Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Darryl1958 said:
I am not sure what you mean.
I certainly did not give a negative on the fact that she was a woman.
Negative or not, Benghazi is a very much what she will be remembered for as her record as Secretary of State, which in turn is as high as she has risen politically.
And I never said anything negative about Bill Clinton whatsoever.

As for Trump, that wasn’t really part of anything that i said anyway. I don’t know how that is related.
Click to expand...
You said Bill and said the killing of the unborn.

Yes you know how it is related. I gave you the other side of the coin. You gave HIllarys so I then gave you Trump’s.

You sound, oh HRC has all the evil doings, what about Trump. There’s 2 candidates and Trump is not that far behind Hillary
 
Crossbones said:
I don’t like using the EWTN’s voter’s guide (or any other “Catholic” voter’s guide for that matter) because Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship specifically says to use the USCCB resources or those provided by your bishop. That’s where all this is coming from. Whatever you and Leaf want to use is between you two.
Click to expand...
Lets be clear this isn’t what you stated and it introduced a authority conversation in this thread. Your proposal was “non authority” you have a conflict with others who hold your own position not with me. And further need to clarify your stance on EWTN authority which I am quite sure at the end of the day resolves just I initially contended. 🤷

Here you minimize your rejection of the argument of authority which who bought up by the way?
 
GaryTaylor said:
Oh your point is quite easy to refute but clarification is needed for EWTN as both Bob and I posted coinciding information from EWTN to the great dismay of those holding your position and on this thread. So either EWTN is rejected period or you’ll have to amend your position. I stopped using it out of charity and the simple fact that in truth I don’t need it. However, if its NOW permitted then the prior points stand and I’ll address your point. Until then you eliminated the very place you consult as a non authority. 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s not a sufficient analysis to limit one’s objection to “formal” cooperation. A lesser form of cooperation can also be immoral. From Leaf’s article:

"we distinguish between mediate material cooperation which is necessary (supplying what is essential to the commission of the morally wrong action) and non-necessary (supplying what is non-essential). This distinction corresponds to the fifth criterion of the principle of double effect: the good consequence must be morally proportionate to the evil consequence. Here, remember, one is considering the very consequences themselves in relation to each other. "

Voting for Hillary Clinton is necessary to her promotion of abortion on demand. And this takes us back to Pope Benedict’s statement that voting for the abortionist must be overweighed by a proportionate evil on the other side. In this election, there is no equally great or greater evil in voting against Hillary Clinton.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Lets be clear this isn’t what you stated and it introduced a authority conversation in this thread. Your proposal was “non authority” you have a conflict with others who hold your own position not with me. And further need to clarify your stance on EWTN authority which I am quite sure at the end of the day resolves just I initially contended. 🤷

Here you minimize your rejection of the argument of authority which who bought up by the way?
Click to expand...
I don’t think EWTN’s teaching have any authority and shouldn’t be used to support or oppose an argument. I don’t use them. My concern was that Gary might have thought it was Leaf that had issues with EWTN earlier and so I was trying to clarify that it was me that objected. But you are right, I really don’t think EWTN should be used in any way.
 
Crossbones said:
I don’t think EWTN’s teaching have any authority and shouldn’t be used to support or oppose an argument. I don’t use them. My concern was that Gary might have thought it was Leaf that had issues with EWTN earlier and so I was trying to clarify that it was me that objected. But you are right, I really don’t think EWTN should be used in any way.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why not.

EWTN is not, itself, the Vatican, but it is an orthodox Catholic source.
 
Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience.
Click to expand...
  1. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
To formally cooperate in the sin of another is to be associated with him in the performance of a bad deed in so far forth as it is bad, that is, to share in the perverse frame of mind of that other. New Advent
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
The Church refers to voting for Public office.
Click to expand...
And you honestly think the full force of this binding Catholic doctrine forbidding voting for a pro-choice candidate applies to any public office, no matter how limited in scope and unrelated to abortion that public office may be, like County Drain Commissioner?
 
I think its fair that when Pope Benedict was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he addressed the principle of proportionate reasons and the ideal of positive cooperation as an accomplice. However, the example used in comparison of proportionate for example is 1-million abortions a year compared to the period of Hitler in Germany. We don’t have any such situation in America.
“There are no ‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion.” (Archbishop Joseph Naumann)
Click to expand...
“I do not see how a Catholic could, in conscience, vote for an individual expressing him or herself as favoring abortion.” (Cardinal O’Connor)
Click to expand...
 
I apologize if someone has already linked to this article. The quote is an excerpt from St. Thomas More’s Utopia.
‘Yes, it is true’, I said, “that there is no place for this school of philosophy which supposes every topic suitable for every occasion. But there is another philosophy, better suited for the role of a citizen, that takes its cue, adapts itself to the drama in hand and acts its part neatly and appropriately. This is the philosophy for you to use . . . If you cannot pluck up bad ideas by the root, or cure longstanding evils to your heart’s content, you must not therefore abandon the commonwealth. Don’t give up the ship in a storm because you cannot hold back the winds . . . Instead, by an indirect approach, you must strive and struggle as best you can to handle everything tactfully—and thus what you cannot turn to good, you may at least make as little bad as possible. For it is impossible to make everything good unless all men are good, and that I don’t quite expect to see for quite a few years yet."
~~
More’s comments highlight the central flaw in Hythloday’s understanding: He lacks both moderation and prudence. Hythloday commits the idealist’s error of making the best the enemy of the good, with the result that both the best and the good are lost.
Click to expand...
The Politics of Passion: The Lesson of Thomas More
Click to expand...
 
MODERATOR WARNING

It is considered uncharitable on the forums to say that your political opponents are like Nazis, Hitler or Stalin, etc. Please be careful to post charitably at all times.

If you don’t know if what you might post would be considered charitable or not, don’t post.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t see why not.

EWTN is not, itself, the Vatican, but it is an orthodox Catholic source.
Click to expand...
I think taking things from Church teachings is the best starting point. I don’t need an EWTN voter’s guide if I have the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Individual bishops may add to the USCCB document, but I don’t think an organization run by lay people should. Catholics acting with a well-formed conscience can discern what was meant without the additional support.
 
Crossbones said:
I think taking things from Church teachings is the best starting point. I don’t need an EWTN voter’s guide if I have the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Individual bishops may add to the USCCB document, but I don’t think an organization run by lay people should. Catholics acting with a well-formed conscience can discern what was meant without the additional support.
Click to expand...
You do realize the USCCB document is not, itself, binding in conscience for Catholics, do you not? it isn’t. It’s the opinion of a committee of a Catholic bishops organization, but has no more binding effect than does EWTN.

And “Forming Consciences…” and the EWTN statement are not inconsistent. The latter is just more succinct. Both condemn abortion as an absolute evil which no Catholic can support, and both make a distinction between it and lesser issues about which Catholics may exercise prudential judgment. Neither says there is a proportionately grave or greater evil in the context of American elections justifying a vote for an abortion proponent.

What many outside the Church and, unfortunately some Catholics, don’t understand is that for the Church, some things are absolutes, while some things are subject to individual judgment. It’s different from the protestant view of subjective morality.

And it shouldn’t actually be all that hard to see the differences. Abortion is binary. Either the child is killed or she isn’t. There are no “degrees” of “dead”. Other moral issues are not that way.
 
But the above links are Catholic priests and not the laity. And I think they add a preponderance of coinciding evidence to the very ideal of a properly formed conscience. Further the link from EWTN on the lesser of two evils is from the Vatican. Most of the laity their are well informed also.

Truth be told I see very little support in agreement with the Democrat Catholics. What I do see is rare opinions like those in the Church who believed Mary sinned, if I had to make a quick comparison. But lets be honest since we disagree on each others opinion of the USCCB document its only fair authentic coinciding evidence be admitted. imho

And certainly Catholic priests and their elaborations have authority?
 
Ridgerunner said:
It’s not a sufficient analysis to limit one’s objection to “formal” cooperation. A lesser form of cooperation can also be immoral.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he was looking for a shortcut so he would not have to argue the more difficult point.
In this election, there is no equally great or greater evil in voting against Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
That may or may not be, but the judgement as to whether it is the case is a prudential one, not one of absolute Church doctrine.
 
That may or may not be,
Click to expand...
But then the Democrats have the burden of proof to make their point. 1-million abortions a year, whats proportionate by reason? Nothing in America as 2-Bishops and a Catholic priest state above. We have no comparison.
 
chero23 said:
You said Bill and said the killing of the unborn.
…
Click to expand...
Name recognition certainly is one of the reasons that people would vote for Hillary.
Everybody knows that she is the former first lady of a very popular president.
That is the plus reason therefore. The negative would be that they would be voting for someone who does not share their horror for the killing of the unborn.
In your mind, is that a proportional reason to consider voting for someone who is pro-abortion?

For many people by the way, abortion would be their plus reason for voting for Hillary Clinton. Many people would passionately share her view on the war on womyn and are horrified by contemplating an America without widespread access to abortion.
I am not directing the question of proportionality to these people though.

This kind of proportional weighing of reasons to vote only applies to people who actually
are horrified at the idea and the scale of the destruction of unborn life in America.

Now if Trump is one of the 1001 reasons for you or anyone else to vote for Clinton, it would be worthwhile to compare his policy on unborn life to that of Clinton.

The CA axiom in this regard is a statement that when Catholic Democrats love unborn life more than they hate Republicans(ie Trump) that would change the status quo completely.

That is the proportionality that I am inviting you to explore.
 
That is the proportionality that I am inviting you to explore.
Click to expand...
Here in NE the standing slogan is we are all liberal democrats until we grow up. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top