Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zz912 said:
The USCCB has no teaching authority, and has a spotty record at best in the past. EWTN has actually been more faithful to Church teaching over the last few decades.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to preference TV and radio personalities over the bishops of the Church, but it is an odd position for a Catholic to take.
 
Crossbones said:
So which diocese runs it?
Click to expand...
They run themselves as a non profit with the blessing of the Vatican, origins are Our Lady of the Angels Monastery which is a Franciscan monastery and which EWTN originated within. The oversee is same as elsewhere with the Bishop of the area diocese has ecclesiastical province. But they may have direct overseeing of the Vatican now as its grew so large.
 
TMC said:
You are entitled to preference TV and radio personalities over the bishops of the Church, but it is an odd position for a Catholic to take.
Click to expand...
So is slavishly defending someone like Hillary, but as you said, you are entitled.
 
TMC said:
You are entitled to that opinion. Millions of Catholics disagree with you. What you are not entitled to do is to misrepresent Church teaching to other Catholics. The Church does not mandate voting for Donald Trump (or any Republican)
Click to expand...
When are you going to stop bearing false witness and claiming I’m doing this? I have personally stated I’m not voting for Trump, so you are falsely attributing something to me that I have never said.
or preclude voting for Hillary Clinton (or any Democrat).
Click to expand...
There are no justifiable and proportionate reasons that a Christian could use to vote for Hillary Clinton. None. Her unmitigated support of multiple intrinsic evils makes her an unacceptable candidate. Church teaching is clear on this.
Each Catholic must reach their own decision.
Click to expand...
A decision in line with Church teaching. Voting for Hillary Clinton is not in line with Church teaching.
 
TMC said:
You are not quoting the USCCB. You are quoting a document from EWTN. The USCCB and the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith say:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

I would suggest that any Catholic who is not sure what the Church teaches should read the document at the above link, which contains the teaching of the US bishops on the issue.
Click to expand...
The first quote is directly from the USCCB.
single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.
Click to expand...
 
TMC said:
You are entitled to preference TV and radio personalities over the bishops of the Church, but it is an odd position for a Catholic to take.
Click to expand...
"No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops,” - Pope Benedict

One is wise to view a bishop’s conference with skepticism. Take for example the Winnipeg Statement of 1968 from the Canadian Bishops Conference, which outright promoted heresy.
 
TMC said:
The Church specifically allows us to vote for whichever candidate we believe to be the best candidate after considering all of the issues. The Church does not support single issue voting.
Click to expand...
That simply is not true . We have provided ample documentation that this is not true. Again lets turn to the Magestrium:

** Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.** For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI
 
TMC said:
A Catholic could be justified in voting for any candidate that the Catholic believed best promotes good and limits evil. Both major party candidates are at odds with Church teaching in important ways. A Catholic must evaluate each and choose according to his or her conscience. The partisan portrayal on this forum that Church teaching somehow precludes or mandates one party is just that - partisanship, and nothing more.
Click to expand...
That is not what the Church teaches. You seem to be promoting the “primacy of conscience” fallacy. Again let us turn to the teachings of the Church:

*In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and **guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.***55

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1778
 
Little_Sheep said:
“Culture of death” is rhetorical. It’s entire raison d’être is to shame people.
Click to expand...
So St Pope John Paul II is guilty of shaming people? He , after all , is the one who coined the term Culture of Death. From his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae:

*12. In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today’s social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.
  1. In order to facilitate the spread of abortion, enormous sums of money have been invested and continue to be invested in the production of pharmaceutical products which make it possible to kill the fetus in the mother’s womb without recourse to medical assistance. On this point, scientific research itself seems to be almost exclusively preoccupied with developing products which are ever more simple and effective in suppressing life and which at the same time are capable of removing abortion from any kind of control or social responsibility.*
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Cardinal Burke notes the Democrat Party’s embracing of this culture:

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant parents and grandparents to better integrate into and prosper in American society. But it’s not the same anymore.Nonetheless, there are among Democrats some pro-lifers, but they are, unfortunately, rare. *
 
estesbob said:
So St Pope John Paul II is guilty of shaming people? He , after all , is the one who coined the term Culture of Death. From his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae:

12. In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today’s social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.
  1. In order to facilitate the spread of abortion, enormous sums of money have been invested and continue to be invested in the production of pharmaceutical products which make it possible to kill the fetus in the mother’s womb without recourse to medical assistance. On this point, scientific research itself seems to be almost exclusively preoccupied with developing products which are ever more simple and effective in suppressing life and which at the same time are capable of removing abortion from any kind of control or social responsibility.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html
Click to expand...
“Plan-B” is an abortion pill sold OTC in most major pharmacies. You can usually get your abortion in a pill for just $30-$50 dollars. :rolleyes:
 
The USCCB isn’t saying anything different …
  1. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet if a candidate’s position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support.
Click to expand...
Paragraph 20 forward covers all the same points documented above and by EWTN.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm
Doing Good and Avoiding Evil
21. Aided by the virtue of prudence in the exercise of well-formed consciences, Catholics are called to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena.
Click to expand...
  1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...
There’s a few options, but Hillary isn’t one of them. 🤷
 
estesbob said:
That simply is not true . We have provided ample documentation that this is not true. Again lets turn to the Magestrium:

** Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.** For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI
Click to expand...
To understand the principle you are claiming, please show how it might apply to this more local case:

Suppose that in the local race for County Drain Commissioner, one candidate is well qualified, but you know from personal experience that he is pro-choice on abortion. His opponent knows nothing about drains and how they should be administered, and is clearly unqualified for the job. But you happen to know from personal experience that this candidate is very anti-abortion. I would argue that since the job of Drain Commissioner has nothing to do with abortion, I would be well advised to vote for the first candidate.

However, your claim is that no lesser good can compensate for voting for someone who is pro-choice on abortion. And the condition of the drains certainly does not carry the same moral weight as abortion. It seems every condition for your conclusion is satisfied. There is even a small chance that electing the competent but pro-choice Drain Commissioner might lead to a life in politics for that candidate which might find him some day in a position to make some real decisions about abortion. So if you want to discount this local race from your claim about voting, it seems you would have to do it on the basis of the probability that electing the pro-life candidate would prevent some future bad decision on the part of the now-defeated pro-choice candidate.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The USCCB isn’t saying anything different …

There’s a few options, but Hillary isn’t one of them. 🤷
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw when her husband was President. “If Clinton is the answer it must have been a stupid question”
 
Suppose that in the local race for County Drain Commissioner, one candidate is pro-choice on abortion. His opponent is very anti-abortion.
Click to expand...
  1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing to argue about. Theres no “exception” clause. :confused:
 
GaryTaylor said:
They run themselves as a non profit with the blessing of the Vatican, origins are Our Lady of the Angels Monastery which is a Franciscan monastery and which EWTN originated within. The oversee is same as elsewhere with the Bishop of the area diocese has ecclesiastical province. But they may have direct overseeing of the Vatican now as its grew so large.
Click to expand...
So they have no teaching authority.
 
Convert_in_99 said:
“Plan-B” is an abortion pill sold OTC in most major pharmacies. You can usually get your abortion in a pill for just $30-$50 dollars. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Any doctor would disagree with that. Plan B has no effect on woman that is pregnant.

RU-486 on the other hand, that’s is abortifacient.
 
jtauke said:
Any doctor would disagree with that. Plan B has no effect on woman that is pregnant.

RU-486 on the other hand, that’s is abortifacient.
Click to expand...
Is that true if the embryo hasn’t made it’s way down the fallopian tubes? Meaning, does Plan B still work in a way that might make the womb hostile to the embryo who has not yet implanted?
 
jtauke said:
The same sentiment applies to those that slavishly defend Trump.
Click to expand...
Although I will probably vote him i dont slavishly defend him. i think he is a seriously flawed candidate but is far preferable to what the Democrat party has to offer. I was a cradle Democrat and am still deeply disappointed that the Party has so embraced the culture of death it is almost impossible to find a democrat Candidate a catholic can vote for in a National election
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top