Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Ridgerunner]

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.

It gets harder and harder, Vouthon, not to think that, as Hillary Clinton is more and more exposed to be the exact antithesis of what her supporters purport to believe in…all but one thing, of course, abortion on demand.

And it’s just wrong to equate the presently most grave intrinsic evil (and which Church leaders acknowledge as such) presented in this election with far lesser evils or things that aren’t even necessarily evil, but could be.

I keep waiting for some on here who know what the Church teaches to acknowledge that. But strangely, some that one would expect to do it, don’t.

Disappointing.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

And yet you cannot find a single member of the magisterium that supportsv your interpretation…

It is not my interpretation. It is what is plainly written.

 

[TMC]

Which Bishops don’t agree? Quotes please.

Just read the USCCB documents, which were approved by something like 90% of bishops. Or read the Vatican documents. The links have been posted over and over and over again.

 

[TMC]

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 .

Again, read the actual Church documents instead of cherry picking quotes.

 

[TMC]

Donald Trump in 1998:

Donald Trump now:

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

You don’t have to go back to the 90’s. Just last summer Trump said that Bill Clinton was the best president in the last 25 years. Trump says whatever he thinks will gain him some advantage in that moment. Nothing he says appears to be moored to anything solid.

 

[Thorolfr]

Trump says whatever he thinks will gain him some advantage in that moment. Nothing he says appears to be moored to anything solid.

And his supporters don’t seem to care…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

This link serves my point:

lifenews.com/2015/11/18/catholic-bishops-voting-for-a-candidate-who-supports-abortion-is-formal-cooperation-with-evil/

"Catholic Bishops: Voting for a Candidate Who Supports Abortion is “Formal Cooperation” With Evil"

Not exactly, 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.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput says the Bishops are divided:

Asked why there was so much disunity on the question of pro-choice Catholics receiving Communion, Denver’s Archbishop Charles J. Chaput told the audience at the University of Notre Dame on April 8: “The reason…is that there is no unity among the bishops about it.” He said, “There is unity among the bishops about abortion always being wrong and that you can’t be a Catholic and be in favor of abortion…but there’s just an inability among the bishops together to speak clearly on this matter and even to say that it you’re Catholic and you’re pro-choice, you can’t receive holy Communion.” There is a fear, he said, that if bishops speak clearly on the issue, they would make it difficult for Catholic politicians to be elected and would disenfranchise the Catholic community. The strategy clearly has failed, he said. “So let’s try something different and see if it works. Let’s be very, very clear on these matters.”

americamagazine.org/issue/774/signs/bishops-divided-pro-choice-politicians

 

[estesbob]

Again, read the actual Church documents instead of cherry picking quotes.

If I am cherry picking the quotes you should have no problem getting even one backing up your position. I have read the church documents, in fact I am the one that provided them and you cannot find a single member the magisterium that backs up your personal interpretation of them

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just read the USCCB documents, which were approved by something like 90% of bishops. Or read the Vatican documents. The links have been posted over and over and over again.

“Faithful Citizenship” was apparently voted on by about 200 bishops, less than half the total. Still, it doesn’t contradict a single thing Estesbob has said or quoted.

 

[estesbob]

This link serves my point:

lifenews.com/2015/11/18/catholic-bishops-voting-for-a-candidate-who-supports-abortion-is-formal-cooperation-with-evil/

"Catholic Bishops: Voting for a Candidate Who Supports Abortion is “Formal Cooperation” With Evil"

Not exactly, 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.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput says the Bishops are divided:

Asked why there was so much disunity on the question of pro-choice Catholics receiving Communion, Denver’s Archbishop Charles J. Chaput told the audience at the University of Notre Dame on April 8: “The reason…is that there is no unity among the bishops about it.” He said, “There is unity among the bishops about abortion always being wrong and that you can’t be a Catholic and be in favor of abortion…but there’s just an inability among the bishops together to speak clearly on this matter and even to say that it you’re Catholic and you’re pro-choice, you can’t receive holy Communion.” There is a fear, he said, that if bishops speak clearly on the issue, they would make it difficult for Catholic politicians to be elected and would disenfranchise the Catholic community. The strategy clearly has failed, he said. “So let’s try something different and see if it works. Let’s be very, very clear on these matters.”

If there is such a division on voting for pro-abortion candidates then you should be able to find a member the magisterium that states a Catholic can vote for pro-abortion candidate. Chaput is talking about a division on the political political strategyv to end abortion-not whether it is illicit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidates

 

[Ridgerunner]

You don’t have to go back to the 90’s. Just last summer Trump said that Bill Clinton was the best president in the last 25 years. Trump says whatever he thinks will gain him some advantage in that moment. Nothing he says appears to be moored to anything solid.

You mean like Hillary being for the Iraq war before she was against it?

 

[TMC]

If I am cherry picking the quotes you should have no problem getting even one backing up your position. I have read the church documents, in fact I am the one that provided them and you cannot find a single member the magisterium that backs up your personal interpretation of them

The Church has been quoted repeatedly in this thread, but you reject the actual documents of the Church in favor of your cherry picked quotes from a couple of bishops. The documents speak pretty plainly, and they don’t say that Catholics are one issue voters or that Catholics must always vote for the most pro-life candidate. I encourage all Catholics to read them for themselves. They are not hard to understand.

 

[Vouthon]

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.

To be fair, I do think that ‘rape’ and ‘life of the mother’ is preferable to ‘abortion on demand’ - even though it is far from adequate.

Since most abortions are not undergone because of rape, this would still GREATLY reduce the number of terminations by a colossal amount. We need to be pragmatic with this, I think as well.

The prior two (rape, life of mother) provoke genuine moral dilemmas, despite the fact that - ultimately - the unborn foetus is an innocent life that should be allowed to go through the normal process of gestation.

Abortion on demand is not at all ‘grey’, by contrast. It is intrinsically evil, as are all abortion procedures but also free from the moral complexity of the former two situations that involve a grievously wronged or endangered woman, who has an equal right to protection of her life and dignity.

The problem for me is not so much that Trump supports exceptions for rape and life of the mother (lamentable though this is) - but that he used to be adamantly pro-choice in general, like Clinton is now.

If he was sincerely pro-life except for rape and life of the mother (inherent contradiction in that statement aside), he could still do a lot of good short of ideal in this area, at least better than what we’ve seen thus far. But he isn’t. The man seems utterly bereft of any guiding moral principles other than his own gratification and self-interest, such that his expressed opinions on such central questions shift like quicksand.

 

[TMC]

“Faithful Citizenship” was apparently voted on by about 200 bishops, less than half the total. Still, it doesn’t contradict a single thing Estesbob has said or quoted.

There are about 200 diocese in the US, so that number makes sense. Close to half of the US bishops are retired. There may be other bishops that do not vote in that council for one reason or another. But what is certain is that the document it was voted on by the members of the USCCB, and the overwhelming majority voted for it. I am not aware of any of the non-voting bishops that came out against it. Of course, the USCCB document is based in large part on a very similar Vatican document.

Obviously, you are now at the point of trying to convince Catholics that the comments of a few individual bishops somehow trumps the official documents of the Church. I think most Catholics realize that is not the case.

 

[TMC]

You mean like Hillary being for the Iraq war before she was against it?

I am not here to defend Hillary. Not really a fan of hers. Voters have two very flawed choices here. You have been saying that the Church requires that Catholics vote for Trump. My only point is that the Church does not require that. The choices are not great, but each voter must evaluate and make a choice. A Catholic voter must evaluate which of the imperfect choices to make, and the Church does not mandate one over the other.

 

[estesbob]

The Church has been quoted repeatedly in this thread, but you reject the actual documents of the Church in favor of your cherry picked quotes from a couple of bishops. The documents speak pretty plainly, and they don’t say that Catholics are one issue voters or that Catholics must always vote for the most pro-life candidate. I encourage all Catholics to read them for themselves. They are not hard to understand.

You can not provide a single member of the magestrium who backs of your personal interpretation of these documents. Not one. Nowhere in any of these documents does it say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if there is a more pro-life alternative available. You have summarily dismissed direct quotes from Bishops, cardinals,popes and Vatican document because they interfere with your political views.

For instance how do you reconcile you personal interpretation of these documents with thi?s:

1. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
2. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedcit XVI

 

[GaryTaylor]

To be fair, I do think that ‘rape’ and ‘life of the mother’ is preferable to ‘abortion on demand’ - even though it is far from adequate.

Since most abortions are not undergone because of rape, this would still GREATLY reduce the number of terminations by a colossal amount. We need to be pragmatic with this, I think as well.

The prior two (rape, life of mother) provoke genuine moral dilemmas, despite the fact that - ultimately - the unborn foetus is an innocent life that should be allowed to go through the normal process of gestation.

Abortion on demand is not at all ‘grey’, by contrast. It is intrinsically evil, as are all abortion procedures but also free from the moral complexity of the former two situations that involve a grievously wronged or endangered woman, who has an equal right to protection of her life and dignity.

The problem for me is not so much that Trump supports exceptions for rape and life of the mother (lamentable though this is) - but that he used to be adamantly pro-choice in general, like Clinton is now.

If he was sincerely pro-life except for rape and life of the mother (inherent contradiction in that statement aside), he could still do a lot of good short of ideal in this area, at least better than what we’ve seen thus far. But he isn’t. The man seems utterly bereft of any guiding moral principles other than his own gratification and self-interest, such that his expressed opinions on such central questions shift like quicksand.

Still this can truly be said about Hillary also…

seems utterly bereft of any guiding moral principles other than his own gratification and self-interest, such that his expressed opinions on such central questions shift like quicksand.

Her issues are never ending and honestly I see her campaign suspended before the general election. Not a day goes by that shes not back in the news, today the guy who hacked her server agrees to cooperate with the FBI in any future investigation

Nevertheless be that as it may be, with this specific opinion being the same in both cases then the greater evil is still Hillary.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

To be fair, I do think that ‘rape’ and ‘life of the mother’ is preferable to ‘abortion on demand’ - even though it is far from adequate.

Since most abortions are not undergone because of rape, this would still GREATLY reduce the number of terminations by a colossal amount. We need to be pragmatic with this, I think as well.

The prior two (rape, life of mother) provoke genuine moral dilemmas, despite the fact that - ultimately - the unborn foetus is an innocent life that should be allowed to go through the normal process of gestation.

Abortion on demand is not at all ‘grey’, by contrast. It is intrinsically evil, as are all abortion procedures but also free from the moral complexity of the former two situations that involve a grievously wronged or endangered woman, who has an equal right to protection of her life and dignity.

The problem for me is not so much that Trump supports exceptions for rape and life of the mother (lamentable though this is) - but that he used to be adamantly pro-choice in general, like Clinton is now.

If he was sincerely pro-life except for rape and life of the mother (inherent contradiction in that statement aside), he could still do a lot of good short of ideal in this area, at least better than what we’ve seen thus far. But he isn’t. The man seems utterly bereft of any guiding moral principles other than his own gratification and self-interest, such that his expressed opinions on such central questions shift like quicksand.

Since the election process began he’s stated he would support 1st trimester abortions. Most abortions in the US are first trimester abortions, and second trimester abortions are often preformed for the “health” of the mother.

Doe vs Bolton, the companion ruling of Roe V Wade, ruled that “health” should include psychological health of the mother. That was the loop hole that allowed George Tiller to run a late term abortion clinic. Carrying a disabled or sick child was too traumatic for the mother’s psychological health.

He’s so contradictory, interview to interview, it is very hard to believe things he says.

 

[Crossbones]

He never said noncombatants. Your point is a strawman. The conversation was isis related, a intrinsic .

Obama is doing this today as we speak “noncombatants” and thats a fact and killing innocents and Hillary more of the same, maybe worse as she is scandalous. A 40 year record of scandal.

Trump said families. The families are noncombatants. So, he’s targeting noncombatants.

 

[Crossbones]

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.

I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of abortion to most voters.

Look at: gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

and you can see that abortion is not considered the most important issue to voters by a vast majority.