Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[LeafByNiggle]

If one wants to argue that the Church is wrong, one ought to simply say it and be prepared to defend it. But insisting that the Church is internally contradictory on a clear teaching when it isn’t, is a worthless endeavor.

This is clearly a strawman argument, since TMC did not say the Church is wrong, or internally inconsistent in her teachings. That is your interpretation . Do not lay that at the feet of TMC.

 

[E_7]

Amazing. This is the first thread I’ve seen apart from game threads that has 73 pages.

 

[estesbob]

This is clearly a strawman argument, since TMC did not say the Church is wrong, or internally inconsistent in her teachings. That is your interpretation . Do not lay that at the feet of TMC.

Can you the a single member of the Magestriu

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Estesbob can speak for himself, but I see plenty of environmental concern…Throw something out of your car window and people will call you out on it. Cops will ticket

Did you get some of that from the GOP platform? Because it also sites all the progress that has been made without mention of the EPA regulations that made most of it possible until it calls for diminishment of the EPA.

What “Pro-Life” Republicans often do not see is that the environment is a pro-Life issue (See Laudato Si), as is **pre-natal **care. Any provision assistance for that in the platform?

That doesn’t mean I support Hillary.

 

[Crossbones]

Just incorrect. I realize sometimes it can be hard to follow what Catholic leaders are saying in a particular context if one isn’t familiar with the teachings themselves.

Bishop Kicanas was talking about “formal” cooperation with evil because that’s what he was asked about in the interview. He then addressed it. That’s not all there is to know about the subject matter, and Bp. Kicanas never said there was.

There is no disagreement among bishops that politicians who promote abortion shouldn’t present themselves for communion. They shouldn’t, and nobody says they should. But since, at a particular point in time, a communicant might be repentant and confessed his sins, or even have perfect contrition (which the priest wouldn’t know) there is an opinion that the priest should go ahead and give communion. Others think the potential scandal aspect of it is a stronger argument against giving the politician communion. But all of that has to do with the decision of the priest in a possibly uncertain circumstance, not the objective worthiness of the politician to receive communion.

The point is that there is differences in views that you claim don’t exist. They are there. You cannot take the words on any one bishop and apply it to the entirety of Church teaching, as you claimed in the previous comment.

 

[Darryl1958]

Did you get some of that from the GOP platform? Because it also sites all the progress that has been made without mention of the EPA regulations that made most of it possible until it calls for diminishment of the EPA.

What “Pro-Life” Republicans often do not see is that the environment is a pro-Life issue (See Laudato Si), as is **pre-natal **care. Any provision assistance for that in the platform?

That doesn’t mean I support Hillary.

Calling everything and its mother by the name of pro-life is a misnomer that shows no respect for the history of the term.

Like with marriage, when everything is defined as marriage, the term marriage itself become irrelevant.

Pro-life is ll about the destruction of a third of each successive generation by abortion. It is a term that came into being to counter being the negative anti-abortion side in the battle against pro-choice.

But, people do have their Catholic backs covered if they only support the architects of this holocaust without actually directly supporting the holocaust.

Solyndra can be seen as proportionate reasons to keep the architects in power, I suppose, if one is able to squint really, really hard.

 

[pnewton]

Calling everything and its mother by the name of pro-life is a misnomer that shows no respect for the history of the term.

I take my cue on this from my teachers, not my political pundits. I trust the Holy Spirit working more through the Magisterium. Yet your point is well taken, which is why I specify “anti-abortion” if abortion is the issue. Using pro-life to refer to abortion exclusively is as inaccurate as using pro-choice when only referring to the choice to have an abortion.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Pro-life is ll about the destruction of a third of each successive generation by abortion. It is a term that came into being to counter being the negative anti-abortion side in the battle against pro-choice.

OK then, we can have the paradox of claiming “Pro-Choice” while supporting the death penalty, torture, and reduction of programs supporting young mothers and children.:nope:

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have heard a similar argument of pro-life argued against pro-gun. Course that point falls apart rather quickly upon further thinking. But I think pro-life and climate control is the same basic argument with a slightly different spin in comparison making it slightly more difficult to place in the specifics of perspective.

1st I agree with Darryl1958 and his overall thinking above. The reality is that with the democratic socialism party in america today they have “canonized relativism” which I think we all see, then too it applies here; “The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts.”

Calling everything and its mother by the name of pro-life is a misnomer that shows no respect for the history of the term.

Pro-Life and Pro-choice is like using the term “terrorist” its not what the evil is its how people respond to evil or its situation. Abortion is the evil and its clear in its priority because of its two pronged attack which as the bible, popes and USCCB define that it not only is an attack on human rights but specifically and intentionally against the weakest and most innocent, placing object, intention and the circumstances of the action in clear perspective.

So when we say climate control we have a generalized agenda like pro-life or pro choice but not the specifics of the object, intention, and the circumstances clarified but generalized to place a relative equal moral comparison in emphasis on another proposed position. In essence no different at this moment that suggesting pro-gun is opposed to pro-life. Its misses the point and places emphasis on a secondary straw man in comparison.

Course thats not to undermine the real theory that we are stewards of our own earth. This in comparison to the Church and politics is different in comparison though and clearly in specifics of intrinsic evil. For example I can say I am pro life and pro climate control but think of the implications.

For example, so I think we should continue fracking world wide while disrupting the water tables and allowing methane gas to destroy life and the earth? So we can say “fracking specifically” isn’t conducive to Gods moral law, human rights thus Gods Kingdom and continue to make the case for intrinsic evil. And thats while comparing it to climate control.

But as I said theres a perspective here and also relativism in play.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The point is that there is differences in views that you claim don’t exist. They are there. You cannot take the words on any one bishop and apply it to the entirety of Church teaching, as you claimed in the previous comment.

Actually, one should be able to take the words of any one bishop when he’s talking about doctrines on faith and morals and apply it to all of them. That’s why the Catholic Church is called “Catholic” (universal). Doctrines do not differ from place to place or from leader to leader. Now, as to issues of fact, there can be differences, and are, e.g. is there MMGW or not? Does capitalism necessarily lead to over-concentration of wealth? Does socialism aid the poor or just make everyone poor?

Certainly, among protestants (“protest-ant”) there can be and inevitably are differences when it comes to doctrinal matters. It’s the very nature of it that there are. In this society, and in the west generally, Protestantism has been around a long time and has had a profound effect on the culture. When, as in Protestantism, individual interpretation of the scriptures is considered equally valid for all, despite obvious differences, then naturally, those who hold to that subjectivism will be inclined to see differences in other things whether they objectively exist or not. That’s why, for example Nietzsche declared the “Death of God”. He didn’t mean God literally died. He meant that relativism had so suffused western culture that people no longer believed in “principles” (objective truth) and instead believe in “values” (truth as I see it).

None of the bishops cited so far has contradicted what any of the others said. One can pick some sentence or other that isn’t the central point of what another is saying and “interpret” it as being the main point. But if one is accustomed (and willing) to discerning the doctrinal statement among the dicta in the context, it’s quite plain that there is no contradiction among them, as much as one who dissents from Church teaching anyway might want to see it.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, one should be able to take the words of any one bishop when he’s talking about doctrines on faith and morals and apply it to all of them. That’s why the Catholic Church is called “Catholic” (universal). Doctrines do not differ from place to place or from leader to leader. Now, as to issues of fact, there can be differences, and are, e.g. is there MMGW or not? Does capitalism necessarily lead to over-concentration of wealth? Does socialism aid the poor or just make everyone poor?

Certainly, among protestants (“protest-ant”) there can be and inevitably are differences when it comes to doctrinal matters. It’s the very nature of it that there are. In this society, and in the west generally, Protestantism has been around a long time and has had a profound effect on the culture. When, as in Protestantism, individual interpretation of the scriptures is considered equally valid for all, despite obvious differences, then naturally, those who hold to that subjectivism will be inclined to see differences in other things whether they objectively exist or not. That’s why, for example Nietzsche declared the “Death of God”. He didn’t mean God literally died. He meant that relativism had so suffused western culture that people no longer believed in “principles” (objective truth) and instead believe in “values” (truth as I see it).

None of the bishops cited so far has contradicted what any of the others said. One can pick some sentence or other that isn’t the central point of what another is saying and “interpret” it as being the main point. But if one is accustomed (and willing) to discerning the doctrinal statement among the dicta in the context, it’s quite plain that there is no contradiction among them, as much as one who dissents from Church teaching anyway might want to see it.

The most telling part of the discussion is those who claim faithful citizenship says a Catholic can vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative is available cannot find one single member of the magisterium that agrees with their interpretation . So they are reduced to deriding those bishops, popes and cardinals who have clearly stated what the church teaching is as merely expressing their personal opinion and/or being in tension with faithful citizenship , a document that has somehow become ,in their mind, the sum total of 2000 years of Catholic teaching on abortion. Of course it doesn’t say what they say it says but when trying to rationalize supporting evil anything goes

 

[Theo520]

Looks like it’s still in discussion

reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0YH1ST

 

[estesbob]

OK then, we can have the paradox of claiming “Pro-Choice” while supporting the death penalty, torture, and reduction of programs supporting young mothers and children.:nope:

Of course issues like the death penalty torture and the proper amount of government funding of social programs mean nothing to those denied the right to life

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, as to your previous point, its clear theres an attempt to play one against the other in the Church to promote a position of relevance, but in truth I can’t see where they are not speaking of one mind. Fact is I have never read as much about Bishop Kicanas as I have past few weeks. That said I think much of whats suggested here relies on relativism in regards to his position. The fact he further elaborated about various concerns of intrinsic evil as many have, doesn’t change his priority or that of the Church. A basic moral litmus test according to ALL of Christ ministers is how our most vulnerable members are faring, from there these ministers do have various secondary priorities. But the principle doesn’t change and its ingenuous to suggest another priority exists which negates the first and according to this particular Bishop or the Church.

Basically imo I think the fellow has been done a grave disservice.

Point being it IS possible when we consider the most vulnerable that another valid paradigm may indeed rise to the level of equating to the first priority. But in reality of facts it doesn’t exist at the moment.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Of course issues like the death penalty torture and the proper amount of government funding of social programs mean nothing to those denied the right to life

So let’s dismiss them as inconvenient and irrelevant?

 

[Ridgerunner]

So let’s dismiss them as inconvenient and irrelevant?

No. But we are not free to decide on our own which, among certain issues, are the most important when faced with an absolute evil like abortion, which admits of no degrees. What’s “torture” to one person might not be “torture” to another, but “dead” is “dead”, every time. To the Church, it’s life itself. We cannot support the supporters of abortion on demand unless there is a proportionate (equally grave) evil to be prevented by doing so.

Nothing presently involved in the U.S. election even comes close to the deliberate killing of a million children annually.

 

[jtauke]

No. But we are not free to decide on our own which, among certain issues, are the most important when faced with an absolute evil like abortion, which admits of no degrees. What’s “torture” to one person might not be “torture” to another, but “dead” is “dead”, every time. To the Church, it’s life itself. We cannot support the supporters of abortion on demand unless there is a proportionate (equally grave) evil to be prevented by doing so.

Nothing presently involved in the U.S. election even comes close to the deliberate killing of a million children annually.

Trump won’t change anything relating to abortion. I’d be willing to put money on abortion still being widely available 2020.

 

[estesbob]

So let’s dismiss them as inconvenient and irrelevant?

No .But let’s acknowledge that the issue of the right to life is paramount above all others If one does not support the right to life it really doesn’t matter where they stand on the other issues

 

[Michael_Mayo]

No. But we are not free to decide on our own which, among certain issues, are the most important when faced with an absolute evil like abortion, which admits of no degrees. What’s “torture” to one person might not be “torture” to another, but “dead” is “dead”, every time. To the Church, it’s life itself. We cannot support the supporters of abortion on demand unless there is a proportionate (equally grave) evil to be prevented by doing so.

Nothing presently involved in the U.S. election even comes close to the deliberate killing of a million children annually.

Not supporting one candidate does not necessitate supporting poor second choices.

This is especially so when we have ample “Pro-Life” Republican presidents since Roe v Wade. So we elect them on that one issue while neglecting all others and gain nothing.

 

[jtauke]

No .But let’s acknowledge that the issue of the right to life is paramount above all others If one does not support the right to life it really doesn’t matter where they stand on the other issues

But the right to life for those already born is subject to interpretation? a la the death penalty and torture (waterboarding).