History has brought us to a crossroads in the life of the Catholic Church. As one papacy ends and the prayers and the collective mind of the Church give more thought to what the right relationship between the Catholic Church and the world ought to look like, what has become a civil war in the Church between progressive and traditionalists, between liberals and conservatives plays an ever more important role.
In theological as well as psychological and political terms, it’s easy to confuse prophecy and appeasement. Appeasement takes place when values central to the secular culture are celebrated as legitimate moral developments purportedly common to both Christianity and the zeitgeist, usually in terms of sexual or political ethics. “Forward” thinking voices from within the faith confuse development with prophecy. There is the assumption that all development, all change must be for the good. In fact, baptizing with Christian approbation what, as we look back, turns out to have been either sterile or corrupt, becomes an act of appeasement towards what has increasingly been shown to be a culture hostile to the values of Christendom.
Western Society, a little inebriated by its own technological and scientific success, has convinced itself that it walks the road of progress. But there is no consensus of what constitutes progress. Few people make a distinction between technological ingenuity and moral probity or wisdom. There is an unfounded secular assumption that they go together.
But the history of the 20th century, if it teaches us anything, suggests that there is no obvious or inevitable link between technological skill and learning to love your neighbor, or finding a more meaningful relationship with God. How do we learn to tell the difference between a prophetic preparation and foretelling of the coming future, and the appeasement of a competing world view? If we are going to assess a change in sexual ethics or political priority, we need to be able to do so by weighing them according to the historic ethics of the Church down the ages. The liberal mind finds the weight of tradition unconvincing. It has been taught that all development must constitute progress. This produces two different currencies of authenticity: primitive bad; contemporary good.
Staying in tune with a liberal society that has no clear idea of what it is moving forward to, doesn’t necessarily constitute being prophetic. The outcome may be in an entirely different direction. If adopting the priorities of progressive society undermines or waters down Christian ethics then it’s not prophecy but appeasement.
There has long been a philosophical struggle between secularism and the Church stretching back to the French Revolution and beyond. Perhaps one of the most influential challenges to the Catholic worldview that re-emerged then is found in the work of Rousseau.
It’s never easy to separate the strands of the political, philosophical, and spiritual, but it’s particularly problematic in the work of Rousseau. His personal influences included a period as a would-be seminarian, then later a paid up Calvinist as he sought refuge in Geneva. But perhaps most interesting of all he experienced a kind of counter Pauline Damascene experience while walking near Paris on the road to Vincennes; his “road to Vincennes” conversion.
He claimed some kind of private revelation came upon him, bringing two convictions: the first that the arts and sciences were responsible for the moral degeneration of society; and the second that mankind was otherwise pure and unspoilt.
His new insight didn’t much damage the prospects of either art or science, but it did undermine the acceptance of what the Church called original sin. The liberal (optimistic) mindset has always found the idea of a deeply embedded inherited moral flaw upsetting. It prefers the self-congratulatory unrealistic optimism of Rousseau.
Rousseau’s optimism about human nature proved to be also deeply attractive to an age that was itching to throw off the restraints of both the Church and the monarchical slate. His insistence that humans were born with a blank moral state, capable of unlimited moral and intellectual improvement, proved to be a preferable reading of human nature to reformers. It allowed them unlimited potential for their revolutions.
Was this an intellectual misreading of human nature or an intrusive spiritual perversion mediated by Rousseau, offering a hubristic contrasting alternative to the account of original sin in Genesis?
Either way, it appealed to a culture that entertained ambitions for freedom, progress, autonomy, and a variety of versions of political and personal fulfilment. If human beings were born with a moral blank slate, then all transformation took was limitless education and the infusion of state resources.
The Christian critique of secular utopianism is that it represents a mis-directed quest for heaven. The natural and the supernatural are constantly in tension in the human experience. Why wait for heaven if you can create heaven on earth?
For Catholics, one of the consequences of this perspective is that the extent to which the supernatural and miraculous aspects of the faith become less or inaccessible—is the extent to which educational, political, or rational solutions become attractive, or a more accessible means of fulfilling a quest for peace, justice, the offering of education, health, and the relief of suffering in a wounded and conflicted world.
The last few centuries have seen an assault on the claims of the supernatural by an empirically minded, pragmatic culture. It has either been rubbished as illusion and manipulation or dismissed as scientifically impossible. But of all expressions of Christianity, Catholicism has embodied the claims of the supernatural. From transubstantiation in the Mass to miraculous healings from prayer and relics, Catholicism has unashamedly prioritized the spiritual over the skeptical.
But the liberal (Catholic) mindset finds the empirical and political more convincing than the spiritual and the metaphysical.
There is always an eschatological tension in the Christian mind. The goal of heaven has implications for now, but in a metaphysically conflicted world, it can only be realized behind time and space.
The twin challenges of holding that tension in balance, while straddling both the natural and supernatural dimensions, prove too much for secularized Catholics.
The attraction of downplaying original sin and leaning more deeply into blank slate has proved too powerful for the eschatologically impatient.
“Justice and peace” now offer a shortcut for the sharp discomfort of utopian longing. The immediacy of the seductive promise offered by the progressive left strengthens its grip as the fog of rationalism obscures the potency of the supernatural. External improvement is always more measurable than internal transformation. Political solutions are drawn in more eye-catching colors than the purification of motive and the heart.
But secularism smuggles in more than the empirical. It acts as a Trojan horse and carries deep in its belly a relativism that dissolves allegiance to absolute morality. Ethics becomes a matter more of relieving immediate pain than a task of purification, spiritual battle, and transformation. The progressive mind is tuned to the empiricism of diminishing pain and amplifying ease.
All the ethical compromises of liberal Catholics, from birth control to abortion, gay rights to net zero, place the body before the soul, the political before the spiritual, the now before the then, earth before heaven, the seen before the unseen, power before Spirit.
The absolute gives way to the relative, the higher principle to the attainable pragmatic. The fact that the elusive moral and relational “progress” sought for and invoked is disappearing in a puff of fin de siècle smoke is a realization the liberal Catholic mind has managed to rebuff by means of some increasingly desperate cognitive dissonance.
What we need now is a return to the prioritization of the soul and the spiritual goods that accompany it. That is not to say the material is not important, hardly, but that if it eclipses the spiritual order, then we no longer have a Christian way of seeing the world.
(Editor’s note: This essay was published originally on the “What We Need Now” site in slightly different form and is republished here with kind permission of the author.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Dr. Ashenden is certainly someone worth listening to. He would make a great contribution to the Church as an ordained clergy. That said, the old categories of conservative and traditionalist vs progressive do not now serve my purpose (whether they ever did is another matter). Rather, I prefer looking at what is proposed regarding our Catholic faith as being of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. In opposition to these would be sonething along the lines of the Evil/Sinful, the False and, lastly, the Ugly/Distasteful/Chaotic. I try to measure whatever happens in the Church according to this breakdown; it just works better for me.
P.S. I hope Dr. Ashenden continues to write on these pages.
Yes…those are the correct categories…to which I add: eternal (vs. contemporary), transcendent (vs “progressive”), etc, etc.
It’s time we referred to these protestantised liberals as “post-catholics”.
They are “politically correct, post-Catholic liberals.” To call them Catholic is an insult to 2000 years of saints and Martyrs.
The Church is very welcoming, a hospital for sinners not a condo for the saints.
Instead…let us listen to Jesus our God, who commands: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“All the ethical compromises of liberal Catholics . . .”
The road to nowhere.
One Scripture scholar told us that the role of the prophet is “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Who are the afflicted in our western society and who are the comfortable?
In the Bible a major role of prophets is to correct defective faith practices.(See Ezekiel 3:16-21). This passage speaks to prophetic responsibility.
Was that scripture scholar also a journalist or a humorist?
The quote has been attributed to one Finley Peter Dunne, who said that “The newspaper does everything for us. It runs the police force and the banks, commands the militia, controls the legislature, baptizes the young, marries the foolish, comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable, buries the dead, and roasts them afterward.”
The prophet mediates between man and God. Jesus is not reported as saying anything about afflicting the comfortable or comforting the afflicted here on earth.
Indeed, when Satan offered all the kingdoms of all the world to Jesus, He did not accept them. Neither should we. Rather, if we mourn, are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, or are poor in spirit, Jesus said that we are blessed. I believe Him. I do not believe your scripture scholar.
What was the unnamed scholar’s position on 1 Tim 2:12?
Rousseau’s “Pauline Damascene” conversion was in stark contrast to St. Paul’s conversion from Heaven. Rousseau’s was – well – from “The Other Place”. Dr. Ashenden, trained as a lawyer, pinpoints the foundational question: what is the issue? The issue that looms over our world is the battle between the two forces that are each vying for ascendency: whether to place body before the soul, politics before spirituality, the now before the consequences, earth before (in place of?) heaven, the power of man before the power of God. The battle lines are being more starkly defined with each passing day.
Rousseau’s “conversion” certainly didn’t benefit his children, which should have been an enormous red flag.
Absolutely, Genevieve.
That is the ultimate indictment against Rousseau.
Sarah, I wholeheartedly agree.
I agree with the professor about many of his observations of the liberal mindset of many Catholics in the Church; but equally disturbing is the mindsets of many “conservative “ Catholics. They too have given in to the premises of secular conservatism- a phenomenon which is also very far from the way of the Gospel. Both mindsets are very misleading and equally destructive. As Christians we must separate ourselves from them both and follow the narrow path to heaven. The present secular social, political and ethical offerings are not Christian, and there is no reconciliation with them.
All ideas and philosophical systems are not created equal. Let’s look at the facts.
I agree with the professor about many of his observations of the liberal mindset of many Catholics in the Church; but equally disturbing is the mindsets of many “conservative “ Catholics.
1. It’s only disturbing if you are not paying attention to what’s going on. Francis has repeatedly attacked traditional Catholics. Conservative bishops who question his positions are quickly and efficiently sidelined while the likes of James Martin and Fr. Rupnik remain in ministry. Progressives are trying to change the Church’s teaching on women in leadership and homosexuality. Conservatives are not doing that.
They too have given in to the premises of secular conservatism- a phenomenon which is also very far from the way of the Gospel.
2. This statement is not supported by any evidence or examples, so it amounts to a baseless and false accusation typical of progressive thinking.
Both mindsets are very misleading and equally destructive.
3. Progressive ideology is far more dangerous, misleading, and destructive than any conservative position on its worst day. The fallout from Vatican II was due to progressives, not due to traditionalists, as an example.
As Christians we must separate ourselves from them both and follow the narrow path to heaven.
4. There is no such thing as “we.” You might want to begin by following your own counsel by abandoning the progressive ideology you routinely embrace and defend on this site. Not sure why you feel the need to post your progressive defenses here on a conservative Catholic website.
So right wing Catholics alone speak for God? How about Marcial Maciel? Spiritual arrogance on steroids.
Those who are committed to the historical truths of the faith speak for God. Progressives do not.
Slavery was tolerated by the Church for centuries. Is that a “historical truth?”
I have a hunch that Jesus would have been considered a rather radical liberal by the establishment of his day, just saying! 😉
Jesus declared the previously allowable divorce and remarriage to be banned. He told people their righteousness had to surpass that of the Pharisees if they were to avoid damnation. He explained that a man who looked at a woman with lust had already committed adultery in his heart (forget porn, fornication, cohabitation, contraception, and homosexual acts). He explained that His followers were expected to give away their own cloaks (not their neighbors’), and themselves go the extra mile.
This does not sound like any radical liberal I’ve heard of.
My friend, you should know where I stand by now. While I can not support either party at this point, I do recognize that neither is all good or all bad. Both contain some good and a lot of bad. There was a time when both parties gave at least the appearance of supporting Christian morality and practice, but that is no longer the case. Perhaps it’s time for Christians to look for an alternative which is more in keeping with the tenants of our faith. One possibility was presented by the American Solidarity Party which created a platform based solely on Catholic teaching and practice; but they came with too little and were too late. I have a feeling that perhaps very soon many Christians will be bailing out of both parties because they will no longer be able to stand what is going on. It’s already starting to get bloody and this is only the beginning. The question is where are you going to go and what are you going to do?
Sorry, but I’m not buying it. I think it’s clear that you are a progressive in your political and theological viewpoints posturing as a moderate, assuming that people don’t see through that. You are far more critical of conservative positions than progressive ones, for example. All viewpoints have their problems, but not all viewpoints are equally problematic. There’s no way you can convince me that someone can be a faithful believer and a progressive. Those positions are morally and intellectually incompatible.
I think I made a big mistake in my failure to differentiate the differences between political and religious philosophies. While I consider myself Orthodox theologically and I think a great latitude is acceptable liturgically (I fully accept the validity of Vatican II AND the allowances it made for liturgical reform (not the resulting abuses) I also think that the Latin mass should be allowed. ( but I also fully understand why they were so severely punished because of a few loud mouthed troublemakers who railed against the Pope ). That said, while holding to the core, unchangable teachings of the Catholic faith I understand that there is an allowance of flexibility of interpretation, in the application and implementation of these teachings according to time and culture. Some things CANNOT be changed, while others SHOULD, and we will probably never agree entirely which goes where- that is up to the Church to decide.
Now to get to my main point. I mistakenly failed to differentiate the differences between religious and political conservatism. I don’t think that it is necessary to be politically conservative if you are Orthodox religiously. In fact , I think the modern “conservative “ movement in the Republican Party is very dangerous and quickly becoming incompatible with Catholic teaching and practice. We seem to be heading toward a dictatorship (you needn’t be a “liberal” to see this). Perhaps this not necessarily bad, perhaps democracy had run its course and no longer a good government model for us. While I can see that that the so called end goals of these rapidly unfolding reforms that are taking place ( immigration, government waste, flagrant immorality to name a few) are in line with basic Christian morality; I also observe with horror the draconian means that are being imposed to achieve them. These means are not only opposed to Christian morality, they also go against the very basic principles necessary to run a democratic government. We are quickly loosing the right of free speech ( limiting who can ask questions in a press conference ,the jailed student protester who was a legal resident without trial etc.) ; threatening to jail political opponents without trial, threatening to deprive people of their citizenship, threatening to take over Sovereignty of our closest ally (Canada), attempting to solve a foreign war by turning it into a lucrative real estate deal (Israel/ Palestine). Humiliating a foreign leader by shouting at him like a schoolyard bully. You may well rationalize all of the above behavior, but it is not Christian.
That said, I could go over to the other side of the isle and point out many other issues that they stand for which are not compatible with either Catholic teaching or practice. While the liberals seem to violate more on the moral issues, the conservatives (if indeed they are conservatives) are quilty of more practice violations. You may present many valid counter examples, but that is not the point at all. What I am trying to say is that as Catholic Christians it is become increasingly difficult to support either major political party. As Christians we must stand together as members of the kingdom. Our alliance is to our King. We are pilgrims here dwelling as guests in a foreign land. We pay our due tax, pray for our leaders, take care of our brethren, aide the needy, petition for our rights, evangelize by deed and word if necessary, being good stewards of land and goods, calling out evil and sin while loving the sinners- no exceptions. In short we realize we can’t change the world, but we can help to change the person. Our goal should be to bring as many to heaven as we can.
I am now a very old man and I realize that I have failed miserably in carrying out the above, but my hope is that perhaps I can help someone from making the mistakes that I made and committing the sins that I did. But sadly , perhaps each has to learn the hard way and make the same mistakes over and over again. May God bless you richly. Have a blessed day my friend.
One trouble today is there is a tendency to broad brush people and issues. There in reality no such thing as a “conservative “. A person can be conservatives in some ways and not in others. Also he can differ in degree in his conservativeness with another. I’m not at all inconsistent by being liberal on one issue , while quite conservative on another. Or being more conservative on something than you are. As for me commenting on a “conservative “ platform and not being a “conservative “ would that be a bad thing even if it were true? Don’t you want to think and debate issues? Isn’t that the way we learn by considering differing opinions and viewpoints? What the value of all of our minds walking in lock step? Do we teach our children to think or do we indicate them with “our truth”. Plants brought up in greenhouses are weak and have to be hardened off before they can survive outside.
Athanasius, these “progressives” all like to give the impression that they’re “above it all.” It’s all about them and their lofty ideals while they proceed to firebomb businesses, key their supposed opponents’ cars, tear down societal structures, and make repeated assassination attempts against anyone whose ideas differ from theirs – all the while believing themselves to be superior. Only trouble for them is that most of us know the charade they’re enacting.
@Athanasius; Thank you very much for taking time to respond to the liberal gentleman trying to disguise as a moderate. Liberals never fail to bring politics into a discussion while pretending not to take a stance (it’s all bad). I could post a 50 page rebuttal, but it would make no difference to the fellow I refer to. I don’t believe we are “here” to debate and share different viewpoints; we are here to talk in truth. Jesus, hanging on the cross, told us that, between the two criminals being hanged with Him, the one to His right would be in heaven with Him, while the one on the left never saw the error of his ways. Same today as it was then.
Thanks for the kind words. I tend to err on the side of being straightforward and rather blunt. It’s not the most diplomatic approach, but it is honest. Naturally, I take issue with people who are more dishonest. I appreciate your observation that many progressives are blind. Sad but true.
Christianity is not conservative or liberal. It’s completely apart from political labels.
Not so in practical terms. There are traditional and progressive perspectives. That’s just a reality.
I think it’s about orthodoxy, not idealogy.
Exactly.
Thus Donald Trump is our savior, who deserves our votes and support?
Savior? No. No one is saying that. That’s a red herring.
Here in glorious display is the leftist mind, responding to a post with verbal emesis.
And why-one must ask-does the respondent offer this non-sequitur? Because in large part, the left is highly emotional and as such always has a problem with rationality.
Ask a person about their position on any question about, religion, philosophy or policy, and no matter what the issue-even if it isn’t arousing or controversial-you can gauge their philosophy in the response.
As soon as the response is prefaced or contains some variant of “I feel” then you know you are dealing with what is popularly described as a “leftist”. For the leftist, emotion trumps all-reason is subordinated on the rare occasion it is given a hearing.
However, in response to some stimuli, the leftist psyche so overwhelms the individual, we have the sort of incontinence displayed in this post.
Donald Trump got my vote but I don’t confuse him with my Saviour. I’m pretty sure that’s a similar case with people commenting here who voted the same way.
I completely agree with you.
To be Catholic is to be conservative.
Catholicism is, its essence, the conserving of the deposit of Faith and the baptising of the infidel. Anything else is the work of the devil.
Jesus (Son of God) was fundamentally a simple model for us to emulate.
While he did the opposite of the culture of the time, he was clearly consistent and promoted love and indeed simplicity. Respect all others. Hope for peace and let go of the need to control and having it your way. God is a mystery, and mankind overthinks and confuses the people at times. Trust is what counts, not the overthinkers!!!!
It’s nice to see Dr Ashenden here . Thank you for sharing his article.
Diaconus above – As a layman, Gavin Ashenden is free to speak out in a way that would be tricky for a priest.
His articles and Catholic Unscripted podcast (with Katherine Bennett and Mark Lambert) are the happy, and I think fruitful, result.
You make a very valid point, Cleo. Clergy are not free to voice their opinions. Priests and bishops can get defenestrated for doing that. That said, there was a Jesuit priest who wrote under the pseudonym of “Diogenes.” When his order found out, they forbade his writing at all.
Interesting. Can we expect the Jesuits to silence Jimmy Martin anytime soon?
I’m not holding my breath. I believe the Jesuits, with a few exceptions is simply consumed with libertinism and socialism.
There used to be a commenter on another site who posted under the name “Art Deco” and he often would say that the Jesuits were mostly motivated by “single malt scotch and the sodomy”, no doubt drawing from a similar comment by Winston Churchill:
“Don’t talk to me about naval tradition. It’s nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash.”
Pitchfork: I miss the days of Art Deco. He’s like an old friend you’ve lost touch with.
Yeah, I’m not sure what happened to him. I gathered he was a little long in the tooth, so perhaps he’s in eternity now.
-DE173
I understand that Dr.Ashenden here is no longer a cleric, but is indeed speaking as a layman. As a Anglican priest however, I believe he would have been given more latitude in speaking out without being silenced or defrocked.
Br. Jacques, have you been keeping up with the political scene in the UK? Just about anyone can be censured/jailed for expressing ideas the woke government there does not agree with.
“But the history of the 20th century, if it teaches us anything, suggests that there is no obvious or inevitable link between technological skill and learning to love your neighbor” (Ashenden).
Ashenden hits the bullseye. Socialist ethics will insist that the equal provision of goods will succeed, as it did in Russia until the collapse of a system that began to corrupt within. The commissar’s equitability is more equal, as is that of the powerful oligarch. American Leftist ideology turned inside out the murderous ethics of Margaret Sanger [nee Higgins] to exterminate Blacks who were considered “weeds”, with liberal carpetbaggers who now argue a right to kill prenatal infants who respond to poverty stricken minorities, mainly Blacks with as many abortion mills as possible.
Dr Ashenden putatively gives as good a rundown of the issues as anyone has. “If we place the body before the soul, the absolute gives way to the relative, the higher principle to the attainable pragmatic”. This irreplaceable premise must be pursued to its absolute limit, the reality seen at a time down the road from me in Corning NY with Margaret Higgins, Catholic daughter of a free thinking Irish father and devoted Catholic mother who Margaret desperately labored in caring for in a household filled with children and a mother dying from it. A young Catholic Irish girl who later became Margaret Sanger.
We examine Catholic ethics and on face value, it would seem the pill was the answer to this perceived dilemma between doctrine and reality. Unfortunately the pill didn’t work, insofar as a deliverance from the Higgins dilemma. Marrieds had less children but unfortunately began having more sex that eventually led to sex without limit and against the naturally ordained order. Catholics including the Bidens [for political reasons], the Pelosis, who in her own experience of five children in six years became abortion advocates. Convinced it’s God’s will. What reasonable response can we have when faced with facts like Nancy Pelosi’s or moreso Margaret Higgins’.
That response is a searing truth. There is no virtuous mean in this. No compromise. We must, in this life, practice heroic virtue. Men must control their passions, married men, and women especially with abstinence. Without a closeness to Christ and a sacramental life we cannot sustain a healthy sexual relationship. In this life we must be saintly, unwilling to share in the sexually oriented mores and entertainment of the day. We must be martyrs of familial Love.
So married couples should practice celibacy? Bizarre.
Married observant Jewish couples do practice abstinence. I think that was/is practiced during times like Lent for some Christians.
Celibacy is another thing.
William. By what logic do you identify periods of healthy abstention in a marriage to celibacy? If intelligence and spiritual values are bizarre for you, I urge you for the sake of your salvation to turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospels.
You presume to judge me? Your spiritual arrogance is breathtaking.
Only for your eternal welfare William. That in all honesty. My pity is genuine.
This makes sense. On a biological level, the only alternatives to abstinence, contraception, and abortion, is either to be able to care for many children, or for the married couple to be sufficiently unhealthy that their fertility is damaged. Much better to balance between the ability to care for many children and abstinence, than to deliberately damage or neglect one’s spiritual or physical health.
With all due deference to Dr. Ashenden, I seek to clearly identify the “lost souls”. Obscure references like Left, liberal, conservative, protestantised, (not a word), liberal Catholics, (my parents I guess), etc. muddy the water. Johnny Carson would ask, “How far left are they?” Not white or black, blue or red, but varying shades of gray?
Today, much has to do with religious and political targeting resulting in violence that is being perpetrated, knowingly or unknowingly, by the “saved souls or those who strive to be saviors.” I could never forget when Donald Jr. threatened, “Watch out or we will be in your backyard.” In the Trump administration violence was perpetrated by his obvious hatred of those he deemed an adversary or not loyal. Trump is a divider, not a uniter. Religious contribution: During his 2024 campaign, the Catholic Vote website had a front-page portal asking for donations to Trump.
In a recent decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sister was threatened with violence because the Justice sided with the minority on the validity of the 14th Amendment applied by the state of Colorado to prosecute Trump for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. The 5-4 decision included Chief Justice John Roberts. He may want to lay low until the smoke clears.
I can only hope that we find a way to proselytize without the use of degrading platitudes.
More TDS talking points. Threats of violence have been and are coming from the progressives you support. That’s been pretty consistent, not that simple facts matter in your thinking.
Athanasius: The leftist “talking points” choreographed by the DNC/MSM are not only dissimulation, they’re tiresome.
Seems like TDS is turning out to be a serious mental disorder with a strong violence component.
TDS? The man is a menace. So if we don’t praise him, we are deranged?
No. But any critique should be informed and grounded in reality and the facts rather than a projection of one’s Oedipal rage on a symbolic parent figure. Projection is not a logical argument.
TDS? The man is a menace. So if we don’t praise him, we are deranged?
How about your little wind-up toys simply stop trying to assassinate him?
TDS? Oh, if we don’t worship him, we are “deranged?” You Trumpers have made a pact with the Devil. Your deification of this sorry man will end badly.
Only the left deifies politicians. Stop projecting.
Picture the assembled group when Barack Obama announced on June 3, 2008
“this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …”
And they believed it.
Mr Morgan, President Trump hasn’t just been threatened with violence, he’s survived 2 assassination attempts.
And an assault this past Friday.
Another deranged leftist (clearly repetitious) brandishing a shoe.
Diaconus – Thanks for your comment re Gavin Ashenden.
Fr. Paul Mankowski – a razor-sharp writer, one of my favourites!
morganD, the liberal “Catholics”/Modernist degrade themselves.
All of Dr Gavin Ashenden’s historical psychological analyses can impute the mind of the liberal. Mind body, soul matter divergence the result.
After all is said, it’s not entirely a plethora of causes that account for the liberal mind, rather it’s a fallen mind seeking justification in ideas.
Oh, so anyone who does not worship Donald Trump is “fallen?” Your sanctimonious nonsense is nauseating.
Another piqued liberal railing behind a computer screen. I guess the truth pinches your thin skin. Find a life. You’ll feel better.
“Your sanctimonious nonsense is nauseating.”
Project Much?
Read Matthew 25 (if you can).
An clear view on the origin and nature of the current tribulation. Dr. Ashenden’s contribution deserves expansion and a wider audience. I always profit from his thought when it comes across my screen.
Response to Athanasius: “Oedipal rage?” How Freudian. Trump is not my father figure. Just a lying politician. Why the reverence for him by you? It’s really curious how right wing Catholics regard him as a Junior varsity messiah. Albeit with a funny haircut and an extra 100 lbs.
He’s not the messiah, and I don’t “revere” him or any other politician. No one I know does. You don’t have a reasonable argument to offer, so you just throw up all kinds of straw men. Typical progressive.
Mr. William, can you please provide an instance where anyone in the comments here has referred to Donald Trump as a messiah, saviour, or someone to worship?
It’s a free country & it’s fine for us to disagree on politics but confusing political figures with Our Lord isn’t really a thing that I
I’ve seen amongst GOP voters.
Mrscracker, I respect your postings, which are logical and polite unlike that Peter Morello pseudo intellectual. I claim deification of Trump by the Catholic right because, on this website, the articles and comments often attack Pope Francis, quite often, but NEVER attack Trump. Never. Theresa weird reverence for this con artist that is puzzling. Is there anything, even very minor about him that you don’t like? Remember, he is cutting programs that provide medical care and food to poor children, so he can affect tax cuts for Elon & Co. Are you OK with that? Please explain the hero worship?
Thank you for your comments. I don’t come from the same culture as Donald Trump does Mr William so his personality doesn’t really mesh with what I’m used to. But that doesn’t mean I don’t like him.
I don’t believe we should treat public servants as idols or celebrities to worship. They simply serve in our stead in Washington or our state capital and if they perform their duties properly we keep them in office through our votes. If not, we elect someone else.
I used to work with Section 8 housing and I’m personally acquainted with Medicaid, as are some of my family. There’s a place for both but there’s also fraud and waste in any government program. If we can reduce waste it makes more resources available for those who are actually in need of them.
Never say “never…” A comment and a re-posting!
COMMENT: One possibly balanced statement might be that achieving a balanced budget in four years (in light of the $1.8 Trillion annual deficit out of $6.5 Trillion/year) is a mandatory and non-partisan absolute. But that more of a wide-eyed battlefield-surgery approach is to be preferred over blind triage. Reformed governance is not rocket science (!) as under the gloating Musk theatrics; and, therefore, requires informed internal agency cuts and reforms by each Cabinet head—all pressed in place by a reversal in annual budgetary bracket creep.
Zero-based budgeting…because all of the discretionary spending categories (not counting the military) are no larger than what is now the annual interest payment ($952 Billion in 2025) on the national debt of $37 Trillion. Drastic tax cuts are unconvincing unless retained funds are actually invested in tax-paying and job-creating outcomes. A huge gamble, and hopefully not business as usual. Long gone is the time when personal and corporate income taxes evenly carried the load.
RE-POSTING: A recent (March 5) comment along these lines, by yours truly, and which you say does not exist, is as follows:
“About the price of eggs and stuff like that, now the chickens are coming home to roost…
“Rocket-man Musk has identified less than $200 billion of [one-time] savings from annual ‘waste and fraud,’ but all of this prime-time celebration adds up to ONLY one-tenth of the annual budget deficit of $2 Trillion in a total budget of $6.5 Trillion (and with a total and suffocating national debt of $37 Trillion).
So, to BALANCE the FEDERAL BUDGET in four years will require eliminating one-third (!) federal annual spending.
“Zero-based budgeting—with systemic and spastic dislocations that must not be ignored. And, now we find that Congress’s precarious budget proposal simply cannot find that much without touching the large and sacrosanct [entitlement] big-ticket items. A fact which has been self-evident for decades, except for those who negotiate stuff in the text of written legislation…and the difference between a blank check and a reality-check.
“Three MESSAGES:
“To the ‘Rs’, decimal points matter, no matter how small.
“To the ‘Ds’, ‘a person is a person, no matter how small’ (Dr. Seuss).
“To both of these and to all of the American public, this question: ‘If the facts don’t fit the theory, then too bad for the facts?'” (attributed to many including Stalin, one of Putin’s predecessors).
“So, NOW, since much federal spending has to be aborted, then promised federal tax cuts—and all of their consequences—have to be re-thunk. A bi-partisan exercise in sobriety would help. Too bad that the Ds showed up recently sporting blushing costumes, ping-pong paddles and walkouts. Absent this playground fight, the tone from the microphone might have been less Tr(i)umphal. Probably not, but not entirely foreclosed from the start.
“We deserve more adults in the room.”
“‘We deserve more adults in the room.’”
Do we? We may WANT more adults in the room. I sure do. But to DESERVE this, I have to do a lot more to convince others that this is something worth voting for. We have an electorate far more content with voting that is informed primarily by emotion rather than reason. We won’t get more adults in the room until we start rewarding them with our votes.
I believe Rousseau’s “blank slate” and the Church’s doctrine of “Original Sin” are similar. Think about it: If we don’t take the doctrine out of context, they are saying the same thing. “The Lord God made everything and saw that it was good.” On another count, the Western world is too self-absorbed; it’s not always about who wins the contest but who looks outside and see if the survival needs of others have been met just as we have in the Western world. Then, by the time we come back from that missionary enterprise, the Lord Himself would have fixed whatever we detected as “not-going-well” in our Western world.