Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[estesbob]

Vatican II elevated the role of bishops conferences, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI downplayed their role, and Pope Francis has again elevated their importance in his attempt to redistribute power and authority away from the Vatican and toward the local bishops and bishops conferences. If you favor Cardinal Burke’s approach to doctrinal and moral matters, you’d probably downplay the teaching authority of bishops conferences, such as the USCCB.

Cardinal Burke was recently demoted to a post as Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is largely a ceremonial role usually given to a retired cardinal or as a secondary job to an active one. Not my bishop, not my Pope, but a favorite among U.S. Catholic culture warriors (including many who post on CA Forums) for his outspoken conservative views (and perhaps for his opposition to Pope Francis). Not my favorite, however.

And you can support this with? I quoted the pertinent Church document. If you know of a document that overturns this please provide it.

Are you under the impression that a Bishop loses his teaching authority when he is given a new assignment???

 

[adowcday]

I am stating what the Church says. Bishops conferences have no teaching authority:

1. In the Episcopal Conference the Bishops jointly exercise the episcopal ministry for the good of the faithful of the territory of the Conference; but, for that exercise to be legitimate and binding on the individual Bishops, there is needed the intervention of the supreme authority of the Church which, through universal law or particular mandates, entrusts determined questions to the deliberation of the Episcopal Conference.** Bishops, whether individually or united in Conference, cannot autonomously limit their own sacred power in favour of the Episcopal Conference, and even less can they do so in favour of one of its parts, whether the permanent council or a commission or the president.** This logic is quite explicit in the canonical norm concerning the exercise of the legislative power of the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference: “The Conference of Bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which the common law prescribes it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either motu proprio or at the request of the Conference, determines it”.(77) In other cases “the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent”.(78)

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos.html

If I’m not mistaken, you would ignore or reduce “Faithful Citizenship” to a friendly suggestion. However, your logic would not make Cardinal Burke the voice for U.S. Catholic voters, but rather each Catholic’s local bishop, assuming that the universal church had not given us clear, unambiguous guidance on which candidate to vote for – and it has not.

I share the view of Bishop McElroy of San Diego that the problem with “Faithful Citizenship” is that is fails to address the battle against poverty and for the environment as central concerns for the Catholic Church since Pope Francis’ election in 2013. “Specifically, I think the pope is telling us that alongside the issues of abortion and euthanasia — which are central aspects of our commitment to transform this world — poverty and the degradation of the Earth are also central,” McElroy has said.

I don’t know who your local bishop is, and I moved a few years back from San Diego to the Diocese of San Jose, California, and more recently to the Archdiocese of San Francisco, California, led by Archbishop Cordileone. The diocesan website includes a link to “Faithful Citizenship” and no other guidance to voters, despite Archbishop Cordileone’s outspoken prolife views. Again, I note that Cardinal Burke has no teaching authority in my diocese, and my bishop has provided “Faithful Citizenship” for my guidance.

Guess I’m still voting for Hillary Clinton for President in November.

 

[Crossbones]

The paragraph doesn’t establish anything in the context and content of what we are discussing. He may very well have a point but thats not it.

You surely have something of substance if he is the “par excellence” of the point. In short I have to repeat my friends thinking, I love the way she does that too…

I would disagree with you, but that would be adding my personal interpretation of what he meant. I’m sure lurkers and newcomers can read it and decide for themselves what it means. But I do think it is important to read the whole article as well as documents such as the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

 

[Crossbones]

I’m not surprised by your response either, quite frankly. And posters like Bob aren’t giving their personal interpretation; you are. But that’s already been pointed out numerous times

Sure, I am. It’s hard to avoid doing that. That said, I encourage all lurkers and newcomers to read the documents for themselves and decide what they mean for themselves instead of depending on me or Bob or any other poster.

 

[Crossbones]

Only if we accept your interpretation of what he "meant " and ignore what he said.-but then that is a common problem non-Catholics have in trying to understand Church teaching.

I would encourage all lurkers and newcomers to not take anyone’s personal interpretation of what was meant and decide for themselves. Inevitably, some of my interpretation will come through in my posts as it does for every poster.

And I never said I wasn’t Catholic, I just said revealing whether or not I am does not add to the discussion. I think anyone with opposing viewpoints to the status quo on this site can only look at what’s happened with the resident theology professor and see that revealing her deep knowledge of Catholic theology only opened her up to ridicule. On the other hand, there are some around here who make a point of revealing too much about themselves and get offended about a particular issue. After all, you were very upset at me over some of my views on homosexuality, so I think it’s fair of me to not reveal too much of myself and, frankly, I think more people should follow my example.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am stating what the Church says. Bishops conferences have no teaching authority:

1. In the Episcopal Conference the Bishops jointly exercise the episcopal ministry for the good of the faithful of the territory of the Conference; but, for that exercise to be legitimate and binding on the individual Bishops, there is needed the intervention of the supreme authority of the Church which, through universal law or particular mandates, entrusts determined questions to the deliberation of the Episcopal Conference.** Bishops, whether individually or united in Conference, cannot autonomously limit their own sacred power in favour of the Episcopal Conference, and even less can they do so in favour of one of its parts, whether the permanent council or a commission or the president.** This logic is quite explicit in the canonical norm concerning the exercise of the legislative power of the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference: “The Conference of Bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which the common law prescribes it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either motu proprio or at the request of the Conference, determines it”.(77) In other cases “the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent”.(78)

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos.html

Right after paragraph 20 in your link comes paragraph 21:

21. The joint exercise of the episcopal ministry also involves the teaching office. The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority,* the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect** (religioso animi obsequio)”.(79) Apart from this general norm the Code also establishes, more concretely, some areas of doctrinal competence of the Conferences of Bishops, such as providing “that catechisms are issued for its own territory if such seems useful, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See”,(80) and the approval of editions of the books of Sacred Scripture and their translations.*
So the bishops in the USCCB do represent authentic teachers and instructors of the faith, even if they cannot declare new infallible teaching independent from the Vatican. Therefore after due reflection, one may disagree with particular positions taken by the USCCB (as you have done), or agree with them (as I have done). Both are legitimately faithful responses.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Can you find a single member of the magestrium that supports your position. If when they speak in opposition to your views you claim it is only their “opinion” surely you can find one of them expressing an “opinion” that supports your view?

I have not expressed any position beyond what is stated in Faithful Citizenship.

 

[Crossbones]

Are you claiming that the USCCB does not represent the individual bishops and is not a means by which those bishops, gathered together, do not express their teaching?

I think that it does. After all, the vast majority of the bishops approved of the document. In fact, in many dioceses, there is a link from the website to the document such as

archmil.org/offices/social-justice/Faithful-Citizenship.htm

Once it is posted and letters placed in bulletins, I cannot believe it is not the teaching of that bishop. I guess there are bishops that did not approve the document and they may wish to not have it distributed in their diocese.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Perhaps, but it doesn’t answer the question

Who writes most of the legislation? Lobbyists. Special interest groups write our laws. Special interest groups are interested in themselves. Laws have VERY little to do with morality and everything to do with money.

 

[DeniseNY]

Who writes most of the legislation? Lobbyists. Special interest groups write our laws. Special interest groups are interested in themselves. Laws have VERY little to do with morality and everything to do with money.

Laws against things such as (for example) incest, pedophilia, polygamy, have little to do with morality?

 

[Exiled_Child]

I’m not positive this is the best thread to post this in, but I suspect even the Russophobes will enjoy this article; it’s quite interesting. Plus, there’s an amusing photo mock-up of Vlad and Hillary. It’s subtitled:

Russia has 20,000 emails stolen from her secret home server

lifezette.com/polizette/kremlin-has-hillary-emails/

Thoughts? Reactions?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would disagree with you, but that would be adding my personal interpretation of what he meant. I’m sure lurkers and newcomers can read it and decide for themselves what it means. But I do think it is important to read the whole article as well as documents such as the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

Yes you were wrong already in your private interpretation, remember…“must”? Its also documented on this thread for all to read. In fact there has been no point by you clearly elaborated on to make whatever point it is you’ve attempted to make. I fail to see any point made so I agree we are going to allow people to read and both whats stated and linked thus posted. If fact thats how this works. In fact I fail to see what exactly you or Leaf are attempting to say. Makes no sense imho.

Doing Good and Avoiding Evil
21. Aided by the virtue of prudence in the exercise of well-formed consciences, Catholics are called to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena.

1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions.

They [must] always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.

A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia.

In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

1. Similarly, human cloning, destructive research on human embryos, and other acts that directly violate the sanctity and dignity of human life are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life, such as genocide, torture, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified. Nor can violations of human dignity, such as acts of racism, treating workers as mere means to an end, deliberately subjecting workers to subhuman living conditions, treating the poor as disposable, or redefining marriage to deny its essential meaning, ever be justified.

1. Opposition to intrinsically evil acts, which undercut the dignity of the human person, should also open our eyes to the good we must do, that is, to our positive duty to contribute to the common good and to act in solidarity with those in need. As St. John Paul II said, “The fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandment” (Veritatis Splendor, no. 52). Both opposing evil and doing good are essential obligations.

Any conversation starts right here, and no-one here has been able to address or respond with any clarity…

[must] always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.

A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion.

Im quite certain that will be grasped by the “lurkers”. That- abortion MUST be rejected and that is the priority. Further “assuming” what Trump will do in speculation is NOT prudence because its not practical. Further Clinton is responsible for 1-million abortions a year"now" and more promised by her evil agenda. Trump-0. You haven’t been able nor has anyone in addressing these points but by adding gibberish in some weird attempt to distract from the point. Simple fact is, and its a fact is “abortion” promoted by Hillary again for years to the tune of 1-million a year is a intrinsic evil which “must” be rejected.

 

[GaryTaylor]

U.S. Bishops Declare “Intrinsic Evil” of Abortion Must Always Be Opposed
Tuesday, November 24, 2015

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved revisions to “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” on political responsibility during their recent meeting in Baltimore. The updates in the document “take account of recent developments in the United States in both domestic and foreign policy” including “the ongoing destruction of over one million innocent human lives each year by abortion” and physician-assisted suicide.

The bishops warn against “intrinsically evil” actions which must always “be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” Abortion and euthanasia are listed as prime examples because they “have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others”. Human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, and “other acts that directly violate the sanctity and dignity of human life”, are also intrinsically evil and “must always be opposed”.

The bishops warn that it “is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.”

Catholics are called “to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena” and the bishops warn that the taking of innocent life in abortion cannot be equated as “just one issue among many” and must always be opposed.

They advise that when voting, “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.”

Catholics serving in elected office are called to have “a heroic commitment” and “must commit themselves to the pursuit of the virtues, especially courage, justice, temperance, and prudence. The culmination of these virtues is the strong public promotion of the dignity of every human person as made in the image of God in accord with the teachings of the Church, even when it conflicts with current public opinion. Catholic politicians and legislators must recognize their grave responsibility in society to support laws shaped by these fundamental human values and oppose laws and policies that violate life and dignity at any stage from conception to natural death.”

Opposing evil should also “open our eyes to the good we must do, that is, to our positive duty to contribute to the common good and to act in solidarity with those in need.”

Faithful Citizenship explains the USCCB’s position that it “supports laws and policies to protect human life to the maximum degree possible, including constitutional protection for the unborn and legislative efforts to end abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. We also promote a culture of life by supporting laws and programs that encourage childbirth and adoption over abortion and by addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families.”

The bishops call for greater assistance for the sick and dying stating, “The end of life is a holy moment, a moment that marks a preparation for life with God, and it is to be treated with reverence and accompaniment. The end of life is as sacred as the beginning of life and requires treatment that honors the true dignity of the human person as created in the image of the living God. We recognize that addressing this complex issue effectively will require collaborative efforts between the public and private sectors and across party lines.”

The document ends with the section, Goals for Political Life: Challenges for Citizens, Candidates, and Public Officials, and a list of ten policy goals which the bishops offer in the hope that it will “guide Catholics as they form their consciences and reflect on the moral dimensions of their public choices.” The ten issues “address matters of different moral weight and urgency”, some involve intrinsically evil acts, which can never be approved while others “involve affirmative obligations to seek the common good.”

pncius.org/update.aspx?id=141

Notice the consistency and clarity of validation of opinion which IS proper formation of conscience thus “thinking with the mind of the Church” .

Now do you have “anything” which addresses these points and in clarity elaborates on yours? Because I don’t see “anything”.

The updates in the document “take account of recent developments in the United States in both domestic and foreign policy” including “the ongoing destruction of over one million innocent human lives each year by abortion” and physician-assisted suicide.

The bishops warn against “intrinsically evil” actions which must always “be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” Abortion and euthanasia are listed as prime examples because they “have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Further in priority what we have discussed is also in “Laudato Si,” Pope Francis says our bodies are “God’s gift” that should not be manipulated. He reaffirms the Catholic Church’s stance against abortion and contraceptives, and reaffirms the issue of “gender theory,” again another issue of Obama/Hillary.

“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? ‘If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away,’”

“At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of ‘reproductive health.’ Yet ‘while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development.’

“To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. Besides, we know that approximately a third of all food produced is discarded, and ‘whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor.’ Still, attention needs to be paid to imbalances in population density, on both national and global levels, since a rise in consumption would lead to complex regional situations, as a result of the interplay between problems linked to environmental pollution, transport, waste treatment, loss of resources and quality of life.”

“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.

Gender…

The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation.”

“Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek ‘to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it.’”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In fact I fail to see what exactly you or Leaf are attempting to say. Makes no sense imho.

My point, stated as simply as possible, is that there is no absolute Church doctrine that says or implies that voting for a candidate who is not as pro-life on abortion as his opponent is always an immoral act.

As for the quote on Doing Good and Avoiding Evil, I can see how you might think it implies one may never vote for a pro-choice candidate. But it doesn’t.

Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not always condoning the acts that they would allow, nor is it making abortion of the same moral weight as other issues. To draw the conclusion you draw, you need to ignore the levels of indirection involved. The pro-choice candidate is not actively using the weight of government to make people have abortions. The primary guilt of those abortions is on the people who decide to have them done on themselves (the mothers), or perform them for others (the doctors), or pressure others to have them (the fathers, family, friends, etc.). However the other issues (like a sane economic or defense policy) are not indirect. They are direct. Voting for someone because of these policies can have an active direct effect. Taking the difference between the direct and the indirect effects into account, one can find that it is more important to save the nation from an insane policy (i.e. those of Trump), rather than make a statement that may or may not have the desired outcome (i.e. preventing abortions).

As for “always opposing evil”, I think your interpretation of that phrase is too broad. Consider this scenario: There is a rally and picketing of an abortion clinic near you next Saturday. But you decide to spend the day cutting your lawn. Does the document you quoted imply that cutting your lawn when you could have picketed an abortion clinic mean that you have acted immorally? After all, not all issues have the same moral weight. And that would be especially true if you were to compare the value of preventing abortions with the value of getting your lawn cut. So if you think the words you have quoted implies that I must fore go protecting my nation from an insane economic or foreign affairs policy in order to oppose abortion, explain why those same words don’t mean I must fore go cutting my lawn for the same reason.

That- abortion MUST be rejected and that is the priority.

Even at the expense of an unkempt lawn?

Further “assuming” what Trump will do in speculation is NOT prudence because its not practical.

We never know with certainty what anyone will do. The judgment of what Trump will do is as much mine as it is Cardinal Burke’s.

Further Clinton is responsible for 1-million abortions a year"now" and more promised by her evil agenda

Now you are “assuming” what will happen with Clinton. But that’s OK when you do it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The contemporary scene, moreover, is becoming even more alarming by reason of the proposals, advanced here and there, to justify even infanticide, following the same arguments used to justify the right to abortion. In this way, we revert to a state of barbarism which one hoped had been left behind forever.

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people—even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State,which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?” 16 When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

1. To defend and promote life, to show reverence and love for it, is a task which God entrusts to every man, calling him as his living image to share in his own lordship over the world: "God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’ " (Gen 1:28).

For you formed my inmost being" (Ps 139:13): the dignity of the unborn child

1. Human life finds itself most vulnerable when it enters the world and when it leaves the realm of time to embark upon eternity. The word of God frequently repeats the call to show care and respect, above all where life is undermined by sickness and old age. Although there are no direct and explicit calls to protect human life at its very beginning, specifically life not yet born, and life nearing its end, this can easily be explained by the fact that the mere possibility of harming, attacking, or actually denying life in these circumstances is completely foreign to the religious and cultural way of thinking of the People of God.

In the Old Testament, sterility is dreaded as a curse, while numerous offspring are viewed as a blessing: “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Ps 127:3; cf. Ps 128:3-4). This belief is also based on Israel’s awareness of being the people of the Covenant, called to increase in accordance with the promise made to Abraham: “Look towards heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them … so shall your descendants be” (Gen 15:5). But more than anything else, at work here is the certainty that the life which parents transmit has its origins in God. We see this attested in the many biblical passages which respectfully and lovingly speak of conception, of the forming of life in the mother’s womb, of giving birth and of the intimate connection between the initial moment of life and the action of God the Creator.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer 1:5): the life of every individual, from its very beginning, is part of God’s plan. Job, from the depth of his pain, stops to contemplate the work of God who miraculously formed his body in his mother’s womb. Here he finds reason for trust, and he expresses his belief that there is a divine plan for his life: "You have fashioned and made me; will you then turn and destroy me?
Evangelim Vitae

Nothing has changed in 50 years with this priority because the culture of death refuses to confront its own barbarism. And nothing tops this insidious hedonistic promotion of evil to date. Not then nor not now and certainly not in some speculative assumption void of prudence in relation to this outrageous evil agenda of intrinsic evil …its a self realized manifestation of pure evil. There is no equal to this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My point, stated as simply as possible, is that there is no absolute Church doctrine that says or implies that voting for a candidate who is not as pro-life on abortion as his opponent is always an immoral act.

Gibberish, your point sadly attempts to sidestep THE point. Which is abortion MUST be rejected. Nothing but clever conversation avoiding THE point. Making your suggested point incorrect.

As for the quote on Doing Good and Avoiding Evil, I can see how you might think it implies one may never vote for a pro-choice candidate. But it doesn’t.

Abortion “MUST” be rejected and that is the priority.

Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not always condoning the acts that they would allow, nor is it making abortion of the same moral weight as other issues. To draw the conclusion you draw, you need to ignore the levels of indirection involved. The pro-choice candidate is not actively using the weight of government to make people have abortions. The primary guilt of those abortions is on the people who decide to have them done on themselves (the mothers), or perform them for others (the doctors), or pressure others to have them (the fathers, family, friends, etc.). However the other issues (like a sane economic or defense policy) are not indirect. They are direct. Voting for someone because of these policies can have an active direct effect. Taking the difference between the direct and the indirect effects into account, one can find that it is more important to save the nation from an insane policy (i.e. those of Trump), rather than make a statement that may or may not have the desired outcome (i.e. preventing abortions).

This is intellectual nonsense the culture of death is accepted, cooperated with and promoted by Obama and Hillary and you reached another failed point already addressed many many times. Its explicit conspiracy.

As for “always opposing evil”,

I haven’t misunderstood a thing; “Abortion MUST be rejected” and that IS the priority. There is no equal in intrinsic evil confronting the culture of death.

Even at the expense of an unkempt lawn?

Gibberish

We never know with certainty what anyone will do. The judgment of what Trump will do is as much mine as it is Cardinal Burke’s.

We know with a proven track record what Clinton will do which is promote the culture of death. But you have no certainty with Trump and your prudential judgement falls sloppy dead right here. Your point has now become a immature argument of relevance while in denial of factual reality. The Cardinal has not a thing to do with my conversation anywhere on this thread.

Now you are “assuming” what will happen with Clinton. But that’s OK when you do it.

There’s no assumption shes THE advocate for abortion on demand, has been and will be. Again its factual reality in contrast to lacking prudential judgement based on your speculation which conflicts with the practical thinking required for prudence. Its relevance which disregards factual reality “again”. You have no point here to be clear. In fact it contradicts your own proposed and failed point of “prudential judgement”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gibberish, your point sadly attempts to sidestep THE point.
Which is abortion MUST be rejected. Nothing but clever conversation avoiding THE point. Making your suggested point incorrect.

What do you mean my point in incorrect? If what I have said is wrong, then refute it. Calling it gibberish is not a refutation.

Abortion “MUST” be rejected and that is the priority.

I noticed that you omitted responding my my direct challenge to this statement. The one about choosing to skip a chance to oppose abortion so that I might cut my lawn. I still want to know if you think that would be a moral choice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There’s no assumption shes THE advocate for abortion on demand, has been and will be. Again its factual reality in contrast to lacking prudential judgement based on your speculation which conflicts with the practical thinking required for prudence. Its relevance which disregards factual reality “again”. You have no point here to be clear. In fact it contradicts your own proposed and failed point of “prudential judgement”.

You have not demonstrated any qualitative difference between my assuming what will happen with Trump in office and your assuming what will happen with Clinton in office. These are both practical judgements that people are free to make on their own. The fact you strongly believe one of these and not the other does not make it so for everyone.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see no point to address anything addressed already, I would be going circular. Fact is I agree with the point of allowing readers to decide for themselves. I would only “suggest” from here what I find extraordinary to believe is anyone will grasp your point, as no where does it manifest itself as “clear”. So Im quite content with the proposed thinking.