To the Office of the Holy Father,
I have now had several email exchanges with prominent Catholic figures in the US (mostly one sided but I have had a few replies). The hour is grave. We have people pretending to be Christian while promoting a fear-mongering racist demagogue. We know that several phony evangelicals have pledged support to Trump as long as he masquerades as a Christian during the election and promises to repeal the "Johnston Amendment" if elected (not that his promises carry any weight). What it really boils down to is that if the Catholic Church can support a vile opportunist who embodies all the worst of humanity then the Church is nothing but a fraud!
I was raised Catholic. I have always (and continue) to believe in God. What is in question here is the legitimacy of the Church. If the Church is evil and supports Trump then I want nothing to do with it. If the Church really embodies the teachings of Jesus then it must repudiate Trump and all phony Christians willing to promote the racist demagogue.
Regards,
…
<<<>>>
On 9/15/2016:
To Archbishop William E. Lori,
I am forwarding a letter I wrote in regards to the US election because I believe this is a serious moral issue. Religious leaders that support a fear-mongering racist demagogue will have to answer for their lack of integrity.
Dear Father Longenecker,
After reading your explanations as to why Catholics can't support Clinton (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/07/can-a-catholic-vot...) nor Trump (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/08/can-a-catholic-vot...), I still have trouble with your equivalence. Trump is a fear-mongering racist demagogue who incites violence; Clinton is a person with whom you have a disagreement about a legal matter. To make your case against Clinton you first exaggerate her stance on abortion. Her opinion on abortion may not be something the Catholic church supports, but in falsifying her position to make your case you loose credibility. Let me make a few clarifications on public discussions that may have influenced your position.
Clinton has stated that unborn fetuses have no constitutional standing. This is not an indication of her opinion on abortion: it is a statement of opinion on a legal matter regarding the constitution. Note that (from what I could find) Clinton has not said the fetus had no rights. As Nationality is determined by country of birth and parentage, the "US citizen" moniker is only attached at birth. I understand the Catholic church holds that life begins at the moment of conception but the legal system has its own interpretation. As nationality is an important factor in determining what protections the US will grant an individual, this question is much more complex than you portray. It is fine for us to stand together and say that, from a religious point of view, life starts at conception - it is quite another to demand the legal system bow to religious beliefs.
[I will make two quick illustrations here. First, in some states it is legal for homeowners to use lethal force to protect their material possessions from an intruder. Is this not worst (much worst, in fact), than someone using lethal force to protect their physical well-being? Why then is it OK for one party to declare loud and strong that they will protect the former but not OK to want to protect the latter?
Second, if religious belief can dictate legal positions, how would you then ensure that the Catholic beliefs were the only ones granted that status? Would Muslims not also want the same privilege?]
Clinton has stated that she would pick Supreme Court judges that support Roe v. Wade. More generally, she has indicated that nominees to the Supreme court should hold great respect for previous cases and should not overturn rulings (or make new ones) on preconceived and unalterable belief. In fact, this is the way the court system is meant to work. Rulings of previous courts form the basis for future decisions. Appointing judges intent on overturning previous cases would set a bad precedent. You may think it is a great idea if the "activist judge" being appointed is sympathetic to Catholic teachings, but if appointing activists judges becomes normal there will inevitably be judges appointed that want to swing he pendulum the other direction. It is best to work within the current system and build sound arguments that do not require "pre-indoctrinated" judges.
Another fault some find with Clinton is that she has stated religious principles have to evolve. "Rights have to exist in practice not just on paper. [...] Deep seated cultural codes, religious believes, and structural biases, have to be changed." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj1T1gP4Q9M) It is usually portrayed as indicating she wants religions to change their fundamental tenants. I do not believe that is the case. Fundamental tenants are, by definition, the basis on which the religion is built and are unlikely to change. More likely, she meant that our understanding of religious beliefs will evolve. In the Catholic religion there has been considerable "evolution" in that regards just since I was young. If a religion cannot adapt to the changing culture it cannot endure. Religious scholars should continue to ponder the great questions and influence religious interpretation. At some point, Church and state have to remain separate. Religion should not be dependent on state rules to enforce their beliefs.
As international travel has increased we have become a "Global City" and we have to be more tolerant of other beliefs and cultures. There is risk here. While we want to be tolerant of other cultures, we don't want to be over-run in our own back yard. Fear leads to intolerance. There is no reason we can't promote tolerance while preserving our cultural, and Religious, identity. Donald Trump has built his campaign on exaggerating the risk and promoting fear and hate. That is much more a dis-qualifier on religious grounds than someone who wants to keep church and state separate.
Regards,
…
