Then she needs to have the NRO publish THIS.
The Pope had no influence
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.
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.
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)
**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.
Thanks.