Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[estesbob]

If a candidate supported starting a nuclear war, and I believed he/she could and would do so, that would make me a single issue voter, yes.

The Church as an institution is not hyper partisan - it is not partisan at all. The Church takes strong positions on many life issues, not just abortion, and equally strong positions on many other issues. I believe in looking at all of those issues and making a judgment. If a particular Catholic voter decides that he or she is only going to look at a single issue, that is their choice. That is not, however, what the Church teaches.

The issue I have, as you likely know after years of these discussions, is that Catholics should not be told that the Church mandates that they vote for or against a particular candidate or party, because it does not. Catholics are certainly free to express why they think a particular candidate or party is better. But it is not correct to say that the Church teaches that a Catholic must vote for or against either major party candidate.

But that is not what the Church teaches.The Church teaches you can NEVER vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro_abortion than they are. By some people’s definition that makes Holy Mother Church “hyper-partisan”

 

[TMC]

But that is not what the Church teaches.The Church teaches you can NEVER vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro_abortion than they are. By some people’s definition that makes Holy Mother Church “hyper-partisan”

That is not what the Church teaches.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If a candidate supported starting a nuclear war, and I believed he/she could and would do so, that would make me a single issue voter, yes.

No one is really a single issue voter because there are no single issue candidates of platforms. There may be a priority but your buying the whole package not a part. Further Obama and Hillary nuclear thinking went from disarming to Nuclear proliferation. In fact guided smart atom bombs.

The Church as an institution is not hyper partisan - it is not partisan at all. The Church takes strong positions on many life issues, not just abortion, and equally strong positions on many other issues. I believe in looking at all of those issues and making a judgment. If a particular Catholic voter decides that he or she is only going to look at a single issue, that is their choice. That is not, however, what the Church teaches.

The priority and importance in human rights has been abortion

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/on-the-importance-and-priority-of-defending-innocent-human-life.cfm

The issue I have, as you likely know after years of these discussions, is that Catholics should not be told that the Church mandates that they vote for or against a particular candidate or party, because it does not. Catholics are certainly free to express why they think a particular candidate or party is better. But it is not correct to say that the Church teaches that a Catholic must vote for or against either major party candidate.

True but their teaching on abortion, human rights, soclalism/socialized meds, liberalism, and religious liberty weigh heavily against the democratic party and thats just being honest. And quoting V again above its about being Catholic first not American first. Much confusion resides in that concept I agree,

 

[GaryTaylor]

So, your conclusion from this is he’s going to target noncombatants

He never said noncombatants. Your point is a strawman. The conversation was isis related, a intrinsic .

Obama is doing this today as we speak “noncombatants” and thats a fact and killing innocents and Hillary more of the same, maybe worse as she is scandalous. A 40 year record of scandal.

 

[estesbob]

That is not what the Church teaches.

As always we should turn to the Magestrium:

The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

Pope Benedict XVI

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”

Cardinal Burke

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be

Cardinal Burke

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, your conclusion from this is he’s going to target noncombatants and make them suffer but he stops short of saying he’ll kill them and you think that’s ok. Later he says, “There has to be retribution and if there’s not going to be retribution, you aren’t going to stop terrorism”. Again, I guess that’s ok.

I’m sorry, His words are plain and there for anyone to see. The verbal gymnastics taking place on this forum to excuse the comments of Trump are worthy of an Olympic event.

I think it takes at least as much in the way of gymnastics to make him out the ogre the Clinton supporters want to make him. One thing’s for sure, he never said he would seek out noncombatants in the absence of terrorists being in their midst.

And what is the whole Afghanistan adventure other than retribution?

All his statement above says is that you can’t stop an aggressor if the aggressor pays no price for it.

But regardless, eventually the Clinton internet cadres will come in here and fill page after page after page and generate thread after thread telling Catholics how voting for Hillary Clinton is not only okay, it’s actually virtuous. It happened in 2008 and 2012 with Obama, and it will happen here again in 2016. Obama had his “Catholic apologists” and so will Clinton. And if Clinton is elected, it won’t end because how is she going to get us to “change our religion” unless she stays after us?

 

[estesbob]

I think it takes at least as much in the way of gymnastics to make him out the ogre the Clinton supporters want to make him. One thing’s for sure, he never said he would seek out noncombatants in the absence of terrorists being in their midst.

And what is the whole Afghanistan adventure other than retribution?

All his statement above says is that you can’t stop an aggressor if the aggressor pays no price for it.

But regardless, eventually the Clinton internet cadres will come in here and fill page after page after page and generate thread after thread telling Catholics how voting for Hillary Clinton is not only okay, it’s actually virtuous. It happened in 2008 and 2012 with Obama, and it will happen here again in 2016. Obama had his “Catholic apologists” and so will Clinton. And if Clinton is elected, it won’t end because how is she going to get us to “change our religion” unless she stays after us?

 

[Vouthon]

Our Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as ever, had so many wise words to say on judicial torture:

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria.html

Judicial and penal institutions play a fundamental role in protecting citizens and safeguarding the common good (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2266). At the same time, they are to aid in rebuilding “social relationships disrupted by the criminal act committed” (cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 403). By their very nature, therefore, these institutions must contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders, facilitating their transition from despair to hope and from unreliability to dependability. When conditions within jails and prisons are not conducive to the process of regaining a sense of a worth and accepting its related duties, these institutions fail to achieve one of their essential ends. Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. **In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances” **(Ibid., 404).

Pope Benedict was quoting from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (404):

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim.” …This is] a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

The position of the Church today echoes that of Pope St. Nicholas the Great.

That document, in turn, cites a speech given by St. John Paul II to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1982, in which he said: “Of their own accord, disciples of Christ will reject torture, which nothing can justify, which causes humiliation and suffering to the victim and degrades the tormentor.”

As stated, no Catholic is entitled to diverge from the Magisterium on the question of torture.

One can diverge with respect to capital punishment, actually, but not torture.

Catholics can never legitimately defend the use of torture - not even in extreme circumstances to gain potentially life-saving information from known terrorists.

I know some cannot stomach this truth but don’t shoot the messenger.

In their 2007 document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued: “A prime example (of intrinsically evil actions) is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. Direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos are also intrinsically evil. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror war, can never be justified".

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Our Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as ever, had so many wise words to say on judicial torture:

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria.html

Pope Benedict was quoting from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (404):

The position of the Church today echoes that of Pope St. Nicholas the Great.

That document, in turn, cites a speech given by St. John Paul II to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1982, in which he said: “Of their own accord, disciples of Christ will reject torture, which nothing can justify, which causes humiliation and suffering to the victim and degrades the tormentor.”

As stated, no Catholic is entitled to diverge from the Magisterium on the question of torture.

One can diverge with respect to capital punishment, actually, but not torture.

Catholics can never legitimately defend the use of torture - not even in extreme circumstances to gain potentially life-saving information from known terrorists.

I know some cannot stomach this truth but don’t shoot the messenger.

In their 2007 document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued: “A prime example (of intrinsically evil actions) is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. Direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos are also intrinsically evil. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror war, can never be justified".

And I just wanted to add, Trump has used the term torture.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And I just wanted to add, Trump has used the term torture.

How does he define it? Do you know, and do you know what he considers out of bounds?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

How does he define it? Do you know, and do you know what he considers out of bounds?

He has called waterboarding torture. He’s not even trying to give us a benign sounding euphemism like “enhanced interrogation”.

And he wants to go beyond. He’s also made statements that we are limited compared to Isis, and the playing field should be more level.

“Look, I think we have to change our law on the waterboarding thing, where they can chop off heads and drown people in cages, in heavy steel cages and we can’t water board,” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We have to change our laws and we have to be able to fight at least on almost equal basis. We have laws that we have to obey in terms of torture. They have no laws whatsoever that they have to obey.”

Almost equal basis to Isis.

This person is going to end abortion?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Our Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as ever, had so many wise words to say on judicial torture:

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria.html

Pope Benedict was quoting from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (404):

The position of the Church today echoes that of Pope St. Nicholas the Great.

That document, in turn, cites a speech given by St. John Paul II to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1982, in which he said: “Of their own accord, disciples of Christ will reject torture, which nothing can justify, which causes humiliation and suffering to the victim and degrades the tormentor.”

As stated, no Catholic is entitled to diverge from the Magisterium on the question of torture.

One can diverge with respect to capital punishment, actually, but not torture.

Catholics can never legitimately defend the use of torture - not even in extreme circumstances to gain potentially life-saving information from known terrorists.

I know some cannot stomach this truth but don’t shoot the messenger.

In their 2007 document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued: “A prime example (of intrinsically evil actions) is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. Direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos are also intrinsically evil. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror war, can never be justified".

The Clinton playbook on “lines to use on Catholics” just doesn’t contain a Church definition of torture or anything waterboarding is torture, or anything directly condemning Hillary Clinton’s opponent, which must be endlessly frustrating to the pro-abortion crowd.

But they’ll do their best even so.

Interesting the part about how racism can never be justified. If I see a group of black teenagers coming toward me on the street in “gangsta” attire, and worry about my safety, is that racism? Is it particularly so if I wouldn’t be concerned if I saw a group of uber-white Mormon missionaries with their neckties coming toward me?

Well, it is in a sense, because I am expecting bad from the blacks and benignity from the whites. But can it never be justified? More to the point, is it equal to a million murdered unborn children per year?

Of course it isn’t. Let’s say I see a black applicant for a job but hire a white instead because I think a white is more likely to perform well than the black. Is that racism? Absolutely. But is it “equally grave” to killing a million children per year? Of course not.

What the Clinton supporters never wish to acknowledge is that abortion is in a class by itself because it admits of no degrees. Killing a child is killing a child, and the child remains killed. It’s always gravely evil and no other evil is “proportionate” to it in today’s political contests in the U.S.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He has called waterboarding torture. He’s not even trying to give us a benign sounding euphemism like “enhanced interrogation”.

And he wants to go beyond. He’s also made statements that we are limited compared to Isis, and the playing field should be more level.

Almost equal basis to Isis.

This person is going to end abortion?

If that’s how some wish to interpret him, they will, no matter what I or Trump or anyone else says. Interesting how his use of expression and language most people use every day is so offensive and off limits to some when it’s in the political arena.

We have been taught well by the left to be politically correct except, of course, when someone on the left goes over the edge.

Hillary Clinton can laugh right on national TV about the gruesome torture-death of Khaddaffi and nobody says a thing. But let Trump so much as say the word “torture” and everybody gets the vapors over it. Hillary Clinton can literally bomb civilians and nobody says anything. Let Trump say it without doing it and people go crazy.

We’ve been trained well, like a bunch of circus seals.

Hillary Clinton has told us we have to “change our religion” when it comes to abortion and sometimes I think she’ll get it done, we’re so well trained. I truly do.

After all, what’s deliberately killing a million babies per year compared to bombing homes in which terrorists just might be with some noncombatants. Hillary Clinton can (and has) directly participated in it, and it’s okay. But let Trump even say it for effect and we all faint away like so many 19th Century belles onto our fainting couches.

 

[Vouthon]

The Clinton playbook on “lines to use on Catholics” just doesn’t contain a Church definition of torture or anything waterboarding is torture, or anything directly condemning Hillary Clinton’s opponent, which must be endlessly frustrating to the pro-abortion crowd.

Am I to assume here that you regard me as reading lines from this imaginary “Clinton play book” even though I’m not even an American, am a strong pro-lifer and have absolutely no liking for the woman at all?

I would ban all abortions as in Malta if my will could be enforced - no exceptions at all. And I’m equally passionate in my opposition to other crimes against the dignity of human life, including judicial torture.

I must retire for the night over here in the U.K., but be rest assured: I have plenty more ammo still to unleash in this debate.

You’ll see some of it tomorrow. There will be magisterial teachings and definitions aplenty for you to chew over.

Don’t think I’m done with this issue. Torture is intrinsically evil.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Maybe you can explain to me when Trump is being truthful and when he’s using hyperbole?

I’m not a Clinton supporter in the least. I am disappointed in both candidates, and both major political parties.

 

[GaryTaylor]

When your opening line is advocating for women killing women? Killing off their own kind in their own race the human race? Yeah, its real hard to pay attention after that let alone take you serious. And after the socialist meds and religious freedom and Trad marriage and transgenders with no ID, oh my? Serious?

Echoes? I hear you, amen, amen, according to Obama we echo the crusades and burned that ideal now in the mind of others beside Isis too. You hear it all the time. All you have to do is view Gitmo and Obamas fairwell tour and legacy to the world being realized. We don’t even know what to do with “terrorists” wrongly ID’d which he insists on not identifying.

There’s no way to kill them nicely in short. I know I read all Pope Francis on this and my heart bleeds for him with intrinsic evil Isis and killing them, how do you kill them gently so the plausible good may repent? Did you read todays news in the US led Iraq invasion on innocents with isis? . The Japan Times was interesting, you have to read over there to see what we honestly are into. Obama has a real live mess going on and doesn’t want to public to know least killing and death be frowned upon. Please this guy is really nuts. I’ll take Trump anyday while Obama tells by the media how he won two wars and bought peace in Syria. While mandating transgender without definition on america, here’s whats happening with innocents aside from the women killing their own kind never mind their race its crazy I’m sorry …

japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/24/world/iraq-forces-begin-assault-fallujah-islamic-state-kills-least-148-attacks-syria-civilians/

usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/23/iraqi-forces-may-face-human-shields-fallujah-offensive-begins/84793666/

I hear lots of talk and its like Obama said with Iran, if you have a better plan lets hear it?

They torture people daily please stop being so naive and lets see what resolution with Trump is and with the evangelicals in June.

 

[TMC]

No one is really a single issue voter because there are no single issue candidates of platforms. There may be a priority but your buying the whole package not a part. Further Obama and Hillary nuclear thinking went from disarming to Nuclear proliferation. In fact guided smart atom bombs.

The priority and importance in human rights has been abortion

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/on-the-importance-and-priority-of-defending-innocent-human-life.cfm

True but their teaching on abortion, human rights, soclalism/socialized meds, liberalism, and religious liberty weigh heavily against the democratic party and thats just being honest. And quoting V again above its about being Catholic first not American first. Much confusion resides in that concept I agree,

I think that your conclusion that Church teaching weighs more strongly against the Dem candidate is your judgment and opinion. You are welcome to that judgment, but it is not a judgment or conclusion that the Church herself draws. Reasonable Catholics can reach a different conclusion in good faith. And many do.

 

[TMC]

As always we should turn to the Magestrium:

The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

Pope Benedict XVI

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”

Cardinal Burke

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be

Cardinal Burke

Yes, some bishops have said that abortion is the only issue that matters. We all know that as you post the same quotes from the same bishops over and over. But not all Catholics, or all Catholic bishops, agree that a candidate’s position on abortion must always be the only determinate of every election. I understand that is your view, and you are entitled to it. But it is not the view of most Catholics, or even most bishops, as has been repeated ad nauseum on this thread.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think that your conclusion that Church teaching weighs more strongly against the Dem candidate is your judgment and opinion. .

How so?

 

[GaryTaylor]

But not all Catholics, or all Catholic bishops, agree that a candidate’s position on abortion must always be the only determinate of every election.

Every? Unless you have an equal intrinsic evil thats a factual reality?

Then they have to qualify not just 2000 years of social teaching but the very USCCB that they rely on for their argument, and especially in this climate of social transition of the past 50 years and the culture of death well spoken on?

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/on-the-importance-and-priority-of-defending-innocent-human-life.cfm