Tags
Black Lives Matter, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C
Before I start, I hope all my readers had a blessed Easter!
Now to the subject at hand.
You know it had to happen. Your humble blogger was bound to put his “toe into the political pond to test the water” in this election cycle. Although most of you could guess the manner in which the vote will be cast, I think it is interesting to republish an article written by Raymond Arroyo which appeared on the Lifezette.com website via Newsmax (see here).
Two things that I found interesting in this article. First is that it is written from a positivistic angle (Positive statements are (purportedly-) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.), i.e. trying to determine the CAUSE at the ROOT of a specific EFFECT, in this case why Catholics are overwhelmingly voting for The Donald. The second thing is a subjective assessment in which Mr. Arroyo writes the following:
Conservative evangelicals and Catholics feel betrayed by the politicians they helped elect in the past.
Your humble blogger’s comment is: Yep!
Like the gentleman in the below cartoon with a minor edit, (Catholic is the new black)…
But please don’t misunderstand. Your humble blogger is not making a political endorsement.
Yet.
And now, for your reading pleasure, here is the article…
The Reasons Catholics and Evangelicals are Flocking to Trump
Are they voting against the church establishment, too?
On primary day in Florida it was like Palm Sunday for Donald Trump, replicating a trend seen in contest after contest: Evangelical and Catholic voters swung decisively for the GOP front-runner. The question is: Why?
The Florida exit polls were striking. A full 50 percent of Catholics in the Sunshine State voted for Trump, while only 33 percent voted for the Catholic, Sen. Marco Rubio. Trump’s support among born-again Christian voters was 49 percent. Meanwhile, the evangelical Ted Cruz languished with only 20 percent of the votes from his own pew mates.
Trump’s hold on both Catholics and evangelicals is by no means restricted to Florida. Massachusetts exit polls reveal that Trump drew a stunning 53 percent of the Catholic vote and 49 percent of evangelicals there.
On the surface a thrice-married, jet-setting billionaire with a penchant for expletives and a casual familiarity with scripture would seem a bad match for religiously minded voters. Nevertheless, in Michigan, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and other contests, Trump handily won the majority of both Catholics and evangelicals. Something is clearly happening, but what?
Leaders are all too aware of the pattern. Seeking to stop the faithful stampede to Donald, a phalanx of religious leaders have risen up in recent days — not to support another candidate, but to condemn Trump with usually harsh and unforgiving language. Evangelical heavyweights like James Dobson, Max Lucado and Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention have decried Trump as an “economic swindle” and a “social Darwinist.” Lucado insisted that Trump lacks “decency.”
A parcel of Catholic intellectuals recently signed an open letter condemning the GOP front-runner for his “vulgarity, oafishness” and “shocking ignorance.” In between garment rending, these “Never Trumpers,” like so many in the Beltway crowd, admit they can neither explain nor make sense of the Catholic/evangelical Trump phenomenon.
Stephen Prothero, a Boston College religion professor, explained the evangelical exodus to Trump in a recent Politico article. It’s simple, he says: “American evangelicals are just not that evangelical anymore.”
I’m not sure so that theory washes — and it certainly does not explain the Catholic support for Trump. So I decided to make it my business to visit key primary states and talk to Catholic and evangelical Americans on their own turf. I tried to situate myself at polling places in Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Michigan on big primary nights while on the road. In some cases, I visited the states shortly after primary voting, speaking in depth with scores of Catholics and evangelicals. Their surprising personal explanations for casting votes for Donald Trump made more sense to me than anything I have heard or read in D.C.
For all the fury and indignation coming from the establishment over the rise of Trump, in the minds of these voters, it is the establishment itself that is most responsible for his rise and enduring popularity.
Conservative evangelicals and Catholics feel betrayed by the politicians they helped elect in the past. An observation shared by a man in Alabama was heard over and over again: “We voted for these people and look at the state of marriage. We voted for them and I’m now competing for jobs with people coming across the border. Why not give Trump a chance? He says he’ll protect the border. He says he’s pro-life now. I believe him and nobody owns him. He could be different.”
When I challenged these faith-based voters with the concerns raised by leaders in their respective communions, I discovered an even deeper reason for their support of Trump. Nearly every evangelical and Catholic I encountered expressed outrage over what some described as “the politicization of the church.”
Both evangelical and Catholic leaders have in recent years hardened their positions on a host of once secondary political issues, to the dismay of their conservative flock. While muting their voices on the big ticket issues of life and traditional marriage, these voters claim, the churches are embracing agendas long championed by the Democratic party. Pope Francis’ support of a UN treaty to limit carbon emissions, an emphasis on the social gospel, as well as calls from some evangelicals and the Catholic bishops to loosen immigration restrictions have irritated swaths of rank and file faithful.
This political divide within the church squares with what Korey Maas noted in a recent Federalist article: “Monmouth has found that 76 percent of Catholic Republicans support building a wall across the border, 61 percent support the Trump immigration plan — despite Pope Francis and the Bishops’ insistence to welcome the immigrant.”
These faithful voters seem open to receiving general moral principals from the churches to shape their voting. But the combination of making it seem heretical to disagree over what they see as secondary political issues and blatantly forbidding them to vote for a particular candidate has made them rebellious. They are not just voting against the establishment of their party, but the establishment in their churches.
“Voting for Trump is a way to stop the Church’s advance into politics. It’s a check and balance,” a Catholic Michigan woman told me. “Jesus didn’t come to ply a political agenda. He came to save us. All these other things (immigration and environmental policies) are prudential judgments. We don’t need the bishops telling us about immigration. We live the problem every day.”
An evangelical in Louisiana was just as explicit: “To me Trump blocks all these church people who want to be politicians. I love my pastor, but we didn’t elect him to speak for us politically. I’ve got this — and I agree with Trump.”
Perhaps Holy Week is the perfect time for religious and political leaders to do some soul searching and to recall the ruinous effects of those who attempted to secure their power by demonizing a charismatic leader. Only in this case, by misunderstanding the motives of their own people, their efforts could well cause the candidate they fear most to rise again.
Raymond Arroyo is a New York Times best-selling author, most recently of “Will Wilder: The Relic of Perilous Falls” (Random House) and managing editor of EWTN News. This piece originally appeared in Newsmax.
steveesq said:
Reblogged this on EX MAGNA SILENTIUM or EX MAGNO SILENTIO and commented:
Thanks S. Armaticus for sharing this spot-on analysis of Catholic and Evangelical protestant support for Trump. I’m a political atheist and put my faith in no man as a political leader. As those quoted in this article say, I’ve been burned by those who pandered to my positions and then ignored, and even mocked, me, until the next election, when they came with sorry excuses for behaving the opposite to what they “promised”. That scenario has only worsened in the last ten years. And so has the moral, political, and economic health of my country.
And now those same people are shocked, SHOCKED, to find Trump bulldozing them despite their shrieking and denunciations, and demands to those they thought they lorded over to vote for “their” candidate and reject Trump.
It was particularly disgusting arrogance coming from the politicians. It is even more disgusting and infuriating coming from the Church hierarchy. Quite frankly, whatever both say now leads me to instinctively do the opposite, and to oppose them vocally every step of the way.
I don’t look to Trump to guide me morally, or as someone to hold up as a moral example for my children. I used to reserve that for the pope and prominent bishops. However, how in the hell can I now do that? I can’t and I don’t. Francis is a socialist, modernist, heretical buffoon, and probably a faggot, and my archbishop Dolan is cut from the same cloth. They have nothing to say to me, and many like me, about what I should do politically, and they have nearly lost me completely as to what I should do as a Christian. In both cases, as I’ve said, if I hear them, I know I must oppose them and do the opposite of whatever stupidity they exhort us to do. Moreover, I mock them whenever they come up in conversation amongst family and friends. Surprisingly, even though it really shouldn’t be, my denunciations no longer raise eyebrows like they did a year ago; it seems others are paying attention and know already what I denounce them for, and are just as disgusted as I am.
As a New Yorker, I’ve watched the Donald Trump show for the last 30 years. I’ve seen his foibles, I’ve seen and heard about his failed marriages, I’ve seen him undergo business defeats, and I’ve also seen him speak his mind, do his thing despite “critics” who couldn’t hold a candle to his success, and seen him accomplish some brilliant business successes. One thing stands out. A few decades ago, New York City had a skating rink in Central Park that was a shambles that the government couldn’t make work. Donald Trump offered and did take it over. Within months, Central Park had a skating rink operational and something to be proud of, and it still is all these years later. He does what he says he’s going to do, as he has shown that repeatedly over the years. And I’m counting on that, something that any other politician in this race has shown to be not worthy of equivalent trust, because their records have shown that. This country at this time does not need more of them. It needs a straight shooting doer like Trump.
Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States.
LikeLike
Halina Jecmenica said:
………this article by Bryan Fisher, (a Protestant) was more pointed in how we are supposed to choose who to vote for.
March 3, 2016
The Bible does tell us who to vote for
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
Host of “Focal Point” on American Family Radio, 1-3pm CT, M-F http://www.afr.net
(Note to grammar Nazis: I’m well aware that the title technically should read “whom” to vote for. But it sounds clunky. I beg your indulgence.)
My good friend Robert Jeffress was a guest on my program on Monday, and we had a frank talk about his enthusiastic public support for Donald Trump.
In the course of our conversation, he said that the Bible doesn’t tell us how to vote, since there were no such things as elections in the Old Testament.
I have a gentlemen’s disagreement on this score with Dr. Jeffress, a friendly disagreement rooted in a straightforward understanding of Exodus 18.
The backstory here is that Moses was being overwhelmed with the political challenges of providing leadership for a fledgling nation. He was up early every day and up late every night and still much wasn’t getting done. He received good counsel: get some help. Enlist the aid of qualified men who can help you shoulder the load of civic and judicial leadership.
Here is the counsel he received, and on which he subsequently acted: “Look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people” (Exodus 18:21).
Now to be sure, Moses was the only one voting in this election, but vote he did, and according to a clear set of criteria. (According to Merriam-Webster, a “vote” is “a formal expression of … choice.”) We can learn from this passage of Scripture what to look for in a political leader.
There are five qualities God instructs us to seek in a man who would be our president.
The first is ability. Moses selected men who were “able” (Hebrew hayil). According to the Hebrew lexicons, there are two complementary meanings of this word. The first definition is “faculty, power, strength, ability, competence, capability, qualified for a task.”
So the first question we must ask is this: does he have the skill set that is required to do the job? Does he have the kind of background, experience, knowledge, and judgment to handle the responsibilities of the Oval Office?
Does he have a sophisticated understanding of the Constitution and a demonstrated willingness to defend it and act on its principles? Or does he display a lack of familiarity with and respect for the supreme law of the land? Does he have a track record of sound and consistent political judgment, or have his positions “evolved” to conform to changing cultural mores?
The second thing we are to look for in a potential president is character. The second set of meanings associated with this word “able” (hayil) includes the following: “noble character, strong character, a worthy person.” This requires an assessment of his integrity and his conduct over the course of his life. Does he demonstrate godly character in his personal life, in his marriage, in his family, and in his professional life? Is his life worthy of imitation? If the answer is “No,” then he is plainly not qualified to be president of the United States.
How does he treat others and speak about them in public? Does he name-call and demean his political opponents or does he speak to them and about them with civility even when he is compelled to disagree with them?
The third criterion is reverence for God. A man is not qualified for public service unless he is a man who fears God. The word “fear” in Exodus 18:21 (Hebrew yare’) means “reverence, worship, profound reverence to a superior.” So we must ask: does the man who wants to be my president have a personal relationship with God? Does he show evidence of having a profound reverence for God, or is his reverence and admiration primarily reserved for himself? Is he familiar with the word of God, and does he show evidence that he is guided by its principles?
The fourth criterion is trustworthiness. The word translated “trustworthy” (Hebrew emeth) in Exodus 18:21 means “truth, firmness, faithfulness, reliability, stability.” Does he have a steady and stable temperament? Is he someone you can count on? Is he a man who is committed to speaking the truth regardless of the consequences? Can you depend on what he says, or does his position on major issues shift without warning from year to year or even from day to day?
Can you count on him to be a man of his word? Does he have a demonstrated track record of keeping his promises? For instance, has he done after he was elected what he promised to do before he was elected? Or has he abandoned the promises he made on the campaign trail once he got into office?
The fifth criterion is integrity in financial matters. He must be a man who is free from the taint of financial corruption, who is above reproach and whose hands are clean. He must be a man who “hate[s] a bribe.” The word “hates” (Hebrew sane’) means to “abhor, detest, or loathe.” The word translated “bribe” (Hebrew batza) means “dishonest, unjust, or ill-gotten gain.” It refers to gain “obtained by deception.”
Thus a candidate for public office must be a man who despises even the hint of financial impropriety or ethical compromise in money matters. He must not be a man who purchases political favors or whose political favors can be bought.
Bottom line: God has a voter guide, and here it is: We are to select for our president a man of ability, character, reverence for God, trustworthiness, and incorruptibility.
The GOP field is now down to three finalists. Using God’s yardstick, I grade one candidate out at zero for 5, a second at 3 or 4 out of 5, and the third at 5 for 5. Your grading of these candidates may vary from mine. But the indispensable thing is that we all must grade them according to God’s standard rather than the standard of man. May we all choose wisely.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
LikeLike
Michigan Man said:
I’m a Catholic, and I support Trump. I think it comes down to this… We are tired of being told what we should be believe, and what is electable. We’re tired of being told that everything we believe, say, and do is “not pc” or too regressive and “with the times”. The support of Trump is because he is someone the media might not like but certainly respects. He is a voice to the conservative movement which is tired of Washington politicians compromising on our morals, with our money. I fully acknowledge that Trump is not the most conservative, and doesn’t live a lifestyle in keeping with Church teaching, but the support of him is the rejection of the ideals of a Pope who concerns himself with things far too worldly (as the article points out) and a government which concerns itself with far too much in general.
LikeLiked by 1 person