PLEASE NOTE THAT BLOGGER HAS UPDATED HOW TO POST COMMENTS. YOU CAN NOW COMMENT DIRECTLY UNDER A COMMENT RESPONDING TO THAT COMMENT. I JUST DISCOVERED THAT! HOW COOL IS THAT!
Someone has said that the Church's role is not to make America great again, but for the Church to be counter-cultural and thus great again.
I happen agree with that because Jesus was counter cultural, only confirming that which was good and holy in culture but calling out that which was sinful and corrupt.
For the Church to be great again, her Magisterium will need to reform its dance with politics and using political ideologies to appease the world, thinking this will draw people to the Church as a form of evangelization.
Thus the current pope's current way of promoting care for the earth and stopping climate change falls very short of Jesus' counter cultural message. The demise of human beings and all that is created due to original sin, is in the DNA of each of us and the created world. To forget that the Church's mission is to save the world and its human inhabitants from its final destruction by thinking the Church can help politicians stop climate change is pure nonsense, especially as there is no real consensus in science as to why climate is changing other than to say it always has changed since the Fall of Man!
Another area of worldliness with the current papal magisterium is buying into the sexual immorality that has emerged as an ideology since the 1960's. It is on steroids now fueled by easy to get pornography, and what the LGBTQ+++ movement is shoving down the throats of America through the most authoritarian way possible. It is also fueled by the big-bucks media sources. We hear nothing from the current magisterium about chastity depending on one's state in life and leading those in aberrant sexual immorality to Christ and His counter-cultural message which hinges on chastity and fidelity to God. It hinges on repentance and choosing a new way of life by God's grace.
The Church must also, in the most honest way possible, critique Vatican II and what its implementation has done to the Church, her clear teachings, her liturgy, spirituality and devotional life. This honest assessment must look at what has happened to religious life in the last 50 years that has led to its decline and the many, many apostolates that religious once led, especially Catholic hospitals and educational apostolates.
Recently, the last Catholic hospital in Alabama was sold to a secular institution. The decline of religious who once staffed these hospitals and gave them a Catholic identity has led to the disappearance of so many of the institutions they spearheaded.
The Catholic liturgy is in far more disarray and poorly celebrated than it ever was prior to Vatican II. What has the complete dismantling of the old system of how the Liturgy was celebrated to something that is now a free-for-all led to the loss of the counter-cultural mission of the Church and her unique Catholic identity found in the liturgy.
The post-Vatican II Church is not inspiring young men in large numbers to consider priesthood as a manly lifetime vocations demanding a rigorous spirituality and morality to pursue.
Just some thoughts on how to make the Church great again!
26 comments:
The Church will not be made "great again" by stepping away from the dominion we have been given over "...the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." To have a share in God's dominion means we treat the created world with the same respect the Lord ("dominus"). Wrongly some have concluded that we can "dominate" the created world - that it is ours to use and abuse as we like. We have seen the results of that attitude. To misuse God's creation is sinful and may result in the loss of heaven.
The notion that there is no "real consensus in science" regarding the cause of climate change is simply wrong. "Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world." https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
To say that the Magisterium says nothing about chastity is also wrong. "Chastity before marriage is key to a union’s long-term success, according to the preface Pope Francis wrote to a new Vatican guide on marriage." see: “The Catechumenal Itineraries for Married Life: Pastoral Guidelines for Local Churches" from the Dicastery for the Laity, Family, and Life .
As for the critique of the implementation of Vatican II, there should also be, in the most honest way possible, a deeper understanding of the extra-ecclesial factors that have contributed to the decline in religious life. The same has to be achieved regarding the cultural, social, and psychological factors that lead young men not to choose the priesthood. There should also be, in the most honest way possible, an admission that having multiple options for the priest celebrant to choose from does not, by a long-shot, make the NO liturgy a free-for-all.
To make the Church Great Again, I think the preaching needs to be better. There is very little, and by little I mean zero, homilies on current world and cultural affairs. World affairs seems to be intentionally avoided. Nothing was said about the Olympics and the Last Supper at my church the last few weeks when it was a hot topic.There is plenty on Charity, God's Love, forgiveness and Mercy. So much on Love. There is no talk about Sin and the consequences of Sin. Nothing about Hell or Salvation. I come out of Mass and can't recall what the homily was about. I was listening and entertained but nothing stuck with me. There needs to be better preaching/teaching. Don't expect lay people to read an encyclical. Read it for me and teach me from it.
Agreed!
Thank you for this article Fr. Mc Donald. I really appreciate the way you continue to STAND UP and say the "hard sayings" which need to be said! Quikness is correct! The laity who actually show up for weekly Masses, should not just "have their ears tickled"/or have "a new Gospel" preached as St Paul so bluntly and vehemently warns against! We are again in an election cycle where some Catholics will go to the polls and still vote for a Party which is using the "right" of moms to have their pre-born children killed -with no restrictions- or now that the abortion pill is available through the mail, even to kill them themselves as a major " get out" the vote promise! And be aware that means an extreme abortion Law for the ENTIRE Nation, for EVERY State, including States like GA which have Heartbeat laws, protecting the most vulnerable human beings from the time the beating of their tiny little hearts can be detected (at approx. 6 weeks gestation)! Every priest should be proclaiming from the pulpit before Early Voting starts, that the USCCB at it's Fall 2023 Meeting has once again declared that as always, abortion is the pre-eminent (most important) priority in this year's election! This increases the likelihood that more Catholics will be voting with a well- formed/informed conscience! It would also be informative if they also added a couple of blunt unambiguous qoutes from Pope Francis on the subject!
1) Sept. 15, 2021, to a journalist who asked about "a woman's right to choose", "Abortion is more than an issue, abortion is murder."
2) Oct.10, 2018, the Pope compared an abortion to "hiring a hitman" and has used that comparison several times after that.
Those two quotes were taken from an article reported in CNA , entitled
"Respect Life: Pope Francis' 8 Strongest Statements Against Abortion"
Sophia - Many Catholic with well-formed consciences will not vote for Donald Trump, despite his highly questionable claim to be pro-life. That they disagree with you does not - DOES NOT - mean that their consciences are less well-formed than yours. Many Catholics with well-formed consciences understand that, while abortion is pre-eminent, it is not the only issue that must be taken into account when choosing a candidate for elected office.
I am sure German voters take comfort in your ideology when they voted for Hitler. Genocide aside, so many good things they voted for. Hmm!
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - You have, in previous posts, defended my position against Sophia and those who think like her. And, to be honest, it's not the good things that Harris/Walz may do, though there will be many. It's the bad things that Trump/Vance have done and say they will do. As for those who voted for Hitler, you need a history refresher. Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and President of that country in 1934. This was prior to the mass incarceration and "genocide" you reference. Take comfort yourself in knowing that you have so, so much to learn.
Delusional!
Fr. Kavanaugh. Refresh my memory-send me just one time that Fr. Mc Donald has joined you ( God forbid) in refuting any of my comments re abortion! What I said above and all I have said on that topic over my time on this blog are incontrovertible-Theologically, Biologically, Philosophically, Biblically....
Sophia - To quote Fr. ALLAN McDonald, "Do you own research." And, just to refresh your memory, the question isn't about theology, biology, philosophy, or the Bible. It's about the Church's guidance regarding voting.
Commenting just to say that I am increasingly convinced someone is posting as "Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh" to sully the real Fr. Kavanaugh's reputation. That's the most charitable interpretation I can give for the patterns consistently on display in his comments, and I encourage others to try to adopt charitable understandings of their own.
Nick
Well, here we go again. ‘Tis Election Season and so all the well-worn arguments and shibboleths are wielded to put those with serious reservations about voting for Trump-Vance and the MAGA Republicans on the defensive, doubtless also driven by the very real prospect of Trump-Vance losing after Harris replaced Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee.
It is rather easy for those here who would vote for a ticket and party that opposes abortion when they support pretty much everything else that ticket and party stands for. Not much of a dilemma for them at all. It is much more difficult for those here who oppose abortion but also have serious reservations about much else that ticket and party stands for.
So, once again I offer my little thought experiment to those supporting Trump-Vance and the MAGA Republican Party: Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the Harris-Walz ticket and the Democratic Party is the pro-life ticket and party opposing abortion and that the Trump-Vance ticket and MAGA Republican Party is the pro-choice ticket and party supporting “reproductive freedom,” but everything else stays the same. Now examine your consciences and ask yourselves: Would I now vote for Harris-Walz and the Democrats or for Trump-Vance and the MAGA Republicans? If you are true to your principles and consciences, as presented here, you MUST vote for Harris-Walz and the Democrats, right?
Consequently, it is only if you agree that you must vote for Harris-Walz and the Democrats that your arguments about abortion being the preeminent issue hold water and deserve respect because they are offered with complete sincerity and integrity. Otherwise, please stop it.
Please understand that I am making no judgments about the sincerity and integrity of anyone here arguing that abortion is the preeminent issue and that one must therefore vote for Trump-Vance and the MAGA Republicans. I merely intend to invite a necessary introspection and seek to identify the conclusions that necessarily follow from such introspection.
Mark J.
“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed….Our efforts to protect the unborn remain as important as ever….state legislators have passed statutes not only keeping abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy but opening the door to infanticide. Additionally, abortion contaminates many other important issues by being inserted into legislation regarding immigration, care for the poor, and health care reform.” [from Introductory Letter of the USCCB “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”]
My understanding is that Catholic may in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate only if that voter has properly formed his/her conscience and discerns a proportionate reason to vote against the opposing candidate that relates to truly grave moral reasons. While I can accept that a proportionate reason may exist in isolated instances; I do not see an evil, let alone a proportionate one, being generally promoted by pro-life candidates that would justify supporting pro-abortion candidates as a norm.
If one judges a presidential candidate, one who says he/she is pro-life, to be wholly unqualified for office; and if one judges that candidate to be a threat to the well-being the nation; and if that candidate is known to be a convicted felon, a serial adulterer, an unapologetic liar, a convicted sexual abuser; and if that candidate asserts that he/she is a Christian, yet does not attend any church and rejects seeking God's forgiveness for his/her sins; and if that candidate shows little, if any, loyalty to his friends and allies when those friends and allies say things he/she doesn't like about him/her; and if that candidate says out loud that he/she knows more than anybody else about 1) taxes, 2) construction, 3) campaign finance, 4) drones, 5) technology, 6) infrastructure, 7) the H1-B and the H2-B, 8) ISIS, 9) environmental impact statements, 10) the power of FaceBook, 11) renewables, 12) polls, 13) courts, 14) steel workers, 15) banks, 16) trade, 17) lawsuits, 18) money, 19) debt, 20) contributions, 21) politicians (all of those are on video tape, btw); and if that candidate is a bully, never exhibits compassion, has no self-awareness, exhibits no wit (One writer says, "...his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty."); and if that candidate is a zero-sum transactionist, then those parts form a proportionate whole.
Fr. K. and Mark J., clearly you and a depressingly large number of Catholics have decided to vote the way you do based on how you feel about a candidate, or what policies you would rather have put in place. I too have a long list of the personal moral deficiences of candidates running on the extreme abortion ticket and other policies they espouse but that is not why I cannot vote for them. It is first and foremost because of their extreme abortion plan! That is precisely why there are objective criteria for how to approach this matter. Others and I have written several comments in the past covering this topic. This is last one I wrote before the ones above. It was written on June 21, 2023 and included the essence of previous comments:
"Sophia Here: Yes, several of us on this blog have made multiple attempts to have Fr. K. and Mark (not Mark Thomas) re-examine their support for the Party of Death (Death Party) as Cardinal Burke has so accurately named the Democrat Party because of it's support for more and more abortions at any gestational age and for any reason, in addition to other intrinsic evils such as physician assisted suicide. I have even challenged the frequent reference to conscience, stripped of the qualifier "well-formed" which strips it of it's intended purpose and referenced the associated concepts of "vincible (their situation) and invincible ignorance. It is very difficult to accept that Fr. K. and Mark do not know enough Philosophy ( specifically Logic ), Moral Theology and the Catechism to know all that and the accurate meaning of "proportionate" in the context of abortion! 1/3 of Bishops (Bishop Mc Elroy was one of the ringleaders!) at the USCCB meeting in Nov. 2019 ahead of the 2020 elections revolted and voted against Abortion being the PRE-EMINENT issue. Approximately 50% of Catholics including Mark and Fr. K. voted for candidates who advocate for, and fiercely push policies which are intrinsically evil, when there are most definitely alternative candidates -even on a "lesser of two evils basis"! They were undoubtedly using the loophole provided by the image of "a seamless garment" popularized by the Modernist/Relativist Cardinal Joseph Bernardin when he used it to discuss the Church's "consistent Ethic of life".
Cont'd
Everything on that list was presented as if they were morally equivalent to each other. However, this is philosophically (logically) and morally false. There can be no moral equivalency to the direct slaughtering of millions of the most vulnerable, the most innocent of humans- with the consent of their own moms no less! Unfortunately, Pope Francis too, endorsed it ('Seamless garment")in his "Gaudete Et Exsultate". Therefore Pope St. Pius X accurately characterized Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies" and Pope Benedict XVl of blessed memory, boldly condemned "the dictatorship of Relativism". So yes, Mark and Fr. K. your sophistry, half truths, twisting of facts and distortion of what Pope Benedict XVl meant when he spoke of " proportionate" (the operative word here) reasons to justify your votes represent an exercise of your free will, but certainly not a well-formed conscience. In fact they represent conscience under the influence of vincible ignorance and therefore leading to erroneous judgment. It is no wonder that you dance around and squirm and refuse to answer the very simple question "What are YOUR PROPORTIONATE reasons for voting for extreme pro-abortion candidates?" We all agree that there are PROPORTIONATE reasons just as Pope Benedict XVl has so very clearly stated. But you know full well that your reasons do not meet the "Proportionate" test-they are just reasons- taken from that "seamless garment" list and which cannot come close to abortion, which stands qualitatively, quantitatively and PRE-EMINENTLY above everything else on that list. So I don't blame you for not revealing which ones of those you used! You have kept up this charade for so long, and so fiercely; you have been so obdurate; it must be so excruciatingly difficult to now admit that your position is not tenable and that you have in fact given scandal to some of the many readers of this blog - who of course are not limited to people who post here!
Cont'd
June 21, 2023 at 4:54 PM"
Dave,
I believe this is the document from which you quote:
Microsoft Word - 2019-11-11 FCFC Letter for translation.docx (usccb.org)
On a point of information, has this 2019 Letter now been superseded by the “Introductory Note” that is both a Bulletin insert and the “Introduction” at the beginning of “Faithful Citizenship” or has it been reissued/ratified somewhere? I cannot find an answer to this question. See:
https://www.usccb.org/resources/Introductory-Note-Bulletin-Insert.pdf
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
While enumerating many other issues as well, this Introductory Note/Introduction does contain the language “The threat of abortion remains our pre-eminent priority because it directly attacks our most vulnerable and voiceless brothers and sisters and destroys more than a million lives per year in our country alone.” But that is as far as it goes in addressing abortion and it does not contain the additional language from the 2019 Introductory Letter.
If the 2019 Introductory Letter has indeed been reissued/ratified somewhere, can you please point us toward it. Thanks.
Mark J.
Sophia -
I am not basing my choice on how I "feel" about a candidate. I am basing my choice on what that candidate has said and done. And I am basing my choice on what Trump has said he will do if elected. That is not "feeling." You are content with having a liar, felon, sexual abuser, braggart, zero-sum transactionist, bully, serial adulterer, faux Christian, and disloyal person in office. I am not.
I posted no "half truths" nor have I "twisted facts." Everything I posted about Trump is 100% true and factual.
To claim that my conscience is not "well formed" because I do not reach the conclusion you reach is ridiculous. The Church respects the conscience of each individual. You, apparently, do not.
You have repeated stated here that you DO NOT believe there can exist proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Now, you CHANGE your tune when you state, "We all agree that there are PROPORTIONATE reasons..." Now it will be excruciatingly difficult for you to explain yourself.
I have revealed the reasons why I think Trump is not the better choice for the office of President. You don't agree with them - that's fine.
I am entirely comfortable with my choice, a choice I find entirely tenable.
Thank you for finally admitting what your "proportunate" reasons are which are excellent examples of what Pope Benedict XVl referred to as "The tyranny of Relativism"!
So, for the benefit of those readers who had not read our exchanges before, the following responses too (from June 21, 2023) are worth reposting since they expound on/give an excellent of "proportionality" with reference to abortion!
'Blogger Sophia said...
Sophia here:
"Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas clarifies the teaching of the Church on voting for pro-abortion politicians.
'Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life....'
Cont'd
June 21, 2023 at 7:20 PM"
Cont'd 'Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.
Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).'
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159'
June 21, 2023 at 7:21 PM "
Sophia,
Should we assume, then, that in my thought experiment you would vote for the Harris-Walz ticket and the Democrats? Only if you answer in the affirmative, can we take the rest of what you say seriously.
Assuming, charitably, that you would indeed vote for the Harris-Walz ticket and the Democrats in my thought experiment, far more is at stake than even Father Kavanaugh’s powerful litany of moral reasons, cumulatively proportionate and “truly grave,” suggests.
The USCCB document seems to be premised on the bedrock foundation that we continue to live in a democracy that allows free, open, and civil discussion and debate. There are those in the MAGA movement that do seem to care about this and would be quite happy to move toward an autocracy that implements their agenda. J.D. Vance appears to be one of them, judging from his endorsement blurb of a certain author, Jack Posobiec. And we all know Trump does not care for such a democracy as his still perpetuated Big Lie clearly attests. For more on all this, and the philosophers of the “new right” that seek to justify a “regime change” that risks becoming an autocratic theocracy seeking victory in a “cosmic war” between good and evil, see e.g.,:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/08/jd-vance-post-liberal-catholics-thiel/679388/?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/opinion/jd-vance-fascism-unhumans.html?
Vance (and others of similar persuasion), it is said, is inspired by Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings. But as the following article suggests, he has likely missed its essential lesson about the darkness of the will to power:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/opinion/maga-tolkien-lotr.html?searchResultPosition=2
I stand to be corrected on the theological point, but this seems to resonate with the third temptation of Jesus by Satan in the desert. Our Lord rejected this temptation and chose another way, the only true way.
I agree that our liberal democracy is corrupt and in need of significant reform. But you cannot reform what you no longer have. I also want to see a country where no one chooses abortion as an option. But we disagree profoundly on how to achieve that result.
Please do not assume you know what I think or how I form my conscience. If you really want to know my views, once again I refer you to my book, especially chapter 8 on political conversation and how to transform our liberal democratic state into a republic of virtue:
https://www.amazon.com/Professions-Politics-Crisis-Mark-Jones/dp/1531021972
https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781531021979/Professions-and-Politics-in-Crisis
Perhaps you will be charitable enough to read it instead of impugning my character by accusing me (and Father Kavanaugh) of “sophistry, half truths, twisting of facts and distortion of what Pope Benedict XVl meant when he spoke of ‘proportionate’," of engaging in a “charade,” being “oburate,” and “giving scandal.” If we have indeed “given scandal,” it is, with respect, not for you to say so. I am sure Father McDonald is quite capable of making and communicating that judgment.
Regarding charitable political conversation in this Election Season, we would all do well to heed the words in the USCCB Introductory Note for Faithful Citizenship:
https://www.usccb.org/resources/Introductory-Note-Bulletin-Insert.pdf
Correction of spelling typo – Tolkien, not Tolkein
Oh dear, additional typo correction necessary.
Instead of “There are those in the MAGA movement that do seem to care about this and would be quite happy to move toward an autocracy that implements their agenda” read “There are those in the MAGA movement that do NOT seem to care about this and would be quite happy to move toward an autocracy that implements their agenda.”
Sophia - the "Thank you for admitting..." line, or the "You have proved my point..." line are rubbish. No, I have not admitted to being a relativist. Just because you think it does not make it so.
I would note two things. First, you have evaded how you, while previously holding that there were NO proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-choice candidate, now say, ""We all agree that there are PROPORTIONATE reasons..." Why the change. Second, you have chosen not to respond to Mark's thought experiment. Why is that?
When we go to the polls in November, voters will be choosing the candidate that he/she believes will be best for the office of President. We are not choosing a PTO chairperson, a corporation CEO, or the head of the local Right to Life committee. The considerations regarding the two candidates are unimaginably broad. You would be satisfied with a person, Trump, who, while saying he is pro-life, has no regard for the liberal democracy. I would not. You would be satisfied with a person who, while saying he is pro-life, has been convicted of felonies and who is still on trial for other crimes. I would not. You would be satisfied with a person who praises dictators and believes what they say while dismissing the heads of various American intelligence agencies. I would not. You would choose a convicted sexual abuser, a serial adulterer, a man who, recently, denigrated the recipients of the Medal of Honor. I would not. You would be satisfied with a person who continues to spread the Big Lie that the last election was stolen from him. It was not. And I would not. You would be satisfied to have a president who does not value NATO, who lies incessantly, who, like a third grader on the playground, calls his opponents names, who calls himself a Christian while exhibiting few, if any, of the qualities that should be evident in the life of a follower of Jesus. I would not.
In case you did not see Trump's comments about the Medal of Honor: “It’s (the Presidential medal of Freedom) actually much better, because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, that’s soldiers ‒ they’re either in very bad shape, because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead,”
You want to boil all this down to one question, saying that ALL other issues are not "proportionate." I say they are, and that they disqualify Trump from holding any office of public or private trust.
Post a Comment