Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[TMC]

Every? Unless you have an equal intrinsic evil thats a factual reality?

Then they have to qualify not just 2000 years of social teaching but the very USCCB that they rely on for their argument, and especially in this climate of social transition of the past 50 years and the culture of death well spoken on?

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

I am not sure I understand your question. But it is clear that the bishops have said that Catholics are to look at all issues and make a judgment as to the best candidate to vote for. Voting for a candidate because of their position on an intrinsic evil with the intent of furthering that evil is always wrong. Voting for a candidate in spite of such a position can be justified. In the current election each candidate takes positions against Church teaching, including advocating positions the Church teaches are inherently evil. So each Catholic must evaluate that situation and make a judgment and choice. Neither candidate is compelled by Church teaching. Neither candidate aligns with Church teaching on abortion, but many Catholics feel so strongly about abortion that they will go with the candidate they feel is better on that issue. But good Catholics can come to other conclusions. I am sure that millions of good Catholics will vote for each candidate, including good priests and bishops.

 

[Thorolfr]

Donald Trump in 1998:

In an interview on Fox News, the businessman appeared to side with Clinton against his accusers, saying: “It’s like it’s from hell. It’s a terrible group of people … The whole group – Paula Jones, [Monica] Lewinsky – it’s just a really unattractive group. And I’m not just talking about physical, but I am also talking about physical.”

And he said of the president: “I don’t necessarily agree with his victims. His victims are terrible. He is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position.”

Donald Trump now:

It was always a question of when, not if, Donald Trump would get his hands dirty in the 2016 presidential contest against Hillary Clinton. That time is now. In recent days the Republican presumptive nominee, seeking to deflect attention from his own chauvinism, has unleashed an attack ad that raises allegations of sexual harassment or assault by Bill Clinton. In a TV interview he used the word “rape”. He has also revived conspiracy theories that the suicide of White House counsel Vince Foster was actually murder.

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/24/donald-trump-bill-clinton-hillary-allegations-analysis

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not sure I understand your question…

But not all Catholics, or all Catholic bishops, agree that a candidate’s position on abortion must always be the only determinate of every election.

Then qualify this because as I clearly state that if women kill their own there is no further conversation, and certainly you have no equal in reality,

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

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. 3

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Listen I could even maybe rationalize on the ideal of women killing off the men in anger or emotion. Maybe in some twisted way I could rationalize. But they are now selectively killing off their own. How does that make sense?

PLEASE help me with this, V where are you???

There really is an absolute truth! And that truth is the democratic party has to go, its “anti Christ” and bottom line “selfish”.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, some bishops have said that abortion is the only issue that matters. We all know that as you post the same quotes from the same bishops over and over. But not all Catholics, or all Catholic bishops, agree that a candidate’s position on abortion must always be the only determinate of every election. I understand that is your view, and you are entitled to it. But it is not the view of most Catholics, or even most bishops, as has been repeated ad nauseum on this thread.

Which Bishops don’t agree? Quotes please.

 

[Darryl1958]

I would be interested too in hearing the kind of reasoning that a biship might use to argue that there is some issue more proportionate than upwards to a million deaths a year due to abortion.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Which Bishops don’t agree? Quotes please.

there was disagreement about whether to revise or completely rewrite Faithful Citizenship.

“Specifically, I believe that the Pope is telling us that alongside the issues of abortion and euthanasia, which are central aspects of our commitment to transform the world, poverty and the degradation of the earth are also central,” he continued. However, the voting guide “does not put those there.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversy-over-voting-doc-shows-divisions-among-us-bishops-55215/

“Some issues involve principles that can never be abandoned such as the fundamental right to life and marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” the bishops said. They said voting for a candidate specifically because the politician favors a “grave evil” such as abortion amounts to “formal cooperation” with that evil by the voter.
lifenews.com/2015/11/18/catholic-bishops-voting-for-a-candidate-who-supports-abortion-is-formal-cooperation-with-evil/

I doubt though that many Catholics will vote “for a candidate **specifically because **the politician favors a “grave evil” such as abortion.”

 

[Darryl1958]

Well, as long as the cooperation with grave evil is kept on an informal level, then that is sufficient to be a Catholic in good standing.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Well, as long as the cooperation with grave evil is kept on an informal level, then that is sufficient to be a Catholic in good standing.

I only mention it because one often sees it presented as anyone voting for a pro-choice candidate for any reason is in formal cooperation and that is not true and it certainly is not direct.

 

[Crossbones]

I think it takes at least as much in the way of gymnastics to make him out the ogre the Clinton supporters want to make him. One thing’s for sure, he never said he would seek out noncombatants in the absence of terrorists being in their midst.

Nope, that’s not what he said at all. He said there has to be retribution. He will make the families suffer.

And what is the whole Afghanistan adventure other than retribution?

So, another colossal mistake by George W Bush, then, I guess.

All his statement above says is that you can’t stop an aggressor if the aggressor pays no price for it.

Not what he said at all. He said that he would wipe out the families of terrorists. That he would make them suffer. That it was for retribution.

But regardless, eventually the Clinton internet cadres will come in here and fill page after page after page and generate thread after thread telling Catholics how voting for Hillary Clinton is not only okay, it’s actually virtuous. It happened in 2008 and 2012 with Obama, and it will happen here again in 2016. Obama had his “Catholic apologists” and so will Clinton. And if Clinton is elected, it won’t end because how is she going to get us to “change our religion” unless she stays after us?

Ah, the deflection for your support of a candidate that supports intrinsic evils. I am entirely confident in every Catholic’s ability to read Church documents and understand the various quotes of the bishops in determining who to vote for.

 

[Darryl1958]

I only mention it because one often sees it presented as anyone voting for a pro-choice candidate for any reason is in formal cooperation and that is not true and it certainly is not direct.

Proportionate reasoning is a good thing.
What has to be on the other side of the scale that carries the weight of a third of every future generation being lost to abortion?

The legalese is all covered with the idea that the cooperation with evil is not direct, but informal though.

I believe I understand the point that you were trying to make with your links.

 

[estesbob]

I am not sure I understand your question**. But it is clear that the bishops have said that Catholics are to look at all issues** and make a judgment as to the best candidate to vote for. Voting for a candidate because of their position on an intrinsic evil with the intent of furthering that evil is always wrong. Voting for a candidate in spite of such a position can be justified. In the current election each candidate takes positions against Church teaching, including advocating positions the Church teaches are inherently evil. So each Catholic must evaluate that situation and make a judgment and choice. Neither candidate is compelled by Church teaching. Neither candidate aligns with Church teaching on abortion, but many Catholics feel so strongly about abortion that they will go with the candidate they feel is better on that issue. But good Catholics can come to other conclusions. I am sure that millions of good Catholics will vote for each candidate, including good priests and bishops.

They had said no such thing and you have been unable to provide a single quote from any bishop to back up that assertion . I provided numerous direct quotes from bishops, cardinals, popes and church documents that make it very clear you cannot vote for candidate who supports abortion unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. In these resources I provided they have made it clear that no issue or combinations of issues rise to the level of abortion .

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I cannot support Trump nor Clinton.

 

[estesbob]

there was disagreement about whether to revise or completely rewrite Faithful Citizenship.

“Specifically, I believe that the Pope is telling us that alongside the issues of abortion and euthanasia, which are central aspects of our commitment to transform the world, poverty and the degradation of the earth are also central,” he continued. However, the voting guide “does not put those there.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversy-over-voting-doc-shows-divisions-among-us-bishops-55215/

“Some issues involve principles that can never be abandoned such as the fundamental right to life and marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” the bishops said. They said voting for a candidate specifically because the politician favors a “grave evil” such as abortion amounts to “formal cooperation” with that evil by the voter.
lifenews.com/2015/11/18/catholic-bishops-voting-for-a-candidate-who-supports-abortion-is-formal-cooperation-with-evil/

I doubt though that many Catholics will vote “for a candidate **specifically because **the politician favors a “grave evil” such as abortion.”

As has been noted by numerous bishops, cardinals, and popes the only issue grave enough to allow a Catholic to vote for for abortion candidate is if that candidates opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Even then you can only vote for them if your vote is not in support of their position on abortion . If you can find any member the magestrium that disputes this please post a quote.

 

[estesbob]

I only mention it because one often sees it presented as anyone voting for a pro-choice candidate for any reason is in formal cooperation and that is not true and it certainly is not direct.

And yet you cannot find a single member of the magisterium that supportsv your interpretation. Not one. You would have us believe that all the bishops, cardinals, popes and church documents we have provided on this is just their personal opinions to be swept away with one’s personal interpretation of a couple lines in a bishops conference document . And we see this every election. And the children continue to die and Catholics continue to make excuses for why this is acceptable because their preferred candidate was going to raise taxes on the rich

 

[Ridgerunner]

And yet you cannot find a single member of the magisterium that supportsv your interpretation. Not one. You would have us believe that all the bishops, cardinals, popes and church documents we have provided on this is just their personal opinions to be swept away with one’s personal interpretation of a couple lines in a bishops conference document . And we see this every election. And the children continue to die and Catholics continue to make excuses for why this is acceptable because their preferred candidate was going to raise taxes on the rich

Since Obama didn’t raise taxes on the rich, only the middle class, and since Hillary is in the pocket of the rich, and since the only person proposing increased taxes on the rich is Trump (though apparently limited) one is getting dangerously close to the truth; that many people, including many Catholics, support Clinton precisely because she will protect abortion on demand. It’s just uncomfortable to say it on a Catholic site.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Donald Trump in 1998:

Donald Trump now:

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/24/donald-trump-bill-clinton-hillary-allegations-analysis

Donald Trump 2012

“I think, assuming she is healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she probably runs after the next four years, I would imagine,” Trump predicted in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News on Wednesday.

“Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman. I mean I’m a little biased because I’ve known her for years. I live in New York, she lives in New York, I’ve known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot. And I think she really works hard,” Trump said.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/donald-trump-hillary-clinton_n_1387680.html

The video in the link is very interesting. He referenced a speech Bill Clinton made at Mar a Lago. Which, for those who might not know, Trump’s Florida Estate.

 

[Vouthon]

Since Obama didn’t raise taxes on the rich, only the middle class, and since Hillary is in the pocket of the rich, and since the only person proposing increased taxes on the rich is Trump (though apparently limited) one is getting dangerously close to the truth; that many people, including many Catholics, support Clinton precisely because she will protect abortion on demand. It’s just uncomfortable to say it on a Catholic site.

Isn’t that overly judgemental?

While I personally feel it would be difficult for a practising Catholic to justify voting for either one of the two main candidates this year given their support for intrinsic evils, I have a hard time believing that any practising Catholic who chooses one over the other is doing so, ultimately, because of the candidate’s stance on an intrinsic evil condemned by the Church.

That would be frankly nonsensical.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

And yet you cannot find a single member of the magisterium that supportsv your interpretation. Not one. You would have us believe that all the bishops, cardinals, popes and church documents we have provided on this is just their personal opinions to be swept away with one’s personal interpretation of a couple lines in a bishops conference document . And we see this every election. And the children continue to die and Catholics continue to make excuses for why this is acceptable because their preferred candidate was going to raise taxes on the rich

I’m understanding your point when it comes to not voting for Hillary.

Donald Trump though, has a pretty liberal abortion stance. Rape, life of the mother and first trimester.

I’m not sure I understand how support for him is not also support for an candidate who supports abortion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have a hard time believing that any practising Catholic who chooses one over the other is doing so, ultimately, because of the candidate’s stance on an intrinsic evil condemned by the Church.

That would be frankly nonsensical.

Implicit seems quite logical as I would still be weighing the evils and voting for one over the other. In the case of Hillary for abortion on demand over Trump. You don’t think your specifically voting for what you consider the lesser evil in the case of Hillary. I think its a difference in explicit and implicit but I see your point.