Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Darryl1958]

I’m an advocate for RICO, the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR ought to be prosecuted under the act. imho, and many others btw.

americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/is_cair_a_rico_case.html

That is something I have been advocating too, for a while now.

 

[zz912]

I like your thought process.

Someone expresses dislike for Trump and you automatically assume support for Clinton? Then again, you probably think all of us that won’t vote for Trumpy are all closet liberals.

I don’t like Trump, and I’ve made that abundantly clear. I’m not voting for him. And everyone is also clear that I won’t be voting for Clinton because a faithful Catholic can’t. No one on this board is confused about my opposition to either because I actually oppose both multiple times. I have yet to see any anti-Clinton posts from Crossroads or you.

Based on the logic by some here presented here that support of an intrinsic evil disqualifies a candidate, then you cannot vote for either Trump or Clinton.

I’m not voting for either of them.

Constant repetition and derogatory comments cannot change the clear facts. Nothing in Church teaching mandates voting for Republicans, including Trump. Nothing in Church teaching prohibits voting for Democrats, including Clinton. The Church teaches that Catholics should examine all issues and make an individual decision as to the best candidate. Catholics are free to advocate for their candidates, including given their reasons for their choice, moral or practical. But it is not honest to say that the Church mandates or prohibits either candidate.

This is absolutely false. Church teaching is clear that a Catholic cannot vote for Clinton, since she is the worst candidate on multiple intrinsic evils.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, of course the Church tells us there are many moral issues. it wouldn’t be worth much if it didn’t.

The voting guide would not be of much use either, if it is interpreted to mean that** none of those other moral issues can have any effect on our decisions as long as abortion remains**. Following this logic to its very end, we could never consider any other factor, as long as one abortion is done somewhere. For even if abortion is outlawed, there will still be differences between candidates for office on what sort of penalties there should be. And the very same arguments being made here and now could be made then with just as much validity. No other moral issue rises to the level of abortion, so we would be bound to vote for the candidate who favors a 5-year prison term over the candidate who favors a 5-month prison term, arguing that the 5-month prison term amounts to a slap on the wrist and is not a sufficient deterrent and is effectively allowing abortion to continue. Of course this is a long way from abortion actually being funded by government, as we have now. But at what point in the progression between these two extremes would you say “Now we can consider the candidate’s position on public parkland to be of more importance than his precise position on abortion.”? If absolute criteria are cited as the basis for the current position, it is hard to see how this point could ever come.

Now, whether Bishop Kicanas thinks there is little or no possibility of overcoming Roe and its progeny, is of no real consequence. It is well within the judgment of a layman to disagree, and I’m one of those who does.

Why is it OK to disagree with Bishop Kicanas but not OK to disagree with Cardinal Burke?

 

[estesbob]

The voting guide would not be of much use either, if it is interpreted to mean that** none of those other moral issues can have any effect on our decisions as long as abortion remains**. Following this logic to its very end, we could never consider any other factor, as long as one abortion is done somewhere. For even if abortion is outlawed, there will still be differences between candidates for office on what sort of penalties there should be. And the very same arguments being made here and now could be made then with just as much validity. No other moral issue rises to the level of abortion, so we would be bound to vote for the candidate who favors a 5-year prison term over the candidate who favors a 5-month prison term, arguing that the 5-month prison term amounts to a slap on the wrist and is not a sufficient deterrent and is effectively allowing abortion to continue. Of course this is a long way from abortion actually being funded by government, as we have now. But at what point in the progression between these two extremes would you say “Now we can consider the candidate’s position on public parkland to be of more importance than his precise position on abortion.”? If absolute criteria are cited as the basis for the current position, it is hard to see how this point could ever come.

Why is it OK to disagree with Bishop Kicanas but not OK to disagree with Cardinal Burke?

Since neither one contradicted each other there is no reason to disagree with either of them It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to disagree with posters novel interpretation of an interview with him as over turning Church teaching on abortion.

I think given the propensity for people to interpret the voters guide to support their political views it is always best to go to the teachings of the direct of the Magestrium as expressed through Church documents and declarations by Bishops, popes and Cardinals. I have posted these many times and the only rebuttal i ever get is "well I read an interview with a Bishop that I interpret supports voting for pro-abortion candidates or “my reading of a couple lines in Voters guide convinced me i can vote for anyone i like as long as it feels right”

 

[estesbob]

Trump said waterboarding is torture.

When faced with two candidates who support an intrinsic evil we can vote for the one who would do the least harm. For example we can vote for a candidate who supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest but not his opponent who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand . So how many terrorists have been waterboarded compared to how many children have been aborted?

Also is blowing up civilians in drone strikes designed to kill terrorists considered torture? Seems like that does a lot more harm than waterboarding.

 

[Crossbones]

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).

Voluntary killing of an unborn child is gravely wrong and always wrong. Morally, it does not admit of degrees, objectively because there are no degrees of dead. Having a different view of, say, whether food stamps ought to increase by 8% or 12% or zero admits of prudential judgment.

Now, whether Bishop Kicanas thinks there is little or no possibility of overcoming Roe and its progeny, is of no real consequence. It is well within the judgment of a layman to disagree, and I’m one of those who does. Two prolife supreme court appointments and it’s a different world. In addition, Repubs in a number of states have limited it by legislative acts despite Demo opposition. I am not as pessimistic as Bp Kicanas is.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I would encourage the lurkers and newcomers to not depend on someone’s personal interpretation of Church teachings when deciding how to vote.

 

[DeniseNY]

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I would encourage the lurkers and newcomers to not depend on someone’s personal interpretation of Church teachings when deciding how to vote.

Are you Catholic?

 

[Crossbones]

When faced with two candidates who support an intrinsic evil we can vote for the one who would do the least harm. For example we can vote for a candidate who supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest but not his opponent who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand . So how many terrorists have been waterboarded compared to how many children have been aborted?

I believe that the newcomers and lurkers should learn about Church teachings and apply them to how to vote instead of depending on the personal interpretations of Church teachings given here or elsewhere.

Also is blowing up civilians in drone strikes designed to kill terrorists considered torture? Seems like that does a lot more harm than waterboarding.

I am gravely concerned about how drones are being used and believe that this is a serious error on part of the current administration. It isn’t intentional targeting of noncombatants as Trump has suggested, but it is not clear to me that there is proper protection of noncombatants and the media has really done a poor job of covering the issue (except for the left-wing media like Democracy Now).

 

[Crossbones]

Are you Catholic?

et tu? Is this the favorite attack of those on the right this weekend? First Ridgerunner, then Estesbob and now you?

 

[DeniseNY]

et tu? Is this the favorite attack of those on the right this weekend? First Ridgerunner, then Estesbob and now you?

Well, first of all I didn’t see their posts asking them you this question, so I’m part of any “attack”. But since you bring it up, did you answer them?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Since neither one contradicted each other there is no reason to disagree with either of them It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to disagree with posters novel interpretation of an interview with him as over turning Church teaching on abortion.

The issue is voting, not abortion. I prefer not to gloss over the distinction. And your interpretation of the documents you cite can be seen as just as novel as the interpretation others have made of statements, interviews, and documents.

How about going back to basics - the distinction between formal and material cooperation. The distinction between mediate and immediate cooperation. The distinction between proximate and remote cooperation. And then explore “proportionately serious reasons”. This concept and these distinctions existed long before they were applied to voting. So they ought to be a solid foundation from which to start.

 

[Crossbones]

Well, first of all I didn’t see their posts asking them you this question, so I’m part of any “attack”. But since you bring it up, did you answer them?

Yes, I answered Ridgerunner in another thread on Trump and minimum wages and taxes.

 

[estesbob]

I believe that the newcomers and lurkers should learn about Church teachings and apply them to how to vote instead of depending on the personal interpretations of Church teachings given here or elsewhere.

).

Agreed-which is why I post clear , unequivocal statments like this"
*
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*

 

[estesbob]

The issue is voting, not abortion. I prefer not to gloss over the distinction. And your interpretation of the documents you cite can be seen as just as novel as the interpretation others have made of statements, interviews, and documents.

How about going back to basics - the distinction between formal and material cooperation. The distinction between mediate and immediate cooperation. The distinction between proximate and remote cooperation. And then explore “proportionately serious reasons”. This concept and these distinctions existed long before they were applied to voting. So they ought to be a solid foundation from which to start.

So what are the proportionately serious reasons that would allow a catholic to vote for a Candidate who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. And if you do list some issue please show where the Church has acknowledged they are proportion ate. For example the Church has said death penalty, support of the Iraq war, immigration, taxation, environmental concerns, health care, the best means for addressing poverty, etc are not.

Again it would be helpful if you could post something as clear and unequivocal as this:

“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

 

[GaryTaylor]

And your interpretation of the documents you cite can be seen as just as novel as the interpretation others have made of statements, interviews, and documents.

How about going back to basics - the distinction between formal and material cooperation. The distinction between mediate and immediate cooperation. The distinction between proximate and remote cooperation. And then explore “proportionately serious reasons”. This concept and these distinctions existed long before they were applied to voting. So they ought to be a solid foundation from which to start.

How about it, I don’t see a applicable real time point? The terminology thrown out isn’t new. I’m sure you can make your case now that we have some terms added.

And your interpretation of the documents you cite can be seen as just as novel as the interpretation others have made of statements, interviews, and documents.

Not really as most all of us have been consistent in understanding. The opposition as yourself not at all. So I think you should get to making this argument never made yet.

The problem is your suggesting what can be done with no elaboration or reasoning. Its not true because you suggest it is. That is novel.

 

[DeniseNY]

Yes, I answered Ridgerunner in another thread on Trump and minimum wages and taxes.

I see.

As such, I would caution newbies and lurkers from depending on your personal interpretation of Catholic church teachings, but to rather focus on responses from posters such as estesbob.

 

[estesbob]

The issue is voting, not abortion. I prefer not to gloss over the distinction. And your interpretation of the documents you cite can be seen as just as novel as the interpretation others have made of statements, interviews, and documents.

How about going back to basics - the distinction between formal and material cooperation. The distinction between mediate and immediate cooperation. The distinction between proximate and remote cooperation. And then explore “proportionately serious reasons”. This concept and these distinctions existed long before they were applied to voting. So they ought to be a solid foundation from which to start.

I have posted numerous direct quoted for members of the Magestrium and Vatican documents that clearly state you can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

I have yet to see anyone refute them with anything other than speculation and/or relying on what, in their opinion, a voting guide or Bishop “meant” rather than what they said. i have also not seen anyone post exactly what these mystery proportionate reasons are.

Again it would be helpful if you could post something as clear and concise as this:

*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

 

[GaryTaylor]

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

See the difference in conditions requiring evaluation in prudential judgement which is a subjective matter, and in contrast with the USCCB and abortion which “must” always be rejected.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So what are the proportionately serious reasons that would allow a catholic to vote for a Candidate who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. And if you do list some issue please show where the Church has acknowledged they are proportionate.

I must stop you right there because it is not necessary to cite Church acknowledgement for every prudential judgement that can be made. I have already cited examples of what I consider proportionately serious reasons, namely in cases where the candidate has no function in office relating to abortion, or where, in my estimation, I believe the candidate is not sincere in his position.

For example the Church has said death penalty, support of the Iraq war, immigration, taxation, environmental concerns, health care, the best means for addressing poverty, etc are not.

This has not been established as Church doctrine. You have only quoted opinions on this these questions.

“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,”

This is clearly not true. If the opponent favors population control through forced abortion, as in China, you certainly could vote for the first candidate.

 

[estesbob]

I must stop you right there because it is not necessary to cite Church acknowledgement for every prudential judgement that can be made. I have already cited examples of what I consider proportionately serious reasons, namely in cases where the candidate has no function in office relating to abortion, or where, in my estimation, I believe the candidate is not sincere in his position.

This has not been established as Church doctrine. You have only quoted opinions on this these questions.

This is clearly not true. If the opponent favors population control through forced abortion, as in China, you certainly could vote for the first candidate.

So you can not cite anything form the Church to back up your opinion? Again I provided sources that validate my position. i have yet to see anyone post something to refute it