Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Who's On A Kamikaze Mission?

I link now to an article by Father Marcel Guarnizo that is published today on Townhall.com entitled "Donald Trump's Kamikaze Mission".  He's written before regarding his opposition to Trump.  I do want to remind my readers that it was Father Guarnizo who, four years ago at my parish in the Archdiocese of Washington, withheld Holy Communion to a practicing lesbian.

That said, I'm frankly taken aback at Father's characterizations of Trump: "clinical", "narcissistic", "needs a therapist", etc.  I admit they are opinions shared by many, but they are merely that: opinions.  I've yet to hear of any body-count associated with Trump as we hear of Hillary's (which seems to be in a state of growth these days).

He put forth the following analogy in an attempt to illustrate the choices of Hillary versus Trump that now face us.  "If someone at a dinner gathering requires a ride home and the only two available drivers are both drunk, the moral determination is clearly not to try and determine who is less intoxicated, and assign that poor fellow to do the driving. All that is required is to be aware that neither can drive and therefore you must not give the responsibility to either one."  The analogy is quite faulty.  In the dinner case, the rider has the option of not accepting a ride from either one of them.  We as a nation have no such option.  Either Trump or Hillary will go to the White House.  We as a nation will have one of the two drivers and no one else.  We either choose which one it will be, or the choice will be made for us by those who do bother to go to the polls.

Later he makes the following statement: "Morally I submit, only one determination is necessary: Is a candidate fit, qualified for the office of president of the United States? I argue it is unreasonable (and therefore immoral), to cast a vote for anyone blatantly unfit for the office. It matters little who is more unqualified."  That last sentence is incorrect.  Elections are about choices.  That means the voter weighs one candidate versus another, comparing their strengths and weaknesses of one to those of the other.  It really does matter who is more qualified or unqualified, particularly when one or the other will win.

The article was released today.  It could very well have been submitted to Townhall before the WikiLeaks revelations came out that told us just what Hillary and company intend for faithful Catholics.  I cannot believe that Father would blithely ignore this development.  At any rate, I haven't the time to rehash arguments that I've been making about this election for months now.  Please go back and read those posts for memory refreshers.


  1. Not his first time doing this in Townhall once before. He's always been a never Trump Priest.

  2. I agree 1000%, and the sign says it all. Yes, the Lord God has given us a painful choice, but He has given us the only CLEAR CUT choice we have from the information we have available. In other words, we really, as Catholic Christians, have NO CHOICE but to vote for Trump. I think the issue is OBEDIENCE, and HUMILITY. Do I LIKE Trump? NO! Is our choice a RISKY choice? YES! Do I think he has the TEMPERAMENT for the Presidency? NO! He is arrogant, too easily provoked, too impulsive, and too crude, but he is the ONLY CANDIDATE that promises to uphold ANY Catholic Christian principles. He has surrounded himself with seemingly quality knowledgeable people, who again promise to uphold our Catholic values. Clinton has surrounded herself with charlatans, non Catholic and even non Christian in every way who frankly hate Christians. The choice we have is CLEAR. Either we vote for unadulterated blatant EVIL, or we vote for someone who will uphold some semblance of Christianity. To vote 3rd party, or not to vote is absolutely throwing the vote to Clinton, it's a backdoor way of voting for her, and I think Catholics who take this route REALIZE this. Sometimes in order to obey the Lord it's painful, and this is one of those times, but OBEY WE MUST, lest we sin grievously, end of story.

  3. So - he prefers a candidate that will give us more horrific abortion stories? I'm mystified by this type of non-sequitor.

  4. And this type of reasoning will bring a full on governmental attack of our Church and all of it's teaching. Trump could sit in the office and not do anything for the next four years and still be a better choice. As you point out, we do not have the ability to not choose.

  5. Quote from today's Baltimore Business Journal:

    On the other side of the aisle, 13 Baltimore residents each gave $2,700 to the Clinton campaign, the maximum amount of money an individual is allowed to give in one reporting period. Those donors include local author, historian and Goucher College professor Jean H. Baker . . .


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.