We continue from yesterday with Email #4, in which my reader simply lies to deny that Trump has raised funding for Planned Parenthood–because lies are all the Cult has:
You claim President Trump is doing nothing about planned parenthood.
That you link Pravda is charming. But the fact remains that Trump is giving PP $550 Million in this next budget–and that he and his Crime Syndicate Party raised PP funding by 8% last year. The “prolife” movement is fine with that, as is evidenced by your deflection and excuse-making here.
Email #5, in which we pivot away from “I care 100% what the Church teaches” and go straight for “Trump is way better than the black guy. Look! Here’s a black guy who says so!”
According to African American Larry Elder:
You keep comparing Trump to your culture war enemy and not to the gospel. Why?
Speaking of pardons, Trump is pardoning proven war criminals. Do you defend that too?
Email #6, in which some guy at EWTN is exalted above the guidance given by Cardinal Ratzinger to the American Church in order to lie that if you ever vote for any pro-choice candidate for any reason, you have sinned!!!””:
If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.
According to the EWTN Voting guide You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal.
According to the EWTN voting guide you may NOT vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights.
Prescinding from the fact that Trump and the GOP both support abortion right given the fact that they raised Planned Parenthood funding by 8% last year and will be re-funding it to the tune of $550 million this year, so *you* are (wrongly declaring yourself guilty of supporting abortion, let’s review:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
EWTN, which is now nothing more than FOX with smells and bells, is wrong and B16 is right. Given proportional reasons, you can vote for a pro-abort pol in order to lessen evil, especially when both parties support abortion, which is absolutely the case now. I explain how here.
When you have a choice between the Abortion Party and the Abortion+Gravest Domestic Threat Since the Civil War Party, you can (and should) support the Abortion Party since it is your only shot at ending the threat of the far graver danger.Wbh
The MAGA cult doesn’t care about the unborn. It just uses them as human shields for all the evils it wants to do.