There are a lot of things to consider in the upcoming election. Not all issues are of the same moral gravity.
But a lot of folks seem to be saying that the only thing that matters is where the candidates stand on abortion. Is that true?
Does nothing else matter? Including when one candidate treats women like dirt?
Don't believe it? Check this out: 51 things Donald Trump has said about women. Then feel free to come back and defend this behavior, if you care to.
This is just one of many reasons I maintain that while Secretary Clinton is awful, so is Mr. Trump.
36 comments:
He's not a godly man. We've known this all along;I doubt anyone was shocked by what he said. However, he is the only thing stopping her. I have a little hope that things might get better if I vote for him. If I sit out this election, I threw that little bit of hope away.
He's not a godly man. We've known this all along;I doubt anyone was shocked by what he said. However, he is the only thing stopping her. I have a little hope that things might get better if I vote for him. If I sit out this election, I threw that little bit of hope away.
In defense of Trump? First, most of his accusations have come during the final stages of a political campaign. There is a name for that but it escapes me. Second, his best defense is his daughter Ivanka. She is successful, educated, poised professional, ethical, moral, and his staunchest supporter. She is the best evidence of his dealings with women. I will admit that the Donald does like to shock people, much like that other New Yorker Howard Stern. Donald has always been known to be a bit of an outrageous boisterous and controversial character, it is part of his public personality. I think though that is more flash than substance.
Anonymous:
If you aren't going to read either the link I provided, or even my own post, above (which was pretty short), why do you post a comment? It's obvious you read neither.
Fr., I most respectfully note that we were not searching for a godly man but an unsentimental one. There have been men, perhaps godly, who could not excise this carbuncle from our backside out of misguided sentiment, collegiality, and claims of mercy while the thing continued to fester. So this man with no sentiment or attachment to either the beginning or the end of the procedure does not spare the denizens of his own party the same cuts he gives the opposition so that all of the rot is threatened. He makes impolite comments about women that are basically harlots and we are shocked? He is merely heckling Sodom who hypcritically demands either participation or silence. His comments are totally in keeping with the group that asked for them as well as the targets. Yes, even his family. He is one of the hoi poloi in many ways but for some reason has sided against their self-consuming treachery.
We do not send scholars to battle for good reason. The harsh and crude people who meet the harsh and crude enemy are better suited for that purpose. This act of opposing the Clintons does not gentle him simply by our mutual labor. But in the recent past we have been traded away in small parcels by men who thought the trade godly. So now we are upset that this aweful man has the fortitude to address wicked people in ways that the silent righteous could not muster. It is not neccessary to endorse him in any way except to point out that he is between us and the devil pointed in the right direction.
What Presdent would you choose to defend on moral grounds? FDR had multiple affairs. Truman called African Americans niggers even while serving as president, approved firebombing almost every city in Japan and the use of atomic weapons. Eisenhower cheated on his wife and oversaw the use of firebombing entire cities. JFK never met a woman he did not try to have sex with even in the White House and many believe passed around women with his brother. He also authorized the assnition of foreign leaders. LBJ used this language or worse and often exposed his genitils waving it around in front of women in the Oval Office. Nixon used language exposed on tape and was on the way to impeachment. Carter may have been moral despite lust in his heart, but was a terrible president until Obama proved to be even worse. Bush 1 lied saying no new taxes and could not convince people to vote for him over the pervert of all time in Clinton the rapist. No one would ever say Bill had higher moral than Trump and he got elected twice despite Americans knowing he ha lied under oath. W. Bush got us into Iraq using information many believe was not true and managed it horribly killing a lot of people including our own soldiers and was reelected. If you want to go back to founding, Washington and Jefferson were slave holders and we now know Jefferson the master had sex with slaves.
Our other choice in this election supports partial birth abortion and has sold her office for profit. She might be the most crooked person ever to seek the office as proven by her lie to congress and the FBI. SO YES, THIS CATHOLIC WOMAN WILL BE SUPPORTING TRUMP AND YES I READ WHAT YOU POSTED AND THE SITE THAT HAS BEEN AGAINST TRUMP SINCE HE ANNOUNCED. I DO NOT LOOK FOR SAINTS IN THE PRESIDENCY ANY MORE THAN SAINTS IN THE PRIESTHOOD OR IN OUR BISHOPS THAT COVERED UP CHILD ABUSE AND RAMPANT HOMOSEXUALITY. YOUR ADVICE TO NOT VOTE TRUMP HELPS A WOMAN IS TRULY IRREDEEMABLE. THAT IS OUR CHOICE.
Fr. Fox: I did read both your post and the link you provided. I also am a bit of a news junkie,and work in a political environment. My comment was based on both your articles (plural), the link, and those that I have read or seen on main stream media. My comment might have been an overly collective response to all of that. I always read your posts, and especially your homilies. You are one of the best writers on the web.
Anon, I do not think Fr Fox is telling anyone how to vote but advise us of the sprts of persons in the race. There is a tendency to think the person opposing a bad candidate is a good person, but that is not the case.
RCG said:
Fr., I most respectfully note that we were not searching for a godly man but an unsentimental one.
First, I would ask, do you want a President who has good character? The quotes I linked to don't so much raise the question of Mr. Trump's "godliness" as his character, and his judgment.
In any case, do you mean to suggest we've reached a point where we cannot have a President with more than one good quality?
Anonymous at 6:25 pm:
Your argument boils down to, nobody's perfect, so I don't care what bad things Donald Trump does. As long as there have been morally tainted presidents, Trump has carte blanche.
No? Is that unfair? Then tell me, please, what words or actions of Mr. Trump would cross the line for you? If you became convinced he said or did "X," then you would say, "that's too far, he's lost my support"? What words or actions (i.e., "X") would go too far?
Fr Fox, unfortunately we cannot pick a man of good character at this time. As a society we have not been participating properly in our Republic and the cupboard is bare of good men. Even if we found one in the lamplight we we would have have a popular consensus to all (or most) write him in. A tall order for a country that has not even used the existinf primary process adequately.
This answers your second question in that we are lucky to find anyone with any useful qualities, much less good ones.
So I still think our best strategy is to find the candidate easiest to control. We are stranded on an island and the only ships captains available to us are treacherous. We cannot remain where are and one will be selected no matter what.
Along that same line I think our best mental and emotional path forward, guided by a reinvigourated prayer life is to think how we will deal with the next president regardless of which pirate we elect.
RCG said:
Even if we found one in the lamplight we we would have have a popular consensus to all (or most) write him in. A tall order for a country that has not even used the existing primary process adequately.
"Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God'" (Mark 10:27).
I'm voting with this passage in mind. I'll write in a candidate, that's all I can do. I'll leave the impossible to God.
It seems to me you are saying I will sit this election out. Does this make your decision moral? It leaves it to others to choose which of the only two people who will become our president to choose. You can sit back and say "don't look at me, I didn't vote for him or her. Many times in life in the real world we are given choices where both seem bad and we have too choose. We cannot take a pass. You know it will be Hillary or Trump. Voting for neither is a choice to not take part in the choice which has to be made, if not by you, by others.
Anonymous at 3 pm:
When you don't bother to read what I wrote, why do you comment? What is the point? Did you not read that I am planning to vote?
No, you said you would write in a name who has zero chance of winning, that is like being asked do you want chemo or radiation treatments to fight a cancer threatening your child's life and saying I'll take apple pie. Trump today gave a tough prescription to fix America. We are dying. We are losing our freedoms, drowning in debt, unable or unwilling to protect our borders, bringing in people from countries that hate America knowing they cannot be vetted for safety, massive numbers of federal aid and jobless, and a long list of other ills including our government being sold, and you seem to think saying I'll take a piece of pie is voting.
This is not totally related to your post, but it does fit in with the character of many of your presidential posts. It particularly fits in with your examination of a (or both) candidates moral fitness to be president. Over the years there have been numerous discussions on what traits it takes to be a top business leader, and the surprise was the comparison between the personality traits of those that excel in business and the psychopath. The conclusion by many is they both share many of the same traits. There are many articles, but I attach the link to one that I quickly found on the internet:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#53f495f02740
Fr. Fox, You are doing a good thing in trusting The Lord and being loyal to your country. My take on Providence in this case will be Devine guidance through the next four years. I pray we be spared this storm, or given help dealing with it. I think we deserve this tribulation so enduring it through Grace will be better for us than dodging the bullet.
Anon at 8:51, I think Fr. Fox is being realistic. I agree with your assessment of the country and that Trump has the right instincts for those actions. Anon at 9:53 notes the similarity of psychopathy and leadership. I agree with that, as well. I am such a person and I recognized that some time ago. Fr. Fox is following his conscience (a priest! Imagine!!). I intend to, as well, and at this time it does not involve voting for either of the major party candidates but trying to figure out the best way to get my family, friends, Parish, and Church through the next eight years.
Hope the apple pie taste good for those who choose not to make critical choice. I think Trump laid out essential changes America needs to survive in his address in Gettysburg. If anyone has not read it or watched it, I challenge anyone to say where these points hurt the country. Knowing Clinton's actual beliefs leaked out despite her efforts to prevent the real globalist crooked core agenda makes any support for her a choice against everything America has ever stood for.
It both amuses and saddens me that none of the "anonymouses" show a sign of reading my original post. I asked you to read and defend the linked statements by Mr. Trump.
Still waiting for the defense.
Heck, I'm still wondering if any of you even read what I wrote above. You just jump in and comment. Weird, isn't it?
I am going to try and defend those linked statements collectedly. I have read those statements, and many of the additional links contained within them:
defense 1: He is a New Yorker, and new Yorkers are not always known for their subtlety. They can be brash and that speaks of personality and not character. Go to a Yankees game.
defense 2: He talks a lot to Howard Stern. Howard Stern is a Shock Jock, which is defined as: A shock jock is a type of radio broadcaster or disc jockey who entertains listeners or attracts attention using humor and/or melodramatic exaggeration that some portion of the listening audience may find offensive. Shock Jocks have a technique to gain listener attention, and those listeners provide income. With much of Donald's comments he did the same. He made shocking, and outlandish statements to attract attention. Unfortunately he did this decades before he knew he wanted to be president. How does one undo that? One might notice that in his first debate and presidential appearances, he was orange with yellow hair. In his last debate hair and skin color are normal.
defense 3: All the arguments in those articles are against him, for them to be truly credible there has to be some arguments for him. They are one sided. To judge properly you need a prosecutor and a defense. These are only from the prosecutor, where is his defense?
defense 4: He has been in the public square for a very long time, how many can relate to being a multi billionaire in our 30's? To understand his comments, one must also understand the circumstances.
defense 5: I think of that parable where the trees try to pick a president. Which tree is Donald and who chose him?
let me know how I did. I am determined to find the proper defense.
You keep saying your post and link were not read and commented on. Not sure what you are looking for. A response to each of the 57 varieties? Trump is outspoken and crass. I get that as do millions of other Americans. We do not think it matters at this point since the democrats have given us Crooked lying scam artist grifter Hillary. You cannot seem to understand simple logic. It is crass outspoken Trump to that crooked grifter. So if you want to write in apple pie, just admit it is apple pie which helps the grifter. Do not see you addressing what people who read your post and took the time to answer. Could it be because you do not have a logical reason for apple pie VOTE leaving the heavy lifting choice to those trying to make the best choice between the only two with a chance.
Anon, I think our host is trying to keep the discussion focused on his OP and the thoughts he put out. Nothing more. It reminds me of a teacher trying to keep the class moving on the lesson despite the attractive thoughts it inspires.
As far as the points Anon 2:32 puts forward: I don't think they are defenses as much as considerations. If there is a positive spin to Trump's candidicy it is that he spent almost no time preparing for it. What has been paraded in the press was what he did to succeed in his chosen environment. He never prepared himself for public office and did not care about public scruteny. I think it cause for shame for the rest of us that such a crass person has better instincts and gumption to stand up to the excesses of our Government and we did not.
Anonymous @ 2:52:
I don't know what the "proper defense" is. I appreciate you paying attention to the topic of the post.
Anonymous @ 11:37:
I am perfectly capable of understanding simple logic; and I also understand that when you have to resort to insults, your argument is weak.
And I have lost the thread of your "pie argument," so I'm not going to try to figure out which sort of pie I represent. I am happy to explain that I refuse to vote for a candidate who (multiple times) has endorsed grave moral evil. That excludes both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
Finally, I will respond to your claim, above, that a write-in has "zero chance of winning" (assuming it was the same Anonymous, musing about pie). I look at this election through the lens of faith. Perhaps you do not believe in God; or perhaps you are a Deist, like the Founding Fathers, who believes God never influences the course of human events. But I am a Christian, and I believe God does, indeed, guide the course of events, but in ways beyond my ken. So I will cast my vote in accord with God's commandments as best I can, and then ask him to bring a good outcome.
Bad Dream #1: Synopsis - rcg dies but is soon released from Purgatory through the unceasing prayers of his family. Relieved and delighted he advances to the Gates of Heaven where he meets St Peter (played by Ken Watanabe). St. Peter has a ballot box and reaches in as beads of perspiration grow on rcg's forehead. St. Peter pulls out a ballot with the 'TRUMP' block marked with indelible black ink. "Is this yours?" rcg awakens to discover that Election Day has not passed at all and that he is still alive. Filled with the joy of Election Day he promises to keep it always in his heart and to vote his concience no matter how obscure the candidate.
Pope Celestine V: Patron Saint of Long Shots.
So father, has God always sent forth sinless people as answers to prayers? I see nothing Trump has laid out in his contract that represents sin unlike Clinton. What if Trump is the answer to prayers to stop the scourge of abortion in America? But he said and might have done sinful things in his past. So what. If he indeed did do anything, it would seem the women would have come forward long before 30 days before an election. He was wealthy and you can be sure Gloria Alred would have gone after a payday. What if he did nothing and the attacks are all political. We have just seen proof the Clintons were using illegal activity for dirty tricks.
I see nothing Trump has laid out in his contract that represents sin unlike Clinton.
So as long as he didn't mention it in his contract, you're ok with:
- killing babies whose fathers are rapists and incestuous;
- torture;
- killing non-combatant relatives of terrorists.
Mr. Trump has endorsed all these things. These things aren't "sin"?
Fr. Fox, how could we ever find a candidate that both meets our Catholic values and is competent?
RCG -
There were several in the primaries.
He's at it again, folks. Riding high on sanctimony while others are dutifully concerned with doing what little we can to maintain the good purchased by the blood sacrifice of others.
"Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God'" (Mark 10:27).
THEN PRAY for Trump, Fr. Fox. Vote on that. Grace building upon nature. Not throwing nature to the wind because the Queen Mary isn't coming to your rescue, but rather a dirty fishing scow.
Thank God for strong men and women who are able to apply God's words as necessary to get many a dirty job done that must be one. Those who hide out in their clean offices living off the money of others and the freedom others have provided them are no advisers.
Thank you all who are voting to keep HRC out of our White House! Pray for Trump. Pray for America. And pray for Fr. Fox.
Patty --
So, according to you, my objecting to murder - of babies whose fathers are rapists - is merely "sanctimony"? (Clearly you don't give a damn about killing non combatants. That too is murder. And you are eager to see more torture.)
Here's the thing. I am a Christian. Jesus Christ says murder is always wrong. I don't know what torture-approving, baby-killing god you bow down to.
You are sanctimonious because you feign the high ground and toss off what Providence has provided with zero experience or true understanding of our current situation.
You have never witnessed "torture". You have never risked your life and limb for another. You have zero children to protect, defend, provide for and/or weep for. You only sit and judge - posturing beyond the Magisterium. Perhaps in an attempt to convince yourself of your own holiness as you encourage throwing away what our own laziness has produced. A candidate who is less than what we would hope for, but all we're going to get this time out.
Perhaps you should have groomed a proper candidate beforehand. Perhaps you should vet them all in the confessional to ensure they meet your standard of sin-free posturing. Perhaps you should run yourself. Goodness. There we are.
The god you bow down to is your own opinion, Father, and the presumption on those who support you with blood, sweat, tears, sacrifice, terror, and having to deal with clearing out actual torture rooms.
Perhaps you should visit one and then get back to us about what god you bow to. In truth. Not just in your imaginings.
"...There were several in the primaries."
They were not fully vetted, Fr. Fox, or run through the media mill that would drag every scrap of their lives and positions through the mud. Pray, who were you backing... in the primaries?
Would that we could review their private lives, confessions, boastings, voting records, and the "truth" about who they are as a man/woman. There but for the grace of God go I, Father. You, too.
Pray and act. That's what fighting men and women have to do every day.
Father Fox, thank you for your witness and courage.
Some like Patty seem to think your fidelity to Christ and his teachings are Pharisaical, or self-serving, but all I see is faithful witness.
I don't believe we've crossed paths many times in person, but through this blog your wisdom and leadership has benefited me personally.
Thank you.
Patty, you are being rude. It is plain that Fr. Fox is grappling with some great concerns. I will not speak for him but I think it is important to note that he is only speaking of voting for someone, not supporting the Office of the President or the person who holds it. For example, when after the election President Clinton proposes a program to ensure proper health care and shelter for the poor I am certain Fr. Fox will support that program while opposing her support for abortion programs. He will support her as the President and help defend her against all enemies.
Likewise, if Trump decides to hold a big rally for St. VdP Fr. Fox would be all in while also (being the great preacher that he is) publicly calling on Trump to change his ways and publicly repudiate his previous attitudes toward women and use his public stature to set a good example. That's the way Fr. Fox rolls and I personally appreciate that.
Post a Comment