Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[estesbob]

By common sense, yes, if you look for something in the most obvious place where it should definitely be, and it is not there, a good case can be made that it doesn’t exist.

So “common sense” trumps church teaching? Once again lets turn to the Magestrium:

Bishop Vasa responded referencing the document of the United States Catholic Conference titled “Faithful Citizenship”, noting a pro-abortion stance disqualifies candidates from consideration by faithful Catholics.

*LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Bishop Vasa after the session. Describing the deliberation among US bishops over the “Faithful Citizenship” document, he said: “When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’.”

However, during the discussions mention was made of the document by Pope Benedict just prior his elevation to the pontificate which noted that Catholics may in good conscience vote for a politician who supports abortion in the presence of “proportionate reasons.”

Bishop Vasa explained the notion of proportionate reasons, saying, “The conditions under which an individual may be able to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would apply only if all the candidates are equally pro-abortion.”
*

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-vasa-pro-abortion-candidates-are-disqualified-clarifies-faithful-cit

 

[estesbob]

This is an interesting point, but I do think that the bishop focused on how to apply Church teaching to a single issue, abortion. I would be interested in seeing how the bishop might apply this is a wider context given Trump’s promises to torture and murder noncombatants. I don’t think you can look at a single issue in a vacuum in this election.

I dont look at a single issue. I look at the teachings of the Church.

 

[Crossbones]

1, The majority of bishops approving a document is irrelevant as far as whether a Bishops Council has teaching authority.
2. There is nothing in Faithful Citizenship that supports the idea that a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when their opponent does support abortion or supports it to a lesser extent than they do.

Perhaps the teaching authority of the document then comes when the bishop publicizes this document in church bulletins as an guide to Catholic on how to guide their vote. I suppose if a local bishop fails to do so, that can be interpreted as a rejection of the document and that it should not be taught to Catholics in his diocese.

As I pointed out to Gary, if you take the document to mean that one cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate because ‘abortion must always be opposed’, then the voter must also reject Trump.

 

[Crossbones]

I dont look at a single issue. I look at the teachings of the Church.

I think we agree that, like alll Catholics, you must review all the documentation provided to you and draw a conclusion on how to vote. I would encourage all lurkers and newcomers to take that approach in making a decision on who to vote for instead of depending on the personal interpretations on these teachings by people on this forum.

 

[Thorolfr]

Good news for Donald Trump

On a hot afternoon in the Indian capital, a group of men sat around a fire chanting Hindu mantras.

Idols of Shiva and Hanuman watched on as the group performed a havan puja, a ceremony of worship which they hoped would bring good fortune for the subject of their prayers.

Someone had printed out a picture of his face and thumbed vermillion on his forehead, in a sign of reverence.

Alongside the incense, offerings and Hindu gods, he looked somewhat out of place, but the photograph was instantly recognizable: it was Donald Trump.

Vishnu Gupta, leader of the Hindu Sena, the organisation that arranged the ceremony, said that the puja was one of many events the group was organising to gather support for Trump in India, and – he hoped – help the controversial Republican candidate win the presidency.

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/13/donald-trump-india-hindu-supporters-new-delhi

 

[GaryTaylor]

Since this article does not mention voting directly, I would appreciate it if you would make the connection yourself so that I can see why you think this says we may never vote for the pro-choice candidate.

Logical fallacy as that doesn’t indicate my thinking as I never injected “pro-choice” in the conversation and that term would need to be agreed upon by all of us. To me not only is Hillary morally lacking with abortion be with marriage and euthanasia “Hillary-I think it’s an appropriate right to have.” as quoted also on this thread. She hit the Catholic trifecta.

We “must” never accept abortion" and in this case not only abortion on demand but also a complete disregard for traditional marriage, and meanderings on euthanasia points clearly expanded upon by Saint John Paul II in the encyclical posted today.

My own personal thinking is reflective here…

"I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B.

Trump addressed all these issues in fact want to leave no one on the street. Hillary is intent on killing them off before the rest is a reality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So “common sense” trumps church teaching? Once again lets turn to the Magestrium:

Bishop Vasa responded referencing the document of the United States Catholic Conference titled “Faithful Citizenship”, noting a pro-abortion stance disqualifies candidates from consideration by faithful Catholics.

*LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Bishop Vasa after the session. Describing the deliberation among US bishops over the “Faithful Citizenship” document, he said: “When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’.”

However, during the discussions mention was made of the document by Pope Benedict just prior his elevation to the pontificate which noted that Catholics may in good conscience vote for a politician who supports abortion in the presence of “proportionate reasons.”

Bishop Vasa explained the notion of proportionate reasons, saying, “The conditions under which an individual may be able to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would apply only if all the candidates are equally pro-abortion.”
*

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-vasa-pro-abortion-candidates-are-disqualified-clarifies-faithful-cit

These are commentaries on the proceedings. The official document produced, which I assume is more authoritative than individual commentaries, does not contain those clarifications. So they are not binding doctrine.

 

[estesbob]

These are commentaries on the proceedings. The official document produced, which I assume is more authoritative than individual commentaries, does not contain those clarifications. So they are not binding doctrine.

But even the document itself does not back up your position. And if ones properly understand apostolic succession they will realize that individual commentaries by Bishops carry far more weight than ones personal interpretation of a USCCB document

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Logical fallacy as that doesn’t indicate my thinking as I never injected “pro-choice” in the conversation and that term would need to be agreed upon by all of us.

Then I am still left wondering what your point was by posting that quote, if it was not what I assumed. Indeed, I find that quote most agreeable.

We “must” never accept abortion"

But is voting for Hillary equivalent to accepting abortion?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But even the document itself does not back up your position. And if ones properly understand apostolic succession they will realize that individual commentaries by Bishops carry far more weight than ones personal interpretation of a USCCB document

Why is it that when you cite documents to support your view, you are just citing the facts, but when I cite documents, like “Faithful Citizenship”, I am citing my own personal interpretation? Maybe it is the other way around.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So, I’m not sure how you get from ‘abortion must always be opposed’ to ‘you can’t vote for someone who supports abortion’ without applying that to other intrinsic evils such as human cloning, genocide, torture and targeting of noncombatants. It seems to me that you are using the document to support your belief in rejecting pro-choice candidates but ignoring the document when it talks on these other issues in equally strong terms…

Because its a priority in teaching first of all. and in regards to the others as I posted and the CC indicates the other areas such as war DP etc do require prudential judgement which is documented on this thread.

The factual reality is that Trump said he would torture and he would target noncombatants. You want to ignore that because he hasn’t done it yet. I do not find that a compelling argument…

Nothing is ignored. Hillary 1-million deaths a year, Trump “0”. Thats the factual reality. You want to ignore “what she has and will continue to do” opposed to what “he hasn’t done it yet.”

There is no compelling argument by you in regards here but more logical fallacy and an attempt to make a non existing moral comparison.

 

[Thorolfr]

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed Donald Trump on Friday in one of the most combative exchanges yet over the Manhattan billionaire’s tax returns.

Trump, who has suggested he might not release his returns before the November election, largely refused to budge.

“It’s none of your business,” Trump said when the ABC host asked about his tax rate. “You’ll see when I release, but I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”

The presumptive GOP nominee has faced increased scrutiny over releasing his tax returns since he told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he wasn’t planning on releasing his tax returns ahead of the election, citing an ongoing audit. He said he would release them after the audit is completed.

“There’s nothing to learn from them,” Trump said, adding that he doesn’t believe voters are interested.

businessinsider.com/donald-trump-tax-returns-2016-5

Do voters have any business knowing what’s in Donald Trump’s tax returns?

When the interviewer, George Stephanopoulos, asked Mr. Trump directly if he thought voters had a right to see his returns, something that presidential nominees have provided for roughly 40 years, the candidate replied, “I don’t think they do.”

nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/13/donald-trump-on-his-tax-rate-its-none-of-your-business/

 

[GaryTaylor]

But is voting for Hillary equivalent to accepting abortion?

Absolutely and its the premise of your argument with Trump on this thread which is implicit, and the thinking applies to both. One is not pardoned because you or I reject aspects of them but vote for them anyway, we are in fact cooperating with their position thus conspiracy.

I’m not innocent voting for Hillary because I don’t believe in abortion, I’m complicit in cooperation with evil and in fact I would argue promoting it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But even the document itself does not back up your position.

From “Faithful Citizenship”:

1. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. The current and projected extent of environmental degradation has become a moral crisis especially because it poses a risk to humanity in the future and threatens the lives of poor and vulnerable human persons here and now. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, pornography, redefining civil marriage, compromising religious liberty, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

(28) I think is the point you have been making, and (29) is the point I have been making. I don’t think these two sections are contradictory, but they work together.

Then there is (35):

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

I would never vote for a pro-choice candidate just because he promised to build bike paths in national parks, because that is not morally grave reason. But I might vote for a pro-choice candidate if I judged that his opponent would lead our nation into a disastrous war. That I think is sufficiently grave reason.

 

[estesbob]

From “Faithful Citizenship”:

(28) I think is the point you have been making, and (29) is the point I have been making. I don’t think these two sections are contradictory, but they work together.

Then there is (35):

I would never vote for a pro-choice candidate just because he promised to build bike paths in national parks, but that is not morally grave reason. But I might vote for a pro-choice candidate if I judged that his opponent would lead our nation into a disastrous war. That I think is sufficiently grave reason.

As has been explained ad nauseum by numerous members of the Magestrium the only proportionate reason that would allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate is if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. I am aware that the primary rationalization given by Democrat Catholics to vote in support of evil that the democrats opponent will end life as we know it on earth or something along those lines. As i have noted many times Abortion will remain legal in this country until Democrat Catholics come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.

 

[Thorolfr]

Mr. Romney, who is also a businessman, delayed releasing many of his returns until September 2012, at which point they showed an effective tax rate that was much lower than most Americans pay. Mr. Trump has said in the last few years that Mr. Romney erred in waiting so long and should have done it sooner.

nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/13/donald-trump-on-his-tax-rate-its-none-of-your-business/

I guess that in Mr. Trump’s view, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.

 

[TMC]

As long as my position is not in direct contradiction with Church doctrine, it stands on its own logic. I don’t need to find a priest to tell me that I can cut my lawn instead of picket an abortion clinic.

If you think my interpretation of “Faithful Citizenship” is in contradiction with 2000 years of Church teaching, then point out how that is so.

You will never convince the partisans that having an (R) behind one’s name isn’t the sole qualification for office. The best you can hope to do is provide information so that those truly seeking can go and read the Church’s documents for themselves. Everyone should read the USCCB and Vatican documents and come to their own conclusions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As has been explained ad nauseum by numerous members of the Magestrium the only proportionate reason that would allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate is if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

That statement has never been made in official Church documents, only in individual commentaries.

 

[estesbob]

That statement has never been made in official Church documents, only in individual commentaries.

Can you provide a quote from a member of the Magestrium or an official Church document that backs up your position?

If I understand correctly your contention is that since you “think” one candidate “might” start a disastrous war its OK to vote for a Candidate who supports the killing of a million children a year?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Everyone should read the USCCB and Vatican documents and come to their own conclusions.

Thats what they did and the Christian/Catholic Democrats came to the conclusion each and every single election since 73 and regardless of Trump or whoever that its acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate in fact promoting abortion.

I say thats relevance invoked by opinion of rationalization. A convenient conclusion against explicit Church teaching each and every time?

The fact is this will continue to happen unless the Church involves themselves in the process which they won’t anymore than they have.