Name an authority of the stature of Sts. Thomas More or Thomas Aquinas who support your thesis.

St. Thomas More was martyred because he opposed 1 divorce. Your faction struggles to exculpate yourselves for supporting a 94% abortionist and 100% genocidalist and the consequent death of millions.

To claim that the low-level clerical bloggers cited so far are "acknowledged authorities" is laughable, mere puffery. Your approbation is on the level of forged credentials.

Probably the most cited source on CI (I suspect because he is the most easily accessible online) has been the summary of Catholic voting principles by Fr. Cranny.  It is admittedly problematic due the author's apparent association with ecuмenism later in his carreer. Although he quotes genuine authorities, it is difficult to know how much we can trust it. Even he, however, is a pre-conciliar author rather than a "low-level clerical blogger".   Giovanni Berto's post that Emile just linked to contains much better examples of those whom I consider "acknowldged authorities".  But the strongest sources that have appeared here are the 2 articles from Razon y Fe that Pius X endorsed, saying "nothing occurs in them that is not now handed down by most of the teachers of morals, neither condemned by nor contradicting the Church."  You can read them in this thread https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/voting-2024-update/30/  starting at reply #42.

In moral theology, the focus is on whether actions are lawful or unlawful.  A lot of what we look at is opinions of authorities and we determine, according to accepted formulas, how probable these opinions are to be true.  We consider both the stature and the number of authorities.  The opinion of a Doctor of the Church is probably true.  Likewise the opinion of the majority of lesser authorities is probably true.  On some controversial issues, more than one opinion might be probable enough that people may act on it.  The consensus on the morality of voting for "lesser evil" candidates that I've described is more than adequate for this.  It is probable enough for us to act on and there is therefore no theological basis for claiming that those who act on it are sinning.

Further, "the people" defending Lad have focused on the dishonesty, straw men, illogic, and emotionalism employed against him by PaxVobis and his ilk.

I think that a better example of a "Trumptard" is Xavier Nishant under his various identities.  He seemed oblivious to Trump's flaws and problematic policies.  I suspect that even many (most?) of those who voted for Trump found him irritating.  The sheer number of his posts gave an illusion that his views were more widespread than they actually are.  I'm pretty sure that he was not really representative of CI Trump voters and that very few are actual "Trumptards".

 explain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.

Repeating fake stats based on imagination does not magically make them turn into facts.

Repeating fake stats based on imagination does not magically make them turn into facts.

So… your opinion?


What percent of abortions does Trump reject?
What percent of abortions does hαɾɾιs reject?

What percent of the Israeli agenda does Trump reject?
What percent of the Israeli agenda does hαɾɾιs reject?

Let's hear your calculation.

Agree. GB adduced worthy authorities, opening the door to rational argumentation that a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist (Trump) really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist (Kackles).

Have at it.

'splain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.

Well, first I'm not sure how hαɾɾιs is only 94% genocidalist. They might allow some lip service and put on more of a show of reticence, but the weapons and $ will still flow.

On abortion, I'm afraid that's the reality of how far society has degenerated. As alluded to in another thread, why does anyone expect the secular government to do the job of the Church? The Church, or what is supposed to be the Church, abandoned society by ceding Her charitable duties of education, healthcare, and "social services" to the secular state. Should anyone really be surprised at the resultant moral sewer?

One past positive for Trump is the overturning of Roe v Wade by his previous Supreme Court picks. The proper decision in that case would have been to recognize the unborn as "life" which is protected under the US Constitution in the 5th and 14th Amendments. But, as I recall, several pro-life groups touted voting Republican in the run-up to the 2000 through 2006 elections, their proffered strategy being that, with Republican control of the Presidency, House, and Senate, legislation could be passed removing abortion cases from the jurisdiction of the Federal court system. The result being that the issue of abortion would be returned to the states. Though it falls far short of the ideal, Trump managed to accomplish at least that much on the issue.

Going forward, some things that come to mind: It appears that pro-lifers jailed under the FACE Act will be pardoned and that the so-called Department of Justice will not be targeting those who do the on the ground work of trying to convince mothers to not commit infanticide. That almost certainly will give some a chance to live.

He may be able to cut funding for Planned Parenthood which, even though more abortions are now committed using a pill, should reduce abortion availability to some. I would say, more effectively, such funding cuts may hamper PP "education" initiatives in Public Schools, which is definitely an improvement.

The Federal Department of Education may be eliminated or greatly hindered, which has been a long-time goal as that department is simply a means to force immorality and academic mediocrity on the masses.

The Trump administration will almost certainly be more protective of parental rights, particularly homeschooling.

There's at least some hope in the field of physical health, i.e. chemicals in food and water, and vaccines. If nothing else, their campaign brought those issues to a larger audience.

Border/immigration: the U.S. might actually exist for a few more years, very likely will be fewer murders, rapes, assaults.

I'm sure there's more but I have some other things that I need to go do. On all these issues and more, the other side is still worse. Could it all be deception with Trump and we'll get the same as we'd have gotten with hαɾɾιs? Possibly. I don't think all of it is deception, but time will tell.

My pre-election participation in these debates wasn't about supporting Trump, it was trying to see what guidance I could glean from Ecclesiastical sources. Weighing everything, I did vote for Trump. I don't think he's a Saint or our Savior, but at the end of the day he's the more likely, in my judgement, to leave room for the Church to step up and do Her duty once again.

He may be able to cut funding for Planned Parenthood which, even though more abortions are now committed using a pill, should reduce abortion availability to some. I would say, more effectively, such funding cuts may hamper PP "education" initiatives in Public Schools, which is definitely an improvement.

As more and more abortions are done at home with drugs, that cuts into PPs profits.  Removing their funding will also squeeze them financially.  Best case scenario is they go bankrupt.  Even if it didn't reduce abortions, destroying PP is a worthy goal in itself.  It is a thoroughly evil organization.  

More moving on…

Lad is gone. 

No he's not. 

Trump was allowed to win by the powers that be
. . .
arguing politics to the point of making it a divisive issue among Catholics is really problematic.

You contradict yourself.