Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[chero23]

Trump has said what kinds of Supreme court justices he will appoint. If he does that, he will have accomplished more for the prolife cause than even G.W. Bush did, by far, since Trump could create a prolife majority. Hillary Clinton, as we know, will create a pro-abortion majority, including justices who would support partial birth abortion as she does.

Declaring Trump “greedy” is simply rash judgment. You know nothing about the man’s soul. Nothing.

Trump wasn’t in the single family dwelling market. He was in commercial real estate. Was he wrong in predicting that the real estate bubble would pop? No he wasn’t. More people should have listened to him.

And equating, say, lust, with killing a million children is not only vapid, it’s extremely non-Catholic.

And you know everybody else’s soul I’m assuming?

Being greedy does kill people. How many people committed suicides during the recession. When the recession hit I was working for Dallas Fire, and we would have throughout the whole 2-3 suicides per week in the City of Dallas. Some of these were based to people losing their jobs, or losing their houses.

Greedy people like Trump lead to people losing their houses, and with that someone dying. Remember, if I’m in a car with someone who starts shooting and kills people, I’m as guilty as the guy shooting.

 

[chero23]

There are always risk with any vaccination or medical procedure. In regard to vaccines in particular, as a parent one needs to weigh the individual risk factors for their child and themselves if they are a recipient. Fortunately most side effects are minor but there is always reason to be cautious in the health and particular condition of each individual. On occasion some serious side effects do occur. cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Any medical procedure, from giving you albuterol for asthma to an open heart surgery has possible consequences. That is the thing with medicine. But overall, vaccinations have helped out a lot of kids from getting diseases.

What Trump said was naïve, just bc of one kid. How about the millions that have benefited from being vaccinated?

 

[Ridgerunner]

And you know everybody else’s soul I’m assuming?

Being greedy does kill people. How many people committed suicides during the recession. When the recession hit I was working for Dallas Fire, and we would have throughout the whole 2-3 suicides per week in the City of Dallas. Some of these were based to people losing their jobs, or losing their houses.

Greedy people like Trump lead to people losing their houses, and with that someone dying. Remember, if I’m in a car with someone who starts shooting and kills people, I’m as guilty as the guy shooting.

Trump did not cause the recession. That’s taking partisanship for Hillary Clinton much too far. Trump did not buy peoples’ houses, or foreclose them. He had no part in FNMA and FHLMC buying loans people couldn’t pay. That was due to Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama, who resisted investigating and controlling those entities. One can even put some blame on Alan Greenspan for keeping interest rates too low and inflating real estate prices to unreasonable levels. But Trump had no part in any of that.

What Trump did was buy commercial property when the real estate bubble burst. But he had no part in the bubble bursting. Deutschebank even tried to gobble him up when the bubble burst, but he fought them off.

And no, if you’re in a car with someone who starts shooting, you’re not as guilty as the perp is, unless you have a part in the cause or execution of it. Just being there doesn’t make you a bit guilty.

And neither is Trump guilty of the collapse of the real estate bubble.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Any medical procedure, from giving you albuterol for asthma to an open heart surgery has possible consequences. That is the thing with medicine. But overall, vaccinations have helped out a lot of kids from getting diseases.

What Trump said was naïve, just bc of one kid. How about the millions that have benefited from being vaccinated?

As you know, Trump also said vaccines are a good thing. He complained only that he believes some of them are given too close together in time for a kid’s system to take well. Remember, a child between 12 and 15 months is in the “time” range for 12 different vaccines. He chose to space them wider than usual because he thought it was safer. And there are doctors who agree on spacing them more than is commonly the case. Did Trump’s pediatrician disagree with spacing them? What did he/she say about it?

 

[chero23]

Trump did not cause the recession. That’s taking partisanship for Hillary Clinton much too far. Trump did not buy peoples’ houses, or foreclose them. He had no part in FNMA and FHLMC buying loans people couldn’t pay. That was due to Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama, who resisted investigating and controlling those entities. One can even put some blame on Alan Greenspan for keeping interest rates too low and inflating real estate prices to unreasonable levels. But Trump had no part in any of that.

What Trump did was buy commercial property when the real estate bubble burst. But he had no part in the bubble bursting. Deutschebank even tried to gobble him up when the bubble burst, but he fought them off.

And no, if you’re in a car with someone who starts shooting, you’re not as guilty as the perp is, unless you have a part in the cause or execution of it. Just being there doesn’t make you a bit guilty.

And neither is Trump guilty of the collapse of the real estate bubble.

Obama was not even in the White House, the recession hit W’s watch, where’s your right wing bias?
foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/06/recessions-and-presidents-who-inherited-them.html

Just some knowledge about the recession which Bush and the republican led Congress failed to act when they had all 3 houses under republican control (House, Senate, WH)

Ummm, yes, if I am in a car and someone in there shoots and kills another person you will be facing charges and possibly even have the same sentence as the guy who did the shooting.

 

[chero23]

As you know, Trump also said vaccines are a good thing. He complained only that he believes some of them are given too close together in time for a kid’s system to take well. Remember, a child between 12 and 15 months is in the “time” range for 12 different vaccines. He chose to space them wider than usual because he thought it was safer. And there are doctors who agree on spacing them more than is commonly the case. Did Trump’s pediatrician disagree with spacing them? What did he/she say about it?

But your talking to one man (Trump) and one pediatrician (His) . Why believe what only 1 man says, when there has been thousands of Doctors, Nurses, Scientists who have stated these vaccinations are necessary. Others have even said that spacing out the vaccinations doesn’t make a difference, on the contrary it could even hurt the child.

time.com/3726887/doctors-space-out-vaccines/

I guess Trump is infallible in all of his statements.

 

[Crossbones]

What Trump really said was that he felt the prevailing schedule of vaccinations is excessive and that he had his children vaccinated more slowly than the usual practice. His comment about autism was made eight years ago when there was considerable concern about it, understanding that nobody has a handle on the cause(s) of autism.
.

It’s amazing how often the words of Donald Trump need to be explained that he meant something different than what he said.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And the reason more studies are being done is because nobody knows what causes autism, whether it’s a single cause or whether it’s even a single disorder.

I can prove that was not the reason. The studies were specifically about vaccinations and autism. They did not even try to study Vitamin C and autism, or watermelon and autism, or rock music and autism to the same extent as they examined vaccinations. Why? Because nobody was making the false claim that any of these other things had anything to do with autism. The only reason all that effort had to be made was to restore the damaged confidence in vaccinations.

There were two associations of vaccines with autism.

Two groundless claims. Not two associations.

One had to do with a preservative. The other had to do with the fact that Rubella does have a strong association with autism. But does the MMR vaccine have it too? Well, there is an increased incidence of autism at about the same time MMR vaccinations are given. At one time, that was suspected as a cause/effect relationship.

Not until Wakefield.

Later studies have indicated that it’s only an association.

…later studies made necessary only because of Wakefield’s irresponsible claims.

But Trump hasn’t killed anybody with his beliefs about vaccines, if he still holds them.

Spreading false fears about vaccinations does indeed expose people to avoidable infections, and in some cases kills them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Glad you agree that opposition to abortion is not optional for Catholics. It is mandatory.

But Bp McElroy doesn’t support the proposition that all poverty of every kind is equivalent to deliberate killing in abortion.

And neither do I.

 

[estesbob]

Strawman argument. No one is claiming that opposition to abortion is optional. The claim is that opposition abortion ranks alongside opposition to poverty caused by injustice. As McElroy says:
Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting.

Again you’re demanding that we ignore the body of church teaching And instead accept your personal interpretation of what the Bishopb"meant" Again if you can find a single member of the magisterium that states specifically that you can vote for a pro abortion candidate when a pro-life alternative is available please do so . I have posted a multitude of specific quotes and that say you cannot

 

[GaryTaylor]

Great thread for anyone unsure of the nonsensical Democratic position on Catholic teaching and intrinsic evil.

From what I gather they understand the priority of teaching on abortion and the fact the Democrats are persecuting the little sisters of the poor, socialized meds, religious liberty and the suppression of conscience. And after 50 years the issue isn’t Trump.

And they continue for assumed speculative reasoning and call that formed conscience ironically while suppressing freedom of conscience.

 

[estesbob]

And you know everybody else’s soul I’m assuming?

Being greedy does kill people. How many people committed suicides during the recession. When the recession hit I was working for Dallas Fire, and we would have throughout the whole 2-3 suicides per week in the City of Dallas. Some of these were based to people losing their jobs, or losing their houses.

Greedy people like Trump lead to people losing their houses, and with that someone dying. Remember, if I’m in a car with someone who starts shooting and kills people, I’m as guilty as the guy shooting.

I think we’re gonna have to add this one to the list. "Trump is greedy, therefore people commit suicide and therefore it’s okay to vote for candidate who supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand . Talk about mental gymnastics quotation mark.

What Archbishop Chaput commented on these kind of mental gymnastics in 2008:
And here’s the irony. None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They’ve been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ‘‘get beyond’’ abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won’t be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues.This is a great sadness. As Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George said recently, too many Americans have ‘‘no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can’t be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.’’

Meanwhile, the basic human rights violation at the heart of abortion - the intentional destruction of an innocent, developing human life - is wordsmithed away as a terrible crime that just can’t be fixed by the law. I don’t believe that. I think that argument is a fraud. And I don’t think any serious believer can accept that argument without damaging his or her credibility. We still have more than a million abortions a year, and we can’t blame them all on Republican social policies. After all, it was a Democratic president, not a Republican, who vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - twice.
*

Archbishop Charles Chaput

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again you’re demanding that we ignore the body of church teaching…

I am demanding? Or is McElroy demanding?

And instead accept your personal interpretation of what the Bishopb"meant"

I don’t think there is much “interpretation” involved in that most recent quote.

Again if you can find a single member of the magisterium that states specifically that you can vote for a pro abortion candidate when a pro-life alternative is available please do so . I have posted a multitude of specific quotes and that say you cannot

You have posted your favorite quotes. I have posted mine. I see little difference. Now if you could find one single instance of your view elevated to the level of universally accepted teaching (such as the catechism, or a Church council) that would be different.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Freedom of Conscience suppressed by Democrats, look, quick google.

And where are the “Democrats” in the photo below? Across the street with signs protesting the sisters, advocating for abortion on demand and persecuting the religious and suppressing freedom of conscience!

The "Democrats " are on the “other” side of the street!!! But they in the “imagination” know better.

rare.us/story/the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-case-is-fundamentally-about-freedom-of-conscience/

 

[estesbob]

I am demanding? Or is McElroy demanding?

I don’t think there is much “interpretation” involved in that most recent quote.

You have posted your favorite quotes. I have posted mine. I see little difference. Now if you could find one single instance of your view elevated to the level of universally accepted teaching (such as the catechism, or a Church council) that would be different.

You havent posted a single post that back up your position. Again if you can find a member of the magisterium that specifically says it is permissible for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life alternative is available please do so.-Bishop McElroy most certainly didn’t do so.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You havent posted a single post that back up your position.

They are on the “other” side of the street advocating for “abortion on demand” and “suppression of freedom of conscience” .

Clearly people who think it’s their “right” to kill a baby in the womb are capable of anything. Those who don’t respect the life of the most innocent and helpless[priority] won’t have respect for the lives of anyone else either, this isn’t even rational. Its pretty clear how out of hand this has become as a result.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Maybe its me but these are diametrically opposed positions in the Church. The fact the Church has been polite and charitable, that is clarified in the understanding of their position on Canon Law and 915/916.

Basically what we are saying is Democrats have an un formed conscience and we are here talking about the very idea of understanding the Church on the topic of formed conscience?

And this was before the added position of socialized meds, and the attack on the conscience and religious liberty. In other words the issue has now become magnified by further transgression against the Church.

In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.

The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who <<obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion [11].

Pope John Paul II made it clear that the norm of can. 915 is required by the Church’s teaching on the respect due to the Most Blessed Sacrament and her concern to avoid scandal in the community.

With the words, <>, the Roman Pontiff clarified the obligation, on the part of the Church, to take action, when a person who remains in grievous and public sin approaches to receive Holy Communion. The obligation in question is distinct from the obligation of the person to examine his conscience regarding grave sin before approaching, which is treated in can. 916.

ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.htm

 

[Crossbones]

Great thread for anyone unsure of the nonsensical Democratic position on Catholic teaching and intrinsic evil.

From what I gather they understand the priority of teaching on abortion and the fact the Democrats are persecuting the little sisters of the poor, socialized meds, religious liberty and the suppression of conscience. And after 50 years the issue isn’t Trump.

And they continue for assumed speculative reasoning and call that formed conscience ironically while suppressing freedom of conscience.

I agree that we’ve learned a lot to understand where the personal interpretation of Church teaching that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate comes from.

We’ve learned that any comment by any bishop of abortion and how to vote is equally applicable everywhere.

We’ve learned that ‘may’ means ‘must’ when referring to abortion (you may disqualify a candidate because of their position on abortion really means you must).

We’ve learned how other when the Republican candidate supports intrinsic evils, that shouldn’t be accounted against him because either a) he didn’t mean it the way the actual words he said meant, b) he doesn’t mean it because the Church did not clearly define the particular matter he is talking even when other evidence is cited, or c) it’s just words, he hasn’t done it.

Those who support this view are undertaking verbal gymnastics worthy of an Olympic event. Of course, I would encourage all Catholics to read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the teachings of the bishops and determine how to vote on their own, without the personal interpretation of individuals on this site.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I learned the Church is truly evangelizing from “within” in the area of a formed conscience.

it’s just words, he hasn’t done it.

Glad you agree. Surely theres a difference in standing across the street persecuting the Little Sisters and advocating for abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You havent posted a single post that back up your position. Again if you can find a member of the magisterium that specifically says it is permissible for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life alternative is available please do so.-Bishop McElroy most certainly didn’t do so.

Neither Bishop McElroy’s comments nor Cardinal Burke’s comments are binding Catholic teaching. They are exhortations. And the exhortation I quoted supports my view just as well as the exhortation you quoted supports yours. Your insistence on a specific wording of permission is unreasonable.