But if we are basing the morality of indiscriminately killing murders on the basis of “chance” we have lost total sight of morality. Someone like David Berkowitz would be long dead and not only would his evangelization or other murders never happen, but his own conversion wouldn’t also. Morality based on chance is no morality at all
This is not related to the OP but to the presidency of the USA whoever is president .
This is a thought I have had for quite a while .
The population of the USA in 2017 was 325.7 million .
One man to have power over so many seems too much to ask . Plus how does it fit in with the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity ?
What benefit does Trump have to sell himself to Republicans? He’s not accepting salary for the job. He can’t go in the same room with 95% of the people he used to do business with because they’re all liberals who reject him now. His reputation is effectively shot thanks to the media. He was a billionaire, everyone loved him, all liberal celebs on his show, loved him. Can you even tell if a president “truly” cares?
God has shown us that he chooses the least likely person. You would not like Saul of Tarsus before he was the Apostle Paul, even then you probably would not trust him right away! Think of Matthew or the line of King David. They all had faults of some sort.
We don’t know Trumps true intentions but as a Catholic, I will never vote pro-choice and he currently stands against abortion. Good for him! I continue to pray for Trump and his success.
Whoot! He claims to be a Billionaire and all of his expenses are paid for, must be tough to pass on $200,000 per year.
Hun? He included some of the richest people in the country in his cabinet/adviser people.. The tax cut package he got through the Senate and Congress has major tax breaks that favor the largest companies and richest people, clearly he has friends in these places, so please provide backup to this assertion.
Well if Trump wants to be struck by lighting, change his name, and view of the world I might go along; but he hasn’t. I’m sorry, we know his intentions, he will say anything to make people like him or give him attention. He’s not pro anything except himself.
Yeah he included some rich people in his cabinet but they were successful people, who else to do you want to have run the country? Beyonce? Steve Colbert? Oprah? The celebrities that loved him before, suddenly do not. In fact they want him dead (Kelly Griffin whatever her name is). Regarding the tax cut: YES, the rich and the corporations get the largest percentage of it because they pay a vastly significantly tax burden. Fact is, 80% of Americans have lower taxes after the tax cut (taxfoundation.org).
Re: The Apostle Paul: Yeah because everyone believed Paul so easily at first. No…um that took a while. His closest jewish priests did not support him.
How is it you know Trump so well? As Catholics we don’t know the state of anyone’s soul. And we are called to know that God can work through anyone. The fact that Trump sides with Catholic views, is a check in the right spot on non-negotiable issues. Perhaps he is selfish in his own personal life, perhaps he enjoys business and the luxuries of life, he has to answer to that and to his past. But as our country’s leader, how is he selfish? Cite me an example? He supports the power of the people. I could see a marxiest, communist leader as selfish. The power then belongs to the leader in that case. If you knew the difference you would understand.
My “95% and walking into the room” was an expression and generalization not an assertion. Like when you assert that you “know” his intentions that he will say or do anything for himself, do you have backup? Or anecdotal evidence as well? The celebrities don’t want anything to do with him, that’s common knowledge if you want to reword my statement. And if you check, Trump’s net-worth has actually decreased since he started campaigning for president. Mainly because of the decrease in value of his real estate properties due to his reputation (e.g liberal elites don’t stay at Trump Towers anymore). So if he is in it for the money, he’s not that savvy of a selfish business man.
History generally regards Winston Churchill as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. But if you look at his personal life, he was often insulting, he drank, he smoked constantly, he had affairs. But he was the right person at the right time to save England from the Germans. God uses sinners, God could be using Trump for all you know. There no room in heaven for indifference. Christ comes for the sinners, he said so Himself.
A good number that either had direct financial interest in the job, who opposed the mission of the department, or were woefully unqualified for the position.
And those are temporary.
Am I to look into his soul? If you’re refuting my opinions about his motivations, why are you ascribing your own opinions about his motivations?
That would be a long list, but all can be summarized by one thing; he’s a classic narcissist. Sure you have to think highly of yourself to want the job and I think LBJ and Nixon showed such tendencies. But that is a full summation of his 40 year public life. His policies are himself, nothing more. Ever notice how his positions are all over the place? I can see that being harder to see from your standpoint, but he only says such things because your support gives him power. Yes, he might make Catholics happy here, but he also is prone to making impulsive and poor decisions. His staff turnover is high, many of the very qualified ones. However I wouldn’t be surprised if nothing I’d present would give you any pause, so that’s not going to help here.
I’m sorry, but he says what he believes people want to hear. He has a real talent for selling himself and craves adulation. The first sentence says it all, “Mr Trump, who previously supported abortion access…”. Put current politics aside (I’m not even asking you to change or examine your views), but any person taking a honest view will see this through out his entire ~40 year public life. We are talking about a man, for whom it was an open secret, would pretend to be his own publicist on the phone. Ask anyone who was even slightly heartened by him holding and LGBT flag during the last election cycle. Just because he’s dancing for your cause does not mean he cares.
I think it is the job of a politician to support the causes that the people who elected him hold dear. We have had more than our share of politicians who pay lip-service to pro-life ideas during an election and then blithely ignore them once they are in office. Whatever politcal beliefs he held as a private citizen, President Trump has repeatedly done what he promised to do when he was running for office, and the country is better for that. He is obviously an imperfect man and in his personal life has done things that can’t be supported, but he retains support among many Americans because of the above, and because they have a greater fear of the actions that the people who oppose him would enact if they were to attain public office.
Fact is, 80% of Americans have lower taxes after the tax cut - And those are temporary.
To be honest, they are temporary because the executive power to sign the tax cuts into law have a time limit. The Republican congress supported NOT placing a time limit on them, but had they passed through a legislative process, Democrats would have killed the tax cuts for the middle class entirely.
Can you find a citation for your time limit claim? The expiration date is 8 years for the latest one. I’m not sure what you mean by the Republican Congress. The expiration date was introduced first in the Senate. I’m not sure if you completely get the legislative process between both houses. They have to reconcile any differences between each of their Bills before the President can sign it. This means Congress also had to approve the time limit and, no, there’s no way the Democrats had a chance to kill it either way.
The 2018 tax breaks were temporary, going into effect in 2018 and expiring after 2025, not because the Reoublicans wanted to put a time limit on the tax cuts, but to defeat any Democrat filibuster challenges, The expiration date allowed the Senate (my typo said “executive”, should have said legislative) to comply with the reconciliation rules that block a Democratic filibuster against the tax cuts – which Republicans did not have the votes to defeat – only if the law did not raise the deficit in any year outside of a 10-year window and if it stays within its $1.5 trillion budget constraint during the 10-year window. If you need a cite or further information on how this works, Google “Trump tax cuts” or similar and you will find numerous news articles on the subject.
Trump’s motive is pure political. He only wants the winning swing votes of the Catholics. Pure and simple. He is not to be trusted whatsoever. It’s disgusting that Catholics are suddenly gravitated and blinded by his scheming prolife stance. I don’t trust him. I don’t believe him and I don’t like him one bit! Catholics thought that by electing a conservative president, abortion, would cease to exist. Wrong! It is never gonna happen whoever is elected, liberal or conservative. Not only did you have conservative majority in the House and Senate, not only did you have conservative majority in Supreme Court, but you also elected an idiot, obnoxious president who neither acts nor behaves like a conservative and for 2 years ABORTION is still the law of the land?
Then why not leave limit corporate tax cuts?
While he has flipflopped on this, you can still judge him by his current actions. His SCOTUS picks lean towards protecting life, his proposed budgets proposed defunding Planned Parenthood. It’s fairly natural for people mature and change their positions on key issues.
I would prefer a candiadtze who was against abortion and also against the death penalty.
But suppose there isn’t one.
What is better?
A candidate who is pro abortion but anti death penality versus a candiadte who is anti abortion but pro death penalty?
I would say that killing adults is the lesser of two evils as at least these have access to a fair trial, and can seek penance and forgiveness and thus still reach salavation.
We’re still violating the Ten Commandments when we execute someone though. Thou shalt not kill applies to the unborn as well as those wrongly convicted.
This is the difference between living in an ideal catholic society and a society such as ours that is beset with compromises.
Of course all killing is wrong. But if you want to go hardline you could then oppose a compromise that makes access to abortion more difficult, but still allows it under certain conditions. If you like compromise, you would say saving a lot of lives or even most lives is better than a standoff where you save none. If you don’t like compromise but perefer all or nothing solutions you may insist on having all in the full knowledge that you probably get nothing.
Many more babies are killed in regular abortions than under some special medical conditions. If you can win a majority by saying, let’s sidestep those special cases for now and come back later and fight another battle then, but ban the regular stuff now, would you do it? You are still saving some lives. Many millions of babies are aborted every year, versus a handful of inmates executed on death row. Let’s take these battles one at a time, simply because if you demand everything you will get nothing.
Not to be too cynical, but he was handed shot list of potential judges and a number in that list for lower courts were unbelievably unqualified.
You know as well as I that’s cheap red meat.
Doesn’t matter whether you think he took risks or not, his actions have been very pro life.
I believe Obama did.