Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[LeafByNiggle]

Can you provide a quote from a member of the Magestrium or an official Church document that backs up your position?

As I said before, when you claim that X is a doctrine, the burden is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

If I understand correctly your contention is that since you “think” one candidate “might” start a disastrous war its OK to vote for a Candidate who supports the killing of a million children a year?

Yes.

 

[Darryl1958]

Unborn children are not a value of the left, even the Catholic left.

 

[anon67074017]

Catholics should focus on defeating Sanders first. He is a much bigger threat than Hillary. Trump is not that bad. He is pro-life and against same-sex marriage. He is also not a fascist.

 

[Crossbones]

Because its a priority in teaching first of all. and in regards to the others as I posted and the CC indicates the other areas such as war DP etc do require prudential judgement which is documented on this thread.

Torture and the intentional targeting of noncombatants is not left to prudential judgement.

Nothing is ignored. Hillary 1-million deaths a year, Trump “0”. Thats the factual reality. You want to ignore “what she has and will continue to do” opposed to what “he hasn’t done it yet.”

There is no compelling argument by you in regards here but more logical fallacy and an attempt to make a non existing moral comparison.

No, I don’t ignore abortion. I have serious doubts about Trump’s commitment to the issue based on changing his views on it three times in one day, but Clinton is bad on the issue. That’s why voting for her against a guy like Trump who wants to torture and target noncombatants isn’t a no-brainer.

I really don’t see how you can ignore what Trump has said as a future barometer of his actions, but I read today that Trump doesn’t have policy positions but rather policy moods, so maybe his fascination with torturing and murdering noncombatants will fade.

 

[Crossbones]

Unborn children are not a value of the left, even the Catholic left.

Certainly not a priority in Canada, eh? Does either party remotely support abortion restrictions there?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Certainly not a priority in Canada, eh? Does either party remotely support abortion restrictions there?

Canada is more parliamentary than the USA is, and no, sadly, there’s not much support for life there.

I think that could change though sooner rather than later with certain demographic changes.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Catholics should focus on defeating Sanders first. He is a much bigger threat than Hillary. Trump is not that bad. He is pro-life and against same-sex marriage. He is also not a fascist.

Well, I would prefer SOS Clinton to Senator Sanders b/c she is more pragmatic.

Also, Sander’s good numbers are an illusion because

1. Almost no one is talking about the specifics of his plans. His plans would be a total disaster for the country, would add at least 10 trillion dollars to the debt and would scare independents, who really have no good reason to vote Democratic and haven’t since 2008. Also, most Democrats running for Congress wouldn’t be able to touch him with a 10-foot pole.
2. He’s an old, rich, white northeast idealist who doesn’t impress minorities and has zero pull in the electoral college.
3. There would be some serious talk if he could serve a second term due to age
4. He got the “outsider” label because SOS Clinton’s husband was a two-term president who was more or less popular and he wasn’t well known in the Senate.

The practical DNC strategists basically know that even with her problems, Clinton may be the only option they have. She may not be doing great in the polls, but Sanders’ numbers would come crashing down in a general.

I agree that Trump is no fascist. I’m just not sure he’s going to appoint real conservatives to the court.

Practically speaking, the GOP should have a majority there, but I don’t think we do on the hard social issues.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Torture and the intentional targeting of noncombatants is not left to prudential judgement.

No, I don’t ignore abortion. I have serious doubts about Trump’s commitment to the issue based on changing his views on it three times in one day, but Clinton is bad on the issue. That’s why voting for her against a guy like Trump who wants to torture and target noncombatants isn’t a no-brainer.

I really don’t see how you can ignore what Trump has said as a future barometer of his actions, but I read today that Trump doesn’t have policy positions but rather policy moods, so maybe his fascination with torturing and murdering noncombatants will fade.

Sure you ignore abortion and contrary to Church teaching of defined intrinsic evil and it being a first priority. Abortion is a defined intrinsic evil spoken on in particular past 50 years but historically for almost 2000. There’s no debate about that. The point as I said of prudential judgement is applicable because we don’t have torture defined. In fact Trumps conversation was rhetorical in equal rights and treatment as it was understanding the parameters of abortion such as with incest and rape. And the Church teaching could be read on the same USCCB sight on torture. Same as the death penalty in prudential judgement. When is the taking of the life of this rare bird allowed by the DP and by what means? It quite realistic the death penalty may be actually needed to protect us for the evil. Concern being the greater good. This is where prudential judgement comes into play being my point. Who is to define when we found this evil rare bird that needs to be put down and by what moral method? What consists in torture and in the context of dignity and human rights one might argue solitary confinement in the dark is torture. So again we have prudential judgement. So this is an on-going conversation. But abortion always “must” be rejected.

The USCCB states

Society itself frequently is divided when it comes to judging whether or not an action constitutes an abuse of human dignity. Thus, debates over particular issues get played out in the pages of our daily newspapers and on TV. For example, since 1973, there has been an intense debate over abortion, in which the Church calls for respect for human life from the moment of conception. There are ongoing debates over racism: when it is operative in school systems and when it is not, or how it influences voting choices. Currently, there is an ongoing debate in society over abortion and human embryonic stem-cell research, which the Church regards as a failure to recognize the unborn child’s humanity and dignity.

And, of course, there is debate over torture: whether certain practices commonly regarded as torture are legally or morally acceptable in the treatment and interrogation of prisoners accused of terrorist acts.

Torture is an issue in the news of our day, an issue that Catholic social teaching prompts us to examine. The issue of torture will be explored in detail in this discussion guides next chapter. At this point, however, we might conclude this discussion of human dignity by posing these questions:

What is at risk when respect does not characterize the relationships of individuals, of cultural and religious groups, or of nations?

Is it possible to condone practices of torture while at the same time affirming every persons God-given human dignity? Why or Why not?

No brainer isn’t how to view this since as you see there’s over 2000 years of philosophical theory and Catholic theology involved, not only with abortion but the death penalty etc.

 

[GaryTaylor]

War can be seen in same view with prudential judgement as the CCC states.

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.

Conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good in understanding the intrinsic evil defined as with torture, war and the DP, however, in regards to abortion its condemned, defined and elaborated on in particular last 50 years a priority.

 

[Crossbones]

Sure you ignore abortion and contrary to Church teaching of defined intrinsic evil and it being a first priority. Abortion is a defined intrinsic evil spoken on in particular past 50 years but historically for almost 2000. There’s no debate about that. The point as I said of prudential judgement is applicable because we don’t have torture defined. In fact Trumps conversation was rhetorical in equal rights and treatment as it was understanding the parameters of abortion such as with incest and rape. And the Church teaching could be read on the same USCCB sight on torture. Same as the death penalty in prudential judgement. When is the taking of the life of this rare bird allowed by the DP and by what means? It quite realistic the death penalty may be actually needed to protect us for the evil. Concern being the greater good. This is where prudential judgement comes into play being my point. Who is to define when we found this evil rare bird that needs to be put down and by what moral method? What consists in torture and in the context of dignity and human rights one might argue solitary confinement in the dark is torture. So again we have prudential judgement. So this is an on-going conversation. But abortion always “must” be rejected.

I said that I don’t ignore abortion and the first you say in the response is that I do. So, we’re starting to enter the point where have a civil discussion is breaking down.

So, let’s look at Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship again.

In paragraph 22, it says “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.”

So, all intrinsically evil actions must be rejected. You take that to be that you cannot vote for someone who takes that position. What are these intrinsically evil actions?

In paragraph 22 & 23, the documents lists "abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, destruction research on human embryos, genocide, torture and targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war.

Based on your logic, I don’t see how a Catholic can support either Trump or Clinton.

The USCCB states

No brainer isn’t how to view this since as you see there’s over 2000 years of philosophical theory and Catholic theology involved, not only with abortion but the death penalty etc.

Donald Trump thinks that waterboarding is torture and he wants to do that and ‘worse’. So, his own prudential judgement says that he is supporting an intrinsic evil. Unless you don’t think Donald Trump knows what he is talking about, in which case, I would wonder why you support him.

 

[Crossbones]

War can be seen in same view with prudential judgement as the CCC states.

Conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good in understanding the intrinsic evil defined as with torture, war and the DP, however, in regards to abortion its condemned, defined and elaborated on in particular last 50 years a priority.

Targeting noncombatants is an intrinsic evil. There’s not a question of prudential judgement here.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Trump didn’t kill anyone its wild speculative opinion, not so with Hillary.

So, let’s look at Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship again.

In paragraph 22, it says “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.”

So, all intrinsically evil actions must be rejected. You take that to be that you cannot vote for someone who takes that position. What are these intrinsically evil actions?

In paragraph 22 & 23, the documents lists "abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, destruction research on human embryos, genocide, torture and targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war.

Based on your logic, I don’t see how a Catholic can support either Trump or Clinton.

Donald Trump thinks that waterboarding is torture and he wants to do that and ‘worse’. So, his own prudential judgement says that he is supporting an intrinsic evil. Unless you don’t think Donald Trump knows what he is talking about, in which case, I would wonder why you support him.

The Church hasn’t defined torture. It hasn’t defined how to kill anyone in war. Which you can read with isis. Further its opinion and assumption what Trumps intent is and will result as. Its not a point and it doesn’t negate the priority of 1-million killed and condemned. So yes the priority of abortion isn’t left to prudential judgement its condemned. So surely you see how its your speculative opinion opposed to a factual reality and Church priority. There is no moral comparison as you suggest and its an argument of relevance. No such thing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Based on your logic, I don’t see how a Catholic can support either Trump or Clinton.

Based on my logic its clear as Hillary is the greater evil and a moral situation condemned and not left to juridical juggling of secular society to define, as with a rare bird in the DP. So there is also a clear difference in what in fact is intrinsic evil in this case alone. Proving my point its not all a relevant equal comparison as you suggest. The abortion is the priority and “must” be rejected. A case alone on the DP may be indeed be a reality. Your argument of equal relevance holds no water.

 

[Crossbones]

Trump didn’t kill anyone its wild speculative opinion, not so with Hillary.

If we are going to ignore what Trump says as potential policy positions (or moods, as they have been called), then why believe ANYTHING from him?

The Church hasn’t defined torture. It hasn’t defined how to kill anyone in war. Which you can read with isis. Further its opinion and assumption what Trumps intent is and will result as. Its not a point and it doesn’t negate the priority of 1-million killed and condemned. So yes the priority of abortion isn’t left to prudential judgement its condemned. So surely you see how its your speculative opinion opposed to a factual reality and Church priority. There is no moral comparison as you suggest and its an argument of relevance. No such thing.

So, we ignore all of Trump’s words. Ok, then. It’s not torture even though Trump calls it that. He didn’t mean that he would target noncombatants, even though he double downed on what he said on numerous occasions. Got it. Again, if you don’t believe what he says, then why are you supporting him?

 

[Crossbones]

Based on my logic its clear as Hillary is the greater evil and a moral situation condemned and not left to juridical juggling of secular society to define, as with a rare bird in the DP. So there is also a clear difference in what in fact is intrinsic evil in this case alone. Proving my point its not all a relevant equal comparison as you suggest. The abortion is the priority and “must” be rejected. A case alone on the DP may be indeed be a reality. Your argument of equal relevance holds no water.

I see. So, you aren’t following the Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship in the way I thought. It says that all intrinsic evils must be opposed, but you are not applying that to voting or you would have to reject Trump. So, the ‘abortion is the priority and must be rejected’ comes from elsewhere. Where exactly?

 

[GaryTaylor]

If you can’t address the points on this post then you have no point to discuss. You have a contention of a moral equivalence and it is a fact it doesn’t exist. Right? Thats called honest civil dialogue.

Based on my logic its clear as Hillary is the greater evil and a moral situation condemned and not left to juridical juggling of secular society to define, as with a rare bird in the DP. So there is also a clear difference in what in fact is intrinsic evil in this case alone. Proving my point its not all a relevant equal comparison as you suggest. The abortion is the priority and “must” be rejected. A case alone on the DP may be indeed be a reality. Your argument of equal relevance holds no water.

 

[Crossbones]

If you can’t address the points on this post then you have no point to discuss. You have a contention of a moral equivalence and it is a fact it doesn’t exist. Right? Thats called honest civil dialogue.

I didn’t bring up the death penalty at all (that I can remember), so I didn’t really know how to address that, as it seemed irrelevant to the debate we are having. You had been justifying your support of Trump using Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, or so I thought by your frequent quotations of it. Then you seem to change and I realize that you are not basing your support for Trump based on that document, so it makes sense that I would like from what Church teaching you are basing your support of Trump while rejecting Clinton.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see. So, you aren’t following the Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship in the way I thought. It says that all intrinsic evils must be opposed, but you are not applying that to voting or you would have to reject Trump. So, the ‘abortion is the priority and must be rejected’ comes from elsewhere. Where exactly?

Same article you quoted and EWTN, “must” always be rejected-abortion. The fact the DP or War are indeed intrinsic evil doesn’t mean as you see with “Isis” or with the DP 'it must be rejected" the Vatican called Isis just war, so how was “it must be rejected” and justice correctly understood may be a fact to serve the greater good and protect life thus war or the DP. In other words your wrong with your theory and with the equal relevance. You’ll have to prove this and you have nothing at all to stand on but a quote which I just put into context of comprehensive understanding. Now if you have something to articulate in regards to your own thinking to make your point of equal relevance I;m listening. But your quote above as I showed you isn’t working logically.

Further my earlier point stands Hillary -1 million a year murders. Trump 0. Speculative opinion isn’t practical. Nor even legally applicable in proving someone guilty in a court. You have nothing that I see. What did he do, nothing, innocent!

 

[Crossbones]

Same article you quoted and EWTN, “must” always be rejected-abortion. The fact the DP or War are indeed intrinsic evil doesn’t mean as you see with “Isis” or with the DP 'it must be rejected" the Vatican called Isis just war, and justice correctly understood may be a fact to serve the greater good and protect life thus war or the DP.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship lists many issues that ‘must’ always be rejected, some of which would disqualify Trump. So, it can’t be that.

EWTN has no teaching authority. Since Forming Consciences specifically tells us “We encourage Catholics to seek those resources authorized by their own bishops, their state Catholic conferences, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” I choose not to put weight into a document made outside these councils.

Now, again, you are going off track in the discussion. I have not brought up the death penalty or a just war argument, so I really don’t know if you are confusing my points with someone else’s or why you think this adds anything to your argument.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I didn’t bring up the death penalty at all (that I can remember), so I didn’t really know how to address that, as it seemed irrelevant to the debate we are having. You had been justifying your support of Trump using Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, or so I thought by your frequent quotations of it. Then you seem to change and I realize that you are not basing your support for Trump based on that document, so it makes sense that I would like from what Church teaching you are basing your support of Trump while rejecting Clinton.

Yes you did you quoted the USCCB and made war and the DP morally equal to abortion and I showed you they are not. In conceptual thinking they are but in reality abortion has a clear priority not left to discern by anyone. That conversation is over by the Church, but it can’t be over with the DP or war because as we see a rare bird like Isis may indeed appear. So the teaching itself appears relevant but there are distinctions which shows inaccuracy of equal relevance. The Church speaks volumes on the DP but admits a rare bird may exist that it mat be applicable. Its not applicable how we use it, but speaking of evil like with Isis a case may exist. Thats never the case with abortion. The ship sailed on the conversation with them. There is not instance of a rare acceptance.