Posted on 03/17/2016 9:45:46 AM PDT by GonzoII
Then she needs to have the NRO publish THIS.
The Pope had no influence
They never would. It’s thoughtful and well-reasoned. It doesn’t wish death to blue collar America.
God bless Marjorie Murphy Campbell!
(And thanks for posting this incisive and insightful article.)
Even Catholics have locks on their doors.
Even the pope has locks, gates, and security.
Thank-you Miss Marjory.
I simply figured it was more of the pot calling the kettle, black. Back in the day, they’d of strung him up and demand he recant, and then split him down the middle, or disembowel him in front of a crowd. At least this time, the vindictive was in the form of words on paper. I’d call that a slight improvement.
Very impressive. Kudos to Ms Campbell.
I’m glad at least someone apologized but where were these same “prominent Catholics” during Barack Obama’s attacks on Catholic values? Why are they silent about Hillary and her promotion of abortion and gay “marriage”? Where were these prominent Catholics when our Church decided to promote an invasion of overwhelming numbers of Mexicans and others, in violation of our laws? Why have we got openly gay parade displays at an allegedly Catholic parade but no pro-life displays?
I could go on...
If someone wants to claim to be a prominent member of the Catholic laity, they need to fight against corruption and sin wherever it lies.
Ping!
Many Catholics, myself included, were dismayed that these respected Catholic intellectuals drew upon the sort of language they disapprove of in the candidate Trump.
Hey, Robert George and George Weigel, you don't speak for me. I am a Catholic. Don't include me in your un-Catholic flock.
I decided to read the original NRO piece, fearing it would be long as George Wiegel can be verbose when he has something to say. Surprisingly, it was very short, and was mere invective.
When I read it, it reminded me of a coworker of mine, who had a Mayflower-type name (Randolph Heath), a crewcut, conservative shirt and tie accoutrments and an attraction to the occult, vegetarianism, and general New Age leftism.
He figured out what I was about and decided to show me a letter to the editor he had published. In it, he denounced Pat Buchanan’s speech to the Republican National Convention (this was 1992), comparing him to Hitler, etc. etc.
What was missing? A single Buchanan quotation or a single pertinent fact. When he asked for my comment, I asked “What exactly did he say that was wrong?” He just shrugged his shoulders and laughed lightly, “Well, you know.” I didn’t know, and he couldn’t or wouldn’t tell me.
This piece blasting Donald Trump is similar, “Well, you know.”
Trump’s not my first choice, and I do know my misgivings about him. I have them for every candidate, and nearly every human being on earth including myself. The article doesn’t cite exactly what disqualifies him in a way that Romney would not be disqualified, nor why Trump would be disqualified, but practical Catholic Santorum should not have been despite similar stands on immigration.
An appeal to Catholics, who have considerable latitude in judging candidates, should include a specific position or statement contrated with a clear and specific Catholic teaching. Clear is “It is always wrong to deliberately procure or assist in the procurement of an abortion”. Unspecific is saying that we cannot enforce our immigration laws because “We should love our neighbors” which proscribes no such policy and is VERY open to prudential judgment.
Wiegel and company’s condmenation, fortunately, is not authoritative, and observant Catholics can decide for themselves whether Trump is an acceptable or even superior candidate in their prudential judgement.
Needless to say, I haven't given the turd a plug nickel ever since.
Well, they used the term ‘vulgar’ which I do often see and hear from candidate Trump. In fact I have written here about it and how it turns many folks off of the candidate.
The problem with this anti-Trump article is that is ignores so many things. All of the criticism are about things that can be easily changed. In fact, I think Trump will change his speech patterns - at least a tad - in the near future.
I assume Trump is not lazy and he is definitely smart - so there is no reason to believe he will not be a quick learner on the campaign trail as well as in selecting good advisors.
“Oafishness” - is that referring to his rather comedic one-line responses at the debates? if so, he can easily change that too.
Trump is his own greatest enemy with regards to his speeches.
He also seems to have good instincts about what the country needs and the anger in the electorate.
If he is the nominee, I will vote for him.
Thank you. I enjoyed your post as much as the article. It’s very disheartening to read of people having some sort of inexplicable discomfort with a person (Trump) and blasting him without that explanation. We hear endlessly that Trump is a sexist/xenophobic/racist/homophobe/bigot, blah blah blah without any direct quote that is reasonably perceived as sexist/xenophobic or racist.
He wants to build a wall because our borders have been breached millions of times? Because the border breachers then squat in the USA and demand special treatment, education for their children, health care for all of them, housing, etc.? Trump wants to vet people from sects in an extremely violent part of the globe, many of whom wish to spread the violence, before having them come into our nest? This is xenophobic? Then, by God, let’s have more xenophobia.
You’re welcome....
Part of my email from Catholic.com:
“Trump recommended his own sister,
> Maryanne Trump Berry, for the Supreme Court. She’s the federal
> judge who overturned New Jersey’s ban on grisly partial-birth
> abortions. The next President may choose as many as three or more
> new justices. Trump’s suggestion of his pro-abortion sister as an
> example ought to worry anyone who cares about the Court. And
> let’s not forget he once said Oprah would make a great Vice
> President.”
Just because Trump says he will build a wall, does that mean he will? We’ve had so many promises from politicians that were not kept, so why do we believe a politicians who has flip flopped on SO MAN ISSUES?
Another excerpt from my email from Catholicvote.com:
“Donald Trump criticized Mitt Romney
> for being too harsh on immigration back in 2012 (snip)..
> We agree illegal immigration is a problem that must be solved.
> Trump’s solution is delusionalsnip— and
> truthfully, will never happen. If anything, Trump’s demagoguery
> on immigration showcases the emptiness of many of his promises.
> As President Obama has learned, American presidents don’t dictate
> laws. The Senate and House would have to pass any change of this
> magnitude, and such a solution has little to no chance of being
> approved. (snip)
The remark about his sister occured in the first weeks of his campaign; the man had not made a serious run for the presidency before (although people have been asking him to for the past 25 years), he isn't any sort of government official at this time and has never been one, and his remark most certainly wasn't on the level of a presidential nomination. He made an offhand "atta girl" or "shout out" from family pride to his sister, thinking that others would recognize that his family isn't just a bunch of yahoos. He said it while also mentioning an uncle who was an MIT professor.
Trump has since recanted of the remark months and months ago and has named others about whom he is more serious.
Unlike many people who go through life holding rigidly to an ideology, he is a person who does have basic principles, but is also willing and able to adapt to new circumstances in order to achieve broad and deep goals, recognizing the need to form a coalition of agreement from many quarters. He has vowed to serve the American people and be responsive to their needs. Abortion was never a deep personal concern of his, but as president, he would work with his DOJ to evaluate its impact on the US and push for what I believe will be incremental changes in law to eliminate the extremism of the Democrat party and the leftsts about abortion.
I do not think any one of the candidates, including Cruz, can or would effectively eliminate legal abortion altogether, nor would today's populace support a complete prohibiition. Reasonable people want to see a great reduction in the number of abortions and a possible elimination of the ghastlier forms, such as later term and certainly partial-birth abortion or allowing abortion surviving infants to die in a back room because their mothers and doctors want them dead. Churches bear a responsibility for ruling the hearts and minds of their people and educating the young so that abortion does not occur among their membership. But we do not live in a theocracy and cannot force our Christian views on every American.
Trump, who is not a Catholic, nevertheless has grown with the issue and has steadily over the years grown to renounce abortion.
Feb 15, 2016, campaign web site: DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. OPED - THE CULTURE OF LIFE
Jan 23, 2016, Washington Examiner: Donald Trump op-ed: My vision for a culture of life
OnTheIssues.org site gives chronological history of Trump's evolution on this issue, with dates and links:
"I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice"
Source: Steven Ertelt in LifeNews.com , Apr 8, 2011"I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories"
Source: David Brody interview on CBN.com , Apr 8, 2011"I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding"
Source: USA Today report on 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 10, 2011"Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion" (16 years ago)
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p. 31-32 , Jul 2, 2000"Favors abortion rights but respects opposition"
Source: Pat Eaton-Robb, Associated Press , Dec 2, 1999 (unavailable online)
Bump.
Bookmarking your post for the links.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.