Trump's Catholic support...or lack thereof

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChuckB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there’s also a marked difference in terms of support from Hispanic Catholics and Anglo (for want of a better term) Catholics - he’s always had more support from the latter than the former.

From an article on a website called ‘Crux - Taking the Catholic Pulse’ (www.cruxnow.com) titled ‘New Poll Says White and Hispanic Catholics Diverge on Their Opinions of Trump’ by Christopher White and dated March 12:

‘New data reveals that an overwhelming majority of white American Catholics believe President Donald Trump fights on their behalf, while also indicating he continues to struggle to win over Hispanic Catholics - a majority of whom view him as prejudiced.’
 
Last edited:
I think many Americans will support stability, safety and that will help those who are in office and want the same. This will see a pick up in so-called popularity.

Americans won’t want anarchy.

This is serious business and the future of the Republic is at stake.
 
Victoria33 said:
I think many Americans will support stability, safety and that will help those who are in office and want the same. This will see a pick up in so-called popularity.

Americans won’t want anarchy.

This is serious business and the future of the Republic is at stake.
Click to expand...
I agree, except that I don’t think most Americans see Trump as offering safety or stability; or that most Americans are willing to trust Trump with the future of the Republic. Turns out that Jeb was right about the chaos candidate.
 
In times of crisis, people usually want a leader who can empathize with them and show that he feels their suffering - the current incumbent has shown repeatedly that empathy is not his thing.
 
Last edited:
I always wonder how the pollsters are picking people to ask for their opinions.
In the last 4 years, no pollster (other than the actual Trump, Clinton and Biden campaigns, which are not reliable and exist primarily to gather contact info to then dun for donations) has ever asked me my opinion on Trump.
Or anything else.
 
Last edited:
OurLadyofSorrows said:
It is not a grey area in my book, not an either / or, .
A baby being aborted is not a qualitative difference.
Click to expand...
It is not a gray area for the church either. She has been quite explicit in saying politicians are justified in supporting imperfect laws if the alternative is worse. You are making the perfect the enemy of the good and insisting on a law that has no chance of passage rather than accepting one that will “merely” improve the situation. Do you not care how many abortions can be prevented?

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). (USCCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship)
 
pnewton said:
He is hardly consistent with most Catholic social teaching.
Click to expand...
What social teaching is that? He is certainly much more in line with the explicit positions the church has condemned than his opponents. As for the generic objectives (feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, aid the poor), since the church has no position on any specific proposal to achieve those ends, there is no justification whatever for claiming that one set of proposals is more in line with social teaching than another.

Your claim of hypocrisy on his part is simply your judgment, and, as a person concerned with church teaching, one you should be more reluctant to make.
OurLadyofSorrows said:
Does the Magisterium have exceptions that support the abortion of a baby?
Click to expand...
Yes, if it is the only way to improve the situation then half measures are acceptable. If it was good enough for JPII it ought to be good enough for you.

…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. (Evangelium vitae 73)
 
Ender said:
Your claim of hypocrisy on his part is simply your judgment
Click to expand...
The question (for the third time) is why he is losing Catholic support. I would say my opinion seems prevalent.

I am not going to play the old prudential judgement game with you ever again. We will never agree. I know sin when I see it. I know Catholic teaching, and its antithesis when I see it.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
I think many Americans will support stability, safety and that will help those who are in office and want the same. This will see a pick up in so-called popularity.

Americans won’t want anarchy.
Click to expand...
As we are having the largest uprising and upheaval under Trump than we have had since Nixon, I would question over who would grant the greatest hope for stability. I seriously doubt that stability will be accomplished by beating people back into submission without substantial change.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
It is not a grey area in my book, not an either / or, .
A baby being aborted is not a qualitative difference.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately in the next presidential election we will have a choice between a candidate who would ONLY allow abortion for rape or incest, and a candidate who encourages abortion through massive taxpayer funding to PP and extremely liberal laws allowing for abortion up to birth.

That’s our choice. I know what mine will be. You are free to ignore that, but you might not be free of the consequences of ignoring it.
Anesti33 said:
The pro-life movement never should have accepted the exception, because once we began passing laws that purported to prohibit abortion, they were full of holes, and the holes just keep getting bigger.
Click to expand...
It was the courts who punched the biggest holes in the laws. Another reason Trump needs to be re-elected (to continue putting pro-life conservatives on the bench).
OurLadyofSorrows said:
I can stand up and say it is not good enough, I dont accept it.
Click to expand...
I agree it’s not good enough.

But are you going to vote for the guy who wants unlimited access to abortion? For the political party that wants abortion till birth?
Maximian said:
But it’s the Big One that matters
Click to expand...
Can you name a single president EVER that has been 100% consistent with Catholic teachings?

Dems/Progs are constantly attacking Republicans as not “socially compassionate” because Repubs don’t want to give out free stuff (well, not SUPPOSED to want to give out free stuff). This just ignores those of us who want to give people a hand UP, and not just a hand OUT.
 
Maximian said:
In addition there is a quantitative difference, probably a multiplication of 50.
Click to expand...
Then why did the prolife forces reject Henry Hyde who introduced the Amendment which would allow exceptions to be funded? I know because I lived in his district and had to defend him. It was a compromise and the only way to defund abortions.
 
pnewton said:
I know Catholic teaching, and its antithesis when I see it.
Click to expand...
Well then demonstrate it, give us some explicit examples. Pick literally any political issue at all that does not deal with an intrinsic evil (abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, …) and show us where the church teaches we must support this specific proposal and oppose that one. Where does she say we must or must not build a wall? Where does she tell us where to set the minimum wage? What does she say about SNAP funding?

The point is, she is utterly silent on how (most) social problems are to be solved.

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States." (BXVI, Caritas in Veritate, 9)
pnewton said:
As we are having the largest uprising and upheaval under Trump than we have had since Nixon, I would question over who would grant the greatest hope for stability. I seriously doubt that stability will be accomplished by beating people back into submission without substantial change.
Click to expand...
Your approach to regaining stability is to accede to the demands of rioters? How is it Trump’s fault rather than the responsibility of the mayors and governors where the riots are occurring? What national program are they protesting? This is looting for the sake of looting.
 
He’s not pivoting. He’s not learning from his mistakes. The comparison to Herbert Hoover just gets more and more apt.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
If Biden is pro choice he is no better in my book.
Click to expand...
Seriously, you are up in arms that Trump is only against 99% of all abortions, but seem to be unaware that Biden is pro-choice???

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Joe_Biden_Abortion.htm

He’s been pro-choice for a long time, and is more diehard about his fervency for abortion rights now than he was ten years ago. He now opposes the Hyde Amendment, something that should scare every faithful religious follower in the country.

He also makes it a habit of presiding over gay weddings.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Repeatedly.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Interesting that for all the grief Trump gets for being offensive or bombastic on twitter, something that should be offensive to every Catholic gets posted by Joe Biden and none of the usual suspects say anything.

Now I agree with a lot of what you said, and if we could coordinate to get every Catholic to pull in the same direction (that of what holy Mother Church teaches), we could be a powerful force for good. But in being a pragmatist, one of these two men will be president (Trump or Biden, not the 2 dudes getting married in that pic…). And I can respect taking an all or nothing stand with regards to support for abortion, I am just pointing out that would disqualify both men.
 
I think the point is not that he created the crisis but that the way he has responded to the crisis has dumped more gasoline on a burning fire.
 
I think Trump deserves a lot of the grief he gets for his tweets (such as most recently the one insinuating Scarborough murdered his aid). Yet I don’t agree with gay marriage or of course abortion.

I guess the difference I see is that Biden is misguided but the president has serious flaws in his character - like his inability to tell the truth about matters large and small - that disqualify his from holding the office of president. I don’t expect to convince you of this, just trying to explain my position.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top