Posted on 03/17/2016 9:45:46 AM PDT by GonzoII
The God of Abraham asks us to turn our face outward to the world, recognising His image even in the people who are not in our image, whose faith is not mine, whose colour and culture are not mine, yet whose humanity is as God-given and consecrated as mine. ~Jonathan Sacks
On March 7, 2016, prominent Catholics Robert P. George and George Weigel published in the National Review “An Appeal to Our Fellow Catholics” to “reject [Donald Trump’s] candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.” As a fellow Catholic to whom this appeal was addressed, I respond in this open letter, apologizing for both the purpose and language of this published piece.
While Professor George and Mr. Weigel opened their letter with a noncontroversial (if incomplete) statement of Catholic priorities, and a more questionable embrace of the Republican Party, they immediately shifted, not to a candidate-by-candidate, reasoned analysis, but to a direct and hostile attack on one candidate, Donald J. Trump. With no factual support for their assertion that Trump’s appeal rests upon racism and ethnic prejudice, George and Weigel fashioned a personal, conclusory, name-calling hit piece on this candidate whose voter base constitutes a culture distinct from the more polished, elite world in which the authors live.
Sadly, these authors cursorily urged Catholics to reject Trump’s candidacy because he is “manifestly unfit to be president of the United States” and because of “his vulgarity, oafishness, shocking ignorance.”
Many Catholics, myself included, were dismayed that these respected Catholic intellectuals drew upon the sort of language they disapprove of in the candidate Trump. This alone warrants an apology. I wish to assure candidate Trump and his voters that Catholics generally are called upon by Gospel and church law to respect people whose differences we might not understand and to treat all persons with dignity, even people with whom we most strongly disagree or don’t understand.
The Catholic laity is held to a higher standard than mere avoidance of hypocrisy. Our church law, and letters and directives from our popes, exhort us to engage our work in a manner that serves as ‘witness to Christ throughout the world.” (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, 1965). This fundamental mission entails concern and care for the dignity of every person, not merely the promotion of the church as institution and enforcement of Catholic principles via legislation and political mandate.
The dignity of every individual includes good reputation. Catholics are admonished to avoid name-calling, gossip and other harm to a person’s reputation in the community. Canon 220 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides:
“No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses or to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.”
These rights inhere in “the exceptional dignity which belongs to the human person.” (Gaudium et spes, 1965). There is no exception to this Catholic precept because an individual says something “vulgar” or behaves awkwardly or selfishly – or because a person supports a candidate who speaks to them in familiar sentiments and language. To the contrary, one’s protection against intentional harm to his or her reputation by others is embedded as a right in their very humanity.
Catholics can – and should – take action in the world to witness Christ and the fundamental principles of our faith. We may act to “protect both the common good … and the Church itself … even though [we] might thereby damage someone’s reputation.” (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2000). Thus, for example, Church penalties are imposed publicly for wrongful behavior only as a last resort and Church law admonishes that “care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered.” (Canon 1717, sec. 2).
The concern for reputation imposes on all Catholics an obligation to avoid intentional attacks and harm to another in favor of rational dialogue, critique and even correction. Deal Hudson’s essay “Will Pro-life Catholics Vote for Donald Trump?” models how Catholics can and should dialogue with respect to all candidates. Professor George and Mr. Weigel could have, similarly, offered an analysis to fellow Catholics of their perspective of Catholic political priorities and how each of the Republican candidates might further such priorities, or not.
Their piece, however, was not a factual, reasoned analysis supportive of substantive conclusions; rather, their letter was a perfunctory, verbal assault to harm candidate Trump’s reputation. Notably, they also cast shame and intimidation on any Catholic who might consider voting for Trump with assertions that anyone of “genuinely Catholic sensibility” would agree with their attack.
Accusing a public figure (and, by extension, his supporters) of being oafish, vulgar, ignorant and unfit is language reserved for those anxious to express hostility and tarnish the reputation of the targeted individual. This is language which, I daresay, no ordained person would ever use with respect to another person; nor should any Catholic lay person.
Finally, the authors conclude with one final insult. They accuse Trump of demagoguery, adding for emphasis, “we do not hesitate to use the word.” Demagoguery – “an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side” – implicates the candidate as well as every one of the candidate’s supporters. Lest fellow Catholics miss their point, the authors urge a rejection not just of Trump but of those people who are supporting him. Such people, George and Weigel insist, are making emotional and prejudicial decisions, without reason or analysis.
I find this seemingly class-based bias most shocking of all. Are we to understand that the NASCAR, blue collar crowd’s objection to the apparent export and loss of their jobs; their objection to illegal immigration – that they believe is forcing down the wages of the jobs they do have, but fueling profits of big business; their objection to Free Trade — that they believe is gutting small town America, while fattening Wall Street; their objection to the exorbitant cost of health care and the phase out of benefits; their objection to the denigration of their sons and daughters who have served in the military, bled, and died … that these objections clearly articulated and addressed by candidate Trump are merely fears, prejudices and emotions? Are we to understand that their support of Trump is therefore without rational basis?
It is hard to fathom a more stinging insult to the dignity of Trump’s voter base. This base undoubtedly includes many practicing Catholics who, in trying to meet basic needs and protect and provide for their families in a climate the working class perceives as hostile, rejoice in finally having some voice in the political process and hope for their future. As Republican Kurt Schlichter recently wrote of the “Donaldites” at Townhall.com:
Immigration and free trade are generally good, but they impose real costs and our base is getting handed the bill. These folks have been asking us for help, and what was our response? Shut up, stupid racists.”
It is embarrassing that prominent Catholic voices have joined this chorus.
Mr. Trump, I do not know for whom I am going to vote. I have not personally determined the extent to which you will promote the Catholic values I cherish, though other Catholics believe our faith is consistent with support of your candidacy.
What I do know is that I am ashamed of the personal attack on you and your base by my fellow Catholics.
I apologize.
Marjorie Murphy Campbell writes for St. Dominic’s in San Francisco, California and for NewFeminism.co. She holds a JD from University of Virginia School of Law, a Ll.M. from Georgetown Law and a JCL from the School of Canon Law of Catholic University of America. She has practiced criminal defense and bankruptcy and taught at University of Cincinnati School of Law and the McGeorge School of Law at University of the Pacific.
Uncle John. Not just an MIT professor: (this information should be more public. Both military radar and medical radiation.)
From
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Trump
Check out his war service and the development of Radar to fight nazi Germany’s
Plus:
John George Trump (August 21, 1907 – February 21, 1985) was an American electrical engineer, inventor, and physicist. He was a recipient of U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s National Medal of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.[3][4][5] Trump was noted for developing rotational radiation therapy.[3] Together with Dr. Robert J. Van de Graaff he developed one of the first million-volt X-ray generators.[3]
Xxxxxxx
**Many Catholics, myself included, were dismayed that these respected Catholic intellectuals drew upon the sort of language they disapprove of in the candidate Trump. **
I apologize for them too.
Trump does not approve of abortion, and he needs to be educated a little bit more about how deceitful Planned Parenthood really is. It will happen.
Thanks for posting.
Guess you have NOT read Life News lately, because you missed a LOT, including THIS, dated March 14, 2016:
“Attention Donald Trump: Killing 330,000 Babies Outweighs Any Good Planned Parenthood Does
National Steven Ertelt Mar 14, 2016 (snip)
For most people it’s not ok to kill kids so long as you have a good marketing program, powerful political connections, or do a few “cancer screenings” that most can get from a local community center which isn’t tainted with the blood of the abortion industry.....’”
If you want to give DONALD TRUMP the benefit of the doubt, I have no problem with that, but at least admit a candidate this CLUELESS would not be capable of selecting the best judges.
Unfortunately, she can’t force RINO Review to publish this ‘rebuttal’.
Thanks.
An excellent executive sets the direction in which his people should go, gathers teams of excellent people to study various issues, propose solutions and present him with the research and options he wants to fulfill his promises to the American people. He does not act alone, and Trump knows this: he has decried the "phone and pen" methods of Obama.
No matter who is elected, any president will have to get a bill passed by Congress or a piece of legislation worked through the courts to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe v. Wade. That requires a team, and Trump is great at building teams with focused objectives. However, even a President Cruz would meet the same determined opposition from Democrats, liberals, progressives, activists with deep pockets, the ACLU, and many other of the usual suspects. So don't get your hopes up for one man to be able to turn aside a large and intertwined body of law stemming from the early 1960s in which the distribution of birth control to the unmarried was legalized by the SCOTUS, leading to literally thousands of lower-court decisions on every aspect of sexual behavior, undoing Christian moral standards one decision at a time.
The best hope for an extinguishing of abortion practices is a three-pronged approach: gradual wearing away though support from the next Administration's DOJ for an end to the most heinous practices, as well as new legislation through Congress and good selection of SCOTUS and appellate justices.
So that you don't get your hopes up too high, the problem of judge selection will confound ANY person elected to the presidency, because the law schools themselves have been corrupted politically and turned into hotbeds of marxist activism since the 1970s. That is nearly 50 years of marxist indoctrination in the law schools, including even those at ostensibly Catholic universities like Georgetown. Hell, the Pope himself has been steeped in marxist "liberation theology" over the past 50 years, and speaks moral confusion on all issues of sexuality every time he opens his mouth on the subject. Therefore the selection of reliable conservatives is very, very limited.
So, do not expect a miracle to come from ANY president, especially if Obama and our feckless GOP go ahead and seat another liberal on the SCOTUS before November, placing conservatives on the court in a numerical minority of 3 out of nine.
“..single-issue voters..”
I’m a 50 million PLUS issues voter - that’s how many unborn babies were murdered since Roe v. Wade.
I don’t trust a clueless man, like Trump, to pick pro-life, Constitutional judges. No on-the-job training for POTUS. The job is too important!
During “40 Days for Life” I stood next to a woman who held a sign which said: “I regret my aboritio.” Later a young man stood by us, who had a sign saying he supported Planned Parenthood. The woman engaged in conversation with him, and told him that she didn’t want anyone to have to go through what she had to go through. He told her PP also does healthcare. The young man used the same talking point that PP uses, and SO DOES DONALD TRUMP!
Then the woman told the young man how LITTLE PP does, as far as healthcare goes, such as PP doesn’t do mammos, etc.. This woman knew more about it than Donald Trump.
Obvously Donald Trump would not pick good advisors, if he ever became president, because he now has campaign advisors, but Trump is STILL as CLUELESS as he ever was!
I know! I’ll pick on a word, CLUELESS, and I’ll use that word over and over to try to convince others that it is true, even though it is logically untrue and unprovable. But if I keep saying it, I will feel good about my virtuous character and my own righteousness in my eyes, and I will use voodoo math like 50 million votes to throw shade on someone else, and I’ll feel good! I have not reasoned with my debate opponent, nor answered any of their points with respect, and I have no plan for converting all the heathen who would have an abortion in the first place, nor do I do any positive evangelization — I just demean people who don’t believe as I do, and that’s good enough for me!
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.