Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[LeafByNiggle]

If you can’t ever cooperate with the evil of abortion as a priority how is that reasonable? Whats being claimed is that can be ignored for a speculative opinion about some other imaginative evil.

Oh, the other evils are very real. They are not speculative. But what you are trying to do is to place every opinion about the likely effect of voting for a pro-live candidate as as given. But every opinion about the likely effect of voting for a pro-choice candidate as speculative. Either they are both a given, or they are both speculative. You can’t arbitrarily say one is speculative and the other is a given.

Also since you are not the one doing the claiming, you don’t get to say what is being claimed by the other side in this debate.

The only thing we are not free to speculate on is that abortion is intrinsically evil. And that both sides in this debate agree on.

Be that in a hypothetical drain cleaners, or whatever, there is no moral comparison and clearly not proportionate.

Please specify what is not proportionate. The only thing that needs to be proportionate is reasons. Not** issues**. Cardinal Ratzinger uses the word “reasons” quite correctly. Don’t substitute other words or you will distort the meaning.

It doesn’t even exist but in speculation and the certainty of your own opinion, in contrast to factual reality?

What doesn’t exist? The office of Drain Commissioner? It certain does exist - in Michigan. Look it up.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh, the other evils are very real. They are not speculative

But what you are trying to do is to place every opinion about the likely effect of voting for a pro-live candidate as as given. But every opinion about the likely effect of voting for a pro-choice candidate as speculative. Either they are both a given, or they are both speculative. You can’t arbitrarily say one is speculative and the other is a given.

Real where in comparison? Whats real is 1-million a year pro-abortion deaths and against Gods will and priority of His Church. No, in trying to say this situation is a given because you can’t prove this proportionate reason factually exists opposed to the reality of the prudential judgement of the teaching authority priority and firm teaching. And your still suggesting this can be disregarded for what you cant make a case for as real. You have no facts of this existing evil and calling speculative real. No point again.

Also since you are not the one doing the claiming, you don’t get to say what is being claimed by the other side in this debate.

I don’t get to state you never made a factual comparison “Oh, the other evils are very real. They are not speculative”. Im just pointing out aspects that need clarification in your dialogue.

The only thing we are not free to speculate on is that abortion is intrinsically evil. And that both sides in this debate agree on.

Your free to assume in speculation a greater evil and free to provide no factual evidence in comparison and call that priority over the below teaching of the Churches priority?

Please specify what is not proportionate. The only thing that needs to be proportionate is reasons. Not issues.

Reasons must be based on factual reality of issues just like the abortion of 1-million is one there must be in fact one to neglect this teaching. Prudential judgement cannot be speculative, but must always be practical, also teaching on the topic to paraphrase Aquinas.

It comes back to the already addressed point. They are all teaching in consensus of the social teaching of the Church and in priority? So what proportional reason of priority exists to relegate the priority of the teaching authority to secondary? None factual, only suggestive opinion, and thats prudential judgement and against the very teaching that prudence is never speculative and must be practical.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/on-the-importance-and-priority-of-defending-innocent-human-life.cfm

On The Importance And Priority Of Defending Innocent Human Life

Papal Teaching
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

---

Vatican Documents
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

---

U.S. Bishops’ Documents
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

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Real where in comparison? Whats real is 1-million a year pro-abortion deaths…

I didn’t say these other evils were greater than abortion. I just said they were real because you said they were merely speculative.

Your free to assume in speculation a greater evil and free to provide no factual evidence in comparison and call that priority over the below teaching of the Churches priority?

Once again, I didn’t say there was a greater evil. Those are your words, not mine. I said there was a greater** reason**.

Reasons must be based on factual reality of issues just like the abortion of 1-million is one there must be in fact one to neglect this teaching.

Reasons can be based on other facts besides these. There is no limitation placed on the facts that may be considered. For example, one such fact, in the case of a lesser office, is the fact that the office has nothing to do with abortion. Do you agree with this? Or do you maintain that abortion must trump everything else, even in this case?

 

[GaryTaylor]

these other evils . I just said they were real because you said they were merely speculative.

They are merely speculative. And its for you to qualify how real and speculative is mutually exclusive and a fact. Surely you don’t think anyone reading this thinks you have even a remote point with this argument of rhetorical nonsense? And this is a properly formed conscience how? By neglecting the Church priority of the factual pro abortion 1-million a year agenda of the Democrats.

Once again, I didn’t say there was a greater evil. Those are your words, not mine. I said there was a greater** reason**.

Reason has to be based on fact by definition of prudencial judgement ad the very terms you use. You have none. Your argument is your speculation is reason of fact. Nonsense.

Reasons can be based on other facts besides these. There is no limitation placed on the facts that may be considered.

You have no facts to suggest there may be some others to coincide with the ones you never stated. The rest was an attempt to deflect which you have reached gibberish imho proposed to be logical from a formed conscience, pretty alarming. So far all I hear is rhetoric and not good.

 

[zab]

This is how I feel about voting Trump v. Clinton
youtube.com/watch?v=jkJR2LEihQY

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t disagree that there are a lot of misunderstandings of Church teaching on CAF. That’s why it’s important to refer to the appropriate documents such as the USCCB’s Forming Consciences and bishop’s comments and allow Catholic in good faith with well-formed consciences to determine what they mean and not refer to bishops as ‘liberal outliers’ when they something that you disagree with.

I don’t think you mean to misrepresent what I have said. I think you do not always understand.

I didn’t disagree with the substance, and I never said the bishops are “liberal outliers”, not even those who wrote the Faithful Citizenship letter. I did mention that one bishop in particular is regarded as something of a liberal outlier. But even he doesn’t say it’s okay for Catholics to support abortion.

Nothing wrong with saying someone is a “liberal outlier” even if he’s a bishop. Some bishops are more conservative or liberal than others, and some are “outliers” in that they might not represent the mainstream in some way or other.

But no Catholic bishop endorses Hillary Clinton, or justifies supporting a pro-abortion candidate in the current election.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Reason has to be based on fact by definition of prudencial judgement ad the very terms you use. You have none. Your argument is your speculation is reason of fact.

It is a fact that the office of Drain Commissioner in Michigan counties has nothing to do with abortion. This is the fact (not speculation) upon which I base the decision that I can vote for a pro-choice Drain Commissioner. That is a point you still have not accepted, and I wonder why. Do you contend that my reason in that case is not in accord with Church teaching? If we can’t agree on Church teaching as it relates to voting for Drain Commissioner, how could we ever hope to agree on Church teaching as it relates to voting for President?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But no Catholic bishop endorses Hillary Clinton, or justifies supporting a pro-abortion candidate in the current election.

How many Catholic bishops endorse Trump?

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is a fact that the office of Drain Commissioner in Michigan counties has nothing to do with abortion. This is the fact (not speculation)

You have no fact you have nonsensical rhetoric.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have no fact you have nonsensical rhetoric.

Just Google “County Drain Commissioner” if you don’t think my facts about that office are true.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s you ever changing nonsense

Oh, the other evils are very real. They are not speculative

So if you are concerned about proper management of surface water drainage systems, you can vote for whomever you think is most qualified to do that job, even if you find out from personal contact that the candidate happens to be pro-choice on abortion. The degree to which this office impacts abortion modifies the gravity of the issue when considering if you have a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-choice candidate.

But the same principle applies, to a lesser extent. On some issues, like executive use of military force, the President has almost complete autonomy to effect those issues. But on issues like abortion, his effect is more limited. He can appoint Supreme Court Justices, who may or may not vote the way he predicted. He can, with executive action, issue orders that make abortions somewhat easier or harder to get. He can, through his veto, block some legislation that affects abortion policy. But the primary decision to get an abortion still rests most strongly with those directly involved: the mother, the father, the family, the doctor, the friends. If they are strongly motivated and can afford to travel to Canada, they may still manage to have an abortion even with the most stringent laws in place.

I don’t claim that all these considerations amount to a convincing case.

As you evolve in imagination the above now become Michigan as if that makes your wild speculation called fact by reason more in comparison with the factual reality of 1-million killed a year by Hillary .

No facts of a priority of evil to neglect the teaching authority of abortion which is a priority. Thus you have no sound reasoning to support a pro abortion candidate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have no fact you have nonsensical rhetoric.

Let me explain why it is not nonsensical to talk about an office like Drain Commissioner in this debate.

Your position is that Catholic teaching forbids voting for a pro-choice candidate, regardless of any other considerations, right?. Considerations like the extent to which that candidate can influence abortion. You are not willing to even talk about those considerations. If you were willing to talk about them, that would be another matter. You could argue that the President has lots of potential effect on abortion. But no. You won’t even talk about it. You want to conclude your point just from the fact that the candidate is pro-choice.

That is why I bring up other offices where the effect on abortion is obviously nil. This highlights the flaw in your simplistic argument. Because if you stick to that argument, you must conclude that Catholic teaching forbids voting for a pro-choice Drain Commissioner. (By the way, it is a real elected office in Michigan - not something I made up.) So do you stick to your simplistic argument? Or are you willing to argue the more difficult point of the candidate’s relevancy to abortion?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As you evolve in imagination the above now become Michigan as if that makes your wild speculation called fact by reason more in comparison with the factual reality of 1-million killed a year by Hillary .

No facts of a priority of evil to neglect the teaching authority of abortion which is a priority. Thus you have no sound reasoning to support a pro abortion candidate.

I can’t parse anything but the last sentence. But in response to that I remind you that I do not claim to have a sound reason to support a pro-choice candidate. (I say pro-choice because there are no pro abortion candidates, except in China.) I claim that the decision as to whether sound reasons exist is a prudential judgement.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just Google “County Drain Commissioner” if you don’t think my facts about that office are true.

Your argument as documented has reached epic proportions of irrational and has left reality for the speculative reality of the democrats.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t parse anything but the last sentence. But in response to that I remind you that I do not claim to have a sound reason to support a pro-choice candidate. (I say pro-choice because there are no pro abortion candidates, except in China.) I claim that the decision as to whether sound reasons exist is a prudential judgement.

that I do not claim to have a sound reason

Yeah its noted, I would suggest you have “none” and I call them pro abortion. I really am not concerned what you call them nor is it relevant in any attempt to rationalize Church teaching and that argument is on the thread also, and is another epic failure of a argument in comparative reasoning to Hillary killing one million a year as a factual reality. You have no point and argument, more rhetorical gibberish.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh, I just want to say thanks for elaborating on yours and the democratic position, I think the conversation speaks volumes of the truth of the Democratic position on abortion and voting. Its clear now I’m sure for all reading as its to me.

Im not sure anything else is required to be said as I am satisfied and I’m sure other readers will be also imho .

 

[Crossbones]

Quick question, how does this document get this premier authority in relation to context of the last page of this thread. They have no more authority than your own Bishop where you live? Do you think in that sequence it changes the premier perspective of authority?

I think Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship as a document deserves strong consideration because it has been approved by the vast majority of bishops. Of course, my bishop is also important and I do look to see what he has taught on the topic. That said, he hasn’t said much yet, so I don’t have much to go on there.

So if you have two Bishops in two areas such as yours and mine with a different view, then what?

This is my personal interpretation of my understanding of Church teaching, but I think you should pay special attention to your bishop. That said, someone may correct me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship as a document deserves strong consideration because it has been approved by the vast majority of bishops. Of course, my bishop is also important and I do look to see what he has taught on the topic. That said, he hasn’t said much yet, so I don’t have much to go on there.

This is my personal interpretation of my understanding of Church teaching, but I think you should pay special attention to your bishop. That said, someone may correct me.

I would send him an email.

To me its never changed nor has now and has been quite clear. “From a moral point of view, and that’s what this is about, it has to do with cooperation and doing things contrary to the church’s teaching,” “In today’s world, there are a lot of entanglements of many things and one has to exercise a certain prudence about standing firm on principle and church teaching and the moral conscience,” “But I recall something that Pope John Paul II said. He said that all other human rights are false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right, is not defended with maximum determination. You know, we also hear a lot about the Second Vatican Council. The Second Vatican Council said that life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception, and said abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

“So to kind of relativize or say, well, you know, the right to life of an unborn child is a preoccupation with fetuses, or it’s relative in its importance, I can’t agree with that. And I don’t think that represents the Church’s teaching and the focus of our energies in trying to deal with this great moral issue.” Bishop Leonard Paul Blair "

Well the important point in that dialogue is the authentic authority in teaching is Rome, in theological clarification no one can define new doctrine.

 

[estesbob]

Oh, I just want to say thanks for elaborating on yours and the democratic position, I think the conversation speaks volumes of the truth of the Democratic position on abortion and voting. Its clear now I’m sure for all reading as its to me.

Im not sure anything else is required to be said as I am satisfied and I’m sure other readers will be also imho .

Its the usual rationalizations for voting to support evil. you can find the list here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13732476&postcount=296

 

[Crossbones]

I don’t think you mean to misrepresent what I have said. I think you do not always understand.

I didn’t disagree with the substance, and I never said the bishops are “liberal outliers”, not even those who wrote the Faithful Citizenship letter. I did mention that one bishop in particular is regarded as something of a liberal outlier. But even he doesn’t say it’s okay for Catholics to support abortion.

Nothing wrong with saying someone is a “liberal outlier” even if he’s a bishop. Some bishops are more conservative or liberal than others, and some are “outliers” in that they might not represent the mainstream in some way or other.

But no Catholic bishop endorses Hillary Clinton, or justifies supporting a pro-abortion candidate in the current election.

Of course, I would never intentionally misrepresent what you say. That said, liberal outlier comes across as a bit insulting. Let’s be honest then. There are a few bishops that have said that a Catholic cannot vote a pro-choice candidate. There are some that take a more nuanced approach. Which are outliers? Which are the mainstream of Catholic bishops?

No bishop that I know of has endorsed Clinton. No bishop that I know of has endorsed Trump. Why do you assume that this is implicitly means they support Trump?