Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[GaryTaylor]

Why the democratic party declared war on christian/Catholics could be read as its well documented. And summed up by opinion in Catholic Culture…

Another way of putting all this is to say that there is a “culture war” going on in the United States between moral liberals and moral conservatives; or more exactly, between secularists and Christians. The secularists, who hold Christianity in disdain, would like to drive Christianity out of the public arena and into a corner, where those nitwits who like to practice it would still be free to do so, to the infinite amusement of the more “enlightened” people. Christians of the old-fashioned kind, both Catholic and Protestant, would like to preserve their religion, not just as a private hobby, but as an important factor in the public culture of the United States. As for the third party in this culture war, the liberal Christians: they have a nostalgic and sentimental attachment to Christianity, but in most of the actual battles between moral liberals and moral conservatives—e.g., battles about abortion and homosexuality— they come down on the side of moral liberalism, although they do so (let it be noted to their credit) with something of a long face.
This culture war has long since spilled over into politics.

And in short on your multi issue platform Christianity always is compromised by the Democratic party.

As for the third party in this culture war, the liberal Christians: they have a nostalgic and sentimental attachment to Christianity, but in most of the actual battles between moral liberals and moral conservatives—e.g., battles about abortion and homosexuality— they come down on the side of moral liberalism, although they do so (let it be noted to their credit) with something of a long face.

Can a Catholic be a Democrat today? It is virtually impossible, assuming that the Catholic in question is a “real Catholic,” is acquainted with policies of the party such as its support for abortion and homosexuality, and is capable of reasoning logically. And this is what is actually happening: Increasingly, “real Catholics” are leaving the Democratic Party, although “nominal Catholics” (who are really semi-secularists) remain. Since there are millions of “real Catholics” in America, their exodus from the party should cause alarm among party leaders. But apparently it does not, at least not much, they are so in thrall to their secularist/moral liberal supporters.

And they call that a well formed conscience.

The Left’s laughably phony outreach to Christians at election time never matches up to how they behave day-to-day. Barack Obama, who won the Catholic vote by 9 points in 2008, just violated the “free exercise clause” in the First Amendment by demanding that Catholic hospitals provide free birth control and abortion-inducing drugs, even though that clearly violates their religious beliefs.

Literally every Catholic bishop in America has spoken out against the policy, but of course, the Democratic Party is unmoved.

This should shock no one who has seen the Left enthusiastically support government sponsored anti-Christian art, sue Christians who want to mention Christ in schools or courthouses, and even just fight to remove the World Trade Center Cross from the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.

The Left has long justified this sort of behavior with the First Amendment, which is utterly bizarre because it’s directly contrary to the plain wording of the Amendment.

Liberalism is engaging in a war against Christianity and it’s time for people to call it what it is and start picking sides.

townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/03/09/the_lefts_war_on_christianity

I don’t see anything but a anti christian platform and the usual election time push by the followers of this anti christian agenda to make a stone seem like bread. But its stone as we see.

Democrats=anti Christian. Not even on their list of constituents in fact its who they are at war with, Democrats as Ted Cruz stated declared war on the Catholic Church and mainline christianity. Its non compatible as we see here.

 

[seekerz]

s

In fact I would and do contend a true Christian has to by evidence vote OTHER than the democratic platform. Did you want to compare the two Rep and Dem for relevance?

Is it, I wonder, ever acceptable to do evil in other to prevent evil? Is there ever any obligation to choose between two evils when inaction is also a choice?

Trump said he could go into the street and shoot someone and his supporters would not abandon him…could he literally be right and if so, would voting for a killer ever be considered moral, if the intent were to be preventing Hillary from becoming president?

Now is the time for Catholics to stand up and be counted. So let the instructions on moral voting be crystal clear this year…

 

[seekerz]

s

Is it, I wonder, ever acceptable to do evil in other to prevent evil? Is there ever any obligation to choose between two evils when inaction is also a choice?

Trump said he could go into the street and shoot someone and his supporters would not abandon him…could he literally be right and if so, would voting for a killer ever be considered moral, if the intent were to be preventing Hillary from becoming president?

Now is the time for Catholics to stand up and be counted. So let the instructions on moral voting be crystal clear this year…

Brain freeze…that should read: “is it ever acceptable to do evil in order to prevent evil”?

 

[BellsMom]

If Clinton is a murderer (as some here profess) for her support of abortion on demand, is Trump a murderer for his support of abortion in the case of rape, incest and health of the mother?

 

[seekerz]

There’s a reason why they are called non-negotiables. If Christians wouldn’t make excuses, the politicians would have no choice but to adhere to decent values.

Fact is too many people are concerned with outwardly looking good and getting a check in the mail.

So “non-negotiable” means you must vote for a candidate who opposes abortion over one who does not, no matter what else the anti-abortion candidate does, says, or promises - morally or legally? Does that accurately sum up what you are saying?

 

[phil19034]

s

Is it, I wonder, ever acceptable to do evil in other to prevent evil? Is there ever any obligation to choose between two evils when inaction is also a choice?

Trump said he could go into the street and shoot someone and his supporters would not abandon him…could he literally be right and if so, would voting for a killer ever be considered moral, if the intent were to be preventing Hillary from becoming president?

Now is the time for Catholics to stand up and be counted. So let the instructions on moral voting be crystal clear this year…

There is a concept in Catholic social teaching called “the lesser of two evils.”

The next President will have to deal with appointing the replacement to Justice Scalia and most likely a few more Supreme Court nominees as well.

Trump has already announced names of possible Justices. Good names.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand has publicly said that religions that don’t agree with her agenda will have to change. Hillary is also in favor of FORCING African and South American nations to provide Abortion.

Trump is no angel, but Hillary will push evil into the world. Trump’s crazy ideas can and most likely will be brought into check by national security and military experts he appoints. You can say many things about Trump, but one thing that he’s not is uneducated. He will surround himself with many great minds, like he did at his company.

Trust me… I wish there wan another choice, but we MUST not allow Hillary Clinton to become President. Trump is the lesser of two evils by far.

We must vote against Hillary by voting for Trump. A vote against Trump is not a vote against Hillary. Trump will need ever vote he can get, so voting against him (even for voting for another Republican) is a vote that helps Clinton.

God Bless

 

[estesbob]

If Clinton is a murderer (as some here profess) for her support of abortion on demand, is Trump a murderer for his support of abortion in the case of rape, incest and health of the mother?

As always best to turn to the magisterium:

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

 

[seekerz]

There is a concept in Catholic social teaching called “the lesser of two evils.”

The next President will have to deal with appointing the replacement to Justice Scalia and most likely a few more Supreme Court nominees as well.

Trump has already announced names of possible Justices. Good names.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand has publicly said that religions that don’t agree with her agenda will have to change. Hillary is also in favor of FORCING African and South American nations to provide Abortion.

Trump is no angel, but Hillary will push evil into the world. Trump’s crazy ideas can and most likely will be brought into check by national security and military experts he appoints. You can say many things about Trump, but one thing that he’s not is uneducated. He will surround himself with many great minds, like he did at his company.

Trust me… I wish there wan another choice, but we MUST not allow Hillary Clinton to become President. Trump is the lesser of two evils by far.

We must vote against Hillary by voting for Trump. A vote against Trump is not a vote against Hillary. Trump will need ever vote he can get, so voting against him (even for voting for another Republican) is a vote that helps Clinton.

God Bless

I understand quite well the concept of “lesser of 2 evils”, but that only applies to the present quandary if one considers abortion only and no other issue. As I understand it, Catholics are required to consider all issues and not just one.

So my question still remains: is it ever acceptable to “do evil” to avoid evil? Or maybe I should rephrase: there ever a duty to choose one evil to avoid a different evil?

 

[seekerz]

There is a concept in Catholic social teaching called “the lesser of two evils.”

The next President will have to deal with appointing the replacement to Justice Scalia and most likely a few more Supreme Court nominees as well.

Trump has already announced names of possible Justices. Good names.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand has publicly said that religions that don’t agree with her agenda will have to change. Hillary is also in favor of FORCING African and South American nations to provide Abortion.

Trump is no angel, but Hillary will push evil into the world. Trump’s crazy ideas can and most likely will be brought into check by national security and military experts he appoints. You can say many things about Trump, but one thing that he’s not is uneducated. He will surround himself with many great minds, like he did at his company.

Trust me… I wish there wan another choice, but we MUST not allow Hillary Clinton to become President. Trump is the lesser of two evils by far.

We must vote against Hillary by voting for Trump. A vote against Trump is not a vote against Hillary. Trump will need ever vote he can get, so voting against him (even for voting for another Republican) is a vote that helps Clinton.

God Bless

Or we can choose to write in a candidate.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So “non-negotiable” means you must vote for a candidate who opposes abortion over one who does not, no matter what else the anti-abortion candidate does, says, or promises - morally or legally? Does that accurately sum up what you are saying?

There’s five others I also consider:

1. Traditional Marriage
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell-Research
4. Human Cloning.

For good measure, I’m also including religious freedom.

By large measure, these are the issues I consider. Not what someone says or whose words are twisted about things like women, immigrants, Muslims or whomever. I think voting on these bases is extremely selfish, even if one is not a part of these groups.

The personal selfishness illustrated by numerous voters is really quite transparent.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is a concept in Catholic social teaching called “the lesser of two evils.”

The next President will have to deal with appointing the replacement to Justice Scalia and most likely a few more Supreme Court nominees as well.

Trump has already announced names of possible Justices. Good names.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand has publicly said that religions that don’t agree with her agenda will have to change. Hillary is also in favor of FORCING African and South American nations to provide Abortion.

Trump is no angel, but Hillary will push evil into the world. Trump’s crazy ideas can and most likely will be brought into check by national security and military experts he appoints. You can say many things about Trump, but one thing that he’s not is uneducated. He will surround himself with many great minds, like he did at his company.

Trust me… I wish there wan another choice, but we MUST not allow Hillary Clinton to become President. Trump is the lesser of two evils by far.

We must vote against Hillary by voting for Trump. A vote against Trump is not a vote against Hillary. Trump will need ever vote he can get, so voting against him (even for voting for another Republican) is a vote that helps Clinton.

God Bless

Are you also implying that Hillary Clinton, unlike Trump, IS uneducated and that she will NOT “surround (herself) with many great minds”? Or are you focusing only on her being evil as compared to Trump?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=pnewton;13915868]From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Any doctrine which denies, universally or in regard to some restricted sphere of being, the existence of absolute values, may be termed Relativism.”
newadvent.org/cathen/12731d.htm
Relativism is the denial of the existence of universal values (universal moral values in moral relativism). Donald Trump (to use the current example) is not a “value”, much less a universal value.

If a person votes against the core values of their Faith, isn’t that denying such core values?

When one says there can be multiple political conclusions there is simply no reason to assume the same person believes in any form of relativism.

There is, actually, especially with all of the excuses floating around and questions like “Can I really be a Catholic and a liberal or support XYZ liberal party?”.

However, the post referenced here has a semantic argument of logic. Unfortunately, many liberal stances are devoid of logic and require emotional, feel-good arguments.

A true Christian, with absolute values and complete orthodoxy can arrive at more than on political conclusion. This is why voting Republican is not a Catholic doctrine, much less voting Trump.

Some of the “arriving at different conclusions” is really not from a good examination of conscience or sound orthodox approaches and is just excuse-making or solicitation of anonymous, third party support for one’s beliefs which are allegedly so powerful and awesome. One does wonder why such great things seem so fragile and need immediate external support.

Catholic republicans will by and large say and over and over it’s about principle, not party. The Democrats have long had a virulently anti-Catholic party platform, which again explains the uncertainty and excuse-making that comes along without some kind of spiritual direction.

 

[meltzerboy]

There’s five others I also consider:

1. Traditional Marriage
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell-Research
4. Human Cloning.

For good measure, I’m also including religious freedom.

By large measure, these are the issues I consider. Not what someone says or whose words are twisted about things like women, immigrants, Muslims or whomever. I think voting on these bases is extremely selfish, even if one is not a part of these groups.

The personal selfishness illustrated by numerous voters is really quite transparent.

In what sense do you consider voting on the basis of civil rights, immigration reform, women’s rights, and the like selfish?

 

[seekerz]

There’s five others I also consider:

1. Traditional Marriage
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell-Research
4. Human Cloning.

For good measure, I’m also including religious freedom.

By large measure, these are the issues I consider. Not what someone says or whose words are twisted about things like women, immigrants, Muslims or whomever. I think voting on these bases is extremely selfish, even if one is not a part of these groups.

The personal selfishness illustrated by numerous voters is really quite transparent.

Hmm, what is not quite transparent is the direct answer to my succinct question.

For the record, the only candidate of the 2016 race whom I would less like to see as president than Clinton is Trump (and perhaps Ted Cruz if he were still in the race). Kasich was much underrated and IMO, would have been a salve to Catholic consciences everywhere.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Even his abortion “conversion” is based on a the fact that a grown person who someone once wanted aborted turned out to be a great wonderful human being…would he have changed his mind to “pro-life” if that child had grown up to be a disaster? His abortion flip-flops also show that he has given no real thought to the question. There is no purity, either ideological or logical, in any of his thoughts on these subjects.

That’s why I supported Cruz in the primary. With the remaining presidential candidates, Trump and Hillary supporters may ultimately feel burned over this. For the GOP base, there’s isn’t much of an excuse. Their support for Trump is an emotional high when we had a good, OUTSIDER in Ted Cruz.

But hey - that’s just fine by his Christian supporters, the ones who are happy to call Romney and McCain and Rubio RINOs. An establishment Republican must NOT go off the reservation, but Trump can do or say whatever outlandish thing pops into his head.

First of all, Rubio has certain ethnic immunity. He would have had a much better chance than Trump to win.

Otherwise, that’s actually a little bit backwards. The GOP is mad at the establishment for not being more critical of Obama/Biden and Democrats in general. Mitt Romney won the first debate hands down, but I suspect he was told by well-paid campaign consultants that if you go after Obama, you’ll offend independents, Hispanics and single women who will never vote GOP again.

Also, what about the DINOs in the Democratic Party?

I feel badly that some Christians, due to their beliefs on certain social issues, feel like all they are offered politically is the Republican Party. I’ve never seen Republicans in power on the federal level do anything but give lip service to

Well, that’s why Donald Trump is rising and probably why he has so much Evangelical support even when Cruz was in the race.

One commentator recently noted a similar trend in 1980: That a divorced, former liberal governor of California was being supported by religious folks over a once-married Baptist peanut farmer from the South.

The social conservatives and many conservatives in general are tired of the lip service and the GOP not standing up to Obama.

the Christian Right and the social beliefs they espouse.

Actually, some swaths of the Democratic Party base are more socially conservative than younger white republicans are.

 

[SuperLuigi]

In what sense do you consider voting on the basis of civil rights, immigration reform, women’s rights, and the like selfish?

First of all, I don’t recognize abortion (except in morally-defined by the Catholic Church) or access to contraception (except for approved medical and moral reasons) as “rights”.

Secondly, civil rights is a big issue because of religious freedom.

Third,Immigration reform is important, which is why the GOP has common sense solutions to the problem.

Let me put it like this: If I were voting in 1812, and I were more concerned with the price of corn since I owned than with starting a potentially unjust war with the British Empire or slavery, would I be considered selfish?

See, it’d be easy and to be against those things now, but back then, :dts: :nope:

 

[SuperLuigi]

Hmm, what is not quite transparent is the direct answer to my succinct question.

For the record, the only candidate of the 2016 race whom I would less like to see as president than Clinton is Trump (and perhaps Ted Cruz if he were still in the race). Kasich was much underrated and IMO, would have been a salve to Catholic consciences everywhere.

To answer your question, I give all of those issues primary consideration. For instance, I’m going to say I’ll vote for the Democratic Party nominee because of what Donald Trump tweeted six months ago to impress liberals no matter much they complain about made-up rights or whatever the grievance of the day is. I don’t think like that, and I hope I never do.

Yes, those are the issues I stick short of something like a nuclear holocaust which may be added to the list, but even then a GOP candidate would be best to deal with it, it seems.

So my voting habits are very absolute and on-point. It sends a message that if someone wants my vote that badly, they’ll stand with me on those issues.

 

[seekerz]

To answer your question, I give all of those issues primary consideration. For instance, I’m going to say I’ll vote for the Democratic Party nominee because of what Donald Trump tweeted six months ago to impress liberals no matter much they complain about made-up rights or whatever the grievance of the day is. I don’t think like that, and I hope I never do.

Yes, those are the issues I stick short of something like a nuclear holocaust which may be added to the list, but even then a GOP candidate would be best to deal with it, it seems.

So my voting habits are very absolute and on-point. It sends a message that if someone wants my vote that badly, they’ll stand with me on those issues.

Thank you. It’s refreshing to see that you’re not a one-issue voter.

Now about weighing the Donald’s commitment to “traditional marriage”…or gauging his likely reaction to an offer to clone several miniature Trumps…on those grounds we’d probably still disagree.

But I appreciate your stand.

 

[phil19034]

Are you also implying that Hillary Clinton, unlike Trump, IS uneducated and that she will NOT “surround (herself) with many great minds”? Or are you focusing only on her being evil as compared to Trump?

I’m not implying that Hillary is uneducated. But Hillary will NOT surround herself with people who tell her that abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, etc are evil.

Trump’s crazy ideas will most likely brought into check by his advisors, even if he choses not to listen to them.

My argument is that Trump is the lesser of two evils and that Republican leadership will do everything possible to keep him from doing something they disagree with. On the other hand, the Democrates will view Hillary’s election as a green light for all her ideas.

 

[phil19034]

Or we can choose to write in a candidate.

Voting for a write in candidate who has no chance of winning is a wasted vote and in my opinion a selfish vote.

The reason I think it’s selfish is because the voter is voting for someone that makes them feel better, instead of making the hard choice of choising the lesser than two evils. In today’s American political climate, there is usually a candidate that the ProLife collation views as an acceptable or better choice. Rarely do we have both candidates who are for allowing unrestricted abortion all the up to birth, like Hillary is. Only 20some % of Americans agree with Hillary’s extreme view on Abortion. There is a reason for that.

Anyway, voting for a write in candidate will only help Hillary. By voting for someone other than Trump, you WILL help Hillary.