Trump or Hillary?

[Ridgerunner]

Well, given those choices, I think I’d have to write in “Michael J Mouse-his friends call him Mickey” and put a “Cthulhu for President 2016: Why Settle For a Lesser Evil” bumper sticker on my car.

Emotionally satisfying, perhaps, but not a responsible act.

 

[Crossbones]

I never said he did. You’re the one who brought him into the discussion, not me.

No, you brought up Archbishop Chaput when we discussing torture and Iraq. I figured that was because he supported waterboarding and the war, but I guess not. Can you find any Catholic bishop that supports waterboarding?

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, you brought up Archbishop Chaput when we discussing torture and Iraq. I figured that was because he supported waterboarding and the war, but I guess not. Can you find any Catholic bishop that supports waterboarding?

No, pardner, you brought Chaput up in Post 442. I responded to that. Never did I say he approved of waterboarding or anything else.

No Catholic bishop ever supports war, capital punishment or any number of things that the Church does not declare immoral. I will admit Pope Francis came very close to supporting war against ISIS; most unusual for a Pope.

 

[Crossbones]

No, pardner, you brought Chaput up in Post 442. I responded to that. Never did I say he approved of waterboarding or anything else.

Oh, you’re right. My bad.

No Catholic bishop ever supports war, capital punishment or any number of things that the Church does not declare immoral. I will admit Pope Francis came very close to supporting war against ISIS; most unusual for a Pope.

I guess unless they say it in incredibly clear terms like ‘waterboarding is torture’ or ‘the Iraq was is unjust’ then some will use that to justify the actions, but I felt the bishops and Pope were pretty clear that they thought the Iraq War was a bad idea.

 

[Darryl1958]

When it comes to political and social discourse, we really need to weigh the egregious failures of past actions of the bishops against the perceived wisdom of any of their current positions.
What is really lacking among Catholics is the proper perspective towards the relationship between the bishops and our politics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess unless they say it in incredibly clear terms like ‘waterboarding is torture’ or ‘the Iraq was is unjust’ then some will use that to justify the actions, but I felt the bishops and Pope were pretty clear that they thought the Iraq War was a bad idea.

Pope Benedict expressed that he did not think all avenues of resolution had been exhausted, adding that the UN’s support ought to be brought into it before any action. What he did not know, and couldn’t know, was the degree to which Saddam Hussein had corrupted many at the UN with oil credits instead of using them in the “oil for food” program. That wasn’t known until after the war had started.

Generally, though, clergy do not urge war at all. The closest I have seen in my lifetime is that of Pope Francis who literally recommended military action against ISIS to prevent atrocities. The irony of it is that staying there instead of pulling out would have kept ISIS out of Iraq at least and deprived it of a lot of resources it gained in Iraq.

After the second phase of the Gulf war started, no Pope spoke out against it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When it comes to political and social discourse, we really need to weigh the egregious failures of past actions of the bishops against the perceived wisdom of any of their current positions.
What is really lacking among Catholics is the proper perspective towards the relationship between the bishops and our politics.

Personally, I think the bishops ought to take a good look at the moral devastation all around them first. You really can’t sell “secular morality” and particularly not if the faithful have not been taught morality in any other way.

Long ago, it was thought that teaching the real doctrines of the Church would lead to the development of a Catholic populace that would then apply what they learned to their own lives as well as that of the polity. Catholic schools and colleges’ raison d’etre was thought to be that. Personally, I believed in that approach. But for so many years now, the “teaching” by so many bishops is about secular judgments that are not necessarily factually well founded, and given to people whose doctrinal learning leaves much to be desired. Secular political subjects are approached as if they somehow had a firm factual (therefore, by a leap, doctrinal) foundation when they don’t. Sometimes the USCCB spokesmen will deliver one side of what is really a secular point of view as if it is somehow Church teaching when it absolutely isn’t.

And so, as individual bishops have sometimes neglected very basic catechesis, the underpinning for evaluating factual circumstances from a moral standpoint just isn’t there.

 

[pnewton]

That’s why I’m no longer a Democrat. One can’t be a devoted Democrat and a devoted Catholic at the same time…

There are many Republicans here that agree with this statement, and few Democrats that would. I have never seen the Church express such an opinion. I guess the way you describe “devoted” might make such a statement true, if you took the word meant devoted to furthering the party’s platform in its entirety.

 

[Path_Finder]

There are many Republicans here that agree with this statement, and few Democrats that would. I have never seen the Church express such an opinion. I guess the way you describe “devoted” might make such a statement true, if you took the word meant devoted to furthering the party’s platform in its entirety.

God gave us free will, if one’s conscience tells one to vote for abortion, so be it but one should not find fault with others whose consciences tell them to vote against such evils.

 

[pnewton]

God gave us free will, if one’s conscience tells one to vote for abortion, …

Really? You have actually had an election with abortion on the ballot?

But I will of course agree. No one should ever vote for any abortion, should one ever come across such an initiative, or be in a position in government to cast such a vote.

In this case, neither candidate is an “abortion”.

 

[Path_Finder]

Really? You have actually had an election with abortion on the ballot?

But I will of course agree. No one should ever vote for any abortion, should one ever come across such an initiative, or be in a position in government to cast such a vote.

In this case, neither candidate is an “abortion”.

One party is pro-choice, that is in their platform, one party is pro-life, that is in their platform.

I respect a person’s right to exercise their vote, at the same time, at the state level, a number of measures have inhibited abortion and possibly has sent the abortion rate down. Catholics should conscientiously, vote against such evils.

States such as Texas, New Jersey, Wisconsin and so on, have made great strides against the industry besides defunding the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood which is a special interest of one party, even being a way to further one’s political career.

 

[pnewton]

One party is pro-choice, that is in their platform, one party is pro-life, that is in their platform.

I know there are some that equate candidates with parties, and the parties with platforms, then the candidates with the platforms, thus viewing a vote for a person as a voter for every plank in the platform.

I do not. I see too many logical errors in the above reasoning. Also, I am certain this is not something the Catholic Church has taught. I think it more a political ploy to maintain an oligarchical, two-party system. Republicans and Democrats may both rely on this reasoning from time to time in order to bring the masses in line. If Republicans choose to nominate Trump, then the party will have to live with that consequence. If he is the nominee, it will weaken my perception of them as putting abortion first as a key issue.

 

[Path_Finder]

I know there are some that equate candidates with parties, and the parties with platforms, then the candidates with the platforms, thus viewing a vote for a person as a voter for every plank in the platform.

I do not. I see too many logical errors in the above reasoning. Also, I am certain this is not something the Catholic Church has taught. I think it more a political ploy to maintain an oligarchical, two-party system. Republicans and Democrats may both rely on this reasoning from time to time in order to bring the masses in line. If Republicans choose to nominate Trump, then the party will have to live with that consequence. If he is the nominee, it will weaken my perception of them as putting abortion first as a key issue.

If one voted for the party Planned Parenthood endorses constantly, it would weaken my perception of them as a Catholic.

 

[pnewton]

If one voted for the party Planned Parenthood endorses constantly, it would weaken my perception of them as a Catholic.

I spoke of my perception of the Republican** Party**. The type of judgementalism expressed against an **individual *is strictly forbidden and not acceptable within Catholic charity. One cannot view another as less Catholic based on personal perceptions. Can you back up your “perception” with where the Catholic Church *teaches it is wrong to vote Democrat? I ask for the *third *time. Do you view your opinion as the same level as Church teaching?

Where does the Church teach one cannot vote for a Democrat, or such a vote is equivalent to supporting abortion???

If one voted for the party…

I never was a fan of straight party voting myself. I have always preferred to consider each individually. But that is just my own opinion. In America, we do not elect a “party”. Perhaps you are referring to another country?

 

[Crossbones]

Pope Benedict expressed that he did not think all avenues of resolution had been exhausted, adding that the UN’s support ought to be brought into it before any action. What he did not know, and couldn’t know, was the degree to which Saddam Hussein had corrupted many at the UN with oil credits instead of using them in the “oil for food” program. That wasn’t known until after the war had started.

Generally, though, clergy do not urge war at all. The closest I have seen in my lifetime is that of Pope Francis who literally recommended military action against ISIS to prevent atrocities. The irony of it is that staying there instead of pulling out would have kept ISIS out of Iraq at least and deprived it of a lot of resources it gained in Iraq.

After the second phase of the Gulf war started, no Pope spoke out against it.

Of course, the US government claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, even though he didn’t. And yet, you have this

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/global-issues/middle-east/statement-on-iraq.cfm

Of course, it’s from the USCCB, which somehow gives a free pass to ignore it.

 

[josh987654321]

I haven’t been following this thread much, but after reading some of the later posts here, I just felt the need to say that ‘waterboarding’ is absolutely 100% without a doubt ‘torture’ and I absolutely condemn it along with the Church when she speaks of torture.

I believe there is absolutely no excuse to ‘waterboard’ someone and it’s a polar opposite to Catholicism. The only situation where I can see it as acceptable is for training purposes where the person is consenting, it’s controlled and can be called off at any time during etc.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Path_Finder]

Of course, the US government claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, even though he didn’t. And yet, you have this

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/global-issues/middle-east/statement-on-iraq.cfm

Of course, it’s from the USCCB, which somehow gives a free pass to ignore it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=988204 ( Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship [with Voter’s Guidence] )

There are always issues set forth as of more primary importance and some of our other judgments are subjective in themselves.

 

[Darryl1958]

Personally, I think the bishops ought to take a good look at the moral devastation all around them first. You really can’t sell “secular morality” and particularly not if the faithful have not been taught morality in any other way.

Long ago, it was thought that teaching the real doctrines of the Church would lead to the development of a Catholic populace that would then apply what they learned to their own lives as well as that of the polity. Catholic schools and colleges’ raison d’etre was thought to be that. Personally, I believed in that approach. But for so many years now, the “teaching” by so many bishops is about secular judgments that are not necessarily factually well founded, and given to people whose doctrinal learning leaves much to be desired. Secular political subjects are approached as if they somehow had a firm factual (therefore, by a leap, doctrinal) foundation when they don’t. Sometimes the USCCB spokesmen will deliver one side of what is really a secular point of view as if it is somehow Church teaching when it absolutely isn’t.

And so, as individual bishops have sometimes neglected very basic catechesis, the underpinning for evaluating factual circumstances from a moral standpoint just isn’t there.

There is not a lot of problem when the bishops restrict themselves to doctrine and dogma. Here the teachings are clear enoough.

There is not a problem that bishops and priests are in general very educated as well. not just in faith but in the modern sciences of the day. It is a good thing overall that our spiritual leaders have a sound grasp of the secular and scientific knowledge of the day.

Here is where the problem comes in. Catholics are used to accepting the authority of the Church and her bishops when it comes to dogma. However, when it comes to the authority that is derived by understandings of science and logic and critical thinking, it is rather ludicrous and an abuse of science to say something like 'the pope has spoken; I submit to the pope". The nature of science is that it is based on the best evidence of the time, and not the authority of the particular scientist who is putting forth his hypothesis

I had a priest who once gave some of the Churches reasoning for moving abusing priest around rather than having them thrown in jail. Here, they were often following the psychology of the day, of unconditional love and forgiveness, prior to the understanding that there are sexual proclivities that are in effect incurable by any method. It was not until the seventies as well, and the advent of feminism that it was believed that the best thing for the victims was to hide what happened to them and spare them the shame of publicity.
Of course there was a lot of pure unadulterated evil involved in this as well, but the reasoning and the course of action taken was according to the science of the day. Catholic bishops, being well educated, followed that faulty reasoning, until the science changed, but by then it was too late.
The thing is that science is not eternal truth, but is based on an interpretation of the best evidence available at the time. It cannot be based on authority, but on the contrary, depends on critical thinking and peer review in which one scientific paradigm is as often as not replaced by another as more evidence comes in.
It is important that bishops as moral leaders take part in the debate and show their reasoning according to the best evidence of the day. But what is even more important is that Catholics discern when their bishops are talking with the authority of the spirit, and when they are speaking according to the scientific paradigms of the day. ‘Because my bishop says so’ cannot be a reason for the latter.
Like in any statement based on scientific reasoning, when the bishops comment on the issues of the day, we need to be shown the reasoning so we can critique it.
Doctrine and dogma most certainly are a part of the moral reasoning, providing a premise and an ultimate goal. But the evidence and the paradigms that the bishops are referring to are simply not a part of the authority of the Church and we must not allow them to be used as such. It is acting in bad faith to use them as such ourselves.

 

[Path_Finder]

BREAKING POLL: 40% of Blacks Line Up Behind Trump – 45% of Hispanics
thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/breaking-poll-40-of-blacks-line-behind-trump-45-of-hispanics/

The polling company is not that well known so we will see how all of this develops.

 

[john1513]

Key findings so far:

• Over 1/3 of the votes are not going to Trump or Clinton
• Most on this thread are conservative
• More conservatives would vote for Clinton than liberals for Trump.

My ruling: Clinton wins this scenario.

This seems prevalent throughout the country too: Trump wins a lazy Republican primary by a landslide, loses to Clinton in the general election, Republicans are politically exiled for another 8 years. All too familiar story.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for Republican voters and politicians to articulate and support compelling ideas and proposals. The same song and dance has been trotted out the past 8 years and Democrats laugh all the way to the White House.