Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Thorolfr]

There has been no pressure whatsoever from Obama supporters to end the drone strikes.

That’s a rather broad statement for which you have given no real evidence. What pressure have you personally brought to bear on the Obama administration to end drone strikes?

 

[Darryl1958]

Has Hillary disavowed them?

There has been no pressure whatsoever from Obama supporters to end the drone strikes.

Like Catholic Democrats on abortion, Obama supporters are so incensed by drone strikes that they continue to support him.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Of course we dont know whether Obama is targeting families or not , do we? We know non-combatants are killed but we really dont know whether its deliberate not.

While leading the world in smart atom bomb technology that he’ll never use because he is much too civil and concerned about not targeting innocents You have to excuse me for not buying the theory after the X-Box drone display year after year and above and this past week. You have to wonder who died and what authority did Obama have in relation to sovereign countries consent like with Bin Laden.

Pentagon official said that there were no unintended casualties or other damage because of the remoteness of the area in which the strike occurred. He probably felt obliged to add that in light of the thousands of innocent civilians that the US has “droned to death” in its pursuit of radical militants whose every step and location it knew well in advance.

“We are still assessing the results of the strike and will provide more information as it becomes available,” Cook said.

 

[estesbob]

It would be well if Catholics did read all of the sources listed by Estesbob, or at least became acquainted with them in order to have “well-formed consciences”. Having a “well-formed conscience” is not satisfied by reading a limited interpretation of only a part of two of them, which the Clinton supporters are sometimes wont to do.

If Catholics did that, there is no possibility whatever that they could feel morally free to vote for Hillary Clinton, or to fail to oppose her candidacy.

Too many rationalize their vote by claiming a combination of issues outweighs a candidates support of abortion. in fact that is the most common misconception we see about Faithful Citizenship and the Kicanis interview,. The Bishops have went to great effort to dispel this view. (and you can not find a single member of the Magestrium who supports it. )For example:

*Note that proportionate reasons] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante
*

*In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).
*
Cardinal Burke

*What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate
*

Archbishop John J. Myers

 

[Thorolfr]

Like Catholic Democrats on abortion, Obama supporters are so incensed by drone strikes that they continue to support him.

And some anti-abortion Catholics continue to support Trump even though he would allow abortion in cases of incest, rape or the health of the mother.

 

[estesbob]

And some anti-abortion Catholics continue to support Trump even though he would allow abortion in cases of incest, rape or the health of the mother.

Yes we will because we know that is in accordance with the Teachings of the Church

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

"You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone"

Cardinal Burke
*

*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 Rene Gracida
*

 

[GaryTaylor]

And some anti-abortion Catholics continue to support Trump even though he would allow abortion in cases of incest, rape or the health of the mother.

But we are not looking to fault them anymore than the Catholics who are enslaved by Obamacare cooperation due to need. You can say both are an unintended consequence of socialism and socialized medication on the Democrats and the greater evil. But I think we have to speak out against this agenda aside from that. I think it needs to be rejected to bring consensus in the Church to further permeate the USA community. Upon close inspection I’m stunned this party hasn’t been condemned yet-Democrat that is.

 

[meltzerboy]

What makes you think that all the people who support Obama are not concerned about drone strikes? I’m certainly concerned about them and have talked to people whose families were killed in drone strikes.

Obama has increased the number of drone strikes since the Bush administration. This is indeed cause for concern.

 

[tomarin]

Well, maybe. perhaps more to the reality of it is that his main concern is the American economy and American safety, with foreign intervention being a secondary concern. But he’s pretty clear that if we do intervene somewhere militarily, it should be full-bore and without political correctness determining objectives and methods.

I believe he has said he either wants to pull out of Japan and South Korea or make them foot more of the bill, and would encourage Japan and Korea to develop a nuclear arsenal so that we wouldn’t need to be responsible for their security. Not sure but I think he may have made similar noises about NATO. His instincts seem to favor withdrawing American military power from the world.

We’re a couple of whiskers away from Ron Paul territory here, which is really quite breathtaking in the Republican standard-bearer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe he has said he either wants to pull out of Japan and South Korea or make them foot more of the bill, and would encourage Japan and Korea to develop a nuclear arsenal so that we wouldn’t need to be responsible for their security. Not sure but I think he may have made similar noises about NATO. His instincts seem to favor withdrawing American military power from the world.

We’re a couple of whiskers away from Ron Paul territory here, which is really quite breathtaking in the Republican standard-bearer.

I think there’s a difference, though. Trump’s main thing seems to be economic, i.e., it costs too much to guard countries that can guard themselves. Ron Paul’s is ideological, i.e., intervention in foreign affairs is improper in itself because it causes 'blowback"; in other words, the U.S. is the cause of all trouble in the world by being involved in it. I think that’s a long way from where Trump is.

 

[GaryTaylor]

the U.S. is the cause of all trouble in the world by being involved in it.

I imagine Trump has no choice but to pick up where the Obama farewell apology and legacy tour ends. But the Obama failures and policy change is more of a concern to SK and Japan than Trump is I imagine. No secret NK is a can kicked down the road as now is Iran. Anyway there is a difference of the USA on the world scene compared to yesteryear. Its not isolationist anymore than Obama is or was in readjusting to the changing dynamics of refusing to be the worlds police dept.

politico.eu/article/barack-obama-apology-complex-asia-vietnam-japan-hiroshima-foreign-policy/

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think there’s a difference, though. Trump’s main thing seems to be economic, i.e., it costs too much to guard countries that can guard themselves. Ron Paul’s is ideological, i.e., intervention in foreign affairs is improper in itself because it causes 'blowback"; in other words, the U.S. is the cause of all trouble in the world by being involved in it. I think that’s a long way from where Trump is.

Get real. It always boils down to money.

 

[Crossbones]

It would be well if Catholics did read all of the sources listed by Estesbob, or at least became acquainted with them in order to have “well-formed consciences”. Having a “well-formed conscience” is not satisfied by reading a limited interpretation of only a part of two of them, which the Clinton supporters are sometimes wont to do.

If Catholics did that, there is no possibility whatever that they could feel morally free to vote for Hillary Clinton, or to fail to oppose her candidacy.

I agree that Catholics should read the sources listed by Estesbob as well as the interview with Bishoip Kicanas and Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship before determining how to vote.

I disagree with you that Catholics would feel there is no possibility whatever they could feel morally free to vote for Hillary Clinton. That is your personal interpretation of these documents.

 

[tomarin]

I think there’s a difference, though. Trump’s main thing seems to be economic, i.e., it costs too much to guard countries that can guard themselves. Ron Paul’s is ideological, i.e., intervention in foreign affairs is improper in itself because it causes 'blowback"; in other words, the U.S. is the cause of all trouble in the world by being involved in it. I think that’s a long way from where Trump is.

Economic and also a general sense of grievance against the world, i.e. foreign countries and their citizens are freeloaders who are abusing us in some way or another. I don’t think it’s true but its part of the overall populism and emotionalism of his campaign.

 

[Darryl1958]

Economic and also a general sense of grievance against the world, i.e. foreign countries and their citizens are freeloaders who are abusing us in some way or another. I don’t think it’s true but its part of the overall populism and emotionalism of his campaign.

It is not altogether untrue that countries like Canada and the European ones have become freeloaders as far as military matters are concerned. A major reason why Europe and Canada have been able to fund a higher level of social spending is because of the fact that our military spending is covered by the American tax payer. This was really brought forth in the European led Libyan campaign, where the European forces ran out of ammo a few weeks in.

It is also not altogether untrue that neither major party in the US have been able to address the grievance of illegal immigration into the United States, and for obvious selfish, political reasons.
Even if illegal immigration has no net negative effect on America, to any fair-minded person queue jumpers will always be a real stick in the craw.

Trump himself is a bad joke, but he does address issues that have not been addressed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Economic and also a general sense of grievance against the world, i.e. foreign countries and their citizens are freeloaders who are abusing us in some way or another. I don’t think it’s true but its part of the overall populism and emotionalism of his campaign.

If you look at defense spending as a percentage of GDP, other NATO allies are, indeed, well below not only the U.S. spending, but below what they agreed to spend as NATO members. Trump is not wrong about that.

 

[FollowChrist34]

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Just jumping in here with an update (perhaps this has been discussed) - Trump is now in a dead heat with Clinton (actually up by .2) on Real Clear Politics polling! (I did not realize how extensively Trump was climbing, now in a broad number of polls taken by the left and right media sources, including Trump’s good buddies over at the Washington Post) Of course, of course, we all know full well these polls don’t matter a bit, unlike the Hillary trouncing him ones from a month or so ago…

:tiphat:

Not calling it; I am not going there - just saying the one thing this race is not is boring.

 

[tomarin]

If you look at defense spending as a percentage of GDP, other NATO allies are, indeed, well below not only the U.S. spending, but below what they agreed to spend as NATO members. Trump is not wrong about that.

My feeling is that if we withdraw from the world other powers that we may not be amenable to like China will move in to fill the vacuum of power. But no doubt there is an argument to be made that NATO has outlived its mission and should be downsized or folded up altogether.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My feeling is that if we withdraw from the world other powers that we may not be amenable to like China will move in to fill the vacuum of power. But no doubt there is an argument to be made that NATO has outlived its mission and should be downsized or folded up altogether.

I do not disagree that withdrawing from the world would be a bad idea. But that’s not to say characterizing Trump as a neo Ron Paul is an accurate assessment.

NATO could possibly be redrawn, but it’s probably vital. Quite possibly NATO membership is the only thing that has kept the Baltic states from being simply taken by Russia.

 

[tomarin]

I do not disagree that withdrawing from the world would be a bad idea. But that’s not to say characterizing Trump as a neo Ron Paul is an accurate assessment.

NATO could possibly be redrawn, but it’s probably vital. Quite possibly NATO membership is the only thing that has kept the Baltic states from being simply taken by Russia.

I don’t think Trump is a devotee of Paul or his ideas, just that his foreign policies on the surface have a similarity with Paul’s and that that’s rather shocking coming from the candidate of the party of national security. Whether you remove troops from Japan and Korea because you feel they have no business there or because the cost is thought to be too high and we’re not getting our due in return, the result is the same.