The extra aspect makes no difference. Your now talking one individual with a proven track record and more promised to come as opposed to an assumption as we have no idea what the other candidate will do. Again its the lesser evil.
There’s no mitigating that sentence. Theres no asterisk on that sentence in fact its repeated in many areas.
What I think some do not see here is that there is no “prudential judgment” involved in supporting an intrinsic evil. “Prudential judgment” might be exercised in, say, determining whether some things really fit the description. An example would be “submitting the poor to subhuman conditions” (among the things stated in your quoted passage). The judgment whether, for example, life in an inner city ghetto is “subhuman” when street dwellers in Calcutta live immeasurably more difficult, but reasonably happy lives. (One could recommend reading “City of Joy” concerning the latter in forming one’s “prudential judgment” concerning what actually constitutes “subhuman conditions”.)
Yes, and the thing that must not be done is to intentionally support inherent evil. Both candidates take positions that are opposed to Church teachings on inherent evil. It is up to each Catholic to decide how to deal with that situation. A Catholic could support either candidate, not with the intention of supporting such a position, but for other reasons. I understand that many Catholics look at this situation and conclude that they cannot support Clinton. Many others look at the same situation and conclude that they cannot support Trump. That is a decision that each Catholic must make, and the Church instructs each Catholic to make that decision. Millions of Catholics are choosing each side. You are saying that your opinion that Catholics cannot support Clinton must control what all Catholics do. But the Church does not teach that.
The Church never (yet, at least) instructs CAtholics for whom they must vote. But it really is a misunderstanding of Church teaching to assert that each Catholic is free to decide how to approach voting when one candidate is an absolute supporter and promoter of abortion on demand, and the other countenances it in extremely rare circumstances and wants it to return the pre-Roe situation in which states decide. There is no proportionality there, and to say there is, is a resort to subjectivism. Moral subjectivism is a protestant thing, not a Catholic thing.
The USCCB did no one a favor by focusing only on the intrinsically evil acts that favor the Republican political platform (abortion, etc.) and not a more complete list of intrinsically evil acts that would, frankly, disqualify candidates of both parties. For example, physical torture and racism are also intrinsically evil acts. Neither party is the “Catholic” party.
A more complete list of intrinsically evil acts can be found, for example, at catholiclabor.com/spirituality-of-work/morality-usccb/intrinsic-evil/examples-of-intrinsic-evil/:
The USCCB did not focus exclusively on abortion. That is just what certain posters here want people to believe. The USCCB includes racism, treatment of the poor and other issues in its actual document.
Various ramblings about torture still unclear, abortion specifically with incest/rape and life of the mother being a choice of the mother. That said, prudence is practical and never speculative. In the case of Hillary we are talking a practical analysis and with Trump speculative
Exactly. The USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship covers many topics including abortion, unjust war, torture and targeting noncombatants. As Bishop Kicanas says,
He would allow for legal abortion in certain cases. Some worry that this would keep abortion practically legal in country. I am personally concerned about the lack of drops in births after Roe v Wade because it suggests that there was not a jump in abortion and that it was happening anyway (just not reported because it was illegal). I do think these concerns have some merit. Trump also switched his position on abortion three times in one day, suggesting he hasn’t thought about it. I find that concerning. As Bishop Kicanas says, “[we have] to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference.” That said, the Democratic candidate will be worse on this position.
That’s what the Israelis do a lot. If a Palestinian is involved in a terrorist act, they go and demolish the home of his family, his parents, etc. I find that kind of collective punishment very disturbing.
theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/11/anti-muslim-pastor-donald-trump-delegate-guy-st-onge
Well, of course the Church tells us there are many moral issues. it wouldn’t be worth much if it didn’t. But the above reflects a lack of understanding of Catholic teachings and a profound misunderstanding of (or perhaps simple disagreement with) the Church’s teaching authority. As Estesbob pointed out, the Church teaches that none of the various moral issues reaches the level of abortion on demand. If one accepts the fact that an unborn child is a human being (Hillary denies that a viable child is one, or knows it and doesn’t care) then there’s no “balancing” among other PRESENTLY KNOWN known issues to do. Nobody is advocating rounding up retarded people and killing them. Nobody is advocating rounding up the elderly and killing them (well, Dems in some states advocate the killing, just not the rounding up).
And, of course, the Church has never defined waterboarding as “torture” or even defined the term. That is a judgment thing. Some think of being incarcerated at all as “torture”. Some think of anything that’s not deadly or maiming as “non-torture”. Trump did not define the term and as yet nobody on CAF has either.
Trump said waterboarding is torture.
I find that akin to America’s RICO laws.
I’m an advocate for RICO, the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR ought to be prosecuted under the act. imho, and many others btw.
