Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a non-American, I obviously don’t have a dog in this race.

As a Catholic, however, I find both candidates morally repellent - albeit for very different reasons. I’m disappointed that it has come down to two thoroughly “damaged goods” individuals. I wouldn’t trust either to watch over my house while on holiday, let alone take upon him or herself the leadership of the free world.

Clinton isn’t people friendly and Trump is obnoxious. Would you want either one of them as dinner guests? Please be honest guys. Clinton’s for abortion on demand and has a corrupt reputation, Trump’s for torturing terror suspects, “taking out their families” and vulgarly compares trade agreements to sexual assault, as if raping a woman is somehow akin to a nation preferentializing itself in its trade policy. Wow, great day for democracy lads.

It’s dispiriting that this is apparently the best the system can deliver. Not a good showing IMHO.

In terms of voting guidelines, I always recommend that Catholics keep in mind the traditional “sins that cry to heaven”. From the Catechism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_that_cry_to_heaven

I will reiterate these 4/5 sins (depending on whether you judge 3 and 4 to be distinct or part and parcel of the same sin)::

(1) Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10]

(2) The sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]

(3) The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]

(4) The cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and

(5) Injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4]

Since I’m not American I won’t offer my own opinion but I do ask you all to consider this carefully and probe your consciences.

Measure the worth of the candidates by this. Who is the worst offender in relation to these grave, mortal sins that uniquely demand justice from God according to the catechitical tradition?
I am not comfortable defending Trump on a personal level, but he is the better choice, IMHO - especially with the Supreme Court hanging in the balance. Trump will pull the country back to the center. I was quite shocked at the anti-Trump ranting of the Mayor of London. Very Trump-like come to think of it. I think the left in both the US and Europe is increasingly intolerant, really lashing out at those who differ with them. They are essentially blacklisting Trump, which is fine but my point is - it’s not accurate. It is a straw man.
 
Does dismemberment of ones body and sucking it into a vacuum cleaner count as torture?.
No that’s murder. Abortion is murder, not torture.

But they are both intrinsically evil acts.

Murder takes away the victim’s life. Torture can leave lasting physical and mental scars that make life unbearable.
 
I think the left in both the US and Europe is increasingly intolerant, really lashing out at those who differ with them. They are essentially blacklisting Trump, which is fine but my point is - it’s not accurate. It is a straw man.
👍 You can’t help but notice! 🤷
 
👍 You can’t help but notice! 🤷
The election results in Austria say it all. I think there is a growing backlash against the left in the US and Europe. The left has had power (Obama; EU) for years now and look at where we are…it’s pathetic.
 
The election results in Austria say it all. I think there is a growing backlash against the left in the US and Europe. The left has had power (Obama; EU) for years now and look at where we are…it’s pathetic.
You say the EU but the current EU President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, is a centre-right Christian Democrat.

He belongs to the Christian Social People’s Party of Luxembourg:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Social_People%27s_Party
The Christian Social People’s Party (Luxembourgish: Chrëschtlech Sozial Vollekspartei, French: Parti populaire chrétien social, German: Christlich Soziale Volkspartei), abbreviated to CSV or PCS, is the largest political party in Luxembourg. The party follows a Christian-democratic[3] ideology and, like most parties in Luxembourg, the CSV is strongly pro-European. The CSV is a member of the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Centrist Democrat International (CDI)…
In the last EU Parliament elections, the Christian Conservatives won, again:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party_Group
**The European People’s Party group (EPP Group) is the political group in the European Parliament consisting of deputies (MEPs) from the member parties of the European People’s Party (EPP).[11][12][13] In this respect, there is a distinction between the European People’s Party (an umbrella party of centre-right national political parties from across Europe) and the EPP Group (which only exists in the European Parliament). The group comprises politicians of Christian democratic and conservative orientation.**14][15][16]…
Its size has given it influence in all the EU’s institutions. It has been the largest political group in the European Parliament since 1999. In the European Council, 14 out of 28 Heads of State and Government belong to the EPP family and in the European Commission, 13 out of 28 Commissioners come from EPP parties.
 
The election results in Austria say it all. I think there is a growing backlash against the left in the US and Europe. The left has had power (Obama; EU) for years now and look at where we are…it’s pathetic.
Scary actually, I think Hillary is sinking like a stone in water too. No telling what might happen to the DNC. The Rep party is coming back together nice and quick. Trump is meeting with the evangelicals in NY-June for family planning clarification.
Formal invitations will be sent out on Monday, confirmed a spokesman for the Family Research Council, JP Duffy. The meeting is an attempt to secure support from social conservatives, according to Fox News. The evangelical leaders meeting was first reported by Time magazine.
The gathering presents an opportunity for Trump to generate support from social conservatives ahead of November, as many have been struggling to understand Trump’s approach to their favored issues. That includes abortion,
 
There is actually, from a moral perspective. The Catechism tells us:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Owing to the dignity of the human body, confessions of guilt should not ideally be forced upon a person by degrading psychological or physical violence. Pope St. Nicholas was pretty clear on this in 866. Prince Boris of Bulgaria asked for his guidance on the laws then in place in his newly converted kingdom regarding judicial torture. The Pontiff was unequivocal that they were appalling. His reasoning bears attention:

The principle here is quite sound IMHO.

There are genuine moral issues here that should not be overlooked lightly.
But this assumes the premise, Vouthon. Nobody is arguing in favor of “torture”. The problem is that the Church does not define it with anything approaching precision, and everybody has his own (rather vague, usually) idea what really constitutes “torture”. Is it “degrading physical violence” to be wrestled down by a cop and cuffed? For most people it would be. Is that then forbidden? Is it “degrading psychological violence” to watch the FBI circling, circling, then getting one into an interview in which the slightest difference in nuance could result in one’s being impoverished by a criminal trial, public humiliation, followed perhaps by jail? Some would absolutely call that “torture” if they knew what it is like. People have killed themselves when facing it.

And what did Boris of Bulgaria propose to the Pope? Probably the tortures as conceived at the time; the hanging, the iron maiden, branding, slow impaling, the torture by “boats”, the various things most anyone would consider “torture”. But what about the “cursed morsel”? Not pleasant by any means, physically disturbing but not injuring. What about it?

I have repeatedly asked here on CAF for anyone to offer a bright line test for what torture is and what it isn’t, but nobody ever does.

All we ever see are conclusions, particularly as regards waterboarding. “Oh, it’s torture” some will say with absolute assurance. And yet, marines, navy seals, special forces and sometimes the merely curious undergo it voluntarily. But do people undergo acid baths, branding, being hanged upside down for hours or hanged so their arms come out of their sockets? No they don’t. We would all agree that those latter things are “torture”. But when people undergo something even extremely unpleasant for a reasonable objective or just out of curiosity, is it?

I think people can differ on that.

But there’s no differing when it comes to “dead”. Abortion’s very purpose is to kill. As has been said here before, if it was a matter of killing five-year-olds, or even 65-year-olds, nobody here, at least, would say it isn’t a terrific evil that had to be counterbalance by something at least as bad or worse in order to justify failing to oppose it. It is only because some in this society do not recognize unborn children as human beings (which the Church does) that anyone even so much as hesitates in his opposition to a candidate who promotes abortion on demand.

And if one juxtaposed waterboarding navy seals who volunteer for it, or shooting five-year-olds out of hand, nobody would say the two are comparable in their evil at all.
 
As a non-American, I obviously don’t have a dog in this race.

As a Catholic, however, I find both candidates morally repellent - albeit for very different reasons. I’m disappointed that it has come down to two thoroughly “damaged goods” individuals. I wouldn’t trust either to watch over my house while on holiday, let alone take upon him or herself the leadership of the free world.

Clinton isn’t people friendly and Trump is obnoxious. Would you want either one of them as dinner guests? Please be honest guys. Clinton’s for abortion on demand and has a corrupt reputation, Trump’s for torturing terror suspects, “taking out their families” and vulgarly compares trade agreements to sexual assault, as if raping a woman is somehow akin to a nation preferentializing itself in its trade policy. Wow, great day for democracy lads.

It’s dispiriting that this is apparently the best the system can deliver. Not a good showing IMHO.

In terms of voting guidelines, I always recommend that Catholics keep in mind the traditional “sins that cry to heaven”. From the Catechism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_that_cry_to_heaven

I will reiterate these 4/5 sins (depending on whether you judge 3 and 4 to be distinct or part and parcel of the same sin)::

(1) Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10]

(2) The sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]

(3) The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]

(4) The cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and

(5) Injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4]

Since I’m not American I won’t offer my own opinion but I do ask you all to consider this carefully and probe your consciences.

Measure the worth of the candidates by this. Who is the worst offender in relation to these grave, mortal sins that uniquely demand justice from God according to the catechitical tradition?
#1 Vouthon. Without question.

What, Vouthon, is “injustice to the wage earner”? Is it keeping him at a starvation wage unnecessarily, or is it paying him less than I pay myself though he makes $80,000/year and never thought he would even make that much? Which is “injustice”?

Is the “cry of the foreigner” the aspiration of a starving child in Haiti or my wish to become a citizen of the richest country on earth; Lichtenstein. If I “cry” to be a citizen of Lichtensein and am denied, does my cry go to heaven? I wouldn’t think so.

And even the sin of the sodomites. That’s often a sin of passion; Dante’s first circle. Does that compare with willful, cold-blooded murder?

All those others admit of degrees and interpretation of facts. Willful murder does not. Dead is dead.
 
But this assumes the premise, Vouthon. Nobody is arguing in favor of “torture”. The problem is that the Church does not define it with anything approaching precision, and everybody has his own (rather vague, usually) idea what really constitutes “torture”. Is it “degrading physical violence” to be wrestled down by a cop and cuffed? For most people it would be. Is that then forbidden? Is it “degrading psychological violence” to watch the FBI circling, circling, then getting one into an interview in which the slightest difference in nuance could result in one’s being impoverished by a criminal trial, public humiliation, followed perhaps by jail? Some would absolutely call that “torture” if they knew what it is like. People have killed themselves when facing it.

And what did Boris of Bulgaria propose to the Pope? Probably the tortures as conceived at the time; the hanging, the iron maiden, branding, slow impaling, the torture by “boats”, the various things most anyone would consider “torture”. But what about the “cursed morsel”? Not pleasant by any means, physically disturbing but not injuring. What about it?

I have repeatedly asked here on CAF for anyone to offer a bright line test for what torture is and what it isn’t, but nobody ever does.

All we ever see are conclusions, particularly as regards waterboarding. “Oh, it’s torture” some will say with absolute assurance. And yet, marines, navy seals, special forces and sometimes the merely curious undergo it voluntarily. But do people undergo acid baths, branding, being hanged upside down for hours or hanged so their arms come out of their sockets? No they don’t. We would all agree that those latter things are “torture”. But when people undergo something even extremely unpleasant for a reasonable objective or just out of curiosity, is it?

I think people can differ on that.

But there’s no differing when it comes to “dead”. Abortion’s very purpose is to kill. As has been said here before, if it was a matter of killing five-year-olds, or even 65-year-olds, nobody here, at least, would say it isn’t a terrific evil that had to be counterbalance by something at least as bad or worse in order to justify failing to oppose it. It is only because some in this society do not recognize unborn children as human beings (which the Church does) that anyone even so much as hesitates in his opposition to a candidate who promotes abortion on demand.

And if one juxtaposed waterboarding navy seals who volunteer for it, or shooting five-year-olds out of hand, nobody would say the two are comparable in their evil at all.
The point I’m getting at though concerns the principle Pope Nicholas laid down to Prince Boris:
Such a procedure is totally unacceptable under both divine and human law (quasi rem nec divina lex nec humana prosus admittit), since a confession should be spontaneous, not forced. It should be proffered voluntarily, not violently extorted.
It wasn’t just the matter of Bulgaria’s judicial laws involving cruel and unusual punishments…the Pope contended very clearly that it was against divine law to “force” or “violently extort” confession from a suspect of a crime.

I will admit that our prudential judgement can “fiddle,” so to speak, with the rights and wrongs of when to use force to apprehend a person.

But if the Church states that a confession to an alleged crime “should be spontaneous, not forced” - how can one defend even the use of waterboarding to exact a confession of guilt on the part of a terrorist suspect?

The issue lies not, at its heart, with the cruelty of the method - which I agree is up for debate.

No, the crux of the issue lies with what Pope Nicholas says above - confession of guilt should not be “violently extorted”. It is to do with respecting the dignity of a being created in God’s own image with the ability to consent, as well as a right not to be forced to consent against his/her will by means of harm inflicted or threats of harm being inflicted.

Waterboarding involves a cloth being placed over the face and breathing passages of an immobilized victim, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning - the purpose of which is to exact a confession of guilt as to an alleged crime, terrorism.

I don’t think, personally, that it passes Pope Nicholas’ test.

And his test operates with the same logic as today’s Church.
 
The point I’m getting at though concerns the principle Pope Nicholas laid down to Prince Boris:

It wasn’t just the matter of Bulgaria’s judicial laws involving cruel and unusual punishments…the Pope contended very clearly that it was against divine law to “force” or “violently extort” confession from a suspect of a crime.

I will admit that our prudential judgement can “fiddle,” so to speak, with the rights and wrongs of when to use force to apprehend a person.

But if the Church states that a confession to an alleged crime “should be spontaneous, not forced” - how can one defend even the use of waterboarding to exact a confession of guilt on the part of a terrorist suspect?

The issue lies not, at its heart, with the cruelty of the method - which I agree is up for debate.

No, the crux of the issue lies with what Pope Nicholas says above - confession of guilt should not be “violently extorted”.

Waterboarding involves a cloth being placed over the face and breathing passages of an immobilized victim, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning - the purpose of which is to exact a confession of guilt as to an alleged crime, terrorism.

I don’t think, personally, that it passes Pope Nicholas’ test.

And his test operates with the same logic as today’s Church.
Again, we don’t know what the tortures on Prince Boris’ list were. They were probably the common tortures of the time, which were well beyond appalling and massively worse than waterboarding; things like the “eagle” and the “secret brand”. Anymore, of course, anyone who’s waterboarded knows he’s not going to drown, and even those three who were waterboarded knew it at least after the first one.

If the Church really forbids anything other than a “spontaneous” confession, then almost nobody would ever be convicted based on a confession. There is actually a great deal of coercion involved in a confession in which the interrogator never so much as lays a hand on the accused. It’s all psychological.

And as extracted by the FBI (and undoubtedly many law enforcement agencies in England) the psychological pain and apprehension can be exquisite. And yet, they never touch the accused in interrogation.

It’s too easy to over-define “torture”, and many do. Every man has his own idea what it is.
 
#1 Vouthon. Without question.

What, Vouthon, is “injustice to the wage earner”? Is it keeping him at a starvation wage unnecessarily, or is it paying him less than I pay myself though he makes $80,000/year and never thought he would even make that much? Which is “injustice”?

Is the “cry of the foreigner” the aspiration of a starving child in Haiti or my wish to become a citizen of the richest country on earth; Lichtenstein. If I “cry” to be a citizen of Lichtensein and am denied, does my cry go to heaven? I wouldn’t think so.

And even the sin of the sodomites. That’s often a sin of passion; Dante’s first circle. Does that compare with willful, cold-blooded murder?

All those others admit of degrees and interpretation of facts. Willful murder does not. Dead is dead.
Yet the Bible and the Church has classed these sins as crying out to God, each in their own way. The Scriptures and Tradition have separated these sins out from all others as uniquely evil, or at least uniquely deserving of Divine Anger. We are not bound to ignore this. There has to be a reason why God has deigned to highlight these mortal sins above other grave sins and allocated them to a category by themselves.

They are uniquely evil, by divine decree. And there are four or five of them, not one.

Wilful murder comes first, because it is the most universally recognisable evil. But it’s not alone.

Just as the act of intentionally killing someone can, based upon the mens area or state of mind of the perpetrator and mitigating circumstances, amount to involuntary manslaughter, a crime of passion for adultery or an act of vengeance rather than wilful murder, the kinds of acts which could fall under the the three other “sins that cry to heaven” can have extenuating reasons for exempting the person committing them from full culpability.

But the Church has specified these as the gravest of sins.

Child molestation is intrinsically evil - for instance - and falls under sodomy according to the Church’s traditional definition. It’s fairly obvious. A child is a child, not sexually matured, and for an adult to sexually assault a person who cannot consent to a sexual act is as apparent as wilful murder.

The Church has always recognised this, as in:
Didsche 2:2 You shall do no murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not corrupt boys, you shall not commit fornication, …
Council (or Synod) of Elvira in 309:

"Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune, even when death approaches.”

I think you are wrong in suggesting that murder is the only objectively apparent intrinsically evil act.
 
Again, we don’t know what the tortures on Prince Boris’ list were.
Well, we do actually because the Pope mentioned them:
If a thief or bandit is apprehended and denies the charges against him, you tell me your custom is for a judge to beat him with blows to the head and tear the sides of his body with other sharp iron goads until he confesses the truth. Such a procedure is totally unacceptable
Note however that the Pope did not say that these acts alone were unacceptable - he said that the “procedure” itself, that is the very process of violently coerced confession that Boris’ justice system used by means of these tortures to exact confessions, was unacceptable.
If the Church really forbids anything other than a “spontaneous” confession, then almost nobody would ever be convicted based on a confession. There is actually a great deal of coercion involved in a confession in which the interrogator never so much as lays a hand on the accused. It’s all psychological.
The Church is implying that she forbids “violently extorting” confessions of an alleged crime.

Today, the Church has expanded that into the psychological sphere. I agree that this latter area is more tricky and grey. I do see SOME space for wiggle room here, in terms of how this is defined.

But waterboarding uses evident physical violence, a cloth over the face and simulated drowning, to exact confession for an alleged crime. Enforced drowning is an indisputably violent act.

I don’t see how it can be deemed acceptable under this principle.
 
Just as the act of intentionally killing someone can, based upon the mens area or state of mind of the perpetrator and mitigating circumstances, amount to involuntary manslaughter, a crime of passion for adultery or an act of vengeance rather than wilful murder, the kinds of acts which could fall under the the three other “sins that cry to heaven” can have extenuating reasons for exempting the person committing them from full culpability.
Oops typo, meant to say “voluntary manslaughter” here not involuntary!

Here’s a simple question I’d like answered: Do you think Donald Trump would agree or disagree with what Pope St. Nicholas says here in Ad Consulta Vestra?:
Such a procedure is totally unacceptable under both divine and human law (quam rem nec divina lex nec humana prorsus admittit), since a confession should be spontaneous, not forced. It should be proffered voluntarily, not violently extorted.
I mean, Trump said this:
I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.
 
Politics.

Welcome back to Election Season in the USA on Game Show Network, hosted by: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders!
 


But waterboarding uses evident physical violence, a cloth over the face and simulated drowning, to exact confession for an alleged crime. Enforced drowning is an indisputably violent act.

I don’t see how it can be deemed acceptable under this principle.
As used very infrequently by America in the War on Terror, waterboarding was not used to extract a confession. There was deliberate attempts to not define terrorists as criminals but as people at war with America. Any such confession would be useless in a court of law in any Western justice system at any rate.

Waterboarding was used in the War on Terror to gain timely information at a time when massive hijacking attacks were coincident with anthrax attacks, and nobody really had a clue what was going to happen next.

That is not to say that waterboarding is not wrong, nor even categorically wrong. It may well be. Myself, I an not much of an ideologue on this kind of matter, but am quite open to finding where the path of* lessening of evil *lies.

For example, I would have consider timely information that would prevent the Oklahoma bombing of children in a day care a lessening of evil compared to any temporary discomfort that it might cause a racist like Tim McVeigh.
Wouldn’t you? Who would have priority in such a situation?

On the other side of the ledger, the greatest torturers and mass murderers that the world have ever produced have carried on their business under the auspice of governmental legitimacy. A world where torture is considered a legitimate and normal way to extract information would therefore not be a lessening of evil, but an increase of evil.

There are other things to consider as well. For example is it a lessening of evil to kill(drone) the terrorist rather than capture him and extract information through controlled and limited enhanced interrogation methods?
Or is neither/nor a moral option when this would result in terrorists killing people indiscriminately without any opposition whatsoever.
 
Oops typo, meant to say “voluntary manslaughter” here not involuntary!

Here’s a simple question I’d like answered: Do you think Donald Trump would agree or disagree with what Pope St. Nicholas says here in Ad Consulta Vestra?:

I mean, Trump said this:
Mr Trump has disavowed the use of torture:

*Mr. Trump, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal about his views on harsh interrogation of terror suspects, said he would “use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.”

He added, “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”
*

Have either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders disavowed their support of abortion?
 
There are three fonts (sources) of morality:
  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. circumstances
Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The morality of human acts depends on: the object chosen; the end in view or the intention; the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.” (CCC, n. 1750.)

Compendium of the Catechism: “The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.” (Compendium, n. 367.)

USCCB Catechism: “Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act… All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act.” (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, July 2006, p. 311-312.)

And so goes the story of Intrinsic Evil. Now think about what never happened with Trump in comparison to the factual reality of the Obama/Clinton Democratic socialism of the liberal left.

Further…
to exact confession for an alleged crime.
Doesn’t only rely on the physical but also verbal and psychological. Much of this is even discerned today with not just international and conflict, but national with incarceration and treatment of the detained which could easily extend to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Bill of Rights. So no there is no clear defined meaning but a basic paradigm of boundaries imho and we can fit a good deal of what goes on today and has been going on into the realm of consideration as we see above. Or as mentioned much earlier about solitary confinement in the cold, dark, naked with restricted food. Lets not pretend we have a well mannered dept of correction on a state or federal level or that the very abuses mentioned don’t in fact take place daily as they have been repetitively addressed in the justice system. Clearly just alone in the state prison of Fla in Miami horror was front and center this year with burning inmates to death in boiling hot showers, neglected medical and verbal and psychological abuse while that went on.

Frankly I don’t see a point unless the point is to indicate what a horror show this administration is and in fact the entire Democratic Socialist party of extreme left gone wild agenda.

miamiherald.com/news/special-reports/florida-prisons/

So while Trump in fact hasn’t involved himself in any area of this its quite apparent the transgressions continue today
  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. circumstances
The Obama fundamental change contended for and in fact democratic socialism in America and succeeding, fails on all three points and I content should be condemned.
 
Instead of making an issue where none exists perhaps we should look at the existing where Vets are called to come in for an appointment when they already died waiting. But I guess waiting in line to die is the same as a ride on “space mountain”. Maybe we ought to take a good look at how our own troops are treated for 100 pages or so.

miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article79393397.html

Hows that work under cruel and unusual and the Bill of Rights. Were those rude comments verbal and psychological abuse and what about the treatment? Or just an ignorant leftist working for a corrupt Obama/Clinton team?
WASHINGTON
Critics said Monday that Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald had trivialized the long-standing problem of lengthy wait times for appointments at California’s veterans medical centers by comparing them to waiting in long lines at Disneyland. Apparently the socialized meds are not only deadly and a joke, but also contend to disregard “Human Rights” USCCB, again “Human Rights” this an attack on religious freedom and liberty let alone an argument to me made about the Bill of Rights a cruel treatment. Obama doubled down on his socialized meds attack.
His comments sparked an angry backlash from California lawmakers who felt that he had dismissed the angst and frustration of their constituents. McDonald made the comments Monday during a roundtable discussion with reporters hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.
“When you go to Disneyland, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line?” he said. “What’s important? What’s important is: What’s your satisfaction with the experience?”
Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., said in a statement that McDonald’s comparison to the lines at Disneyland Park “is utterly out of touch.”
“The wait times sure as hell did matter to the veterans who died while waiting for services,” he said. “The wait times sure as hell do matter to the veterans who call my office because they are struggling to get in to see a VA doctor. . . . Why is that so hard for our VA secretary to understand?”
Apparently the left meandering about what “might” happen is more important than what IS happening.
 
Interestingly, Pope St. Nicholas also refers to capital punishment in Ad Consulta Vestra:

legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp

Chapter XVII.

Now then, you have told us about how you received the Christian religion by divine clemency and made your entire people be baptized, and how these people, after they had been baptized, rose up unanimously and fiercely against you, claiming that you had not given them a good law and also wishing to kill you and establish another king; and how you, having been readied against them with the help of divine power, conquered them from the greatest to the least and held them captives in your hands, and how all the leaders and magnates along with every one of their children were slaughtered by the sword, though the mediocre and lesser persons suffered no evil. Now you desire to know whether you have contracted any sin on account of those who were deprived of their lives ** Clearly what you did not escape without sin nor could have happened without your fault, was that a child who was not privy to their parents’ plot nor is proven to have born arms against you, was slaughtered along with the guilty, although innocent**. For after the Psalmist said: I shall not go to my seat in the counsel of vanity and with people who do iniquitous deeds, I have hated the gatherings of the wicked and I shall not sit with the impious, [Ps. 25:4-5] he says a little while later in this regard, while praying to the Lord: Do not destroy my soul with the impious nor my life with the men of blood.[Ps. 25:9]…**You also should have acted with greater mildness concerning the parents who were captured, that is, [you should have] spared their lives for the love of the God **Who delivered them into your hands. For thus you might be able to say to God without hesitation in the Lord’s prayer: Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.[Mt. 6:12] But you also could have saved those who died while fighting, but you did not permit them to live nor did you wish to save them, and in this you clearly did not act on good advice; for it is written: There shall be judgment without mercy for the person, who does not exercise mercy;[James 2:13] and through the abovementioned prophet the Lord says: Is it my will that the wicked man should die, sayeth the Lord God, and not that he be converted from his ways and may live?[Ez. 18:23] But because you erred more because of your zeal for the Christian religion and your ignorance than because of any other vice, with subsequent penance seek mercy and indulgence for these sins through the grace of Christ…

Chapter XXV.

You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this. Now then, you are asking us, what we think about this practice. One should look through the laws concerning this matter. Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,[cf. Acts 9:1] later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.[cf. II Cor. 12:15] In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found. [cf. Rom. 7:6] And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death, according to the saying of the most wise Solomon: Save those, who are led to death; and do not cease freeing those who are brought to their destruction. [Prov. 24:11]

Chapter XL.

You say that it is a custom of your country that, **before you set out for battle, a most faithful and prudent man is sent by your lordship, who inspects all the arms, horses, and things which are necessary for battle; and if, at someone’s home, they are found to have been readied in a useless fashion, that person receives capital punishment: **now you wish to know what we think should be done in this case. Truly we encourage you to turn all this [attention] to the arming of your spiritual weaponry and we advise you to turn the rigor of such great severity to the exercise of piety. For just as the preparation of arms and horses was hitherto investigated as to whether they were well suited to oppose the visible enemy, so now you should zealously inquire as to whether each person possesses their spiritual arms, i.e. good works, in readiness against the princes and the powers, against the worldly rulers of these shadows, against the spirits of iniquity in heaven.[Eph. 6:12]
 
Let us again compare Pope St. Nicholas in A.D. 866 to Donald Trump in A.D. 2015/16. The topic: whether it is permissible to kill the families of criminals and whether the criminals themselves should be killed.

Pope St. Nicholas:
How you, having been readied against them with the help of divine power, conquered them from the greatest to the least and held them captives in your hands, and how all the leaders and magnates along with every one of their children were slaughtered by the sword though the mediocre and lesser persons suffered no evil.** Now you desire to know whether you have contracted any sin on account of those who were deprived of their lives.**
** Clearly what you did not escape without sin nor could have happened without your fault, was that a child who was not privy to their parents’ plot nor is proven to have born arms against you, was slaughtered along with the guilty, although innocent**. For after the Psalmist said: I shall not go to my seat in the counsel of vanity and with people who do iniquitous deeds, I have hated the gatherings of the wicked and I shall not sit with the impious, [Ps. 25:4-5] he says a little while later in this regard, while praying to the Lord: Do not destroy my soul with the impious nor my life with the men of blood.[Ps. 25:9]…**You also should have acted with greater mildness concerning the parents who were captured, that is, [you should have] spared their lives for the love of the God **Who delivered them into your hands
Donald Trump:
The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families
So who stands with Pope St. Nicholas and who stands with Donald Trump on this one?

Should one “take them out”, though perfectly innocent of any crime, or not?

:hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top