Is our society democratic?
It is compared with many countries. Iran, for example, has elections that matter, so it is democratic to that extent. Even so, what counts here as a harsh or contemptuous response to political dissent pales before the Iranian regime’s murderous actions. So we are evidently more democratic—more respectful of the people and their concerns—than they are.
Even so, the democratic aspects of any system of government can be exaggerated. That certainly includes America. An immensely complex society of 330 million people that aspires to global supremacy isn’t going to be run by the average citizen. The ability of the current administration to get along without a functioning Chief Executive, along with the largely negative comment on limitations recently established by the Supreme Court on the power of federal agencies, shows it isn’t even run by elected officials.
Instead, it is mostly run by networks of professionals employed by powerful institutions. Such people believe they know best and are in a position to act on that belief. They are also inevitably conscious of common interests and cooperate to advance them and defuse or fend off conflicting popular concerns. That is the source of the complaints about the “deep state,” “permanent government,” “DC swamp,” “mainstream media,” and so on.
Such phrases may sound a bit conspiratorial, but every complex society has elites, and nothing is more common than people, even without explicit agreement, acting together to advance their common interests. And one of the obvious concerns of people who run things in an officially democratic system is to ensure the system works in a way that keeps the public from making decisions they don’t like.
Hence the pervasiveness of propaganda and other forms of thought control in our public life. It is important to understand their extent and uniformity. Our rulers dominate public discussion. Education, institutional expertise, and journalism are organized hierarchically, depending on support from government and major corporations. Pop culture is commercial and corporate as well. And these institutions are mainly populated, especially at the upper levels, by ambitious people who put advancement—normally a matter of pleasing the powerful—above everything.
As a result, it is difficult to find a stable setting in which views that are seriously at odds with official dogma can be discussed and developed. Opposition mostly consists of muttered complaints, dissident religious movements, occasional populist outbursts, like Brexit and the Trump movement, that cannot achieve anything coherent because they lack stable organization and elites, and a variety of figures who have wildly divergent views and very little institutional backing.
The Internet was expected to open up public discussion and popular participation. To some extent it has, but it has also multiplied opportunities of control. He who controls Google or social media has an extraordinary influence on what people think. Hence the hysteria over Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, and the calls for ever more vigorous efforts to suppress “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and so on.
But all this sounds vague, speculative, and (once again) conspiratorial: evil elites are supposedly working in the shadows to keep the people down! To show the effectiveness of propaganda in promoting an outlook that puts money and bureaucracy first, it seems harder evidence is needed.
Such evidence can be gathered from the attitudes people express about the family. According to a recent Pew survey, 71% of American adults say a career is extremely or very important for a fulfilling life, while only 4% say it is not too or not at all important. The corresponding figures for marriage are 23% who say it is important and 44% who say it is not important. For the importance of children, the figures are 26% and 42% respectively.
These results are very much at odds with surveys of actual life satisfaction, so they evidently reflect people’s acceptance of what they are told rather than life experience. The figures for women confirm that interpretation. In the Pew survey they placed more emphasis on the importance of career than men (74% vs. 69% saying it is extremely or very important) and less on marriage (18% vs. 28%) and children (22% vs. 29% saying they are important).
The usual view, which I think is right, is that women tend to be highly concerned with family ties but also responsive to social expectations. With that in mind, I cannot help but believe that these results are very different from what they would be in the absence of propaganda.
The extraordinary violence of many responses to Harrison Butker’s unsurprising comments on the relative importance of marriage, family, and career shows that many people who accept the official line are uneasy about it. They have been persuaded to put their relation to money and bureaucracy over family and children, but at bottom are not at all sure they’ve made the right choice. So the issue puts them on edge.
The attitude toward such issues among people commonly scorned as “low information voters” and even “bigots” because they don’t listen much to respectable sources of information and opinion—that is to say, Trump voters—confirms the forgoing. Fifty-nine percent of them say society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority. The figure for Biden voters, who are much more likely to believe what the New York Times thinks they should believe, is 19%. So it’s not surprising when they say a political candidate who disagrees with them is “weird.’’
As suggested, the people do not actually rule in a society like ours, so it is hard for democracy to be more than half real among us. And it will not even be that unless popular concerns are respected and articulated rather than manipulated or even manufactured.
That is easier said than done, given the availability of propaganda techniques, the temptations of self-interest, the arrogance of power, and the vagueness of the public mind on many issues. It seems, though, that popular influence on government will be more real and beneficial to the extent people look, in forming their views, to intelligent and well-informed sources of information and commentary guided by a reasonable understanding of the common good.
It is difficult for such sources to find a home in a society pervaded by careerism that makes will and power, under the names of “choice” and “autonomy,” its ultimate ideals. It can also be difficult for honest people to compete with con artists in discussions of complicated matters outside the everyday experience of most people.
For Catholics, the obvious home for such discussions would be the Church. Her systematic teaching offers some defense against con artists—what they say can be checked against authoritative and publicly knowable principles—and those working within her can appeal to a definite tradition that enables their discussions to maintain coherence, continuity, and relative independence from secular interests.
That is likely why in an age of intellectual chaos there has been a rebirth of political reflection among Catholics who harbor serious doubts about the direction of secular society. Opinions of course differ on the value of particular views, such as the new integralism and other postliberal theories. But it seems clear the general tendency is worth pursuing, because it offers one of the few ways out of the black hole that secular social thought has fallen into, and enough intelligent and educated people are involved to produce high-quality discussion.
Those who believe current secular thought ought to guide the Church will, of course, disagree. But can their view stand up to serious critique from a point of view that does not presume its correctness? That is itself a matter for discussion. So let the discussions continue and become ever more productive!
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.
The super-rich have been running our government since the beginning with the purpose of making them richer. The super-rich have bought and paid for Congress and the President for years. Our society today loves money more than God. Abortion is acceptable because it keeps young women in the work force making more money. Gambling—which destroys families— is acceptable because it can be taxed, making more money. Illegal immigration is not corrected because millions of Americans get rich off the cheap labor. Sunday is not a day of rest anymore because money is more important than family time. Small families are encouraged because material wealth is more important than children—-and the list goes on and on. Our society is better at making money than making families. Our society loves money, not God. The Church should condemn the man-made government in Washington, DC and focus on the teachings of Christ.
Addiction to money
You knocked it out of the park, Gerald!
Gerald: I suggest money is the means, not the end. Many pursue all the vices you mention and care very little about money. A dying civilization is about self-gratifying and self-worshiping sin and the systematic ways we find to collectivize our denial processes for our sins and to create mythologies to make our vices seem like virtues that enable us to live with our vices with impunity.
This is not difficult given the volume of our iniquities and our cultural hunger to live with lies. We institutionalize our lies. And Catholic resistance to these lies has been collapsing at a rapid pace since the metastasizing sins of Catholics has invited theological sophistry to aid and abet the carnage of moral and cultural relativism.
An amoral people desires the corruption of their democracy to validate their vices.
Bread and circuses.
About “Catholics who harbor serious doubts about the direction of secular society,” we have this from Alexis de Tocqueville:
“…by whatever political laws men are governed in the ages of equality, it may be foreseen that faith in public opinion will become for them a species of religion [secular humanism!], and the majority its ministering prophet” (“Democracy in America”, 1835 and 1840, vol. II, book 1, ch. ii).
To be considered in this fine analysis is the individual moral state of those faceless bureaucrats who are imposing themselves on the will of the rest of us. When the culture is morally debased, what can we expect of the government? It’s the difference between the likes of King Saint Louis and Joe Biden.
It is important to remember: We are not a democracy – we are a Constitutional Republic and our founders were wise enough to recognize the perils of democracy. Majority rule always leads to a minority being very unhappy.
While power still lies in the people, everything is subject to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. In that we have representative democracy, subordinate to the Constitution, we have a republican form of government.
We are also a Republic of States – and those states (mostly Constitutional Democracies) have an unusual amount of independence.
Regardless of the form of government, there will (in a sufficiently large population) be a normal (Gaussian) distribution of things like wealth. And, there will always be those who seek to corrupt whatever form of government exists. The Constitution is the key. Decisions by the Court, based on original intent, will often be unpopular. But, that is why we have a Legislature; and ultimately, and Amendment process.
Wrong question, first of all. In principle we are a republic, a significant difference. To a person, Democrats will invariably refer to the country as “our democracy.”
They want to jettison the Electoral College, which action would in effect leave us with not a “democracy” but a mobocracy. Elections and, hence, the country would be almost entirely controlled by the left-leaning population centers of the West East coasts.
Yes, we know. But our republic is a democratic form of government, so people use the shorthand term “democracy.” Not sure what is gained by being pedantic. In any event, our system is broken so I’m not sure it matters what we call it. Oligarchy is probably the most accurate.
I agree that it is in the Church (Catholic) that we should learn about and fine-tune our political viewpoints. But…as a woman, I often find that women, especially Catholic women, during a social or Bible study or some other “women only” gathering, will back away from any political discussion, saying in sweet voices, “Let’s not talk about politics. It can cause hurt feelings and arguments. Let’s just be friends and talk about the Lord.”
I find this very frustrating. I believe that the majority of voters are often women, who generally have a little more free time than most men-I know, it’s a generalization that probably isn’t true for all families-but consider that statistically, women are more likely to live into their 70s, 80s, and 90s than men, so at least many older women have free time! I like to talk politics, especially with women and including women that I disagree with, but I keep running into that “wall of Christian politeness.” I think this hurts our chances of being unified in our votes for candidates and issues that will help the Catholic Church and other Christian (Protestant and Orthodox) churches to thrive in the U.S.A.
Women, let’s TALK face-to-face, not just spew our views anonymously online or stay quiet like little mice so as not to “offend anyone.” Sometimes, it takes getting offended to wake up and look at facts about political issues rather than sticking with long-standing family traditions of voting for a certain party.
Join your local party of choice and go to their meetings.
First of all, the United States was not organized as a “democracy”, but as a democratic republic. It most certainly wasn’t organized in a way which elections were a mechanism to grant almost absolute power to an elected few to rule rather than govern, especially if they can foment some crisis or another which supposedly demands novel new measures under the banner of the necessity of exigent circumstances.
In practice, we live under a curious fusion of anarcho-tyranny and an administrative superstate. Keep this in mind when you see see Hunter Biden skate. Remember the swarm of Goons that came after Mark Houck because he was a wrong-thinking enemy of the state.
As for this quote:
“An immensely complex society of 330 million people that aspires to global supremacy isn’t going to be run by the average citizen.”
That elitism in that statement is fascinating. What the author seems to ignore is that the more complex a system, the less is should be “run” by an individual or small group of individuals. “Average citizens”, i.e. those that don’t attend all the right schools and cloak their libido dominandi im public spiritedness might do a better job than the people that have gotten us into so many unwinnable wars and so much inextinguishable debt.
You might find the Policy Circle of interest.
Sadly, I could not find people to have a “circle” with in my area.
People largely speak in shibboleths and act on appetites. Learning to fit in with the tribe is our most fundamental social skill, and it is learned long before we become aware of any clear distinction between saying the acceptable thing and telling the truth. Things are not markedly different when it comes to the church. It may satisfy some of our appetites, but not all, and therefore we mix its shibboleths with the shibboleths of the other institutions that we depend on, hardly conscious of the contradictions.
Conversion is difficult because changing your mind means changing your community and changing your community can be enormously costly, both emotionally and financially. It is easier to live with contradictions than uproot your life for an institution free of contradictions, even supposing you can find one.
Thus we are ruled by the makers of shibboleths. The “free” countries are those in which the elites have come to understand that ruling by shibboleth is both more stable and more profitable than ruling by force. In such a society, one is free to transgress against the shibboleths, but it takes great courage and great resolve because it comes at great cost, and therefore few will attempt it or persist in it.
A very interesting contribution. Thank you Mark, this will be helpful plus I learnt a new word!
“ Conversion is difficult because changing your mind means changing your community and changing your community can be enormously costly, both emotionally and financially. It is easier to live with contradictions than uproot your life for an institution free of contradictions, even supposing you can find one.“
I for one was unable to uproot my life for an institution however in my youth I was somewhat driven by the desire to ‘not live with the contradictions.’
If I was to dispense with the institutions I saw the need to replace them with that which was an improvement. The institution did not have the power to change me. To shape me, yes, to give me a term of reference, yes. The power of conversion came from a personal reading of the gospel and a personal encounter with Jesus. Once encountered initial conversion was easy. Empowered by the love of The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. It has sustained me throughout my life. The lifelong conversion of character to conform to the character and priorities if Jesus, a more difficult and fickle journey.
We’re aware of the tyranny of the minority, presently it’s the tyranny of the majority, the minority issues incorporated within the majority Left. A virtual composite including media, high tech, academia forecast by de Tocqueville cited by Beaulieu, addressed by essayist James Kalb.
Kalb discusses the lack of sufficient education, coherent ideology, backing by the elite of the Right currently led by Trump. Kalb’s anodyne article and the dream of integralism is a fine dream. Although to envision a breaking through of the Left’s stranglehold requires imagination. And theological hope. Nevertheless there are plausible moments of possible integralism, Elon Musk, a powerful elite who is outside of the power circle of wealthy Leftist ideologues.
“Intelligent and educated people are involved to produce high-quality discussion” seems a viable possibility. Catholic participation is a necessity as Kalb acknowledges. We possess the required principles. That there exists a populist power base among Trump adherents shouldn’t be discarded because there are elites, intellectuals among independents taking a fresh look at the Right. What’s attracting them of late to reconsider is the reality become evident in the legal pursuit to halt Trump engineered by a weaponized Justice system that we no longer have a democracy
Father Peter, you speak of a weaponised Justice System referring to the legal cases former President trump has had to face.
As outlined in my post below in this discussion It is clear that a similar argument could well be applied to the most recent selection of Judges on the Supreme Court. Specifically the role and what I would assume is undue influence Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society, and in the mix Opus Dei has had in this process. Many eminently qualified individuals both from traditional Left and Right and indeed impartial analysis are presenting strong and legitimate arguments that founding princip[als of the Constitution are very much under strain with respect to the separation of powers, due process, and the rule of law. In the spotlight in particular are some recent findings of Judge Cannon suggestions put to her by Justice Clarence Thomas.
While watching all of the recent shenanigans unfold from the sidelines as a spectator, Im somewhat of the opinion that the tired old saying “Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread” just might have some relevance to all this this when applied to followers of Jesus. I’m more than wary of politics and political involvement when in comes the our response to the call of The Great Commission.
Both sides will play the dirt file to their advantage and this is not the work of the Gospel. What is central to the Gospel is Truth in all its expressions. The fog of this political war has rendered Truth very difficult to discern.
May I suggest that democracy has always been window dressing for Freemasonic rule?
As such, America is a perfect example of what democracy has always been?
You are certainly free to make the suggestion, but it is not supported by any legitimate historical evidence.
I agree. Plinio Correa de Oliveira’s diagnosis of the unity of the three revolutions (Lutheran, Masonic, and Socialist) seems very plausible. I would only add two more, which are the logical conclusion of the preceding ones. The origin of the single Revolution unfolds in five historical acts: theological/Lutheran, political/Masonic, economic (NOMA: ethics detached from profit), sociological (the 1960s), and anthropological (gender). It is the rupture between faith and reason, the oblivion of realism, of Saint Thomas. Religion without reason (religious nominalism) becomes popular superstition or the clericalism of the Pharisees/Teocons. Reason without religion becomes unbelief (radical secular nominalism of the philosophes or Herodians/cultural Marxists) or modernism (reformist secular nominalism of the Enlightenment/Freemasons). If the State breaks away from the upper limit of natural law, it also frees itself from the lower limit, the personal rights of citizens. The abandonment of natural law and the shift to state absolutism do not bring more freedom, but less freedom. Every human government exercises its jurisdiction over a territory already occupied by another king, Christ, who is above it. Therefore, it must respect His laws, which are superior to any human law. The Church does not ask that the State be subject to the clergy, but to the truth and natural law. Either a natural law, the law of truth, is accepted as common ground for men, or the non-redemption of the world consists in the non-decipherability of creation, masculinity/femininity, and truth. A situation that inevitably leads to the dominance of pragmatism, where the power of the strongest becomes the god of this world. Liberal democracy, in summary, is a formal democracy that has abandoned non-negotiable principles throughout the world, even in Malta. The Vatican City and Slovakia (where divorce is still prohibited, if I am not mistaken) are excluded. Therefore, it is no longer necessary, paradoxically, for Masonic Lodges to exist. Their goal has already been achieved 100%. An entity, as Saint Thomas says, has no more reason to exist once it has achieved its purpose.
Dear Athanasius, the idea that Freemasonry influenced the foundations of the United States has been a subject of historical inquiry and speculation for many years. Here are some pieces of evidence that suggest connections between Freemasonry and the early United States:
1.Several prominent Founding Fathers were Freemasons. Notably, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and Paul Revere were known to be members. Washington was even the Master of his lodge in Virginia.
– Benjamin Franklin, one of the most influential figures in American history, was a Grand Master of the Masons in Pennsylvania.
2.The Great Seal of the United States, designed in 1782, includes an unfinished pyramid with an eye above it. Some interpret these symbols as having Masonic connections, particularly the Eye of Providence, which is similar to the All-Seeing Eye in Masonic iconography.
– The layout of Washington, D.C., designed by Pierre Charles L’Enfant, includes several symbols and structures that some believe reflect Masonic principles and geometry.
3.The principles of Freemasonry, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, align closely with the ideals expressed in foundational American documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
– Freemasonry emphasizes the importance of governance by consent and the rule of law, which are key tenets of American democracy.
4.Lodge records from the colonial period and the early Republic show that many leaders involved in the American Revolution and the establishment of the new government were active Freemasons.
– The cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol was laid by George Washington in a Masonic ceremony, a fact recorded in historical accounts of the time.
5.Contemporary writings from the period, including personal letters and public addresses, sometimes reference Masonic affiliations and the influence of Masonic thought on the individuals involved in America’s founding.
These pieces of evidence suggest a notable Masonic presence and influence among the Founding Fathers and during the establishment of the US institutions.
Here are some notable publications:
1. Books
“The Masonic Founders of the United States” by Michael Poll.
“Solomon’s Builders: Freemasons, Founding Fathers, and the Secrets of Washington D.C.” by Christopher Hodapp.
“Freemasons: A History of the World’s Most Powerful Secret Society” by Jasper Ridley.
“American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Communities” by Mark A. Tabbert**: This book discusses the broader influence of Freemasonry on American society and its institutions.
2. Articles.
“Freemasonry and the American Revolution” by Steven C. Bullock in *The Journal of the Early Republic*
“The Influence of Freemasonry on the American Constitution” by Allen E. Roberts in *The Philalethes*.
3. Historical Documents
– George Washington’s Masonic Correspondence.
– The Records of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania: These records provide insight into the activities of Freemasons in early America, including Benjamin Franklin’s role.
– The George Washington Masonic National Memorial: This site offers a wealth of information about George Washington’s Masonic affiliations and their historical significance.
There is clear evidence Athanasius of the Freemasonic implication in the revolution and founding of the USA and its institutions. Either we support the idea that being decent chaps they pulled out and let democracy run on its own, or they clung to the powerbase they had helped create. Circumstantial evidence would point to the latter… Hence my above suggestion.
Your naive yet seemingly inept approach, combined with your relentless pursuit, brings to mind the endearing and disarming brilliance of Lieutenant Columbo’s timeless genius. Thank you, Mr Cracked Nut!
Paolo, just one more thing.
When “there’s something that bothers me. I just can’t get it out of my mind.”
😉
@Mr Cracked Nut, can I throw my two cents in? “When you leave, turn off the light”: Colombo leaves, aware of the futility of a possible search, then comes back and turns off the light.
Discussion and rationality do not win. Control does.
The obvious example of this is Muslim-controlled countries. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that force begins after rationality ends.
There are those who have valid and serious doubts about the legitimacy of Francis. But the true explanation is likely the one most people are NOT likely to find without help.
There is little doubt that if the Catholic Church was to actually be in the position that She was under Pope Pius XII – and the media was not in the way – that the world would become pretty much entirely Catholic.
The people never rule in any society. They may choose their leaders, but it is the leaders that rule. It is impossible for any large group of people to exercise authority. This is obviously NOT how the military works. That is why the best possible, given good conditions, of the government forms is a monarchy.
This being said, those who actually rule in a society aren’t large in number. So if rationality – and morality – was to prevail among them, it could pose very serious problems for evil persons with illegitimate influence with regards to the same.
Whether former President Trump actually could accomplish what he APPEARS to have wanted to accomplish is doubtful. His ACTUAL opposition to TPTB is highly doubtful.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-shares-ai-generated-180926127.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1816974609637417112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1816974609637417112%7Ctwgr%5Ea2b6f9f6cd6232cf80e3eba70afa4f23d26b27b1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Felon-musk-shares-ai-generated-180926127.html
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/elon-musk-mocked-claiming-christianity-222724768.html
If America wants to become a democracy it should copy the compulsory voting and preferential voting systems of Australia and New Zealand, the first of the world’s modern democracies and the first to give women the vote. Preselection for representative government should be based on ability not money. It should also copy the gun control laws of these countries – wake up America and stop the domestic shooting of US citizens which exceeds in one month the number of domestic deaths from citizens shooting each other in Iran in a year! Billy the Kid and Jesse James and their ilk became obsolete over a century ago – why continue their gun-slinging approach to human life? Get over it !
Even if gun confiscation was a good thing and corresponded with our constitutional rights, we have thousands of miles of porous international borders. Unlike Australia and New Zealand which are surrounded by ocean.
We can’t keep out illegal migrants or drugs. How would we keep out firearms?
It’s a shame that guns fall into the hands of criminals but it’s not the fault of our 2nd Amendment. It’s a failure of our criminal justice system and lenient sentencing. And the breakdown of the family and communities.
A few comments. 1) As the saying goes politics is up stream from culture. Our once Judea Christian culture has been destroyed by a number of factors including media, growth in consumerism etc. This has changed views on marriage, children etc. Wonder how many men and women without children will regret their situation as they age out. Most of all we have let the media, with its veiled evil intents, define who we are as a culture 2) The huge leftist swing of the media and education system has supported the increase role of government, they are servants of the state. As a result the state apparatus grows and grows without much pushback. 3) By the grace of God America came to be, the founding fathers with all there faults gave us a great beautiful country, this is something that needs to be relearned. The current effort to destroy this legacy, if successful will in effect destroy the country. 4) There are organizations pushing back, the Church needs to lead the way on the Judea Christian part. 5) The Author seems to think elitist are essential, suggest he read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections”.
Lord Acton said this two hundred years ago and I have yet to see it proven wrong. Those who carry elections, whether they be a majority or a minority that managed to win through fear or fraud, don’t always believe they should be limited in their ambitions and accept restraints on their power. True freedom is where the government’s power is restrained and it is not able to impose it’s will arbitrarily on it’s citizens.
I often feel like a single voice crying in the wilderness. I have been active in my party’s mission without much success. Polarization, promoted by hatred and violence, is now our darkest moment. A democracy will never sustain it. My burnt offering to our democracy and the salvation of our republic. In 1787, Dr. Ben Franklin said, as he was leaving the Continental Congress session, “You now have a republic, if you can keep it.”.
The current moral, political, and media state of affairs is daunting. There is blatant political evidence that we may be heading for an autocracy. The challenge to our voting process has never been greater. Our federal powers, POTUS, SCOTUS, and Congress, are in turmoil. The Supreme Court has the lowest rating in history, mainly due to a lack of ethics and immunity. (managers without managers). The presidency has been defamed with no graceful transfer of power. Congress cannot legislate. Instead, they investigate. Weaponazation, WOKE, and cat ladies are the evil words of the day. How does a conservative voter proceed?
Political and religious polorization. The parties and the religious must lower the rhetorical heat that foments division. There should not be red states and blue states, just the red, white, and blue states. Only the popular vote should count. The antiquated and unfair Electoral College must be elimnated. Our religions must be more inclusive and tolerent.
The hottest moral issue is abortion. Catholics must continue to express their objections to frivolous abortions. However, we must support a pregnant mother’s decision to save her life. Politicians must not make the decision for her. The SCOTUS decision to toss the responsibility to the states has caused havoc. It has promoted a “patchwork” effect, resulting in a return to red and blue states. Like the federal approach to dastardly Roe, a national “law” removes competition and is more manageable.
God save the republic.
There are those who are motivated by a riteous cause. In their commitment to pursue a correction to the ills of society they think that by dismantling the current checks and balances in order to have a sympathetic leader who once in position will enable them to enact the corrections to society that they think are so desperately needed.
In my studies of revolutionary history I saw this just cause as being the motivation for the Russian Revolution and others. However, human nature being what it unquestionably is, once the checks and balances are dismantled, even if the initial “benevolent dictator” is somewhat successful there will be a monster in the wings waiting to take advantage and in a takeover will make the whole nation work for him and his megalomaniac agenda. For Russia this person was Joseph Stalin.
The great advantage the USA had over communist Russia is in the process of being severely eroded by they dynamic of which I am referring to.
I once used to think that if any political movement would head in this direction it would be an environmental movement that would dismantle the safeguards of the rule of law, due process and the inbuilt checks and balances to excessive executive power.
Not so as it has and is becoming increasingly apparent that this is precisely the motivation of the currant political trajectory with respect the major players in today’s Trumpian Republican Party. The various aligned interest groups including Opus Dei and a Christian Nationalist co hort among others with the formidable help of the Murdoch media empire, intended or for reasons of profit, have set up the staging ground for a major shift in the function of executive government, due process and the rule of law. While the motivating factor may well be a high and lofty ideal, the end result will be a tragedy of almost unfathomable proportion.
Take this as a warning.
Points with merit John Allen thank you.
On a strict pro-life reading as a Catholic and as a human being, it makes no sense outing President Biden as excommunicate but accepting Mr. Trump who is anti-life “but less so” who “can’t be excommunicate”.
What that does is, it sets up Catholicism AND life, to lose.
It’s not a real Catholic position any more than it is humanly right, it only serves the ones who would have it on such a thrust. Then, the assertion of late that the real Catholic position is really “life spectrum” and not focused on the problem of abortion crimes, adds to the errors and fuels the confusions twisting Catholics and others into stupidity and compliance.
The Catholic and the human positions are the same, pro-life is a human issue with one right answer only.
In my understanding your voting for a candidate who is declaring for abortion means you are co-operating. Which is forbidden.
Now that the Republican Party removed its pro-life underpinning, that it had previously declared positively, it is inviting you implicitly to support it as it does political transactions with abortion industry and laws. It would appear some Catholics are directly and indirectly involved in bringing this about; which raises at least two problems that do not resolve in favour of the “lesser evil” argument.
First they want to propel “lesser evil” as mandate to accept it -“it’s not as bad as the other party’s stance”. In other words they are saying immoral co-operation is nullified by the deliberate arrangement of political manifestoes. Not true.
Second, the pro-life caucus seems to be in disarray and we do not have all the identities of those who achieved this “coup de grace”. This means the electorate and Catholics are being manipulated into trusting unseen moves with abortion held inside other policy, sometimes visible and sometimes invisible, to do with other things sometimes normal and sometimes legitimately in a category of lesser evil. Which can not absolve from immoral co-operation.
The Catholics who contributed to that whole make-over got it terribly wrong and from what I gather only raised protests after the thing got established.
To my way of thinking, LIFESITE NEWS has taken a wrong turn with Trump and the Republicans precisely at this crossroads. They make it worse for themselves when they keep stressing that Trump is a prophetic figure hailed from a very long time ago by some chap or other who lived in the house of the BVM when he got all these inspirations now coming true for everyone’s comforting and relief.
Archbishop Vigano himself seems to be sold on this too, making Trump as some kind of needed “Cyrus”. Yet professing that we may co-operate with an absolute evil is evil and heretical. Among other things, Trump is implying nurses can assist abortions.
Is “Democracy” even possible when:
-Half the citizens even bother to vote.
-Politicians are bought are bought and paid for by billionaires.
-Voters are not informed on serious issues and don’t even bother to read.
A Constitutional Republic may be the best that we can do, An imperfect citizenry yields an imperfect government.
Our democracy in action? I am disappointed with our Catholic hypocritical position on presidential candidates.
This year we elect a president. The dichotomy is glaring. Trump vs Harris. Trump gets our full support. Harris is condemned. I do not support Harris, but I have even more concerns with how the Catholic Bishops genuflect before the Trump altar.
Given his history of in-your-face trashing of Christian tenets, that support reeks with hypocracy. It is so disgraceful that the Catholic Vote website has a portal for contributions to Trump’s campaign. AND, in February, the Catholic Bishops urged the faithful to go to Mar A Lago to offer prayers for Trump.s election.
How can I trust the hierarchy? Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy and unfit for the office.
“… with how the Catholic Bishops genuflect before the Trump altar.”
Good grief. How so? Examples? This is simply untrue.
Yo, MorganD, your speed reading is only half-fast:
Perhaps you can identify, say, even one bishop associated with the Mar-a-Lago prayer event. News coverage, as in the following links, demonstrates quite the opposite.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/mar-lago-prayer-event-labels-trump-voters-only-catholic-option
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/eucharistic-congress-cautioned-speaker
LIFESITE NEWS has reports where Fr. Altman was to dinner at Mar-a-Lago. Apparently Trump was not present but Fr. Altman stayed to the last and ended up crossing paths with Trump’s son, by whom he conveyed a gift to Trump. And whatever else.
So it is recounted. Was Fr. there purely for his own personal convictions and the delivery of a singular gift?
I don’t mean to paint Fr. in the negative nor any clergy or bishop involved there. Don’t even mean to apply the caricature “genuflect”. Just reminding them for our sakes as theirs, of what things we truly believe and are to teach. One has a love for them to see them flourish.
One more step. If what I say is true, as I believe it to be, their using sacramentals in the gambit, profanes them.
To edit my post above AUGUST 5, 2024 AT 9:15 AM, so as to be clear how badly they did that work –
The Catholics who contributed to that whole make-over got it terribly wrong and from what I gather only raised PUBLIC protests after the thing got established.
more to the point regarding Catholics enabling and supporting former President Trump‘s bid for the White House rather than focusing attention on. Bishops from what I can gather attention would be more correctly placed on the role and influence of Opus Dai, the only personal prelature.
From the same source Peter has posted, this article is informative has to details relating to connections leading Catholic individuals with connections to opus day, I have forefront political involvement. The main focus of the article is the Catholics involved in influencing section of Supreme Court judges and Leadership in the development of proposals for project 2025.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/leonard-leo-architect-conservative-supreme-court-takes-wider-culture
John. Leanord Leo appears now to be the most influential person in the “conservative” MAGA and Project 2025 movement. I read your NCR link and captured…
For decades, Leo has been the BRAINS behind a conservative legal movement to TAKE OVER the JUDICIAL branch of government — a project that required millions and even billions of dollars. The 58-year-old has been called “THE THIRD MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD”, but until recently many Americans hadn’t heard of him. Leo assisted Clarence Thomas in his confirmation hearings.
How he got by the Anita Hill issue and remains an issue.
“Leo’s involvement amassing vast sums of DARK MONEY and using it to put ‘RIGHT-THINKING’ people on the courts and ELSEWARE in government.”
UNtil the Thomas ethics violation I, like many, had not heard of Leo. I was under the impression that SOCTUS was made of “managers without managers” who report to absolutely no one, now except Leo.
Today, the fruits of Loe’s efforts have resulted in a Supreme Court of polarization and suspicion.
ProPublica headline: Democracy…
“How a Secretive Billionaire Handed His Fortune to the Architect of the Right-Wing Takeover of the Courts”.
I could sum this up with one question. If the Leo story is true, WHERE WERE THE BISHOPS? It defies many Catholic tenets.
https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid
Mr. Morgan,
1.6 billion is peanuts compared to what George Soros has donated.
I guess we need at least 20 more billionaires to donating to conservative causes just to even things out.
morganD, what does the ‘D’ stand for?
‘Democrat’? Or ‘Death’?
Or, very possibly, both.
After all the Democratic Party is a death cult.
Democrats favor killing children in utero. At any time. For any reason. By a variety of decidedly painful and horrific methods.
And so, entire generations of individuals are canceled from existence.
Roughly one-third of all our offspring, in fact. Over the past fifty years.
Think about that.
And for the lucky children who escape that hideous death? Democrats are in favor of sterilizing and mutilating them. So they are never able to procreate.
Again, more generations of human beings erased.
Legalizing drugs; gay “marriage”; the sexualization of children; the green new poverty; the open border fentanyl conduit; the denial of the biologically determined sexes; the racist, divisive CRT curriculum — everything the Democratic Party advocates is aimed at denying life and promoting death.
Death is the Democratic Party’s central tenet. Guiding principle. Unwavering commitment.
Carl, you should know by now I am scared not to offer my sources. May I recover?
NCR Headline: New combative faith group to host ‘Catholic prayer’ for Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/new-combative-faith-group-host-catholic-prayer-trump-mar-lago
Catholics for Catholics: (X) Responder. BREAKING: Catholics for Catholics announces “Catholic Prayer for Trump” to be held at Mar-a-Lago on March 19th, Feast of Saint Joseph!
https://x.com/CforCatholics/status/1760783248895226008
Catholics for Catholics may be a misnomer here. Trump is not a Catholic!!!
I first saw the adoration piece on Catholic Vote months ago. The article was clear. I had suspected CV after they created a user portal that remains today, asking for donations to the Trump campaign. I did not contribute. See…
https://catholicvote.org/
I suggest that their eminences redouble their efforts to combat…
The lack of resanonable gun legislation: Mass murders of our school babies with high-powered military style AR15s. It has been silent lately. Step up to the GOP and NRA!
Serious ignorance of political and judicial immorality and integrity of our leaders. Political insanity.
Supreme Court in disgrace over Justice Thomas’ not reporting millions in gifts from a billionaire Harlan Crow. And he refuses to recuse himself from cases relating to friends and relatives.
Continue to keep me straight. Thanks.
Three points:
1) You mentioned bishops supporting Trump. None of these Catholic groups involve bishops, except Bishop Strickland. Bishops very rarely openly advocate for a specific candidate.
2) Catholics can support Trump. And plenty of Catholics support Biden. So…what?
3) Are you against Catholics praying for candidates?
Carl E. Olson you are very reasonable and forgiving.
I wanted to mention to John Allen that even though some of us are disappointed by Trump -appalled and taken aback too, besides- it doesn’t follow anyone can vote for pro-abortion Democrats. What has the earth trembling is that people are declaring you just MUST vote for Trump NOW after he made it very plain what he will be doing.
The general thinking is that if an individual candidate is avowedly pro-life, you can vote for him. I am not sure how that relates with actual voting rules there in the States, on the actual physical ballot page itself.
I don’t mean to tell anyone how to vote. I mean to remind Catholics not to get misled. The situation is far gone and too slow to recover and Trump joined the bandwagon advertising pro-life as a hang-up and an extremism.
Worse, a band of Catholics involved have made themselves opaque.
This page discusses Freemasonry at some length. There have been elected Presidents who were not Freemason (so it is claimed); who then accepted to be inducted as honorary members. If that is the truth it has to be examined closely. What is the reason for the honorary membership? It could be offending electoral rules and likely does offend them -among other problems arising.
And of there of some kind of “original standing agreement” from the days of the 13 Colonies, it could be void in law for this or that reason including knowing trammeling of Constitutional freedoms, rights and obligations; and misrepresentation and fraudulence, etc.
Short, key JFK quote
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=ljnVfSGHYhA&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com&source_ve_path=NzY3NTg
The Catholic Bishops do not fawn over Trump like some of the Evangelicals do. They may indirectly praise him over issues such as overturning Roe, but the adulation exhibited by Evangelicals is not what the Bishops engage in. I don’t recall a Catholic Bishop calling Trump “God’s annointed one” or other such nonsense.
A few priests drink the Kool Aid, but the Bishops are wary of Trump love fests and are indirect with their praise.
James Buchanan was made an honorary member of the Lodge of Amity in Pennsylvania.
William McKinley received honorary membership in several lodges.
These presidents were “honored” due to their very wise alignment with Masonic policy. JFK discovered what happens when they threaten to not aligne, right?
The Masons have been a fixture in North America even prior to the founding of the USA. You can find Masonic connections everywhere. I don’t really think we should take it that seriously. The situation in other parts of the world may differ but it’s been more of a fraternal organization here & less of a sinister plot.
Mrs Cracker, please watch JFK above…
He disagreed with you in 1961 😉
Kind regards,
Mr Cracked Nut
“President James Buchanan: a biography” by Philip Shriver 978-0945707110
and
“William McKinley” by Kevin Phillips 978-0805069532.