Catholics! WAKE UP!

millard-fillmoreThis leaves me disappointed and, frankly, disgusted.

From The Spectator:

Hillary’s Catholic Con

Barack Obama won a majority of the Catholic vote both in 2008 and 2012. Hillary Clinton, according to pollsters, is poised to do the same. She is leading Trump among Catholic voters by over twenty points. In an age of secularism and a secularized Catholic Church, Democrats have never found it easier to con Catholics. The more they promise to persecute them, the more they can count on their vote.

Trump says that he will lift Obama’s contraceptive mandate; she promises to enforce it. Trump says that he will appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade; she promises to protect it. Trump says that he won’t force taxpayers to pay for abortions; she promises to ensure that they do. She is implacably opposed to every tenet of the natural moral law. Yet it appears that Catholics stand ready to vote for her.  [Putting aside what one might think about Trump, I cannot fathom how any even partially well-formed Catholic could stomach the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency, much less voting for her.  I’ve been pretty clear about what my position is: I would vote for the corpse of Millard Filmore if someone ran it, if that meant keeping Clinton out of the White House.]

At the convention, Hillary engineered the most extreme platform ever. Her representatives wrote into it a proposal to undo the Hyde Amendment: “We will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.” “Access” is Hillary’s euphemism for forcing Americans to pay for abortion. If she wins, she will work to turn Obama’s contraceptive mandate into an abortion mandate. Her Catholic running mate, Tim Kaine, who symbolizes the secularization of the Catholic Church in America, has said that he is determined to get “comfortable” with Hillary’s position on the Hyde Amendment.

[…]

One of the overriding issues for me are appointments to the Supreme Court.  I am pretty sure I know what sort of person Hillary Clinton would nominate.  And while we don’t know one way or another whether he would stick to the list, the list that Trump proposed for potential nominees is by far better than the sort of person I am pretty sure Clinton would put forward.   I don’t know about the other candidates – whose names escape me at the moment.  Putting aside her lying and playing fast and loose with National Security and the integrity of the State Department, etc. etc., etc., think about the long-term consequences for this nation and for the world were Hillary’s picks to pack the SCOTUS.

Catholics!  WAKE UP!  

Given the sort of liturgical worship and horrid catechesis we have had since the ’60’s none of this is a surprise.  But it sure is sad to see.

Sigh.  Where are the brightest and the best?   It is hard to blame the people we would hope to see run, and who don’t.  Who would be eager to put themselves and their families through the election meat grinder?

The moderation queue is ON.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Cri de Coeur, Emanations from Penumbras, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Catholics! WAKE UP!

  1. HighMass says:

    HOW can anyone who has a conscience vote for that women???? The devil is working over time to get her elected…Lies, Lies and Lies, Catholics WAKE UP!

  2. jhayes says:

    Archbishop Chaput says that, in his personal view,

    Both major candidates are – what’s the right word? so problematic – that neither is clearly better than the other….

    This year, a lot of good people will skip voting for president but vote for the “down ticket” names on their party’s ballot; or vote for a third party presidential candidate; or not vote at all; or find some mysterious calculus that will allow them to vote for one or the other of the major candidates. I don’t yet know which course I’ll personally choose. It’s a matter properly reserved for every citizen’s informed conscience.

    HERE

    So, different people will properly come to different conclusions as to which of these two problematic people will be the better President.

  3. GypsyMom says:

    “Where are the brightest and the best?” Every election cycle in many levels, there are good, principled people who run. First, it seems that the electorate is not usually interested in these people. Most people think on such a shallow and superficial level and they vote as if it’s a high school popularity contest. Many others vote the Democrat way–what can he/she give me? Most of all, the establishment powers in the parties and their lackeys in the MSM rip apart and destroy most of the principled candidates that dare to run. They don’t support them financially or give them any endorsements. The only reason Donald Trump has managed to buck the party elite, when no one else can, is because he has his own money and he has notoriety in his own right. He doesn’t need the party. With corrupted elites running everything, very few of the best have a chance.

  4. Kent Wendler says:

    Pro-life people keep shouting, “Abortion is murder!”, but it has only become a chant, which the pro-aborts and the “neutrals” don’t even hear anymore. Why? Because the courts, particularly the SCOTUS, have defined that term away by arrogating to themselves (they even admit) the undeserved competence to declare that an unborn human is not a “person” and thus gets no legal protection.

    What hardly anyone understands (Dr. Ben Carson is an exception) is that those seeking an abortion are implicitly claiming an “ownership right” to the unborn human because if you do not own something you have no right to dispose of it – in any way. The last time I checked a claim of ownership of a human being by another is called slavery – explicitly forbidden by the 13th Amendment.

    Also, since the “disposal right” being claimed is to abort (kill) the unborn human (almost always because of some perceived “convenience”) then this fits the definition of a homicide – the intentional killing of one human being by another.

    Thus this country is already rife with a homicidal kind of slavery.

    Some might claim the unborn is not a human, especially in the first stages of development, just a “cluster of cells”; but that is so self-serving, a particularly putrid example of moral relativity and furthermore a denial of the One WHO IS Truth, the Father’s perfect and unutterably transcendent self-knowledge. Those of them who consider themselves “Christians” cannot really be so.

  5. discipulus says:

    The Supreme Court appointments are the biggest reason of all that I will be voting for Trump. He’s not perfect, but I can’t, in good conscience, waste my vote on a third party with no chance of winning when HRC threatens to appoint far left justices to the Supreme Court.

  6. bobk says:

    That is disappointing. However look on the bright/equally dreadful side, if HE was ahead among the faithful wouldn’t you be just as distressed? I can’t imagine voting for Caligula *instead* of Nero, can you? There’s no one for a believer to vote for here at all.

  7. ncstevem says:

    Any Catholic who knowingly votes for a pro-abort politician is complicit in the murder of those children who die by abortion. They will have to give an accounting for it at their judgement.

    Those like the commenter above seem not to care about the murder of the unborn or the salvation of their soul. They’re seem to be more concerned about their 30 pieces of silver.

  8. The Catholic Democrats have been a powerful political entity, lobby, or machine for decades. I believe they gained much control through labor movements and unions. Why act surprised?

  9. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Tangential question: Is the corpse of an eligible more eligible than a never-yet-having-died ineligible? (Not a question relating to Mrs. Clinton, about whom the best that can be said (as far as I can discern) is that she is Constitutionally eligible – as is Mr. Trump.)

    jhayes,

    A curious article, in that Archbishop Chaput seems to suggest that he will probably discover “some mysterious calculus that will allow them to vote for one or the other of the major candidates” and in that all the concrete details he provides suggest that Mr. Trump (whatever one may think of him) is in fact discernably “better than the other”!

  10. Gabriel Syme says:

    That Catholics vote in large numbers for the likes of Clinton is testament to the failure of the Church to properly catechise the last few generations.

    These Catholics likely know little or nothing about the Catholic faith. Their concerns are not Catholic concerns. Instead of salvation, holiness, repentance, they are concerned with (eg) gender equality, racism, the environment etc. These are the values secular society has reared them on, in the absence of a teaching Church. They often wrongly conflate Christianity with aspects of these secular values.

    (Hmm, typing that last paragraph, a prominent Catholic suddenly popped into my head – quite unintentionally – when I typed “environment”. Any guesses?).

    Its just the same as the reasons behind the same sex marriage vote in Ireland. People who are Catholic in name only voting as motivated by their secular consciences and values.

    In Scotland we have a saying about Microsoft Excel. Its probably used all over the world tbh. It pops into your head, when Excel didn’t work properly and then you discover you made a mistake with a formula. Here it is (suitably toned down in language!)

    Garbage in, garbage out

    I.e if you put rubbish into the spreadsheet, you just get rubbish back from the spreadsheet. And so it is also with the formation of right thinking Catholic minds.

    What does the word Catholic really mean, if Catholics vote for Hilary Clinton?
    I could wear a set of antlers, but that doesn’t make me a reindeer.

    The Church is also culpable via letting politicians (who are Catholic in name only) run on a Catholic ticket while openly advocating abortion, same sex marriage etc. The Church is complacent and lazy. The Church thinks it is being compassionate, that it is “walking with people”. In truth, people are using the Church for their own ends and laughing at it. The Democrats are doing this right now, and folk are swallowing it.

    Lucifer himself could turn up for Holy Communion at a modern Catholic parish – and I’d bet he’d get it.

    NB – I don’t hold myself up as a super-informed, model Catholic. Absolutely not – quite the opposite in fact! The positive side for me is that I am aware of my own ignorance (!) and try to chip away at it over time – with many strokes, though from a little axe.

  11. stephen c says:

    jhayes – you did not correctly quote Chaput’s context. What I think he was trying to way is this – If you believe that Trump, alone among all politicians of your lifetime, is the only liar (remember – poor ill Reagan, poor old Bush I, poor Clinton, Bush II, and poor sad Obama all appointed abortionist lawyers to the Supreme Court, and not a single one has apologized to his victims – whereas Trump has promised not to do so – not to do the sinful appointing, that is) then, if you honestly believe that, and if you are absolutely convinced that you have sufficiently deep insight into the souls of others, based on your own sinlessness, to put the lives of the unborn in peril, then you can do whatever lazy heartless thing you want to do to let Clinton, who clearly does not like unborn children at all, become a person with the worldly power and the power of life and death over millions of unborn children that you, in the full assurance of your pride, willingly gave her. If the good archbishop said less, I would be saddened and surprised. JHayes – wake up, my friend.

  12. Rob83 says:

    All I keep seeing on my Facebook feed is lots of people unwilling to vote for the “lesser of two evils” as it were and desperately searching for some acceptable person to vote for who passes all the moral checkboxes but who realistically are barely asterisks when it comes to how many people will actually vote for them.

    Catholics are already a minority to begin with, and faithful ones a minority of a minority, in a country that has lost its moral and Christian foundations. One party already is dead set on the culture of death and actively hostile toward the Church, though it will still hide it as needed and count on weak bishops to sell social justice over God’s truth.

    The other is heading there, but it has not yet gone full-blown culture of death on us. While there remains some chance that they and their candidate will pursue policies and appoint judges who are not actively hostile toward the Church, I will pull that lever while still praying for God to deliver us from the politicians.

  13. Absit invidia says:

    There’s only one conclusion to make this election year:

    Either Hillary Clinton is going to win the presidency or Donald Trump will. Period. Catholics, we should not vote like puritans, we must use our wits to and reality to stop enabling these vile left wing politicians to continue grabbing power and implementing evil with it.

    Now who would we prefer to have in power? The one who has already pledged to is all on television and on her website that she will up the ante with implementing and accelerating the most vile, demonic, and evil policies, attacks in life, and continued democrat party fist shaking at God and against the natural law with more – even unimaginable positions that she hasn’t announced? The Party that boos God 3x at their National Convention? Hillary Clinton.

    Or the man who won’t be part of this vile platform of the radical left and as our host Fr Z already noted who has already pledged to reverse much of the damage that has already been done? Donald Trump.

    The choice is clear, in this election: Catholics have to vote for Trump of you want to put a halt to the vileness that the democrat party will continue perpetuating. This is what our current political system is offering: one of these two candidates. That’s it – there is no magical candidate who will suddenly emerge with multiplied votes. Catholics need to stop seeing their politicians as messianic deliverers with perfectly divine qualities. That is Our Lord’s role at His Second Coming. Catholics need to also accept that they are not electing a Pope for their president. He will never be perfect. Only our Redeemer possesses these qualities. No candidate will and it frustrates me beyond no end to see good Catholics expecting Puritanism from their political candidates enabling the radical left, vile politicians to grab power and abuse it and Our Lord with it.

  14. Absit invidia says:

    bobk, we’re not voting for the pope nor are we voting for the “best” believer. We’re voting for a politician who with the best likelihood of success lead a nation with policies that do not contradict the Church’s Teachings and in our current situation, reverse the evil policies that have been implemented since the last two elections where Catholics enabled evil politicians to rule us.

  15. amsjj1002 says:

    I’ve gotten to the point where I think we’re going to get the one that will punish us worse, bc of what our country’s done the past several years.

    ++
    There were many lines that struck me when I read Archbishop Chaput’s book back in 2008, but this is the one that most stayed with me:

    “One of the pillars of Catholic thought is this: *Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing it.* We sin if we support candidates *because* they support a false “right” to abortion. We sin if we support “pro-choice” candidates without a truly proportionate reason for doing so — that is, a reason grave enough to outweigh our obligation to end the killing of the unborn. And what would a “proportionate” reason look like? It would be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions — as we someday will.
    From “Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life” by Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M, Cap., pp. 229-230 (italics his).

    All these years later, my mind still goes blank and my mouth dumb when I try to think of a reason to justify what I call the modern form of slavery.

  16. Chrisc says:

    Archbishop Chaput can be lauded for many things. That wimpy essay was not one of them. You can dislike Donald Trump personally or think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who is only pretending to care about the average American. Fine. I don’t disagree with those observations. But without a doubt Clinton is evil and doesn’t care about people. She doesn’t care about anyone but those in her cabal. She should be hanged for her utter disregard for the rule of law, for her treasonous tenure at the Secretary of State, and her peddling of access to foreign potentates. And the mere idea that Trump is crude or hurtful therefore equal to her I find to be the worst kind of ghost of our puritanical past….and a dreadful misunderstanding of the political order.
    If Trump be immoral, let us denounce him for that. I am all for it – for surely Donald Trump needs grace just like the rest of us. But that the archbishop can equate buffoonish self aggrandizement with the abasement and selling of our deepest political institutions is itself buffoonish and especially embarrassing given Chaput’s rather nice Render unto Caesar from several years ago.

  17. aegsemje says:

    My in-laws go to daily Mass, and go to Adoration weekly. They pray the rosary and listen to Relevant radio. They are voting for Hillary Clinton, and they love Barack Obama…..they even have a little statue of Obama in their house. I don’t get it, and it frustrates me so much. Part of the problem is that my mother in law’s brother is a priest, and he is the same way. Of corse they will listen to him over me.

  18. boxerpaws63 says:

    could someone pls explain to me how while Trump is a flawed man that he is so terrible ppl would prefer to sit out the vote and risk Hillary winning than vote for him.What am i missing?

  19. comedyeye says:

    I have been on board with Trump since I first heard he was running.
    Rush Limbaugh had a gut feeling several months ago that he would win in an “epic landslide”. The damning Wikileaks docs haven’t yet been released, Trump is leading among independents by 20 points,
    the media lie about Trump mocking a disabled man has been proven false
    (Google Ann Coulter), and he is making way with the black community, from whom he just received a standing O and a prayer shawl in Detroit. I’m not worried.

  20. Ben Kenobi says:

    If all the republican nominees to the supreme court voted in accordance with what conservatives believe, Obamacare would not have passed. Neither would have Oberfell Roberts was a Dubya pick and Kennedy a Reagan pick. Yes, it’s important to appoint conservative justices, but it does us no good if the president is appointing Justices Roberts and Kennedys. Trump lost me when he stated he wanted to change the prolife plank of the party. When he chose to stand for the photo op with Bruce Jenner. He is not our friend and has never been a friend of any social conservatives. If Trump sincerely desired to court Catholics, he could very easily come out and state that Oberfell was an abomination and that he believed it should be overturned. He has not said one word about Oberfell.

    I am not surprised to see Catholics leaving the coalition. It’s about time they did. Republicans need to nominate a prolife, constitutional conservative after three time losers and finally learn their lesson.

  21. Nicholas Frankovich says:

    Most single-issue pro-life voters have had it easy in presidential elections until now. We tend to be full-spectrum conservatives. The foreign and the fiscal policies of the candidate who in the general election was pro-life were, in our view, generally sound. And that candidate always observed at least a minimum standard of civility.

    In 2016, that’s over. The candidate who has checked the box “pro-life” speaks warmly of Putin and roughly of NATO, for example. If you do too, you may be slow to understand how Catholic voters who are unyieldingly pro-life but who disdain Putin and value America’s alliance with other Western democracies oppose Trump despite his nominal support for the pro-life cause.

    He’s not a conservative, at least not in any ordinary sense. His candidacy represents an effort to transform the limited-government party into a European-style nationalist-populist party. If you prefer the latter and are also pro-life, Trump’s weak appeal to the pro-life cause is good enough. It’s not if you’re pro-life but think that the culture of life would wither under the big-state model that Trump espouses. Traditional conservatives tend to think that the political philosophy most amenable to the culture of life is the small-r-republican constitutional conservatism that Trump threatens to displace.

    He’s running for president while demonstrating ignorance of the Constitution and world affairs. He’s applying for a job for which he hasn’t done any homework. He shows up to the interview and insults most of the people in the room, including war heroes and a disabled man. He won’t release his tax returns.

    The pro-life movement is tainted by his effort to associate himself with it. He said that women who had abortions should be punished. Embarrassed, pro-lifers protested that he spoke not for them. As recently as this past spring, he has said that he thinks federal abortion law should not be changed. If he got into office, you could count on him to soften his stand on the abortion issue too. Ann Stone, the former wife of Roger Stone, still runs Republicans for Choice and is currently advising a pro-Trump super PAC.

    Conservative Catholic thinkers who oppose Trump adamantly are numerous. Some are eloquent. See, for example, George Weigel and Robert P. George.

    For pro-lifers, the argument for supporting neither candidate is easier than the argument for supporting Clinton to stop Trump, but the latter argument is possible. To vote for Clinton because of her record on abortion would violate Church teaching. To vote for such a candidate despite such a record but “in the presence of proportionate reasons” is permissible, as Cardinal Ratzinger noted in his letter to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004. Politics is chess. Think several moves ahead.

  22. WVC says:

    Mr. Frankovich,

    The fact that Trump is against NATO is a plus to many (me included). Not to wander too far afield, but American foreign policy as it is today was designed to fight the Soviet Union. That entity doesn’t exist anymore. The entire strategy needs to be overhauled, and questioning the purpose of NATO is a great step in that direction. We have (past tense) moved into a post American Super Power world. It’s still in the early stages, and we have a chance to adapt our foreign policy to help our country succeed in this new era. Or we can cling to out-dated concepts and eventually be as globally impotent as Great Britain.

    Hopefully no one is seriously refusing to vote for Trump because he a.) – doesn’t want to start or fight unnecessary wars (NATO basically says we would fight Russia on behalf of Turkey – does that make sense to anyone?), b.) wants an America first foreign policy whereby we don’t play global police officer for free, and c.) thinks we can work with other countries from a practical perspective to fight Islamic terrorism (you don’t have to love Putin to realize we have a common vested interest in fighting Islamic terrorism).

  23. WVC says:

    For what it’s worth – the Tim Kaine’s parish gave him a standing ovation after Mass the Sunday after he was named the Vice Presidential candidate.

    Two of my least favorite things all in one place – Pro-Abort Catholic politicians and applause at Mass.

    I wish bishops would install an Express Lane for excommunications. At this point, I think you could excommunicate entire parishes and turn the facilities over to an FSSP community.

  24. YoungLatinMassGuy says:

    I think that the “Pro-Life Movement” is one of the greatest con jobs pulled in American History.

    Far too many “Catholics” out there will say they are “pro-life/anti-abortion” but when they’re in that voting booth, all by themselves and with God (that they don’t really believe in.) they will vote for the party that promises to give them more goodies.

  25. JPK says:

    “Barack Obama won a majority of the Catholic vote both in 2008 and 2012. Hillary Clinton, according to pollsters, is poised to do the same. She is leading Trump among Catholic voters by over twenty points. In an age of secularism and a secularized Catholic Church, Democrats have never found it easier to con Catholics.”

    To paraphrase King Edward Longshanks, “The problem with the Catholic Church is that it is full of Catholics.”

  26. gretta says:

    The argument for not voting for Trump is this: he isn’t your “normal” candidate. To vote for him, you have to trust that he actually would follow through on what he promises, and there has been nothing to indicate that he is believable or trustworthy. Just the opposite in fact, and given that he was ardently pro-choice, there is nothing indicating that if he won he wouldn’t go back on his promises. And given that he is a racist, a narcissist, is immoral, a liar, is profoundly disrespectful towards women, has no impulse control, and wants to know how he can monetize this election fiasco to his benefit, he won’t be getting my vote. Not that Hillary will either, but there is no way on God’s green acre that I could vote for him. You have to make a moral choice on each candidate, and I cannot in conscience vote for either of them. And for whoever mentioned the “30 pieces of silver,” that is both unfair and offensive. It truly is a matter of conscience, and I won’t violate mine or put my soul at risk, even if it means someone equally offensive wins. Boxerpaws63, it is because the man has no impulse control, and I don’t want him having access to the nuclear football when some two-bit dictator decides to insult him. I’m not exaggerating, as much as I hate Hillary, I don’t want that man within 100 miles of the nuclear codes. He gives me nightmares.

  27. SpesUnica says:

    This brief essay by Alasdair MacIntyre has only become more true in the twelve years since he wrote it. People who are fed up with the current system need to stop supporting it or we will simply be faced with the same horrible dilemma every election. Sure, “One of the two has to win;” THIS year. But what about the next election? Our choices keep getting worse and worse.

    http://brandon.multics.org/library/Alasdair%20MacIntyre/macintyre2004vote.html

  28. AnthonyJ says:

    I have a friend who says he can’t in good conscience vote for Trump, because he will have to face God’s judgement when he dies. He is voting for someone named Hoefling, who maybe a few hundred people have even heard of. I think it makes people feel morally superior to vote for some nobody, who has less than a hell freezing over chance of winning. A lot of this, “Trump is no better than Hillary rhetoric” comes off as pious posturing to me.

  29. schmenz says:

    aegsemje writes:

    “My in-laws go to daily Mass, and go to Adoration weekly. They pray the rosary and listen to Relevant radio. They are voting for Hillary Clinton, and they love Barack Obama.”

    That is appalling on so many levels I wouldn’t know where to begin. I can imagine their getting little spiritual nourishment from what passes for a typical Mass these days, but to adore Our Lord in the Eucharist and pray the Rosary and still believe the way they do is just unbelievable.

    Here in Milwaukee there is an old saying about the ethnics who still live here, descendants of those who came here in the 19th century. They say something like this, when asked why on earth they would continue to vote for a Democrat in this day and age: “My Great grandaddy voted Democrat, my Granddaddy voted Democrat, my Daddy voted Democrat and I’M voting Democrat!” It really is that ridiculous, and of course they get little to no help from the Church they regularly attend.

    But to hear that someone who takes the Rosary and Adoration seriously would vote for a psychopath like Hillary is beyond belief.

  30. bethv says:

    There were plenty of more palatable and qualified Republicans who were in the race for the presidential nomination. The majority who voted went for Trump. There was a ch0ice and this is how it played out. Most liked what he had to say and how he said it, including David Duke. That is worrisome. The left-leaning secular mass media supports Clinton and provides her cover. That is nothing new. I know I can’t vote for Clinton, but I am not happy that I have to vote for Trump – I see a lot of problems there (at least he chose Pence, though) – but I want my vote to count to try to make sure Clinton is not elected, so a third party “protest vote” would be meaningless. It seems that so many CINOS (Catholics in name only) don’t know and don’t care about learning about their faith, let alone living it. They are of the world and act like they don’t believe that there is an afterlife when they will be judged, let alone believe there is a devil and evil in the world. I can only do what I can do and pray that there are enough people like me so that Clinton will not win, but I am not optimistic. The Liar has such a strong hold on the world now. We must not lessen our efforts, though, through prayer – especially the Rosary.

  31. boxerpaws63 says:

    “He’s running for president while demonstrating ignorance of the Constitution and world affairs. He’s applying for a job for which he hasn’t done any homework. He shows up to the interview and insults most of the people in the room, including war heroes and a disabled man. He won’t release his tax returns.”
    WOAH. I’m sorry but that sounds like a Hillary Clinton ad. Pls spell out how he is ignorant of the Constitution. I remember when he was going to hold a rally in Chicago but because of the danger to the ppl who were going to attend(riots)he called it off. Now Ted Cruz took the side of the rioters-you know what that’s called? INFRINGING on freedom of speech and assembly. So much for Mr Constitution Cruz.He saw what he thought was a political opportunity.Trump shows up for interviews-unlike Hillary who avoids them like the plague-and is met with a hostile press who take words and twist them out of context. BTW. He did not insult the disabled reporter. I looked into Mr Trump’s background(got past the media spin)and over the years found incredible acts of kindness to sick and disabled people that the media is surely NOT going to mention. Ronald Reagan didn’t have this so called world experience and he did just fine with foreign policy. That aside,Mr Trump has had business dealings all over the world so while he may not have held POLITICAL office,he does have some experience with other countries at least in a business sense.
    I’ve turned off the news TOTALLY. When i want to know what Mr Trump actually said i go to the horses mouth.You have to know that the media is in the tank for Hillary. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.
    Here’s what it really comes down to. You know that probably half of the population of Catholics will vote for Hillary the way they did for Obama. (BTW i was NOT one of them). Add to that number the Catholics who will not vote Trump at all. Now Hillary’s campaign knows that they have their base wrapped up. They also know that the Trump supporters(like me)are solid for Trump. That leaves her winning questionable. They also know that they must peel off some Republicans and Independents for her to win. They may get some Republicans but probably not enough to make a difference. So how DOES Hillary win? Simple:convince people that Trump is so terrible that even though they won’t vote for her,they will sit out the vote altogether. They’re counting on enough ppl not voting at all that she wins. He who gets voter turn out,wins.Period.
    Now I’m not going to go through all the points about Trump so I’ll sum it up this way. Phyllis Schalfly endorsed Trump. Rick Santorum endorsed Trump. Mike Pence accepted Trump’s offer of VP. I know Pence well enough that he would never have sacrificed principles for position. Anyone who would even consider letting Hillary win needs to do some serious thinking but i would DEFINITELY tune out the news and find alternative sources. I often go to rsbn.tv and watch the rallies there. I read Breitbart News.I’ve also read several books re the Clintons and Trump both. The Clinton’s are beyond corrupt but worse than that our FBI has become corrupt. The DOJ is corrupt. The media is TOTALLY corrupt. I know that sounds outrageous but i will stand by every word. We can’t afford to stay home. We can’t afford to not vote.
    The Supreme Court is a whole other very good reason to be sure you vote.Those appointments will affect the direction our country takes more than any Trump policy could ever. I’m convinced Trump is a flawed but a good man who at the least has a deep love of our country and a bigger heart than people give him credit for. I am well aware of his position re abortion; i am SURE the unborn will have more protection under a Trump admin than a Hillary;most of those decisions do NOT come from the executive branch anyway. It’s the Supreme Court. Pray for Mr Trump and Mike Pence. i don’t put it past either Clinton or Obama not to attempt an assassination. She will do anything to win and Obama will do anything to protect his so called legacy.

  32. mpmaron says:

    Mr. Frankovich,
    Trump did not insult a disabled reporter.
    http://www.catholics4trump.com/wapo-fact-checker-gets-4-hillarys-for-ignoring-evidence-trump-didnt-mock-reporters-disability

    Kind of interesting that we never hear from Mr. Kovaleski.

    With respect to why a Catholic should vote for Trump: Forget for the moment whether or not he is pro-life or pro-torture. Consider well if Trump will lead the charge in a two pronged battle against the unborn and the believer.

    I think, in this case, the choice is clear. We can guarantee continued persecution or perhaps stave it off for a few moments and save some souls in the interim.

    May you rest in His eternal embrace Mrs. Schlafly.

  33. boxerpaws63 says:

    Nicholas, there’s so much in your comment it’s hard to know where to begin but let’s pick just one:
    “He’s running for president while demonstrating ignorance of the Constitution and world affairs. He’s applying for a job for which he hasn’t done any homework. He shows up to the interview and insults most of the people in the room, including war heroes and a disabled man. He won’t release his tax returns.”
    He’s ignorant of the Constitution? Spell that out please . Cruz said that but when it came to Trump’s Chicago rally he took the side of the rioters who managed to have it shut down. That’s called infringement of free speech and assembly.So much for Mr Constitution. Trump shows up for interviews-while Hillary is hiding out even from a friendly press-and is met by a hostile press that openly supports Hillary Clinton. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.BTW. Tax returns are not a requirement and at this point they are under audit. What do you think you could find that the IRS can’t? Pence and Trump are both going to release them but there is absolutely no requirements for either man to do so. Hillary has been bringing that up. Why would we help her out?Keep in mind this is a woman who lied about the Clinton foundation, the State Dept,her emails, servers and devices. We can go back YEARS and talk about the road of corruption she and her husband have traveled on so i think the tax return issue is a moot point.
    Turn off the news. It helps. It would take me a good half hour to go through the other comments against Trump so we’ll try to sum it up. I looked into Trump’s background as much as i have Hillary’s. There’s no way on earth he was mocking the disabled reporter. I can point out many acts of kindness Trump has shown towards the sick,disabled and hurting. The Trump foundation has been a huge supporter of St Jude’s hospital for years.He is not a proponent of large government. That’s nonsense. I do know this ;he is driven more out of love of country than anything else and has been saying the same thing about our country for the past 30 yr.Hillary is a total puppet of George Soros as is Obama.
    Finally, consider Trump’s endorsements: Phyllis Schalfly,Rick Santorum, Mike Pence. Do you really believe these STRONGLY pro life candidates would back Trump if they weren’t at least 99.9% certain he were a good choice?
    The whole narrative about Putin isn’t even worth responding to. It’s nonsense spread by a dishonest media.
    It comes down to this: the Hillary campaign knows they have their base in their corner. They’ll vote Hillary. The Hillary campaign also knows the Trump supporters(like me)are definitely going to vote Trump. Irrelevant. It makes her winning questionable. What she has to do is peel off some Republicans and Independents. She’s not going to peel off enough Republicans for it to matter. So what is Hillary’s tactic? Make Trump so terrible, so unelectable,so dangerous (ETC)that while you won’t vote for her,you will decide not to vote at all. Turn out wins elections. All you have to do is get ppl to stay home,not vote and you’ve won. Ok. Take the Catholic vote. How many Catholics are actually going to vote Hillary? The same ppl who voted Obama(BTW. I was NOT one of them).Next, you take the Catholics who are not going to vote for either candidate. Combine these 2-it’s probably over. She wins. PLS .You have no idea what you’re doing. Father Z is correct. I would prefer to vote a deceased Filmore but i have come to the conclusion Trump is not what the media,the GOP establishment and the Clinton campaign paint him to be. Try some alternative sources.

  34. boxerpaws63 says:

    One final thought: consider the Syrian refugees and borders. Hillary has made it clear that it’s going to be an open door with both. This is so incredibly dangerous it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. As for the BIG questions,the non negotiables Abortion,Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, same sex marriage that as Catholics we must seriously consider. These decisions are not affected in the executive branch as much as they are in the Supreme Court. We keep waiting for our Presidents to end abortion-even the most pro life of Presidents have not been able to end abortion. They’ve managed to do more harm or less. I’m convinced Trump will do less harm than Clinton;but the executive branch is not where these issues are decided. It’s the Supreme Court. It’s also in the court of Public Opinion and that’s OUR job.

  35. vandalia says:

    One may not cooperate with evil. The fact remains that Donald Trump solemnly promised that he would appoint his sister Maryanne Trump Bailey to the US Supreme Court. [Ummm… I don’t think that is true. But perhaps you have a citation or something wherein he said that.] Note that she was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Bill Clinton.

    To quote from the National Review:

    What Cruz has mentioned in the past is Judge Maryanne Trump Barry’s opinion in a 2000 case concerning a New Jersey law banning partial-birth abortion. The Supreme Court had already struck down a similar law before that opinion was issued. Judge Barry could have simply ruled that the Supreme Court had spoken and that lower-court judges were bound by its ruling to strike down the New Jersey law too. Instead, Judge Barry wrote an expansive opinion attacking and sneering at the law, and laying out an argument that would logically justify a constitutional right to infanticide.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431967/maryanne-trump-barry-vs-samuel-alito-abortion

    Note that Trump has also said many times that he agrees with his sister on everything. If you want to say he “changed his mind”, then if he “changed his mind” once, he can do it twice with respect to the list of potential SC Justices provided by his political managers. It is also important to note that Trump’s various corporations provide free “abortion on demand” coverage. Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is opposed to abortion, or contraception, or homosexual “marriages” needs to review his history.

    As my moral theology professor always said “To chose the lesser of two evils is to chose an evil, and is thus never permitted.” Silence – in this case, refusal to vote for either major candidate – is and has always been a legitimate option in the Catholic tradition. Anyone who votes for Donald Trump needs to be aware of the fact that they are morally responsible for any actions he takes, especially since he has a track record of strong support for abortion.

    The problem is that a political party viewpoint has infected far too many Catholics. “Well, it is important that the party wins.” Nope, God is the one who takes care of evil. Our one and only option is never to choose evil, even if it is the lesser of two evils. Once again, “to chose the lesser of two evils is to always chose evil.” And thus is not permitted under any circumstances.

  36. Kathleen10 says:

    Donald Trump is a far more “Catholic” vote than to vote for her.
    I would fear Hell if I voted for her. I don’t need to say why. We all know why.
    If our people had been properly taught, Barack Obama would not have been made president, twice.
    Our people have not been properly taught. They have been taught error.
    This has consequences, perhaps the highest cost to many Americans since we are so confused we will vote in a woman who will fill our country with enemy combatants and/or a people who will use the sword or babies to take over our land and culture. This is national and cultural suicide.
    Europe is in the process of committing it. We may follow.

  37. vandalia says:

    It is interesting how deeply 60’s Radicalism has seeped into the Church. Everywhere you hear activism – we must DO something, we must CHOOSE, we must VOTE. As if the fate of our nation or our world depends on our own actions. It is significant to point out that within living memory, priests, religious and military officers would never vote in an election. With the later, it was to make explicit the fact that the US military was independent from politics. With the former, it was in part to show that our future is not decided by the ballot box, but rather by God.

    In this environment of activism, it is important to point out that the Gold Standard for Catholic political morality – St Thomas Moore – never opposed Henry VIII. He never introduced a bill of censure in the House of Commons, he never supported the Crown’s enemies, and he never started an armed rebellion such as those that popped up every few years during that era. He never justified such actions by stating that it was necessary to engage in a lesser evil (treason) to avoid a greater evil (schism). He simply refused to assent to evil. It is one of the maxims of Catholic Moral Theology; “to choose the lesser of two evils is to choose evil. And it is never permitted to choose evil regardless of the circumstances.”

    Much of the political evil of this age comes from the false temptation “to do something.” With that something being invariably something that is portrayed as “the lesser of two evils.” This is directly related to the false premise that our vote is critical, and that Washington will determine the future of our country. Nope. Mary did not ask us to elect politicians who would chose policies that would lead to the end of Russian Communism. She asked us to pray for the Conversion of Russia.

    God does not ask much from most of us with respect to politics. Pray, and basically stay out of the way! There are a few who might be called to a different vocation that might involve more direct action. However, for the vast majority, the maxim is “Never chose evil!” To chose evil is always sinful, and is a direct manifestation of a lack in faith in God. “If we don’t use the atomic bomb against civilians in Hiroshima, then it might result in millions of dead!” As if God could not end that war in a second? “If we don’t support Hitler then the Communists will take over Germany!” As if God could not remove the Communist threat in a heartbeat?

    Before you go to sleep tonight ask yourself this question; do you really believe in God? Do you really think God is so powerless that he needs you to violate his law – one may never vote for someone who supports abortion – as the only way for his ends to come about?

    I never care what politician is elected or not. Our future does not depend on Washington, but on God. (Do you really believe in God?) My only responsibility with respect to politics is never to choose evil. And when the Church says never, she means never.

  38. Benedict Joseph says:

    That they can’t determine who might propose marginally better candidates for the Supreme Court bespeaks the problem clearly. Quite a case of self-disclosure.
    Unacceptable.

  39. JARay says:

    I cannot understand how anyone could possibly vote for that Clinton woman. I cannot vote in your elections because I am an Australian. Similarly I cannot understand how Catholics could vote for the failed Catholic who leads the Opposition here. It is even harder to vote for the strange man who calls himself a Catholic and is in favour of Same-Sex “marriage” and is our present Prime Minister. Are all Catholics who go into Politics, strange Catholics as well?

  40. OldProfK says:

    I was discussing this election with a friend, whose main comment was “Romans 1:28.” I see his point.

  41. boxerpaws63 says:

    Vandalia,the Catechism states, “2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

    2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country: I will leave it at that. If Trump does away with the Johnson amendment (put restrictions on Christian churches)and does not persecute ppl of faith-like the Obama administration-i can vote Trump for those reasons(among others)and sleep with a clear conscience. I’ve done all i can do by way of exercising the right to vote.

  42. AvantiBev says:

    Had the previous, feckless Congresses not abdicated their powers one by one –especially the power of the purse — over the past 3 decades, we would not be so obsessed by the Executive and Judicial branches; both of which have taken upon themselves the LEGISLATING that was to have been the province of the people’s elected representatives sitting in the House.

    We now have not 3 co-equal and healthily competitive branches of government as designed by the Founders, but rather an administrative state of agencies with eternal life, unrestrained in the rules and regulations which they inflict upon the American people. AMERICANS WAKE UP!

  43. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear Nicholas Frankovich,

    You wrote:

    “For pro-lifers, the argument for supporting neither candidate is easier than the argument for supporting Clinton to stop Trump, but the latter argument is possible. To vote for Clinton because of her record on abortion would violate Church teaching. To vote for such a candidate despite such a record but “in the presence of proportionate reasons” is permissible, as Cardinal Ratzinger noted in his letter to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004. Politics is chess. Think several moves ahead.”

    You misunderstand, I think, the statement you quote. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and there is nothing proportionate to it that would allow one to vote for someone who supports (thereby cooperates with) it in the face of another candidate who has poor proposals in other non-intrinsic moral matters. Proportionality refers to prudential issues and extrinsic evils among different candidates where there are no intrinsic evils held. Intrinsic evils do not admit of proportion, except within themselves (any unrepented mortal sin will damn you, but there are some that are deeper sins than other).

    If both candidates equally support abortion, then one may abstain from voting, but your belief that Trump supports abortion is based on uncertain knowledge – you are speculating based on limited evidence. The argument from proportionality does not hold in this case. There is nothing that I can see that would permit any Catholic to vote for Clinton. Trump is more of a judgment call. Double effect – voting for Clinton while not supporting her position on abortion, does not apply, here, because the conditions necessary to apply double effect are not met, in this election. The USCCB did a poor job of explaining this in their voter guidelines, I think.

    That many Catholics will vote for Clinton is a sign that many bishops are doing a very poor job of teaching the Faith and right reason.

    The Chicken

  44. SKAY says:

    Bethy said:
    “Most liked what he had to say and how he said it, including David Duke. That is worrisome. ”

    Hillary has received the backing of the US Communist Party. That is worrisome and that actually happened in February but, interestingly, there was not much media coverage of it.

    From the Washington Times in April:
    ” Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group said Monday.
    “For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,” said Will Quigg, California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White
    Knights, Vocativ reported.”

    Ben Kenobi said
    “If all the republican nominees to the supreme court voted in accordance with what conservatives believe, Obamacare would not have passed. Neither would have Oberfell Roberts was a Dubya pick and Kennedy a Reagan pick.”
    I agree. The sad part of that is that Kennedy and Roberts are both Catholic.
    The two Senators most responsible for demanding that any nominee to the court MUST not have
    any history having to do with a favorable opinion of opposing abortion were also both Catholic. Democrats Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden . I watched their “performances” on the Judiciary committee during some of the hearings and it was obvious they were protecting abortion “rights”
    at any cost. It was no a pretty sight.
    Remember Judge Bork and what the Democrats did to him. He was a Regan pick.
    Anthony Kennedy ended up being chosen to fill the opening. He was not the first or second choice
    and we are now seeing why.
    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/19/167645600/robert-borks-supreme-court-nomination-changed-everything-maybe-forever

    It was a majority Democrat Senate. Votes do count.

    2 or 3 Hillary Clinton SCOUS nominations will remake court decisions and they will not be favorable to Christian religious liberty. Some judges have shown they give themselves the right to ignore the Constitution or make up rights that are not even there. Her promise to PP to remake religious thinking through use of government could certainly include the Supreme Court picks.

    Gretta said:
    “I don’t want that man within 100 miles of the nuclear codes. He gives me nightmares.”

    I worry much more about the deal Obama/Kerry/Soros made with Iran that gives them
    a pathway to a nuclear bomb. That along with the many thousands of Syrian refugees who we
    cannot vet properly that Hillary has promised to bring in for her first four years. The bomb worry
    will be with the embedded trained terrorists living among us. Hillary also green lighted a business deal as Sec. of State that allowed Putin to gain access to 20% of our uranium for her own personal gain.
    That was not for the good of the people of the United States.
    As boxerpaws63 said, the list of her bad decisions is long.
    The hacked and released emails points out how easily she lies. The nicest thing to say is that she
    is entirely incompetent. If she had a business building large buildings they would fall apart in a week.

    OldProfK-
    I see his point too.
    We still have a choice. Lots of prayers needed.

  45. Semper Gumby says:

    Great post and comments. Going with the Millard Fillmore option on this one.

  46. The Masked Chicken says:

    …If both candidates equally support abortion, then one may abstain from voting, but your belief that Trump supports abortion is based on uncertain knowledge – you are speculating based on limited evidence.

    It’s not speculation. Mr. Trump has made clear that he supports abortion in the cases of rape and incest. (For example, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/trump-i-am-exceptions-abortion-rape-incest-life-mother.) No, it’s not the same as supporting it nearly always, and with tax funding, as is the case with Mrs. Clinton. So if someone wants to maintain Mrs. Clinton is worse, there is certainly a case for that. (There are other problems one can cite with Mr. Trump, as well; and arriving at the who is truly “worse” judgment is, I think, not so easy.)

    But let’s not change facts in order to fit a narrative. Mr. Trump does, indeed, support abortion. His support of killing unborn children because their fathers are terrible people is morally and intellectually incoherent, so it’s not something to overlook. That very incoherence — borne either of a lack of understanding of the issue, or pure political calculation — does indeed cause one to wonder about how solid his commitment to pro life policies really is.

  47. WYMiriam says:

    I am so glad that I have a truly pro-life constitutionalist to vote for in the person of Darrell Castle.

    Hence, I avoid entirely the idiocy of trying to decide whether to vote for the greater evil (HRC), the lesser evil (DT), or not vote at all for a presidential candidate.

    And please, don’t try to pretend that my vote for Castle is a vote for either HRC or DT. My vote — which is based on a principled, conscientious decision — is a vote for Castle, and no one else.

    You want the country’s politicians to be different? Better? More principled? Quit voting for the rascals, the unprincipled, and the corrupt. I said it before in the “how will you vote” poll, and it bears repeating, with explanations:

    If you do what you’ve always done [i.e., vote Dem. or Rep],
    And think what you’ve always thought [i.e., that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote],
    You’ll be what you’ve always been, [i.e., a disgruntled citizen-slave of the US Federal Gov’t]
    And get what you’ve always got [i.e., rampant abortion-on-demand, “gay” “marriage”, and the whole rest of the stinkin’ ball of wax].

  48. Matt Robare says:

    Why Millard Fillmore in particular? Are you saying that a Know Nothing is preferable than She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Obeyed?

    [First, yes, he was a Know Nothing. Second, his name is fun. Third, his last words were allegedly, after being fed soup, “the nourishment is palatable.” Fourth, he is widely considered to be one of the worst Presidents in US history.]

  49. Thomas Sweeney says:

    We indeed have two poor choices in this election. But if I am not convinced that Trump is the Archangel Gabriel, I am positive that Hillary is the devil. We, as Catholic voters, can never put religious issues aside, but if we want to see America survive, as something other than a politically correct liberal gulag we must vote, even while holding our noses.

  50. Gilbert Fritz says:

    Fr. Martin Fox:

    Yes, that is an often overlooked point.

    “Its OK to kill some children, sometimes. It depends on who their father is. . .”

    Wait a minute, is not that the old eugenist argument?

    I remember that just before the last presidential election, a priest that I respect very much stood up in the pulpit and told the congregation that they could not vote for Obama and still be good Catholics. But then he added that, since both men support the killing of innocent children, at least some of the time, they are both on the road to Hell. And that no matter what we did with the election, we should keep that in mind.

  51. Mightnotbeachristiantou says:

    There is only one prolife candidate. That is Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party.
    Castle2016.com

  52. KateD says:

    Bobk,

    Well put.

    My children have designed a third party candidate’s bumper sticker with highlights in both blue and red., with the thought that he’d be equally appealing to both democrats and republicans. It reads: “THE ONLY CHOICE”, Over an image of Darth Vader, with 2016 beneath it. A variation could read: “THE LESSER EVIL 2016”?

    Unfortunately, we’ve been so busy moving, that we didn’t have an opportunity to get the sticker out there and promoted, so we’ll just have to settle for the one on the back cover of this months issue of “Mad”, which is an uninspiring, ‘NEITHER’.

    On a serious note, we are still praying that God will not forsake our nation and that He will miraculously intervene and provide us with a President who is a good man, faithful to God and His holy will.

    Please pray the 54 day Novena.

    Hillary Clinton’s running mate, should be immediately excommunicated. Any Catholic who supports a political platform which is pro abortion and anti family should be excommunicated until they publicly apologize and acknowledge their error. When considering the eternal disposition of souls, it seems the most merciful and compassionate of responses. They need to be made aware, in very concrete terms, of the mortal peril their souls are in.

  53. Ann Malley says:

    “…But let’s not change facts in order to fit a narrative.”

    Indeed, let’s not change facts. We have a legitimate duty as per the Magisterium to vote in such a manner as to aid our country as best we can, Father Fox. So the pretense that one supports the Magisterium in full while tripling down on the attempt to guilt Catholics into throwing away their votes on a third party candidate which will only aid Clinton is wrong. (It’s ignoring facts and rejecting the reality that we are at war. It is to reject that which Providence has offered. Not the bright shiny distraction that makes us “feel” clean.)

    It is not speculation, that one who purports that “he” chooses Christ over Trump is positioning “himself” as seemingly taking the high road while ignoring the prudential caution against unchecked zeal and the “desire” to be perceived as having clean hands.

    The beginning, middle, and end of actions must be considered. And this pretense that we must seek a wholly clean candidate when faced with Clinton who has made it perfectly clear that she intends to persecute the Church, the unborn, engaging the “village” to subvert our children is an evil that must be opposed. We have a duty to protect our children. All of them. As best we can.

    Do not walk away from that wounded soldier, those it the Middle East, or those of the Church Militant right here because hands must be kept scrupulously clean to do the Lord’s work.

  54. boxerpaws63 says:

    Vandila,Trump did NOT and will NOT appoint his sister. He made that clear and submitted a list of justices he would appoint. He also made it clear they are as close to Scalia as possible. i don’t know where the story about his sister got started but I have a pretty good guess.It would certainly look obvious if he appointed his own sister so for that reason alone he would not do it.I know that Trump has mentioned exceptions in the case of rape,incest and the health of the mother. I know that Clinton supports abortion,period. I don’t know what authority a President actually has re abortion law but there’s only1 of 2 ways they can go. Either do more harm or less. I voted for George W Bush.He made it clear he was pro life. Did abortion end? No. Was Roe V Wade overnturned? No. Is abortion still the “law of the land”? Yes. What was George Bush actually able to accomplish? One thing we can totally give him credit for-the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. That was major. Still,it’s not his fault none of the other things happened because the most any President can do is talk or APPOINT JUSTICES WHO ARE PRO LIFE. I am counting on Trump to defund Planned Parenthood. It’s the only other action a President could take. George Bush put a limit on embryonic stem cell but he did not stop it-so while he was pro life for some reason went that route. Maybe it was all he could get passed and felt do less damage than more .Which is what i’m saying;REALISTICALLY we can only elect Presidents who can do MORE damage or LESS. These issues get decided in the Supreme Court. The President does not make law. He’s not a King and can’t pass edicts.(Obama thinks he can;but he’s leaving,thank God) I wish Trump were more pro life but what it comes down to is how much a candidate TALKS pro life;than what they can actually DO. Trump said the justices he appoints will be pro life. I take him at his word. I know where Clinton stands.
    Maybe i’m wrong but what i think Fr Z meant by voting the corpse of Filmore rather than Clinton is that he will do what is necessary to stop Clinton from being elected-i doubt he meant he was voting for a corpse.

  55. boxerpaws63 says:

    THE LIST:Source the Washington Post
    Here’s a brief rundown on who made Trump’s Supreme Court short list, in alphabetical order:

    Steven Colloton of Iowa

    This Iowa native has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit since 2003. He has a pretty traditional law background — editor of the Yale Law Journal, clerked for Justice William H. Rehnquist in 1989 and ’90, served as a U.S. attorney and worked for an independent federal investigative agency, once headed by Ken Starr, he of Bill Clinton impeachment trial fame. President George W. Bush appointed him U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, and he rose to the appeals court in 2003.

    Allison Eid of Colorado

    Eid has served on Colorado’s Supreme Court for the past decade. Before that, she was the solicitor general for Colorado, which means she defended state agencies and officials in court. She’s a University of Chicago Law School grad and clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed her to serve on a committee to write the history of the Supreme Court. Colorado’s Republican governor at the time, Bill Owens, then appointed her to serve on the state Supreme Court. She won reelection to the job in 2008, with 75 percent of the vote.

    Raymond Gruender of Missouri

    Gruender is on the 8th Circuit alongside Colloton. He’s a George W. Bush appointee and has more of a political background than some of the judges on this list. Perhaps as a result, he’s consistently mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee by Republicans. In 1996, he served as the Missouri state director for GOP nominee Bob Dole’s presidential campaign, and he served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri before the Senate confirmed him to his current job, 97 to 1. He wrote the opinion that ruled that a 1978 pregnancy law does not give female employees the right to contraceptive coverage, which opponents of the Affordable Care Act have used to take their case to the U.S Supreme Court.

    Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania

    Hardiman is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit and also a George W. Bush appointee. He’s a Georgetown Law School graduate and has written two majority opinions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court: one supporting the strengthening of mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, and the others supporting a Pennsylvania jail’s policy of strip-searching the people it arrests, arguing that it does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment right of unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Raymond Kethledge of Michigan

    Kethledge serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and is — you guessed it — a George W. Bush appointee. Before joining the bench, he was the legal counsel for Spencer Abraham, a Republican U.S. senator from Michigan and former secretary of energy. It took Kethledge two years to get the job he has now because Michigan’s two Democratic senators opposed him (mostly for political reasons, it seemed; by opposing Kethledge, they ended up getting a Clinton nominee to the court out of the deal.) Once on the court, Kethledge has voted in favor of a Republican-backed law prohibiting public employee unions from collecting union dues on their paychecks.

    Joan Larsen of Michigan

    Larsen serves on Michigan’s Supreme Court. She’s a Northwestern Law School graduate, and she’s clerked for none other than the man Trump hopes she’ll replace: Justice Antonin Scalia. She worked as a private lawyer in D.C. and was a legal adviser to President George W. Bush around the time, critics pointed out, he was receiving controversial legal advice about waterboarding. Larsen said she didn’t work on that: “I read about them in the newspapers, just like you did.” Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) appointed her to the court in 2015. Also worth noting here: She faces voters this November, just like Trump, so it will be interesting to see how she plays this in a blue-leaning state.

    Thomas Lee of Utah

    Lee is the associate chief justice for Utah’s Supreme Court, where GOP Gov. Gary Herbert appointed him in 2010. He’s a University of Chicago Law School graduate and clerked for the high court’s Thomas before going into private practice and teaching at Brigham Young University. He’s argued before the Supreme Court and, like many people on this list, worked in the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration. Oh, and his brother happens to be Mike Lee, the U.S. senator from Utah. Senator Lee was considered for this list, too, reports The Post’s Barnes, but given his adamant support for Ted Cruz, he was dropped in favor of his brother.

    David Stras of Minnesota

    Stras is an associate justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court and a former University of Minnesota Law School professor. He’s a University of Kansas Law School graduate and clerked for Thomas on the Supreme Court. He was also a D.C. prosecutor for white-collar crimes. Then-Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) appointed him to the state Supreme Court in 2010, and he was believed to be the first Jewish justice on that court. (He would become the fourth on the current federal high court, joining Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer.)

    Diane Sykes of Wisconsin

    Trump hinted at Sykes’s potential for this list back in February, saying he’d like to have a conservative justice “tailored to be just like Justice Scalia.” She’s a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a former justice on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. Before that, she won election to a newly created trial judge spot on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 1992. Her ex-husband, a conservative Milwaukee talk-radio host named Charlie Sykes, just happens to be the guy who strenuously opposed Trump in the state’s presidential primary and gave Trump a grilling on live radio. Charlie Sykes said his ex would make a great Supreme Court justice.

    William Pryor of Alabama

    Pryor is Alabama’s former attorney general; at the time he was the youngest state attorney general in the United States, according to AL.com. George W. Bush nominated him to be an appeals court judge, and today he serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. During his confirmation hearings, Pryor called Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” He was eventually confirmed 53 to 45.

  56. robtbrown says:

    Fr Martin Fox,

    Your comments seem like trying to convince the Red Sox not to sell Babe Ruth.

    The abortion controversy is over. The Church lost, mostly because bishops did little except talk. In most dioceses there were no sanctions on pro abortion politicians–not only were they not excommunicated, but they have been given Holy Communion. Hand wringing bishops like Cardinals O’Malley and Wuerl rationalized their positions. They and other miters of their ilk remind me of an old military axiom: It’s better to have a group of lambs led by a lion than a group of lions led by a lamb.

    The Repubs were able to stack the court with enough justices to overturn Roe. But Kennedy, who it is said assured his pre nomination interviewers that he opposed Roe, later voted to affirm it.

    And then there were the bishops who met with Obama and actually believed there would be nothing in Obamacare offensive to Catholic doctrine. In fact, Biden, who is a man almost incapable of telling the truth, assured everyone that there would be no contraception mandate.

    It’s no secret that the Contraception mandate was only mitigated because Scalia was still alive. What’s going to happen if Hillary is elected?

  57. SKAY says:

    I appreciate the list and a little of their background, boxerpaws63.

    It will be important that the Republicans hold the Senate in order to get any of these
    on the list approved since the judiciary committee will have to approve the nominee before
    he/she can be voted on by the entire Senate. Of course if Hillary is elected and she has a
    Democrat Senate they will pull out all the stops to get her nominations approved. Her
    choices will look nothing like these.

    Votes still do count and they will determine the future of our religious freedom along with all of
    our other guaranteed Constitutional rights but even more importantly given to us by our Creator. The Declaration of Independence clearly states where our founders believed our rights originally come from.

    Father Z said:
    “Fourth, he is widely considered to be one of the worst Presidents in US history.]”

    Dear Millard may be moving down the worst list to second and possibly third worst, Father. :-)
    There is a more recent contender for the # 1 spot.

  58. Robtbrown:

    My comment above was not about taking sides, Trump v. Clinton. I was simply adding some facts, which haven’t been contested.

    Boxerpaws said:

    Trump did NOT and will NOT appoint his sister. He made that clear and submitted a list of justices he would appoint. He also made it clear they are as close to Scalia as possible. i don’t know where the story about his sister got started but I have a pretty good guess.

    Well, it wasn’t made up. Mr. Trump himself brought up how wonderful she would be on the Supreme Court. Some of his competitors for the nomination found fault because of a decision she had authored that was very pro-abortion, and he continued to defend her. So, make of it what you will, but it’s not a phony story nor a concern to dismiss. If you google “Trump appoint sister” you’ll find stories about it, and if you google “Maryanne Trump Barry Rubio” or “Maryanne Trump Barry Cruz,” you’ll find stories about all this.

    I voted for George W Bush.He made it clear he was pro life.

    I’m sorry to keep pointing out perhaps unwelcome facts, but President George W. Bush was not “pro life” — if, by that you mean, he was consistently against abortion. Like Trump and Romney, he supported legal abortion in the case of rape and incest. (And, if anyone is interested in a little history, Reagan’s position was 100% prolife, as was George H.W. Bush, when he ran for president in 1988 and 1992.)

    Now, someone in this thread is going to be upset, that I’m “quibbling,” or whatever. Look, I realize we all understand political calculations; and I understand as well that we may not have the sorts of choices we want. But facts — and how we use words — ought to matter. If we let someone who takes a morally and intellectually incoherent and indefensible position to get by with that, then what happens when the next move is to say (as the former Republican Governor of Virginia, George Allen, used to say), oh, I’m prolife — except for rape, incest, fetal deformity, and serious health issues for the mother. Will you say that person is “pro life”? What’s the calculation? Is it simply being for slightly fewer dead babies than the alternative? In which case, a person could be for keeping abortion 80% legal, and yet we’ll call that “pro life” if the other candidate is for even more abortions being legal? That is a corruption of meaning, and it’s not a good idea.

    If someone wants to make the argument for voting for a candidate who is partly prolife, that’s fine. But if the response is to minimize the facts, or to attack someone for pointing them out, then that reaction says more about you, reacting that way.

  59. Thomas Sweeney says:

    Well said Father Fox. When robtbrown went on about the Bishops it made me think of the professor from Boston College, who said the first Bishop to take a government grant was Judas Iscariot. The way things are going, it seems to me that the church should divorce itself from all government attachments. With Catholics like Justice Kennedy and our Catholic Vice President, Joe Biden, the church is being tied into knots of ambivalence. We are in need of strong leaders but our shelves seem to be empty.

  60. stephen c says:

    Imagine you are in a room with three people – one, a child who is facing a merciless government supported abortion (the child has told you he would prefer being called the worst names on earth rather than being aborted) – two, an upper class rich “third party candidate” who knows in his rich little heart that he has no chance to save the child, but who has told you that it is his moral duty to take away, with no expressed compassion for those who should suffer from the effects of those takeaway votes, votes that could have gone to someone who could potentially protect the child who does not want to be aborted and insulted by having her or his wonderful little remains – remember, the child is as innocent as the best of saints, even if the abortionist does not believe that – scraped into an anonymous trash bin – and three, the mother of that child, who in her youth and ignorance does not fully understand what is at stake , to include her wonderful eternal soul. Can you imagine yourself, under anything like contemporary conditions, being in that room and telling that mother and that child that the upper class rich third party candidate (who smiles at your adherence) will get your vote because only pure candidates are worth your support? Can you imagine that you could say that face to face to the victims?

  61. Ann Malley says:

    @Fr. Fox

    “…If someone wants to make the argument for voting for a candidate who is partly prolife, that’s fine.”

    Yes, Father, and the argument is that Catholics have the legitimate option to vote for the lesser of two evils when pressed to do so. That is when prudential judgement calls for it. That’s why the Magisterium you claim to support allows for such.

    That is not a vote for evil as some have intimated, but an attempt to do one’s duty to protect our children — all of them — to the best of our ability. Not to be gulled by the pretext of wanting to believe ourselves clean and holy. (Unchecked zeal is a dangerous thing and leads to untold suffering of those we haven’t considered. Perhaps those we have simply dismissed from our minds because it is too inconvenient to think that we may be guilty of sins we would otherwise wish to deny by way of word smithing.)

    Your further comments as to “personal attacks” is also rather off putting as it is nothing more than a victim canard employed by those who want to avoid the reality that there is a legitimate option for Catholics to engage in prudent discernment instead of pretending that signing on board to national martyrdom is the only answer.

    “But if the response is to minimize the facts, or to attack someone for pointing them out, then that reaction says more about you, reacting that way.”

    Yes, Father, the reaction of always crying I’m the victim says quite a lot about those who behave in such fashion. Especially when they leap like a Leprechaun over the legitimate call for prudent discernment, and that Catholic option of engaging prudential judgement provided by the Magisterium in order to shame others out of turn.

  62. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Fr. Martin Fox,

    I think it was you who said, in comments on a recent post, that we should be trying to be enunciating clear positions in an organized way and inviting candidates to tell us what they’d do to meet them, in seeking our votes – which reminded me of an interesting essay by C.S. Lewis on Christians and politics and parties in the UK, with a reference to Maritain, written in 1941 (when Hitler and Stalin were still buddies).

    Something like that might still work ‘down ballot’, today – and perhaps it is indeed being practiced in various ways with some success (I always check Right to Life candidate questionnaires).

    I’ve run into someone’s ‘pro-life voting record’ percentage ratings for those already in office, too (but am embarrassed not to remember the details, for which I have not stopped to search).

    “Is it simply being for slightly fewer dead babies than the alternative?” A good question – a carefully written law (well enforced) – could be a good salami-tactics step in making for a lot fewer dead babies: I remember reading a textbook by Derek Llewellyn-Jones, from the 1970s, I think, in which he was noting that if rape, incest, and to save the life of a mother in immediate danger, were the only grounds, then 98% of the abortions then being performed in England would not have been performed – I didn’t get the impression he’d have called himself ‘pro-life’, but he had clear misgivings about the scale of killing and the grounds making that possible.

    I suppose one practical application in the present circumstances, would be to keep at Mr. Trump to become more thoroughly, clearly pro-life (and to work on specific good measures, even if does not spell them out yet).

  63. Gilbert Fritz says:

    I think some people may be confused; just because Trump is pro-abortion does not mean we can’t vote for him to keep out Clinton, who is more pro-abortion. We should just always keep in mind that his is not pro-life. Because if we tell ourselves that he is, we are telling ourselves a lie. Lies tend to deform the mind. Over time, our ideas of what a pro life Catholic position are will become ever more foggy.

    We can vote for the lesser evil, be we shouldn’t call him good.

  64. Venerator:

    I think it was you who said, in comments on a recent post, that we should be trying to be enunciating clear positions in an organized way and inviting candidates to tell us what they’d do to meet them, in seeking our votes…

    I don’t recall saying that, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t!

    I remember reading a textbook by Derek Llewellyn-Jones, from the 1970s, I think, in which he was noting that if rape, incest, and to save the life of a mother in immediate danger, were the only grounds, then 98% of the abortions then being performed in England would not have been performed…

    Yes and no, and I think, more no than yes. Here’s what I mean. Yes, it’s true, but only because that’s based on estimates of how many pregnancies are caused by rape. But if you pass a law that says, you can have an abortion if you say you were raped, or there was incest, do you think maybe people wanting that abortion will use that loophole? I think so.

    In any case, there’s absolutely no good reason for Mr. Trump or Mr. Bush or Mr. Romney, or others, to take that position. The assumption that it makes it easier for them to win — that they will lose voters — is false. The abortion lobby doesn’t go any easier on a candidate who takes this position, and if you think abortion is legal, this doesn’t mollify you. Also, I would point out that Reagan and Bush were elected in three elections with 100% prolife stance, and the political situation today, on the prolife issue, is much more favorable than it was then. Yes, it’s worse in other ways, but we have more prolife legislators nationwide — at the state and federal levels — than ever, which is why so much more prolife legislation is passing at the state level.

    And, as I said, the “exceptions” position is morally and intellectually incoherent, and people see that. If you say that abortion is wrong, why isn’t it wrong then? So this position is a loser every which way.

    Nevertheless, it is very revealing about the person who takes that stance.

  65. Ann Malley says:

    @ Fr. Fox:

    “…In any case, there’s absolutely no good reason for Mr. Trump or Mr. Bush or Mr. Romney, or others, to take that position. The assumption that it makes it easier for them to win — that they will lose voters — is false.”

    There is “no good reason” by your estimation, Fr. Fox. That is a far different supposition that stating that there is, in fact, no good reason. For if you are looking for straight on consistency, then perhaps you should take issue with the Pro-Life movement itself for lack of consistency.

    Donald Trump, naively enough, irritated those in the Pro-Life movement by stating, quite logically, on an initial interview on the subject that he believed that since abortion was murder then “yes” women should be held responsible. That is should be punished. Why? Because they would be guilty of breaking the law, of committing murder.

    The outcry from the Pro-Life movement was a loud, walk back that statement. Walk it back quickly. Why? Because even the Pro-Life movement seeks to feint and parry the facts when attempting to rid our nation of the scourge of abortion. And they see punishing the woman that they believe would be better approached if treated as just another victim is the best method.

    But is Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood a victim when she speaks out boldly about killing one of her own babies after she and her husband determined they didn’t want an unnecessary interruption to their already busy and productive lives? Is that a victim, Father Fox? Is that not one who calculatingly planned and executed the murder of her own child? Um, yes.

    So your judgement as to there being “absolutely” no good reason precludes reason. Furthermore, your position presumes to judge that which you do not know. There are other methods that can be employed to tackle those who would feign rape or incest. Like having to name their assailant.

    Please, stop trying to pretend that Trump’s platform is equal to that of Hillary Clinton. It is not. And I must say I find the incessant need to portray a viable alternative as wholly unacceptable rather disturbing and very short sighted.

    In other words, your pretending that taking such a position wouldn’t gain Trump, Bush, or Romney more votes is false.

  66. Gilbert Fritz says:

    But one should never take a false position, even if it gave one more votes. Trump has sinned, is sinning, by taking the stance that some innocent children can be killed.

    Can one vote for a sinner with a clear conscience? Of course. Can one vote for a serial adulterer who thinks that the murder of innocent children is permissible and says he has nothing to ask forgiveness for, and still keep a clear conscience? Yes.

    But if we say he is pro life, we are telling a lie to ourselves. Lies eventually warp the mind so that the truth can not be seen. (Look at Hilary Clinton for a good example of this.) We can vote for Trump to stop Clinton. We must not vote for Trump as Trump.

  67. Mrs. Malley:

    I imagine many readers may be puzzled that you have spent a lot of energy in this thread attacking me, to the point of falsehood, when you say:

    Please, stop trying to pretend that Trump’s platform is equal to that of Hillary Clinton. It is not.

    I have said no such thing, and unless you support your claim with a quote, I insist you retract it and apologize.

  68. DanS says:

    I am the voice of the unborn, silent for too many elections. I am the breath of those who have never breathed the air but now draw it forth in my lungs and scream out with my voice for the first time “I want to live!”

    I am the voice of my sister who filled her emptiness with chemicals, fought the poisons in her body and won the war but lost the battle, alone at the end but for a brother’s prayer for divine mercy from 1000 miles away.

    I am the voice of a small boy in the ghetto with no father to teach him and me with no son to teach.

    I am the voice of the unemployed watching his possibilities shrink before his eyes, as weeks stretch to months, months to years and years to decades – still no jobs.

    I am neither republican, nor democrat yet I am both. I am the voice of the average man caught in the middle freeze between the two parties crying “Do something” as neither moves.

    If I would disagree I am placed in the “basket of deplorables.”

    If you would fall, I would help you to learn to walk again but I would not carry you forever, yet I would not leave you.

    If you would hunger I would feed you but not forever, only until you could grow your own food, yet I would not leave you.

    If you were in jail I would visit you.

    If your heart was broken I would weep with you.

    And when I could not help I would pray for you as I would have you pray for me. I would pray and the Lord of all understanding would lift you up.

    And who am I?

    I am those on 911 who ran into the fire. I am the lost helping fellow lost. I am the passerby who smiles and brightens someone’s day. I am an old friend. I am a new friend. I am the one who never speaks for fear of being placed in that bucket. This year I will shout with or without my fellow Catholics. You will hear me in the loud man’s voice. I am the “silent majority” and this year I will speak.

  69. Ann Malley says:

    @Fr. Fox:

    “I imagine many readers may be puzzled that you have spent a lot of energy in this thread attacking me, to the point of falsehood…”

    Father Fox, you “imagine” a great many things on this thread and on your own. To include declaring that which you should not. The latest fallacy, “…In any case, there’s absolutely no good reason for Mr. Trump or Mr. Bush or Mr. Romney, or others, to take that position. The assumption that it makes it easier for them to win — that they will lose voters — is false,” is an assertion of opinion as fact.

    And whereas you may like to describe my calling that out as a personal attack, (I stated that you pretend, not that you “said”) it is nothing but a rejection of your false statements and logical innuendo. Not your person.

    What readers puzzle, I will leave to readers and allow my words and your own to stand on their own merit. But as you’ve posited previously, something to the effect that what some continue to write reflects upon them, I will state quite plainly that the same also applies to you.

    Perpetually painting oneself as the victim of persecution does not bespeak conviction. Pretending that a legitimate critique of your words is an attack against you is distraction. Much like the assertions you’ve made about those who you seem to continually imply are merely not looking at Trump’s faults. Again, a perpetuated fallacy.

    That said, I thank you heartily for clarifying that Trump’s platform in no way approaches the manifest evil of that of Hillary Clinton. That is a ringing endorsement, Father Fox, of the avenue provided by the Magisterium to vote for Trump in clear conscience.

    Again, I appreciate our discussions. And I will move forward in the surety that you have made your position clear.

    Trump’s platform in no way equals the manifest, grave evils proposed by the Clinton campaign. Thank you. And thank you for putting your full support behind the Magisterium which enables solid, believing Catholics who love the Lord the prudential opportunity to defend our families, our Church, our country, human life, and all that is slotted for destruction under a Clinton administration.

  70. robtbrown says:

    Fr Martin Fox says:

    Robtbrown:

    My comment above was not about taking sides, Trump v. Clinton. I was simply adding some facts, which haven’t been contested.

    My point–poorly made–is that the abortion controversy is all but over–Ruth has already been sold to the Yankees. The anti-Catholics (some of whom are “Catholic”) won. It is highly unlikely that the laws on it are going to change. And any candidate who claims to favor a Human Life Amendment is wasting my time.

    I had another paragraph that I decided not to use. Here is its essence: In the Church the liturgical battle was lost in the mid 60’s. The contraception battle was lost soon after. A few years later we had Roe. Now we have homosexual “marriages”.

    The situation we are faced with is no longer whether there will be abortions or sodomites given marriage licences. Rather, it’s whether Catholics and others having serious moral objections are going to be forced to participate. The Obamacare Contraception Mandate was just opening the door to an Abortion Mandate. And we know that there are already municipal statutes forcing wedding businesses to service sodomite farces they think are weddings.

    The key area now is whether the Free Exercise Clause is going to be applied to those who don’t want to participate in these abortion/sodomite scandals. In the public eye the Church has lost much of its moral authority because so many bishops ignored the sexual problems. Cardinal O’Connor died in 2000–there is no one of his status who can call out the likes of Tim Kaine or Joe Biden. There is no doubt that Obama and his advisors knew well that they could mislead the bishops about Obamacare and contraception/abortion, and episcopal whimpering would be the only response.

    I know lawyers who are liberal political activists. Their approach to the Free Exercise clause is nothing new: They affirm it, but deny any significant application. The reason I say it is nothing new is that this was the strategy used against using the 1962 Missal. I personally knew priests who approached their bishops about the TLM. The answer was the same: The bishops professed their admiration and love for the TLM, but said that this is not the time for it.

    In fact, the same answer reputedly came from John Paul II. In the mid 80’s he appointed a commission of Cardinals to evaluate the need for Latin. They produced a document calling for one Latin mass in every parish on every Sunday. The word was that JPII said to the effect that it was not the right time and put the document away–later it resurfaced more or less as Summorum Pontificum. Perhaps if the pope would have promulgated the document in 1986, there would have been no schismatic consecration of bishops in 1988

  71. boxerpaws63 says:

    “Mr. Trump himself brought up how wonderful she would be on the Supreme Court. ” It’s his sister. What do we think he would say? Oh she would be horrible. It doesn’t mean he’s going to appoint her.

    Give a listen to Conservative Michelle Bachmann’s Value Voters Summit speech. I would also check out Mike Pence’s speech at the same event where he lays out Donald Trump’s positions re the Hyde Amendment,the Infant Pain legislation etc.
    No,Donald Trump is not going to overturn Roe V Wade. If this is what we expect we will be very disappointed. Ronald Reagan and George Bush couldn’t overturn Roe V Wade.
    Anyway give a listen. It’s worth it.
    https://youtu.be/OwMq5AwW93I

  72. boxerpaws63 says:

    Mike Pence’s speech at the Values Voters Summit .Trump was at Phyllis Scalfly’s funeral and didn’t attend this day so Pence was slotted for the time period.Since it’s mentioned in previous post thought I may as well post it and save folks the search.
    He spells out Trump’s policies re abortion legislation ie the Hyde Amendment among others.
    https://youtu.be/lg1S7jM1eR8
    Yes,there are 3rd and 4th parties but when we wake up on Nov 9 it will be one of two people depending on who gets the most no of votes-for those who intend to sit it out-will become Pres elect.That will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. It will come down to 1 thing;VOTER TURN OUT .If people stay home and decide not to vote Hillary then it will be Trump .If people stay home and decide not to vote Trump,it will be Hillary.It’s that simple.

  73. Mrs. Malley:

    I appreciate your acknowledgement that your claim that I equated Mr. Trump’s platform, and Mrs. Clinton’s, was false. It would have been nice to have had you apologize for that false claim about me, but I understand that apologizing comes very hard for some people. That you acknowledged your assertion was false means a lot, thank you.

  74. Ann Malley says:

    Fr. Fox,

    I am glad you are pleased, but again, strictly speaking, I made no such claim. Your interpretation of what I wrote was false. Any false claim is lingering strictly in your own imagination.

    Perhaps if we “both” cleaved only to the letter we’d have better understanding moving forward.

    But when one engages in interpreting the words of others, and drawing victim hood out as the only conclusion, while precluding the interpretation of his own words, that sets a bad precedence. That is neither nice nor easy. It is a double standard.

    And to say, as you have that you choose Christ over Trump has a clear implication although it is not, strictly speaking, to “say” that others do not choose Christ. Perhaps if you had set the example by apologizing for what you implied by that statement, others may not find your posts so worthy of energetic rebuttal.

    Although it would appear we are both equally blessed with the requisite energy to focus our attention where need be. Looking for the truth in statements, not just posturing.

  75. Mrs. Malley:

    In defense of my own truthfulness, which you persist in impugning, I will quote your own words once more: Please, stop trying to pretend that Trump’s platform is equal to that of Hillary Clinton. It is not. I made no such equation. Your assertion about me is false. There is nothing more to say except for you to apologize.

  76. And that brings us to a conclusion.