Mary_Gail_36
New member
And that’s how we ended up with Trump.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Pretty much. It is apparent that social conservatives have waning influence in the Republican party at this point.And that’s how we ended up with Trump.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Like Obama/Hillary with the drones. 7 strikes in Yemen and in all 7 civilians were murdered. To date Trump hasn’t murdered anyone. Its merely a double standard of moral relativism. Not very good in light of Hillary who can’t be trusted. Drones, Benghazi and email she fails on every point where trust is concerned. We don’t have to assume what will happen with Hillary, just look at what she in fact did like today and yesterday with “unsecured private server” and so forth, not a day goes by that Hillary isn’t confronted with her own failures, she’s not gonna make the election. I can’t imagine Obama covering for her much more, “legacy” and all you know. So whos on deck for a candidate? Fire Debbie and go with Bernie or someone else?Trump said families. The families are noncombatants. So, he’s targeting noncombatants.
Hillary Clinton disregarded State Department cybersecurity guidelines by using a private email account and server, an internal audit found Wednesday. Her staff twice brushed aside specific concerns that she wasn’t following federal rules.
The inspector general’s review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached. Clinton and several of her senior staff declined to be interviewed for the State Department investigation.ABC today
Hillary drones noncombatants then chats about that on a unsecured private server. This will be in a smear ad by tomorrow.The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification…The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping. JAN. 29, 2016 Mother Jones
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.”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
bustedhalo.com/questionbox/abortion-should-catholics-who-vote-for-pro-choice-politicians-receive-communion
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh, not at all.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.
“Faithful Citizenship” is not contradictory to what the Popes, Burke, Chaput, Galante and others have said; not even to what Kicanas has said. They’re all consistent with one another. What is sometimes said to justify supporting abortion on demand is that “F.C.” somehow embraces moral relativism, which it doesn’t. It does not place all issues on an equal footing. It does the opposite.
Estesbob has challenged all Hillary supporters on here to show that there is any bishop or pope who says it’s okay to support one who supports abortion on demand in the absence of an equally grave or greater evil to be prevented in doing so.
So far, nobody has. And they haven’t because they can’t.
There are more than 400 bishops in the U.S. Remember, there are auxiliary bishops in a lot of places as well as retired bishops. All of them get to vote. Nobody has yet explained why fewer than half voted for this document.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Perhaps because it is a strawman argument. Is there anyone here who supports Hillary in the absence of a greater evil?Oh, not at all.
“Faithful Citizenship” is not contradictory to what the Popes, Burke, Chaput, Galante and others have said; not even to what Kicanas has said. They’re all consistent with one another. What is sometimes said to justify supporting abortion on demand is that “F.C.” somehow embraces moral relativism, which it doesn’t. It does not place all issues on an equal footing. It does the opposite.
Estesbob has challenged all Hillary supporters on here to show that there is any bishop or pope who says it’s okay to support one who supports abortion on demand in the absence of an equally grave or greater evil to be prevented in doing so.
So far, nobody has. And they haven’t because they can’t.
There are more than 400 bishops in the U.S. Remember, there are auxiliary bishops in a lot of places as well as retired bishops. All of them get to vote. Nobody has yet explained why fewer than half voted for this document.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The context was the question of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians and others who are pro-abortion.Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.”
bustedhalo.com/questionbox/abortion-should-catholics-who-vote-for-pro-choice-politicians-receive-communion
But he also said this:
" It is quite clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. Even though we are concerned about many important social issues of the day, including the sanctity of human life, marriage, poverty, migration policies and the environment, not all possible courses of action to address these problems are morally acceptable. The weak and vulnerable must always be protected and human rights and dignity defended.
Why is there such concern about human life issues? Too many solutions proposed involve what we would call “intrinsically evil” actions. To treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice is a grave mistake."
So, Abp Vlazny is not supporting the moral relativism required to vote for Hillary Clinton either.
T
TMC
Guest
Your statement makes no sense. The USCCB and Vatican documents were written by members of the magisterium. We don’t need other members of the magisterium to tell us to follow the formal documents published by the magisterium. I am simply reading the Church’s documents and following them. You are saying that we should reject those documents, not I.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:
Pope Benedcit XVI
- 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).
- 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.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
So, Abp Vlazny is not supporting the moral relativism required to vote for Hillary Clinton either.
- In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.
Why must we insist on telling each other for whom to vote? That is not the proper work of the Church not anyone here.
C
chero23
Guest
Well from what I have seen here, especially those on the right, is that if you don’t vote for a republican, they will pin on you “supporter of abortion on demand”.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm
- In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.
Why must we insist on telling each other for whom to vote? That is not the proper work of the Church not anyone here.
I get it, we have some serious topics out there, but we also have two candidates have no clue about the country. Just bc one is a republican does not mean he is a true conservative. Meanwhile the other, is so focused on her personal glory, she’s not worried about the country.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
They all say that. Nobody in the Church ever tells anyone who to vote for.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm
- In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.
Why must we insist on telling each other for whom to vote? That is not the proper work of the Church not anyone here.
Why do we discuss this? First, because it’s incumbent on all Christians to bear witness to the truth. Second, it’s unlikely but possible that someone who is going to support abortion will refrain from doing so. Third, because observers of this discourse might be dissuaded from supporting abortion when they see very clear statements from the leaders of the Church that they cannot support abortion on demand with their votes.
That the only supporter of abortion on demand in this election is Hillary Clinton also needs to be known by those who visit this site.
Finally, since abortion on demand would have been defeated long ago had Catholics known and acknowledged the truth that in supporting the supporters of abortion they’re supporting abortion itself, it gives those who did so in the past an opportunity to reverse their previous, unfortunate, voting decisions.
E
estesbob
Guest
But you’re not following the documents. What you have done is ignored everything in the documents that don’t support your political views and instead ask us to believe what you claim bishops really" meant "instead of what they said. Again how can you reconcile the quotes we have posted with your personal interpretation of this document ?Your statement makes no sense. The USCCB and Vatican documents were written by members of the magisterium. We don’t need other members of the magisterium to tell us to follow the formal documents published by the magisterium. I am simply reading the Church’s documents and following them. You are saying that we should reject those documents, not I.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Close, but not quite there . It’s more true to say if you don’t oppose the election of Hillary Clinton, you are pinning “supporter of abortion” on yourself. Every person who supports her knows that. Why would any Catholic want to do that? Because Trump can be a boor? Because Hillary promises free junior college when she knows full well she won’t deliver it?Well from what I have seen here, especially those on the right, is that if you don’t vote for a republican, they will pin on you “supporter of abortion on demand”.
I get it, we have some serious topics out there, but we also have two candidates have no clue about the country. Just bc one is a republican does not mean he is a true conservative. Meanwhile the other, is so focused on her personal glory, she’s not worried about the country.
Or do we don the pin because it actually fits and we know it?
E
estesbob
Guest
And he ends by affirming what all the other ,Bishops saidArchbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.”
bustedhalo.com/questionbox/abortion-should-catholics-who-vote-for-pro-choice-politicians-receive-communion
" It is quite clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. Even though we are concerned about many important social issues of the day, including the sanctity of human life, marriage, poverty, migration policies and the environment, not all possible courses of action to address these problems are morally acceptable. The weak and vulnerable must always be protected and human rights and dignity defended.
The other issues he mentioned, as has been pointed out numerous times by members of the magestrium And Church documents come in the play only if both candidates are equally pro abortion or equally pro-life Again if you can find a single member the magestrium says that that a Catholic can vote for pro abortion candidate if a pro-life alternative is available please do so . I have provided numerous direct quotes to the contrary.
T
TMC
Guest
Its not my personal view. Its what the document says:But you’re not following the documents. What you have done is ignored everything in the documents that don’t support your political views and instead ask us to believe what you claim bishops really" meant "instead of what they said. Again how can you reconcile the quotes we have posted with your personal interpretation of this document ?
- Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
- There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
I have been saying exactly the above. Your position appears to be that a voter must determine who is the most pro-life candidate and vote for that person, and that only if candidates are tied in that regard should a voter look to any other issue. That position cannot be found in any Church document.
- When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And he ends by affirming what all the other ,Bishops said
" It is quite clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. Even though we are concerned about many important social issues of the day, including the sanctity of human life, marriage, poverty, migration policies and the environment, not all possible courses of action to address these problems are morally acceptable.
Which refers back to the USCCB here; On The Importance And Priority Of Defending Innocent Human Life, two of our most fundamental moral imperatives:…The weak and vulnerable must always be protected and human rights and dignity defended.
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
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/on-the-importance-and-priority-of-defending-innocent-human-life.cfm(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.
C
chero23
Guest
How much can be said about Trump The man is still undecided about abortion, true he put a list of possible Supreme Court justices but he can change at any moment. He changes opinion as much as a teenager at the beginning of puberty. Then when he does become pro-choice the defense won’t be, “well, he supported pro life justices then switched on us”.Close, but not quite there . It’s more true to say if you don’t oppose the election of Hillary Clinton, you are pinning “supporter of abortion” on yourself. Every person who supports her knows that. Why would any Catholic want to do that? Because Trump can be a boor? Because Hillary promises free junior college when she knows full well she won’t deliver it?
Or do we don the pin because it actually fits and we know it?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There is no likelihood at all that he will switch Supreme Court candidates and suddenly serve up pro-abortionists. He has nothing to gain and much to lose by doing it.How much can be said about Trump The man is still undecided about abortion, true he put a list of possible Supreme Court justices but he can change at any moment. He changes opinion as much as a teenager at the beginning of puberty. Then when he does become pro-choice the defense won’t be, “well, he supported pro life justices then switched on us”.
But even if one wants to speculate about it, there’s no speculation about Hillary Clinton appointing pro-abortion judges. She has promised it, and there is nothing at all for her to gain in failing to do it, and much to lose if she does fail.
And this business about Trump changing positions is getting very over-used. What has Hllary Clinton NOT switched on? She was for the Iraq War until it became unpopular. She was against tax increases until she was for them.
Trump, as I have said before, is not an ideological person. He probably doesn’t have strong personal beliefs about abortion. After all, he’s a Presbyterian and that church doesn’t condemn abortion. But he knows he has to provide prolife justices or he would have no constituency left for re-election. Hillary Clinton knows if she does NOT appoint pro-abortion justices, she would have no constituency for re-election.
Nothing difficult in figuring that one out.
C
chero23
Guest
So Trump as you stated can change positions at any moment, on anything, yet your willing to take that chance bc of the conservative constituency?There is no likelihood at all that he will switch Supreme Court candidates and suddenly serve up pro-abortionists. He has nothing to gain and much to lose by doing it.
But even if one wants to speculate about it, there’s no speculation about Hillary Clinton appointing pro-abortion judges. She has promised it, and there is nothing at all for her to gain in failing to do it, and much to lose if she does fail.
And this business about Trump changing positions is getting very over-used. What has Hllary Clinton NOT switched on? She was for the Iraq War until it became unpopular. She was against tax increases until she was for them.
Trump, as I have said before, is not an ideological person. He probably doesn’t have strong personal beliefs about abortion. After all, he’s a Presbyterian and that church doesn’t condemn abortion. But he knows he has to provide prolife justices or he would have no constituency left for re-election. Hillary Clinton knows if she does NOT appoint pro-abortion justices, she would have no constituency for re-election.
Nothing difficult in figuring that one out.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I think my main objection is to being a one issue voter when it is not likely that the candidate will influence established law. I will not support Hillary but nether can I support Trump.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.