Tucker: Can the left lead a country they hate?

[Zzyzx_Road]

Yep, we definitely need leaders to address systematic racism instead of ignoring it.

Like those Democrats running the big cities, hence responsible for most of the systemic racism that they claim to be on about. Got it!

 

[PaulinVA]

But you are judging the persons character and that is too close for me to judgmentatlity.

Then don’t do it.

But I will. If you don’t, you get morally-deficient individuals in charge.

I keep asking you how its not judgmentality, and you haven’t really answered my question.

Because your question does not apply. I am voting for a person, not a platform.

The point is the church can condemn specific candidates and platforms instruct Catholics not to vote for those options.

I theory I agree. In practice, it takes a lot for the Church to do that.

And there’s a very large difference between judging a platform or potential action and judging a person, or a persons heart.

Why are you so against looking at a candidate and his statements, his morality, his actions?

Say that the candidate is a congenital, pathological liar. What weight do his/her statements of platform have when you know they are probably not true?

 

[Jeanne_S]

The Dems have be n high jacked by the leftist progressives. Draw your own conclusions based on this fact,re which party is the better option…

 

[The_Catholic_Dude]

Because your question does not apply.

Doesn’t moral law apply everywhere? As Catholics, shouldn’t we be concerned first and foremost about moral law? So then, how is it not judgmentality?

I theory I agree. In practice, it takes a lot for the Church to do that.

Theory? I’m talking about stuff the church has actually done. And yes the church usually tries to stay away from that, however there are some intrinsic evils such as abortion, that the church explicitly stands against.

Why are you so against looking at a candidate and his statements, his morality, his actions?

One word, sin. I care about my immortal soul, and I want to avoid sinning. Also, back to the Augustine example, people can change, and mercy is an important virtue. Augustine lived a pretty bad life, but suddenly changed. If the candidate is a pathological liar, I wouldn’t trust what he/she says, I would trust what they’re campaign supports. Again, I don’t know whats on they’re heart, I don’t know if they’re going to change, and neither do you. This is church teaching, this is moral law. I can’t make a judgment about someone’s heart, thats wrong.

I keep asking you questions, and you keep failing to answer them. Is EWTN wrong? Was Pius wrong in his actions? I would appreciate it if you didn’t avoid those.

 

[billsherman]

party is the better option

“Party” is the problem. Parties are our false idols. A person can only have one master. Jesus was wise enough to realize that when politics and religion run into conflict, it is always politics that wins. We subvert our religious ideals to political expediency as often as possible.

Don’t believe me? Compare what the Bible commands us to do about immigrants, with what we actually do. Who won that fight, political parties or God?

 

[PaulinVA]

Doesn’t moral law apply everywhere? As Catholics, shouldn’t we be concerned first and foremost about moral law? So then, how is it not judgmentality?

I take it you’re against jury trials. People on juries are awfully judgey.

You are applying a principal to the wrong area. Voting is judging. It just is. If you are against voting, then don’t vote.

If the candidate is a pathological liar, I wouldn’t trust what he/she says, I would trust what they’re campaign supports.

This is dangerously naive.

I keep asking you questions, and you keep failing to answer them. Is EWTN wrong? Was Pius wrong in his actions? I would appreciate it if you didn’t avoid those.

I’ve refuted your arguments numerous times. You haven’t considered them.

 

[MikeInVA]

Or, it could mean it was in a great spot, and had great basic structure, but you saw a lot of things that could be improved. If you “hated” it, you wouldn’t have bought it in the first place.

There’s an area not too far from where I used to work full of beautiful 1930’s houses - Cape Cods, etc. For years people would buy a house, demolish it and replace it with a McMansion. Finally the town passed an ordinance preventing that sort of “improvement.” I believe that’s what the left wants - to demolish our current form of government and replace it with something else.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I’m not a fan of the republicans either,as Ive said before Trump is a reaction the the dysfunction in Wa. I’m more of a libertarian ,however ,we are a binary system and the R’s are the lesser of two evils re ruination of our Country with agendas

 

[billsherman]

we are a binary system and the R’s are the lesser of two evils re ruination of our Country with agendas

The fault for this lies entirely with us. We created this system, we can make it better. That’s a good example of how I seek radical transformation of our country, but don’t hate it.

I reject any argument that this system is the best that it can possibly be. Not only does it demand that we compromise on God’s commands, but it blinds us to even the hope that something better can be created.

Worse still, it teaches us that people who dare to hope for that better system “hate” America.

 

[The_Catholic_Dude]

I take it you’re against jury trials. People on juries are awfully judgey.

That is a very different concept then judgmentality. Jurys judge a persons action and whether or not they should face punishment for those actions. not they’re heart and who they are.

You are applying a principal to the wrong area. Voting is judging . It just is. If you are against voting, then don’t vote.

Judging potential actions and platforms, yes. Again, judgmentality is judging a person, or they’re heart, which is wrong.

This is dangerously naive.

Again, judgementality or judging a person based on they’re heart, or who they are is wrong. Not naive. Maybe you should consult a catechism sometime.

I’ve refuted your arguments numerous times. You haven’t considered them.

Where? Where did you ever provide evidence that EWTN is wrong? Where did you ever provide evidence that Pius was wrong? Where did you ever answer my questions? Where did you “refute” my arguments? This is absolutely ridiculous. You “refute” things I haven’t even said half the time, at least ask me clarification questions if you don’t understand what I’m asking you. You make a claim that isn’t even in line with what I’m saying and completely misses the point, you talk right past me, then claim “victory”? Now your resorting to just calling me naive and providing no evidence, avoiding my specific questions, then claiming the moral highground without any proof that it is. This conversation has lost its merit.

 

[PaulinVA]

That is a very different concept then judgmentality. Jurys judge a persons action and whether or not they should face punishment for those actions. not they’re heart and who they are.

Uhm, yes they do. If they take the stand, are they credible. Do you believe their statements to police? If admitted into evidence, do previous actions bear on the present action.

Again, judgementality or judging a person based on they’re heart, or who they are is wrong. Not naive. Maybe you should consult a catechism sometime.

Please, don’t resort to judging me or my faith. That would be wrong.

And, one final thing. Have you ever gotten anyone to agree with this idea that you can’t judge a candidate’s fitness for office by looking at their past statements and actions? Frankly, it’s an idea I’ve never heard before, and I’m 60.

 

[The_Catholic_Dude]

Uhm, yes they do. If they take the stand, are they credible. Do you believe their statements to police? If admitted into evidence, do previous actions bear on the present action.

Again judging actions, not person.

Please, don’t resort to judging me or my faith. That would be wrong.

Nice jab, but really, the catechism clearly outlines what I’m saying. And if you have read the catechism at least you should know what I’m saying.

And, one final thing. Have you ever gotten anyone to agree with this idea that you can’t judge a candidate’s fitness for office by looking at their past statements and actions? Frankly, it’s an idea I’ve never heard before, and I’m 60.

The idea isn’t original, I got it from my bishop, and the previous bishop, and a couple priests, and the archbishop in the diocese next to mine.

Still haven’t answered my questions.

 

[PaulinVA]

Nice jab, but really, the catechism clearly outlines what I’m saying. And if you have read the catechism at least you should know what I’m saying.

Narrator: And then the new poster doubles down on his appeal to authority, while insulting PaulinVA again.

The idea isn’t original, I got it from my bishop, and the previous bishop, and a couple priests, and the archbishop in the diocese next to mine.

Cites. We need cites.

I think you’re looking for something that says that a candidate’s fitness for office has no bearing on how one votes, and one should simply look at their platform.

 

[The_Catholic_Dude]

This article explains it well. Judging actions, or behavior is fine, judging the person, the state of they’re soul, the state of they’re heart is wrong. CCC paragraphs are in the article. Judge Not? | Catholic Answers
Saying someone is a pathological liar can be problematic, especially if in they’re heart they don’t know its wrong. Judging they’re previous actions doesn’t prove what they’re going to do in the future. St. Augustine would not be a saint if we judged him by his previous actions, they were clearly wrong, but he had a conversion. Also you still haven’t answered my questions from earlier. Also since this is a Catholic forum, I would appreciate respect instead of jabbing statements that seek to enflame. That helps nobody.

 

[PaulinVA]

This article explains it well. Judging actions, or behavior is fine, judging the person, the state of they’re soul, the state of they’re heart is wrong

This has absolutely nothing to do with “my bishop, and the previous bishop, and a couple priests, and the archbishop in the diocese next to mine.” It’s just some random apologist on Catholic Answers.

AND, he’s writing about family situations and how to handle immoral behavior in that context. It has nothing to do with voting.

Clearly, in this context, Jesus was speaking of judgment as condemnation or eternal damnation. Such judgment is reserved to him alone.

So, when faced with the immoral behavior of loved ones, how can we be sure to rightly judge behavior? In Jesus’ own words, we must start by taking the logs out of our own eyes—by making sure we are doing the best we can to live lives of good example. We must also strive to form our consciences correctly so that we know sin when we see it. Finally, we must not jump to conclusions about another’s culpability in sin. Doing all this will help to ensure that our admonitions are seen as the loving actions we intend them to be—meant to help our loved ones live their lives in ways that are pleasing to God. Only then can our efforts be effective in helping to take these ugly specks out of our brothers’ eyes.

 

[The_Catholic_Dude]

SO I answer your first question, then you claim that I answered your second question? More redirection? I might not be able to get you quotes from them, this was in homilys, and parish events, those aren’t really things that are recorded. I’m just telling you what they said. You accused me of not being able to convince anybody of this novel idea that I have, I was showing you that it wasn’t my idea.
And on the subject of judgementality, doesn’t judging someone by they’re character involve pointing at they’re past sins and saying they are not fit for office because of those past sins? My original argument is that its dangerous to judge someone by character, or by who they are because that can lead to judgementality, and in some cases can be judgemental. Wouldn’t you want to avoid a near occasion of sin, or sin altogether? And finally on the subject of judgementality, you still haven’t addressed my objects with regard to St. Augustine and his past actions, how would you account for that?

Also back to the two original main subjects that you seem to have let drop, does Pius condemning candidates and movements wrong? Does the church have the authority to tell you you can’t vote for a certain candidate?

Ok, so do both candidates hold positions on intrinsic evils? Which evils? Also you didn’t answer my question, is EWTN wrong?

Can you please answer my questions you keep avoiding?

 

[PaulinVA]

You accused me of not being able to convince anybody of this novel idea that I have, I was showing you that it wasn’t my idea.

It’s not anyone’s idea but yours. Yes, don’t judge your neighbor, etc. No one has said that applies to making voting decisions.

This Bishops think it’s a good idea to look at a candidate’s integrity:

1. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Also back to the two original main subjects that you seem to have let drop, does Pius condemning candidates and movements wrong? Does the church have the authority to tell you you can’t vote for a certain candidate?

1. 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.

 

[The_Catholic_Dude]

In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Fair point, granted they gave us that directive 4ish years ago, so it seems the USCCB may have changed it.

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.

Its important to note that this is focused on intent. To paraphrase, a voter should not justify indifference or inattentiveness to other issues with the candidates support of intrinsic evils, but nowhere does it say they can vote for someone who supports intrinsic evils while the other candidate does not. Yet it does say a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors any of the intrinsic evils (unless they both support intrinsic evils). That clearly eliminates at least one of the candidates.

Also, please answer the other question:

do both candidates hold positions on intrinsic evils? Which evils? … is EWTN wrong?

 

[Victoria33]

Tucker’s absolutely right.

Joe Biden Expresses Support for Redirecting Police Funds to Other Programs

 

[PaulinVA]

Also, please answer the other question:

I’ve explained my position on the candidates until I’m blue in the face. Let’s just leave this a theoretical discussion and stop monopolizing the thread.