Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Ridgerunner]

What evidence of concern do you see?

Estesbob can speak for himself, but I see plenty of environmental concern. Throw something out of your car window and people will call you out on it. Cops will ticket you for it. Bury toxic waste and you’ll be prosecuted. Even an accidental spill will result in huge fines and possible criminal penalties.

A person who merely ends up owning a contaminated piece of ground can be forced to clean it up even if he didn’t know about it. That’s why banks won’t foreclose on property suspected to have toxic materials on it. They would rather lose the loan than face the EPA.

You can see the sun in downtown St. Louis at noon. When my dad was a kid, you couldn’t.

I’m aware of a town near here where the EPA is charging them for cleanup because they delivered toxic materials to a certified and approved hauler to an approved dumpsite that was later determined to be noncompliant.

Unless they start shooting people at sunrise for spitting on the sidewalk, I don’t know what more could reasonably be done to discourage pollution of the environment.

Farmers and ranchers are into environmental preservation now. The improvements are dramatic from when I was a kid. All kinds of wildlife that wasn’t there then is back; bald eagles, minks, river otters, wild trout, (yes and mountain lions).

I recently read an article by two agriculture professors at Texas A&M demonstrating that if ALL the grasslands in the U.S. were managed properly (including government land that’s managed terribly) it would eat all the atmospheric carbon produced by humans in the U.S. And that doesn’t include improved forestry, which also eats carbon.

Of course, notwithstanding that he keeps the Oval office at tropical temperatures, Obama thinks he can save the world by making people pay more for heat, light and cooking. In my state, his coal ban is estimated to cost each household $1500 more/year, despite the fact that it really is possible to burn coal cleanly. To me, that’s overkill. What’s more, it creates a hardship, possibly for some a deadly hardship, for no good reason at all.

 

[TMC]

Actually there is no tension at all- you are the only one claiming that faithful citizenship somehow contradicts Cardinal Burke but that is only based on your personal interpretation . Despite repeated requests you been unable to come up with a single member of the magisterium that agrees with your personal interpretation of this document

And, of course, it’s not just Cardinal Burke. How do you reconcile your personal interpretation with this ?:

*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
*

You keep saying that I can’t point to anyone in the magisterium, when all I am doing is quoting the actual magisterium - the bishops themselves. You say that cherry picked quotes from individual bishops trumps official Church documents. That makes no sense to me, but you obviously are wedded to your candidate and won’t hear anything else. I won’t engage in a battle of cherry picked quotes; I’ll stick with the actual Church documents.

I don’t know how productive it is for us to even continue this conversation given that we can read the exact same simple English words and somehow glean opposite meanings. I would simply encourage any Catholic with questions about voting to refer to bishops’ actual document on the topic and leave it at that:

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

 

[tomarin]

Perhaps I should clarify/correct myself. Venice isn’t sinking ONLY because of the groundwater being pumped out. Most say it was always sinking a little, which was accelerated by removal of the ground water.

Most of Venice isn’t built on land at all. It’s built on wooden poles driven deep into the mud under which the city was built in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Those poles don’t reach bed rock; they’re just deep into the mud. The engineers who did that were extremely skilled. But mud is mud and gravity is gravity and some will say that Venice was always sinking a little into the water because the poles are always sinking into the mud.

But I don’t think anybody doubts that pumping out the ground water has had a very major effect, and in fairly recent times.

I’ve often wondered why they bothered to build the city where they did, when there was plenty of actual dry land nearby. Maybe it was already taken?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Estesbob can speak for himself, but I see plenty of environmental concern. …

That was evidence of concern among Republican candidates.

 

[estesbob]

You keep saying that I can’t point to anyone in the magisterium, when all I am doing is quoting the actual magisterium - the bishops themselves. You say that cherry picked quotes from individual bishops trumps official Church documents. That makes no sense to me, but you obviously are wedded to your candidate and won’t hear anything else. I won’t engage in a battle of cherry picked quotes; I’ll stick with the actual Church documents.

I don’t know how productive it is for us to even continue this conversation given that we can read the exact same simple English words and somehow glean opposite meanings. I would simply encourage any Catholic with questions about voting to refer to bishops’ actual document on the topic and leave it at that:

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

How do you reconcile your personal interpretation of this document with the numerous quotes from Bishops Cardinals and Popes I provided?

 

[estesbob]

What evidence of concern do you see?

On what Do you base your assertion there is no concern ?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You keep saying that I can’t point to anyone in the magisterium, when all I am doing is quoting the actual magisterium - the bishops themselves. You say that cherry picked quotes from individual bishops trumps official Church documents. That makes no sense to me, but you obviously are wedded to your candidate and won’t hear anything else. I won’t engage in a battle of cherry picked quotes; I’ll stick with the actual Church documents.

I don’t know how productive it is for us to even continue this conversation given that we can read the exact same simple English words and somehow glean opposite meanings. I would simply encourage any Catholic with questions about voting to refer to bishops’ actual document on the topic and leave it at that:

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

One thing about the Catholic Church that some, particularly protestants, don’t like is the consistency among its leaders. That’s because the Church claims teaching authority and that the teachings are true always and everywhere.

Sure, one bishop might be asked a question differently from another. The context of the statement, and therefore the emphasis might be different. One bishop might disagree with another when it comes to climate change or acid rain or who’s going to win the Kentucky Derby. But when it comes to actual Church teachings on faith and morals, there isn’t any difference, and wishing it to be so, or insisting that it surely is so just because one thinks it ought to be so, doesn’t make it so.

And so it is here. There is no contradiction whatever among the USCCB people, Cdl Burke or any of the bishops that have so far been cited on this thread. And if one persists in saying there is, then the conversation really can’t get anywhere.

If one wants to argue that the Church is wrong, one ought to simply say it and be prepared to defend it. But insisting that the Church is internally contradictory on a clear teaching when it isn’t, is a worthless endeavor.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve often wondered why they bothered to build the city where they did, when there was plenty of actual dry land nearby. Maybe it was already taken?

Because the Huns were a serious hazard at the time on the mainland. The people who built Venice built it where they did exactly because it was nearly impossible for a land army to invade successfully.

 

[tomarin]

Because the Huns were a serious hazard at the time on the mainland. The people who built Venice built it where they did exactly because it was nearly impossible for a land army to invade successfully.

So the Huns did humankind a favor (unintentionally of course).

 

[Michael_Mayo]

On what Do you base your assertion there is no concern ?

Among issues and positions I see nothing regarding the environment.

donaldjtrump.com/issues/

 

[Ridgerunner]

So the Huns did humankind a favor (unintentionally of course).

In a sense yes.

Sometimes there are silver linings. Of imaginable interest, as disruptive and awful as some of the Teutonic invasions of the Roman empire were, there were blessings; among them being a stronger sense of individual autonomy. And, after all, Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence came from them. Others undoubtedly think differently, but personally, I would prefer living in the “Anglosphere” than anywhere else on earth.

 

[estesbob]

If one wants to argue that the Church is wrong, one ought to simply say it and be prepared to defend it. But insisting that the Church is internally contradictory on a clear teaching when it isn’t, is a worthless endeavor.

 

[Crossbones]

One thing about the Catholic Church that some, particularly protestants, don’t like is the consistency among its leaders. That’s because the Church claims teaching authority and that the teachings are true always and everywhere.

Sure, one bishop might be asked a question differently from another. The context of the statement, and therefore the emphasis might be different. One bishop might disagree with another when it comes to climate change or acid rain or who’s going to win the Kentucky Derby. But when it comes to actual Church teachings on faith and morals, there isn’t any difference, and wishing it to be so, or insisting that it surely is so just because one thinks it ought to be so, doesn’t make it so.

And so it is here. There is no contradiction whatever among the USCCB people, Cdl Burke or any of the bishops that have so far been cited on this thread. And if one persists in saying there is, then the conversation really can’t get anywhere.

If one wants to argue that the Church is wrong, one ought to simply say it and be prepared to defend it. But insisting that the Church is internally contradictory on a clear teaching when it isn’t, is a worthless endeavor.

It’s interesting that you say there is no contradiction, because it’s clear from Bishop Kicanas that bishops disagree on whether legislators who vote for a pro-choice position constitutes formal cooperation with evil:

INTERVIEWER: Do you think there’s a consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote, in itself, amounts to formal cooperation?

BISHOP KICANAS: No, I’m sure there isn’t. There may not be anything the conference itself will be able to decide on that issue. It’s really a larger question.

Another question is, what should be the response of a bishop who has dialogued with a politician who holds intrinsically evil positions in terms of voting? What should be the response? As you know, some bishops are saying that communion should be withheld from those politicians. The bishops as whole left that question open, and it’s still a question that is left to the prudential judgment of the bishop in the local area.

I think what gets confusing for people is that the bishops aren’t of one mind on these questions. Therefore, they feel confused, and at times I think they try to pit bishops against one another, which isn’t helpful.

---

So Bishop Kicanas seems to admit that there are differences among bishops on their views of certain moral matters and you are claiming there are none.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s interesting that you say there is no contradiction, because it’s clear from Bishop Kicanas that bishops disagree on whether legislators who vote for a pro-choice position constitutes formal cooperation with evil:

INTERVIEWER: Do you think there’s a consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote, in itself, amounts to formal cooperation?

BISHOP KICANAS: No, I’m sure there isn’t. There may not be anything the conference itself will be able to decide on that issue. It’s really a larger question.

The USCCB sight which you quote states otherwise

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Theres no doubt about “cooperation” where the conversation is and as I said on this thread is in “formal”.

Another question is, what should be the response of a bishop who has dialogued with a politician who holds intrinsically evil positions in terms of voting? What should be the response? As you know, some bishops are saying that communion should be withheld from those politicians. The bishops as whole left that question open, and it’s still a question that is left to the prudential judgment of the bishop in the local area.

I think what gets confusing for people is that the bishops aren’t of one mind on these questions. Therefore, they feel confused, and at times I think they try to pit bishops against one another, which isn’t helpful.

---

So Bishop Kicanas seems to admit that there are differences among bishops on their views of certain moral matters and you are claiming there are none

This is on communion but you can read all the Bishops on this especially in regards to Pelosi and Biden and communion. They simply don’t have a formed conscience and in fact were wrong about Catholic teaching. So further the above has nothing to do with the below. But it does relate to your earlier point about formal and explicit, implicit etc.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s interesting that you say there is no contradiction, because it’s clear from Bishop Kicanas that bishops disagree on whether legislators who vote for a pro-choice position constitutes formal cooperation with evil:

Another question is, what should be the response of a bishop who has dialogued with a politician who holds intrinsically evil positions in terms of voting? What should be the response? As you know, some bishops are saying that communion should be withheld from those politicians. The bishops as whole left that question open, and it’s still a question that is left to the prudential judgment of the bishop in the local area.

I think what gets confusing for people is that the bishops aren’t of one mind on these questions. Therefore, they feel confused, and at times I think they try to pit bishops against one another, which isn’t helpful.

---

So Bishop Kicanas seems to admit that there are differences among bishops on their views of certain moral matters and you are claiming there are none.

Just incorrect. I realize sometimes it can be hard to follow what Catholic leaders are saying in a particular context if one isn’t familiar with the teachings themselves.

Bishop Kicanas was talking about “formal” cooperation with evil because that’s what he was asked about in the interview. He then addressed it. That’s not all there is to know about the subject matter, and Bp. Kicanas never said there was.

There is no disagreement among bishops that politicians who promote abortion shouldn’t present themselves for communion. They shouldn’t, and nobody says they should. But since, at a particular point in time, a communicant might be repentant and confessed his sins, or even have perfect contrition (which the priest wouldn’t know) there is an opinion that the priest should go ahead and give communion. Others think the potential scandal aspect of it is a stronger argument against giving the politician communion. But all of that has to do with the decision of the priest in a possibly uncertain circumstance, not the objective worthiness of the politician to receive communion.

 

[Vouthon]

In a sense yes.

Sometimes there are silver linings. Of imaginable interest, as disruptive and awful as some of the Teutonic invasions of the Roman empire were, there were blessings; among them being a stronger sense of individual autonomy. And, after all, Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence came from them. Others undoubtedly think differently, but personally, I would prefer living in the “Anglosphere” than anywhere else on earth.

Of interest, no doubt, is the fact that English Common Law pioneered the abolition of judicial torture, in contrast to continental European legal systems of the time:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=6UsjcX-IUJ4C&pg=PT30&dq=court+of+star+chamber+parliament+torture+1640&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=court%20of%20star%20chamber%20parliament%20torture%201640&f=false

"…**From a very early date, not later than the fifteenth century, the common law of England adamantly set its face against the use of torture and the admission of evidence procured by torture. Its rejection of this abhorrent practice was indeed hailed as a distinguishing feature of the common law, and was the subject of proud claims by a series of the greatest English legal writers…who contrasted it with the practice adopted in Europe.

The English rejection of torture was also the subject of admiring comment by authorities such as Voltaire…To the parliamentary common lawyers torture was “totally repugnant to the fundamental principles of English law” and “repugnant to reason, justice and humanity”…It is certain that one of the very first acts of the Long Parliament in 1640 was to abolish the Court of Star Chamber, in which evidence obtained by torture was received, and since then no torture warrant has been issued in England…

But in continental Europe the practice continued for many years…In France, torture was abolished in 1789…Denmark abolished the practice in 1771…In Baden it continued until 1831…Russia abolished torture in 1801, but it was used on occasion until 1847**…"

Yes, Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence certainly revolutionised the world. England led the way in abolishing judicial torture. The use of torture has been contrary to common law for several centuries, and the UK was well ahead of many other European jurisdictions in abolishing its use - 1640, when it absolutely ended at the start of the English Civil War. It would take until the 1770s for continental European countries to start following suit.

Of course, when the British Empire became the global hegemon - they all started following suit, usually at the point of a Royal Navy masthead.

The prohibition of torture has since become one of the fundamental standards of the international community - surely one of the English Common Law’s gifts to the world?

But it looks like Donald Trump is going to “revamp” this venerable English tradition that found its way into the U.S. Constitution…

 

[GaryTaylor]

If Trump was Catholic his words on warfare wouldn’t prohibit hin from communion.

Now communion I believe was covered by Pope Francis confirming Canon 915.

lifenews.com/2013/05/07/pope-francis-pro-abortion-politicians-ineligible-for-communion/

ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.htm

Catholic politicians who support legal abortion should not present themselves for Holy Communion until they bring an end to their objective sinful situation—failing this, they cannot receive the Eucharist and the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it to them.

ewtn.com/library/bishops/bpsonabort.htm

The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.
Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke

 

[GaryTaylor]

But I think you can start to see cooperation as the USCCB is discussing in this realm. Its no different for me or any Catholic with Intrinsic evil and cooperation. Its not only abortion, that would be misrepresenting the teaching. However yes they are specifically speaking on that topic above.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of interest, no doubt, is the fact that English Common Law pioneered the abolition of judicial torture, in contrast to continental European legal systems of the time:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=6UsjcX-IUJ4C&pg=PT30&dq=court+of+star+chamber+parliament+torture+1640&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=court%20of%20star%20chamber%20parliament%20torture%201640&f=false

Yes, Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence certainly revolutionised the world. England led the way in abolishing judicial torture. The use of torture has been contrary to common law for several centuries, and the UK was well ahead of many other European jurisdictions in abolishing its use - 1640, when it absolutely ended at the start of the English Civil War. It would take until the 1770s for continental European countries to start following suit.

Of course, when the British Empire became the global hegemon - they all started following suit, usually at the point of a Royal Navy masthead.

The prohibition of torture has since become one of the fundamental standards of the international community - surely one of the English Common Law’s gifts to the world?

But it looks like Donald Trump is going to “revamp” this venerable English tradition that found its way into the U.S. Constitution…

Too bad the above had to be spoiled by the last sentence. It assumes that waterboarding is “torture” and that Trump’s view of “torture” is what one’s worst imagining of it is. Certainly, it doesn’t equal the old English navy’s asserted tradition of “rum, sodomy and the lash”. Nor does it begin to equal being burned half to death as a non-killed recipient of a hellfire missile. One needs to keep in mind that every man’s view of what “torture” is, differs from that of nearly every other man. The Church itself doesn’t define it because it’s fact-dependent and subjective. If a marine undergoes waterboarding voluntarily, and all ISIS fighters now do too, and voluntarily in both cases, is it really “torture”? No few people have killed themselves over being jailed. None of the three waterboarded Al Quaeda terrorists has. So, does this mean we should never jail anyone because the stress can drive some inmates to suicide? Does it mean waterboarding is more humane than jailing?

 

[Theo520]

I’m not sure he’s thinking about reelection. He’ll be seventy in a few weeks. And back in 2012 he was gushing on how he liked Hillary, and liked Bill, they were his friends, she was a hard worker. He hosted Bill Clinton at Mar a Lago.

Does it matter to him to get reelected? He’ll still be rich when this is done. He favors a very liberal view of eminent domain. Is he the type to act against his own interests?

Well, Hillary is a hard worker and well connected, she knew how to help her friends get stuff done in Govt. Why do you have a strawman that he must hate her and Bill to run against them.

A lot of criminals are very nice people, hard workers.

Hillary would be sailing to the office if only:

• no email games
• no Clinton Foundation

If only she had kept her bribes and actions in the shadows, but she was flagrant in her violations.