Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

No, it is not necessary that Democrats prove anything to you. The point is not to convince you that their reasons are sufficiently serious. The point is to recognize that such a question is indeed about prudential judgement, which you seem to acknowledge by stating what it is that might convince you. As to whether those reasons are sufficiently serious, Catholics of good faith may disagree. I am not asking you to prove that another reason is not serious enough.

Keep in mind that the doctrine of proportional reasons existed long before Cardinal Ratzinger cited that doctrine in voting. He was not establishing new doctrine. He was explaining how long-standing doctrine is applied to this particular case. Therefore we should be able to do the same thing, I.e. Explain our judgements using only these older sources. I have not heard anyone here do so.

 

[chero23]

I have said this once and I’ll say it again.

I think it’s sad how republicans are fast at pointing the finger towards democrats but when a republican makes the same mistake as the democrat, somehow in the right wing eyes, it’s ok.

I was watching an hour ago on Fox, the Five.

They were talking about how irresponsible it was for Obama to have said what he said about Trimp at Rutgers commencement speech. I’m going to paraphrase, but they said, “he’s the President he should act better than that”.

Yet when Trump says, “I can shoot someone and not lose support”, when he mocks a news reporter and his handicap, the right wing especially people on here see it as “he’s just speaking his mind”.

Folks, I’m sorry we can’t have it both ways. Either Obama and Trump are both wrong, each in their own situation or no one is wrong. We can not say, Trump is innocent just bc Trump has an R next to his name.

Juan Williams got onto Kimberly Guilfoye, and she as most erratics on Fox News started to scream. I was always told, the person who speaks the loudest doesn’t always win the conversation.

But having said that, Juan Williams really got onto those on the right. It was so obvious, my mom who doesn’t speak English said, “yeah, he just put her in her place”.

Shouldn’t we be mature, especially as Catholics?

I get it, vote and back those who stand for life, marriage, against euthanasia. I get it, trust me I do and me position has never changed. But you can not in good conscience sit in your chair, read my post and say, well those liberals.

Bc guess what, republicans and right wing fanatics are just as bad as those on the left.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let me put this to you another way, you don’t need to prove a thing but nothing stated by you guys on this thread makes any sense imho. What page? If there was a point your attempting to make I cant see it nor the logic in it. So there’s a serious disconnect and also a serious lack of evidence supporting what you contend is a supposed position.

I’m not contending proportional reasoning hasn’t existed before Pope Benedict Im contending by his understanding you have no point here with this. Now if theres something you think supports your position from before Benedict I’d be more than happy to read it. Might even be something I need to read.

Its not even a matter or respecting your position, I really don’t see one. Its certainly illusive imho.

 

[DeniseNY]

I have said this once and I’ll say it again.

I think it’s sad how republicans are fast at pointing the finger towards democrats but when a republican makes the same mistake as the democrat, somehow in the right wing eyes, it’s ok.

I was watching an hour ago on Fox, the Five.

They were talking about how irresponsible it was for Obama to have said what he said about Trimp at Rutgers commencement speech. I’m going to paraphrase, but they said, “he’s the President he should act better than that”.

Yet when Trump says, “I can shoot someone and not lose support”, when he mocks a news reporter and his handicap, the right wing especially people on here see it as “he’s just speaking his mind”.

Folks, I’m sorry we can’t have it both ways. Either Obama and Trump are both wrong, each in their own situation or no one is wrong. We can not say, Trump is innocent just bc Trump has an R next to his name.

Juan Williams got onto Kimberly Guilfoye, and she as most erratics on Fox News started to scream. I was always told, the person who speaks the loudest doesn’t always win the conversation.

But having said that, Juan Williams really got onto those on the right. It was so obvious, my mom who doesn’t speak English said, “yeah, he just put her in her place”.

Shouldn’t we be mature, especially as Catholics?

I get it, vote and back those who stand for life, marriage, against euthanasia. I get it, trust me I do and me position has never changed. But you can not in good conscience sit in your chair, read my post and say, well those liberals.

Bc guess what, republicans and right wing fanatics are just as bad as those on the left.

This is all fine and good, but it’s interesting you don’t use the phrase “left wing fanatics”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have said this once and I’ll say it again.

I think it’s sad how republicans are fast at pointing the finger towards democrats but when a republican makes the same mistake as the democrat, somehow in the right wing eyes, it’s ok.

I was watching an hour ago on Fox, the Five.

They were talking about how irresponsible it was for Obama to have said what he said about Trimp at Rutgers commencement speech. I’m going to paraphrase, but they said, “he’s the President he should act better than that”.

Yet when Trump says, “I can shoot someone and not lose support”, when he mocks a news reporter and his handicap, the right wing especially people on here see it as “he’s just speaking his mind”.

Folks, I’m sorry we can’t have it both ways. Either Obama and Trump are both wrong, each in their own situation or no one is wrong. We can not say, Trump is innocent just bc Trump has an R next to his name.

Juan Williams got onto Kimberly Guilfoye, and she as most erratics on Fox News started to scream. I was always told, the person who speaks the loudest doesn’t always win the conversation.

But having said that, Juan Williams really got onto those on the right. It was so obvious, my mom who doesn’t speak English said, “yeah, he just put her in her place”.

Shouldn’t we be mature, especially as Catholics?

I get it, vote and back those who stand for life, marriage, against euthanasia. I get it, trust me I do and me position has never changed. But you can not in good conscience sit in your chair, read my post and say, well those liberals.

Bc guess what, republicans and right wing fanatics are just as bad as those on the left.

I readily agree that Repubs can be every bit as ill-mannered as Dems. But we’re not interviewing guests for an upscale garden party.

 

[chero23]

This is all fine and good, but it’s interesting you don’t use the phrase “left wing fanatics”.

I’m sorry.

Rachel Maddow in my opinion is a left wing fanatic.

MSNBC as a whole is left wing fanatic.

I like on Fox, 2-3 guys at most. Chris Wallace, he’s very good and respectful, he lets them speak without interrupting.

Shepherd Smith and Brit Hume in my opinion also have that aura about them. They respect what they do and are there to cover a story. Their not worried about being the center of the piece. Men like those 3, I would even throw Wolf Blitzer in that mix, whom I wouldn’t mind watching all day, bc I know they are unbiased.

 

[Tablefor9]

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?”

They might, which is more of a chance of not being dead than they otherwise would have had. When federal funding for planned parenthood is cut, numbers would drop–less babies ending up dead. When states have the right to legislate abortion to reflect the values of the citizenry, numbers in many places would drop–less babies ending up dead. Even if neither of these happen, but a neutral environment is created for prolife work, less babies end up dead than if HRC gets her unfettered access and full government funding way.

 

[pnewton]

He is a Catholic. Is he a perfect Catholic? Are you? Which is more Catholic? These types of questions are not ones we should ask, lest we ourselves fall to the judgement by which we judge others.

Trump’s immigration policy might make the top ten reasons I cannot vote for him, but it is a was down on my top ten. I could say that I do not understand how any Catholic could vote for him, but then I look at Hillary. While I will not take the route of the lesser of two evils, not when I deem the “evil” so great, I understand and respect the decision of those that do. (quotes on evil to show I was just mirroring the moral principle, not calling him evil)

 

[estesbob]

He is a Catholic. Is he a perfect Catholic? Are you? Which is more Catholic? These types of questions are not ones we should ask, lest we ourselves fall to the judgement by which we judge others.

Trump’s immigration policy might make the top ten reasons I cannot vote for him, but it is a was down on my top ten. I could say that I do not understand how any Catholic could vote for him, but then I look at Hillary. While I will not take the route of the lesser of two evils, not when I deem the “evil” so great, I understand and respect the decision of those that do. (quotes on evil to show I was just mirroring the moral principle, not calling him evil)

Its not a vote for the lesser of two evils-its a vote to lessen evil

 

[stinkcat_14]

Its not a vote for the lesser of two evils-its a vote to lessen evil

That is not a factual statement, it is just an opinion. Trump’s position on abortion is evil, just not as evil as Hillary’s or Bernie’s. Therefore, it is a lesser evil.

 

[DeniseNY]

I’m sorry.

Rachel Maddow in my opinion is a left wing fanatic.

MSNBC as a whole is left wing fanatic.

I like on Fox, 2-3 guys at most. Chris Wallace, he’s very good and respectful, he lets them speak without interrupting.

Shepherd Smith and Brit Hume in my opinion also have that aura about them. They respect what they do and are there to cover a story. Their not worried about being the center of the piece. Men like those 3, I would even throw Wolf Blitzer in that mix, whom I wouldn’t mind watching all day, bc I know they are unbiased.

No need to be sorry!

I tend to think Shep Smith does kind of make the story about himself sometimes.

 

[pnewton]

Its not a vote for the lesser of two evils-its a vote to lessen evil

As, we vote for people, not laws and not platforms, I think my formulation is more grammatically correct. It is clearly what*** I ***meant to say. It is also the way I have always heard this stated.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
As for me, I will reject both choices.

 

[Crossbones]

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.

Since the vast majority of bishops support the document, then I do take it to be something that should be carefully considered by Catholics. Also, many bishops publicize the USCCB document on the diocesan websites or place items in bulletins, which I take to be that the bishop is teaching on the issue by using this document.

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.

Perhaps the EWTN statement isn’t more succinct, but rather making statements that Forming Consciences intentionally avoided making. Perhaps that why they recommend only using that document and those supported by the bishops because, in being more succinct, other documents are deviating from the teaching intended by the bishops.

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.

Like killing noncombatents has the gray area of misunderstanding the context and then refusing to see that he absolutely meant what he said when he talked about it afterwards, or that torture has the gray area of saying it isn’t torture, even though Trump says it is.

 

[pnewton]

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.

The issue is not whether the document is binding, but whether it has authority. National Conferences like the USCCB are given authority in canon law as follows:

A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.

So, while one can be a good Catholic and only listen to that which his bishop promulgates, there is surely nothing wrong, and something very “Catholic” about following documents such as this guide. They are not the equivalent of EWTN by any means.

I definitely believe with this forum being a Catholic apostolate any appeal to a USCCB document should be given respect due. Response like the one on EWTN should also be given due consideration, as one would any priest, but it does not have the pedigree of authority that the USCCB does.

 

[estesbob]

As, we vote for people, not laws and not platforms, I think my formulation is more grammatically correct. It is clearly what*** I ***meant to say. It is also the way I have always heard this stated.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
As for me, I will reject both choices.

My comment was the way Archbishop Chaput explains it. When looking at Catholic Teaching I think the Magestrium is a better source than Wikepedia

 

[estesbob]

The issue is not whether the document is binding, but whether it has authority. National Conferences like the USCCB are given authority in canon law as follows:

.

A Bishops conference has 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-pa…olos-suos.html

So many Catholics have twisted Faithful Citizenship to try to support their view that they can licitly vote for pro-abortion candidates that numerous Catholic bishops have issued clarifying statements rejecting this interpretation. However those Catholics ignore the statements in favor of their own personal interpretation all the while claiming their personal interpretation represents church teaching. Not a single Bishop has issued a statement affirming this interpretation of Faithful Citizenshipb

 

[stinkcat_14]

My comment was the way Archbishop Chaput explains it. When looking at Catholic Teaching I think the Magestrium is a better source than Wikepedia

Archbishop Chaput is giving his opinion here on a political matter, no defining Church teaching. There is no doubt in Church teaching that allowing for abortion in any circumstance is evil. So if I say Donald’s position on abortion is a lesser evil, that is in no way wrong. Archbishop Chaput prefers to express it differently, but that is his political opinion, not a doctrinal statement. We are free to disagree with him on how things should be expressed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Crossbones- Perhaps the EWTN statement isn’t more succinct, but rather making statements that Forming Consciences intentionally avoided making. Perhaps that why they recommend only using that document and those supported by the bishops because, in being more succinct, other documents are deviating from the teaching intended by the bishops.

I don’t understand this. I’m sure its me but just a little help would be appreciated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A Bishops conference has 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-pa…olos-suos.html

So many Catholics have twisted Faithful Citizenship to try to support their view that they can licitly vote for pro-abortion candidates that numerous Catholic bishops have issued clarifying statements rejecting this interpretation. However those Catholics ignore the statements in favor of their own personal interpretation all the while claiming their personal interpretation represents church teaching. Not a single Bishop has issued a statement affirming this interpretation of Faithful Citizenshipb

Since you quote section (20), you should also look at section (21) that follows it:

*

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.(81)

The concerted voice of the Bishops of a determined territory, when, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they jointly proclaim the catholic truth in matters of faith and morals, can reach their people more effectively and can make it easier for their faithful to adhere to the magisterium with a sense of religious respect. In faithfully exercising their teaching office, the Bishops serve the word of God, to which their teaching is subject, they listen to it devoutly, guard it scrupulously and explain it faithfully in such a way that the faithful receive it in the best manner possible.(82) Since the doctrine of the faith is a common good of the whole Church and a bond of her communion, the Bishops, assembled in Episcopal Conference, must take special care to follow the magisterium of the universal Church and to communicate it opportunely to the people entrusted to them.​

*
So, while a conference of bishops does not have the authority to define doctrine independent of Rome, they are recognized as being "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". In view of this, it is an exaggeration to say that the USCCB has no teaching authority. That is not what section (20) says, and it is clearly contrary to what section (21) says.

 

[GaryTaylor]

but it does not have the pedigree of authority that the USCCB does.

I don’t understand the meaning of this either.

I agree about most the rest though pnewton, but I think for example when we say EWTN since its and example already used, then it depends who exactly we are talking about. As noted already on a link from EWTN-Women of Grace. Its not the authority of EWTN or the Women of Grace laity. The authority resided in the Vatican and the spokesman for the Pope speaking. So I think the perspective can also change. Further the united Bishops USCCB as opposed and compared to a specific Bishop of his diocese is really the comparison and here the weight imho favors the teaching authority of the individual Bishop.

In other words I agree with Bob in short the USCCB has no definitive authority as I assume your contending. No doubt there’s a level of discernment required and respect for who they are and in conjunction with each other.

catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-bishop-and-the-conference.html