Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[pnewton]

This is why it is important to ensure that your bishop supports Forming Consciences.

Of course, a lack of contradiction does not mean that the USCCB document supports Cardinal Burke’s view. After all, the Surgeon General can say that to maintain your health through diet and exercise and Dr. Oz can say you can maintain your health by 30 minutes on an exercise bicycle every day, then Dr. Oz isn’t saying anything contradictory to the Surgeon General, however, he most certainly is going beyond the intention of Surgeon General.

An apt analogy. There will always be those that want to hold their fellow Catholics bound to some standard beyond that of absolute morality, their own informed conscience and what the Church teaches, using their own conscience as a guide. Jesus faced the same issue and said,* " They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." * It is critical that we never elevate our conscience as a standard of judgment of others. This applies to much more than politics.

And no, again, the use of judgment, conscience and prudence is not moral relativism. Can’t we put that straw man to rest?

 

[estesbob]

An apt analogy. There will always be those that want to hold their fellow Catholics bound to some standard beyond that of absolute morality, their own informed conscience and what the Church teaches, using their own conscience as a guide. Jesus faced the same issue and said,* " They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." * It is critical that we never elevate our conscience as a standard of judgment of others. This applies to much more than politics.

And no, again, the use of judgment, conscience and prudence is not moral relativism. Can’t we put that straw man to rest?

Of course we have to have a well formed connscience; Again lets turn to the Magwstrium:

1745 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. **Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.**

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

Since not a single person has yet been able to quote a single member of the Magestrium, that agrees with the rather novel interpretation we have seen of Faithful Citizenship and two paragraphs from an interview with Bishop Kicanis Catholics should take to heart paragraph 1791 of the Catechism listed above.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Since not a single person has yet been able to quote a single member of the Magestrium, that agrees with the rather novel interpretation we have seen of Faithful Citizenship and two paragraphs from an interview with Bishop Kicanis Catholics should take to heart paragraph 1791 of the Catechism listed above.

And no, again, the use of judgment, conscience and prudence is not moral relativism. Can’t we put that straw man to rest?

Of course, a lack of contradiction does not mean that the USCCB document supports Cardinal Burke’s view.

Lack of contradiction does not mean that the USCCB document supports Bishop Kincanas view either which surely can be also pointed out. But there appears to be contradiction with concrete facts and tangible evidence in comparison to speculation which isn’t prudence in relation to what Bishop Kincanas position is contended to be. He never said Human Rights was not the priority in fact his position indicates only a position to weigh two evil and chose unjust war which is plausible? We have no situation as such. You have a completely different situation now with just war and an absurd effort by Obama to further engage in the pursuit of legal action with the Little Sisters of the poor. In fact he’s calling his persecution of religious freedom a victory, I would say in the name of democratic socialism? Ted Cruz was right at the start, when did the JFK democrats decide to wage war on the Catholic Church? And they doubled down, is that arrogance too?

 

[Ridgerunner]

An apt analogy. There will always be those that want to hold their fellow Catholics bound to some standard beyond that of absolute morality, their own informed conscience and what the Church teaches, using their own conscience as a guide. Jesus faced the same issue and said,* " They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." * It is critical that we never elevate our conscience as a standard of judgment of others. This applies to much more than politics.

And no, again, the use of judgment, conscience and prudence is not moral relativism. Can’t we put that straw man to rest?

Meaning no personal offense here, but a personal view of the proper application of what Jesus said doesn’t have a whole lot of weight when compared to the very clear teaching of essentially every Church leader who has addressed the question.

Jesus wasn’t addressing voting, and besides, how big a “burden” is it to say it’s against the Church teaching to vote for an abortionist? How hard is it to carry what the Church teaches? Is it really that big a burden not to vote for Hillary Clinton? Is it really that painful? And how would one “move” such a burden? Say it’s okay to vote pro-abortion when it isn’t?

The use of judgment and prudence is valid only when it comes to those issues in which the Church has no clear teaching or where the resolution of the principle is fact-dependent where the understanding of facts can vary. Elective abortion is “intrinsically” evil because it’s evil in itself, and is evil every time. There is no interpretation of facts involved because “alive” is “alive” and “dead” is “dead”.

 

[Darryl1958]

Meaning no personal offense here, but a personal view of the proper application of what Jesus said doesn’t have a whole lot of weight when compared to the very clear teaching of essentially every Church leader who has addressed the question.

Jesus wasn’t addressing voting, and besides, how big a “burden” is it to say it’s against the Church teaching to vote for an abortionist? How hard is it to carry what the Church teaches? Is it really that big a burden not to vote for Hillary Clinton? Is it really that painful? And how would one “move” such a burden? Say it’s okay to vote pro-abortion when it isn’t?

The use of judgment and prudence is valid only when it comes to those issues in which the Church has no clear teaching or where the resolution of the principle is fact-dependent where the understanding of facts can vary. Elective abortion is “intrinsically” evil because it’s evil in itself, and is evil every time. There is no interpretation of facts involved because “alive” is “alive” and “dead” is “dead”.

Not a big burden, I don’t think.

Jesus himself said his burden was light. If the Church teaches the same message as Jesus, then it must be a light yoke too.

 

[Crossbones]

An apt analogy. There will always be those that want to hold their fellow Catholics bound to some standard beyond that of absolute morality, their own informed conscience and what the Church teaches, using their own conscience as a guide. Jesus faced the same issue and said,* " They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." * It is critical that we never elevate our conscience as a standard of judgment of others. This applies to much more than politics.

And no, again, the use of judgment, conscience and prudence is not moral relativism. Can’t we put that straw man to rest?

I doubt we will.

 

[Crossbones]

Meaning no personal offense here, but a personal view of the proper application of what Jesus said doesn’t have a whole lot of weight when compared to the very clear teaching of essentially every Church leader who has addressed the question.

Jesus wasn’t addressing voting, and besides, how big a “burden” is it to say it’s against the Church teaching to vote for an abortionist? How hard is it to carry what the Church teaches? Is it really that big a burden not to vote for Hillary Clinton? Is it really that painful? And how would one “move” such a burden? Say it’s okay to vote pro-abortion when it isn’t?

The use of judgment and prudence is valid only when it comes to those issues in which the Church has no clear teaching or where the resolution of the principle is fact-dependent where the understanding of facts can vary. Elective abortion is “intrinsically” evil because it’s evil in itself, and is evil every time. There is no interpretation of facts involved because “alive” is “alive” and “dead” is “dead”.

Of course, targeting enemy combatants and torture are also intrinsic evils and we would be foolish to ignore the words of a candidate that promises more of both. In the former case, he would like to ‘make them suffer’ for ‘retribution’. These are intrinsically evil because it’s evil in itself and evil every time.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course, targeting enemy combatants and torture are also intrinsic evils and we would be foolish to ignore the words of a candidate that promises more of both. In the former case, he would like to ‘make them suffer’ for ‘retribution’. These are intrinsically evil because it’s evil in itself and evil every time.

There is no agreement on what “torture” is and under what circumstances causing collateral death and injury is acceptable in war. The Church does not purport to draw a bright line test for either one, because they’re fact-dependent and admit of degrees.

But elective abortion is not fact-dependent and does not admit of degrees. A baby is either alive or she’s dead. It does not admit of degrees, and there’s no fact that makes the baby less dead than dead. And the baby’s death is the intended objective every time.

A very big difference.

 

[Crossbones]

There is no agreement on what “torture” is and under what circumstances causing collateral death and injury is acceptable in war. The Church does not purport to draw a bright line test for either one, because they’re fact-dependent and admit of degrees.

But elective abortion is not fact-dependent and does not admit of degrees. A baby is either alive or she’s dead. It does not admit of degrees, and there’s no fact that makes the baby less dead than dead. And the baby’s death is the intended objective every time.

A very big difference.

Donald Trump seems to know that waterboarding is torture.

And we’re not talking about collateral death, but rather intentionally targeting of noncombatants as Trump made clear in his interview with O’Reilly after he made the comments. It is important that you review this carefully so that you can make an informed decision on how to vote.

 

[Vouthon]

As a non-American, I obviously don’t have a dog in this race.

As a Catholic, however, I find both candidates morally repellent - albeit for very different reasons. I’m disappointed that it has come down to two thoroughly “damaged goods” individuals. I wouldn’t trust either to watch over my house while on holiday, let alone take upon him or herself the leadership of the free world.

Clinton isn’t people friendly and Trump is obnoxious. Would you want either one of them as dinner guests? Please be honest guys. Clinton’s for abortion on demand and has a corrupt reputation, Trump’s for torturing terror suspects, “taking out their families” and vulgarly compares trade agreements to sexual assault, as if raping a woman is somehow akin to a nation preferentializing itself in its trade policy. Wow, great day for democracy lads.

It’s dispiriting that this is apparently the best the system can deliver. Not a good showing IMHO.

In terms of voting guidelines, I always recommend that Catholics keep in mind the traditional “sins that cry to heaven”. From the Catechism:

"…The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are ‘sins that cry to heaven’: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner…"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_that_cry_to_heaven

The four sins that cry to Heaven for Vengeance (or sins that cry to Heaven) (Latin: peccata clamantia) are a list of mortal sins in Catholic moral theology that Catholics believe demand justice from God:[1]

The expression is derived from Genesis 4:10 (“The Lord said to Cain … the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth”).

**The “blood of Abel”: homicide, infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and matricide[2]

The “sin of the Sodomites”: pride, gluttony, negligence of the poor, abuse of children, and homosexual acts[3][4]

The “cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan”: slavery and marginalization[5]

The “injustice to the wage earner”: taking advantage of and defrauding workers[6**]

I will reiterate these 4/5 sins (depending on whether you judge 3 and 4 to be distinct or part and parcel of the same sin)::

(1) Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10]

(2) The sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]

(3) The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]

(4) The cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and

(5) Injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4]

Since I’m not American I won’t offer my own opinion but I do ask you all to consider this carefully and probe your consciences.

Measure the worth of the candidates by this. Who is the worst offender in relation to these grave, mortal sins that uniquely demand justice from God according to the catechitical tradition?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Trump made clear in his interview with O’Reilly

Personal interpretation, leads to speculation what he will do.

These are intrinsically evil because it’s evil in itself and evil every time.

Had one actually done any of these things we would have to agree with you, but, there is nothing but speculation on one side of the balance scale and on the other its weighed down to with abortion, socialized meds, religious liberty attacked with more promised, 8 years of droning innocent people in sovereign countries, traditional marriage, neglect of the poor and needy, the Democratic socialist side of the scale is weighed down to the ground.

Facts opposed to speculation imho.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Personal interpretation, leads to speculation what he will do.

…a speculation people are entitled to make.

Had one actually done any of these things we would have to agree with you, but, there is nothing but speculation on one side of the balance scale and on the other its weighed down to with abortion, socialized meds, religious liberty attacked with more promised, 8 years of droning innocent people in sovereign countries, traditional marriage, neglect of the poor and needy, the Democratic socialist side of the scale is weighed down to the ground.

Facts opposed to speculation imho.

The facts are about things that have already happened (and not all of those things you listed as facts actually are facts). On the other hand, what will happen in the future is still speculation.

 

[Crossbones]

Personal interpretation, leads to speculation what he will do.

Direct quotes.

How are we supposed to figure out what the man is going to do if not by his words?

 

[Vouthon]

Direct quotes.

How are we supposed to figure out what the man is going to do if not by his words?

By your words you will be justified, by your words you will be condemned? Hmm. Sounds familiar

 

[GaryTaylor]

…a speculation people are entitled to make. The facts are about things that have already happened

Speculate away long as we agree its speculation its progress. Which you agree with thus no point of fact as with the weight on the other side of the scale. You speculate we’ll weigh. You can help us Obama just droned a sovereign country again? Thats what they claim?

aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/pakistan-drone-strike-violated-sovereignty-160522204312754.html

Pakistan says US drone strike violated its sovereignty
Pakistan denounces US strike that apparently killed Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansoor near Afghan border.

And who knows who else.

 

[Vouthon]

There is no agreement on what “torture” is.

There is actually, from a moral perspective. The Catechism tells us:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

**Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.**91

Owing to the dignity of the human body, confessions of guilt should not ideally be forced upon a person by degrading psychological or physical violence. Pope St. Nicholas was pretty clear on this in 866. Prince Boris of Bulgaria asked for his guidance on the laws then in place in his newly converted kingdom regarding judicial torture. The Pontiff was unequivocal that they were appalling. His reasoning bears attention:

If a thief or bandit is apprehended and denies the charges against him, you tell me your custom is for a judge to beat him with blows to the head and tear the sides of his body with other sharp iron goads until he confesses the truth. Such a procedure is totally unacceptable under both divine and human law (quasi rem nec divina lex nec humana prosus admittit), since a confession should be spontaneous, not forced. It should be proffered voluntarily, not violently extorted. After all, if it should happen that even after inflicting all these torments, you still fail to wrest from the sufferer any self-incrimination regarding the crime of which he is accused, will you not then at least blush for shame and acknowledge how impious is your judicial procedure? Likewise, suppose an accused man is unable to endure such torments and so confesses to a crime he never committed. Upon whom, pray tell, will now devolve the full brunt of responsibility for such an enormity, if not upon him who coerced the accused into confessing such lies about himself?

The principle here is quite sound IMHO.

There are genuine moral issues here that should not be overlooked lightly.

 

[estesbob]

There is actually, from a moral perspective. The Catechism tells us:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Owing to the dignity of the human body, confessions of guilt should not ideally be forced upon a person by degrading psychological or physical violence. Pope St. Nicholas was pretty clear on this in 866. Prince Boris of Bulgaria asked for his guidance on the laws then in place in his newly converted kingdom regarding judicial torture. The Pontiff was unequivocal that they were appalling. His reasoning bears attention:

The principle here is quite sound IMHO.

There are genuine moral issues here that should not be overlooked lightly.

Does dismemberment of ones body and sucking it into a vacuum cleaner count as torture? So which candidate is running on a platform of allowing the torturing to death a million people a year?

You see no Matter how much one tries to villify Donald Trump you cannot get around the fact that his likely opponent supports the killing of a million children a year. And yes there is a genuine moral issue here- an issue between what some people claim a candidate "might " do and what a candidate has absolutely vowed to support and has supported her whole life.

 

[Vouthon]

Does dismemberment of ones body and sucking it into a vacuum cleaner count as torture? So which candidate is running on a platform of allowing the torturing to death a million people a year?

You see no Matter how much one tries to villify Donald Trump you cannot get around the fact that his likely opponent supports the killing of a million children a year. And yes there is a genuine moral issue here- an issue between what some people claim a candidate "might " do and what a candidate has absolutely vowed to support and has supported her whole life.

I’m not defending Clinton’s appaling advocacy of abortion on demand.

I am merely answering a point with regards torture.

 

[estesbob]

I’m not defending Clinton’s appealing advocacy of abortion on demand.

I am merely answering a point with regards torture.

Who here Is defending torture?

 

[Vouthon]

Who here Is defending torture?

I never said anyone was, nor did I accuse anyone.

Torture, in the sense of degrading and violent mistreatment of another human being whether physically or mentally to exact a confession of guilt, is an intrinsically evil act, that’s all I’m saying:

**Pope St. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (August 6, 1993).

#80. Now, reason testifies that there are some human acts which are seen to be “non-ordainable” to God, since they are radically incompatible with the good of the person **(omnino dissident a bono personae) created in His image. These are acts which in the Church’s moral tradition are called “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum). They bear that character always and per se, that is, because of their very object, independently of the circumstances and of the purpose of the one committing the act. . . . Vatican Council II, in treating of the respect due to the human person (de obsequio quod humanae debetur personae), mentions numerous examples of such acts.( The Pope then cites in full GS #27, 3, including its denunciation of torture: “physical and mental torture, attempted psychological coercion” cf. B9 above. )