Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Vouthon]

No. The problem is disagreement with the premises. I, for one, do not agree that waterboarding is an “intrinsic evil”, nor do I agree that it’s “torture”. Certainly, the Church doesn’t say either thing.

Nor do I agree that Trump is definitely (or even probably) favoring targeting noncombatants as noncombatants. He never said that, and I don’t think that’s what he meant.

But the Church absolutely characterizes elective abortion as an intrinsic evil. No question about it.

Waterboarding is a form of torture.

Is or isn’t it a violent method, simulated drowning and a cloth to restrict breathing, intended to force a suspect to confess to a crime?

If it is - and it is - then it is torture and intrinsically evil.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It is, and it hasn’t changed much for a long time.

On the one hand, there are those who think waterboarding is worse than abortion on demand.

On the other, there are those who think abortion on demand is worse than waterboarding.

Never the twain shall meet.

Abortion is a travesty and a terrible evil.

And I don’t believe that Trump will do anything to stop it.

So I’m not voting for either one.

The voting for a lesser evil concept did not matter at all to Republicans during this very long, painful and cringe worthy primary cycle.

There were candidates who actually were prolife. There were candidates with prolife backgrounds. That didn’t matter.

What we have to go on is Mr. Trump is opposed to abortion due to a superstar. When pressed, he said that first trimester abortions should be legal, and that the republican platform should change.

That’s why we have this dilemma.

I’ve been against trump since the beginning of this.

 

[sallybutler]

The problem with Trump is he says something “off the cuff”, then someone tells him why that is not politically correct for the Republican base.

What happens if he changes his advisors? Currently he is being kept somewhat in line, but I think that is because he wants to be President, not necessarily because he agrees with the more moderated positions. Do people really believe he will be controllable by the Republican Party once he becomes President?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

There seems to be a circular form of reasoning at play, which goes to this effect…

If you don’t agree with Trump’s stance on torture and non-combatants, then you invariably must be an apologist for Clinton’s advocacy of abortion on demand - even if you strenuously reject this as being true.

And because Clinton backs abortion and this is intrinsically evil, Trump’s backing of the targeting of non-combatants and advocacy of torture must somehow be acceptable and not intrinsically evil.

In the minds of people adhering to this reasoning here, it seems to be impossible for them to comprehend that a person genuinely would believe, with all sincerity, that abortion, targeting non-combatants and torturing suspects are all intrinsic evils.

It’s all part of some secret plot to back Clinton , as if I am somehow an admirer of her person because I criticise a man who supports torture and targeting non-combatants

I agree with you.

I feel like I’m required to just focus on the positive statements Mr. Trump might come up with, and overlook all the negative AND the contradictory statements of the positive statements.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t overlook anything but in light of the weight of two evils and the lesser on the balance scale, we have speculation on one hand thus opinion and nothing more, fueled by extreme socialist liberal thinking on the other. One ata boy added to the scale for enthusiasm.

This is in contrast to the fact of a partisan socialist party imposition of the state in various areas of human rights and not just abortion but socialized medicine, traditional marriage and war. Here we have a complete neglect and abuse of many human rights and of religious freedom.

The legal demand for justice by the peoples and for a recognition of human rights and religious liberty has been meet with cold rejection and a promise of more persecution… And thats aside from the majority in consensus as with abortion restrictions. Obama and Clinton chose not to rid the states of these situations of injustice and oppression, but to double down on their socialist agenda to hurry its oppression to its fruition. Oddly we have the religious contending for more human rights atrocity with fervor in the name of socialism and liberalism both addressed by the Church instead of in fact safeguarding the human rights as priority and the religious freedom. The opinion of Trump doesn’t top the factual reality of the socialism and liberalism gone astray and venturing into its usual morph a stranglehold on its people.

You have one straw on the empty balance scale due to Vs fervor not Trumps fact of action. The other side is still dragging on the ground with sin and complete neglect of the word of God.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Waterboarding is a form of torture.

Is or isn’t it a violent method, simulated drowning and a cloth to restrict breathing, intended to force a suspect to confess to a crime?

If it is - and it is - then it is torture and intrinsically evil.

That’s your definition of torture, and I should commend you for being only the second person on CAF who has offered one.

I don’t agree that it’s adequate, though, because it’s both too inclusive and too exclusive.

 

[Vouthon]

That’s your definition of torture, and I should commend you for being only the second person on CAF who has offered one.

I don’t agree that it’s adequate, though, because it’s both too inclusive and too exclusive.

But Ridge - my definition comes from Pope St. Nicholas the Great in Ad Consulta Vestra.

I’m not cooking it up from my own head.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Abortion is a travesty and a terrible evil.

And I don’t believe that Trump will do anything to stop it.

So I’m not voting for either one.

The voting for a lesser evil concept did not matter at all to Republicans during this very long, painful and cringe worthy primary cycle.

There were candidates who actually were prolife. There were candidates with prolife backgrounds. That didn’t matter.

What we have to go on is Mr. Trump is opposed to abortion due to a superstar. When pressed, he said that first trimester abortions should be legal, and that the republican platform should change.

That’s why we have this dilemma.

I’ve been against trump since the beginning of this.

For most “never Trumpers” the last line above is the operative one. They just don’t like the man as a person and didn’t from the first; probably even before he started running.

Voting for some third party person is failing to oppose an absolute evil. Sit out the moral struggle against the greatest evil in our time if you want, but I do not feel free to do it, any more than I would feel free to not lift a finger while a toddler was being strangled in front of me.

The reason why this seems to be a “dilemma” to at least some (not saying you’re one) is that they don’t actually accept the Church’s position that unborn children are human beings. If they did, they would oppose Hillary Clinton with everything in them, and they would do it not with futile gestures but with their votes, at very minimum.

For others, the blasé attitude engendered by those who regard an unborn child as a “piece of tissue”, leads them to accept an evil as if somehow it wasn’t one.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

How do you feel about Hillary’s stance on UFO’s? Pretty whacky if you ask me. Hope this isn’t going to be the major focus of her campaign.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But Ridge - my definition comes from Pope St. Nicholas the Great in Ad Consulta Vestra.

I’m not cooking it up from my own head.

Well if it is his definition, I still think it’s inadequate, because it would include all forms of restraint, the sole other qualification being that it have a purpose of gaining information. That would apply to interrogating a criminal after arrest. He’s restrained either by violence or threat of violence and the interlocutor is trying to obtain information.

Indeed, the state uses violence or threat of violence merely to have us tell the truth on our tax returns. Don’t file a return, you get arrested.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Course I hate to repeat the liberal socialist argument but the qualifier here; “Well if it is ‘his’ definition” is debatable

Being actually his or an opinion of what he said? Like us with abortion in regard to the left we always need a preponderance of evidence which coincides. They usually reject all that in favor of their favorite Bishop at the moment.

 

[Vouthon]

Well if it is his definition, I still think it’s inadequate, because it would include all forms of restraint, the sole other qualification being that it have a purpose of gaining information. That would apply to interrogating a criminal after arrest. He’s restrained either by violence or threat of violence and the interlocutor is trying to obtain information.

Indeed, the state uses violence or threat of violence merely to have us tell the truth on our tax returns. Don’t file a return, you get arrested.

He says that to violently extort a confession from a person suspected of a crime is against the divine law.

St. Pope John Paul II and Vatican II both define torture as an intrinsic evil. Torture must have a definition according to their understanding for it to be an intrinsically evil act - there is no such thing as a non-existent intrinsic evil.

So what do you think they are referring too???

Let’s look again at what Pope Nicholas says. You know the context now with Khan Boris and the pagan uprising. Here’s a different translation:

** Chapter LXXXVI.

If a thief or a robber is apprehended and denies that he is involved, you say that in your country the judge would beat his head with lashes and prick his sides with iron goads until he came up with the truth. Neither divine nor human law allows this procedure in any way, since a confession should be spontaneous, not compelled, and should not be elicited with violence but rather proferred voluntarily**…

Therefore leave such practices behind and heartily curse the things which you have hitherto done foolishly. Indeed, what fruit shall you have in those practices, of which you are now ashamed. Finally when a free man is caught in a crime, unless he is first found guilty of some wicked deed, he either falls victim to the punishment after being convicted by three witnesses or, if he cannot be convicted, he is absolved after swearing upon the holy Gospel that he did not commit [the crime] which is laid against him, and from that moment on the matter is at an end, just as the oft-mentioned Apostle, the teacher of the nations, attests, when he says: an oath for confirmation is an end of all their strife.[Heb. 6:16]

Please tell me what he is saying, in your own opinion.

 

[Bataar]

Abortion is a travesty and a terrible evil.

And I don’t believe that Trump will do anything to stop it.

So I’m not voting for either one.

The voting for a lesser evil concept did not matter at all to Republicans during this very long, painful and cringe worthy primary cycle.

There were candidates who actually were prolife. There were candidates with prolife backgrounds. That didn’t matter.

What we have to go on is Mr. Trump is opposed to abortion due to a superstar. When pressed, he said that first trimester abortions should be legal, and that the republican platform should change.

That’s why we have this dilemma.

I’ve been against trump since the beginning of this.

So you have two candidates, one, according to you, won’t do anything to stop abortion. The other candidate will do everything in her power to make sure it’s as available as possible even going so far as to force Catholic hospitals to perform them. You think those two positions are equally bad? The next president will probably get at least two Supreme Court picks. Without batting an eye, I would say Trump’s picks would be better than Hilary’s. You’re right that we don’t know how far Trump will go. At best, he might work to stop or limit it. At worst, he ignores it. But we do know how far Hilary will go to promote it. The fact that anyone can draw a line of equality between those two positions in scary.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So you have two candidates, one, according to you, won’t do anything to stop abortion. The other candidate will do everything in her power to make sure it’s as available as possible even going so far as to force Catholic hospitals to perform them. You think those two positions are equally bad? The next president will probably get at least two Supreme Court picks. Without batting an eye, I would say Trump’s picks would be better than Hilary’s.

If Trump picks two prolifers for the Supreme Court, he’ll do more than anyone else has been able to do. It doesn’t matter whether he’s a committed prolifer himself or not. Even being neutral on the subject is acceptable if he makes those prolife appointments.

We know Hillary will appoint pro-abortionists because she has said she would.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He says that to violently extort a confession from a person suspected of a crime is against the divine law.

St. Pope John Paul II and Vatican II both define torture as an intrinsic evil. Torture must have a definition according to their understanding for it to be an intrinsically evil act - there is no such thing as a non-existent intrinsic evil.

So what do you think they are referring too???

Let’s look again at what Pope Nicholas says. You know the context now with Khan Boris and the pagan uprising. Here’s a different translation:

Please tell me what he is saying, in your own opinion.

I don’t know what Bishop Nicholas intended subjectively. But objectively he admonished Boris against lashing peoples’ heads and pricking their sides with iron goads to get them to confess. So would I.

But the rest is begging the question. Yes, Pope JPII said torture is an intrinsic evil. But he doesn’t tell us what “torture” is, and he certainly didn’t include waterboarding in it, even though he surely knew about it. No bright line definition. Oftentimes when the Church decries an evil in general terms, it’s because it’s difficult or impossible to define it in more precise terms because it admits of degrees. “Torture” is, for almost everybody, a subjective thing. As I said before, running five miles under a 70 lb pack would be “torture” to me, subjectively. To a Marine, it isn’t even if it’s just as painful to him as it is to me. The difference is a subjective judgment.

Now, with a Marine undergoing waterboarding, the purpose is to develop physical bravery and fortitude. With a known terrorist, the purpose is to save the lives of others. As between the two, the second is more meritorious than the first.

But there are no degrees of “alive” and 'dead". In an abortion, the child is intended to be dead, and becomes dead. There are no degrees to it. For that reason, the Church says elective abortion is always gravely evil. It does not say the same thing about waterboarding, harsh interrogation, forceful arrests, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement or any of the “enhanced interrogation” methods that are sometimes used in law enforcement or military intelligence.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well thats easy, first off he was specifically referring to this…

He says that to violently extort a confession from a person suspected of a crime is against the divine law.

But that happens everyday and in various ways just in the justice system. Its why the conversation exists.

beat his head with lashes and prick his sides with iron goads until he came up with the truth. Neither divine nor human law allows this procedure in any way,

Course none of that is in play for starts which is in relation to the below for one. But this…

a confession should be spontaneous, not compelled, and should not be elicited with violence but rather proferred voluntarily…

However, by that definition strictly speaking we have Miranda rights violations daily which are compelled confessions and could be violent and may be un voluntarily. Thus a wide reading between the boundary of what is torture defined thus the on-going conversation. I don’t know we would contend a violation of miranda is torture. If theres a case I haven’t seen it. Of course, as with nearly all legal rules, there are exceptions. So we have a wide boundary and of course an on going conversation.

Further since the above with Pope Nicholas the Inquisition bought torture, mutilation, mass murder, and destruction of human life and rights. Pope Innocent IV approved the use of torture as defined to extract confessions of heresy with the bull Ad extirpanda. He aggressively applied the principle that “the end justifies the means.”

Law 25.
26. The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, 8
provided he does so without
killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the
sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and
specify their motives, 9
and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended
them,as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they
have committed

We know torture is intrinsic evil but those boundaries as we see are hard to define.

 

[gracepoole]

No. The problem is disagreement with the premises. I, for one, do not agree that waterboarding is an “intrinsic evil”, nor do I agree that it’s “torture”. Certainly, the Church doesn’t say either thing.

Are we still pretending there’s a legitimate argument to be had about this? Of course it’s torture. Even Trump says so. And he’s said he’ll do worse.

Nor do I agree that Trump is definitely (or even probably) favoring targeting noncombatants as noncombatants. He never said that, and I don’t think that’s what he meant.

He clearly said we have to “take out their families.” Only truly desperate supporters of his would claim he didn’t mean he advocates targeting noncombatants.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

For most “never Trumpers” the last line above is the operative one. They just don’t like the man as a person and didn’t from the first; probably even before he started running.

Voting for some third party person is failing to oppose an absolute evil. Sit out the moral struggle against the greatest evil in our time if you want, but I do not feel free to do it, any more than I would feel free to not lift a finger while a toddler was being strangled in front of me.

The reason why this seems to be a “dilemma” to at least some (not saying you’re one) is that they don’t actually accept the Church’s position that unborn children are human beings. If they did, they would oppose Hillary Clinton with everything in them, and they would do it not with futile gestures but with their votes, at very minimum.

For others, the blasé attitude engendered by those who regard an unborn child as a “piece of tissue”, leads them to accept an evil as if somehow it wasn’t one.

I’ve been against Trump from the beginning is because of the life issues. There were stronger pro-life candidates from the beginning.

Republicans who voted for Trump, voted for a greater evil in regards to abortion. Even with Trump’s gaffes, with his support of Planned Parenthood, the suggestion that women who have abortions would face criminal prosecution, the suggestion that women would need to go to illegal places for abortions.

The life issues were on the back burner primary after primary and now we are faced with this.

 

[TMC]

Not entirely. The exact reason, and the only reason, why I left the Dem party was its endorsement and support of abortion on demand. I never became a Repub. Now, I’ll admit the Dem party has lurched far to the left of where it was when I left it, and it keeps doing so; this time by a quantum jump. So I would not be going back anyway. But I have never approved all things Repub.

And interestingly, most of the people I went to school with are the same way. In a Catholic college at the time everybody was a Democrat and a liberal. Almost none are now. Abortion on demand is what really did that.

I understand that there are also single issue voters for whom literally nothing matters except abortion. In practice, those voters often look a lot like the hyper partisan GOPers that I described earlier. Also, to be clear, there are also hyper partisan Dems, it is not a GOP-only trait.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

He says that to violently extort a confession from a person suspected of a crime is against the divine law.

St. Pope John Paul II and Vatican II both define torture as an intrinsic evil. Torture must have a definition according to their understanding for it to be an intrinsically evil act - there is no such thing as a non-existent intrinsic evil.

So what do you think they are referring too???

Let’s look again at what Pope Nicholas says. You know the context now with Khan Boris and the pagan uprising. Here’s a different translation:

Please tell me what he is saying, in your own opinion.

Trump refers to waterboarding as torture in his own words.

Am I supposed to think “Oh he doesn’t mean it” ? and at the same time “Oh what a wonderful defender of the unborn he is, because his friend had a superstar.”