Saturday, July 30, 2016

IS IT MORAL NOT TO VOTE OUT OF DISGUST?

Let's face it, Donald Trump is a caricature of a character actor on the stage of politics formed by the media giants in our country and the adolescent mentality of those who write scripts for shows and reality programs. It isn't funny in the fantasy of a fake universe but when applied to the world stage where dangers lurk in every corner it is down right frightening and one wonders what will happen if this realty show actor gets elected.

Then we have crooked Hilary where scandal is synonymous with her married last name, a marriage of political partnership for the purpose of politics and power.

But as a seasoned politician, she is a bit more measured in her statements and appears more mature than her rival.

I don't like either candidate. I'm not looking for a religious figure to be our president and I am willing to put up with the less than moral candidate no matter their religious affiliation. But our media driven culture that has turned everything in the news into entertainment of one sort or another has helped to turn American politics into what Donald Trump has made it. I am disgusted by it all and feel helpless that this is the way things will be until the American Empire collapses because of it.

Is it a mortal sin not to vote? Is this serious matter? And if it is serious matter and I know that it is but I plan not to vote nonetheless and follow through on it with full consent of the will, not because I am temporarily insane over the choices, do I commit a mortal sin?

110 comments:

John Nolan said...

If you don't like any of the candidates, abstain. And the easiest way to abstain is to stay at home. Mortal sin doesn't come into it; the Church does not favour democracy over other political systems - it is the way rulers act, not how they are chosen, which is at issue.

Jan said...

No, I don't think anyone is morally obligated to vote and it certainly wouldn't be a mortal sin not to vote. I think because of her support of abortion it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for Hillary Clinton. The only thing I feel is that not to vote for Donald Trump would be a wasted vote for the Republican platform that now has the strongest pro-life platform they have ever had, also Pence has stated that Roe v Wade would be abolished. I have also read from the Democrat side that if Trump will nominate four conservative judges that would stymie the Democrats for over 10 years. I don't know how that works in the US but that is what the Democrats are saying. So if I were able to vote I would be voting for Trump because Obama has gone after the Catholic Church with his Obama Care and Hillary is bound to continue the same. I also remember what was said about Ronald Reagan by the Democrats that he was no more than a two-bit actor and yet he turned out to be one of the best Presidents the US has had. Also, Trump has been poorly treated I feel. Sure, I think he should rise above some of the baiting, but he's got a good man in Pence and given a chance I am sure that his election will be of great benefit to the US. Certainly the US has gone down the tubes under the Democrats over the past eight years.

Anonymous said...

Do NOT stay at home.

Skip the presidential election if you choose, but there are numerous other races and ballot initiatives in the card in November.

Get informed about them and cast you vote.

But do NOT stay home.

Victor said...

Welcome to the world of pseudo-democracy. They say that you have freedom to vote for the candidate of your choice. The problem is that if all the candidates are jerks, no matter whom you vote for, you will always elect a jerk. There is rarely, if ever, a candidate that represents all of your views, so what is the point of it? Is there some magic line that allows you to vote for one jerk over another? The USA is the worst when it comes to democracy. In many countries you at least have several "parties" to choose from, one of which may be the "closest" to your views compared to the others. In US, there is effectively only a 2 party system, forcing you to fit into the either/or, almost never a satisfactory choice. Perhaps even worse is that you have to be filthy rich to be a candidate these days, as politics in USA has become only about money and power, rather than trying to work for the common good.
They say good politics is about the art of compromise; but as someone who is trying to be a good Catholic, I can never compromise my ethos to jerks. A truer democracy would have "None of the above" on the ballots.

rcg said...

I agree with John. My previous, and greatly respected pastor, advised me that the choice four years ago was to stop clearly evil intentions. So I reluctantly voted. In this election there is bait for Catholics in the form of Supreme Court nominations to overturn Roe v Wade. This is a fools errand. The nested probability of the right sequence of events occuring and the right people being in place and in majority and making the right decision is infinitesmal. Catholic justices led the Court to impose Roe v Wade. The Catholic justices appointed by conservative administrations since then have been terribly unreliable save one, recently deceased.

The situation reminds me of the various resistance training schools I have attended. We are given two choices, both of which should be activley resisted. Sometimes we make a choice thinking it is the one we can deal with the best. In this case we have only choices that will result in deep regret and shame in either case. The hostage is told that she will be allowed to live if we set off the bomb. If we let her die we are shot and another hostage and stooge are chosen again and again until the bomb is set off and the population is taught how to cooperate. The truth is this: I did not kill the hostage and it is only vanity that makes me think that I had any power to do otherwise.

TJM said...

ALthough John Nolan is correct, I plan to vote for Trump,just like Obama's brother, because the evil,national media which has been manipulating elections in favor of the Abortion Party for decades needs to be taught a lesson, and ultimately, tossed on the Ashbin of History. They are evil, promoting abortion, gay marriage, and a myriad of other perversions. Make no mistake,the Abortion Party is their mouthpiece. Ergo, any Catholic, be he priest, bishop, or cardinal is committing grave sin,and likely incurring automatic excommunication, by voting for the Abortion Party aka Democratic Party.

Jan said...

I re-post the following because I think it is more suited to this post that deals with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I wonder if many people when they are considering whether or not to vote for Hillary Clinton have really considered the depths to which she has sunk in public office. Perhaps living outside the US it is far easier to see just unfit she is as a candidate for the US presidency - possibly the worst ever.

Hillary Clinton has proven through her actions as Secretary of State to have been totally inept at her job or someone who was plainly negligent - who some say deserves prison - for ignoring at least four requests from Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Iraq so that he was left defenseless and at the mercy of terrorists. She then blatantly lied to the US public about it. Emails provided on Wikileaks prove that both Obama and Hillary Clinton knew this was a terrorist attack and they lied to the American people. As far as I am concerned, Donald Trump is a saint by comparison to what Hillary has done in public office. Also it has been claimed that she shut down and intimidated Bill Clinton's many women not out of love for him but out of naked ambition.

Kathleen Wiley was a volunteer at the White House who claims to have been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton. She is one such woman who has spoken out about the intimidation that she and other women have had from Hillary Clinton and that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President of the US.

As for Benghazi the Select Committee report was released in June:

"The report reserves its strongest words for the conduct of the Democratic presumptive nominee for the White House.

It says that her decision to keep her emails on a secret 'homebrew' server and then to select which ones to hand over stopped them knowing the full truth about Benghazi.

Her email arrangements only came to light because of the investigation into the deaths.

It says Clinton's attorney deflected demands to turn over emails by referring it to the State Department, and accused the department and Clinton of being involved in an attempt at obfuscation.

'This "who’s on first" routine orchestrated between the Secretary’s private counsel and the State Department, which is ostensibly an apolitical governmental diplomatic entity, is shameful.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663919/Hillary-Obama-administration-lied-Benghazi-video-story-turn-just-8-weeks-election-says-GOP-congressman-Republicans-release-scathing-report-2012-terror-attack.html#ixzz4FtUE9Y4N

Because of lying and deleting emails to cover her backside, to me this makes Hillary Clinton a most unfit candidate to stand for the office of President let alone for the US senate.

These are not things that can be lightly glossed over. There are statements available from men who tried to defend the US embassy in Iraq who say that it is a lie that there was no military assistance available, when there was such assistance within four hours of Iraq that could have come to their aid but that assistance never came.

Hillary Clinton deleting emails that would have shed light on the truth of the situation, means one can only come to the conclusion that these emails incriminated her and others in the Benghazi tragedy. If those emails resurfaced after Hillary Clinton was elected no doubt it would lead to a Benghazigate and impeachment. In the world of Wikileaks and the fact that she used her personal account for these emails it is quite likely they will eventually see the light of day.

As it is there are already emails released under the FOA Act dated the day of the attack that prove that the State Department had assistance ready to go in but were waiting the sign off from Hillary Clinton that never came ...

Anonymous said...

Well Pope Francis has declared that Donald Trump isn't a Christian because he wants to enforce the borders of a sovereign nation.

Pro abortion, pro gay marriage Hillary Clinton has not been condemned by His Holiness. So I guess the woman who said that people's religious beliefs need to change to accommodate the LGBT crowd, and the woman who said it is perfectly fine to murder a baby up to and including the moment of delivery at 9 months is more acceptable to His Holiness.

But I hope, I pray that His Holiness comes out and condemns Trump again which will probably help him into the White House. And I hope all of the wonderful, orthodox Catholic bishops in this country like O'Malley, Dolan, Cupich, Mahoney, Wuerl etc follow suit. Because we all know that the faithful in this springtime of glory in the Church will follow in lock step the words of these faithful and holy shepherds.

John Nolan said...

Victor, the plutocratic element (only a millionaire can become President) is what distinguishes US democracy from (say) the British model where candidates for Parliament have a strict limit on expenses and if they exceed this their election is null and void. Once in Parliament they are paid an adequate (if relatively modest) salary and there is nothing to stop them being appointed to any office, even the highest.

Also, watching US Party conventions, the show-biz element strikes us as bizarre. Hillary shouted platitudes into the microphone and the audience reaction was ridiculously over the top. And then the pop-music crooner is wheeled out. Democracy? Hardly. Childish exhibitionism? Certainly.

The Nuremberg rallies were sober in comparison.

Dan Z said...

I will vote for Trump because he wants to make America great again. He wants to protect us from an invasion of Muslim "refugees". He wants to do something I have questioned for years: charge foreign countries for our protection and rebuilding.

I will never vote for Hillary no matter how many fake Catholic politicians like Kaine, Biden, Pelosi, etc., she has on her side, because she she has enabled her rapist husband, then declared war on his victims, left soldiers abandoned to die, has taken financing from Islamic countries and now wants to flood America with Muslim "refugees", and is a baby killer.

Anyone who votes for a third party candidate or who does not vote is essentially voting for Hillary, and they will be held responsible for the aborted babies, not to mention any Muslim terrorism that may happen in our country. Think about this seriously before you choose to skip voting.

George said...


There are other races on the ballot besides the one for President. There are local, state, and congressional offices, in addition to other ballot initiatives such as amendments to the state constitution. When voting for President, don't just look at personalities and character flaws, but look at what is in the party platform and what kind of Supreme Court justices the future President would nominate. A very important thing to consider is whether or not the candidate is pro-life, and would support either by legislation or in other ways, those means which would protect human life at its most vulnerable, specifically the unborn and the elderly.

Billy the Kid said...

I have devout, believing, theologically educated friends who believe that the only Christian stance is not voting at all. Either way, it is dirtying one's hands in Caesar's business. These friends cannot abide a US flag in a Church, although every one of them is a conservative and loves this country. They just see it as out of place because God is no respecter of nations, not even His own Israel. I have sympathy with that view, but I still vote...usually holding my nose.

Anonymous said...

The only possible third party is the Constitution Party. Darrell Castle.
ProFamily, ProLife. Not Perfect but closer to perfect than the others.

Marc said...

With Clinton, there is no hope for overturning Roe. And she will enact education policy that restrict the ability of Catholic parents to control their children's education.

With Trump, there is some hope for overturning Roe, and also there is hope that he will repeal the Johnson amendment and otherwise support Christians. Also he's likely to support things that make us all safer.

This decision is an easy decision for a Catholic. No politician is perfect: and the possible good from Trump could lead to negative effects. Since we have a teaching on double effect, we know who the proper choice is. Given that clarity, there is no legitimate reason to abstain.

George said...


"Catholic justices led the Court to impose Roe v Wade."

Not true. When Roe was decided, only one of the Justices was Catholic, and that Justice was William Brennan.

"The Catholic justices appointed by conservative administrations since then have been terribly unreliable save one, recently deceased. "

Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have been reliably conservative.

The Court membership would be more conservative than it is today except that some notably conservative jurists, who were nominated by Republicans, failed to secure Senate confirmation.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who votes for a third party candidate or who does not vote is essentially voting for Hillary, and they will be held responsible for the aborted babies,..."

This is yet another example of absurdist thinking. To imagine that, by not voting for Trump, a person is, therefore, endangering his or her immortal soul is so far outside Catholic doctrine that it is approaching the bizarre.

No, it IS bizarre.

Dialogue said...

Let's be honest, U.S. Catholics do very little to spread the True Faith to non-believers, or to invite our separated brethren into full communion with the One Church. So, let's not blame a secular political process for our evangelical and ecumenical sloth.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:
I'll be writing in a candidate for President. I will be writing in Ben Carson. I will be voting on the other candidates presented to me, and so I will be at least be in the booth.

Eight years ago, after the results were announced, I literally cried. I felt, what use is it to vote when wrong happens anyway. I could not believe people voted for a man not based on his strengths and qualities, but on the color of his skin. It never ceases to amaze me that national elections have become no more than some kind of Homecoming Court election, where the kids are voting for who they like best. And if we think Disadvantaged Sue should be Queen, so be it!

When Obama was first running I told people who told me they were voting for him: if Obama was dressed in a airline captain's uniform and looked great and as if he fit the part, but you heard he had never flown a plane before in his life, and the co-pilot was a goofball, would you get on that plane? Would you? My question was usually answered with silence.

We know Hilary Clinton has lied on some very grave matters. The Ambassador of Iraq, Chris Stevens, was basically murdered/sacrificed for some yet unknown reason. We know she and her husband have been using their foundation to peddle influence around the world. People with known human rights abuse history have been hailed by Bill Clinton as heroes of human rights, (Nursultan Nazarbayev, leader of Kazakhstan) and shortly afterward one of Clinton's rich friends is granted mining rights there. Why does no one decry the hypocrisy of what happened in Haiti after the earthquake there?

Eight years ago I was very discouraged and disheartened. I'm not this year, because I have realized we have no recourse but to God. This farce of the 2016 Presidential election is, in my view, orchestrated to insure Hilary Clinton gets the Presidency. I expect the reason is that it was promised to her eight years ago on the condition she withdraw from her candidacy against Obama.

I wonder if the very office of the President of the U.S. has become irrelevant to the oligarchs who actually are running this country, much like the Queen of England. All they need is a good front "man" to act as a puppet. They seem to care little about the social programs the figurehead President wants to enact, but when it comes to actions to permit them to become billionaires, well, then you see their influence. (Such as Obama granting permits to drill for oil off the U.S. Southeast coast.)

For this reason I am almost certain Hilary Clinton will be President. The oligarchs don't have an interest in Trump. I believe he's just a shill.

All we can do is pray for God's help.

Bee

Carol H. said...

If Hillary Clinton wins and puts others just like her on the Supreme Court, then every Catholic who refused to vote against her will be guilty of mortal sin. The prejudices against Trump remind me of Elizabeth Bennett's prejudice against Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice."

I don't believe that Trump can accomplish everything that he promises, though I do believe that he will try. He will become entangled in years of red tape placed by our current President. But even if he did nothing but occupy the Office, he will have put a stop to the horrific destruction of our country caused by the Democrats.

The very idea that Hillary could become President just makes me sick. She certainly does NOT represent THIS woman.

Anonymous said...

Seems like we have a lot of "theologians" pontificating here (not referring to Father M. of course), such as the comments from Carol that refusing to vote against Clinton makes one guilty of mortal sin. Really? Where is that in the Code of Canon Law? If we vote for Donald Trump, are we then guilty of supporting adultery? I mean, he has been married three times and has said he has never felt the need to seek God's forgiveness. Doesn't one of the commandments say "thou shalt not commit adultery?"

It would help to look at how our electoral system operates. As Al Gore says, winning the national popular vote has no legal meaning (in 2000, he did just that but lost the Electoral College in a squeaker to Bush the second). Look at Alabama for instance---Trump is sure to win the state that borders mine to the west. Whether he wins it by 20 or 25 points, he gets the same 9 electoral votes. So if you don't vote against Hillary in Alabama, it makes no difference---Trump still wins there. At the other political extreme, a far-left state like California (which certainly has entered the moral abyss) is sure to go for Clinton (Obama won it by 3 million votes last time), whether you vote for her or not. Here in Georgia, polls are surprisingly tight, so maybe I'd vote for Trump if otherwise Clinton would win Georgia. Your vote matters more in a swing state like Ohio or Pennsylvania.

As for the U.S. Supreme Court, it is hard for Republicans to invoke concern on that issue, because so many Republican appointees have betrayed their presidents. Who authored Roe v. Wade? None other than Harry Blackmun, who was appointed----not Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson---but by Richard Nixon. Who helped legalize gay marriage? None other than Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed not by Bill Clinton or Obama, but Reagan. In fact, when we think of the many bad Supreme Court decisions since the 1970s, in not one case was there a Democratic majority on the court (in terms of appointments). Each time, there were Republican turncoats. Furthermore, with the reality it takes 60 votes in the Senate to do much of anything, do you really think can get Scalia-like judges appointed to the court? At no time since the 1930s have Republicans ever had three-fifths of the Senate, and they certainly won't after November 8, regardless of whether Trump wins or loses. (See Bork nomination, 1987).

We may as well be in Poland in the 1940s: "Do you prefer Hitler or Stalin?"




Anonymous said...

Amen Carol!

anon1

TJM said...

Anonymous at 10:11 If Pope Francis actually said Trump isn't a Christian because of a wall, then Pope Francis has committed the gravest of all sins in Libtardom: Being Judgmental. It also displays a rank hypocrisy, as the Pope lives safety within the tall, strong walls of the Vatican. Pope Francis displays his lefty side frequently,which is tragic for the Church since lefties promote abortion,gay marriage,etc. Pope Francis needs to grow up and stop living in a fantasy world. The left is responsible for millions of deaths throughout the 20th and now in the 21st Century.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan re-posted her comment on this thread. I will also re-post my response to her. It is more directly related to this thread, which I have only just seen:

Jan:

I am not going to litigate the pros and cons of these two undesirable candidates on this Blog. It is futile. I would urge you and others, however, to set aside partisan biases and apply the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to The Donald as you apply to Hillary. This means not remaining in a partisan bubble but exposing yourself to negative material about The Donald as well, inconvenient and uncomfortable though that may be for partisan types (as I have explained, I am an Independent). Over here, for example, it means exposing yourself to more than FOX News or similar sources. In your case Jan, it means reading more than The Daily Mail.

Talking about FOX News, by the way, I may have missed it, but where is the outrage over the alleged reprehensible behavior of Roger Ailes towards the female employees at FOX? Not a whisper, as far as I can recall. Indeed, has it even been reported on FOX itself? I would be happy to be proven wrong on this point, however.

Just as a personal aside, when The Donald mocked a person with disability at one of his rallies, I was finished with him. It was the final straw. I do not want a character (or lack of character) like that in the White House. And, as I also find Hillary quite unpalatable for several reasons, I may very well end up not voting in the Presidential election or doing a write in. I am quite disgusted with the corrupt political process. Although I have a lot of sympathy for those who reject the tyranny of the Establishment and the arrogance of the political elites in the United States (and elsewhere), I am pretty sure The Donald is not the answer. He is part of the problem.

P.S. I share your disgust, Father McDonald!

Anonymous said...

"Prejudices" against Trump???

He mocks the disabled. He made fun of Charles Krauthammer, who’s paralyzed, by saying, "I get called by a guy that can't buy a pair of pants, I get called names?" Trump also mocked the appearance of a New York Times reporter with a congenital joint condition.

He mocks prisoners of war. "(John McCain is) not a war hero…. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

He demeans women with vulgarity, “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” He has called women fat, slobs, dogs, grotesque, and on a 2013 episode of the Celebrity Apprentice, Trump joked that it would be a "pretty picture" to see the former Playboy model and Baywatch star on her knees.

He has refused to release his tax returns. (Mob ties? Russian Oligarch ties? No charity donations?)

He advocates violence against those who oppose him. "Trump has brought disgrace upon the presidential primary process by inciting and promoting violence throughout his campaign. At a rally in Missouri earlier this year, Trump lamented that “nobody wants to hurt each other anymore.” At another rally he tacitly encouraged violence against protestors: “If you do [hurt them], I’ll defend you in court.” In Las Vegas he said of a protestor: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

He made reference to Megyn Kelly's menstruation. "You could see there was blood coming out of (Megyn Kelly's) eyes, blood coming out of her whatever."

He said Carly Fiorina was ugly. “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, (Carly Fiorina’s) a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

He says he will bring jobs to America, yet his clothing is manufactured abroad, mostly in Mexico and China.

He is a serial adulterer and has BRAGGED about cheating on his wives. “Beautiful, famous, successful, married – I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names, but unlike Geraldo I don’t talk about it.” – From Trump’s “Think Big and Kick Ass”

He is clueless about Redemption. "I'm not sure I have ever asked God's forgiveness. I don't bring God into that picture....When I go to church and when I drink my little wine and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of forgiveness. I do that as often as I can because I feel cleansed."

He demeans those who serve and have served in the military with the claim "I always felt like I was in the military. (I got) more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military."

Add to those facts, he has set forth no policies, he is ignorant about government, he is loose with facts, he praises the dictator Putin, his businesses when bankrupt four times, 60 Republican governors, US Representatives and Senators oppose him, the Speaker of the House has labeled him a racist, . . .

PREJUDICES???

Anonymous 2 said...

To be more positive, where is the candidate or the Party who will credibly and effectively summon the People to the development and exercise of virtue as a consistent program?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/traditional-virtues-trump_b_6028654.html

The only thing I would add is the need for the master virtue of practical wisdom where virtues (or other norms) conflict or need to be applied in complex circumstances. Some of my professional work focuses on these matters, but I have little faith in our current politics to achieve the necessary goal.

TJM said...

Anonymous @ 3:23. If a Catholic votes for a party or candidate that is pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage, they have committed a mortal sin because the issue involves a grave matter, i.e. an intrinsic evil, and it was done with due deliberation knowing full well the Church's doctrine on these matters. Case closed. Are you another post-Vatican Disaster II victim of never being properly formed in the Faith? If so, I feel for you.

Carol H. said...

Anon @ 3:23

If Trump commits a mortal sin, that is between he and God.

Hillary has committed mortal sins, and that is between she and God. But if she becomes President, she is going to try to force every tax paying citizen into supporting all the mortal sins on her agenda. If I don't put up a fight to stop her from dragging me into this, I will be guilty of mortal sin.

When I stand before the judgement seat of Christ, when he asks me what I did for the least of these, I will be able to respond, "Everything that I could." If she wins after I vote against her, the fault will not rest with me.

Anonymous said...



"If we vote for Donald Trump, are we then guilty of supporting adultery? I mean, he has been married three times and has said he has never felt the need to seek God's forgiveness. Doesn't one of the commandments say "thou shalt not commit adultery?"

-You can't compare someones flawed private life to those who publicly supported and funded with tax monies the largest abortion provider in the United States(among other evil deeds).


"As for the U.S. Supreme Court, it is hard for Republicans to invoke concern on that issue, because so many Republican appointees have betrayed their presidents. Who authored Roe v. Wade? None other than Harry Blackmun, who was appointed----not Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson---but by Richard Nixon. Who helped legalize gay marriage? None other than Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed not by Bill Clinton or Obama, but Reagan. In fact, when we think of the many bad Supreme Court decisions since the 1970s, in not one case was there a Democratic majority on the court (in terms of appointments). Each time, there were Republican turncoats."

-Having Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and in many cases, Roberts has definitely made a difference. In fact the absence of Scalia has had a significant impact. What happened as far as the make-up of the Court, is that the Republicans did not manage the selection and nomination process as well as they should have.

Michael A said...

Dear Father McDonald,

To equate a hoghead egomaniac with a servant of the devil is a dangerous road to travel. Trump is an imperfect nominee (as all candidates are) but to encourage people to abstain from voting and potentially handing the election to a person who unequivocally promotes evil is irresponsible and might very well be a sin. There is nothing measured about supporting unrestricted abortion up until the day before birth or after the baby has entered the birth canal, or snuffing the child that wasn’t successfully aborted. Is this mature and measured? You have a different definition of measured than I do.

You should find it in your heart to forgive Trump for all his faults and recognize that there is no ambiguity about what will occur if a radically pro-abortion witch seizes power. As a Catholic and a priest it should bother you that at the Democrat convention they welcomed the "sweet lady" in charge at Planned Parenthood on stage. That person should be occupying a jail cell instead of enjoying the spotlight. This didn't happen in Cleveland. Between the two candidates in this election this is the only standard you need to draw your conclusion for whom you'll cast a vote.

Mark Thomas said...

Our salvation as Catholics rests upon our voting for Donald Trump? Okay. Sure.

Any day now, I expect the following ad from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops"

"Coming this November, exciting and brand new to the Deposit of Faith: To receive God's grace, each eligible Catholic voter in the United States must cast his or her ballot for Donald Trump. Hell awaits those who don't march in lockstep with Donald Trump."

— Paid for by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops Committee On Eternal Salvation Via Ballot Box Stuffing In Favor Of Donald Trump.
=================================================================================

The USCCB will soon release some pro-Donald Trump bumper stickers. Here are a few...

-- "Don't fall this fall...instead, rise...from your sins. Vote: Trump/Pence.

-- Build a wall this fall. Vote: Trump/Pence.

-- Vote: Trump/Pence. Restore Glass-Steagall and, don't forget, deport an illegal.

-- Don't commit a cardinal sin...instead, help Trump/Pence win.

-- Mike Pence Has Abandoned The Church...So Will You, Unless You Vote Trump/Pence.

-- Unlike Mike Pence, Remain A Good Catholic. Support Pence For VP.

-- Support Mike Pence As He Supports Donald Trump...Or You'll Have To Perform PENanCE.

-- O Come All Ye Faithful, Joyful and Tri-Trump-phant.

-- Catholics, Donald Trump Needs Your Help. It's Time To L-E-N-T...Him A Hand.

-- You'll Feel Like A Million When You Donate A Billion...To The Special Second Collection Plate Campaign: Billionaire Trump For President.

-- When You Drink To Donald Trump, Be Sure To...Tithe...One On. Donate 10 Percent Of Your Beer Money To Billionaire Trump For President.

-- I'm A Catholic Headed To Heaven. Because I Pray, Pay, And Obey...Donald Trump.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jan said...

I agree with those who say not to vote or to write in another candidate or to vote for a candidate who has no show is a vote for Hillary Clinton. Personally, I would not have that on my conscience.

Trump is far from perfect but what the liberal media is doing is influencing people into being embarrassed to admit that they would vote for him. That is what they are succeeding in doing - that is obvious from the post Fr McD has put up and why he has posted in the way he has. He has allowed himself to be embarrassed by the liberal media. Looking at both conventions the more gawdy of the two was the Democratic Convention. The Republican Convention in reality was quite refined as were the Trump family.

I have actually felt quite sorry at times for Trump. I think he has been absolutely vilified from the start. And I am not surprised that that has led him to some pretty over the top off-the-cuff comments.

But all of what the media is publishing is really nothing more than a smokescreen for the extremely critical errors that Hillary Clinton has already made in office. That is what you all should be looking at. Anyone with a conscience, should be trying to prevent Hillary Clinton from gaining office for eight years. This is serious for your country and for the world. Abstaining from voting or writing in another candidate or voting for a candidate who has no show is a vote for more liberality.

Sure, you may feel good when you come out of the box but how good will you feel the day after knowing that you are on the side that voted in Hillary Clinton?

The consequences of what you are being persuaded to do by the liberal media is the specter of having Hillary in the Whitehouse and another eight years of Obamacare and liberal judges and of course more and more abortions and a liberal agenda forced on Americans.

If you want more of the same then, yes, by all means, don't vote in the November election or write in another candidate or vote for someone who has no show of being President. You certainly won't be able to say you voted against Hillary Clinton and her liberal agenda.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

But as I have explained on an earlier thread, Pope Francis didn’t quite say that Trump was not a Christian. Here is an account of what he did say:
___________________________

But let’s look at what the Pope Francis really said. According to the English language translation put out by the Vatican press office, which is the official word on the pope’s words, the pope did answer a question specifically about Donald Trump, but did not actually say the words “Trump is not a Christian.”

The question asked by Phil Pullella of Reuters was, “Today you spoke a lot and eloquently about the problem of immigrants. On the other side of the border there is an electoral campaign that is rather hard. One of the candidates for the White House, Donald Trump, in a recent interview said that you are a political man, and indeed perhaps a pawn of the Mexican Government when it comes to the policy of immigration. He said that if he were elected president he would build a 2,500-km wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants and, in that way separating families and so on. I would therefore like to ask, first of all, what you think of those charges against you, and if an American Catholic could vote for a person like this?”

The Pope responded, “Thank God he said I am a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as an 'animal politicus' [a political animal]. So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people.

He then went on to say, “And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he says things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

As we know, Trump did say “things in that way,” so the benefit of the doubt won’t take him very far. But, still, the pope’s remarks are a far cry from many of the headlines, and they probably were meant to focus on the call for a wall rather than the man making it.

The Vatican spokesperson, Father Federico Lombardi, on Friday, also offered his own clarification during an interview on Vatican Radio which was, of course, in Italian.

The official English language translation from the Vatican of that comment is as follows. “But the Pope said what we all know, when we follow his teaching and his position: that we should not build walls but bridges. He [the Pope] has always said this, continuously, and he has said this about the issues of migration in Europe, many times. So it is not a specific issue, limited to this case. This is one of [the Pope’s] general attitudes, very consistent with what is a courageous following of the Gospel of welcome and solidarity. Of course, this was then raised, but it is not that the Pope wishes to be, in any way, a personal attack nor an indication of voting.”

Lombardi then went on to say, “The Pope has made it clear that he would not enter into the [Presidential] election campaign in the United States and he has also said— which was not reported by many—if it were correct and true what he was told—he would give the benefit of the doubt over what had been reported about the Republican candidate’s expressions.”

“Therefore the key point is welcome—the building of bridges instead of walls – that is characteristic of this Pontificate. It must be interpreted and understood in this way.”

See: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/20/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-trump-not-being-christian.html

Jan said...

The problem is that this pontificate has built its own wall against traditionalists.

And by stating what he did, it is obvious that the Pope was intervening in the US election, just as Obama intervened in the Brexit vote when he told Brits that they should vote to stay in the EU or be at the back of the queue as far as the US was concerned. That is how liberals play.

Michael A said...

Mark Thomas,

I like the bumper sticker that the bishops used the last time they waded into politics.

"We thought Obama was telling the truth on Obamacare"

Or how about the Pope's bumper sticker?

Turn off your AC or you're going to hell

Funny huh?

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous (at 4:14 p.m.):

Even though I still think it is futile to litigate the pros and cons of The Donald and Hillary on this Blog insofar as one hopes to open the eyes of most if not all of Trump’s supporters commenting here, I overlooked the readers who do not comment and who may want to benefit from some better information and exercise of critical thinking. So, thank you for the bill of particulars. It amounts to a stunning indictment of The Donald.

As for those who suggest that not voting for Trump means that we have Hillary on our conscience, well I wouldn’t want to have The Donald on my conscience either.

So, how about this for an idea: Catholics nation-wide could boycott the Presidential election (but of course vote in the other races) or write in someone else (Pope Francis? =))? Now_that_would send a loud and clear message to the entire country!

The basic problem, apart from specific policies one may find palatable or unpalatable, is that neither candidate seems at all trustworthy. A vote for either one would therefore seem to be a complete shot in the dark. Moreover, if anything, The Donald is even worse because the lying is not even grounded in anything remotely predictable. It would be like electing a cross between a serial bully and a coin toss machine as President.



Billy the Kid said...

Globalists, egalitarians, world-without-borders morons, and welfare statists are one group that will vote for Hillary. The other group is homos, Muslims, and angry, pouting, sleazy, grasping "minorities." Both groups are enemies of the Republic and the US Constitution as founded.

Anonymous said...

"I think he has been absolutely vilified from the start."

Only in a tortured imagination has Trump BEEN vilified.

He has vilified himself, no outside assistance needed.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Trump's vicious and disrespectful attack on the parents of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, John Kasich tweeted:

"There's only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect. Capt. Khan is a hero. Together, we should pray for his family."

Dialogue said...

In my opinion, the Electoral College, which we Americans love with the deepest of affections, should become a national jury, randomly selected, and this electoral jury should then be sequestered inside a room while they choose our next president.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, I can understand why you don't want to list the pros and cons of Hillary Clinton there are widely reported incidents of her name calling years before Trump came on the political scene:


- Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton called a “narcissistic loony toon” in private conversations with close friend Diane Blair (papers released to Library after Blair's death).

- Gennifer Flowers, Hillary called her “trailer trash”: Flowers alleged in a 2000 lawsuit that Clinton created and ran a “war room” during the 1992 campaign to “smear, defame, and harm” adversaries such as herself.

Before the '92 election, Hillary worked to get sworn statements from all the women Bill was rumored to have slept with. She interviewed some of the women herself, according to Carl Bernstein’s A Woman in Charge.

- Kathleen Willey, claimed Bill sexually harassed her during his first term as president, and said Hillary made it a point to launch a “terror campaign” against her and all other women: “She is the war on women, as far as I’m concerned, she’s orchestrated a terror campaign against every one of these women, including me,” said Willey.

- Juanita Broaddrick, claimed Bill Clinton raped her and left her with a bloody lip This is the most damning claim to date. She said Hillary threatened her in person 2 weeks after she broke her silence.


* Other men have received the benefit of the doubt from Hillary when she needed their support politically. Former Senator Bob Packwood was accused of sexual harassment and Hillary told her friend Blair that she was “tired of all those whiney women,” and that she needed Packwood on health care.


Other things being said about Hillary:

* Hillary Clinton relentlessly browbeat her clinically depressed former law partner Vince Foster shortly before he committed suicide according to Jim McDougal a long time member of the Clinton's inner circle.

* The FBI warned the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in March that its computers had been the object of a foreign-government cyber attack. However, when the FBI requested the Clinton team turn over email logs and staff addresses this was refused by the campaign’s lawyers.

* Hillary Clinton’s foundation is under IRS investigation, and at least part of that investigation centers on two companies. House Republicans reported that Laureate Education and Uranium One have payed out (in the tens of millions) to the Clinton Foundation and in return have received legitimate government benefits.

* Wikileaks claims to have more Clinton emails that it will release over the next few months. Some rumored to be enough to send her to prison.

* Assange said: "Google is directly engaged with Hillary Clinton’s campaign" and claimed the technology giant used the US State Department on a "a quid pro quo" basis.

"Of course when she is in power… she is a problem for freedom of speech. We know what she is going to do. And she made the chart for the destruction of Libya, she was involved in the process of taking the Libyan armoury and sending it to Syria."

Assange reiterated his claims that Clinton is a "war hawk" that "seemingly" wants to start wars.

"What we have with Clinton is someone who is a hawk but who has the tools of legal interventionism, a rhetorical cover to start wars, and someone who seemingly wants to start them… From WikiLeaks’ perspective Hillary Clinton is a problem in terms of war and peace."

He also pointed out that former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is now heading the Pentagon innovation board.

"Google is heavily integrated with Washington power, at personal level and at business level. Google, which has increasing control over the distribution channels,… is intensely allying itself with the US exceptionalism.

"It [Google] shows the will to use that at different levels. It will inevitably influence its audience."

Billy the Kid said...

Hillary always looks like she needs a bath.

rcg said...

Voting for an American candidate is not an endorsement of his personal beliefs any more than my hiring a Morman plumber does. There is no doubt that many, maybe even every, candidate in American politics believes we are endorsing his personal beleifs and even if we are, that is no basis for the actual execution of the duties. We *hire* these folks for a job and should treat it as such along with respect for the person.

The decision is based on which leader will establish a working relationship first with the people of the United States that promotes the general welfare and a fair and respectful execution of those duties and decisions. That execution is extrapolated to the nations and organsations of this planet with the same intent: the improvement of the general welfare of this nation. A truley sophisticated understanding of the welfare of this nation will include the prosperity and welfare of all nations according to their abilities and good will. Who operates this model does matter. It only matters that we can work with that person to the general welfare.

I do not beleive Ms. Clinton can be worked with in this way. I think that The Donald can be worked with, but only within severe limits that will prevent civil cooperation domestically or might injure the foreign leaders politically and eventually frustrate any cooperation they might reluctantly give. Think a thousand Tony Blairs.

Beryl said...

The absolute best reason to vote for Trump: to p**s off Hollywood, the news media, academia and the pop music industry. It's worth it just for that.

Jan said...

Interesting that it's reported that Hillary's stop in Pennsylvania on Saturday was closed to the public, the company shut down and workers sent home but rally was attended by company officials. It is reported that Bill was wearing a shirt made in the USA!

Trump's comment probably sums up the reason why the rally was closed to the public.

Trump: Clinton's Pennsylvania stop like a 'robber visiting their victim'

TJM said...

Mark Thomas, so you are voting for Hildabeast? IF so,you have clear lost your Faith.

Dialogue said...

rcg,

An elected statesman is quite the opposite of a hired tradesman. If this distinction did not exist, then there would be not disputes over privatization of government services.

Michael A said...

Maybe Anonymous is able to explain why a man whose child was killed by Muslims is so offended by a person who wants to keep terrorists out of our country rather than being concerned about radical jihadists? Seems he's more outraged by perceived attacks on his religion than some kind of insult to his son's memory.

Paul C said...

If I was a betting man, I'd say the world should prepare itself for strong possibility of at least 4 years with Hilary Clinton as President.

As a leading journalist here put it:

Mrs Clinton has capitalised on the Democratic Party's relative unity......unlike Mr Trump she supports the so called US defense pivot to the strategically important Southeast Asian region......and strongly pledged herself to working with NATO and other US allies.....

It will be a hard race, but Mrs Clinton will probably successfully pitch herself as a safer pair of hands than Mr Trump, with his ill discipline and unpredictably, despite the email scandal.

(From the Weekend Australian)

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

I thought I had made it clear that I did not want to litigate the pros and cons of either candidate because I considered it futile and also that I am disgusted with both of them.

I agree with Bee, whose comment I missed earlier, when she suggests that this place is not a democracy, let alone a republic. It is an oligarchy. I agree, too, that The Donald is probably just a shill. I don’t think The Bern was a shill but he had other problems.

As I suggested in an earlier comment, I am awaiting the candidate who will summon the People to virtue. And by The People, I mean all of us, including the big corporations. However, I am not holding my breath.

Ray said...

The owner of the trad website Fisheaters has a very good post about why we should vote for Trump rather than for another candidate or to skip voting.
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3471990.0

Anonymous 2 said...

By the way, I am still waiting to read something on the Blog about FOX News and the allegations against Roger Ailes (or did I miss it already?).

I infer from the allegations that he likes his women fair and balanced.

Anonymous said...

I agree all LIBERALS should skip voting this November. You all wanted Bernie, the system is rigged, so just stay home.

rcg said...

Good one, Dialogue.

rcg said...

Re: Anon 2 and Ailes; Not so. They were all top heavy.

TJM said...

Paul C, if Trump can make it clear to the voters that Hillary's incompetence, along with Obama, unleased the current unrest in the Mideast, and that their policy of letting unvetted Muslims into the US has increased our danger, and reiterate the points made by Comey of the FBI that she was reckless with national security, and their war on the police, then she will lose in a landslide. The evil,corrupt, pro-abortion national media can try and save her, but if Trump does his job, she is toast. The first act of his administration should be to freeze the assets of the Clintoon Crime Foundation, see that she gets indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and thrown in the slammer. Only then can America begin to recover.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,then Alies and Bill "Horndog"Clintoon (your hero) should become best buds.

rcg said...

Paul, it will be interesting to see if there is any shift after the pair get their intelligence briefing. It likely not much will be new to Clinton, but certainly some will be new to her as well as Trump. Trump might double down based n what he sees. That plays well in the USA but terrifies countries that have bought into the new world order. It will be difficult for Ms. Clinton to pitch herself as safer when she places the interests of he globalist handlers above that of her own country. Even if one considers Trump too eager, he has to convince a significant amount of staff to pull a trigger. No amount of staff can force Clinton to use force until she decides to.

George said...


Carol H.

"Hillary has committed mortal sins, and that is between she and God. But if she becomes President, she is going to try to force every tax paying citizen into supporting all the mortal sins on her agenda."

Carol, you are so right. The problem is that there are candidates that want to pull you,me, and others into supporting their agenda of funding intrinsic evils such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research using our tax monies to do so. The Little Sisters of the Poor and other groups have had to spend large sums of money on legal fees to keep from having to pay for insurance coverage which provides their employees abortifacients and medical procedures which violate Church teaching.

Carol H. said...

Anon 2,

If you want to read smut, you are looking for it on the wrong blog.

Anonymous 2 said...

Rcg:

Balance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. =)

Anonymous 2 said...

Carol:

No, I am not looking to read smut. I would have thought that what I was looking for was rather obvious. I still haven’t seen it.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Actually, it was the Bush Administration’s incompetence in invading the wrong country for the wrong reason that unleashed the horrors in the Middle East, an inconvenient fact Republicans now conveniently forget when they assert that everything would have turned out just fine and dandy if only we had remained in Iraq because the Surge was working. This assertion is highly speculative. The claim that had we not invaded in the first place the subsequent chaos and de-stabilization would not have occurred is much less speculative.

By the way, The Donald is lying yet again. Indeed, when_isn’t_he lying? Apparently there is strong evidence that he urged intervention in Libya (and criticized the Obama Administration after the intervention for not being aggressive enough and not taking the oil) as well a woeful lack of evidence that he publicly opposed the Iraq War as he has claimed he did:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/22/cnn-helping-trump-push-his-lie-he-opposed-libya-intervention/211123

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2016/06/trump-was-invading-libya-and-iraq-he-was-against-it/128851/

So, here we go down the memory hole (and rabbit hole) yet again!

And apparently The Donald now claims he doesn’t know Putin after bragging about speaking with him, both directly and indirectly, during the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and about how well he got to know him because they were both on 60 Minutes:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/29/trumps-lies-ties-putin-exposed-today-show.html

As I said before, we would be electing a cross between a serial bully and a coin toss machine. Please explain, why would you ever believe one word that The Donald says, about abortion or anything else? Is that even rational?

Jan said...

Anonymous at 7.51, one has to question why these Muslim parents are using their dead son as a political football.

Jan said...


Charisma News reports on the Republican and Democrat platforms on abortion:

"Comparing their stated goals highlights how each party regards lives in the womb—with Republicans seeking a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while Democrats seek unfettered access to abortion in America and around the world funded by U.S. taxpayers.

The 2016 Republican Party Platform has been lauded (and vilified) as the most pro-life platform in the 162-year history of the party, while the final 2016 Democratic Party Platform must be deemed the most pro-abortion statement of principles since it was founded in 1828.

Democrats:

"We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman's right to safe and legal abortion. ... LiveActionNews reports that "The platform goes further than previous Democratic platforms on women's reproductive rights. It champions Planned Parenthood health centers and commits to push back on all Republican efforts to defund it." Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of pro-life advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, stated: "There is no further left for the Democratic Party to go on the abortion issue.

...

The advocacy group Democrats for Life of America has been particularly vocal this year, noting how the platform "calls for taxpayer funding of abortion and celebrates abortion." Former Obama Administration official Michael Wear co-authored a USA Today op-ed where he stated, "Wherever you stand on abortion, forcing people to pay for it can't be good for Democrats, or for democracy."

In stark contrast, the 2016 Republican Platform includes many sections advocating pro-life policies—including protection of the disabled and conscience rights for medical professionals."


http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/58920-in-the-two-major-party-platforms-night-and-day-differences-on-abortion


I don't understand how American politics work, but I'm guessing that by not casting a vote or by voting for a third party candidate those of you who are pro-life will not be supporting the Republican's pro-life platform at this election which will have ramifications for you and your children and grandchildren for years to come. If any of you truly wish to shut down the violence that is wracking the US I urge you vote pro-life. You will never regret it. Even if you have a Republican senate or congress you know that a pro-abortion president such as Hillary Clinton will veto all the way. To me, as an ardent Catholic pro-life supporter, there is only one choice and that is to make your vote count ...

Jan said...

Anonymous at 7.51, I have found the answer to the question of why the Muslim parents have used their son in a political game - it is reported the father is involved with a law firm tied to the Clinton Foundation. Enough said.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2, you really need to catch up. Bush left a stable Iraq which resulted from the Surge that the Dems opposed. He was so successful that Biden said Iraq was "one of the Obama's administrations greatest policy achievements." Talk about hutzpah. Then for political purposes Obama pulled large numbers out of Iraq, then that "JV" team as simpleton Obama calls it, began to grow. Sorry, you are a typical, low information voter the Dems rely on.

rcg said...

Anon 2: no political party, or nation, is responsible for the horrors in the middle east except the horrible little countries and parties of the middle east. It might be more logical to lay the blame at the feet of the then Great Britain that established the political boundaries but even they didnt create the monsters that inhabit them. George H. W. Bush cultivated the same delusion as the British; that the majority of the population were merely oppressed and wanted to breathe free, given the opportunity. The Reds have the realism to know that it is the society that is corrupt and work with the power hungry to develop the tools of organization to get it. Like all missionaries, they return to see what they installed reassembled for another purpose and the goal forgotten.

Anonymous said...

TO TJM from Saturday, no I am not a Post Vatican 2 disaster, and I have never backed a Democratic presidential candidate. Don't intend to this year. Georgia isn't likely to vote for Clinton anyway, so whether I vote third party or not at all has no bearing on her being elected president. Ask Al Gore the meaning of winning the national popular vote...

I would have no trouble backing Rubio or Kasich over Clinton, but Trump is such an egomaniac and a demagogue, I am not rushing to back him. He seems cozy with heavy-handed leaders like Putin and Turkey's Erdogan. Would he go nuclear on a country that insults him? He has no credible plan for dealing with immigration and if he really is pro-life, that probably is a recent convert to the cause (I mean, how many rich Northeastern businessmen are socially conservative?)

As for your accusation that if one votes for a party that is pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage, they have committed a mortal sin, OK, what do you do when both candidates are pro-abortion? In 1992, we had such a case in Georgia, where Democrat Wyche Fowler was seeking re-election against Republican Paul Coverdell for US Senate. Fowler had a 100% pro-abortion record; Coverdell actually supported retention of Roe v Wade but opposed public funding of abortion and supported parental notification for minors seeking abortions..OK, both candidates had positions which the Church would find anathema---what do you do? Either way you are voting for a pro-choice candidate. OF course, no Catholic should vote for a candidate because they are pro-abortion, but we don't always have ideal or realistic choices at the ballot box, and this year is no different. This has got to be the worst choice I've had in my 30-odd years of presidential voting.

TJM said...

A reminder to "catholics" voting Democratic:

Key doctrinal and moral rules apply to all Catholics in all contexts—in business, at home, or in elective office. One cannot “personally” oppose something while making a living advocating or supporting. Think: Tim Kaine or Nancy Pelos.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Oh, don’t worry, I am quite caught up. I realize you are parroting the Party line about the Surge but that doesn’t change the facts. The fact is no-one really knows for sure what would have happened had we stayed in Iraq. That is why I said the matter is speculative. Consequently, there are differing views. Please allow this low information voter to supply you with the following two references on the other side of the ledger to balance your Party line:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/459850716/fact-check-did-obama-withdraw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/if-america-had-kept-10000-troops-iraq-no-islamic-state-14212

And I repeat—what is far less speculative— in my low information view of course—is that we would not now be seeing the chaos and destabilization of the entire region had we not invaded Iraq in 20013 and removed Saddam Hussein from power. Even Donald (The Great Savoir) Trump agrees with that I believe.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous and TJM:

The Bishops’ guidance in “Faithful Citizenship” answers all these points. Here is the link once again:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/

By the way, TJM, you seem to have borrowed a leaf from Gene’s playbook: When your arguments are weak, just insult the other person. Hmmmm, I wonder if The Donald has been reading this Blog.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Typo alert -- 20013 should be 2003 of course.

George said...


Anonymous 2

Ok, we get it about former Pres. Bush.
To me, though, that makes what was done under the current administration even less excusable.
Here was a situation where you had the mistake -filled playbook of the previous administration right in front of you, and you went in and compounded what had been a big mistake and made the situation in that part of the world much, much worse. The military saved the day in Egypt, but everywhere else looks like a foreign policy and geopolitical disaster. The after effects of what was done ( bungled) in Libya and Syria is causing enormous problems in Europe.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

I do not disagree with you, although I would point out that the situation had become much, much more complicated by 2011-12 than it was in 2003. I would also point out that, as I have demonstrated on another thread, The Donald was also all in favor of the Libyan intervention as were Congressional hawks like John McCain—and of course the Bushie neocons before they were against it (for the latter, I have the links to their statements if you want them because I do my best to keep track of things that get put down the memory hole).

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

When you can refute Biden's comment on Iraq being the Obama's administration's greatest foreign policy achievement, then you will have legitimacy. Until then,you are a typical Abortion Party voter, ignoring incovenient facts. You are also twisting the Catholic Church's position, which forbids Catholics to vote for politicians who promote intrinsic evils like abortion. Nice try but it doesn't work with sentient, well-trained Catholics, which you are not.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

So now you are a higher authority than the U.S. Bishops? Who do you think you are? The Pope?

As I said, when your arguments are weak you resort to insults, as you demonstrate yet again.

Victor said...

As a follow up, Professor Budziszewski's comment is worth considering:

http://www.undergroundthomist.org/saying-no

His several books, by the way, follow St Paul's thought that the natural moral law is written on our hearts, and are also worth reading.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Answer the Biden remark and then I will answer yours. You are very, very evasive when the facts don't fit your preconceived notions

Anonymous said...

Anon 2 - How long have you been non-sentient? I know this doctor at Mercer Medical who might have a pill you can take.....

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Sorry, I thought that your comment about me only having legitimacy when I could refute Biden’s remark as just another attempt at distraction and indeed evasion on_your_part. Biden was simply wrong, and I had serious misgivings about such claims and predictions at the time. What is your point? It does not change one iota, indeed it further reinforces, the strength of my contention that we ignorant meddlers from outside did not understand Iraq, that the country was in fact a complete shambles, and that we are responsible for that shambles due to the 2003 invasion.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous:

So, you also think you are the Pope and know better than the U.S. Bishops? And you also have to resort to insults because your arguments are so weak?


George said...

Anonymous2;

"I would also point out that, as I have demonstrated on another thread, The Donald was also all in favor of the Libyan intervention..."

You are comparing someone's position as a private citizen with a Senator(Ms Clinton)
who voted for it(the Iraq Resolution)? She had more information to go on that did Mr. Trump.

Jan said...

Khizar Khan's links to Hillary Clinton have been established and there are plenty of open letters to him condemning him for the way he allowed himself to be used at the Democrat Convention and after. The following open letter from the mother of an active duty soldier to Khizar Khan sums up how I feel about anyone using their child's death in the way he has.


"while your son is a hero, you Sir, are NOT. My son has served three tours of combat in the countries you and your family came from. Iraq and Afghanistan were his introduction to adulthood and service to something bigger than our individual selves. He was blown up by an IED set by your countrymen. His Purple Heart is a testament to his love of America and our freedoms. I have suffered through his multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan….never knowing from moment to moment if he would return home in a flag draped coffin. It is torture when a mother wakes up to this day after day and sees the atrocities happening over there on the news and being helpless to change a thing. My comments to you will probably offend you. I do not apologize. These things need to be said. Unlike you, I could NEVER use my son’s death as a pawn piece in support of a woman that left “America’s treasure” (Hillary's words) to die unaided in Benghazi.

The same woman that says vile things to her military details there to protect her. You, Sir, are supposed to be a witness to your son’s bravery and sacrifice. Instead you stood on a stage and promoted the woman that upholds the very people that killed your son. You became a political PAWN that promotes pandering to our enemy. You desecrated your son’s memory by your words. You did not utter one word of outrage at anyone but Donald Trump. Are you forgetting that Trump did not kill your son. He had nothing whatsoever to do with these wars. His memory should mean more to you than five minutes of fame on the stage of the party that voted to send your son to war. The same party that for eight years has denied and cheated our veterans out of their deserved medical care. Who for the last three years has cut our veterans pay."

And you can read the rest on 100 percent fed up dotcom:

http://100percentfedup.com/mother-of-active-duty-soldier-destroys-hillarys-anti-trump-muslim-dad-with-this-viral-letter/

rcg said...

Iraq may very well be the Obama Administration high water mark for foreign policy. Biden is certainly has enough lack of awareness to blurt that out. Iraq had rebuilt a palace with over $1B after the First Iraq war while allowing the country to starve for the benefit of political classes in The UN to cluck and wag their tongues. It was a repository for weapons of mass destruction if one includes chemical and biological weapons of the NBC trinity as also WMD. Ineptitude does not diminish their potential lethality. Iraq was hoped by the USA to be the bed for democracy to counterbalance Iran and Saudi Arabia. Dang. The dispute for power is now between these Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia is an absentee civilization so completely unable to do anything for itself they have to pay people to eat for them. Iran has everything except the support of civilized countries. They certainly have the culture and the willingness to get their own hands dirty. If they can get their hands on the right weapons in quantity it will be game over for the Saudis. The Saudis are the Kardashians of the Middle East, taking selfies and influencing the easily bought and entertained. Iran is what you would get if you could get Black Lives Matter to breed with the Ku Klux Klan. And like their Western counterparts Their comedic value is unfortunately blunted by their capability to do serious mischief to the unaware or feeble. Or the Saudis.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

That is fair enough but it is not the point. Once again The Donald lied about the matter:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-claims-he-didnt-support-libya-intervention-but-he-did?utm_term=.ll7579WM0#.ybwnVG8Rq

The man seems to be a_pathological_liar, even worse than Clinton who just lies to cover up. He seems unable to stop himself. There is serious nonpartisan question, as you doubtless already know, about whether he is so utterly narcissistic and/or disconnected from reality that he is plainly unfit to be president. I hope he steps aside or gets ousted to make way for a more viable Republican candidate, for the sake of the Republican Party and for the sake of the Republic.



George said...

Anonymous2:

I know. We have two candidates that have lied. Hillary's lies, though, were attempts to cover up very serious and grave matters that had significant and substantial adverse effects on both individuals and even on the world at large.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

I agree. This is one of the reasons why I do not care for Hillary Clinton either. I am sick of our corrupt politics, as I have said before on the Blog. But in my view Donald Trump is not the solution. He is part of the problem. Constant lying is a central aspect of the corruption. Sometimes, just possibly, it may arguably be justifiable to utter a political lie to achieve the Greater Good, but what we routinely experience nowadays are lies, or more charitably (in some cases perhaps) false statements, uttered in self-interest.

Here are the PolitiFact lists of false statements by Hillary and Donald:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/?page=1

Jan said...

It's going to be a very interesting campaign to watch over the next few months with Julian Assange claiming to have emails that show that Hillary Clinton may have inadvertently armed ISIS and that the US were gun-running out of Benghazi:

"As U.S. armed forces attack ISIS in Libya, WikiLeaks is poised to remind us that ISIS is in Libya — indeed, that ISIS is ISIS — thanks to disastrous policies championed by Hillary Clinton as President Obama’s secretary of state. Also raised, yet again, is the specter of Mrs. Clinton’s lying to Congress and the American people — this time regarding a matter some of us have been trying for years to get answers about: What mission was so important the United States kept personnel in the jihadist hellhole of Benghazi in 2012? Specifically, did that mission involve arming the Syrian “rebels” — including al-Qaeda and forces that became ISIS — just as, at Mrs. Clinton’s urging, our government had armed Libyan “rebels” (again, jihadists) to catastrophic effect? It has been less than two weeks since WikiLeaks rocked the Clinton campaign on the eve of the Democratic convention by leaking hacked e-mails illuminating DNC efforts to rig the nomination chase in Clinton’s favor. Now the organization’s founder, Julian Assange, has announced that WikiLeaks is soon to publish highly sensitive government e-mails that demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s key participation in efforts to arm jihadists in Syria. Just as in Libya, where Mrs. Clinton championed the strategy of arming Islamist “rebels,” the Syrian “rebels” who ultimately received weapons included the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS. The Daily Wire and other outlets are reporting on Assange’s comments, published by Democracy Now. Clearly, we should not take Assange’s word for what is to be gleaned from the hacked records, which he says include some 17,000 e-mails “about Libya alone.” Let’s see if he has what he says he has. But it is worth setting the stage, because what is known is outrageous and has not been given nearly enough attention — largely because Beltway Republicans were complicit in the Obama-Clinton policy of allying with Islamists, and thus have shown no interest in probing the inevitably disastrous fallout."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438605/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-benghazi-scandal-arm-syrian-rebels-al-qaeda-isis-libya-turkey.

Daniel said...

There is no real equivalency between Clinton, with whom many of us have deep disagreements on the issues, and Trump, who would do real damage to our country, our constitution, our partners around the world, our global stature and our national character. Now he's musing in his own special way about using nuclear weapons. Do you really have to hear any more? Man up, take four years of Hillary and come up with a better candidate in four years, if you can.

Jan said...

Daniel, I think Trump should be given a chance. If you actually read what is being said by Trump a lot of it is not what is being portrayed by the media and a lot of what he says is taken out of context. The media is doing a good hatchet job on him.

On the other hand, Hillary is being protected by the media, so Wikileaks is the only reliable source of information because it comes from the horse's mouth - not from the media. The media is saying Trump may not run the course, but actually it's Hillary who could be derailed in very short order if the Wikileaks rumors are true.

Four years of Hillary is much more serious for the US than a Trump presidency ...

rcg said...

Trump will be the weakest of the two because he has no backing in his own party, much less anywhere else in the Government. Hillary will be, by far, the strongest because of her control over the Government emplyees that actually conduct the seizures, spying, and policing. The elected officials will just sit and grumble.

Daniel said...

Jan, we've been listening to Trump, in full context, for more than a year now, in debates, in interviews, I heard him speak for more than an hour at a rally myself. The man is a dangerous buffoon, but keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

I am not a Hillary fan, but she's been investigated by Republicans for a quarter century now and keeps coming up clean. You are free not to like her, but it's disingenuous to compare her to Trump.

Anonymous said...

Jan says: "If you actually read what is being said by Trump..."

Jan, as Dan says, we have.

He mocks the disabled. He made fun of Charles Krauthammer, who’s paralyzed, by saying, "I get called by a guy that can't buy a pair of pants, I get called names?" Trump also mocked the appearance of a New York Times reporter with a congenital joint condition.

He mocks prisoners of war. "(John McCain is) not a war hero…. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

He demeans women with vulgarity, “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” He has called women fat, slobs, dogs, grotesque, and on a 2013 episode of the Celebrity Apprentice, Trump joked that it would be a "pretty picture" to see the former Playboy model and Baywatch star on her knees.

He advocates violence against those who oppose him. "Trump has brought disgrace upon the presidential primary process by inciting and promoting violence throughout his campaign. At a rally in Missouri earlier this year, Trump lamented that “nobody wants to hurt each other anymore.” At another rally he tacitly encouraged violence against protestors: “If you do [hurt them], I’ll defend you in court.” In Las Vegas he said of a protestor: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

He made reference to Megyn Kelly's menstruation. "You could see there was blood coming out of (Megyn Kelly's) eyes, blood coming out of her whatever."

He said Carly Fiorina was ugly. “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, (Carly Fiorina’s) a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

He is a serial adulterer and has BRAGGED about cheating on his wives. “Beautiful, famous, successful, married – I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names, but unlike Geraldo I don’t talk about it.” – From Trump’s “Think Big and Kick Ass”

On his religion "I'm not sure I have ever asked God's forgiveness. I don't bring God into that picture....When I go to church and when I drink my little wine and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of forgiveness. I do that as often as I can because I feel cleansed."

On his military expertise "I always felt like I was in the military. (I got) more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military."


Jan said...

Daniel and Anonymous, I agree with what Clint Eastwood says, this is a soft generation, people are being stabbed and shot everywhere and everyone is pussy-footing around and saying, "Oh, you can't say that, that's racist". It's plain ridiculous. Even what Trump said about nuclear weapons is absolutely not what he said at all. I suggest you go and look up what he said. If you all just read the mainstream media you're drinking the kool-aid all right.

I certainly don't agree with the way Trump speaks but, quite honestly, I don't think he would have left Americans to die in Benghazi the way Clinton and Obama did. Wikileaks is exposing Clinton and Obama for what they are - gunrunners who armed ISIS by account of Hillary's own emails.

The world is an extremely dangerous place now and America is no longer considered invincible as she once was. Clint Eastwood is right - get over it or you will suffer for it. The world is full of bullies who aren't just threatening to punch someone or talking about periods. They mean business. America needs someone tough at the top who will stand up to them. Trump has got what it takes. Obama and Clinton certainly haven't. Toughen up and face the reality. The world is a dangerous place to live in.

What's the use of having a couple of politically corrects sitting in the Whitehouse sipping tea when the world has lost respect for America and she is no longer considered to be the power she once was? No doubt You will be politically correctly sitting in your lounges sipping the Kool-aid spilling from CNN when the first nuke hits you ...

Billy the Kid said...

Hell, I'll voter for Trump BECAUSE he is politically incorrect. It is time all the libs and sissies and Black Lives Splatter types had their nonsense thrown in their faces. I think it is great!

rcg said...

If Trump is foolish enough to say those things at least we know he is honest enough to think them. As far as his lying goes: It seems that his lies are usually absurd self embellishment whereas if he had told us how beautiful he thought Carly Fiorina is while thinking what he actually said would be a very different sort of lie.

George said...


Daniel:

"who would do real damage to our country, our constitution, our partners around the world, our global stature and our national character."

Hasn't that already been done over the last eight years (Mrs. Clinton having a significant role in it)?

Anonymous 2 said...

Rcg:

Thank you for your response. Actually, what struck me as particularly to the point was your comment at 9:23 a.m. on July 30 on the thread “Is It Moral Not to Vote out of Disgust.”

Specifically, if I may now quote you:

“My previous, and greatly respected pastor, advised me that the choice four years ago was to stop clearly evil intentions. So I reluctantly voted. In this election there is bait for Catholics in the form of Supreme Court nominations to overturn Roe v Wade. This is a fools errand. The nested probability of the right sequence of events occuring and the right people being in place and in majority and making the right decision is infinitesmal. Catholic justices led the Court to impose Roe v Wade. The Catholic justices appointed by conservative administrations since then have been terribly unreliable save one, recently deceased.”

As I read this comment, it his resonates with the USCCB guidance in paragraph 34 of “Faithful Citizenship”:


“37. 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.”


Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Sorry, I just posted the last comment on the wrong thread. I will not post it on the correct one.

Anonymous said...


“37. 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 ( Abortion - embryonic stem cell research - same-sex marriage) and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue (in what way, through his commitment and influence, did our current President, on major moral issues such as abortion and same -sex marriage, in whatever he did, conform to Catholic teaching?) . In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic, guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”

Anonymous2- Can you please give us some good reasons why myself and others should have voted for Mr. Obama four years ago?

Anonymous 2 said...

PP.S. Sorry again—typo alert: “I will now post it . . . “, not “I will not post it . . .”

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous:

Everyone seems to be missing my point. I never said that you or anyone else should vote for Obama. The issue is not_whom_you or anyone else should vote for. The issue is_how_you, I, or anyone else should make the decision whom to vote for in compliance with the USCCB Guidelines. My contention is that under the Guidelines a voter could have voted for Obama_or_for McCain or Romney provided they did so for the right reasons and in the right way. The same applies today with respect to the choice between The Donald and Hillary. In short, when following the Guidelines voting for the Republican candidate is not the only permissible choice. That is my point. Moreover, I have set out my reasons why I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 exhaustively on other threads. Please Google it if you want to know more.

Also, there is much more language in the USCCB Guidelines that is relevant than paragraph 37. I merely quoted that language because it seemed to resonate with the particular point rcg was making. I have quoted all the relevant language on other threads several times. I am not going to do it again. In fact, as you can probably tell from my typos, I am becoming very tired (of this topic) and also really do not have time to pursue it much further at the moment.


Jan said...

A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?


Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

https://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

In his homily delivered at the National Shrine on 21 January, Bernard Cardinal Law said: "We who are here are challenged by the words of the Holy Father who calls us to be aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the culture of death and the culture of life. We find ourselves not only face with, but necessarily in the midst of this conflict; we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life."

"That is what Catholics are called to: to be unconditionally pro-life. There is no ambiguity in the words of Peter's successor. To be Catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life. To support abortion, to advocate the right to choose an abortion can in no way be considered a catholic option. ..."

"All too many of us, however, have hidden the Gospel of Life under the bushel basket of political expediency. How scandalous it is to see the evidence of Catholic votes supporting those who deny the Gospel of Life! It is easy to criticize Catholic elected representatives who have rejected life. Do we not need to be even more concerned with the far greater number of Catholic voters who fail to challenge those politicians?"

"Our task within the household of faith is clear and daunting, my brothers and sisters. It must be made abundantly clear in pulpits, in classrooms, in the lecture halls of our colleges and universities, in the Catholic press, in the way we vote, that to be catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life."

It is a scandal that Catholic politicians vote for bills which fund or otherwise advance abortion. They should be named, publicly shamed and admonished so that they can cease their evil and return to God.

To vote for such a candidate is to willfully participate in that candidate's choices and deeds. It is a sin, and must be repented.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/SINTOVOT.HTM

Billy the Kid said...

In today's world, for a Priest to tell someone to be "guided by their conscience" is like saying "let the good times roll, baby!"

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

In brief, yes, there are individual priests and even Cardinals I expect, who may disagree with the USCCB Guidelines. I have read such opinions before. Father Torraco on the EWTN website does not even mention the USCCB Guidelines. Nor does Father Habiger, again on the EWTN website, when he quotes Cardinal Law.

But when did the USCCB Bishops publish their Guidelines? Father Torraco was writing in 2002 and Father Habiger was writing in 1999. The Bishops first promulgated their Guidelines in 2007.

And why don’t the USCCB Guidelines (which, by the way, are customarily distributed to all parishioners in the weekly bulletin in my experience), say what these two priests say? By formulating the Guidelines as they do, aren’t the U.S. Bishops arguably now accomplices in the evil of abortion (in Father Torraco’s terms) or guilty of talking about other things when there is nothing left to talk about (in Father Habiger’s terms)? Is it credible to think that the U.S. Bishops are unaware of these positions or that they either just don’t care and/or prefer money to lives (by not wishing to forfeit their tax exempt status)? Is it not more likely the case that the Bishops do not want to unconditionally surrender the Catholic vote to politicians who are sometimes (often?) to be suspected of exploiting the abortion issue for political advantage?

But perhaps the Bishops should agitate to have included on the ballot a section in which the voter can clearly indicate whether or not he or she supports abortion and/or that by voting for a candidate who supports abortion, he or she should not be understood to be supporting that particular position.


Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. There may be other creative responses. For example, why couldn’t the USCCB or some other Catholic entity organize a petition, to be signed by Catholics indicating their opposition to abortion in general and/or calling for specific measures in particular? This petition could be sent to those candidates who support abortion rights, funding, etc. and to signatory would be able to make it clear that even though he or she had voted for that candidate this was in spite of, not because of, the candidate’s position on abortion. The same could be done regarding other issues.

Obviously, I am just thinking out loud here, but surely it is not beyond our wit to devise some solution to the dilemma voters face other than, for example in this year’s presidential election: “If you vote, you must vote for Trump—and be an accomplice to_everything_he advocates or does—just because he says (emphasis on “says”) he will do something about abortion.” We cannot be that far gone.

Jan said...

Well, Anonymous 2, a very up-to-date Pathos article - referring to the USCCB guidelines says, no, under the guidelines Catholics cannot vote for Hillary Clinton:

"So how do the bishops advise us?

Part Two of the document says:

The bishops do not tell Catholics how to vote; the responsibility to make political choices rests with each person and his or her properly formed conscience, aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with always opposing policies that violate human life or weaken its protection.

and then they are quite clear:

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

Hillary Clinton’s support for abortion is total. She is on the record as supporting abortion up to birth.

This is not gossip or hearsay.

It’s official.

This page outlines the Democratic Party’s position on abortion. To summarize, Hillary Clinton fully backs federal funding for Planned Parenthood, wants to repeal the Helm Amendment which bans US funding for abortions overseas, wants to clamp down on abortion protesters, and says being pro abortion is a “litmus test” for appointments to the Supreme Court. The Democratic Party’s platform can be read here.

Can a faithful Catholic vote Democrat in the coming election?

The answer is no."

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Thanks for bringing the Patheos article to our attention. Although you did not provide a link (please try to remember to do this out of consideration for your fellow bloggers), I did track down Father Longenecker’s piece. It links to the summary of “Faithful Citizenship” that is distributed to parishioners.

With all due respect to Father Longenecker, I submit that he is misreading the relevant language because “may” does not mean “shall.” The word conveys permission, not obligation (as you should know working around lawyers, this is an elementary point).

Thus, whereas normally Catholics should not vote based on a single issue, they_may_do so in the case of abortion. I quite agree. This means that if you, Jan, were to decide to exclude all other issues and vote solely against Hillary Clinton based on her support for abortion, this would be legitimate and you would have discharged your moral obligations in voting. This is why forming one’s conscience for voting is so easy for many people (especially many of those who comment here on the Blog), especially if they support the Republican Party anyway for other reasons. For those of us who are not card carrying Republicans and/or who genuinely worry about other issues of life and death for example (let’s say, the suggestion to target innocent civilians or the potential to set the world on fire again), the matter is not so simple. And I submit that a Catholic may legitimately be swayed by these other issues when casting their votes.



Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. I should add that all this is on the assumption that the Catholic who decides to vote for the Democratic candidate reasons conscientiously in accordance with the Guidelines.

Also, under the Guidelines as part of this reasoning process the voter may take into account the likelihood that the candidate will in fact be able to implement his or her agenda. Specifically, if Hillary Clinton faces a Republican majority in Congress, much of what she wants to do in the area of abortion and on other issues, will not be feasible.

In other words, the U.S. governmental system is complex with many checks and balances. It is not like parliamentary systems in which the prime minister typically is the leader of the party commanding a majority in the legislature.

Thus, I act very much on the assumption that Hillary would in reality be blocked from implementing much of her abortion agenda.

But as I have already indicated I do not much care for her either, both because of her agenda on abortion as well as for other reasons.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, I see the US bishops are qualifying that, despite the fact that they [the bishops] are saying that US Catholics should not normally vote as one-issue Catholics that, in the case of a candidate that is pro-abortion, that they [the bishops] are giving express permission to US Catholics to vote against that candidate solely on one issue.

Looking at what other bishops around the world have said:

"The Catholic hierarchy in Northern Ireland has urged people not to vote for candidates in favour of reforming abortion law in next week’s devolved assembly election.

Local bishops advised voters in a statement to follow the church’s teachings on abortion when casting their ballot next Thursday."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/28/catholic-bishops-back-anti-abortion-candidates-in-northern-ireland-vote

"Their call echos what many Catholic bishops in America have been saying. Last week, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Rhode Island made it clear that Catholic voters must not vote for pro-abortion candidates like Hillary Clinton.

Bishop Tobin made the remarks in an April 21 post on Facebook:

Catholics: Vote Pro-Life

As the primary election draws near in Rhode Island, I encourage faithful Catholics to vote pro-life – and never to vote for any candidate, of any party, who supports abortion.

...

During an interview on The View recently Hillary Clinton said an unborn child just hours before delivery should have no Constitutional rights. In February, Clinton also defended partial-birth abortions."

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/27/catholic-bishops-pro-life-voters-must-not-support-pro-abortion-candidates/

So you are left standing on a very weak leg indeed, Anonymous 2. It is palpably clear that Catholics cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates ...