The Anti-Catholicism of the Clinton Campaign

I can’t stand these people.

From the UK’s best Catholic weekly:

Clinton campaign chief helped start Catholic organisations to create ‘revolution’ in the Church

John Podesta said: ‘We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’ to help change the Church

Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief helped to create campaign groups to press for a “revolution” in the Catholic Church, according to leaked emails.

John Podesta, head of Clinton’s campaign, says he helped to found two Catholic organisations to press for change in the Church.

In emails from 2011 released by Wikileaks, Podesta responds to an email from Barack Obama’s friend and former boss, Sandy Newman, about an “opening for a Catholic Spring”. [Like an Arab Spring?]

Newman suggests that “Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.” Newman refers to this as planting the “seeds of a revolution”.  [Sounds like Mao Thought.]

Podesta replies: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) was founded by Tom Periello in 2005. Its chairman is Fred Rotondaro. Both Rotondaro and Periello are senior fellows at the Centre for American Progress, founded by Podesta.

Rotondaro has called for the ordination of women, saying: “I have never seen any rational reason why a woman could not be a priest.” In the same article he says that “Gay sex comes from God”, and asks whether “any practicing Catholic under age 80” agrees with the Church’s teaching on contraception.

Critics have described CACG as a “Trojan Horse” for those who would undermine Church teaching. But its connections to senior figures in the Democrat party, and its intent to change the Church, have not previously been so clear.

Catholics United was also founded in 2005, by Democrat activists Chris Korzen and James Salt.

Catholics United has condemned bishops who deny Communion to politicians who support legal abortion. It describes this as “a shameful attempt to use the Catholic sacrament of Communion as a political weapon”.

Catholic writer Thomas Peters tweeted that the revelations showed CACG and other organisations were engaged in “deception” and that its howed Podesta himself had “a very active role”.

Read the rest there… and get really mad. Then tell all your friends.


If someone could figure out how to put the corpse of Millard Fillmore on the ticket, I would vote for it if that meant keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House.   Keep in mind that Fillmore was also a No Nothing.

Also, for me, an overriding issue is Supreme Court Justices.

From Creative Minority Report:

Clinton Campaign’s Anti-Catholic Emails

So yeah, the Clinton campaign picked Tim Kaine as the vice presidential nominee but a recently leaked email displays the animus and disdain which the campaign views conservative Catholics.

WikiLeaks released an email chain that included Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, Clinton campaign communications director Jen Palmieri, and Center for American Progress fellow John Halpin.

Halpin wrote:

Ken Auletta’s latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin’ Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.

Halpin also says of conservatism among Catholics:

It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.

Palmieri reportedly said that Catholicism is “the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion” and adds “Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Podesta then chimes in saying,

Excellent point. They can throw around “Thomistic” thought and “subsidiarity” and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.

Yup. This is disgusting but it is how the Clinton campaign views Catholicism. And if you’re hoping the media will cover this in the way it deserves, think again. I’d bet it’ll hardly get a mention on MSM.


See the comments of Archbp. Chaput about the Dems who work to subvert the Church.  HERE

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. benedetta says:

    Subsidiarity is worth learning about.

  2. JustaSinner says:

    Do Catholics that vote for Hillary Clinton put their everlasting souls at risk? So without a proper confession, they probably go to Hell? What type of sin is it for me to be happy, but not smug, about this?

  3. DonL says:

    Sadly, planned ambiguity and atrophied catechesis has neutered any such element as “the Catholic vote.”

  4. Legisperitus says:

    Thomism is also worth learning about.

  5. gsk says:

    I understand the stakes, and I understand the real venom against the faith, but those emails are mild. I get far worse from my own family. This isn’t surprising to any one who’s following the trajectory of policy, but merely a confirmation (and mild, at that).

  6. TheDude05 says:

    A little more of Thomism and subsidiarity would go a long way towards fixing this country, but as logic and distributed government is inherent in the Constitution they hate it.

  7. scotus says:

    Pardon my ignorance, but what’s the ‘SC’?

  8. jameeka says:

    I finally watched the Saul Alinsky film Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing last night. It helped me sort out the participation of the Catholic church in all this, at least in the larger cities of the USA. Insidious!

  9. KT127 says:

    I agree with GSK, this is pretty mild. I heard worse on my lunch break and far worse on the school playground as a kid.

    Unfortunately, they have a point about Subsidiarity and Thomism. The number of Catholics who could have a lively discussion on those topics are outnumbered by the scores of Catholics who wouldn’t be able to identify the terms. That’s not even getting into the protestants or the ones raised without religion.

  10. KT127 says:

    Scotus- I am guessing Supreme Court.

  11. Clemens Romanus says:

    What a better world we’d live in if more people understood Thompson and subsidiarity.

  12. Clemens Romanus says:

    Thomism. Blasted autocorrect!

  13. CalvinistConvert says:

    A newly leaked email shows Hillary Clinton’s current campaign chairman John Podesta and a Left-wing activist casually discussing fomenting “revolution” in the Catholic Church.

    “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church,” Sandy Newman, president and founder of the progressive nonprofit Voices for Progress, writes to Podesta in an email titled “opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing.”

  14. greenlight says:

    I disagree with the sentiment that these are mild just because people have heard worse. In a just world these would be as big a scandal as the Trump tape.

  15. LarryW2LJ says:

    That group of people hate Catholicism (particularly the “Traditional” variety) because it’s not afraid to shine light into the darkness, exposing the filth for what it is.


    Someone has to be the adult – and it shows that we’re doing our job.

  16. majuscule says:

    And what is this “Christian democracy” that we are “totally unaware” of?

  17. KT127 says:


    The people of the Church voting for what they believe rather than accepting there is an objective Truth.

    Clearly, we should all be able to vote for what God finds acceptable and pleasing. Why wouldn’t the creature be able to dictate to the Creator? It is 2016!

  18. mlmc says:

    majuscule- their vision of “Christian democracy” is identical to “democratic centralism”-ie we (your leaders-technocrats-the enlightened-the non-deplorables etc) decide & you shut up & obey. We only need to hear from Kaine-Biden-Pelosi about how to overcome our retrograde Thomism and notions of subsidarity so as to conform to the spirit of V2 (the current age).

  19. pannw says:

    I agree with greenlight. I think the thing that makes these even worse than much of what we hear in blog comments or from acquaintances is that these are coming from the ‘elites’ who actually have power. Especially in light of the new ones released today, that CalvinistConvert linked. They aren’t just Joe off the street calling us names trying to shame us into shutting up in a comment section, they are powerful men conspiring to destroy the Church. Sadly, their ‘Catholic Spring’ was clearly started years ago, just as Bella Dodd claimed. You can see the truth of her claims all around us. They are just trying to jump start it again, after the slight stall brought about by our previous two Popes. These leftists, like all leftists, are dangerous to the faith. How anyone who sincerely claims to be Catholic could support them boggles the mind.

  20. KT127 says:

    @ Greenlight

    You might be right. The Catholic Spring email was by far the most damaging and I don’t think that is enough to push the fence-sitters off the fence.

    A lot of Americans agree with the sentiments in these emails. They do think the Catholic Church should be dragged kicking and scream into the “proper way of thinking.”

    They have no desire to defend religious liberty or to allow religious exemptions. To them, allowing religious liberty to the extent the Catholic Church demands is to suppress human rights. The fact so many Churches have modernize their viewpoints has only solidified this viewpoint. We are the fanatical hold-outs. The ones who refuse to be reasonable.

    There isn’t going to be some magical email reveal where Americans wake up and realize all the complaints they have been hearing from Catholics and other conservative Christians are true. They don’t care. They’ve stopped caring years ago.

    The very few who might object to these emails have spent so long biting their tongue they not longer have the strength to speak out. They will silently disagree and go on with their lives.

    We need to start fighting back. The rest of the country is only going to help us when they see we have a chance of winning not when we are crying about how unfair our enemies are being.

  21. Matt Robare says:

    I’m just going to leave this here

  22. AvantiBev says:

    Radio talk show host and author, Dennis Prager, an observant Jew is quite right in his assessment that the most successful “religion” of the past 50+ years is Leftism.

  23. vandalia says:

    The only option is Mike Matruen of the American Solidarity Party. On the ballot in Colorado, write-in elsewhere. Here he restates what I have been saying all along:

    ” Don’t be stuck in the rut of the two party system. Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for evil, and only perpetuates the mindset that has gotten us to this point in our political history. The only wasted vote is a vote that is not cast. Do not listen to the apologists of the two-party system that a vote for a minor party candidate is a vote for Hillary, or a vote for Donald. These things are simply not true. A vote for Mike Maturen is a vote for Mike Maturen. The American Solidarity Party offers people of goodwill an opportunity to vote with a clear conscience. Take advantage of that opportunity, and help us to reshape the face of American politics.”

    The lesser of two evils is still evil. The only way one may vote for Trump (Clinton is completely off the table) is if one is morally certain that he will always and exclusively make decisions that are not in conflict with non-negotiable principles. Are you willing to to bet your soul that he will do so? Do you trust him that much? If not you cannot vote for Clinton, you cannot vote for Trump. A vote for either is almost certainly gravely evil. Remember as you enter the ballot box that God is not fooled.

    [You are helping Hillary.]

  24. DeGaulle says:

    vandalia, I cannot be morally certain that Mike Maturen is not the antichrist. No human being can possess the moral certainty you recommend. Nor is salvation a lottery.

  25. KT127 says:

    “is if one is morally certain that he will always and exclusively make decisions that are not in conflict with non-negotiable principles. Are you willing to to bet your soul that he will do so? ”

    That is ridiculous. That means Catholics can never vote.

  26. acbprop says:

    Has anyone considered that a large number, perhaps a majority, of “catholics” would love a “catholic spring” that topples the hierarchy and their archaic buzz killing rules? As evidenced by the fact that a majority voted for Obama and will likely vote for Hillary? With catholics this news might help Hillary more than it helps Trump.

  27. LarryW2LJ says:

    An open campaign for schism. Then so be it; and may God have mercy on their souls.

    As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  28. Midwest St. Michael says:

    “is if one is morally certain that he will always and exclusively make decisions that are not in conflict with non-negotiable principles. Are you willing to to bet your soul that he will do so? ”

    I agree with you on the statement above, KT127.

    Good grief, can we be certain *any* candidate during any election cycle will “make decisions that are not in conflict with non-negotiable principles”? If so, how? I certainly am not omniscient. Neither can I read souls or minds. So where does that leave one as a *Catholic* voter? Flip of a coin? Check and see which quadrant the second hand is currently on the clock (analogue, of course) – then choose a, b, c or d?

    The voter guides put out by the USCCB, and many others, simply leave me flummoxed to the point of not wanting to vote.

    But then one gets scolded, by one Catholic guru or another, that this is *not* an option because the salvation of your soul depends on *you* voting. (And Bishop Paprocki recently came out and said for this presidential election one *could* morally abstain from voting!)


    If there was ever a time I had the apolitical blues it is at the present. I give up.


  29. aliceinstpaul says:

    Catholic democracy just like that Arab democracy. Hillary came, she saw, he (Kaddafi) died.

    Decide for yourself who she’s willing to kill here.

    And then imagine what came next in Libya and what would come next here.

  30. MikeToo says:

    With the latest revelations it is clear – there is an organized effort from outside the Church to change doctrine.

    They have assistance from some within the Church.

    They have sown confusion. Just think of the lost souls as a result! This makes me really angry!!

    As a volunteer catechist it has made my job more difficult. I will keep them all in my prayers.

  31. Huber says:

    Am I the only person that thinks these leaked emails read like Screwtape letters?

    Talking about creating organizations to undermine orthodox theology, lambasting bishops for their resistance to heresy, and lamenting about Catholics that sound too sophisticated when using Thomist theology for reasoning… It all reads like demons corresponding for the destruction of souls…

  32. Polycarpio says:


    Many Catholics are going to vote for Trump because of his Pro-Life stance. But is he really Pro-Life? In 1999, Trump said he was “very pro- choice.” He articulated the classic abortionist mantra, “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors.” In an interview with Tim Russert at the time, Trump said he would not even ban partial birth abortion. While Trump changed his tune after he decided to position himself as a conservative outsider challenger, his current views are tenuous. In a CNN interview in June last year, Trump committed a freudian slip, saying “I’m pro-choice,” before correcting himself, “I’m pro-life. I’m sorry.” Other flip-flops were less inadvertent, as when Trump suggested in March of this year that he would criminalize abortions, but then backpeddled. In an interview in January, he told Bloomberg News that he believes any abortion ban should have exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Additionally, Trump has praised “the other work” of Planned Parenthood and says he’s undecided on embryonic stem cell research, while the Church opposes any research that exploits or destroys human embryos. In short, all the mixed signaling suggests someone who has repositioned himself for political opportunism but lacks heartfelt convictions on the issue.

    On the other hand, there are troubling signs that Trump is not Pro-Life. To put it simply, Trump’s personal life seems to reflect the values of a superficial, sex-crazed, divorce culture that generates and proliferates abortion in our society. In the “Access Hollywood Video,” we hear Trump, who had recently married, brag about making advances on another married woman and assert that he aggressively hits on women. Catholics who openly support Trump have to be worried about scandal, in supporting what Christianity Today calls Trump’s “blatant immorality.” The lifestyle promoted by Trump, that you can be promiscuous, ignore the boundaries and even marriage vows, if you have the means is the culture that generates birth control and abortion. It is not a “culture of Life”! And beyond the revelations to date, we have a duty to ask what else is out there? (What if he has procured birth control or even abortions for his sexual “conquests”?) In light of these concerns, Christianity Today recently warned its readers that Christian support for Trump as a “strategy” under these circumstances elevated strategy to the level of idolatry.

    Of course, your are right: not voting for Trump doesn’t mean you have to vote for Hillary (and it isn’t always true that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”–as we learned after we backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War). Darrell Castle is the Constitution Party’s nominee for President of the United States. He is pro-life and opposes federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Full disclosure: he is otherwise a Libertarian and opposed legislation “based on morality” including the war on drugs, regulation of prostitution, gambling, smoking, and similar vices.

  33. LDP says:

    ‘… and asks whether “any practicing Catholic under age 80” agrees with the Church’s teaching on contraception.’

    Well, I am certainly under 80 and the Church’s teaching on contraception is actually one of the main reasons – along with ecclesiastical divorce – why I am attending Mass in a Catholic church and not Divine Liturgy in an Orthodox church.

  34. Patrick L. says:

    Here is a nice article from Crisis earlier this month on how the executive branch has more power to check the Supreme Court than most people assume.

    Not that I think it is likely that any president in the near future will actually take this course, but it is interesting to consider.

  35. Chrisc says:

    For those not concerned with this….

    The big deal is not that democratic party hates the Church. That’s no news. See the removal of God from their platform. The big news is that the Clinton campaign was actively working to create these movements. Its one thing for politicians to oppose a certain viewpoint. It is another to actively attempt to sabotage this viewpoint by creating groups for the purpose of being false to deceive people.

    It is a bigger jump to go from opposing to sabotaging than it is from sabotaging to supporting a certain appropriate practice of a certain religion. (see Chinese patriotic association)

  36. majuscule says:

    Back in 2014, Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper for the San Francisco Archdiocese, had a three part series on the influence peddling of these groups and the individuals who fund them. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is mentioned by name.

    Here’s just one of the articles:

  37. Thomistica says:

    Curious whether Paul Blanshard and his fellow-travelers ever went so far as to try to foment a ‘revolution’ in the Catholic Church, in the way these ideologue political operator hacks are trying to do at the street level. I doubt however that that crowd went nearly so far as to create trouble for the likes of the Little Sisters.

    Well, we had a good run in this country. All bets are now off. Doesn’t help that the Catholic Church is now bifurcating, with one group marching lockstep with these new secularist totalitarians.

  38. benedetta says:

    It’s hard to imagine, from purported leaders who pretend to “represent everyone, listen to everyone”, anything more arrogant, self righteous, pompous, judgmental, intolerant, divisive, offensive, harmful. Period.

  39. Northern Ox says:

    No, wait, we know that Catholics in Alliance is actually a nonpartisan group, because Catholic News Service says so.

  40. KT127 says:

    “It is another to actively attempt to sabotage this viewpoint by creating groups for the purpose of being false to deceive people.”

    I suppose so. If this is opening eyes, wonderful! I am glad we have some nice written proof straight form the horses mouth. That is very useful, especially against misguided Catholics.

    I guess I’m just surprised anyone is surprised they were trying to sabotage us. But I was a child in their world, sometimes children see things that people would be very careful to hide from adults. I keep seeing everyone say how much Hillary has helped women and children and I just want to be sick. I know the type of “help” those people gave children. They are vicious, nasty, power-hungry people who prey on those weaker than them.

  41. vandalia says:

    @FrZ And how, pray tell, is claiming that this is”helping Hillary” ANY different from those who argue that restricting contraception really means that you encourage abortion? Or how if you don’t support legal abortion you necessarily support child abuse? The latter are bad arguments and the former is a bad argument. The morality of any act is determined by the object, not the consequences. If you are really thinking along these lines I am sure Richard McBrien has a place waiting for you.

    In charity I must warn you that you are flirting with eternal damnation. I have done my job and I have secured my soul (Ezek 33:6).

    @KT127 Note carefully that I said “morally certain” NOT “supernaturally certain.” The two are very different and the former does not necessarily mean that the one who is “morally certain” in fact turns out to be correct. A Cardinal states that he is “morally certain” (in many more words) when he presents his vote for Supreme Pontiff in Conclave. Nevertheless, it turns out over history that many of those votes have turned out to be “bad choices.” It does not necessarily mean that those votes were made in bad faith or the Cardinal who cast them was not “morally certain” in his choice. The decisions made by our Tribunal are supposed to be “morally certain”,but I would be willing to bet that when “all is revealed” many of the marriages declared invalid with moral certainty turn out to be in fact valid.

    Who knows, Donald Trump might turn out to be the greatest Pro-Life President in history. Or Hillary Clinton might have a “Damascene Conversion” upon taking the Oath of Office and do the same. (If God could convert Paul, he could certainly convert her.) However, while I am certainly not willing to bank on the latter, I am not morally certain of the former.

    Now, the problem is that many use consequences as permission to sin. Let me introduce “Vandalia’s Patented Morality Test”: If you use “what might happen” as a justification for your actions, then 99 times out of 100 you are using that as an excuse to sin.

    Examples I have heard over the years(not from the Confessional):

    1) Hmm. The barber gave me $20 in change instead of $10. I should give him the money back, but then “the usual crowd” is here and they will tazz him for months. It would be better for me just to keep the money and keep him from being made fun of.

    2) The woman next door has a bad infection but she can’t afford the $200 for the antibiotics. But I have a doctor’s appointment this afternoon. If I tell him the right symptoms, he will give me the prescription and my insurance plan will pay for it. Keeping her from dying is much more important than stealing a little money from “Big Insurance.”

    3) I spent all night at that party. I should go to Mass, but I have a terrible hangover. I am going to be yawning all through Mass and look like “death warmed over” which might keep people going to their first Mass from coming back. My missing Mass is more important than serving as a bad example to someone who just might be going to Mass for the first time.

    The morality of any act is determined by the “object, freely chosen” not by the consequences. That is called Consequentialism, and if you haven’t been around for the last 50 years, that is very bad.

    My one and only job is to keep you all from going to Hell. If you vote for a President who you are not morally certain will support Life, your vote is in fact grave matter. (While many may avoid mortal sin through ignorance, if you are reading this blog, you likely don’t have that excuse.) If you die with that on your soul, you will go to Hell. You can say whatever you like to yourself, or to me, or to you Confessor. But just remember God is not fooled.

    I am sure that FrZ will agree with this: Your vote is important. It is possible to commit Mortal Sin by the person you chose for any office, most particularly for the office of President. You had better be darn certain you are casting the right vote for the right reason. WE can justify just about any choice. God will not.

    [Whatever else, think SCOTUS. Do whatever you can to keep H out of the White House.]

  42. boxerpaws63 says:

    Been reading all the wikileaks .the ones that the media is hiding for Hillary.I’m voting Trump with a totally clear conscience. The government has become so corrupt that unless you are brain dead you have to be infuriated.
    The ONLY reason the Clinton campaign is firing these staffers over the comment about Catholics is because they were CAUGHT. There is no way on God’s green earth that we can let this woman get elected.The FBI is in on it.The DOJ ,THE MEDIA Wake up people. Our country will be taken over by these Saul Alinsky/George Soros communists who hate the Catholic Church and their own country. I do not exaggerate.She gets elected kiss your country goodbye,your freedoms goodbye from FREEDOM OF RELIGION (already under seige here)to FREEDOM OF THE PRESS(also already under seige).If you care about our country.If you care about what we will leave our children,grandchildren and the next generation you make sure you vote and as much as you can’t stand him, vote Trump .At least these rights will be protected.If she’s elected with all the corruption going on NOW,i dread to think what she would do as President.She’ s a CRIMINAL who commited FELONIES in collusion with the FBI and DOJ.That alone is enough to even disqualify her from running. There are people not getting information because of the media covering up for her (and our current President btw)who have no clue how deep this goes.

  43. Aquinas Gal says:

    I have no doubt that Fishwrap was also promoting the agenda of these groups.

  44. aviva meriam says:

    Dare I say it? This is the inevitable consequence of failure on the part of the Bishops to reign in rebellious Catholic Politicians via canon 915.

    For too many years, there have been no consequences within the church for violating cannon 915.

  45. boxerpaws63 says:

    SIDE NOTE:if you’re following the wikileaks and both campaigns you can conclude that Watergate was child’s play compared to what the Clinton’s/Democrat party are doing.

  46. boxerpaws63 says:

    What really bugs me is that 50% of Catholics will vote for Clinton supporting a “Catholic spring”. I don’t think the evangelicals they insulted will take too kindly though.

  47. Chrisc says:

    boxerpaws63, I agree completely. I think people should ask themselves one question:

    If Hillary is elected, what will limit her onslaught? It will not be the law, it will not be the DOJ, it will not be the FBI, it will not be the State Dept., it will not be the Congress whether comprised of liberals or feckless and complicit GOP establishment types, it will not be the Supreme Court that she gets to fill, it will not be the media….and it probably won’t be the American hierarchy.

    I have seen people refer to this as the Flight 93 election. We know what is coming, its time to roll!

  48. SKAY says:

    Following the money trail of Center for American Progress and John Podesta, it leads back to George Soros ,atheist/socialist and globalist. Of course he needs to influence the Church away from Christ’s teachings in order to achieve his one world government goal. I saw a video of him saying that he wanted to use his influence to achieve that and agreeing that the UN would be a good vehicle to accomplish this.
    Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was busy telling Catholics in 2008 that voting for
    pro abortion Obama(backed by Soros) was just fine. . Soros is now backing Hillary and we know from leaked emails that he had influence on her decisions as Secretary of State.
    Her SCOTUS choices will match their agenda and religious freedom will never be the same.
    I choose to vote so that my grandchildren will at least have the chance to be able to talk about their Christianity in the public square without fear.
    Cardinal Burke has warned us.
    .” Using the institutional imprimatur of CAP’s “think tank” and CAP Action’s blog ThinkProgress, CAP’s directors and funders — who include left-wing hedge fund titan George Soros — attempt to move national policy debates ever leftward.”

    Thank you for the link majuscule.

  49. SKAY says:

    Exactly Boxerpaws63.

  50. SubjectVerb says:

    One bright spot in this development is that it shows that the Left sees the Catholic Church as a threat. Little do they know that the gates of hell will not prevail. In fact, these emails show that there are a good portion of Catholics that are refusing to bend.

    LDP, good on you! I’m 32 and all my friends use NFP and desire large families. There’s a resurgence of NFP (a discovery after poor catechism) among young hard-identity Catholics. We may be a small set, but we’re the ones bearing the next generation.

  51. SubjectVerb says:


  52. albinus1 says:

    about an “opening for a Catholic Spring”. [Like an Arab Spring?]

    Here’s hoping and praying that their “Catholic Spring” works out as well as the Arab Spring did!

  53. boxerpaws63 says:

    Father Frank Pavone: I Am Voting for Donald Trump and Pro-Life Voters Should Too. Here’s Why


  54. Marc M says:

    “…helping Hillary…”
    “…Trump Trump Trump Trump…”

    Respectfully, and not meaning this as combatively as it probably sounds, is there some level of depravity that Trump could reach that would render a vote for him active participation in evil? Is there anything at all he could do to make it impossible, in conscience, to support him? I can’t participate in the election of either one of these contemptible people. If Hillary is elected, that’s on her supporters. I’m not responsible for their votes, only my own. And mine can’t support giving either one of these evil people such power.

  55. Charles E Flynn says:

    @Marc M,

    Donald Trump is a flawed human being, but he is not deeply and publicly committed to an ideology that supports and wishes to impose upon us all under penalty of law support for grave intrinsic evil. Donald Trump is capable of responding to beneficial outside influence, for example, that of his children. His opponent would have to replace her entire worldview to be worthy of your vote. Voting for someone with no statistical chance of winning is throwing your vote away.

    There are no doubt times when the calculation of the lesser of two evils is not a pretty picture, and I do not think anyone should feel obligated to expose to others how they make that calculation.

  56. Polycarpio says:

    @Charles E Flynn

    Voting for someone with no statistical chance of winning is throwing your vote away.

    Respectfully, I take issue with that. I don’t think you can say you are “throwing your vote away” by making what you consider to be a morally and ethically superior choice to the leading candidates. Is your suffrage a cold Machiavellian calculation or is it an exercise in conscience?

  57. The Egyptian says:

    Those of you who “refuse to vote for catholic reason” or “vote for some obscure candidate that is supposedly perfect” just be sure to publicly wash you hands when Hillary the corrupt gets elected, just like Pilate. You will have the guilt of helping elect this vile witch and her clack of demonic progressives, while they prosecute you and your church for not “changing with the times”

    to quote Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay man and a Catholic, who has had the courage to confront political correctness at breitbart news
    “Clinton Would Make Churches Marry ‘Whatever Tranny Orgy Stumbles Into the Chapel at 3AM”

    Who said, I will probably die in bed, my successor will probably die in prison and his successor by execution”
    (probably not quoted correctly but I tried)

  58. Charles E Flynn says:


    Good question.

    When I was younger, I thought it was a good idea to vote for exemplary write-in candidates. Then I started to see voting analyses that showed which of the two front-runners were losing votes because of the write-in candidates. In many cases, the well-intentioned write-in vote was effectively a vote for the opponent of the better of the write-in candidates. I used to think “If everyone did the same write-in vote that I am doing, a good candidate would win, and I am not responsible for what other people do.” Such an approach allowed my younger self to feel good about himself, but eventually I thought I was just being lazy and not making the unpleasant effort to calculate which candidate was the lesser of two evils.

  59. chantgirl says:

    So now that Tim Kaine, devout Catholic that he is, knows what his boss thinks about his deeply held faith, surely he will renounce his candidacy.

  60. Charles E Flynn says:

    @The Egyptian:

    From Cardinal George: The Myth and Reality of ‘I’ll Die in My Bed’, by Tim Drake, for the National Catholic Register:

    So, as a corrective, for all those writers and speakers out there desirous of using the quote, when used it should be used in its entirety.

    “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

    The Cardinal’s entire column is well worth reading. The end, in particular is quite poignant.

  61. LovedSinner says:

    This is absolutely disgusting this talk of trying to infiltrate the Church. Heck, if they tried to infiltrate the Lutherans or Mormons for political purposes it would be disgusting too.

    But on to your point about voting for anyone opposed to Hillary, even the corpse of Millard Fillmore does not sexually assault women by grabbing their genitals! I would vote for the corpse of Millard Fillmore over a genital grabber the same way I would vote for the corpse over Hillary. I am voting third party. I simply can’t believe what is happening in this country.

    And to say I am helping Hilary by not voting for Trump, you could also accuse me of helping Trump by not voting for Hillary.

    Oh, and I don’t trust Trump on the Supreme Court either. Sure he probably will better than Hillary, but who really knows? He is still on record of supporting Planned Parenthood, among many other things. If Trump becomes President, then the GOP cannot nominate a truly strong pro-lifer in 2020 because Trump will be the overwhelming favorite as the incumbent President to be the nominee again. So 4 years of bad Hillary appointments or 8 years of mediocre Trump ones. No thanks to either one.

    I do think it is a morally defensible position to hold one’s nose and vote for Trump due to things like the Supreme Court. But to shamelessly vote for Trump and say this is just “locker room talk” (like others do, not this site) is so anti-Christian.

  62. Thomas Sweeney says:

    It looks like a Kamikazie election, but I do feel, that morally Trump is the better choice. To put Bonnie and Clyde back in the White House is indefensible. Maybe Trump, in spite of his gutter language, and ambiguous past, will be a pleasant surprise.

  63. SenexCalvus says:

    The candidates in this year’s election, both the winner and the loser, will have been forgotten by the time our grandchildren take up the study of US history in fifth grade. What will not have been forgotten, however, is how, during the five-hundredth anniversary of the beginning of Luther’s revolt against the Church of Rome, Pope Bergoglio not only travelled to Sweden to commemorate that external attack on the Petrine Office, but even more jesuitically chose to undermine it from within by repudiating an unbroken tradition of sacramental discipline. Are you blind, my friends? Do you not see that Stalins, Hitlers, and Maos — to say nothing of our little Clintons and Trumps — have always come and gone, though never in living memory has heresy or sacrelidge been espoused with such impunity by the successors of the Apostles, let alone the Prince of the Apostles, as it is today? If you want to understand where you’re being led, dear lambs, visit an Episcopal church — or a slaughterhouse.

  64. Kerry says:

    Before he died, Charles Rice wondered if Obamacare was not equivalent to the enabling legislation, (from wicked-pedia), “…a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.” Need one remind commenters here that the murder of the Jews and the other six million deplorables murdered by the Nazis, was legal, and within the law. (Would Podesta chortle at seeing Edith Stein pass by on the train…?) The deep moral confusion of the country is both moral relativism, and the overwhelming weight of positive law, at the expense of eternal, transcendent truths, and the natural law. (In his ‘World Split Apart’ Solzhenitsyn said, “Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes based, I would say, one the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in interpreting and manipulating law. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required. Nobody will mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk. It would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames.
    I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale than the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. ”
    Remember Algore’s sophistry regarding his fund raising from the White House, “There was no controlling legal authority”… ?
    Hilary Clinton must not become President! It should be quite easy to see that the “oooh, Trump’s vulgar and crude, I can’t vote for him” doesn’t matter a hill of beans in this crazy world. We do not have the luxury of a perfect opponent. Suppose a couple of judges land on the supreme court who believe, (as I once read of the wife of a judge in the Twin Cities), that individuals do not have a right to self defense, that firearms must be turned in or else, and so forth and so on. Rush Limbaugh once met and talked with Antonin Scalia. In their conversation Rush said something about arguing/debating law with the liberals on the court, to the end of changing their views. “Debate? We don’t debate. They’ll never change their views!” (Probably not an exact quote, but not so far off as to be in the rough.)
    “For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. ” Gandalf, of course talking of Sauron, or was it Podesta, or The Gorgon, or the Jackals of the Press?
    Hilary Clinton must not become President!

  65. boxerpaws63 says:

    “Respectfully, and not meaning this as combatively as it probably sounds, is there some level of depravity that Trump could reach that would render a vote for him active participation in evil? Is there anything at all he could do to make it impossible, in conscience, to support him? I can’t participate in the election of either one of these contemptible people. If Hillary is elected, that’s on her supporters. I’m not responsible for their votes, only my own. And mine can’t support giving either one of these evil people such power.”
    Fr Frank Pavone is voting for Mr Trump. Are you saying that Fr Frank Pavone would vote to particpate in evil.Evidently you skipped his statement in the article i posted. So you’re saying if the Hillary supporters get Hillary elected that vote is on them-so you’re not going to vote and say you bear no responsibility? It’s on them? You know why Obama got elected? Because of ppl who said exactly the same thing and didn’t vote.You’re as much responsible for the election of Hillary Clinton as her supporters are.God help us if she gets elected.I will not have that on my conscience. How foolish you are…I’m sorry.

  66. Charles E Flynn says:

    On the Fox News program “The Kelly File”, William Bennett apparently just coined a new description of the people who run the Clinton campaign: “transatlantic agnostic progressives”.

  67. The Egyptian says:

    compare this to Hildabeasts “catholic” advisors (including Kaine)
    The list of Catholic heavyweights signing on to advise Trump includes Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List; Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback; Francis Rooney, former ambassador to the Vatican and the GOP nominee in Florida’s 19th U.S. House district; Matt Schlapp, president of the American Conservative Union; former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating (R); U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio; Jim Nicholson, former Republican national chairman, secretary of veterans affairs and ambassador to the Vatican; longtime conservative leader Richard Viguerie; and Tom Monaghan of Michigan, founder of Domino’s Pizza and the Ave Maria University.
    Sean Fieler, President, Chiaroscuro Foundation
    Rev. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life
    Chris Slattery, Founder & President, Expectant Mother Care
    Rep. Andrew Harris, (R.,Md
    Janet Morana, Co-Founder, Silent No More Campaign
    John Klink, President Emeritus, International Catholic Migration Commission
    Marjorie Murphy Campbell, Founder & Publisher, New Feminism
    Deacon Keith Fournier, Chairman, Common Good Foundation and Common Good Alliance
    Tony Maas, President & CEO of JTM Food Group
    Patrick Walsh, Former Chief Secretary and Attache, US Embassy, Dublin, Ireland
    Matt Smith, President, Catholic Advocate, Board Member, American Conservative Union
    Austin Ruse, President, Center for Family and Human Rights
    Angela Flood, Former Director, Secretariat of Communications, Archdiocese of Washington
    Lou Murray, New York Life financial consultant
    Lisa Bourne, journalist, LifeSiteNews
    Rep. Steve Chabot (R.,Ohio).
    Ed Martin, President, Eagle Forum
    Chuck Mifsud, President, Catholics for Ohio
    Mark Corallo, Founder, Corallo Media Strategies
    Jay Shepard, RNC National Committeeman, Vermont
    Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.)

  68. KateD says:

    This makes me so angry….

    But when the smoke clears, I have to ask “why”?

    Why pick on Catholics?!?

    Here’s why:

    23.9% of Americans self identify as Catholic. That’s 76 million people! 33.3 Million Americans are of Irish descent and they didn’t get here by accident. Most were thrown out or left rather than give up the Catholic faith. That’s 10.4% of the population of the USA! 55 million Americans are of Hispanic descent. Most of them are Catholic or have at the very least, Catholic roots. We’re not even talking about the Italians and Poles or rites other than Latin. This is why Politicians woo the Catholic vote.

    We used to be Democrats, but they’ve become a party with a platform that is now antithetical to the basic tenants of our faith. They feel compelled to convert or destroy us….

    Kinda sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    If we could get some strong, clear direction from Rome, marriage and life would be protected (instead of 59 million babies being killed)…our nation would not be so repugnant to God, that he would leave us with a choice of Hillary or Trump.

  69. The Egyptian says:

    We used to be Democrats,
    sadly many Bishops still are, “the catholic church, the Democratic party at prayer” is the old line
    How much of this can we blame on Card. Bernadine and his “seamless garment” line of baloney

  70. The Egyptian says:

    My old parish priest in our religion class wwway back in 1975 informed us new voting kids that we had a moral duty to vote for the kennedys, after all they were catholic, with enough prayer God would change their mind and they would govern right, end abortion. He blew a gasket when I told him I’d vote for satan before I’d vote for a kennedy, threw me put of class and told me not to come back till I confessed. BTW he was Irish

    wish I’d know Fr Z’s line about old Millard

  71. SenexCalvus says:

    I suffered a slight pang of regret after submitting what might be considered, in this age of ecumenical niceness, a figurative equation of the Episcopal Church with a slaughterhouse. Then I remembered a segment recently aired on NPR that reported on the ongoing precipitous decline in that ecclesial community’s membership. Lambs go in, lamb chops come out. Hmm, does this remind anyone of the SCREWTAPE LETTERS?

  72. Semper Gumby says:

    There is an interesting article in The Hill Sep. 9, 2016, titled “Tim Kaine’s Radical Roots.”

    The “Fr. Jim Carney” mentioned in The Hill article is the same Jesuit as the “Fr. Jim Carney” mentioned in a Sep. 26, 1983, UPI report titled: “Questions raised over possible guerrilla activity in Honduras.”

    The Hill article also mentions the Mitrokhin Archive and Lt. Gen. Pacepa. The Mitrokhin Archive refers to one Vasili Mitrokhin, an archivist for the KGB, and his handwritten summaries of KGB intelligence reports and plans. In 1992 Mitrokhin defected to the West, bringing his handwritten summaries, with the aid of MI-5.

    Lt. Gen. Pacepa was a top Romanian security and intelligence official until he defected in 1978. Pacepa’s claims that the KGB essentially created Liberation Theology are further explored by Robert Chapman in a pay article at “International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence Vol. 23:1.” Numerous other books and articles note that, for example, the Sandanista government had three liberationist priests working as government officials.

    As The Hill article notes in closing:

    “On the conscience rights of groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Kaine sided with Obama. Francis sided with the Little Sisters, whom he visited in Washington a year ago to publicly show his support.

    “As in the 1980s, Kaine’s “Catholicism” serves neither his Church nor his country, but a Leftist political agenda that has proven to be on the wrong side of the Church, on the wrong side of history, and against the interests of freedom and the United States.”

    By the way, that EWTN documentary “Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing” is worth viewing. It discusses Saul Alinsky, his book “Rules for Radicals” which he dedicated to Lucifer, and certain radicals in the Church. Alinsky, of course, was one of Clinton’s mentors.

    Fr. Z wrote: I can’t stand these people.


  73. KateD says:

    Scotus asking “what is the SC”….nyuck, nyuck.

  74. Polycarpio says:

    @Charles E Flynn

    Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I was going to lob a hypothetical at you to illustrate my point, then I thought better of it because there are problems with hypotheticals. Nevertheless, they do serve a purpose, so I hope you will forgive my resorting to one here.

    If Hitler was running against Stalin, and St. Edith Stein was on the ballot, but “didn’t stand a chance,” would voting for her be “throwing away your vote”?

    The problem with voting for “the lesser of two evils” is that, by definition, you are choosing “an evil.”

  75. Charles E Flynn says:


    You are welcome.

    We will not see an American election pitting a Franciscan against a Dominican. Anyone who runs for the office of President of the United States is likely to have a high degree of self-regard, and an overblown sense of entitlement.

    I do not like hypotheticals either, but if I thought a lot of people might vote for Edith Stein, I would vote for her. If I thought that either Hitler or Stalin were almost certain to be elected, I would vote for the one I considered most likely to be promptly overthrown. I do not think that is applicable to our election, because we are not interested in having our government overthrown.

  76. The Egyptian says:

    If Hitler was running against Stalin, and St. Edith Stein was on the ballot,
    so which one is comparable to Hitler, come on the Hitler meme is so old it is dead ( probably registered to vote dem in Chicago). as for the rest who are you saying is Edith Stein???

  77. aliceinstpaul says:

    Careful what you wish for.

    HRC created the Arab spring and we got the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt, Al Qaeda running Libya, and complete civil war of ISIS and Syria leading to Russia controlling the Mideast and Iran getting nukes.

    Exactly what makes you think what rushes in to the power vacuum left behind by the destruction of the Catholic Church in America won’t be as bad?

  78. Charles E Flynn says:

    From Why I joined the list of intellectuals for Trump, by Daniel McCarthy, for The Spectator:

    Last week more than 130 right-wing thinkers put their names to a defiant document — a list of ‘Scholars and Writers for America’ in support of Donald Trump. It includes the editors of five of the country’s leading conservative journals of ideas: R.R. Reno of the Christian conservative First Things; Roger Kimball of the New Criterion, the right’s leading journal of the arts; Charles Kesler of the Claremont Review of Books; the American Spectator’s R. Emmett Tyrrell; and me, the editor of the American Conservative. (Notably lacking are names from America’s oldest conservative magazine, National Review, which has been as hostile to Trump as the columnists of the New York Times and Washington Post. NR, representing what now seems like the establishment wing of the right, published a ludicrously ineffective cover story in February demanding that Republicans not nominate Trump.)

  79. Charles E Flynn says:

    From An Assessment of the New USCCB Document Faithful Citizenship, by Stephen M. Krayson, for Crisis Magazine:

    FCFC acknowledges, however, that the moral choices facing voters in deciding among political candidates are often less than clear-cut or satisfying. It says, “When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (#36). This reminds one of Raymond Cardinal Burke’s 2004 pastoral letter when he was Archbishop of St. Louis. He said it is permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports the limitation of legal abortion, even if not opposing it entirely, if he is up against an opposing candidate who is outright pro-abortion.

  80. WYMiriam says:

    Polycarpio, thank you for putting your hypothetical into words. I was ruminating about how to word that very hypothetical, and wondering who to put as candidate for the “third party.” St. Edith Stein is a great choice!!

    My vote for Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) is a vote for Darrell Castle. It is in no way a vote for Hillary, nor will it help her to be elected. Here is why:

    1. my vote is for Darrell Castle because it is he whose name I will be filling out the oval beside on the ballot. This holds true even if I had to write his name in.

    2. IF I were forced to choose either to vote for DT or HC, or not vote for president at all, I would not vote. Since there is no vote there, my action of abstaining from voting could not possibly help either candidate.

    3. If I began the process of deciding for whom to vote by thinking I’d vote for HC, and wind up voting for DT, then . . . . I don’t help HC, do I? If I began that process by thinking I’d vote for DT, and actually give my vote to HC, then I’d be helping HC. BUT — if I began that process by thinking I’m going to vote for Darrell Castle, and then actually vote for Darrell Castle, I’m helping Darrell Castle and no one else, because there’s no way I’d ever vote for either DT or HC.

    Donald Trump is not a political savior for this country, and there is no way to be certain that he would appoint — or that the Senate would confirm — pro-life judges to the SCOTUS. Darrell Castle is not a political savior for this country either, but I am morally certain that Darrell Castle would appoint pro-life judges. Whether the Senate would confirm those appointees is a different question, which is why, in some ways, the federal legislative races are much more important than the presidential race.

  81. Marc M says:

    A “lesser of two evils” argument applies to policy disagreements. This guy is squishy on that issue and I disagree with him over there, but the other guy is worse, so I can pick the lesser of two evils. OK.

    It doesn’t apply to actually committing evil. This guy is going to murder ten innocent people, or I can murder these five innocent people instead. My group is smaller, so I’ll do it as the lesser of two evils. NOT OK.

    For sixteen years I’ve voted straight ticket republican on the first basis. This year Trump has forced me into the second. If you need for some reason to assign blame for a Clinton win to someone other than the people who vote for her, then blame Trump himself for his own behavior.

  82. Gaetano says:

    John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, stated in a campaign email that they created two groups to promote liberal movements in the Catholic Church. These people are directly meddling in the internal affairs of a church.

    Clearly the “wall of separation between Church and State” so often lauded by the Left only applies one way.

  83. frjim4321 says:

    The charges seem trumped-up like something you would see on Life Site “News” or or That having been said, nor do I approve of CACG which seems to be doing the same thing, but from the other side.

  84. Chrisc says:

    frjim…hard to be trumped up when the quotations are what they are. Sure, context..yada, yada. Yet,I don’t know how one adequately contextualizes fomenting of a revolution within a religious body such that we can make it acceptable on our terms.

    Look, when the Amish (who are not known for their sophisticated tracking of the pulse of the nation) endorse a candidate for the first time ever, you know which candidate is attracting flies with their BS.

  85. frjim4321 says:

    “The Amish?”

    The Amish are represented by a single voice somewhere?

    They don’t even have churches, they meet in small groups in members’ houses.

    There is no monolithic “The Amish.”

  86. DetJohn says:

    Where do they get their authority to do an say what they want?

    For Podesta, a Catholic, it must be his Medieval Surname. “Chief Magistrate”

    Podesta is also the title given to an Italian person appointed as a Mayor of an Italian City during the Fascist Regime (I like this one the Best.)

    For Jennifer Palmiere, it must be in her Surname. An Italian name from Old French meaning Cleric. Maybe she feels I am a cleric no matter what the church says.

    Don’t know if Jennifer has a religion. Based on some her comments she seems to be Anti-Catholic
    You can be sure she has a massive amount of Catholic in her Family Tree.

  87. JabbaPapa says:

    majuscule :

    And what is this “Christian democracy” that we are “totally unaware” of?

    The Americanist Heresy.

    Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae :

    Do read the whole thing — but one extract :

    Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.

  88. AnnTherese says:

    I’m with Polycarpio. I don’t believe for a heartbeat that Trump is pro-life.

    [I don’t care if he is even a Yankees fan, so long as he appoints decent picks for SCOTUS. That’s the big one.]

  89. benedetta says:

    Perhaps Trump is not indeed “prolife”, at the same time, looking at his statements and policy proposals, as compared to Clinton, he certainly is not rabid for destruction of more human life in the womb and even extremist, not in sync with the mindset of most Americans, platforms such as refusing to acknowledge human life in the womb and setting out particularly partial birth abortion as a policy goal, which is macabre and anti human, with funding by taxpayers. I’d say that compared with unchecked, gross expansion of an already near genocide, a position to at least not do that, not torture and dismember, even more, paid for by the government fisc, so much as possible, celebrate it, and refuse to acknowledge average American’s concerns with that as being somehow anti woman, well, it is prolife. Maybe not the utopia one craves but in such a present situation who can angle for extreme positions in ideology…such as destroying another’s religion as political operative…and admit to it and discuss it as bigots in email policy strategizing…oh wait…

  90. JonPatrick says:

    I get very frustrated when I read this “lesser of 2 evils is still evil” argument. What we have here is not the “lesser of 2 evils”. One candidate is outright evil. The other is a flawed human being. We are all flawed human beings in some way. It really bothers me that people essentially make a moral equivalence between support for abortion at all times including up to the second of birth, and someone who talks like is is in a men’s locker room. Yes he had extra marital affairs as did JFK, Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, FDR and many others who are considered among our great presidents. There is a huge difference here between these 2 candidates.

  91. AnnTherese says:

    That’s my point: just because Trump says he’s against abortion doesn’t make it true. And no matter how many judges he would get to appoint, there’s no guarantee they would be pro-life, either. (We can be pretty sure they would serve his self-interests.)

    I’m pro-life, womb to tomb. Neither candidate is pro-life. They both lie. Politicians don’t get to the level of running for president unless they’ve lied along the way– and when campaigning, the trick is to say what you think voters want to hear. Whether it’s true or not.

    Roe v Wade happened during a Republican presidency, and while the Republican candidates have “pro-life” platforms, no Republican president has really made a difference on behalf of the unborn. Yes, I think the judge appointments are critical. But if you think Trump really cares about unborn children– then you’re placing a lot of trust in someone who hasn’t demonstrated caring about any group of vulnerable people, and who hasn’t proven to be trustworthy. Of pretty much anything.

    [Does he “care” about the unborn? Who knows. I’ll take decent appointments to the SCOTUS and federal judiciary. I know what sort H will appoint. T has issued a list and there is no compelling reason to think that he won’t stick to that list. I don’t think that any reasonable person imagines Trump to be a through and through conservative. I suspect, on the other hand, that he is the natural ally of conservatives. That cannot for an instant be imagined about Hillary.]

  92. Vincent says:

    Some thoughts from across the pond. Many of you are bothered by personalities, but it’s not the personality of the person which is important, it’s their appointments. In 4 years you get another go at POTUS, but you don’t get another go at the Supreme Court, since those appointments will outlive the President.

    I would also like to point out that – laudable as it is to be concerned about it – abortion will continue regardless of your next president. There is only one way to stop abortion, and that is the conversion of your country and mine to the Catholic faith (in it’s non-watered down form). So, if you seriously care about stopping abortion, you will not vote for someone whose advisors are actively working against the Catholic Church.

    Finally, look at character. Trump is a man who, for all the objectionable garbage he spouts, can be led. With the right advisors (and it looks like some of them are right), there may well be an opportunity to recover some of the ground lost under the previous POTUS. It looks to me like the opposite will happen under Hillary.

    Ultimately, sad though it may be, not voting for Trump looks like it will condemn your nation to something far worse.

  93. bombermac says:

    @vandalia, others

    A couple months back, The Remnant posted a video outlining how a Catholic could vote for Trump based on the principle of double effect:

    The whole video is worth watching (be sure to stick around for the bits from Pius XII and Leo XIII, and the part about the Johnson Amendment), but here’s the gist: a Catholic may never choose evil; however, according to the principle of double effect, a Catholic may take an act that has both a good and an evil effect as long as the act itself is not evil and as long as the good that comes from the act outweighs the evil.

    A properly formed conscience comes into play along with ones assessment of Trump’s promises and potential to do good–all this is covered in the video.

  94. Papabile says:

    Both John and Tony Podesta were raised Catholic. Georgetown alums.

    What else would you expect?

    I believe Jen Palmiere is Catholic, though its not a priority if she still is. Of note… JEn was at Center for American Progress in under Podesta before becoming Comms Director under Obama. She goes all the way back to Clinton admin when she w as DepDir of Scheduling and later DepDir of Communications.

    If I remember correctly, I saw her actively engaged at the Cairo Conference back in 1995. We chatted a lot back in the late 1990’s. She went to American U, where the Church is held in particular contempt.

  95. KT127 says:


    You aren’t just voting for a president here. You are empowering the people on either side, in the age of social media that is not a small thing. We are just now starting to see a lot of push-back from Christians/Right/Right of Center people. Once Trump came on the scene, those folks really started to find their grove and stand up more and more against the “party line” of our culture.

    If Hillary wins, those folks will be demoralized the left will be screeching with joy. I very much believe we will start seeing “Hate Speech” legislation. All they need is a friendly court and clever law writers.

    The left is wanting far more than just to preserve their pro-choice stance. They want partial birth abortions, some even advocate infanticide, they want to sow even more gender confusion. They want to control the education of children and destroy the authority of parents. They have already very much demonstrated their hatred of God and Churches.

    These people are insane, and Hillary will use them to silence us in the name of “democracy.”

    Trump, Trump is a different animal. I don’t think he’ll betray his base but I do know that the pr0-life movement is not his top priority. He is more interested in trade, jobs, immigration. But he is never going to push for the gains of the pro-choice camp like Hillary would and he won’t empower the left. Just the opposite, he will empower us and give us more ground to push back on. Pence is incredibly pro-life. You should wander into the discussions by the liberal women. They are terrified of Pence. They think he is far scarier than Trump ever would be.

    Now think this through, Trump gets through the presidency. Let’s assume he does a decent job. He puts Pence in a place where he might be able to run for president next. There’s your pro-life president.

    Maybe I meet your moral certainty, but I know your comment will stop a lot of Catholics. Some may decide to just vote third party or not vote at all because it is safer to “wash their hands” than risk it.

    But remember we aren’t just supposed to not commit evil we are suppose to do good. Given the power of the left’s mob right now, given the policies of Hillary Clinton, given the number of Supreme Court seats up for grabs……how is failing to do your best to defeat Hillary not failing to do the good we are meant to do?

    Why not vote for Trump and start asking our Priests to say a Mass every week for Trump and Pence so they will stay strong and true to their message? Why not offer up Rosaries for them? That seems more reasonable to me, to ask God to keep them true. Rather than ask God to completely turn our election process upside down, especially in a country that insults Him daily.

    How is that a worse than “washing our hands” and saying “Not our circus, not our monkeys”? It IS our mess, it IS our circus, they ARE our monkeys. We need to clean this up, not walk away from it.

  96. PA mom says:

    So, can we consider dead the Progressives’ argument that all of this active minimizing of Christianity is simply a requirement of the separation of Church and State?

    It clearly isn’t.

    It is an active undermining of the Faith. It is a constant, demonic obsession for destruction and control.

    Please, vote against these people. Break up their corrosive, anti-Christian army.

  97. Filipino Catholic says:

    I think I can now sympathize with James and John when they wanted to call down the wrath of God on a town that would not receive Christ. Those who are able might probably wish to do as He did — vote with the feet and seek holier pastures.

  98. un-ionized says:

    The Amish will always obey the ordnung, period. So in that sense yes, there is a monolithic Amish.

  99. Sonshine135 says:

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Recall, it wasn’t but a few weeks ago that we found out George Soros was funding uber-liberal catholic organizations during the Pope’s visit. The smoke of Satin is everywhere!

  100. SteelBiretta says:

    These leaked emails raise the stakes. This is about survival of the Church against those who hope to corrupt and subvert her here in America. A vote for Hillary (or for anyone who isn’t Donald Trump) is a vote for this. If you vote against Trump in a swing state, you are complicit. If you’re not in a swing state, your vote against Donald Trump would be used by a victorious Hillary as evidence of a mandate.

    I hope that the bishops realize this, and that we will see less mealymouthed letters like the one that said that “No Catholic should feel obliged to vote for one candidate just to prevent the election of another.” There are two viable candidates. One seeks to subvert and destroy the Church. You vote to ensure that one doesn’t come to power.

    Trump isn’t perfect. I’m not voting for perfection. I’m voting for survival.

  101. SKAY says:

    SteelBeretta said:

    “I hope that the bishops realize this, and that we will see less mealymouthed letters like the one that said that “No Catholic should feel obliged to vote for one candidate just to prevent the election of another.”

    Unfortunately this article may explain why that may not happen.

  102. SteelBiretta says:


    You’re right. It’s easy to stand up for refugees when you’re getting paid to house them. It’s easy to stand up for Medicaid expansion when you stand to benefit from it. It’s harder to stand up for the unborn. I’m hoping that there will some bishops who will openly defy the Johnson Amendment (it’s well past time). But an old saying about wishing in one hand comes to mind.

  103. chantgirl says:

    We are only one or two Supreme Court justices away from a real religious persecution in this country. If Hillary gets to nominate them, expect churches to be taken to court right and left, and punished with heavy fines for refusing to allow confused people to use the wrong restroom, or for rejecting homosexuals’ requests (threats) to rent the church hall for their reception. Precedent will not stop Hillary’s nominees from putting an end to churches being able to employ people who believe and behave according to that church’s teaching. Expect smaller churches to be fined out of existence. Expect schools to close because they can’t hire people faithful to the faith. Expect the Catholic church in America to increasingly split into “patriotic” and underground churches. The “patriotic” churches will capitulate rather than be fined out of existence, and the underground churches will lose their property through staggering fines and be forced into a religious ghetto.

    Hillary has no respect for parental rights. Expect children to have increased access to contraception and abortion without parental knowledge or consent. Expect children to be screened in gradeschool for gender confusion in order to allow them to act medically before puberty starts. Expect children to be able to get sex reassignment surgery against their parents’ wishes. Expect parents to increasingly lose their ability to choose what kind of education their children will receive. expect homeschooling to eventually be outlawed, or homeschoolers blacklisted by increasingly totalitarian colleges. Expect faithful colleges to be branded as “hateful” and lose their accreditation.

    Hillary has no respect for conscientious objection. Expect Catholics and evangelicals to be forced to capitulate or be forced out of law, medicine, teaching, counseling, and wedding-related industries. Expect Hillary’s SC picks to force churches and individual companies and private citizens to pay for contraception, abortion, sex-change surgery, and euthanasia.

    I will vote for a man I find personally disgusting but who I believe has the capability to be lead to good decisions versus a woman who appears to be a sociopath and an enemy of the Church.

    On a final note, Trump’s economic policies will likely be much better for the average American family and anyone with the drive to create new businesses and create new jobs, which will reduce unemployment and poverty.

  104. Absit invidia says:

    Catholics have the obligation to prevent a greater harm that would arise to a nation (assigning a Supreme Court Justice who supports abortion) if one candidate is elected vs another. This Puritanism among Catholics to elect somebody who displays the most angelic virtue needs to stop. We are not electing the pope. We are electing somebody who will appoint Supreme Court justices, somebody who will either continue mandating contraceptive coverage to unwilling providers or somebody who will repeal this bullying. We are electing somebody who believes either in freedom of the citizen to prosper or somebody who believes in prospering their left wing social experiment agenda onto an unwilling nation. Democrats agree with communist Marx who saw “religion as the opiate if the masses.” These emails prove it. We either vote against Marxism or we enable it by acting like a Puritan.

  105. CrimsonCatholic says:


    Even if you vote for picks on the Supreme Court, just remember that all the people nominated must be approved by the Senate. The Senate is about to go back to being controlled by the Democrats, based on the aggregation of polls by 538. Trump has helped Democrats in the Senate campaigns, especially in blue states. So I think it is unwise to vote for Trump just because he could nominate conservative judges, but chances are they would never be confirmed by the Senate and he would end up choosing moderates that would be approved by Senate Democrats.

    It is way more important to vote in the down ballot races and help the Republicans keep control of Congress or just the House. Based on what 538 has been reporting, Hillary has then in the bag if Trump is projected to lose Florida. So I suggest we all prepare ourselves for Hillary as President the next 4 years and offer up our suffering to our Lord.

    BTW, early voting has started in most of the important swing states.

  106. SteelBiretta says:

    @chantgirl: 100% agree.

    On a lighter note: Hillary Clinton’s Arab Spring spiraled out of her control and led to the creation of an Islamic State. Perhaps Hillary’s Catholic Spring will also spiral out of control and lead to the creation of a Papal State? We’ll have to see!

  107. Makemeaspark says:

    Well Said chantgirl, I beleive as you do, that the end of Freedom of religion IS really on the line, for all the reasons you list here. I hope Fr. Z comes back in and gives you the big gold star!

  108. boxerpaws63 says:

    Is everyone reading Wikileaks? Everyone is aware that this election all leads back to George Soros,Right?Everyone knows that Trump is a flawed man but that the Clinton/Soros/Alinsky cabal is SYSTEMICALLY EVIL to their core. Even St Augustine had a child out of wedlock. Did we forget that? Everyone is aware that our State Dept,FBI,DOJ and IRS are all corrupt? Everyone is aware that our media is working directly with the Clinton campaign to get her elected? Everyone is aware that the term *wetleaks* was used in the Clinton emails in re to Justice Scalia? Everyone is aware that the term wetleaks is a military term for assassination? WATCH: DONALD TRUMP HOLDS RALLY IN WEST PALM BEACH, FL (FULL REPLAY) This rally is important. Listen carefully.

  109. SteelBiretta says:

    @CrimsonCatholic: I’ll take the uncertainty that Trump will have to appease the Senate with a moderate over the absolute 100% certainty of what you’ll get from Hillary. As for Trump hurting Congress downballot, I don’t know that the polls support that (and I don’t trust them to begin with). That said, a lot of Republicans probably hurt their chances by staging a late coup against the nominee last weekend– at a time when there is absolutely zero chance he could be replaced. There’s a reason the GOP is called the Stupid Party.

    You’ve seen the emails; Hillary and her minions are gunning for the Catholic Church. We’re already a minority in this country. If she’s elected, we will have much to fear. Everyone should vote as if their one vote will decide this election.

  110. boxerpaws63 says:

    Castle is not going to be President. We have ONLY 2 choices and 1 is going to win.
    For those pointing out Mr Trump’s flaws and that he’s far from a perfect man,again i write that St Augustine was a Manichean who fathered a child out of wedlock and treated his own mother horribly .Have we forgotten that?
    Now for something that is so sinister and evil I would like to think it’s just a conspiracy theory;unfortunately it’s not. I mentioned the military term for assassination in the leaked Clinton emails where the term is used in reference to Justice Scalia:

  111. boxerpaws63 says:

    CORRECTION: the term is wet works. Apparently i have wikileaks on the brain.Here’s a short piece on Justice Scalia. I titled it Such A Great Man(he was)to avoid attracting attention to the piece by using Wikileaks .
    Trust me,there’s good reason.

  112. Charles E Flynn says:

    From Fake Catholic Groups and the “Catholic Spring” Emails, by Anne Hendershott, for The Catholic World Report:

    Thankfully, some do understand. In an essay posted earlier today , on the First Things site, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput recounts being approached in 2008, prior to the Obama-McCain presidential election, by two Catholics United operatives:
    They voiced great concern at the manipulative skill of Catholic agents for the Republican Party. And they hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.

    It was an interesting experience. Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence. And presumably (for them) bishops were dumb enough to be used as tools, or at least prevented from helping the other side. Yet these two young men not only equaled but surpassed their Republican cousins in the talents of servile partisan hustling. Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations.

    As Archbishop Chaput notes, “I never saw either young man again. The cultural damage done by the current White House has—apparently—made courting America’s bishops unnecessary.” Perhaps. But what is necessary is a clear vision of the serious challenges facing Catholics now and far into the future from those who work to not only influence the Church but to manipulate and mislead her under the guise of “Catholic” labels. 

  113. JabbaPapa says:

    And so now the US Catholic hierarchy is attacking the Democrats …

    Even Assange, likely either an atheist or agnostic, wrote : ““The American liberal press, in falling over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton, are erecting a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone’s necks as soon as she wins the election, which is almost certainly what she’s going to do,” Assange said. “What kind of press environment is this going to lead to post-election?”

    Even though the point was clarified as intending to designate “neo-McCarthyist hysteria”, it’s hard for a Catholic with a truly supernatural Faith that the Truth can come from even the most unlikely sources.

  114. GreggW says:

    This election is frightening and deeply saddening, as regards the two major party candidates, but also as regards how Christians view their duty before God and their fellow countrymen.

    HRC is a frightening prospect in every regard. But Donald Trump? All signs point to him being a textbook narcissist, which I think also means that he is a sociopath. Morality does not apply to him. He cannot be believed. He cannot be taken at his word. It is irrelevant what he says when he is trying to close a deal. What matters is what he wants and what he thinks benefits him the most when the time comes to make a decision. SCOTUS? Who knows? We have absolutely no idea who he will actually appoint, list or no list. We have no idea what his reaction will be if he feels slighted by the ‘religious right’ or by the Catholic Church. We have no idea what wars he will prosecute, or in what manner, and how or when we will do so pre-emptively because of his narcissism and extraordinarily thin skin. We have no reason to think that he will not try to turn himself into a despot. We have no reason to assume much of anything, because he is such an immorally a-moral human being with delusions of grandeur and thin-skinned reactions that anything we associate with normal human actions and interactions can’t be assumed of him without it being a serious case of projection.

    I for one have no idea what he would do if elected. He could be better than HRC. He could be just as bad. He could be worse.

    It’s like we’re given the choice between Stalin and Mao, and everyone has taken sides and deemed that you MUST vote for one for, if you don’t, you are in effect voting for the other.

    “If you don’t sprint off the cliff of your own free will, someone will drive you off the cliff.” And “If you don’t drive off the cliff of your own free will, someone will compel you to sprint off the cliff.”

    It’s a CLIFF. I won’t choose either. And it is moral to choose neither. It can be, however, grossly immoral to vote for a man who could cause untold harm, just as it can be grossly immoral to vote for a woman who could cause untold harm.

  115. WVC says:


    You offer a lot of gross generalizations without any specifics. You say a lot of “we don’t know” but then conclude that you actually do know and he’s akin to some sort of evil dictator. To jump from “he’s a thin skinned narcissist” to “he’s the same as dictators who killed millions upon millions of people” doesn’t really flow.

    What untold harm, specifically, are you anticipating? Do you really feel that it is impossible for him to be both a narcissist and an American nationalist? Could one argue that, as a narcissist, he would actually have a vested interest in being a good President that accomplished his goals?

  116. Pat_H says:

    I’m glad I don’t live in a swing state, in which case I’d have to vote for Trump in order to vote against Clinton. That would be the only moral option.

    As I don’t, I’m voting for the American Solidarity Party candidates, because I can. My state is going for Trump, so given as that’s an absolute given here, I can vote for them, and will, as a general protest.

    Sadly, I feel this race is over no matter what. Clinton has won it, and will pack the Supreme Court with justices who will go down the liberal road for the rest of my life. If I prove to be correct, Catholics really need to reassert our cultural and religious identify in a way we have not since the 1960 election, when we followed our Catholic President down the road to being more American than Catholic.

  117. GreggW says:

    We don’t know what he will do in that he is a narcissist so being truthful and a man of his word would seem to be outside of his paradigm. He says he will do this and do that, that he supports this and is opposed to that. He says that now, for his own benefit. What will he actually do when times arrive for making decisions? I don’t think we know, in the sense that we have his word but his word would not seem to count for much at all.

    He stirs up hatred. He demonizes people and tries to manipulate others to take his side against the people he has demonized. He seems incapable of accepting the slightest criticism, reacting to those who he perceives have wronged him. His narcissism has been regarded as ‘textbook’ by some who purport to know about these things, which would mean that he cannot be believed and he does not think like most people do…he does not think with a moral compass, he lies as a matter of course, he manipulates and bullies to his own ends, he has a self-hatred that can exhibit itself in any manner of ways. Would he become a despot? I have no idea. Could he go that route? I would suspect that it’s in the nature of a narcissist who gains considerable power to go that route…simply take who they are and add more power to them, and it’s a natural route to take.

    Will he become humble and docile and listen to others, valuing their insight for the good of the country, accepting barbs from his countrymen and those outside, maintaining his focus on the bigger picture and the public good rather than focusing on short-sighted personal retribution? Well, he hasn’t done that yet. And his personality goes not seem to lend itself to that.

    Is he pro-life? Look at what he says, what he does, how he does it, his history of things that he has said and done. The man is immoral and does not seem to hold himself to a moral standard. Pro-life? How? Will he appoint pro-life judges and support pro-life laws because he thinks it will benefit him? He might. But the bully doesn’t usually go for defending the poor and weak. The bully abuses the poor and weak. So the bully cannot be expected to be pro-life. Maybe for a time, in name, if it benefits him, but it must bore the bully to cater to such weak people as those who would care for those who cannot care for themselves. Will he uphold our right to free speech, to keep and to bear arms, etc.? Will he, in a word, care about us? If he is a narcissist, and it certainly seems like that’s a powerful trait that he has, then no, we won’t care about us. So the ‘At least Trump will….” followed by something good is wishful thinking projected onto him.

    In short…we know what kind of person he is, and what he has said and done in the past. And that give me great, great pause. Handing him the keys to the nation, and the nuclear launch codes, and the most powerful vote in the country (that of the president), given who he is, is scary. He is unpredictable. We don’t know what he will do, or what our nation will become. He can take us to very dark places, as dark as HRC can. But she is more known, he is less known, so he seems less dangerous. But I would argue that he has the potential to be very dangerous, and little potential to be a public good. Voting for him is voting to sprint off a cliff. Voting for her is voting to drive off a cliff. Maybe the drive is quicker. But both are dangerous exercises. It’s entirely okay to say ‘No’ to both.

  118. WVC says:


    It seems that you’ve taken the word narcissist and vastly expanded its meaning. You’re using that word to then explain how you can believe Trump would do every bad thing you could think of, but I’m not sure that’s fair to the man. For example, one can be a narcissist and still retain a moral compass. It might be a skewed compass, grant you, but then humans tend not to be nearly as binary as you’re painting Trump. I’m guessing you’re basing most of your judgments off of the media coverage of Trump, which has been phenomenally skewed, and not any actual study of the man himself.

    Let me be clear, I’m not defending him personally or suggesting anyone has a moral obligation to vote for him. What I’m concerned with is the hysteria that folks seem to direct at him or the folks suggesting it’s somehow immoral to vote for him.

    First, anyone who behaved as erratically as you suggest would never have made it this far in life and be so successful. One cannot garner a reputation for negotiating deals, work with hundreds of different people of all shapes, sizes, and creeds, or hold a campaign together long enough to wipe out a field of 15 other candidates if he was as unpredictable, deranged, and morally bankrupt as you’re positing. Second, if he really was that depraved you would assume there would be legions of folks speaking out against him, but the vast majority of testimony from people who know, work with, or work for Trump have not leveled anything like that type of criticism against him.

    As far as him being humble and docile and listening to others – I don’t think anyone could justly accuse him of being humble or docile, but he is a listener. Consider that his was the only campaign to pick up countless issues that conservative voters actually care about to which the Republican establishment (and the 15 other candidates) were by and large deaf. Immigration, terrorism, foreign trade, interventionist wars, pro-life Supreme Court justices, even repealing the Johnson Amendment. His policies on practically every single issue are spot-on. Either you believe he personally believes all those things, or you have to admit he’s a pretty good listener and was able to figure out what issues mattered and articulate, in his in-articulate fashion, why they mattered.

    As far as stirring up hatred, so what? Christ Himself stirred up hatred and discontent. If folks like Clinton, Reid, Biden, Obama, Paul Ryan, John McCain, Bill Kristol, George Soros, and Al Sharpton hate him, that’s not a reason to be against him.

    With regard to his sensitivity, I have to disagree. Consider the amazing amount of insults hurled at the man every single day. From other politicians, talk show hosts, and news anchors, he is being constantly mocked, scorned, insulted, and threatened. If he was thin skinned, he’d have either gone nuts by now or dropped out. If you actually look at his campaign, he has almost always RESPONDED to attacks with commensurate force. Ted Cruz insulted Trump’s wife before Trump then insulted Ted Cruz’s wife. I’m not saying tit for tat is the best way to do business, but it’s a far cry from him going out and seeking to insult others just for the heck of it.

    What will he do if elected? Well, I agree that it’s a chance, but you seem to believe it’s possible he’ll somehow become a Mao or Stalin I don’t believe you have any rational base to justify such a prediction. He won’t, by any means, reverse the cultural tide sweeping the country into the sewers, but that’s not the President’s job. That’s our job. Even if he only accomplishes 10% of his stated goals, though, that’s 110% more than you’d get if he wasn’t elected. Best of all, he buys us time. At least 4 years to breathe. That’s not so bad.

    Here’s the reality most folks don’t want to face. Vying for power has always been a rough game played by rough men. The only thing different about America is that now our women are rough enough to play the dirty game too (Elizabeth I being a notable exception). You can count on one, maybe two hands the number of truly virtuous, holy leaders in all of human history. We’ve been living in a fantasy for the past fifty or so years, imagining that American politicians were some sort of noble, patriotic clones of George Washington. The reality is that they have been and are almost all as morally depraved, and Machiavellian, and as unprincipled as Trump. Watch House of Cards (the BBC version with the wonderful Ian Richardson) – it’s more truth than fiction.

    If the conservative strategy is to wait until a good, moral, virtuous person runs for President, good luck. I’ll take a Constantine, alleged wife and son murderer that he may have been, if it means safety and security in any way for my family, friends, and Church.

    P.S. – he won’t appoint pro-life judges because he’s a bully and bullies go after the weak? I thought you said he was a narcissist? Narcissists see themselves as the hero of the story. Of course he wants to be the one to name great, long lasting judges to the Supreme Court so that, years from now, they’ll be talking of the Trump Court and how it saved the country, finally overturned Roe v. Wade, and restored order to the land. True or not, I’d be you five bucks that what he’s thinking.

  119. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    Fr. Z.: I nominate vandalia for banishment. I have not read such poison since Richard McBrien.

    Not an iota of truth or reason. Nothing but jingle, jingle, jingle. “The lesser of two evils is still evil.” Jingle, jingle, jingle.

    And the nonsense about its being immoral to vote for Trump unless you are certain that he will be PERFECT with respect to abortion?!?!?

  120. robtbrown says:

    Vincent says,

    Some thoughts from across the pond. Many of you are bothered by personalities, but it’s not the personality of the person which is important, it’s their appointments.

    NB: In the US the POTUS is both head of the Executive Branch and Head of State. This differs from the UK where there is a PM but the Monarch is Head of State. Also nations like Italy, where there is both a President and a PM.

    As Head of State, the POTUS represents the nation and in some way symbolizes it. Thus the importance of personality.

  121. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    Just a reminder: The word “pro-life” is not a term of art in moral theology. Neither is “pro-lifer.”

    Anyone who bases a moral decision on meaningless goo like “I just don’t believe that Trump is truly pro-life” is not engaging in reasoning.

    A sure sign of muddleheadedness is “argument” that consists of adjectives rather than nouns and verbs. Adjectives are not acceptable in the confessional. Only nouns and verbs.

  122. Grant M says:

    Hmm… I guess if Catholics in the 30’s could support Franco against the anti-clerical republicans in Spain, then it should be relatively easy for Catholics today to support Trump against Clinton.
    Tolkien for example was no fascist nor a lover of dictatorship – LOTR makes that plain – yet he supported the General and the nationalists against the anti-Catholic republicans.

  123. robtbrown says:

    Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    Fr. Z.: I nominate vandalia for banishment. I have not read such poison since Richard McBrien.

    Better nominated for refutation than for banishment.

  124. robtbrown says:


    1. I am familiar with moral certitude and metaphysical certitude. The former refers to the certitude of a principle applied to specific situations. The latter refers to principles who are considered true because the contradictory cannot be true: Examples are the principle of non contradiction and certain moral principles, e.g., the procript against murder.

    I have never heard of supernatural certitude.

    2. Because demagogery is habitually practiced in democracies, it is all but impossible to have moral certitude about what a candidate will do after an election. In addition to being a Dem (whose party is officially pro abortion), Hillary Clinton also has a long history of favoring abortion, and it is highly unlikely that she will nominate anyone to SCOTUS who would favor overturning Roe v Wade or nixing any moves toward an abortion mandate. And the official position of the Dems is pro abortion.

    Trump has no political history, so it’s a crap shoot. I could care less what his personal position on abortion is (Biden et al say they’re personally opposed but politically are pro aborition). All we have to go on is his list of judges .

    4. You’re correct in saying that the moral object determines the morality of an act, but I think you’re wrong in assuming what is the moral object in voting (or at least the component of the MO that refers to the act). Voting for pro abortion candidates because they’re pro abortion is certainly an evil act. Voting for a candidate whose political position is muddled is not an evil act.

    5. Consequentialism is not a factor in this matter because effect is a component of moral object (or at least St Thomas’ concept of MO).

Comments are closed.