Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Crossbones]

OK so lets move past the emotion to civil discourse because we still have to get to the basis of your point and mine as there is conflict, which my argument is basically laid out in my opinion above.

However, you propose and correct me if I am wrong that there can be no lesser of two evils. I contend otherwise and I also contend abstinence is choosing the greater of the two evils.

The lesser of two evils can be read here…

womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=47706

The point there is another choice to avoid evil all together I don’t see as rational but I’m willing to listen to that point as admittedly there may be something I overlooked.

No, I don’t believe there cannot be a lesser of two evils. I do however believe that the determination of the lesser of two evils is left to prudential judgement. I find it fundamentally wrong that some say that the Church teaching says that you cannot vote for pro-choice candidates when that isn’t backed up by the actual teachings. You may use your prudential judgement with a well-formed conscience that Trump is the lesser of two evils. However, others may use prudential judgement with a well-formed conscience and determine that Clinton is the lesser of two evils. Even others may use their prudential judgement with a well-formed conscience and determine that neither can be supported. Let’s not delude ourselves that the Church has ruled definitely on this matter as the nuances of the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and comments of Bishop Kicanas make clear to us.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, I don’t believe there cannot be a lesser of two evils. I do however believe that the determination of the lesser of two evils is left to prudential judgement. I find it fundamentally wrong that some say that the Church teaching says that you cannot vote for pro-choice candidates when that isn’t backed up by the actual teachings. You may use your prudential judgement with a well-formed conscience that Trump is the lesser of two evils. However, others may use prudential judgement with a well-formed conscience and determine that Clinton is the lesser of two evils. Even others may use their prudential judgement with a well-formed conscience and determine that neither can be supported. Let’s not delude ourselves that the Church has ruled definitely on this matter as the nuances of the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and comments of Bishop Kicanas make clear to us.

This doesn’t work at all.

Trump, it appears, would not (if he could) ban abortion in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. He would, however, leave it to the states to determine what laws they would have regarding abortion, necessarily including those more strict that his own view. The end result, logically, would result in few abortions except in those states that would approve the three exceptions. In addition, he favors the appointment of strict constitutionalist justices.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, favors abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion throughout the U.S., no matter what. She favors the public paying for them. She would appoint only abortionists to the Supreme Court. (Justice Ginsberg being the model, one assumes, since she was a Clinton appointee)

Lot of difference. The total approval of abortion under all circumstances is not a matter of “prudential judgment”, it’s a matter of endorsement of absolute evil.

Insisting on the validity of one’s own subjective judgment of what’s good and what’s evil is actually a protestant point of view.

 

[Crossbones]

This doesn’t work at all.

Trump, it appears, would not (if he could) ban abortion in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. He would, however, leave it to the states to determine what laws they would have regarding abortion, necessarily including those more strict that his own view. The end result, logically, would result in few abortions except in those states that would approve the three exceptions. In addition, he favors the appointment of strict constitutionalist justices.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, favors abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion throughout the U.S., no matter what. She favors the public paying for them. She would appoint only abortionists to the Supreme Court. (Justice Ginsberg being the model, one assumes, since she was a Clinton appointee)

Lot of difference. The total approval of abortion under all circumstances is not a matter of “prudential judgment”, it’s a matter of endorsement of absolute evil.

Insisting on the validity of one’s own subjective judgment of what’s good and what’s evil is actually a protestant point of view.

Of course, anyone who is Catholic and has a well-formed conscience that supports Clinton would be doing so in spite of her support of abortion not because of it. They would be judging that the harm caused by Trump on other issues outweighs that of Clinton or perhaps that Trump cannot effect change or lacks the character to make a difference on the issue of abortion (Bishop Kicanas called on us to consider this).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The total approval of abortion under all circumstances is not a matter of “prudential judgment”, it’s a matter of endorsement of absolute evil.

That’s not what is being claimed. The prudential judgement is being applied to voting. It is not being applied to the morality of abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s not what is being claimed. The prudential judgement is being applied to voting. It is not being applied to the morality of abortion.

One cannot support a candidate who supports and promotes an intrinsic evil unless it is in opposition to an equally grave evil or greater one.

In this election, we have Hillary Clinton who supports an intrinsic evil, fully and completely, and including partial birth abortion. And she wants it imposed on the whole nation, and wants the public to pay for it.

Against her is Trump, who would allow exceptions in the rare cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, but who would let states be more strict than that if they wanted to.

Plainly, voting for Hillary, who supports an absolute evil in full is an greater evil than voting for a man who proposes what Trump is proposing.

So there we are. Can’t morally support Hillary Clinton. It’s not a matter of “prudential judgment” at all.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One cannot support a candidate who supports and promotes an intrinsic evil unless it is in opposition to an equally grave evil or greater one.

In this election, we have Hillary Clinton who supports an intrinsic evil, fully and completely, and including partial birth abortion. And she wants it imposed on the whole nation, and wants the public to pay for it.

Against her is Trump, who would allow exceptions in the rare cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, but who would let states be more strict than that if they wanted to.

Plainly, voting for Hillary, who supports an absolute evil in full is an greater evil than voting for a man who proposes what Trump is proposing.

So there we are. Can’t morally support Hillary Clinton. It’s not a matter of “prudential judgment” at all.

I agree with most of this, but the first paragraph and the last two do not follow from the rest.

 

[chero23]

One cannot support a candidate who supports and promotes an intrinsic evil unless it is in opposition to an equally grave evil or greater one.

In this election, we have Hillary Clinton who supports an intrinsic evil, fully and completely, and including partial birth abortion. And she wants it imposed on the whole nation, and wants the public to pay for it.

Against her is Trump, who would allow exceptions in the rare cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, but who would let states be more strict than that if they wanted to.

Plainly, voting for Hillary, who supports an absolute evil in full is an greater evil than voting for a man who proposes what Trump is proposing.

So there we are. Can’t morally support Hillary Clinton. It’s not a matter of “prudential judgment” at all.

True, but one can not base that a person is going to vote for Hillary based on her abortion stance alone.

 

[estesbob]

That’s not what is being claimed. The prudential judgement is being applied to voting. It is not being applied to the morality of abortion.

If Hillary Clinton came out tomorrow and said she supported a woman’s right to kill her child until they reached the age of five would you still vote for her?

 

[estesbob]

My opinion? Well thats a bit different, my opinion is the right of life/abortion is the top priority since mans existence rests in the hands of God. Roe vs Wade bought discord throughout the land, its a destructive war of selfishness because of man granting a privilege to kill in Gods Kingdom as a right, which has been on-going much to long. When mothers kill one million a year of their own children then there is no moral conversation, if you can transgress this human right of the most innocent then there are no human rights. You cannot possibly think you’ll impose in such a way on Gods will and gift of love, and peace and good will be the result of this violence. Its blindness to intrinsic evil. Your attempting to destroy Gods love itself, and you would think this isn’t the greatest priority and threat to your existence? You can’t even start to discuss any other intrinsic evil as a result because you cannot have a moral conversation after committing such an atrocity and spitting in Gods face in His Kingdom, its nonsensical. After such complete disregard for the spiritual law how can anyone tell another who can be killed and how or how to treat another human in regards to diginity? There is no logical conversation proceeding from this transgression. :nope:

What always surprises me is that one would even need their church to tell them they cannot vote for a candidate who supports the killing of 1 million children a year.

 

[estesbob]

True, but one can not base that a person is going to vote for Hillary based on her abortion stance alone.

Do the children end up lass dead because one did not support Hillary because of her abortion stance ?

 

[Darryl1958]

True, but one can not base that a person is going to vote for Hillary based on her abortion stance alone.

Some people vote for HRC because she is a woman. That means that they value a woman being in office more than they value someone who shares their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn.

Some people support HRC because of her experience. that means that they value her role in Benghazi more than they value someone who share their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn.

Some people support HRC because of her association with the very popular president, her husband Bill. That means that they value Bill more than they value someone who shares their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn…

There are a thousand reasons, I suppose, that people might support HRC. That means that they value any or all of those thousands of reasons more that they value someone who shares their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If Hillary Clinton came out tomorrow and said she supported a woman’s right to kill her child until they reached the age of five would you still vote for her?

That is an extremely far-fetched scenario, and I didn’t say I was voting for Clinton anyway. I want to make the point that I am not argument a personal opinion. I am arguing a general principle. But as long as you are asking far out hypotheticals, how about answering the one I asked several times and no one has answered it. That is, what is required of a voter in a race for County Drain Commissioner when a very competent candidate happens to be personally pro-choice on abortion, and the other candidate would be seriously incompetent as Drain Commissioner, but happens to be personally pro-life. Let’s say that I know their positions on abortion because I know both candidates personally as neighbors. Do your general principles on the duty of Catholic voters absolutely forbid voting for the one competent Drain Commissioner?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do the children end up lass dead because one did not support Hillary because of her abortion stance ?

Let us remember the primary reason the children end up dead. It is because of a decision made by a pregnant woman, or the advice of a doctor, or the pressure from family, the father, etc. Hilliary’s policies do not force anyone to get an abortion.

So, turning your question around, “do the children end up less dead because one voted for Trump?”

 

[estesbob]

That is an extremely far-fetched scenario, and I didn’t say I was voting for Clinton anyway. I want to make the point that I am not argument a personal opinion. I am arguing a general principle. But as long as you are asking far out hypotheticals, how about answering the one I asked several times and no one has answered it. That is, what is required of a voter in a race for County Drain Commissioner when a very competent candidate happens to be personally pro-choice on abortion, and the other candidate would be seriously incompetent as Drain Commissioner, but happens to be personally pro-life. Let’s say that I know their positions on abortion because I know both candidates personally as neighbors. Do your general principles on the duty of Catholic voters absolutely forbid voting for the one competent Drain Commissioner?

So you disagree with the Church that the unborn have just as much a right to life as the 7 year old does? Would it be OK to vote for a candidate who supported killing 7 year olds as long as they’re “right” on the other issues. 50 years ago Catholic supporting a candidate who supported abortion seem far-fetched but now we see Catholics not only doing it But rationalizing that is the best thing

I believe anyone who supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand is morally unfit to hold office at any level of government

 

[estesbob]

Let us remember the primary reason the children end up dead. It is because of a decision made by a pregnant woman, or the advice of a doctor, or the pressure from family, the father, etc. Hilliary’s policies do not force anyone to get an abortion.

So, turning your question around, “do the children end up less dead because one voted for Trump?”

Actually since it is probable that Trump world support defunding Planned Parenthood and would reinstitute the Mexico City policy children’s lives will be saved. We know for sure, however, that Hillary Clinton would do everything in her power to keep abortion legal in this country and to make sure that absolutely no restrictions are placed upon it. Our Church has made it clear that we cannot support this evil either directly or indirectly. I cannot understand how a Catholic can rationalize it as acceptable to support one who enables the killing of he unborn but unacceptable to support one who enables the killing of a five-year-olds. The only rationale I can see for this is culture of death has so permeated our country that even Catholics politics often trump their Faith

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you disagree with the Church that the unborn have just as much a right to life as the 7 year old does?

Instead of mightily trying so hard to get me to agree to something that is nothing like what I said, how about directly addressing what I did write?

I believe anyone who supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand is morally unfit to hold office at any level of government

There is nothing wrong with your holding that belief.

But I do find it interesting that you mention “taxpayer-funded”. It would seem that if your main concern is abortion and its consequences, the fact of some of your tax money being paid to doctors who do this would rank pretty low. To paraphrase a comment of yours “would the children be any less dead if they were aborted by doctors who were paid in some other way besides your tax dollars?”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Our Church has made it clear that we cannot support this evil either directly or indirectly.

This is too vague to take literally. What constitutes “support”?

Does abstaining from voting constitute support?
Does voting for a fringe 3rd party candidate constitute support?
Does silence constitute support?
Does passing up an opportunity to actively oppose this evil constitute support?
Does giving a ride to the polls for a pro-choice neighbor constitute support?

This is why the Church takes great care to distinguish between at least 6 kinds of cooperation with evil. Your simplistic statement does not, which is why it raises questions like the ones I listed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I want to make the point that I am not argument a personal opinion. I am arguing a general principle.

That is, what is required of a voter in a race for County Drain Commissioner when a very competent candidate happens to be personally pro-choice on abortion, and the other candidate would be seriously incompetent as Drain Commissioner, but happens to be personally pro-life.

Absolutely the priority is the killing of a million a year against Gods will from the start, not to be overlooked for how good you are anything else, Lucifer is a perfect comparison, when the opening line of your resume is; “Kills one million a year in Gods Kingdom” then your resume reads like Lucifers.

Disobedience was the cause of this entire dilemma. There is “no” right to be granted to kill a million unborn a year. Creating wars in Gods Kingdom never works well nor does cooperating with them. The conversation in priority of the law is spiritual not of this world juridical.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Abortion is dishonor to the Creator…“At this particular time, abortion has become the fundamental human rights issue for all men and women of good will. … For us abortion is of overriding concern because it negates two of our most fundamental moral imperatives: respect for innocent life, and preferential concern for the weak and defenseless.”

The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental - the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), no. 11

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici (1988), no. 38

It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace.

Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae (1995), no. 101

At this particular time, abortion has become the fundamental human rights issue for all men and women of good will. … For us abortion is of overriding concern because it negates two of our most fundamental moral imperatives: respect for innocent life, and preferential concern for the weak and defenseless.

Resolution on Abortion (1989)

Among important issues involving the dignity of human life with which the Church is concerned, abortion necessarily plays a central role. Abortion, the direct killing of an innocent human being, is always gravely immoral (The Gospel of Life, no. 57); its victims are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family. It is imperative that those who are called to serve the least among us give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice.

Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Campaign in Support of Life (2001), Introduction

[A]bortion 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: A Challenge to American Catholics (1998), no. 32

 

[GaryTaylor]

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279931-gingrich-to-gop-youre-either-for-trump-or-youre-for

“You’re either for Hillary Clinton or you’re for Donald Trump. If you’re not for Donald Trump, you are functionally helping Hillary Clinton. I think it’s just that straightforward.”

Gingrich’s comments come as a rebuke to Republicans who are rumored to be exploring the possibility of a conservative third-party candidate to block Trump from taking the White House.