And, Dr Bobus when an "amateur" includes the observations (not diagnosis) of 3 professionals, when perhaps 10 could have been mentioned, you place it with the senselessness of random, "unprofessional" diagnoses rather than a reasonable proposition?
-
I've complained of memorized soundbites over as many elections as I can remember. But it seems to me we can't hate it to the point of despising thoughtful preparation (where, astonishingly, it seems we've arrived) from a candidate.

Welcome to the 21st century, when everyone has to have a diagnosis, even if it's done by an amateur.

We live in an age of specialists who want to apply the particular method of their work or academic discipline to everything in life. Trump is a Big Biz specialist and wants to use that MO in politics. Whether applying that MO to politics is right or wrong, it's sometimes a bit refreshing to hear a candidate who does not spout phrases fed by campaign advisors--or avoid certain phrases for the sake of PC.

@Abramo, my own even half-serious commitment to fighting abortion is unacceptably late so I know little about the past that has many quite frustrated. But as far back as I can remember, as election cycles have gone, abortion was threatened to be a dead issue through the entire primary season and magically appeared during the general election season. At that point, we saw a somewhat well constructed sound bite and no more. We can't entirely blame the candidates because if there existed a deeply convicted, "we the people," they'd be more willing to stick their neck out and fight.
-
This round of elections is different from the very beginning of the primary season with a wealth of candidates speaking clearly and boldly about defending life and we have a single person to thank: David Daleiden. We can complain about politicians and prelates until we're blue in the face. Just like the "loudest" child of the family gathering in a large amount of mom's attention, when we get off our tails and act as if important matters are important and truths are truths, the ones in position of leadership are going to fold their hands behind their head and put their feet up, just like us.
-
It is a unique moment in the history of the U.S. We may completely ruin everything if we insist on stopping to count the cost before we consider what's right. In that way, it's right that who is elected will make no difference. Or, maybe the corrupt politicians will speed up time that the Church has slowed to a crawl.

Reagan (who always was furiously pro-death).
.

Priests for Life on Ronald Reagan.

.

President Ronald Reagan spoke with conviction about abortion and the right to life of the unborn. In fact, he even issued a proclamation of their personhood and dignity.

Following are a few other brief excerpts from his comments.

My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

"Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation"

First Appeared in: The Human Life Review Spring 1983

.

Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.

IBID

.

The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law -- the same right we have.

IBID

.

I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives -- the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

IBID

.

A Senate committee hearing was held recently to determine, if we can, when life actually begins. And there was exhaustive testimony of experts presenting both views, and finally the result was declared inconclusive. They couldn't arrive at an answer. Well, in my view alone, they did arrive at an answer, an answer that justifies the proposed (human life) legislation. If it's true we don't know when the unborn becomes a human life, then we have to opt in favor that it is a human life until someone proves it isn't.

Remarks at the Centennial Meeting of the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus

Hartford, CT 8/3/82

.

And I just happen to believe that simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is. And thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Remarks at the Alfred M. Landon Lecture Series on Public Issues
Manhattan, KS 9/9/82

HOME - PRAYER REQUESTS - QUESTIONS & CO

Dear Jungerheld,

.

The point of my posts here was Fr. Guanizo's intemperate remarks and his attempted psychological analysis of Donald Trump's failings while ignoring Hitlery and other Republican candidates. Rubio, Santarum et. al. are no longer candidates.

.

I will use a quote from your link that shows Fr. Guarnizo's defense of Donald Trump in July of 2015 at the very beginning of the Trump campaign. This, of course, occurred before any of the liberal media's uproar against him. Today, however, it's safe to bash Trump so everybody gets into the act with no fear of reprisals. Evidently, this includes Catholic priests.

.

In July 2015, Fr. Guanizo wrote:

.

I apologize as a Catholic priest to Mr. Trump and wish to let him know that many of us desire to publicly disassociate ourselves from any perception that what Cardinal Dolan wrote is any way consistent with Catholic doctrine or the basic decency required of all people of good will.
.
Fr. Guarnizo ought to apologize today for what he has written and for his own violating of the “basic decency required of all people of good will.”

.

Now, will Fr. Guarnizo apologize for his remarks against Trump and for his failure to express his disapproval of Barack Hussein and the anti-Catholic policies of the past 7 years? Will Fr. Guarnizo publicly censure Hitlery as he did Trump for her strong anti-Catholic pro-abortion/pro-sodomy positions? It would obviously take more courage to censure Hitlery rather than Trump since she is the media darling and to do so would alienate the media.

.

Will Fr. Guarnizo risk alienating the media in that way?

.

Sure he will...as soon as hell freezes over.

Uncle Joe I understand your point. Here is one about Rubio. By the way, I don't consider what I posted, "dated," not all of the links. I tracked them down as an abundance of proof of his purpose in addressing any candidate. Here is the article where he defended Trump against Cardinal Dolan on immigration. I'm tempted to quote Trump in reference to Hillary and suggest he, "hasn't even gotten started with Hillary."

Dear Jungerheld,

.

Although your links are dated, the fact that he is against homo marriage etc was not the issue of my post. One would hope that a Catholic priest would be against those things.

.

However, let me know just as soon as Fr. Guarnizo directly critiques either Hillary Clinton or the other Republican candidates for president as he did Donald Trump in your article above. That was the point of my post.

.

Trump is an easy target for many including Catholics. But, the bottom line is that most Catholics do NOT pay attention to clerics with respect to liturgical matters or social issues so it is not likely they will listen with regards to whom those clerics think they should vote.

.

Happy Thursday within the Octave of Easter.

@Uncle Joe, Happy Easter! I can't speak for Fr. Guarnizo, but I know few as courageous in using their freedom to fight for the truth. I'll share a few things I am familiar with: An article in response to Bill O'Reilly on homosexuality and mariage, about the case at the U.S. Supreme Court, an interview on marriage with Kathy Sinnot of EWTN's Celtic Connections, an article about Kermit Gosnell; an article about Carhart and Company's movie premiere; a rally against the HHS anti-religious freedom mandate; A talk outside Carhart's Germantown, MD clinic; and another talk in Lafayette Park, across from the White House.

Dear Fr. Guarnizo,

.
In your opinion, Trump is not well?

.

From your online bio I read that you are not a psychiatrist. You are not even a psychologist. Yet, you think it's perfectly justified to publicly write a psychological profile of presidential candidate Donald Trump.

.

Interesting. Interesting that you are motivated to do such a thing.

.

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a few questions Fr. Guarnizo. Where were you during the past seven years when the most pro-abortion/pro-sodomy individual in the history of America was the sitting president of the United States? Did you at any time write a psychological profile of this avowed enemy of the unborn and of the teachings of the Catholic Church? Did you ever write a public evaluation of his pro-abortion appointees to the Supreme Court? Did you ever comment on the homosexuals he appointed as ambassadors of the United States. No? I didn't think so, Father.

.

In addition, have you at any time written the reasons why voters should not choose the Democrat candidate for president since Hillary Clinton, very clearly, would maintain those same anti-life and pro-sodomy appointments in her decisions and particularly her supreme court nominees. No? I didn't think so, Father.

.

Do you know Donald Trump, Father? Why then do you choose to venture out in analyzing and then lambasting an American presidential candidate based on your own uninformed and far removed perspective? Doesn't it seem more fitting for you to respond, in a public way and psychologically, why you were thrown out of the Archdiocese of Washington by your Bishop Barry Knestout and indirectly by Cardinal Wuerl? And while your analyzing your two superiors, why not analyze the actions, words and failings of the current pontiff, Pope Francis? All these men do have failings don't they, Father Guarnizo? But, I suppose for you and the leftists in the media, it's much easier and safer to constantly attack Trump. You will not give your analysis of these clerics in your own Church will you? No? I didn't think so, Father.

.

You are not going to attack them, are you Father? Although it would be more logical and credible for you to talk, chastise, approve of, point out the flaws, or lambaste those who are active within your own Catholic Church - who you are much closer to in both proximity and in philosophy - you won't do that, will you Father? Of course not. I didn't think so.

nospincatholicism.com/…/why-are-catholi…