on the poor, immigration, just war and the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

Amusing from someone whose position is that the Church’s teaching is not important in any of the areas where the Church disagrees with the hard right.

If you’re going to describe my position on something you really should use my own words to do so, and not provide your own intemperate inventions.

Catholics are not free to ignore the Church’s teachings on the poor, immigration, just war and the death penalty.

Very true, nor have I suggested otherwise. I have not implied we should ignore any church teaching. I am saying that your understanding of what the church teaches is flawed. You said there are no “optional” and “mandatory” sections in the catechism, which is true; what I am saying is that there is nothing in the catechism that specifies which particular means we should apply to social problems.

The church tells us to heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the poor. What she does not tell us is how we should go about doing that. If you believe raising the minimum wage will do those things then you are obligated to advocate for it. If, however, I believe raising the minimum wage will make things worse for those very people then I am obligated to oppose it, and there is no moral distinction between us or the positions we have taken.

Distinguish between ends and means. The church defines the ends. It is the laity that select the means based on the ends and guidelines the church has provided.

Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. (Gaudium et spes)

 

[choose_to_love]

“position is that the Church’s teaching is not important” I know Ender has already addressed this and can defend himself, but that is not even close to what he said.

 

[TMC]

“position is that the Church’s teaching is not important” I know Ender has already addressed this and can defend himself, but that is not even close to what he said.

I disagree. The overarching point consistently presented by those on the hard right is that most of the Church’s teachings on issues that touch on politics are “prudential.” What is that meant to communicate? Obviously, that voters can ignore those teachings (that are disfavored by the right), but may not ignore the teachings that are favored by the right. The Church does not teach that voters should disregard as “prudential” those teachings that do not align with their politics.

 

[Ender]

The overarching point consistently presented by those on the hard right is that most of the Church’s teachings on issues that touch on politics are “prudential.”

I suspect the reason arguments like this arise is because on issues like abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage the church has expressed a very specific position. She has doctrines that explicitly reject these concepts. The political problem this creates is that these are all issues supported by one party and rejected by the other, which makes it appear that the church has taken sides.

To counter this, and for Catholics who find the church “opposing” their party it is important to find areas where the church is on “their” side, the argument is made that the church is with them on social issues. The problem with that argument is that it isn’t so. Unlike issues dealing with intrinsic evil, the church has no specific position on any political concern.

The church says “Welcome the stranger”, and from that is intuited that the church opposes building the wall, or the church says “Feed the poor”, and someone argues she is asserting we must support this or that particular social spending bill.

The political problem is created because the church has doctrines condemning actions involving intrinsic evil, and those moral truths apply differently to the two parties. There is no counterbalancing argument that on social programs the church’s support is now reversed.

The Church does not teach that voters should disregard as “prudential” those teachings that do not align with their politics.

What is being rejected here are not church doctrines, but the interpretations that generic ends require the implementation of specific means to accomplish them.

"The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.” (BXVI - Caritas in veritate)

 

[TMC]

The Church has also expressed very specific positions on other issues, you are simply labeling them as optional. The Church has unequivocally condemned the death penalty. The Church has unequivocally condemned unjust wars, including specifically the Iraq War. The Church has called all countries to welcome migrants and refugees. The Church teaches that health care is a right for all citizens. But those specific positions are labelled “prudential” by those that disagree with them.

 

[Ender]

The Church has also expressed very specific positions on other issues, you are simply labeling them as optional.

Let’s start with the ridiculous claim that I have ever labeled any church doctrine as optional. What I have done is to make the rather obvious claim that your understanding of church doctrine is in error. When I disagree with you it is…you… I’m disagreeing with, not the church.

The Church has unequivocally condemned unjust wars, including specifically the Iraq War.

The church does condemn unjust wars, but she did not declare the Iraq War to be unjust. Since we may not fight in an unjust war, if that war was declared unjust then the pope allowed a generation of Catholic soldiers to commit a grave sin.

The Church has called all countries to welcome migrants and refugees.

This is exactly my point. This is a general objective, not a call for the implementation of a specific policy. Where does she condemn the wall? Where does she set the number of immigrants each country should admit? She doesn’t address these question because…they are prudential.

The Church teaches that health care is a right for all citizens.

No, the church does not teach this. This may be the personal opinion of a prelate, but it is not church doctrine.

But those specific positions are labelled “prudential” by those that disagree with them.

This presumes that what you think is true actually is, which is the difference between what is asserted and what is demonstrated.

 

[TMC]

Let’s start with the ridiculous claim that I have ever labeled any church doctrine as optional. What I have done is to make the rather obvious claim that your understanding of church doctrine is in error. When I disagree with you it is…you… I’m disagreeing with, not the church.

Amusing, giving that you relegate the pronouncements of the Pope to “personal opinion.” Can we at least agree that all Catholics should look at what the Church says on the topic, and not take either of our opinions as decisive? Here is what the Church says: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...onsciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title.cfm

 

[KMC]

Agreed. This is an interesting exchange, but I see TMC arguing against a strawman.