Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[GaryTaylor]

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

In my mind to me your not the arbiter of what I demonstrated. Again thats for readers to decide my argument is laid out. Yours imho is not very good, logical, or prudent and evokes relevance. But like I said all thats documented and I see no sense in circular dialogue. I don’t have to “prove” anything to “you”. In fact thats contrary to the entire conversation proposed yesterday of letting the readers decide the validity of the conversation or in other words the “lurkers”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In my mind to me your not the arbiter of what I demonstrated. Again thats for readers to decide my argument is laid out. Yours imho is not very good, logical, or prudent and evokes relevance. But like I said all thats documented and I see no sense in circular dialogue. I don’t have to “prove” anything to “you”. In fact thats contrary to the entire conversation proposed yesterday of letting the readers decide the validity of the conversation or in other words the “lurkers”.

I agree. Let the readers decide.

 

[Crossbones]

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.

Actually that was in response to what you put, where the EWTN document said “must” and the part you quoted from the USCCB document said “may”. See post #294 of this thread. You need to re-read your own post.

Actually, the part of the USCCB

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

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.

If you logic is to use these statements as defining who to vote for, then you must reject both Trump and Clinton, because both are supporters of intrinsic evil. You want to excuse Trump but all we have to go by is his words and he has made it clear that he supports torture and targeting noncom patents. So, sorry, you must reject Trump if you are basing your vote on this portion of the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Even at the expense of an unkempt lawn?

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.

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

I am still waiting for you to post a anything from the Church to back up your position.I have posted voluminous documentation backing up what I have said. All i have gotten in reply is “well thats just their opinion” or"I read an interview where a bishop said voting is a difficult decision" or "my personal interpretation of a voting guide trumps 2.000 years of church teaching.

Again all I ask for are sources to back up your assertions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Actually that was in response to what you put, where the EWTN document said “must” and the part you quoted from the USCCB document said “may”. See post #294 of this thread. You need to re-read your own post.

They both say “must” and that was the context of the conversation pointed out to you. Abortion “must” always be rejected.

If you logic is to use these statements as defining who to vote for, then you must reject both Trump and Clinton, because both are supporters of intrinsic evil.

False and per above “abortion MUST be rejected” and there is nothing else rising to this level of priority as the encyclicals over the past 50 years indicate with the culture of death abortion. Nothing new same point or priority 50 years running.

You want to excuse Trump but all we have to go by is his words

And thats a repeated failed argument as speculation opposed to factual reality isn’t a point at all unless relevance is the point and clearly its not. Its a failed tactic is all it is. And pointed out today. We have to go by the factual reality of HIllarys actions.

and he has made it clear that he supports torture and targeting noncom patents.

But he hasn’t done a thing thus again relevance of speculation lacking “prudential judgement” prudence isn’t speculative.

And yes I am basing my thinking not only on the USCCB but all the teachings including the encyclicals I posted. Which the USCCB do not rise to the same level of authority as. So its a preponderance of evidence of all the Church teachings on the topic not just one, as that in itself imho is flawed thinking in Catholicism understanding. Its not just read the USCCB as thats not true, nor do they disagree with the others as pointed out. In fact the others shine a light on the intent of the USCCB in the culture of death-abortion. Not visa versa as its an ongoing 50 year teaching. In fact starting with Pope Paul VI/ humanae-vitae. I would suggest starting their and reading forward for clearer comprehension thus a better formed conscience thus “thinking with the mind of the Church”.

 

[estesbob]

Actually that was in response to what you put, where the EWTN document said “must” and the part you quoted from the USCCB document said “may”. See post #294 of this thread. You need to re-read your own post.

If you logic is to use these statements as defining who to vote for, then you must reject both Trump and Clinton, because both are supporters of intrinsic evil. You want to excuse Trump but all we have to go by is his words and he has made it clear that he supports torture and targeting noncom patents. So, sorry, you must reject Trump if you are basing your vote on this portion of the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

It is not clear that Trump supports torture and killing non-combatants but for the sake of argument lets say he does. When both candidates support intrinsic evil we may vote for the candidate who would do the least harm. Again lets turn to the Magestrium:

*There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida*

 

[estesbob]

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.

1, The majority of bishops approving a document is irrelevant as far as whether a Bishops Council has teaching authority.
2. There is nothing in Faithful Citizenship that supports the idea that a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when their opponent does support abortion or supports it to a lesser extent than they do.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am still waiting for you to post a anything from the Church to back up your position.I have posted voluminous documentation backing up what I have said. All i have gotten in reply is “well thats just their opinion” or"I read an interview where a bishop said voting is a difficult decision" or "my personal interpretation of a voting guide trumps 2.000 years of church teaching.

Again all I ask for are sources to back up your assertions.

As long as my position is not in direct contradiction with Church doctrine, it stands on its own logic. I don’t need to find a priest to tell me that I can cut my lawn instead of picket an abortion clinic.

If you think my interpretation of “Faithful Citizenship” is in contradiction with 2000 years of Church teaching, then point out how that is so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1, The majority of bishops approving a document is irrelevant as far as whether a Bishops Council has teaching authority.
2. There is nothing in Faithful Citizenship that supports the idea that a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when their opponent does support abortion or supports it to a lesser extent than they do.

One would think that a document specifically intended to give Catholic guidance on voting would not omit such an obvious clear statement as “it is never moral to vote for a pro-choice candidate unless the other choice is even worse.” The absence of such a statement is support for there being more freedom in that area than you are willing to allow.

 

[estesbob]

As long as my position is not in direct contradiction with Church doctrine, it stands on its own logic. I don’t need to find a priest to tell me that I can cut my lawn instead of picket an abortion clinic.

If you think my interpretation of “Faithful Citizenship” is in contradiction with 2000 years of Church teaching, then point out how that is so.

So you can not offer anything to back up your position other than your opinion? I have provided extensive documentation. You have offered nothing to refute it.

 

[estesbob]

One would think that a document specifically intended to give Catholic guidance on voting would not omit such an obvious clear statement as “it is never moral to vote for a pro-choice candidate unless the other choice is even worse.” The absence of such a statement is support for there being more freedom in that area than you are willing to allow.

So now we are to determine Church teaching by what one document didn’t say?

 

[GaryTaylor]

So now we are to determine Church teaching by what one document didn’t say?

If you want to go by your own opinion in neglect of 50+ years of consistent teachings then thats the path. Imho its the entire issue today. Its the Church, then that becomes me and the Church, and then or course my opinion of the Church.

“Facts are more important than ideas” Pope Francis

 

[estesbob]

If you want to go by your own opinion in neglect of 50+ years of consistent teachings then thats the path. Imho its the entire issue today. Its the Church, then that becomes me and the Church, and then or course my opinion of the Church.

To me it comes down to one basic question. Does you faith form your politics or does your politics form your faith?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you can not offer anything to back up your position other than your opinion?

The only way to back up a position that says that a certain teaching is not part of Church doctrine is to demonstrate faults with arguments that try to make the case that it is. And that I have done. I think the burden is on those who say this is binding Catholic doctrine rather than on those who say it is not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The juridical model is not the basis of Catholic morality; rather, juridical norms are only as valid as they are based on the faith principles of the Church’s moral doctrine.

I also am a bit taken back as we appear to be leaning on the USCCB in an unintended method imho, for me it brings to mind Fr John. From here we can place the idea of voting in perspective with Church teaching.

Two distinctions should be kept in mind regarding this matter: between Catholic morality and canonical penalties, and between the official teaching of the Church and ecclesiastical writers, no matter how celebrated. Clarification here will help dissipate what has become a gray area for many Catholics in today’s animated controversy over abortion.

On the level of morality, Roman Catholicism has always held that the direct attack on an unborn fetus, at any time after conception, is a grave sin. The history of this teaching has been consistent and continuous, beginning with the earliest times and up to the present.

The Church’s teaching on abortion is just that; it is doctrine the Church proclaims on the prior assumption that the magisterium is empowered by Christ to proscribe and prescribe in any area of human conduct that touches on the commandments of God, whether derived from nature or from supernatural revelation. Arguments may be given and reasons offered to support the Church’s teaching; but the ultimate “reason” why Catholics obey this teaching is the authority given the Church to command obedience in Christ’s name. If this seems like “arguments made by an external judge,” the Catholic faithful will answer, “We must put aside all judgment of our own, and keep the mind ever ready and prompt to obey in all things the true spouse of Christ and Lord, our holy Mother, the hierarchical Church.” [8]

Once this is admitted, that for a Catholic the Church’s moral teaching partakes of faith in the Church, it is quite secondary and, in fact, irrelevant, that the doctrine should also be expressed in juridical terms. As a visible society that believes it has the right from God to make laws for its members, the Church encourages what has come to be known as Canon Law. But Canon Law is only an attempt to organize and systematize for prudential reasons the external aspects of what is essentially not juridical: the will of God in its demands on the will of man. It would be a mistake, therefore, to suppose that the Catholic teaching on abortion uses arguments that are based on a juridical model. Quite the contrary. The juridical model is not the basis of Catholic morality; rather, juridical norms are only as valid as they are based on the faith principles of the Church’s moral doctrine.

therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_002.htm

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So now we are to determine Church teaching by what one document didn’t say?

By common sense, yes, if you look for something in the most obvious place where it should definitely be, and it is not there, a good case can be made that it doesn’t exist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I also am a bit taken back as we appear to be leaning on the USCCB in an unintended method imho, for me it brings to mind Fr John. From here we can place the idea of voting in perspective with Church teaching.

therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_002.htm

Since this article does not mention voting directly, I would appreciate it if you would make the connection yourself so that I can see why you think this says we may never vote for the pro-choice candidate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

However that point leans heavily and imho imprudently on the lack of research to promote its conclusion. :tsktsk:

 

[Crossbones]

They both say “must” and that was the context of the conversation pointed out to you. Abortion “must” always be rejected.

But what you posted in post #294 had a quote that said may. So, I read that and said one says must and one says may when in reference to voting. So, I’m sorry you didn’t post what you thought you posted and I correctly read it and made a comment based on my correct reading.

False and per above “abortion MUST be rejected” and there is nothing else rising to this level of priority as the encyclicals over the past 50 years indicate with the culture of death abortion. Nothing new same point or priority 50 years running.

Paragraph 23 states
“23. 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.”

So, I’m not sure how you get from ‘abortion must always be opposed’ to ‘you can’t vote for someone who supports abortion’ without applying that to other intrinsic evils such as human cloning, genocide, torture and targeting of noncombatants. It seems to me that you are using the document to support your belief in rejecting pro-choice candidates but ignoring the document when it talks on these other issues in equally strong terms.

And thats a repeated failed argument as speculation opposed to factual reality isn’t a point at all unless relevance is the point and clearly its not. Its a failed tactic is all it is. And pointed out today. We have to go by the factual reality of HIllarys actions.

The factual reality is that Trump said he would torture and he would target noncombatants. You want to ignore that because he hasn’t done it yet. I do not find that a compelling argument.

But he hasn’t done a thing thus again relevance of speculation lacking “prudential judgement” prudence isn’t speculative.

And yes I am basing my thinking not only on the USCCB but all the teachings including the encyclicals I posted. Which the USCCB do not rise to the same level of authority as. So its a preponderance of evidence of all the Church teachings on the topic not just one, as that in itself imho is flawed thinking in Catholicism understanding. Its not just read the USCCB as thats not true, nor do they disagree with the others as pointed out. In fact the others shine a light on the intent of the USCCB in the culture of death-abortion. Not visa versa as its an ongoing 50 year teaching. In fact starting with Pope Paul VI/ humanae-vitae. I would suggest starting their and reading forward for clearer comprehension thus a better formed conscience thus “thinking with the mind of the Church”.

Again, a rejection of campaign promises being an indicator on what horrors a candidate might unleash when given power. Interesting. I think we both agree that lurkers and newcomers should explore this issue for themselves and carefully read all the material that we have cited as well listen to their bishop’s teachings. I do think many will draw different conclusions than you have though.

 

[Crossbones]

It is not clear that Trump supports torture and killing non-combatants but for the sake of argument lets say he does. When both candidates support intrinsic evil we may vote for the candidate who would do the least harm. Again lets turn to the Magestrium:

*There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida*

This is an interesting point, but I do think that the bishop focused on how to apply Church teaching to a single issue, abortion. I would be interested in seeing how the bishop might apply this is a wider context given Trump’s promises to torture and murder noncombatants. I don’t think you can look at a single issue in a vacuum in this election.