n the real world, a traditional Catholic sitting out the election is an endorsement of what puppet Joe Biden stands for:
I disagree. Not supporting Trump does not mean supporting Biden.Having taught Hegel's dialectic, I am interesting in learning from you about the "two-part" Hegelian dialectic, of which I have never heard.
This is the two-part Hegelian dialectic that the nation has been manipulated into.
Unfortunately, the Catholic principle of choosing a lesser evil means that you have NO CHOICE BUT to choose an evil. But refraining from voting is a non-evil choice, and so is voting for a third-party candidate.I have not heard of the "Catholic principle of choosing a lesser evil." Please explain.
In an ideal world, a traditional Catholic sitting out the election is an option.This theory is so tired. We've compromised til the cows came home. Some of us want to be Catholic. And that doesn't include shutdown of churches, ridiculous destruction of the economy with MASSIVE printing of money, compliance with lockdowns, with Fauci, with population control agenda. Not to mention the ridiculous pretense about the need for ventilators, waffling about masks, and crazy actions by the Fed now under Trump's control. Trump also wants a vaccine. Trump supports the gαy agenda. Sorry. Not voting for Trump is not a vote for Biden. I'm done dealing with the devil.
n the real world, a traditional Catholic sitting out the election is an endorsement of what puppet Joe Biden stands for:
sodomy, transgender, men in women's bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons and sports
forced taxpayer funding of abortion
late-term abortion on demand
infanticide
public approval of Communist China's one-child policy
in the pocket of Communist China
corruption (his son's deals with Ukraine and China)
defund police
socialism
religious intolerance
discredits Catholicism by claiming to be Catholic
Most of this is common knowledge for details on his baby killing support see:
https://lifeontheballot.com/joe-biden/
Feel free to add to this list.
I have not heard of the "Catholic principle of choosing a lesser evil." Please explain.That is a slippery slope argument. I fail to see how some Catholics think that a thrice-married Protestant that lets his Zionist son-in-law, Jared Kushner, act as his Senior Advisor can ever be a person I can support. Nor will I vote for the apostate known as Joseph Biden.
The bottom line is that what you are calling a "non-evil choice" will result in
continued attacks on law enforcement
law enforcement retiring in vast numbers
anarchy
violence against churches
violence against those who are Catholic, pro-life, pro-Bible, pro-Natural Law
defunding/ destroying police departments
replacing them with Communist style "community organizers" to force politically correct views, forced vaccines, break up families, take children into "protective custody," etc.
rampant sodomy and pederasty
men posing as women having access to your mother, your sister, your daughter
dystopian wars
removing God from the public square
removing religious liberty to refuse to participate in making sodomy wedding cakes, etc.
increasing late term abortions and infanticide.
Having taught Hegel's dialectic,
Depending on your age, thanks a lot for helping the Bushes, Clinton and Obama devastate your nation.
This explains much.Only to an ignorant person who lacks the mental clarity to understand the need to know the tactics of the enemy.
I have not heard of the "Catholic principle of choosing a lesser evil." Please explain.Choosing a lesser evil means that, in its simplest form, you have TWO choices to do something, and you HAVE TO choose one by force of circuмstance. You choose what you consider to be the lesser evil.
The bottom line is that what you are calling a "non-evil choice" will result in
continued attacks on law enforcement
law enforcement retiring in vast numbers
anarchy
violence against churches
violence against those who are Catholic, pro-life, pro-Bible, pro-Natural Law
defunding/ destroying police departments
replacing them with Communist style "community organizers" to force politically correct views, forced vaccines, break up families, take children into "protective custody," etc.
rampant sodomy and pederasty
men posing as women having access to your mother, your sister, your daughter
dystopian wars
removing God from the public square
removing religious liberty to refuse to participate in making sodomy wedding cakes, etc.
increasing late term abortions and infanticide.
Only to an ignorant person who lacks the mental clarity to understand the need to know the tactics of the enemy.
Voting for Biden is a mortal sin. Not voting is (at least) a serious venial sin. Voting for President Trump is a moral obligation and, for Christians, is a supernaturally meritorious act.
You may not like Trump’s promotion of homos, but that’s a far less evil than abortion, which he’s against.
Voting for Biden is a mortal sin. Not voting is (at least) a serious venial sin. Voting for President Trump is a moral obligation and, for Christians, is a supernaturally meritorious act. Failure to do so makes one complicit in allowing the abortion h0Ɩ0cαųst to continue.Utter nonsense! You are delusional.
Utter nonsense! You are delusional.Well said Nadir!
In the United States, according to polls (Pew and Gallup), 91% of its citizens believe in contraception, and this despite the fact that an estimated 10 to 18 times as many unborn babies are murdered by contraception than surgical abortion.....
... Donald Trump is of course pro-contraception (pro-murder), pro surgical abortion in at least some cases, pro-divorce, supportive of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the legality of “gαy marriage”, etc. He has done some things to support the pro-life cause and the family, but there is nothing to indicate that he is anywhere near being integrally pro-life, pro-family, or pro-Catholic in his moral beliefs. There is of course, no way of determining how calculated or cynical in terms of political “opportunism” is his courting of the Catholic and evangelical vote on such issues. In either case, any notion that the current battle with the forces of antichrist can be engaged in effectively, and defeated, by such poisoned conservativism is pure fantasy.
http://rosarytotheinterior.com/archbishop-vigano-donald-trump-and-the-americanist-delusion-of-traditional-catholics/
Having taught Hegel's dialectic, I am interesting in learning from you about the "two-part" Hegelian dialectic, of which I have never heard.
Voting for Biden is a mortal sin. Not voting is (at least) a serious venial sin. Voting for President Trump is a moral obligation and, for Christians, is a supernaturally meritorious act. Failure to do so makes one complicit in allowing the abortion h0Ɩ0cαųst to continue.
You may not like Trump’s promotion of homos, but that’s a far less evil than abortion, which he’s against.
And before my hypothetical scenario is laughed off as ridiculous, I'll just drop these off here without comment:
Not voting is always a righteous option, but I will vote for Trump for purely practical reasons that most, even those who vote against him, will for the short term at least, materially benefit from. I am not placing my hope in Trump for anything other than some material benefits, along with those few temporary and puny victories here and there that I hope his presidency brings to the people of this country.
Utter nonsense! You are delusional.
In the United States, according to polls (Pew and Gallup), 91% of its citizens believe in contraception, and this despite the fact that an estimated 10 to 18 times as many unborn babies are murdered by contraception than surgical abortion.....
... Donald Trump is of course pro-contraception (pro-murder), pro surgical abortion in at least some cases, pro-divorce, supportive of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the legality of “gαy marriage”, etc. He has done some things to support the pro-life cause and the family, but there is nothing to indicate that he is anywhere near being integrally pro-life, pro-family, or pro-Catholic in his moral beliefs. There is of course, no way of determining how calculated or cynical in terms of political “opportunism” is his courting of the Catholic and evangelical vote on such issues. In either case, any notion that the current battle with the forces of antichrist can be engaged in effectively, and defeated, by such poisoned conservativism is pure fantasy.
http://rosarytotheinterior.com/archbishop-vigano-donald-trump-and-the-americanist-delusion-of-traditional-catholics/
Voting for Biden is a mortal sin. Not voting is (at least) a serious venial sin. Voting for President Trump is a moral obligation and, for Christians, is a supernaturally meritorious act. Failure to do so makes one complicit in allowing the abortion h0Ɩ0cαųst to continue.Wow. Does this make Xavier a "Dogmatic Trumpster" since people love to throw the "dogmatic" label around here? :laugh1:
So you agreed with Nadir's post outlining how Trump stands for POSTIVE MORAL evil and you can bring yourself to vote for him in order to attain "some material benefits"?I agree with Nadir's post that it's pure fantasy to think a vote for either candidate will overcome the forces of evil. I sum it up as a vote for Trump is a vote against a greater evil. It's as simple as that.
I fail to comprehend the moral reasoning that would permit this. According to the principle of double effect, you simply cannot participate by voting in this gravity of formal evil for some proportionally minuscule material benefits. That's one of the cardinal principles of double effect.
Let's jump in the time machine and zip on ahead to election year 2040.Hi BT. Interesting thought experiment and all, but I don't think we need to go there right now. Right now, the choice is between 2 more Supreme Court Justices (both Ginsburg and Breyer being very old) and about 200 judge appointments at least in the next term. I agree some of President Trump appointments may be "moderate conservatives", but a President Biden's appointments would be hard core liberals. In such a situation, I do not believe saying Trump is not conservative enough (on those other distressing things you mentioned, like "LGBT" etc) is the solution. I believe Trump getting four more years and conservatives working to push him harder to the right would be a better alternative. Trump recently re-tweeted both Archbishop Vigano and Dr. Taylor Marshall, he is certainly aware of the Deep State's war on Christianity, and even perhaps some of the ongoings in the Catholic Church; maybe, he is even more aware of it than we are, as he has access to classified information we have not seen. At any rate, he has been supportive of pro-life and pro-family Catholic and other Christian conservatives. Not only did he speak at the March for Life 2020, which not even President Raegan did, but VP Pence chose to speak from the Vatican. Now you may say that was just to attract Catholics, but at least the administration is trying to be pro-Catholic and pro-life to an extent. The other side is openly pro-abort, funded by PP with their abortion and their contraception, and it will all end very very badly if they get in imo.
I think we can agree voting for Jenkins is a mortal sin.Yes, the goal should be praying and working to prevent such a nightmare 2040 scenario from ever coming to pass. Praying for President Trump's conversion both to Catholic Christianity and to Authentic Holiness in every area of life. It is possible. But one thing at a time. We can't do everything at once. There is a worldwide h0Ɩ0cαųst of nearly 2 billion unborn children murdered going on and a real chance to stop it, for the first time in 50 years. Im not a betting man but if I were, I would wager that if President Trump gets 4 more years, RvW would certainly be overturned. The age statistics alone make that very likely. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, for all their faults, voted for restricting access to abortion, that would have shuttered many abortion-mills and saved many lives. Roberts did not, so one more is necessary. One more can certainly be obtained in a second term. I would argue that makes supporting Trump both justified and obligatory.
Utter nonsense! You are delusional.Thanks for the insult, Nadir. Now, first, show me a real source with accurate statistics. There were nearly 1 million annual abortions in the US some time ago. Are you saying there are 15 to 18 million annual killings by contraceptives/abortifacients? Source for that please.
If one wants to speak in Catholic terms, we must use the term double effect. For instance, I may vote for Trump with the intention that he MIGHT appoint a decent Justice to the Supreme Court if/when Ginsberg dies or any of the others retire or die, etc. I know that voting for Trump might have the undesired secondary effect of his promoting the gαy agenda or other such evil, but I do not intend the secondary effect and believe that the proportionality between the two effects justifies the vote despite the evils that Trump might do. There are good articles out there about the principle of double effect. But we must stop talking and thinking in terms of "lesser evil."Yes, I agree with this, in principle. However, I disagree with your application of the principle, and therefore with your conclusion, Ladislaus.
Pope Leo XIII said you must always vote for the lesser of the two evils. Even when there are two Socialists the lesser of the two is preferable.
For example, it would be better to vote for one who only approves of abortion in cases of rape or incest rather than one who supports abortion in all cases. This consideration looks only at the act of voting itself and not at other factors such as scandal and encouragement of unworthy persons. With the secret ballot today these other factors are diminished. However, theologians agree that it is never obligatory to vote for these immoral persons.
Voting is itself good.
The only way I would *not* vote for President Trump would be if I were convinced, without a doubt, that he was part of the establishment.
Voting is in and of itself neutral.Even if that were so, neutrality is sufficient for double effect to apply, as shown above: ""This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if the following are true:the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;"
The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is the question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitutions and its laws, particularly those which effect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school, the various phases of social life. It therefore falls to the Church to explain to the faithful their moral duties which derive from their right to vote.” 2...
In either case, any notion that the current battle with the forces of antichrist can be engaged in effectively, and defeated, by such poisoned conservativism is pure fantasy.This is irrelevant because America isn’t a catholic country, thus we/she can never be pro-Catholic and anti-evil in the way we want. So, you’ve setup a utopian scenario that will never be fulfilled. An unreachable goal. Hence your perfect (catholic ideals in a non-catholic country) is the enemy of the good (support of the natural law, as best as can be, as well as 100s of other practical goods).
Voting is in and of itself neutral.No, it’s a moral obligation in certain times when the Church is threatened with closures and the natural law is under siege.
Based on this, well laid out, I fail to see how a Catholic can vote for Trump. As you point out here, since Trump is pro-contraception and pro-surgical abortion, pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, and pro-divorce, by voting for this man we would become formal accomplices in whatever evil he perpetrates along these lines, since our vote is putting him into power.
So, for instance, by having voted for Trump last time, knowing he was gαy-friendly, we have become formal accomplices in the latest pro-LBGT ruling lead by Trump-appointee Gorsuch.
As I reflect on this, I have come to the conclusion that it would be a grave sin for a Catholic to vote for Trump.
Double-effect stipulates that the action cannot be intrinsically sinful/evil. I find that it is intrinsically sinful/evil to vote for a candidate who stands for the things outlined above. Consequently, voting for Trump would be sinful.
As BTNYC illustrated so well, we need to avoid the temptation of being relativistic (another corollary to lesser evil thinking).
There was a TV show I watched years ago where a terrorist demanded that a government agent execute an innocent man (who may have posed a threat to their operation) or otherwise he was going to unleash a bioweapon that would kill hundreds of thousands. So the agent did it (with great anguish). But for a Catholic, the choice is simple. I cannot do this evil, even to prevent a much greater evil. We do not do the evil, and we leave it in God's Hands to deal with the outcomes. This is no different than saying that I'll vote for Trump because he'll appoint a Supreme Court Justice who will be less friendly to abortion.
Trump is a positively evil candidate and therefore we cannot vote for him in good conscience. Thanks for helping me make up my mind about voting. I had entertained the possibility of voting Trump on the basis of double effect, but I see clearly now that it does not apply here.
I will vote and will be writing in Patrick Buchanan for President.
I had had gone around promoting a candidate like Trump in the 1950s, you'd probably get excommunicated. But it's OK now since the other guy is worse?
Catholic principles are spiritual rules applied to temporal circuмstances. It is Divine Law (higher than moral law) that we must attend mass on Sundays, yet...even God, through Holy Mother Church allows exceptions for TEMPORAL things like sickness, travel, etc. This is because God is not a dictator who requires adherence to His laws when there is sufficient hardship.It's not divine law that we attend Church on Sundays. It is human law that chooses the particular day. The Divine law is that we must periodically worship God in common.
.
It’s a mortal sin to eat meat on Good Friday. If you were starving, would you avoid eating a hot dog because of “Catholic principles”? You’d be wrong. The catholic principle of prudence to stay alive outranks the “letter of the law” to avoid meat. Further, one could argue that NOT to eat the meat, and to starve, would be a sin. Because God is a loving God, not a God of extremes.
.
So it is with voting for the lesser of two evils. Yes, it is wrong (when viewed in isolation)
to vote for a pro-homo candidate A (Trump) but it’s not wrong when a TEMPORAL situation exists where the opponent (Biden and friends) is an outright commie, God-hating, Church-persecuting atheist.
.
Catholic principles are not applied in a vacuum. Real life sometimes (but not always) dictates exceptions. Extreme circuмstances can (and sometimes they must) force us to take actions which would, in normal times, be unacceptable. The letter of the law kills (blind adherence to rules; extreme idealism). The spirit of the law gives life (wise and prudent application of moral theology and church law).
The Divine law is that we must periodically worship God in common.Ever hear of Moses and the 10
I'm sitting out the election.But the consequences of said election will still affect you. “Sitting out” is an ignoring of reality.
But the consequences of said election will still affect you. “Sitting out” is an ignoring of reality.
Eating meat on Good Friday is also human law, based loosely on the divine law that we must periodically do penance.It’s not based loosely, it’s of Tradition that the Apostles started this penance due to Christ’s death, but it’s also a continuation of the Old Law, as Christ’s sacrifice was a replacement of the Passover, which also had Divine Laws regarding fasting. As Christ said “I came not to destroy but to fulfill”. The new law is the same as the old law, but better. If there was fasting in the old law (by Divine command) to commemorate the Pasch, so there is fasting in the new to commemorate Calvary, the new Pasch.
Trump's top officials and advisors are Jew Trotskyites who wear the "Republican" label. The Republican party has a long history of Trotskyism.
"By their fruits you will know them"
You can't rely on anyone in governmentBut the govt will affect you in many ways, by force, as you already know. If you think the last 4 years of Trump would’ve been the same as 4 years of Clinton, then I’ve got some beach property in Alaska to sell you...
But the govt will affect you in many ways, by force, as you already know. If you think the last 4 years of Trump would’ve been the same as 4 years of Clinton, then I’ve got some beach property in Alaska to sell you...
If Trump loses, we may over time lose our rights to homeschool our children, to refuse vaccines, to own a gun, etc. The commies that are trying to wrestle control of our country don't think your kids are your kids, that they are part of the "village."
Talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall. The only person who is going to allow you to refuse vaccines and keep your gun and children is YOU ... by being armed and prudently using your gun when the government thinks it can get away with violating your inalienable rights.And when fathers of families stand up against the swat teams that show up, they end up holding their guns in hand, and soon after end up dead, leaving the wife as a widow and the children as orphans. The commies still win, the children are taken and indoctrinated into the new system of the Antichrist.
Biden & Hillary are Stalinists. Trump is a Trotskyite. Pick your poison.
Voting just continues the illusion. It just keeps you embedded in the lie.
And when fathers of families stand up against the swat teams that show up, they end up holding their guns in hand, and soon after end up dead, leaving the wife as a widow and the children as orphans. The commies still win, the children are taken and indoctrinated into the new system of the Antichrist.That's not how you deal with tyranny. You just don't sit there and wait for them to show up to your front door. When they show up at your house, you've already lost. You've proven you don't know anything.
When the commies took over Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. ALL opposition was crushed, just like will happen here if they take over the government, and flip us from a Republic to Communism.That's because the population was disarmed and they sat on their butts until the commies showed up at their houses. Learn to think.
I lost my country and everything we owned to the communists.That's because your Boomer generation, and their parents' generation, handed our nation and Church over to the commie Jews.
I have not seen a choice for president like him [Trump] since Ronald Reagan.Reagan increased the national debt and prison industrial complex (stemming from the fake war on drugs) more than any president before him. He also appointed liberal Supreme Court justices to the bench. They ruled in favor of infanticide.
(https://a1skeptic.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/trump_quote.jpg) How ironic he landed this, but somehow changed his tune.Fact check:
You just don't sit there and wait for them to show up to your front door.Says the guy who’s going to “sit out” this election. ? ? ?
Says the guy who’s going to “sit out” this election. ? ? ?
As applied to politics, it's the tactic of polarizing the two sides on issues of lesser concern (at the moment) for the polarizers while having both groups secretly (and out of the spotlight) agree on other issues that are of interest to them. So, for instance, abortion is actually manipulated to be such a polarizing topic. It's a very emotional issue and polarizes the two sides. This entire racial thing is also along those lines. Meanwhile, both parties loot the government, enrich themselves, are on the take from private corporations, and are selling out the country in bad trade deals, etc. etc. But because people are focused on the hot-button issues, they pay less attention to these other nefarious activities being done by both parties in lock-step with one another.Great explanation. I find nothing in what you said to disagree with.
It's not a precise application of Hegel, although you see some of that too, where the two opposite sides end up being polarized so that they can come up with an agreement that slides the bar on a particular issue in the direction that the manipulators want it to go.
But the hostility that Democrats and Republicans exhibit toward one another in public is nothing but a performance, a theater act, not unlike the fake wrestling (ala WWE) spectacles. At the end of the day, they're all on the same team and working for the same masters, just as the wrestlers are all employed by the same people and making a show of hostility as a performance.
Of course, occasionally some honest sincere people slip into their ranks, such as a Ron Paul. But they just keep them down one way or another. They don't mind a few of these, because it gives the impression that not everyone in the government is controlled. Former Congressmen have talked about how the second they won office, they had women coming after them trying to seduce them. Epstein was a Mossad operative whose sole mission was to obtain blackmail material on various politicians and other people of influence so that they could be controlled by Mossad. And Epstein is just one of many, one who happened to get caught. Lewinsky was also on the Mossad payroll, and at one point during the investigation, there's a recording of Bill Clinton telling Lewinsky to be careful because the phone lines at the White House are tapped by a foreign government. Perhaps that was Zimbabwe tapping the White House phones.
Both parties are absolutely dominated and controlled by the Jews, but the Jews actually are more open about their support of Republicans. Just look at all the Jews with whom Trump is absolutely surrounded. Trump created a Jєωιѕн swamp inside the White House. His daughter is married to one, and several Jews have bailed Trump out of bankruptcy. You don't make millions in real estate in New York City without being beholden to the Jews. There's little doubt that Ivanka didn't marry Kushner simply because she fell head-over-heels in love with him. This was likely an arranged marriage so that Kushner could direct Trump. One could go on for hours about Trump and the Jews.
Great explanation. I find nothing in what you said to disagree with.
If a commie is elected and shuts down churches, is God pleased? Does it make your salvation easier or harder? History shows that highly stressful and catastrophic events can cause many people to lose their Faith. Does this not affect all areas of the Church as well? Of course. Vote anti-communist in principle. If that means voting for Trump, so be it. Ideals have to be thrown out the window in the middle of a war, replaced by prudence and practicality. And we’re smack dab in the middle of a war for our country and western civilization.Amen. We are like the Catholics in France just prior to the French Revolution. The enemies of the Church have torn down the Cross and statues of Catholic saints, they have burned Notre Dame, threatened violence against traditional Catholic church in San Diego, they have looted, they have torched businesses and burned them to the ground, they have raped and shot innocent bystanders (Chaz), they are threatening to come to "white" suburbs to kill and burn.
Amen. We are like the Catholics in France just prior to the French Revolution. The enemies of the Church have torn down the Cross and statues of Catholic saints, they have burned Notre Dame, threatened violence against traditional Catholic church in San Diego, they have looted, they have torched businesses and burned them to the ground, they have raped and shot innocent bystanders (Chaz), they are threatening to come to "white" suburbs to kill and burn.What does slowing down the progress do in the long run if the end game is the same?
The government's response has been to defund law enforcement, release felons from prison, permit looting under $1000 in some states, end bail, release felons with a ticket to appear in court. Under cover of the Chi Com plague, they have closed down churches, currently forbidding singing in church, currently forbidding collections in some states -- all the while calling baby-killing places, liquor store and pot shops "essential."
If the God-hating dems take control of the Presidency and both houses -- what we are undergoing right now will look like the good old days. They will completely empty the prisons,criminalize being pro-life and pro-family and will remove children from the homes of those who refuse to comply with political correctness and mandatory vacccines.
We have a God-given opportunity to slow the progress of their evil plans. To fail to do so is to reap the whirlwind.
Fact check:Waking up will be a nightmare. We're going into the worst part of the NWO and Trump is leading the way. I hate that this is the truth because I also hoped we would get reprieve from Trump, too. There is every way for you to know we're all being sold down the river if you only consider that human assistance is futile. Refuse to act like Peter who thought about the physical world, telling Jesus, No Lord, you will not die. For this, Jesus called him Satan. The world will not recover. Trump is not our savior and our former way of life is fading. You and I probably won't cross paths when you find out how everyone has been duped. Zero hard feelings from me, because one person's knowing the truth probably wouldn't have helped much, unless of course, you are praying and sacrificing. For that we'll all benefit.
Even the Trump-haters at Snopes call this FALSE.
The below-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:
(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2015/10/trump-people-meme.png) (https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2015/10/trump-people-meme.png)
Despite People‘s comprehensive online content archive, we found no interview or profile on Donald Trump in 1998 (or any other time) that quoted his saying anything that even vaguely resembled the words in this meme. Trump appeared somewhat regularly in the magazine’s pages before he came to star on The Apprentice, but the bulk of the magazine’s celebrity-driven coverage of him back then centered on his marriages to, and divorces from, Ivana Trump and Marla Maples.
Trump’s political endeavors (or the absence of them) did rate some space on the magazine’s pages, though. For example, a December 1987 profile (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20097757,00.html) titled “Too Darn Rich” chronicled Trump’s later claims that he had been courted by both Democrats and Republicans:
What does slowing down the progress do in the long run if the end game is the same?Thank you for asking this. For my husband and myself personally, we have family members who are lost. We pray that they will survive through the Chastisement to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Trump is not our savior and our former way of life is fading. You and I probably won't cross paths when you find out how everyone has been duped. Zero hard feelings from me, because one person's knowing the truth probably wouldn't have helped much, unless of course, you are praying and sacrificing. For that we'll all benefit.I hear you. Never did I perceive Trump as anything like a "savior." I have to say, the more you known about the Clintons and their friends the Podesta brothers, Jeffrey Epstein, etc. the more the bar is lowered. Basically, I voted against the satanists, pederasts and pedophiles.
Waking up will be a nightmare.Not for me and my DH. We woke up in the 60s.
What does slowing down the progress do in the long run if the end game is the same?
Thank you for asking this. For my husband and myself personally, we have family members who are lost. We pray that they will survive through the Chastisement to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Ever hear of Moses and the 10Yes, the base period is per week. Plus periodically as the Church establishes other Holy Days of obligation.
Commandments? We must worship God each week, on the Lord’s Day, which THE LORD (not the church) changed from Saturday’s to Sunday’s when He sent the Holy Ghost on Pentecost.
It’s not based loosely, it’s of Tradition that the Apostles started this penance due to Christ’s death, but it’s also a continuation of the Old Law, as Christ’s sacrifice was a replacement of the Passover, which also had Divine Laws regarding fasting. As Christ said “I came not to destroy but to fulfill”. The new law is the same as the old law, but better. If there was fasting in the old law (by Divine command) to commemorate the Pasch, so there is fasting in the new to commemorate Calvary, the new Pasch.
So, you're saying the Church doesn't have the power to change abstinence from meat on Good Friday?Ive always heard the Good Friday fast was of Divine origin, much like the Lenten fast, while coming from Christ’s fast in the desert, was also a continuation of a fast from the Old Law.
I wonder if those on here trying to get Catholics not to vote for Trump are paid trolls working for the communists. This should be a no brainer for Catholics, but they sow the seed of dissension to cloud the issue and are getting Catholics to sit home on Election Day, effectually giving the presidency to Joe Biden who is a puppet for the communists and enemy to all real Catholics.I definitely think this is possible in the case of Ballistox.
I wonder if those on here trying to get Catholics not to vote for Trump are paid trolls working for the communists. This should be a no brainer for Catholics, but they sow the seed of dissension to cloud the issue and are getting Catholics to sit home on Election Day, effectually giving the presidency to Joe Biden who is a puppet for the communists and enemy to all real Catholics.You have a great point. To get the most bang for their buck, the paid anti-Trump trolls would in all likelihood, have a secondary goal. In regard to a site like this one, what might that be?
I wonder if those on here trying to get Catholics not to vote for Trump are paid trolls working for the communists. This should be a no brainer for Catholics, but they sow the seed of dissension to cloud the issue and are getting Catholics to sit home on Election Day, effectually giving the presidency to Joe Biden who is a puppet for the communists and enemy to all real Catholics.Do you really think that if we don't vote that would give Joe Biden the presidency? Really? Think about the states that many of us live in, and then think about how many Catholics you're actually talking to....and please save me the "this should be a no brainer".
Taylor Marshall is just another conciliarist posing as a trad-wannabe.Listen to the link someone provided, and you will see that he is already further along the road than Michael Matt. He calls the concilliar hierarchy "wolves in sheeps clothing."
His book is a joke (and betrays his conciliarism).
It even features an introduction by +Schneider deploring the infiltration of subversives, without recognizing that +Schneider himself is one of them.
Perhaps one day, Marshall will go further along the road than Michael Matt did, but this far, he has not.
Do you really think that if we don't vote that would give Joe Biden the presidency? Really? Think about the states that many of us live in, and then think about how many Catholics you're actually talking to....and please save me the "this should be a no brainer".Your post is music to the ears of the commie-Democrats who want to keep Blue states Blue.
Your post is music to the ears of the commie-Democrats who want to keep Blue states Blue.And I'll say it again ...the few Catholics you're speaking to aren't going to change the blue states to red. But you keep wagging your finger if that makes you feel better.
And I'll say it again ...the few Catholics you're speaking to aren't going to change the blue states to red. But you keep wagging your finger if that makes you feel better.Obviously, but if Catholics with others who care about this country vote, then it might make a difference. If Catholics sit home, that's less total votes to help Trump, block Biden, or whatever way you slice it.
From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htmLet's try this again Xavier (from the same link):
"The specter of apathy and undesirable disinterestedness is rising more and more upon the country’s horizon. Many American citizens are not interested in their role as citizens; they clamor for their rights, but forget their duties; they insist upon what is owed them, but forget what they owe others. Thus the popular author, Fulton Oursler, observes the situation as neither healthy or happy.
Today’s curse upon political life is not so much what is unlawful as what is unscrupulous. At the root of our decay is sickness of conscience. Moral obtuseness is a national plague over free government. This decline in national character is a serious danger, because if we lose our standards, all our liberties may be lost through abuses, corruption, and chaos…. “That is politics,” we say. As if politics needed to be a sinkhole. Without a vision the people are perishing; they are even finding something to admire in the slickness, the tricky deceitfulness by which the taxpayers are bilked. They smile at scoundrels in office as if they were only amusing scalawags. [13]
Nor is such an attitude of unwarranted pessimism. For the number of United States citizens who voted in the presidential election of 1948 was a scandal. According to statistics only about fifty-two percent of the eligible voters used their vote- a sad commentary upon the civic conscience of the average citizen. If the trend continues it may well be that the words of Christopher Dawson about Europe may be fulfilled in the United States.
To vote in an election or plebiscite today has ceased to be purely political action. It has become an affirmation of faith in a particular social philosophy and theory of history; a decision between two or three mutually exclusive forms of civilization. I do not say this is a good thing; or: the contrary, it means that history and social philosophy are being distorted and debased by political propaganda and party feeling. [14]
The Catholic Church is not interested in voting as a purely political activity any more than she is interested in the purely political form of government. But she is interested in voting as moral activity with duties and obligations to which are conjoined important consequences for good or evil. On this matter Pope Pius XII has laid down this principle:
The Church, indeed does not claim to interfere without reason in the direction of temporal or purely political affairs; nevertheless of her full right, she claims that the civil power must not allege this as an excuse for placing obstacles in the way of those higher goods on which the eternal salvation of man depends, for inflicting loss and injury through unjust laws and decrees, for impairing the divine constitution of the Church itself, or for trampling underfoot the sacred rights of God in civil society. [15]
Through her interest in the rights of God and in the rights and duties of men, the Church declares in the Code of Canon Law that “…by her power and exclusive right the Church takes cognizance …of all matters in which is to be found a ratio peccati.” [16] These words, used by Pope Boniface VIII and Innocent III, do not refer exclusively to theological matters, but to all that pertains to the good of religion, either positively or negatively; positively, as they are necessary for the good of religion as the end of the Church; negatively, as they are obstacles to that end and must be eliminated.
A further instance of the Church’s role of moral guidance in political affairs comes from the following statement of Pope Pius XII.
The moral order and God’s commandments have a force equally in all fields of human activity. As far as the fields stretch, so far extends the mission of the Church, and also her teachings, warnings, and the counsel of the priest to the faithful confided to his care….The Catholic Church will never allow herself to be shut up within the four walls of the temple. The separation between religion and life, between the Church and the world is contrary to the Christian and Catholic idea. [17]
Finally, as a concluding proof that politics is within the sphere of the Church’s interest and judgment insofar as moral issues are involved, we may quote Pope Pius X who declared in his first consistorial allocution November 9, 1903: “We do not conceal the fact that We shall shock some people by saying that We must necessarily concern ourselves with politics. But anyone forming an equitable judgment clearly sees that the Supreme Pontiff can in no wise violently withdraw the category of politics from subjection to the supreme control of faith and morals confided to him.” [18]
This work of the moral obligation of voting in civil elections is divided into three parts. The first deals with nature, the concept, and the kinds of voting, with a brief history to show its development during the centuries. The second part deals with the general and specific principles that should guide citizens in the exercise of the franchise with particular stress given to the statements of the Supreme Pontiffs and the members of the hierarchy. The third part considers the duties that flow from the obligation to vote, viz., a knowledge of the principles, of the candidates, of the issues at stake, and the use of the means to promote wise and intelligent voting; it also considers the role of the priest in directing the faithful in the proper discharge of their duty. Finally there is an appendix of important pastorals on the obligation of voting from prominent members of the hierarchy."
IMPRIMI POTEST:
Angelus F. Delahaunt, S.A.
Pater Generalis
NIHIL OBSTAT:
Francis J. Connell, C.Ss.R., S.T.D.
Censor Deputatis
IMPRIMATUR:
† Patrick A. O’Boyle, D.D.
Archiepiscopus Washingtoniensis
July 24, 1952
Obviously, but if Catholics with others who care about this country vote, then it might make a difference. If Catholics sit home, that's less total votes to help Trump, block Biden, or whatever way you slice it.More wagging of finger and more guilt trips. I'll do what I think is best and is in accordance with my conscience (and I have not decided as of yet). Catholic teaching does not oblige that I vote for either of these unworthy candidates.
Sitting home helps the commies. Voting might help if enough show up who still care about truth and stopping our country from becoming communist.
Let's try this again Xavier (from the same link):Hi 2 Vermont. I wasn't aware a question was directed at me. As to the excerpt above, agreed. Ordinarily, there would be a right but not a duty, i.e. it would be legitimate but not necessary to vote for such a person. But I find it interesting that in the portion I have underlined, it is said that even someone who harms the Church (and I think we can agree President Trump is not harming the Church; indeed, in one of the videos earlier, I think the pro-life speech, he mentions that he's helped the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were being harmed under the Obama administration, with forced contraceptives/abortifacients etc being required at Catholic hospitals) may in some cases be necessary to vote for. A fortiori, I would submit for your consideration, it is more than legitimate to support President Trump; and can arguably be said to be necessary, in order to prevent the election of the other more unworthy candidate, namely Joe Biden, to vote for President Trump, on the basis of the above.
When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation for voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy. [underlining mine]
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm)
Note that there is no "obligation". It may be "licit" or "necessary" to vote for an unworthy man, but there is no "moral obligation". I find it interesting that this link mentions a section where there are "conditions that may relieve one of the obligation to vote", but it doesn't seem to include the text for it.
I find it interesting that this link mentions a section where there are "conditions that may relieve one of the obligation to vote", but it doesn't seem to include the text for it.
3. CONDITIONS THAT MAY RELIEVE ONE FROM THE OBLIGATION
OF VOTING
While in general it seems that the citizen is bound sub levi to
vote in every ordinary election, and even sub gravi in matters of
grave importance, there may be extenuating circuмstances that will
relieve him of the obligation. While the gravity of the obligation
depends upon the good to be gained and the evil to be avoided so
that it is somewhat difficult to determine all the excusing causes,
still some general principles may be listed.
If the election were interpreted as the recognition of a tyrannical
form of government or an unlawful one, there would lie no obliga-
tion to vote. Indeed there would be an obligation of not voting.
Tanquerey points out that if a person were morally certain that
his ballot would in no way affect the outcome of an election, he
could refrain from voting for a slight cause, although, he adds, it
would be better to vote for some worthy candidate and thus give
good example.
Slight reasons such as vacation, hunting, recreation, etc., would
in themselves not constitute an excusing cause. [...]
catholicapologetics.info (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm) indeed censored that section. I found it there (https://archive.org/details/CatholicPrinciplesOnVoting/page/89/mode/2up).Excellent find Struthio, thanks. I thought I was going blind.3. CONDITIONS THAT MAY RELIEVE ONE FROM THE OBLIGATION
OF VOTING
While in general it seems that the citizen is bound sub levi to
vote in every ordinary election, and even sub gravi in matters of
grave importance, there may be extenuating circuмstances that will
relieve him of the obligation. While the gravity of the obligation
depends upon the good to be gained and the evil to be avoided so
that it is somewhat difficult to determine all the excusing causes,
still some general principles may be listed.
If the election were interpreted as the recognition of a tyrannical
form of government or an unlawful one, there would lie no obliga-
tion to vote. Indeed there would be an obligation of not voting.
Tanquerey points out that if a person were morally certain that
his ballot would in no way affect the outcome of an election, he
could refrain from voting for a slight cause, although, he adds, it
would be better to vote for some worthy candidate and thus give
good example.
Slight reasons such as vacation, hunting, recreation, etc., would
in themselves not constitute an excusing cause. [...]
Today, virtually all parties in all ʝʊdɛօ-masonic republics of the "free world" go against natural law. Following Titus Cranny, we are free to interpret an election as a recognition of an unlawful government, and have an obligation of not voting. Or we avoid such an interpretion and have an obligation to vote.
:jester:
Hi 2 Vermont. I wasn't aware a question was directed at me. As to the excerpt above, agreed. Ordinarily, there would be a right but not a duty, i.e. it would be legitimate but not necessary to vote for such a person. But I find it interesting that in the portion I have underlined, it is said that even someone who harms the Church (and I think we can agree President Trump is not harming the Church; indeed, in one of the videos earlier, I think the pro-life speech, he mentions that he's helped the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were being harmed under the Obama administration, with forced contraceptives/abortifacients etc being required at Catholic hospitals) may in some cases be necessary to vote for. A fortiori, I would submit for your consideration, it is more than legitimate to support President Trump; and can arguably be said to be necessary, in order to prevent the election of the other more unworthy candidate, namely Joe Biden, to vote for President Trump, on the basis of the above.I have no problem with you saying it might be necessary. That is a far cry from a moral obligation.
God Bless.
Today, virtually all parties in all ʝʊdɛօ-masonic republics of the "free world" go against natural law. Following Titus Cranny, we are free to interpret an election as a recognition of an unlawful government, and have an obligation of not voting.
That's just my impression. Someone please check with a few Traditional Priests and Bishops and get back. I believe some here have the email of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX Bishops, Bp. Williamson and the Resistance Bishops etc.
Taylor Marshall is just another conciliarist posing as a trad-wannabe.
His book is a joke (and betrays his conciliarism).
It even features an introduction by +Schneider deploring the infiltration of subversives, without recognizing that +Schneider himself is one of them.
Perhaps one day, Marshall will go further along the road than Michael Matt did, but this far, he has not.
https://youtu.be/3RjuADPBo-Q
catholicapologetics.info (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm) indeed censored that section. I found it there (https://archive.org/details/CatholicPrinciplesOnVoting/page/89/mode/2up).Again, Xavier, note that this section (apparently conveniently left out of the link you provided ... although I am not saying that is your fault) discusses conditions that would relieve a Catholic from voting. The part I bolded is very interesting because it is what many people believe about our elections. Notice that when it is recommended to vote anyway that it's to vote for a "worthy" candidate.
3. CONDITIONS THAT MAY RELIEVE ONE FROM THE OBLIGATION
OF VOTING
While in general it seems that the citizen is bound sub levi to
vote in every ordinary election, and even sub gravi in matters of
grave importance, there may be extenuating circuмstances that will
relieve him of the obligation. While the gravity of the obligation
depends upon the good to be gained and the evil to be avoided so
that it is somewhat difficult to determine all the excusing causes,
still some general principles may be listed.
If the election were interpreted as the recognition of a tyrannical
form of government or an unlawful one, there would lie no obliga-
tion to vote. Indeed there would be an obligation of not voting.
Tanquerey points out that if a person were morally certain that
his ballot would in no way affect the outcome of an election, he
could refrain from voting for a slight cause, although, he adds, it
would be better to vote for some worthy candidate and thus give
good example.
Slight reasons such as vacation, hunting, recreation, etc., would
in themselves not constitute an excusing cause. [...]
And I'll say it again ...the few Catholics you're speaking to aren't going to change the blue states to red. But you keep wagging your finger if that makes you feel better.When you only think state-level, it's hard to not think that most votes are worthless. I show up to vote firstly for my congressional district which has been blue since it was created, but with only about 2/3 of the votes. The right candidate in the right year will change that. (Hoping 2020 is that year!)
Hi 2 Vermont. I wasn't aware a question was directed at me. As to the excerpt above, agreed. Ordinarily, there would be a right but not a duty, i.e. it would be legitimate but not necessary to vote for such a person. But I find it interesting that in the portion I have underlined, it is said that even someone who harms the Church (and I think we can agree President Trump is not harming the Church; indeed, in one of the videos earlier, I think the pro-life speech, he mentions that he's helped the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were being harmed under the Obama administration, with forced contraceptives/abortifacients etc being required at Catholic hospitals) may in some cases be necessary to vote for. A fortiori, I would submit for your consideration, it is more than legitimate to support President Trump; and can arguably be said to be necessary, in order to prevent the election of the other more unworthy candidate, namely Joe Biden, to vote for President Trump, on the basis of the above.
God Bless.
When you only think state-level, it's hard to not think that most votes are worthless. I show up to vote firstly for my congressional district which has been blue since it was created, but with only about 2/3 of the votes. The right candidate in the right year will change that. (Hoping 2020 is that year!)The hardest things to flip red would be some of the blue states, especially if they're swung that way by a major metro (i.e., New York State or Illinois). Congressional districts, both state and national, can flip pretty easily depending on the candidate.
Choosing a lesser evil means that, in its simplest form, you have TWO choices to do something, and you HAVE TO choose one by force of circuмstance. You choose what you consider to be the lesser evil.Thank you.
If I had to choose to vote between Trump and a Democrat, it's obvious I would vote for Trump.
But IF voting for Trump were intrinsically evil for some reason, then I would either have to choose to refrain from voting at all, or choose someone else who is not an intrinsically evil vote.
Biden and Trump sure love them Jews and sodomites.
Could Trump be a (crypto) Jew, too? He reads and practices the Jєωιѕн Kabbalah. We know his daughter is a Jew married to another Jew.
Are you saying that if a man has on his platform that he would support something intrinsically evil, that it would not be intrinsically evil to vote for him?Consider a politician supporting something intrinsically evil, but in practice it is low priority or not feasible, so you could expect that things would not get worse on that point. Would it be unconditionally impossible to support that politician?
Yikes. I didn't know it was this bad.The quote is not from Trump, but from a Jew named Guy Oseary. I debunked this a few months ago in another thread.
Not for me and my DH. We woke up in the 60s.
Now, what if one of the more libertarian-leaning Republicans that are conservative on economic issues, but liberal on social issues, abortion included, are on the ticket in 2024 for president? So both major party candidates are not pro-life? Would we be obligated to not vote?Just vote for Trump; he's pro-life!
The quote is not from Trump, but from a Jew named Guy Oseary. I debunked this a few months ago in another thread.(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/62805307/the-problem-with-quotes-on-the-internet-is-that-theyre-not-always-true-abraham-lincoln-1878.jpg)
https://books.google.com/books?id=I0D-_2RP6cEC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=trump+Guy+Oseary+eitan+yardeni&source=bl&ots=Ft0y4skQg_&sig=ACfU3U0TIWxsdq8HAt_JHrNvPL1roJGFUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbvemC3LnqAhXBB50JHUrWD8UQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trump%20Guy%20Oseary%20eitan%20yardeni&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=I0D-_2RP6cEC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=trump+Guy+Oseary+eitan+yardeni&source=bl&ots=Ft0y4skQg_&sig=ACfU3U0TIWxsdq8HAt_JHrNvPL1roJGFUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbvemC3LnqAhXBB50JHUrWD8UQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trump%20Guy%20Oseary%20eitan%20yardeni&f=false)
Double Effect comes into play when one action has two effects, (1) one effect of which is direct and intended, and that here is the effect of ending abortion, supporting the Catholic Church, promoting life, liberty (understood in a Christian sense, as the freedom to serve God, and to live virtuously, and not in the libertarian sense) and the rights of God. And the other (2) which is indirect and unintended, and which may or may not come about. So e.g. if the US as a nation sometimes supports, or at least does not oppose, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity abroad, that would come under this.
Consider a politician supporting something intrinsically evil, but in practice it is low priority or not feasible, so you could expect that things would not get worse on that point. Would it be unconditionally impossible to support that politician?You are avoiding the part about the platform being intrinsically evil because something on the platform stated is intrinsically evil.
You are avoiding the part about the platform being intrinsically evil because something on the platform stated is intrinsically evil.
Such as expressed wish for abortion for rapes and threats to the life of the mother.
The quote is not from Trump, but from a Jew named Guy Oseary. I debunked this a few months ago in another thread.Thank you so much for clearing this up. How devious the enemies of Trump are.
https://books.google.com/books?id=I0D-_2RP6cEC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=trump+Guy+Oseary+eitan+yardeni&source=bl&ots=Ft0y4skQg_&sig=ACfU3U0TIWxsdq8HAt_JHrNvPL1roJGFUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbvemC3LnqAhXBB50JHUrWD8UQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trump%20Guy%20Oseary%20eitan%20yardeni&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=I0D-_2RP6cEC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=trump+Guy+Oseary+eitan+yardeni&source=bl&ots=Ft0y4skQg_&sig=ACfU3U0TIWxsdq8HAt_JHrNvPL1roJGFUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbvemC3LnqAhXBB50JHUrWD8UQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trump%20Guy%20Oseary%20eitan%20yardeni&f=false)
You have your very own designated hitter? I am impressed. I thought that the DH was the exclusive property of the American League, the league Satan roots for. (Beelzebub roots for the National League, of course, the league where Astroturf is king. Hell wouldn't be hell, after all, without diabolic confusion.)No clue what you are babbling about. DH is short for Dear Husband. Duh.
_______________________________
On a less serious note, permit me to suggest that commenters read two columns, this one (http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/040727.shtml) and this one (http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/041026.shtml), by Joe Sobran before they extend this thread by several more pages. The columns contain insight and wit in equal measure.
Also, consider this a formal request to XavierSem that henceforward he clear his comments before posting them with the resident faculty experts in moral theology and situational ethics. It is an embarrassment to faithful Catholics to have a priest in the making exhibit his confusion and outright ignorance about matters large and small on so disappointingly regular a basis.
You are avoiding the part about the platform being intrinsically evil because something on the platform stated is intrinsically evil.No, I'm not avoiding it. Politics is classically defined as a practical science, not a contemplative science. Practical considerations are relevant to evaluating a stated plank in a platform.
Such as expressed wish for abortion for rapes and threats to the life of the mother.
But let's try to consider this from the principle of double effect. If someone were voting Trump with the intention that he would promote legal protection for sodomites, then one would be a formal accomplice in evil.
But the intention is to vote for Trump so that he would appoint judges that would be Pro Life and favor a Pro Life agenda. Unfortunately, that comes with unintended double effect of voting for a man who favors sodomites. We can also consider that there is NO candidate out there who would propose to legislate against sodomy, so that'll never happen anyway. I don't think that Trump's policies would create more sodomy. In practice, it amounts to greater toleration than active promotion.
With regard to abortion in case of rape, etc., that's certainly evil. But that exception is often simply viewed as a tactical concession.
If a politician came and said, "I want to ban abortion in the third trimester," there's the negative implicit toleration of abortion in the first two trimesters, but it could also be seen as a tactical move "it's the best I can get right now." Few politicians who make the "rape/incest" exception do so for anything other than "tactical" reasons. Of course, if you agree to this in principle, you're undermining your own argument against abortion, that it's a human life, because if it's a human life you can't take it no matter what circuмstances led to it. But that's a separate issue.
What you are saying is not realistic. This isn't a matter of one ambiguous statement you can read and then put blinders on to judge and imagine the person might be favorable down the road. Anyone running for POTUS has lots of statements to review to give a true picture of just what he thinks. Abortion is a hot issue, and a prospective POTUS will be repeatedly pressed for answers on what he actually thinks.
https://youtu.be/3RjuADPBo-QPresident Donald Trump at the 2020 March for Life. His speech marked the first time a president has attended the March for Life and addressed it in person.
No clue what you are babbling about. DH is short for Dear Husband. Duh.
The "life of the mother" exception, on the other hand, is an unfortunate phrase that can mean the same thing as Catholic double-effect, so it's not necessarily even "intrinsically evil". It can be permissible to perform a procedure intending to preserve the life of a mother even if the death of the baby in the womb is a likely consequence, so long as the death of the baby is not the intended goal or means.
“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.”
—Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president
“There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health.”There is only one purpose for abortion—ending the life of the child. The “life of the mother” situation for abortion is simply bogus.
—Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission
A child conceived through incest or rape is innocent and deserves the right to be born.
There is only one purpose for abortion—ending the life of the child. The “life of the mother” situation for abortion is simply bogus.OK. Note that I said a "procedure intending to preserve the life of the mother... so long as the death of the baby is not the intended goal or means".
This is irrelevant because America isn’t a catholic country, thus we/she can never be pro-Catholic and anti-evil in the way we want. So, you’ve setup a utopian scenario that will never be fulfilled. An unreachable goal. Hence your perfect (catholic ideals in a non-catholic country) is the enemy of the good (support of the natural law, as best as can be, as well as 100s of other practical goods).Thank you and God bless those of you speaking catholic common sense on this thread. I honestly cannot believe that any catholic can justify not voting this year...it blows my mind. We all know Trump is far from ideal but I dont think any of you sweet summer children have a clue what is in store for this country if Biden wins.....
.
Even if one argues that condoning of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is evil akin to funding the abortion industry (which it’s not), the practical reasons to vote for Trump are innumerable. If you get “lost in the weeds” of Catholic idealism, and don’t think practical reasons matter, you are acting like a stoic or a Pelagian, who elevates the spiritual to an extreme degree and falsely says the temporal doesn’t matter.
.
If you think the temporal doesn’t affect the Church, or society or your family or your salvation, you’re dead wrong. If a commie is elected and shuts down churches, is God pleased? Does it make your salvation easier or harder? History shows that highly stressful and catastrophic events can cause many people to lose their Faith. Does this not affect all areas of the Church as well? Of course. Vote anti-communist in principle. If that means voting for Trump, so be it. Ideals have to be thrown out the window in the middle of a war, replaced by prudence and practicality. And we’re smack dab in the middle of a war for our country and western civilization.
Thank you and God bless those of you speaking catholic common sense on this thread. I honestly cannot believe that any catholic can justify not voting this year...it blows my mind. We all know Trump is far from ideal but I dont think any of you sweet summer children have a clue what is in store for this country if Biden wins.....I can't understand how a traditional Catholic could down vote what you said.
I can't understand how a traditional Catholic could down vote what you said.
Well, I think it was due to the condescending and derogatory tone towards those who do do not feel they can vote for Trump in good conscience. There are some very serious considerations against voting for Trump, and she dismisses them with condescension.I am a traditional Catholic who cannot vote for Trump in good conscience. Not for some holier than thou attitude about his past, nor for some small current defect. Trump's position on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is at odds with the natural law and is one of the most serious insults to God. Sure, I want abortion to be eradicated. I want to live in a better world. But not at the expense of swapping evils to get it. No, I don't have some vain hope of living in a perfect world. It's a matter of principle to me. The outcome of how I vote is relatively incidental, because I have to die and face God no matter who wins. Voting for a candidate openly tolerant of the sin that cries out to God for vengeance just to save even one human life doesn't make sense, because God's honor is more important than all human life put together.
… it was due to the condescending and derogatory tone towards those who do do not feel they can vote for Trump in good conscience. There are some very serious considerations against voting for Trump, and she dismisses them with condescension.
Thank you and God bless those of you speaking catholic common sense on this thread. I honestly cannot believe that any catholic can justify not voting this year...it blows my mind. We all know Trump is far from ideal but I dont think any of you sweet summer children have a clue what is in store for this country if Biden wins.....
So on a ballot one must ignore the obvious difference between the degree of evil positions of the candidates and hold them all as equivalent? If someone is running that is identical in all respects to Joseph Stalin, and the other candidate is identical to John Kennedy, also a personally flawed man, who held views that can be condemned by Catholics, it's better to sit it out and let Stalin win, knowing full well what that will mean?I refer you to post #90 again where the Church teaches that there are conditions that may relieve a Catholic from the obligation to vote (the section conveniently left out by "catholicapologetics").
God's honor is more important than all human life put togetherThis is an admirable and commendable principle, but I believe your application of it in practice is mistaken here. God's honor is what requires Catholics to try to fix abortion in 2020 and sodomy etc perhaps in 2024. It cannot be done all at once, therefore it must not be done at all, is a non sequitur and a false dichotomy. Please review how double effect applies. Double effect would mean prioritizing ending abortion currently (and frankly, 400 judges in all, and 4 Supreme Court Justices, may very well end legal sodomy also, and re-institute what was followed under the Defense of Marriage Act) even if it is impossible at this time to end legal recognition of "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" relationships. One effect is intended; the other is not; the other is foreseen, but not intended; the one outweighs the other in grave circuмstances. Those are the norms for double effect to apply and the present situation seems to be a classic case of it. As mentioned, the Justices may be even more conservative than you are in time; we don't know, we'll have to see. What we do know is that with 400 Trump Judges and 4 Trump Justices, legal abortion will end and America's judicial future will be secure for a whole new generation (they are very young, conservative judges, which means they have lifetime appointments of like 30 to 40 years; Trump is fighting hard and fighting smart for the conservative cause; he has some bad advisors, maybe, but many good ones as well). Those are the special circuмstances - 400+4 Justices - imo that make voting for Trump not only morally permissible but morally obligatory. What cannot be changed about sodomy currently is not the issue; it can be changed later when opportunity arises.
I refer you to post #90 again where the Church teaches that there are conditions that may relieve a Catholic from the obligation to vote (the section conveniently left out by "catholicapologetics").It's irrelevant to my point.
This is grave slander against Pope Leo XIII, and the false accusation creates grave scandal. Prove it or retract your statement.You will find it in Canon Law #70 on the Moral Obligation of voting. Also very important checkout Pope Pius XI admonition of Catholics for Hitler getting into power.
AT BEST you can make the case that it's permitted based on double effect in certain concrete cases, but one is never required to do so.
https://sspx.ca/en/the-catholic-dilemma-in-voting (https://sspx.ca/en/the-catholic-dilemma-in-voting)
XavierSem, you declared that Catholics have a moral obligation to vote for Trump, but you're disagreeing with the SSPX here, whom you slavishly support. Please explain.
Also very important checkout Pope Pius XI admonition of Catholics for Hitler getting into power.
| 1. | Under the Trump administration, the unborn have the ultimate advocate. From appointing pro-life judges, to stopping the flow of taxpayer-funds to abortion providers, and defending the unborn abroad -- the case is clear for a second term for President Trump. |
| 2. | Top line: President Trump is the most pro-life President in history. President Trump became the first President in history to speak at the annual March for Life. Vice President Pence has a long history of being a voice for the voiceless in standing up for the most innocent among us. |
| 3. | Donald Trump and Mike Pence campaigned on the promise to defend life from its earliest stage and to defund Planned Parenthood. President Trump and Vice President Pence have kept that promise. |
| 4. | April 2017: In the first year of the Trump-Pence administration, President Trump signed a bill that allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood of Title X (family planning) funding, reversing an Obama attempt to force states to fund abortion providers. |
| 5. | January 2018: Reversed an Obama Administration policy that blocked states from deciding if Planned Parenthood should be stripped of Medicaid funding. |
| 6. | February 2019: The Protect Life Rule was finalized, cutting Planned Parenthood’s Federal funding by $60 million. |
| 7. | As a result of the President’s policies, Planned Parenthood announced it is withdrawing from the Title X program This clears the way for health care centers that respect the right to life to receive more federal funding |
| 8. | President Trump and Vice President Pence have spent nearly three years actively working to get life-protecting legislation passed. |
| 9. | The Trump-Pence administration reinstated the Mexico City Policy that ends Federal funding of overseas abortions. The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program was created to ensure that hard earned tax dollars are not funding foreign abortions across all global health spending – not just family planning dollars. This protects over $8.8 BILLION in overseas aid from being used for abortions. |
| 10. | President Trump has appointed Federal judges that uphold the pro-life view that all life is sacred from the moment of conception. This includes two pro-life Supreme Court Justices. |
| 11. | President Trump has written Congress on numerous occasions, encouraging and urging them to vote to protect innocent human life. No-Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act |
| 12. | The Trump-Pence administration has issued new guidance ensuring hospitals provide medical care to infants who survive abortions. |
| 13. | The current administration has proposed numerous resolutions to fight the Obama era pro-abortion policies. Require Obamacare insurers to issue separate invoices for abortion coverage. Require Obamacare insurers to provide clients an identical plan in the same geographic area that does not provide coverage of abortion. Reverse the Obama policy that made recipients of certain Federal funding provide abortions. |
| 14. | President Trump has taken the pro-life movement to the world stage: the administration opposes the efforts of the United Nations to make abortion an international human right. |
| 15. | The Trump-Pence administration has taken steps to protect pro-life organizations from having to provide abortion referrals or cover abortion in their health insurance plans. |
| 16. | The Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has dramatically shifted in placing value on the unborn. Funding for fetal tissue research – which uses aborted human body parts - has been cut. HHS’ newly created Conscience and Religious Freedom Division fights for doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who do not wish to have any part in abortions. The Trump-Pence administration is protecting all Americans’ First Amendment rights. |
| 17. | President Trump and Vice President Pence’s stance on life stands in stark contrast with all of the Democrat candidates. Every single Democrat running for President wholeheartedly endorse abortion until birth and abortion without restriction. Democrat candidates’ polices would provide abortion procedures for free at the expense of the hardworking American tax dollars. |
| 18. | President Trump’s most pro-life quotes: “I will veto any legislation that weakens current pro-life Federal policies and laws, or that encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any stage.” “My administration has repeatedly demonstrated its respect for human life and conscience at all stages… Today, we recommit ourselves to protecting innocent life every day and at every stage.” |
Joe Biden promises to undo Trump-era pro-life policies if elected president(https://i.imgur.com/FXbbl9I.jpg)
In his 'Agenda for Women,' Biden promised to restore domestic and overseas funding to the abortion industry......
We're going to get somebody for the presidency in November 2020 no matter what happens, that's a given.If you listen to the demoncrats, it is not a given. They are currently engaging in predictive programming and "war games" about what they will do when they "win" the (ballot harvesting) election. Trump, they say, will have to be escorted out of the White House by the military.
Link please, for our edification, to this admonition of those wretched Catholics guilty of putting an end to the Weimar Republic.Weimar was beyond degenerate, but unlike the nαzι state make no significant attach on Catholic education. The efforts of Bp von Galen and others restrained the takeover of Catholic education, but it happened.
Trump Presents Netanyahu with Key to the White House
Now that the communist will be in control of all elections using their Dominon computer and old fashion cheat-n-steal methods, and most Republicans are fine with that; is there any reason to vote beyond the local level?This is the real problem.
I would lean towards "no" unless the voters are willing to force a hand-count, like they they did in 1946 in Athens, TN.