Trump or Hillary?

[Ridgerunner]

Growing up I felt the Church did a poor job of bringing people to the faith. It seemed like every week it was just another homily on how I was going to hell. I am certain this kind of approach resulted in the decline in attendance. Ask many of your former Catholic friends that are now affiliated with another domination about their experiences. The reality is that we have contributed to the moral demise we find all around us.

.

Allow me to respectfully disagree with you on this. The decline in attendance was not there during what many think of as the “hellfire” days. It began, then accelerated during the days of “there’s no such thing as sin” (in effect).

Despite our natural tendency to disobedience of God’s laws and man’s, all have an even deeper rooted desire for certitudes. Which is better; to never know whether one has sinned or not and to be left with one’s own rationalizations, or to know one sinned and repent?

I say it’s the latter.

Undoubtedly there were excesses in the pre-VII days, just as there have been in the post-VII days. They were of different sorts, though.

While it’s anecdotal, of course, I have never known a person who left the Church because of being told about sin and hell. I have known a fair number who left their wives for a new dolly and then found a way to justify it. “Sister Mary hit me in grade school”, “All the priest talked about was hell/money/etc”

Now, I’ll admit the indifference of so many young people now seems to be borne of the insipidness attendant upon terrible catechesis.

But where I live, we have greatly more converts than those who leave. Mostly the converts are from Fundamentalist or Evangelical churches who want the clarity and moral certitude the Church offers. But most of all, the attraction is the Eucharist for them. They spend their former lives wanting to be “close to Jesus”, and here it is.

 

[Seamus_L]

The vast majority of Catholics I’ve known who became Protestants, did so because they’re churches no longer mentioned hell, sin, the wrath of God, and tried to be accomadating to everyone.

 

[St_Pancake]

How do we know if he is really a “changed” man or he’s just trying to look pretty for the cameras??? He’s only quasi pro-life. I’m not taking that chance. He’s not getting my vote. :nope:

I didn’t find Mitt Romney’s pro life conversion sincere but I’m used to abstaining from presidential voting. The lesser of two evils is still evil and I don’t have to use my vote that way. If more people would do the same, we could get quality candidates. I have not and will not use my vote to ever support anyone that ever condoned baby killing.

Vote Catholic. If all Catholics did, there would be no abortion in this country.

 

[Michael1978]

I normally vote conservative but I would have to say that in this case, I would most likely vote for Hillary because I cannot stand Donald Trump’s views. I mean, he is a very racist and discriminatory individual. I am in an interracial relationship. My boyfriend is of mixed racial ancestry. I have never tolerated racism and I never will. I could never in good conscience vote for a racist presidential candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I hate Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion and pro-LGBT rights movement views but I hate racist views a lot too.

How is he racist?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I normally vote conservative but I would have to say that in this case, I would most likely vote for Hillary because I cannot stand Donald Trump’s views. I mean, he is a very racist and discriminatory individual. I am in an interracial relationship. My boyfriend is of mixed racial ancestry. I have never tolerated racism and I never will. I could never in good conscience vote for a racist presidential candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I hate Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion and pro-LGBT rights movement views but I hate racist views a lot too.

But is he a racist, or just politically incorrect in his statements? I don’t think the last chapter on this has been written yet. Strangely enough, if he strikes the right chords with minorities fairly soon, he’ll make inroads into those voting groups like no one could believe possible.

Trump is not my choice for the Repub primary. But let’s say he makes a good case to some minorities about respecting their dignity by emphasizing their importance as supporters of families deserving the good jobs he absolutely pledges he will restore in this country. Maybe a lot of women still won’t like him, but among Black and Hispanic men, it could have a resonance Hillary could never match. Remember his meeting with the Black ministers? They didn’t all see eye to eye, but every last one of the ministers said he really listened to them and talked to them like men. No fake “Black accent” like Hillary affected.

I know a lot of Hispanic men. I’ll bet Trump does too; and a lot more of them than Hillary does. It’s possible he knows what they value more than hillary does. Again, if the message to them is right, and if it seems sincere, Trump’s political incorrectness won’t count for much.

I understand Trump has gained a lot of support from white, working class men. A lot. Does anybody really think Black or Hispanic working men are truly different? They’re not. Trump might not have the key to open the door to them, but he might. And if he does, no few women will respond to it as well, particularly married women.

Don’t count him out yet.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I didn’t find Mitt Romney’s pro life conversion sincere but I’m used to abstaining from presidential voting. The lesser of two evils is still evil and I don’t have to use my vote that way. If more people would do the same, we could get quality candidates. I have not and will not use my vote to ever support anyone that ever condoned baby killing.

Vote Catholic. If all Catholics did, there would be no abortion in this country.

If more Catholic were indifferent or too proud of their own ideological proclivities to vote against abortion because some Repub isn’t pure enough to suit them, then one is supporting the continuation of the baby killing some of us purport to abhor.

If Catholics voted, without exception, against the Party of Death in two elections, even the Dems would change their platforms and their ways. But Catholics don’t, acting like a crowd of mules each pulling in different directions and some not pulling at all.

 

[Seamus_L]

In my lifetime I’ve never scene as much enthusiasm for a Republican candidate as I have for Donald Trump. He’s struck a chord that resonates deeply with a large number of people. Best of all, as some friends and I were discussing after church Sunday, the things we’re told “you can’t say anymore” Trump is saying them !

 

[Crossbones]

If more Catholic were indifferent or too proud of their own ideological proclivities to vote against abortion because some Repub isn’t pure enough to suit them, then one is supporting the continuation of the baby killing some of us purport to abhor.

If Catholics voted, without exception, against the Party of Death in two elections, even the Dems would change their platforms and their ways. But Catholics don’t, acting like a crowd of mules each pulling in different directions and some not pulling at all.

Of course, that ignores the fact that the Republicans mostly blew opportunities to roll back abortion throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s. Excellent Supreme Court appointees like Justice O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter. A lot of talking the talk and not walking the walk. Not to mention the morally questionable (on a good day) policies of President GW Bush and his unjust war in Iraq and use of torture.

If the Republicans want to win Catholic voters, they need to act more Catholic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course, that ignores the fact that the Republicans mostly blew opportunities to roll back abortion throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s. Excellent Supreme Court appointees like Justice O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter. A lot of talking the talk and not walking the walk. Not to mention the morally questionable (on a good day) policies of President GW Bush and his unjust war in Iraq and use of torture.

If the Republicans want to win Catholic voters, they need to act more Catholic.

Repubs are the only ones who remotely act Catholic. Believe me, it was an embarrassment to explain to Protestants why George Bush was more of a Catholic than John Kerry. It was embarrassing because it was true.

Some Supreme Court justices have been unfortunate choices, but we should consider this. In the “partial birth abortion” case in which a state ban on the practice, the ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. In that decision, every Repub appointed justice voted in favor of the ban, even Kennedy. Every Dem appointee voted in favor of partial birth abortion.

Bush did countless things to support the prolife position. Obama reversed every one of them. The Dem platform endorses abortion on demand. The Repub platform opposes it. NARAL rates nearly every Dem candidate as on their side, but almost no Repubs. NRL rates nearly every Repub as prolife and almost no Dems.

I realize it serves the cause of the abortion supporter supporters to claim the Repubs have done nothing, but that’s absolutely false. The Repubs are the only ones who ever have done anything prolife, and against the opposition of the Dems the whole time.

The justice or injustice of the Iraq war is a different subject. Hillary, of course, supported it as well as the Libyan War and the war on Serbia. So the point is???

 

[mary_bobo]

I normally vote conservative but I would have to say that in this case, I would most likely vote for Hillary because I cannot stand Donald Trump’s views. I mean, he is a very racist and .individual. I am in an interracial relationship. My boyfriend is of mixed racial ancestry. I have never tolerated racism and I never will. I could never in good conscience vote for a racist presidential candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I hate Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion and pro-LGBT rights movement views but I hate racist views a lot too.

How do you know that Trump is racist? Pretty serious charge. If you normally vote conservative, how in the world can you entertain the idea of voting for Hillary?

 

[Ridgerunner]

How do you know that Trump is racist? Pretty serious charge. If you normally vote conservative, how in the world can you entertain the idea of voting for Hillary?

It’s fascinating how “racism” has become bifurcated.

There is the racism of people who really are inciters of racial antipathies, like Obama.
Then there is the “racism” of people who might not be racist at all but don’t observe the niceties of politically correct speech.

Unfortunately, the opinion makers often pillory the second and manufacture new ways of accusing people of racism while worshiping the first notwithstanding their real racism.

 

[Crossbones]

Repubs are the only ones who remotely act Catholic. Believe me, it was an embarrassment to explain to Protestants why George Bush was more of a Catholic than John Kerry. It was embarrassing because it was true.

I think not. Otherwise, things like the Iraq War or torture would be far out of bounds and there would be much less overt racism from the Republicans. But I guess if we focus on a single issue (abortion), then, yes, the weak-kneed Rs are more in line with Catholic teaching.

Some Supreme Court justices have been unfortunate choices, but we should consider this. In the “partial birth abortion” case in which a state ban on the practice, the ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. In that decision, every Repub appointed justice voted in favor of the ban, even Kennedy. Every Dem appointee voted in favor of partial birth abortion.

Yep, 2 out of the 5 Republican nominees under President Reagan and Bush the first were pro-choice. It’s unfortunate that they did such a horrible job. I’m glad you can nitpick a relatively minor case because the big one was Casey and that’s where we learned how poorly the Republican presidents did in choosing justices. We’ll have to wait and see on Justice Roberts and Alito.

Bush did countless things to support the prolife position. Obama reversed every one of them. The Dem platform endorses abortion on demand. The Repub platform opposes it. NARAL rates nearly every Dem candidate as on their side, but almost no Repubs. NRL rates nearly every Repub as prolife and almost no Dems.

President GW Bush didn’t do very much at all. Small, small things. But he did start a ridiculous war and crash the economy, so I guess the small things are all that counts.

I realize it serves the cause of the abortion supporter supporters to claim the Repubs have done nothing, but that’s absolutely false. The Repubs are the only ones who ever have done anything prolife, and against the opposition of the Dems the whole time.

I would agree with you here. From 1980 until 2010, the Republicans did very little and the Democrats did nothing. There has been some hope at the state level over the last 6 years, but I don’t really see the issue playing much during this Presidential campaign so far. Hopefully, it will.

The justice or injustice of the Iraq war is a different subject. Hillary, of course, supported it as well as the Libyan War and the war on Serbia. So the point is???

Not really. You see, it’s not like we’re choosing based on abortion with all other things being equal between the parties. The Republicans have to make abortion a priority.

As far as Secretary Clinton goes, I hope she isn’t the nominee because I don’t see how she can be supported based on what she did on the Iraq War.

 

[pnewton]

The vast majority of Catholics I’ve known who became Protestants, did so because they’re churches no longer mentioned hell, sin, the wrath of God, and tried to be accomadating to everyone.

I have known many, uncounted converts. This has not been a factor in one conversion. I believe this statement to be singularly unique to you.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve heard Father Corapi refer to Catholics who left the faith and joined the Protestant church down the street because they at least still believed in hell.

 

[pnewton]

I will leave it for whoever wants to puzzle out how such a logical contradiction could be common.

 

[Leo2014]

So, in your opinion, which Presidential candidate is going to free us from the bankers?

Just from what I have heard in the GOP debates, I like Christy & Paul (but look where they stand in the polls). I have not conducted any investigation into their policies outside of what I have heard in the debates. But that is one of the major problems! It cost so much money to run a successful campaign, our we surprise that our candidate becomes an arm of their financial backers? You know the saying; “Golden rule…the one with the gold rules!”

The idea of a third party candidate is a good one. But unless we are going to do a thorough analysis (which I am certain you don’t have the time…don’t worry me neither), they will not reach a massive audience and we will get stuck with the one that could afford the airtime to direct their messages to what we want to hear. Of course while taking some superfluous jabs at their opponent.

The wrong approach is to be a single issue voter or to not vote at all. I think we need to be comfortable in expressing our beliefs and the reasons we are for or against a candidate. But that does not mean slinging insults or passing moral judgements…you seen how well that works for us.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think not. Otherwise, things like the Iraq War or torture would be far out of bounds and there would be much less overt racism from the Republicans. But I guess if we focus on a single issue (abortion), then, yes, the weak-kneed Rs are more in line with Catholic teaching.

Yep, 2 out of the 5 Republican nominees under President Reagan and Bush the first were pro-choice. It’s unfortunate that they did such a horrible job. I’m glad you can nitpick a relatively minor case because the big one was Casey and that’s where we learned how poorly the Republican presidents did in choosing justices. We’ll have to wait and see on Justice Roberts and Alito.

President GW Bush didn’t do very much at all. Small, small things. But he did start a ridiculous war and crash the economy, so I guess the small things are all that counts.

I would agree with you here. From 1980 until 2010, the Republicans did very little and the Democrats did nothing. There has been some hope at the state level over the last 6 years, but I don’t really see the issue playing much during this Presidential campaign so far. Hopefully, it will.

Not really. You see, it’s not like we’re choosing based on abortion with all other things being equal between the parties. The Republicans have to make abortion a priority.

As far as Secretary Clinton goes, I hope she isn’t the nominee because I don’t see how she can be supported based on what she did on the Iraq War.

Bush was far more Catholic than Kerry. Remember, Kerry voted for the Iraq War Phase II as well. As to the accusation of “torture” of three people, (yes, three who underwent waterboarding) nobody has yet come up with a working definition of “torture” I have ever seen that doesn’t just end up labeling everything from handcuffs to interrogation “torture”. The Church doesn’t define waterboarding as “torture”?And Bush spent millions fighting AIDS in Africa. Did Obama? No sir. Did Kerry? No. Did Bush try to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortifacients? No. Did Obama? Yes. Did Bush disqualify Catholic charities from funds to aid human trafficking victims because they wouldn’t refer women for abortions? No. Did Obama? Yes.

Bush was more of a Catholic than all of the “Catholic” Dems in Congress and in this administration put together.

“…A minor case”??? Partial birth abortion is MINOR? Do you not know what it is?Roberts and Alito both voted in favor of partial birth abortion bans. So did Scalia, Thomas and even Kennedy. That’s 100% of the Repub appointees. Every last Dem voted in favor of partial birth abortion. And every future Dem appointee will too, because that’s all the party stands for now; well we can add homosexual marriage too. Kennedy did go along with that, but no other Repub appointee did. Every Dem appointee favored homosexual marriage. Every one.

Back to partial birth abortion. I’m sure you’re aware that its preventing the full birth of a viable baby, sticking a sharp instrument into its skull and destroying its brain so it dies. If preventing that is minor, then there’s no such thing as “major”. Even Kennedy couldn’t stomach it. And yet, the Dem appointees all supported it without exception. If that isn’t an evil that cries to heaven, I don’t know what one is.

As to the Iraq war, and I realize there is a lot of division concerning that, if you look very carefully at the Church’s teaching on “Just war”, it doesn’t require that one’s own country be attacked or its people decimated. It simply requires that the evil to be opposed is grave. It can also be an evil imposed on others than one’s own countrymen. After a million people killed by Saddam, how many more would anybody require to call its continuation “gravely evil”. Never mind that Saddam broke the truce by shooting at American and British planes. And never mind that Saddam paid parents to send their (often impaired, therefore expendable) children to commit suicide by bomb in order to kill innocent Israelis.

Back to Hillary and Trump. I’m not a Trump supporter. And my opposition to Hillary Clinton is not only her absolutely total dedication to abortion. I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is the most corrupt candidate ever fielded by a political party. She has sold influence to some of the world’s worst people, including the sale of American uranium to Russia, which Russia is now going to deliver to Iran. She should never survive that, politically if people have half a brain. If she sells her country out as Secretary of State, how much more could she do it as president? What will she do when the “value” of Bill Clinton’s bogus “speaking fees” go to $10 million; to $20 million in exchange for, e.g., attacking country “A” or stopping oil production here in order to benefit country “B”? What’s her price for granting offshore drilling rights to China? What’s her price for destroying whole industries in this country? She’ll sell her country out time and again, and no one should doubt that.

 

[Leo2014]

Allow me to respectfully disagree with you on this. The decline in attendance was not there during what many think of as the “hellfire” days. It began, then accelerated during the days of “there’s no such thing as sin” (in effect).

Despite our natural tendency to disobedience of God’s laws and man’s, all have an even deeper rooted desire for certitudes. Which is better; to never know whether one has sinned or not and to be left with one’s own rationalizations, or to know one sinned and repent?

I say it’s the latter.

Undoubtedly there were excesses in the pre-VII days, just as there have been in the post-VII days. They were of different sorts, though.

While it’s anecdotal, of course, I have never known a person who left the Church because of being told about sin and hell. I have known a fair number who left their wives for a new dolly and then found a way to justify it. “Sister Mary hit me in grade school”, “All the priest talked about was hell/money/etc”

Now, I’ll admit the indifference of so many young people now seems to be borne of the insipidness attendant upon terrible catechesis.

But where I live, we have greatly more converts than those who leave. Mostly the converts are from Fundamentalist or Evangelical churches who want the clarity and moral certitude the Church offers. But most of all, the attraction is the Eucharist for them. They spend their former lives wanting to be “close to Jesus”, and here it is.

That is wonderful if you encounter a different scenario. But what you describe is not the case in my region (Southern California) or in many of the regions I have visited. The reasons are many; I was just attacking the “Fire & Brimstone” approach that Catholics have been famous for presenting; It has been portrayed negatively in movies, I have witness it and heard the comments from former members.

What is apparent is the lower priority that faith plays in many lives today than in the preceding decades. Problems like; Fathers not attending Church with their families, divorce & divided families being just as prevalent among the Congregation than what you view in the secular world. Yes and our youth have no problem cohabitating while supporting many of the issues that the Church opposes.

The point that I was making is that these issues contribute to our lack of unity. With seventy million Catholics across the US, we should have a more vocal presents. Nothing you are saying is wrong, we just need to evaluate how we can be more effective with our preaching, representation and delivery of political messages. Because the current tactics are not working…

 

[Trident_H]

Bush was far more Catholic than Kerry. Remember, Kerry voted for the Iraq War Phase II as well. As to the accusation of “torture” of three people, (yes, three who underwent waterboarding) nobody has yet come up with a working definition of “torture” I have ever seen that doesn’t just end up labeling everything from handcuffs to interrogation “torture”. The Church doesn’t define waterboarding as “torture”?And Bush spent millions fighting AIDS in Africa. Did Obama? No sir. Did Kerry? No. Did Bush try to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortifacients? No. Did Obama? Yes. Did Bush disqualify Catholic charities from funds to aid human trafficking victims because they wouldn’t refer women for abortions? No. Did Obama? Yes.

Bush was more of a Catholic than all of the “Catholic” Dems in Congress and in this administration put together.

“…A minor case”??? Partial birth abortion is MINOR? Do you not know what it is?Roberts and Alito both voted in favor of partial birth abortion bans. So did Scalia, Thomas and even Kennedy. That’s 100% of the Repub appointees. Every last Dem voted in favor of partial birth abortion. And every future Dem appointee will too, because that’s all the party stands for now; well we can add homosexual marriage too. Kennedy did go along with that, but no other Repub appointee did. Every Dem appointee favored homosexual marriage. Every one.

Back to partial birth abortion. I’m sure you’re aware that its preventing the full birth of a viable baby, sticking a sharp instrument into its skull and destroying its brain so it dies. If preventing that is minor, then there’s no such thing as “major”. Even Kennedy couldn’t stomach it. And yet, the Dem appointees all supported it without exception. If that isn’t an evil that cries to heaven, I don’t know what one is.

As to the Iraq war, and I realize there is a lot of division concerning that, if you look very carefully at the Church’s teaching on “Just war”, it doesn’t require that one’s own country be attacked or its people decimated. It simply requires that the evil to be opposed is grave. It can also be an evil imposed on others than one’s own countrymen. After a million people killed by Saddam, how many more would anybody require to call its continuation “gravely evil”. Never mind that Saddam broke the truce by shooting at American and British planes. And never mind that Saddam paid parents to send their (often impaired, therefore expendable) children to commit suicide by bomb in order to kill innocent Israelis.

Back to Hillary and Trump. I’m not a Trump supporter. And my opposition to Hillary Clinton is not only her absolutely total dedication to abortion.** I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is the most corrupt candidate ever fielded by a political party.** She has sold influence to some of the world’s worst people, including the sale of American uranium to Russia, which Russia is now going to deliver to Iran. She should never survive that, politically if people have half a brain. If she sells her country out as Secretary of State, how much more could she do it as president? What will she do when the “value” of Bill Clinton’s bogus “speaking fees” go to $10 million; to $20 million in exchange for, e.g., attacking country “A” or stopping oil production here in order to benefit country “B”? What’s her price for granting offshore drilling rights to China? What’s her price for destroying whole industries in this country? She’ll sell her country out time and again, and no one should doubt that.

That’s my thought on this too. Hillary has been caught lying more often than anyone I’ve ever known. And yet she still gets a pass. Why? I mean her lies are big. And she tells them with confidence. Maybe with the confidence that she’ll keep getting away with them?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The point that I was making is that these issues contribute to our lack of unity. With seventy million Catholics across the US, we should have a more vocal presents. Nothing you are saying is wrong, we just need to evaluate how we can be more effective with our preaching, representation and delivery of political messages. Because the current tactics are not working…

The Church moves slowly, and sometimes it’s frustrating. When you get down to it, if the leaders don’t lead, and if some lead in faulty directions, chaos and confusion are expectable.

Pope Benedict appointed some of the best bishops now in the U.S., and under some of them vocations have increased as well as charitable works. One hopes Pope Francis will not allow the American bishops conference to select new bishops like Pope John Paul II did. Pope Benedict stopped that practice. The majority of bishops presently are still of a laissez-faire bent when it comes to catechesis and promoting vocations and moral clarity. Heaven forefend that they again get to choose new bishops who will perpetuate their errors. We’ll have to see what happens.