 |
| Alex Wong/Getty Images |
A predictable pick by Hillary Clinton. Pandering to the Catholic vote, and in light of the fact that the majority of Catholics in America are poorly catechized and barely practicing, she tags Virginia Senator Tim Kaine for her running mate, a man who is a "Catholic but":
In an interview in the Capitol, Kaine -- a Catholic who personally opposes abortion -- says his views on the issue have not changed over his career.
But asked if he would characterize himself as "pro-life," he said: "I've never embraced labels."
"I have a traditional Catholic personal position, but I am very strongly supportive that women should make these decisions and government shouldn't intrude," Kaine told CNN. "I'm a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade and women being able to make these decisions." [emphases mine]
Those who cry out for "integrity" in this election should note well that Kaine is the opposite of integrated. He claims a faith, then rejects it when it actually matters. I'm fairly certain that God is not interested in Kaine's sacrifice of the innocent for political expediency, the esteem of men, and ascendency of power.
As my own wonderful Bishop Thomas Olmsted has said:
"The 'Catholic but. . .' syndrome stands in direct contradiction to Jesus' clear and unequivocal demand (Mk 8:34-36), 'Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the Gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?'"
Mr. Kaine has a 100% rating and endorsement from rabid pro-abortion groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and 100% from Human Rights Campaign [LGBT advocacy] for his "position on marriage" -- namely, his full support of gay "marriage", i.e., his complete rejection of natural law and the teaching of his professed Catholic faith.
So while I am not at all surprised that Hillary picked such a man, each and every time I hear of yet another "Catholic but" (Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius, Cuomo, pick-a-Kennedy, etc.), I immediately think ...
Tell it to the Judge.
And good luck with that.
Lord, have mercy.
It's tough, you know? I don't really think either party is great. So where does that leave the United States?
ReplyDeleteThe United States is in a bad, precarious position. We have wondered far from the moral law, which is the foundation of all just laws (and it's what the Founders had in mind, without a doubt).
ReplyDelete"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
So, we are a great experiment. America could never save. But it gave us a great opportunity for freedom, until we misused it.
Having said all that, I am voting for Trump. I figure I will post on the whys of that at another time, but basically, I will do whatever I can to keep Hillary out of power. I will vote to mitigate evil. And the biggest evil I see ahead is a Hillary presidency, with Hillary judges, Hillary executive orders, Hillary Cabinet members, etc. No bueno.
*wandered
DeleteI'm also trying to think that through, to justify Trump as the lesser of two evils. So, on the plus side, Trump can't possibly appoint people at leadership levels less competent than himself. Then there is the possibility that he will appoint good judges. Then, if the Republicans retain control of Congress, they will be sending him good or at least goodish bills to sign.
DeleteKevin, as per the rules, I'm going to respond at the very end of the thread, so look for that....
DeleteLooking forward to that post. Honestly, I'm relieved I don't have to make the choices you do in the Autumn. Praying for you.
ReplyDeleteLeila, you read my mind. My wife just heard a tirade on the same topic. I'd rather dig ditches every day for year than deal with another national catholic politician who stands on the churches steps and at the same time mocks her beliefs on core issues. There is something very strange about people who reject the lynchpin teachings yet won't walk away. They need to stick around and poison the well. What kind of weenie joins a club or group, decides their beliefs are baked, but hangs around for 50 years anyway? I have a whole new reason to really oppose Clinton.
ReplyDeleteChris, it's like the "vegan" who is "personally opposed to eating meat", but owns and runs and advocates for slaughterhouses and burger joints. What the hell kind of vegan is that, and why would he call himself a vegan and who would think this is a man of integrity? BIZARRO WORLD.
ReplyDeleteOh, and this is rich!
ReplyDeleteWhen pressed by the Post in 2012 on how he makes peace with his personal beliefs and public stances, Kaine said, “I have really struggled with that as governor.” He continued, “I hope I can give a good accounting of myself on Judgment Day.”
Yet Kaine told C-SPAN he is constantly considering the bigger picture when he is voting or pushing an issue, something he traces back to his time with the Jesuits.
“Everybody has motivations in life,” he said. “I do what I do for spiritual reasons.”
http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/vp-pick-sen-tim-kaine-seeks-balance-catholic-faith-democratic-politics
His words are examples of when your position is absurd and you are pressed to explain it, all you can come up with is nonsense.
DeleteAren't almost all "Catholic buts" those who were "born into their faith", baptized as infants, often poorly catechized, but never formally left it because they consider Catholicism their spiritual home where they continue to find many like-minded people? They may also feel that they don't want to leave the faith to "crazies" or fundamentalists like us, that the true faith of Jesus Christ is the one of a social liberal, and that somehow the Church is misguided in its teachings on sexual morality? I haven't come across adults who have freely converted to Catholicism (and received proper catechism) and yet are what you call "Catholic buts".
ReplyDeleteBtw, thanks Leila for the "education" on Tim Kaine, over here across the pond you only read that he is a Catholic who opposes abortion,so I had difficulty squaring that with what I know about HRC's position on sexual morality (I was too lazy this morning googling the man after reading the news of the VP pick).
Donald Trump is an insane person. He is completely unqualified. He makes fun of disabled people. He is a racist. He is a misogynists. He is also loved by the KKK. Thinking that once he gets into office he will be controlled is reckless. Voting for him is racist and despicable. I am horrified to find fellow Catholics even considering giving this monster their vote. His economic plan will destroy family life. He says he will give billionaires and millionaires the greatest tax cut in history. He is an idiot. He is an abusive, belligerent, thin-skinned frat boy. He doesn't believe in global warming. Since when do Catholics deny science? Since when do Catholics vote with the KKK? What is going on here?
ReplyDeleteSebastian, I think you very correct. The anchor of truth was dropped long ago but they are at home in their rebellion and have lots of company. It's an integrity issue for sure. If your a dissenting Lutheran , you probably just move on to Lutheran 2.0 or start your own "church of Jesus on the seventh day in the potters house assembly community of the word" ( or something).
ReplyDeleteI think there is an element of " to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life".
Today though, we celebrate and admire the morally conflicted wondering Juans and mark them as open minded. And make them speakers of the house and VP's.
Sebastian, I am just so blown away that the press can say he is opposed to abortion, even in Europe! What a crock. And people believe this?
ReplyDeleteJoJo, your characterization is so over the top, I don't even know where to begin. I guess you have never met a blowhard in your life? Trump is a blowhard, yes. He's not a politician. He is what he is and he's learning to be more diplomatic. Look to his hiring practices to see if he is a misogynist and racist. I don't think the guy is a stellar human being, but I will pick "blowhard" over "cool, calculated, sinister" any day of the week. That is why I will vote for Trump over Hillary.
Kevin, the "lesser of two evils" thing is often misused and it's my pet peeve, sorry, ha ha. When we are choosing between two actions, we may never choose to do evil, period, even the lesser of two evils. If it were truly an evil act to vote for either Hillary or Trump, we could do neither. So, that principle can't apply here, to voting (unless voting is sometimes evil, which I don't think it is). We can't talk of "people" as being "evil" (since we don't know their hearts). So, it's not a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, since we are not committing evil by voting for imperfect candidates, in order to mitigate further evil (which is a good). I have been meaning to write a post on that. Someday. :)
ReplyDeleteI know what people mean when they say it in regard to this election and these candidates, but it still doesn't mean what they think it means.
I don't think it is appropriate for you do decide whom is more 'Catholic'. Glass houses and all.
ReplyDeleteI never claimed to the man was not Catholic. But would you agree that some Catholics are more faithful to Catholic church teaching than others? Let's start there.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if a Catholic politician voted to pick off the elderly with sniper fire, would you say he was a "devout Catholic"?
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true political whore. You either believe in pro-life (a verb-noun not a label) and support it or you don't. If you don't, don't call yourself a Catholic! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKz4vq_ew5M
ReplyDeleteTrump hates Catholics, why vote for him? Not to mention he's the most anti Catholic candidate ever. He's not for helping the poor, only himself. He hates others. Not Catholic in anyway.
ReplyDeleteSo if we're going to rant about Trump, a la JoJo's reply here, then let's be fair, level the playing field, and rant about Clinton.
ReplyDeleteJoJo's emotional rant implies that Clinton is somehow spotless and/or ideal in comparison to Trump. We all know that isn't true, so she should at least be honest in objective assessment and give a rant in that direction, too.
And I would argue JoJo's assertion that Trump is not qualified.
Trump is a very successful businessman. I respect that much about him. I look at all he brings to the table with his business knowledge and expertise and how he can apply that to the world of politics. I had (and have) the same type of respect for Fiorina but knew she wouldn't get very far, unfortunately.
Trump (like Fiornia) knows how to manage people. He knows how to run systems to make them most efficient. He knows how to strategize and make prudent decisions concerning spending, programs, initiatives under all kinds of interior umbrellas and systems.
He's no stranger to critical thinking and determining solutions (backward, even) all because of his business experience.
He knows how to interface with customers (ie., leaders/clients/personal staff) inside and to groom leaders from within his own group.
He knows all about business cycles and projections (economically and politically). He knows all about re-org, marketing, and having an achievable goal in place. He wants businesses to flourish in this country once again.
He knows what that looks like from the inside-out. He's got so much to bring to the political arena, regardless of how tactless and ill-mannered he is.
Thank you for this post! It's excellent!
ReplyDeleteLeila, do you feel that when Trump is judged, he will receive a favorable judgment? What Catholic values do you believe he embodies? (Is he humble? Does he promote love of our neighbors? Does he put others before himself? Does he treat others kindly? Do you believe that his taking multiple wives sets a better example than Hillary sticking with Bill through his infidelity?)
ReplyDeleteI know that's a lot of questions, and I understand why you wouldn't like Hillary, but I am so curious to understand what a devout Catholic could see in Trump. Are you pinching your nose and voting for him just to keep Hillary out, or do you think he is actually a good, thoughtful person?
I can't say how Trump will be judged as a Catholic professing Catholicism, because he isn't one. I don't know his heart. I don't think he's a fabulous person. I do think he is eons better then the policies and appointments we will get from Hillary. I need to write a post about my thoughts on Trump and the election. Stay tuned for that. But I appreciate the questions! Truly.
ReplyDeleteRadiolaprincess-- The most anti-Catholic candidate and president we have ever had in my opinion is Barack Obama. Who else would fight the Little Sisters of the Poor all the way to the Supreme Court? Who else would compel the fairly milquetoast US Bishops to declare a yearly Fortnight of Freedom because religious freedom is now at stake under his reign? And that's only a couple of the many things that point to Obama as a truly anti-Catholic president.
ReplyDeleteLeila,
ReplyDeletein terms of Kaine, isn't it always better to embrace some of the 'right' positions rather than none of them at all?
I'm not catholic, as you know ;). And i know that you have a passion for family life issues. But are you saying that catholicism is fundamentaly/ only about abortion birth control, same sex marriage? I certainly comprehend not voting for Hilary. But I must say I don't understand the christian case for supporting trump on the basis of family values.
Isn't serial divorce and remarriage a far greater threat to the family than gay marriage which effects a comparatively much smaller population? I don't understand embracing one pubicly but outlawing the other legally?
CS, perhaps it's like saying "I firmly believe in the constitution, except for the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendments".
ReplyDeleteUnless you are on a college campus of course. Then it would be a mainline position
I'll be interested in reading your vote Trump article.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, our choice is not between HRC and DJT. We have third party candidates, and I think even a write-in option. The fact that those candidates have no chance of being elected doesn't mean we only have two choices.
I can't vote for HRC and I won't vote for DJT. I will probably vote third party, but haven't decided. I can't bear the idea of having to look future generations in the face and say, "Well, yes, I did vote for him... I didn't know he'd do THAT. I thought he'd be more controlled..."
CS, remember, my vote for Trump is not because he is the best candidate. He is certainly not. He is not anyone I would have handpicked. But I will vote for him to mitigate the evil that is Hillary's policies.
ReplyDeletePersonal failures and sins are not my main concern in the public square. So, a serial adulterer is awful, as is serial divorce and remarriage. Indeed. Bad stuff. But that is not what I'm voting for. I'm voting for the one who will implement the policies that most closely align to my own. Not that Trump's agenda will be aligned with mine, but it will be a whole lot better than what Hillary will do. Not even a question.
And just for the record, gay "marriage" hast very much affected Christians and Catholics, even in our freedom to conduct our businesses as always have. Suddenly, we are legally "discriminators" if we live our faith (when we never were before), and we are further and further marginalized. I have written quite a bit on this, as have others. ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom) has a lot on this, on their site. They are a legal defense organization.
And, no, those issues are not all there is to Catholicism. But in the public square, Catholics have very specific obligations and concerns. The non-negatiables for Catholics in the public square are abortion, ESCR (embryonic stem cell research), euthanasia, marriage, and the rights of parents to educate their children. I wrote about what that means (with statements from the popes and bishops), here:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-i-cannot-be-catholic-and-democrat.html
Did you mean "Catholic Butt"? Hey, if John the Baptist could call out "A brood of vipers!"..... Which by the way, I try to avoid being in that group, but not always successful.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it's perfectly acceptable to vote for Trump merely to keep Hilary out! I mean just the fact that he's not afraid to have his hair that way tells me that he is his own man. Seriously. And I'm not sure, but I don't believe that he is proud of the fact that he divorced his first wife. And how do we know that he hasn't learned anything from his failures? Look at some of the saints. The question is did he try? Is he sorry? Repentant? Able to lead? Why not consider praying for him? Have you heard from his children? I have and I really liked what they had to say.
Oh sorry, and second wife as well. :/ Still.
DeleteBut are you saying that catholicism is fundamentaly/ only about abortion birth control, same sex marriage?
ReplyDeleteNo. Catholicism is not only about those things. Leila is merely illustrating the contrast between what Kaine says he believes in versus what he actually politically and morally supports when the rubber meets the road
CS, Kaine is only up to there to win Virginia.
It’s not like people even known who he is or are rallying to want him next in line as President. It’s all concocted by Hillary to take that state.
Isn't serial divorce and remarriage a far greater threat to the family than gay marriage which effects a comparatively much smaller population?
Trump doesn’t openly advocate for serial divorce and remarriage as part of his platform, so what does this point have to do with Trump or Clinton/Kaine?
Leila, do you feel that when Trump is judged, he will receive a favorable judgment? What Catholic values do you believe he embodies? (Is he humble? Does he promote love of our neighbors? Does he put others before himself? Does he treat others kindly? Do you believe that his taking multiple wives sets a better example than Hillary sticking with Bill through his infidelity?)
Politics is about policy-making and money.
If we had to worry whether someone was perfect enough (morally) to vote for him/her, then we’d be waiting til Christ’s second coming where we would then vote for Him (even though he didn’t partake in human politics because that wasn’t His idea of a kingdom of real power, anyway).
It’s literally impossible to have such a pristine choice before us. Policy and plans are all we can listen to and vote on. Judging a candidate based on how Catholic he/she is (when the person’s not even Catholic), or worse, trying to assume how God would judge him/her personally at death, isn’t really our aim when ticking the box. A vote for Trump isn't a vote for his moral failings.
I do not consider abortion in any legitimate way when voting in national or state elections. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any intention of ever making abortion illegal.
ReplyDeleteRepublican appointed Supreme Court Justices have had the majority and still didn't do it.
In my opinion if you vote based on abortion, its a wasted vote. That goes for whatever side you are on.
Opps I forgot to say I can't wait for the Trump post. I won't vote for HRC but still feeling like I have to hold my nose for Trump.
ReplyDeleteNubby
ReplyDelete"Trump doesn’t openly advocate for serial divorce and remarriage as part of his platform, so what does this point have to do with Trump or Clinton/Kaine?"
Someone unrepentantly doing anything absolutely advocates that behavior. What an absurd statement. If Trump was a married gay man, but his platform merely didn't mention gay marriage, you don't think his de facto marriage would be an endorsement of gay marriage. You're telling me you'd vote for him then?
Leila,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't insinuating that gay marriage hasn't affected your religious rights. I was asking why endorsing serial adultery/ remarriage was somehow better than endorsing gay marriage, unless the reason is that endorsing adultery/ remarriage doesn't have the same reprocussions on your religious freedoms? If i was a gay american, I would question why the would be president of the united states should get to violate and be hailed for violating 'tradition marriage' and depriving his chiddren of a stable committed mother-father environment, but I can't. I've always thought the gay lobby was a little much, but as of late it seems their claims of discrimination seems more valid
CS, who has "endorsed" serial adultery/remarriage? Sorry, that confuses me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, claims of "discrimination" -- you mean "unjust discrimination", yes? And what or how have they been discriminated against, if there is no way that two men can form a conjugal union? Again, that brings us back to an older discussion.
But if you mean, "Hey, heteros get to do whatever they want with their genitals and have sex casually for pleasure, so why can't gays?" then yes, you are right.... if there is no purpose or meaning to marriage or sex, then anyone should be able to do anything they want sexually, at any time. Are you for that? Neither am I.
CS, wait, so when people sin, they are "endorsing" that action? So, when I am uncharitable (which is often) and slothful (often), I am endorsing sloth and lack of charity? Do you really think that follows?
ReplyDeleteIf trump we're a gay man married to another man, would you vote for him? Likely not, because even if he refrained from commenting on gay marriage, his gay marriage is an endorsement for gay marriage, is it not? Would you vote for a gay married man for public office?
ReplyDeleteLeila, i'm for consistency and standards. Creating 'standards' and applying them to a minority population before you apply them to yourself is the text book definition of unfair discrimination.
Sex and Marriage have been ruined by straight people, but you want to hold gays responsible. Even abortion is something that has mostly resulted by coercion/ maltreatment from men, but you seek to hold women responsible. I don't comprehend holding the more traditionally vulnerable group responsible. I don't frankly comprehend this.
And i originally voted against gay marriage
Someone unrepentantly doing anything absolutely advocates that behavior. What an absurd statement.
ReplyDeleteLol, well, try to relax. What's "absurd" is this statement that what I have said is somehow 'absurd'. Leila took the words from my lips.
CS, people's moral failings are beside the point. He doesn't openly endorse that people walk his own footsteps, as Leila already said.
You're casting the first stone anyway, CS. And you assume too many things, wrongly. If you're assuming that people need to be spotless before they can stand for something, then you first need to tick your own failings before you call someone else's logic 'absurd'. That's just logical analysis.
As to your point about marriage being ruined by straight people, who here has ever disputed that? Of course no fault divorce is horrible. No one ever says otherwise.
Yet, saying we hold gays responsible is not true. Saying we don't condone it isn't the same thing as saying they're solely responsible. Differentiations are key in discussions like these, CS. FLOWCHARTS
Nubby,
ReplyDeleteSo you would welcome Trump if he were a Gay married man, so long as he didn't positively advocate for more gay marriage, correct? Because I mean his moral failings are besides the point. Good to know
I'm not saying only perfect people should have opinions, I'm saying if you unrepentantly violate the santicty of marriage you can't try to uphold the sanctity of marriage only as it applies to prohibiting other people from doing a variation of something you continue to do. It shows you don't care about marriage, it shows you only care about controlling another group of people.
If you think no fault divorce is horrible and gay marriage is horrible but only lobby for laws against one, you are attempting to hold the gays solely accountable (even if you acknowledge with words that they are not)
CS,
ReplyDeletelol, what are you even talking about? You sound lathered up for some reason.
If Trump was a gay man, he'd most likely be advocating for that since that is a completely politically charged movement that is now enjoying new found acknowledgement under federal law.
Trump is pushing no policy with plans for legislating acknowledgement for his own adultery or adultery in any marriage. You don't see this?
As to your quasi-accusation about me apparently holding gays accountable for marriage woes, where do you get this drivel from?
Lol, how do you know what I lobby for or against? Unjust assumptions, again. Your assertions shouldn't be so terribly, I don't know- inaccurate and whiny.
Why has this conversation- about Kaine's lip service to Catholicism, mind you- get detonated and splattered into fragments of nonsense in 55 directions about me "blaming gays" and none of it correlates logically or sensibly?
Your second paragraph just repeats the fact that you love casting that first stone. A person can be a sinner and still uphold what is integral to society, even if he/she hasn't been A++ in that area.
And, what- you want to tell Trump he has no right to, ya know, have an opinion on policy or a plan of action for policy because he is a horrible spouse? What the? How many presidents do you realize were/are cheaters? And what, Hillary Clinton is stellar because she hasn't had an affair? Is that what this line of argumentation is about? Drawing back to somehow prove that her "moral character" is top notch over his? Or are you just blowing smoke because Trump is a lousy man in your assessment? Tie it all together or it's just wandering a pasture of disembodied thoughts that sounds like angry modern feminism, looking for a man to blame.
Tell your spiel to every politician then, because their whole shtick is to dance around issues as slickly as possible. Moral character in everyone but Trump, eh? My foot.
If you're worried about "consistency" - which is what you told Leila - then be "consistent" when you look at marriage, at political frauds, at political machines, at fundamental building blocks of society and at the political agendas that want to make America weak and keep it that way.
Am I right? You're not in college anymore. You're a full fledged adult. Let's laser through the spoon fed nonsense of college life and starting wading into the really deep waters of what makes society unravel and why it's happening, and who's really driving that, since we're looking at "what makes someone a moral slouch", k? Start with Hillary, since you can't tolerate Trump.
I just finished a post on what I will be doing in the time leading up to the election: I shall be praying for our country, and for God's mercy. I don't know what that means regarding who will or "should be" elected, but I will vote my conscience and Trust in Him. I won't pray for any particular result, because who knows the ways of God? Perhaps it doesn't matter who is elected president; perhaps they will drop dead the minute they take the oath, and then the vice-president will be more critical. Or perhaps some disaster will happen shortly after taking office and some even further down successor will be critical. Those things are things in God's hands.
ReplyDeleteJudging, worrying, and criticizing each other won't make things better. Staying informed on the issues, the people, and praying is my plan. Perhaps this was declared The Year of Mercy for a very profound reason.
CS, I have to agree with Nubby, you seem to be all over the place.
ReplyDeleteAnd please, please, please: If anyone is ever introducing legislation to repeal no-fault divorce, I will promote that to the hilt! I will cry with joy!!! Please, let me know when that happens. I oppose no-fault divorce as strongly as I oppose gay "marriage".
Donald Trump did say something about his support for the gays in his nomination acceptance speech.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there is no candidate that you can know for sure where they stand on every issue that is important to you personally. I also think that even if they feel strongly about an issue they can go the opposite way due to a deal they have to make about another important issue.
This election is a beautiful illustration of the inherent moral failure of any stripe of politics. As a Seventh-day Adventist, my church specifically teaches there is no salvation in politics or politicians. Which is why we are encouraged to remain relatively apolitical. Honestly, neither Trump nor Hilary is the answer. Christianity is. So vote your conscience. But unless people are converted spiritually, in the end, these elections, votes, etc won't matter a bit. I think that's why Jesus was so unconcerned in endorsing this or that faction, political group, and government in His time. He knew unless people's hearts were changed, working through politics was pointless.
ReplyDeleteSunwoo,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, God and living a holy life are the most important things. But we are to live those holy lives to the fullest extent. As a Catholic who grew up in a protestant nation (The US) I can tell you politics and law very much matters when it interferes with our duty to be Witnesses for Christ.
That includes being able to educate ourselves and others. That means being able to practice our religion which is more than just the sacraments and praying. For Catholics, that may mean we do not disburse birth control, support abortion or participate in homosexual marriages.
We are on the path to lose our free speech and we've been on that path for a long time. You only have to look at Canada to see how a population can lose their free speech and celebrate it. (I often hear them say "We have free speech, EXCEPT hate speech." Which is not free speech at all.)
If we lose free speech, the free practice of our religion will become much more difficult. It will mean our children will have to be taught their religion in secret and will not be able to practice their faith openly. As someone who grew up around those hostile to Catholics, I can only imagine how awful it would have been had I not been able to answer back. I don't want that for my children or grandchildren.
My interest in politics is not to convert others but to protect my right and my descendant's rights to exist as open Catholics.
Agreed, Hafsa...here in MN, it's much the same, at least presidentially.
ReplyDeleteAs for Kaine, I'm pleased with the choice. Far better to have someone who is personally opposed to abortion than one who celebrates it. It also gives us another option.
ReplyDeleteIf Hillary wins we can storm Heaven with prayers and Masses for Kaine to have a deeper conversion to his Catholic faith. At a heartbeat away from the presidency, the man will have a lot of power. It would also be something to unite American Catholics and push our focus and hope to God.
Catholics have traditionally prayed for their families: living, dead, and yet to be born. I suspect the "Catholic, but" adults are those who had parents, grandparents and more praying for them. Those prayers are a tether between the person and their faith. A grace granted not on the merits of the flawed adult but their holy grandmother.
When considering who to vote for this November, it’d be prudent, I think, to keep in mind that this is not (just) a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; when one votes (for non independents) one doesn’t just vote for a person, but for a party as well.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so Trump is thrice-married, a vacillating political amateur and a boor, and by some accounts even a misogynist and racist.
Clinton is commonly accepted to be corrupt to the bone, dangerously “careless” with national security, yet untouchable by the arm of the law (per the FBI), with a plethora of failures and not a single notable achievement to show despite decades in politics, a propagator of abortion right up to seconds before a pain-capable child’s birth and even a defender of partial birth abortions, with patent disdain for the unalienable religious freedoms of Americans - unless their beliefs align with her own (“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs … have to be changed…” – April 23, 2015)
From what is known/reasonably assumable, here’s what’s on offer so far.
On the one hand the (package) choice is comprised of:
1. A flawed, amateur, Donald Trump as President.
2. 100% pro-life Mike Pence as Vice President.
3. Trey Gowdy as Attorney General.
4. Supreme Court Justices to be appointed from a list vetted (indeed partly compiled) by conservative bodies like the Heritage Foundation.
5. A focus on national security issues, including (hard) immigration policies.
6. Possible repeal of the Johnston Amendment - the 1954 tax law prohibiting churches and tax-exempt institutions from political organizing. (Commitment to this reversal is now in the GOP platform.)
7. The most pro-life GOP platform ever.
[https://www.gop.com/platform/]
On the other hand is offered:
1. An establishment veteran, Hillary Clinton, as President, corrupt and personally indebted to a whole host of corrupt/criminal foreign donors to her “charitable” Foundation (which actually donates only 10% of its millions in takings), and the only Presidential candidate ever to be endorsed in a primary by Planned Parenthood.
2. 100% NARAL and Planned Parenthood certified pro-choice Tim Kaine as Vice President.
3. Loretta Lynch continuing as Attorney General (clandestine meeting on plane with spouse of subject of interest to the FBI notwithstanding).
4. The SCOTUS bench to be (further) skewed towards (rogue) judicial activism, continuing to discover legal tenets allegedly concealed in the penumbra (penumbra = shadowy region) of the Constitution – as it did in Roe and Obergefell – to further “fundamentally transform” America.
5. Increasing appeasement of globalists (e.g., by continued participation in the UN’s dubious ‘Strong Cities Network’ program), even at the risk of erosion of US sovereignty, national security, and principles of subsidiarity.
6. Almost certain shelving of the Hyde Amendment – which bans the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion (except to save the life of a pregnant woman or in cases of rape or incest). Almost sure repeal of the Helms Amendment, which will mean American taxpayers will be paying for the slaughter of children not just in the US but around the world.
7. The most radically liberal Democrat platform to date (embracing, among other things, prosecution of people who disagree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change, a minimum wage of $15 across all states and all types of businesses, abortion for everybody on earth, paid for by Americans, trade protectionism to “protect worker’s rights” against the scourge of “corporate profits”, further expansion of entitlement programs to be paid for by further taxing of personal incomes of $250,000 or more, amnesty for virtually all undocumented migrants, and “recognition of the role activists and recent movements (like BLM) have played in putting these issues front and center in the national conversation, as they should be.” [https://demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7.1.16.pdf]
College Student,
ReplyDeleteMaybe this will help. You are trying to make a comparison between what you believe to be apples to apples and Catholics see as apples to oranges. You are assuming the Catholics see all sins against marriage as the same, and we don't.
Catholicism teaches that Sodomy is one of the four sins so evil it cries out to Heaven for justice. Adultery is not one of those sins.
(I'm not going to spend time insisting adultery is an evil sin and a terrible plague on our society. I think we all agree to that or all agree most Catholics believe that.)
There are many Christians who object to Trump based on his multiple marriages. There are plenty who may very well choose not to support Trump because of that. There are plenty of others who will support him despite his flaws. Trump supports are generally not shy about admitting Trump is flawed.
But it is false to say if we refuse to support an openly gay, "married" man we have to refuse to support Trump in order to be internally consistent.
Apples and Oranges.
I think the guy who told Jesus that he would follow Him, "...but, first let me bury my father..." was the first 'Catholic, butt'. Jesus didn't paint that guy's future very well.
Delete(Posted as a REPLY out of necessity)
Francis, I agree with your assessment. It seems a no-brainer to me.
ReplyDeleteStarFireKK, I admit, I had to read this twice:
"As for Kaine, I'm pleased with the choice. Far better to have someone who is personally opposed to abortion than one who celebrates it."
How does "personal opposition" mean a dang thing (for his own soul or for the nation) ttwhen he is so radical on abortion that he even co-sponsors a bill that would wipe out any state restrictions, even the most mild and common-sensical? To co-sponsor a bill, one must be a true believer. It's a pro-active thing, not passive agreement. He was pro-life when he started out, until he realized (like Kennedy, Kerry, and others) that his political ambitions would end if he stayed faithful. He switched and became vociferously pro-abortion, which every action of his proves, and now gives cover to all pro-abortion Catholic voters, or the merely ignorant and lukewarm who don't know any better.
I just don't get the sentiment at all. "Pleased with the choice"? I am baffled....
Meantime, I am sorry to be slow to respond, as I have my daughter and her two babies here for a few days! Making the most of it!! :)
My relative silence doesn't mean I'm not reading these interesting and thoughtful comments. And the Trump post will come out probably closer to the election (or at least after I take my son to college -- right now he's at World Youth Day, so please say a prayer for him and the rest of the pilgrims if you could!).
ddoggall, but at least that poor guy didn't know any better and thought he was doing a righteous, godly thing! :)
ReplyDeleteWell, first, this is my back-up plan. My first plan is to not let Hillary or Kaine anywhere near the White House.
ReplyDeleteBut Hillary was never going to pick a pro-life person. I have no doubt she picked Kaine in part because of his weak faith.
Kaine is a scandalous Catholic. He ought to be called to the floor for that. We ought to point out to him and his supports every chance we have that he is Not practicing his faith. He is actively going against it and he is supporting and aiding the murder of countless children.
If the bishops want to take a harder stance than that, well, that would be a new direction for them, wouldn't it?
But I doubt they will, so what do we do? I propose we go back to our roots and inspire some honest Catholic guilt and pray.
Let's have a public prayer crusade for all of our scandalous Catholic politicians (especially Kaine, if he is VP) so they may grow in their faith and their love and understanding of our Lord deepens.
Let's start tossing down the dollars we need for Mass intentions and start asking our parish priests to say Mass for these erroring souls.
Let's say rosaries and make sacrifices all while pushing on Kaine that his actions do not mesh with his stated faith.
Even if doesn't work (because he is as you said a true believer) it will at least weaken the cover given to these scandalous Catholics. It is hard to say "Well, I am still a good Catholic" when people are publicly and vocally praying for you to reform your ways so you won't merit hell.
It is completely politically incorrect, and unbelievably aggressive for mild-manner Catholics. But if Hillary wins, what do we have to lose?
Starfire KK,
ReplyDelete"Maybe this will help. You are trying to make a comparison between what you believe to be apples to apples and Catholics see as apples to oranges. You are assuming the Catholics see all sins against marriage as the same, and we don't.
Catholicism teaches that Sodomy is one of the four sins so evil it cries out to Heaven for justice. Adultery is not one of those sins."
This does clear it up for me. To Clarify for Leila, I posted to this originally because of her comments regarding Kaine's embracing of same sex marriage. I thought because of Trump running that religious conservatives were generally conceding gay marriage, because from a sanctity of marriage standpoint, Trumps relationships were equivalent. This also answers my question as to why the religious right isn't leading a movement to end no fault divorce but they are leading a movement to invalidate gay marriage.
Can someone point out in scripture itself where it states homosexuality is considered a worse sin than premarital sex, polygamy, adultery, etc? If someone said it in previous comments I apologize. I didn't read every single one.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to how this distinction is made. In the Old Testament, if I'm Not mistaken, premarital sex was a capital crime. The older I get the more I can understand why. Over generations, it has helped weaken, degrade, twist, and confuse the family unit. So when people tell me as Christians they view homosexuality as a graver threat to marriage than something like premarital sex, i must ask for biblical evidence.
The day will never come when I vote for Hillary Clinton. But the day will also never come when I would vote for Donald Trump. Period.
ReplyDeleteThere are four sins listed in the bible that cry out to heaven. Murder, Sodomy, oppression of the poor, and depriving the worker his just wages. Each of these is listed in the bible stating they cry out to God.
ReplyDeleteSodomy is 18:20-21.
My understanding (and only my understanding- please feel free to correct me) is when we talk about the Sin of Sodom we are talking about widespread sexual deviance. Sodomy in modern usage typically means unnatural acts including homosexual sex. Premarital sex and adultery are likely to be common in a society that celebrates homosexuality but the reverse isn't necessarily true.
So when we start talking about gay marriage lots of Catholics think "Sodom and Gomorrah." We are less likely to ignore homosexuality because it is disordered and unnatural.
The nature of the sins are different. But they are both still rotten and still cause damage to society.
I would say it is time about to have a bit of chat about depriving our workers of their just wage.
ReplyDeleteMaryMargaret, we'd have to start with defining "just wage".
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to help clarify, if I can, that the biblical citation referred to above as 18:20-21 is in the book of Genesis. Footnotes also help to clarify that is what is meant as to why God will destroy Sodom & Gomorrah
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I were just discussing the "personally opposed" argument. When you examine it logically, it really makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteIf you say you're "personally opposed" to abortion, I assume it's because you think that abortion kills a human being. In that case, you're "personally opposed" to killing human beings but you think that others should be able to kill human beings. In that case, you must also be opposed to the criminalization of ALL murder of all human beings -- even if you, yourself, oppose killing human beings.
But if you DON'T think that abortion kills a human being, then there is no reason at all to be "personally opposed" at all. If abortion doesn't kill a human being, it's not wrong and there's no reason to oppose it anymore than you'd oppose wisdom tooth extraction or mole removal.
It just makes no sense. Either you support the killing of human beings, or you oppose it. There isn't any middle ground.
I am paraphrasing: Dr Laura says a "but" in the sentence negates anything that goes before it! So true in this case also.
DeleteYour logic is spot on.
Yes, we need to define "just wage" and the fact that it applies to employers, personally. God will judge the man who defrauds the poor, and he will judge the worker that steals or does not give due work to his employer. We are judged individually for those things. In the public square, there are, according to the popes and bishops, some non-negotiables, all of which the Democrats are proudly, officially, on the wrong side of, by the way.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna, amen! That is perfectly logical. I wish someone would call Kaine out on it.
Can you even imagine who ridiculous they would look if they said..
ReplyDeleteI'm PERSONALLY against raising taxes but I'm going to do it anyways.
I'm PERSONALLY against no restrictions on our gun laws but let's restrict away.
I'm PERSONALLY against gay marriage but I'm going to vote for it anyways.
To me this PERSONALLY crap spells spineless. He's just going to go along with her.
Yes, it's so transparent. And for some reason, otherwise reasonable people seem to believe it's okay! And coherent!
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to your post on Trump. When you write it, I was wondering if you could comment on weighing your concerns with Hillary and abortion versus Trump and respect for life (in areas other than abortion). Additionally, how do you feel about his feud with the Pope? Finally, what do you think about the fact that he used to be pro-choice, and how is that different from Tim Kaine's stance?
ReplyDeleteAll I am going to say is this - For true Catholics, this election should be a "no brainer". Hillary Clinton believes in abortion right up to the time of birth and always has. Not to mention she's so dishonest. Do your research on Trump, who he is and what he's actually done and quit relying on CNN soundbites for "information". I'll just come right out and say it: I'm very saddened and disappointed in my fellow Catholics. Why is anyone even arguing over this? You don't like Trump's personality, etc??? So what? You'd rather see more unborn babies get murdered?
ReplyDelete