The Church and the suicide of the West

We are facing a narcissism of the present and the self.

(us.fotolia.com)

In 2006 Pope Benedict spoke of

a peculiar Western self-hatred that is nothing short of pathological. It is commendable that the West is trying to be more open, to be more understanding of the values of outsiders, but it has lost all capacity for self-love. All that it sees in its own history is the despicable and the destructive; it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure.

The situation hasn’t gotten better since Benedict wrote. Today such a statement, with its implication that the West is distinctive and worthy of love and admiration, would be denounced as white supremacist.

That situation points to a problem more basic than moral panic or anti-Western bigotry: it is a sign of hatred of culture as such. That hatred, and not respect for other cultures, fuels multiculturalism. The goal is not to support every culture but to make it impossible for any culture to function. Multiculturalism wants to give equal status in all situations to Islam, but also to Zen Islam, non-doctrinal Islam, and LBGTQ feminist Islam. But then where is Islam?

Benedict looks for what is best in those he opposes, but I don’t see today the concern that he expressed other people’s cultures. How many fans of diversity care about Confucius, Chola sculpture, or Ibn Khaldun? And in any event the people Benedict “othered” by referring to as outsiders—Arabs, Japanese, Somalians—seem to be no less racist, sexist, and homophobic than Plato or Donald Trump. So why would up-to-date people want to learn from them?

What we are seeing, in fact, is not openness but rejection of every concrete social reality. They limit us, and are never fair or equal, which in the end means they never put us and our feelings and wishes at the center of things. We are facing a narcissism of the present and the self.

But man is a social and therefore cultural and historical being. His life requires a concrete setting: it matters who his people are and where he comes from. If he loses those things he loses something basic. So to attack culture and history as concrete realities that form and therefore limit the self is to attack man.

That doesn’t bother people today, since they find the concept of human nature oppressive. It subjects them to natural law, which tells them what they should do and be. So it directly contradicts what the Supreme Court has declared the fundamental principle of our society, “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

But the Supreme Court’s principle is insane. It says we should erase the distinction between truth and fiction: everything is a construction. If two men say their connection is a marriage it’s a marriage, if a woman says she’s a man she’s a man, and if she says her baby is a clump of cells it’s a clump of cells.

The Court says these things not on their own but on behalf of our rulers. But when a ruling class goes insane that’s a big problem, especially when other centers of autonomy—family, religion, local community—are as weak as they are in America in 2021. In the absence of any counterweight, ruling class craziness becomes the stuff of popular entertainment and grade school curricula. Over the years the craziness permeates and then dissolves the ordinary relationships people live by. All that’s left are career, consumption, political correctness, and transitory connections to others.

Who wants to live in such a society? The people at the top like it, because it means that all serious social relationships run through the commercial and bureaucratic institutions they dominate. For ordinary people, though, it is truly a culture of death.

How did this happen and what can be done about it?

The West started off as Catholic Christendom. The world was real because God was real and God created the world. That view built the universities and made possible enormous advances in knowledge. It also had political results. God created the individual as well as fundamental social order, so both had to be respected. That meant, at least in aspiration, a stable society that recognized the rights, freedoms, and dignity of citizens, families, localities, and independent institutions such as the Church.

All that has come to an end. The Protestant Reformation led to the conquest of Church by State—cuius regio ejus religio—and thus the triumph of wealth, power, and secular rationality as supreme social principles. The principle of truth gave way to the principle and technique of getting what you want.

But if getting what you want is the supreme principle, why shouldn’t it apply to each of us? That line of thought has won. It claims to liberate us, but in fact leads to an unstable egoism that has no place for ordered freedom. By depriving the individual of a stable social setting and definition it dissolves him. The disappearance of God has dissolved man.

That makes him and his achievements, including the civilization of the West, illegitimate. Some years ago a correspondent referred me to a discussion of a blogger’s claim that “the self is inherently violent.” The example used was blogging, which was said to involve self-assertion that comes at the expense of other bloggers.

It’s an interesting view, and it makes sense if you get rid of a creator God who makes particular existences good. If that’s done each of us becomes a violation of the chaste equality of nonexistence. The discussion in the post shows how the issue arises when the self as constructed only horizontally, with no transcendent reference point. And that also makes sense: when transcendence disappears, truth evaporates, and writing becomes pure assertion and thus an aggression.

The idea isn’t altogether new. It puts me in mind of gnosticism, which views the existence of the world as an error, and of Eastern religions that view it as an illusion. It also sounds a bit like Heraclitus, with his idea that strife is the origin of all things.

It’s also reminiscent of Nietzsche’s idea that the will to power is the driving force of life. And of Samuel Beckett’s comment on writing: “I could not have gone through the awful wretched mess of life without having left a stain upon the silence.”

For a Christian though the self—the individual soul and its subjectivity—is fallen rather than intrinsically violent. But that view requires a self that retains a transcendent reference and is not wholly caught up in immediacy. Without that we have the war of all against all, and the only escape is the one pointed out by Thomas Hobbes: the absolute state. But the absolute state means that particular culture must disappear. Otherwise there will be authorities other than the state.

So what to do? Our rulers are not geniuses, and their habit of living in a bubble and hating those outside it doesn’t lead to political wisdom. Their plan, in effect, is to make the world more governable by destroying small-scale local order. That is what diversity and inclusiveness mean as overriding principles, and it’s why they’re trying to turn the West into a global order that abolishes itself and all other particular peoples and civilizations.

The outcome is likely to be a horrible mess. Even so, many in the Church sign on to the attempt. That needs to change, and it will as her living parts follow Paul’s injunction to “be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind.” The Church of the future will be the source of peace, freedom, and life in the midst of chaos, slavery, and death. For that reason the world, even from her own perspective, will need her more than ever. She has a bright future.


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.


About James Kalb 114 Articles
James Kalb is a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism(ISI Books, 2008) and, most recently, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It (Angelico Press, 2013).

40 Comments

  1. That Cardinal Cupich and, now, Cardinal Tobin sit on the Vatican’s Bishops Congregation does not make the foreseeable future any brighter. Knowing their leanings does not harbor well for a new generation of Church leaders. Hopefully their capitulation to and embrace of “woke-ness” and cultural self-loathing will not infect Church leadership in places around the world where, for the moment, the pernicious evil of progressivism is held at bay. For the US Church, it is more trouble and confusion ahead.

    • Considering that the younger generation of priests are more traditional and orthodox, and the generation of 1970’s hippies is fast dying out, Cupich and Tobin would have to raid the retirement homes to find candidates for Bishoprics who share their views. So that’s one consolation.

      • Unfortunately I believe these secular bishops will hunt up secular priests to promote to replace the ranks. The faithful, young priests do not seem to be welcomed in many parishes. At some point the next move will be to suppress the TLM. The German Schism will play out and effectively gut the Church there. They will elect a german pope and follow the mainstream protestant churches into obscurity. A handful of faithful Germans will stay with Holy Mother Church. The demographics of the churches in the US seem to be mirrored across the globe. My local parish has mostly grandparents and a handful of faithful Catholics. The TLM parish about an hour away is bursting at the seems and actually looks like the rest of the country with all ages and plenty of children. The secular curia will increasingly be leading a fading population and will lash out at the only growing churches, the TLM parishes. It won’t be as crazy as the Early Church persecutions but it will require white martyrs to keep the Church alive.

    • Yes, John, I think that you have quite rightly hit upon the reality factor. These upcoming, papal-appointed leaders are not friends of a traditional, civilized order. They are power brokers in the secular city.

  2. Very good article! I like your approache, and how you bring forth your argument. And you, with thid article,put light on an aspect and a part of the problem at hand, which I hadnt seen.
    It was the mechanisms of multiculturalism you shed some light on, that I got to see clearly now.

    Appriciacion from Norway!

    And yes, you end on a bright tone! And that, I think is right and true. Its been propheciesed that the church will ho through turbulations. But the same prophecies also talk about, and encourage, how we must stick with the true teachings and stand ground.
    I am so greatful for our Church, She is beautiful.

    Peace!

  3. I very much appreciate Mr. Kalb’s argument and insight. I fear, though, that he is excessively sanguine about the Church, much of which (but not, we know, all of which [because of its indefectibility]) has been and will be seduced by the meretricious power of the profane. Expect, then, little from the broad, institutional Church (cf. 1 Tm 4:1-2 and 2 Pt 2:1); by contrast, hope, pray, and work for the Burkean “little platoons”: the orthodox and faithful, if few, bishops and priests spiritually inoculated against the pervasive moral sickness of our fallen world and prepared to serve Our Lord in words and in works until the Parousia. Remember C.S. Lewis’s trenchant admonition (in The Abolition of Man–p. 59 in my edition): “. . . the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means . . . the power of some men to make other men what they [italicized] please.” Our moral arrogance will lead by a short path to political perdition.

    • If “indefectibility” only meant that there will always be a faithful remnant, then I would have no problem with the concept. But that’s not what we were taught as the meaning of indefectibility, is it? What we were taught was that the institutional church would never abandon Christ and his gospel. Well, it has. So the question for us believers now is “Should I stay or should I go?”

  4. “he Protestant Reformation led to the conquest of Church by State—cuius regio ejus religio”

    How much of the Protestant revolt was fueled by the medici pope Nicholas V whose 1452 “Dum Diversas” said unbelievers from Africa could be put, by Catholic rulers, in a state of “perpetual servitude”. Could not the disillusion have started here? What interest compelled this too overlooked statement?

    • Very little, I should imagine. Considering that serfdom in western Europe was only about a century past, and considering that Dum Diversas was chiefly concerned about fighting back against Moslem assaults on Christians and Christianity; and considering that Moslems continued raiding Europe for slaves well into the 19th century, I doubt that Europeans thought, “Oh, gosh, I’m so disillusioned with the Papacy that I think I’ll revolt.”

      Also, presuming that Nicholas V meant “servitude” in the sense of the slavery as practiced in later years in the New World is something of a stretch, given that Dum Diversas was issued in 1452, which is 40 years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

    • None of it.
      Since other and more authoritative statements by other popes before and just after the Protestant revolt began, unequivocally condemned enslavement, and since protestants were enthusiastic and prolific slavers, exceeded only by Moslems, I’d say your theory is ludicrous.

    • Slavery was legal and established in much of the world in 1452. That includes among African tribes and various other indigenous peoples such as Native Americans.Slavery was neither a Catholic institution nor, recent assertions to the contrary, an American invention. Romans, Persians and many other culture practiced the slavery of the peoples they conquered.( I get WAY tired of hearing the fake chestnut that slavery is America’s “original sin”.)

  5. We need more academics, like James Kalb, to begin to speak out against the oncoming disaster. I do believe that God is beginning to separate those who are really His and those who just go to church. Thank you Mr. Kalb for your thoughtful article.

  6. If we wait for our bishops to get the Church’s dogma down, we will be sorely disappointed. If we continue to whine about the world and Church situation, it will only get worse.

    Every serious Catholic has to start with Self as either the source of the problem or the source of the solution.
    Every serious Catholic can do SOMETHING to make the world a better place – call someone you really don’t want to talk to but know you should, send uplifting Psalms to your children and friends (and those people you’d rather not talk to), gather a few people into a Bible study group, especially now that the lockdowns are scaling back), whatever else you can think of.

    These may seem like micro means but the mustard seed is the smallest, as Our Lord said, so think small! Especially if you are not confident in expressing your faith. Give God a chance to work in you, and you will become a lovely shrub! If you do not, it means that you do not trust God. Give Him a chance!

    Let us not see this world as “fallen” and we as a “fallen people”, “sinners” which I hear and read repetitively from Catholic commentators. This world is an exquisite creation, and we Christians are baptized into the Body of Christ. We have turned our backs to sin; so, while we might still sin, we are not sinners, we are not fallen. Sinful, yes, but God has raised us onto a plane that is level and a path that is straight. We have no excuses to not succeed in shepherding at least a few people back to God. Let Him take it from there.

    • What you wrote is true: “Every serious Catholic has to start with Self as either the source of the problem or the source of the solution.”

      Starting with our own family to practice Humility, Faith, Hope and Charity is the best training ground to preach to the ends of the earth.

  7. Pope Benedict was and is, a brilliant writer. A true Father of the Church. Clear and concise writing, that gets straight to the point. That short paragraph sums everything up, then and now. Thank you for sharing.

  8. Samuel Beckett wryly self deprecating left his critical commentary on the “mess”, others offer hope, The world, even from her own perspective, will need her more than ever. She has a bright future (Kalb). Waiting for Godot is a parody of Man’s futility, Hobbs absolute state futility taken to a futile measure that never worked historically. Cultural self hatred is found in cultures that abandon the truth of our existence in a morally superior God. We despise what we perceive within death appears the answer. Likely why Germany’s obsession with death under Nazism. Beckett despite his response with the absurd joined the French Resistance escaped with his life to Vichy France. Hope is a great virtue. Human nature is not inherently self destructive rather it is fallen as Kalb underlines. Despite the futility of a Church accommodating rather than sanctifying we hope for that “bright future”. Return to me and I will refresh you Our Lord entreats in the Psalms.

    • A reread of an article deserving further analysis. James Kalb’s premises appear viable. As is the expected outcome disorder and self destruction. Christ and the Church the remaining institution able to restore authority and with it order [Lonergan foresaw in Insight that “the good of order is the root of ethics”]. With rejection of God rejection of authority follows. The nature of our dilemma has to do with raw authority not natural law [not directly] or anything of a sensual nature. Back to the Future to borrow the title is the Fall from grace of Adam and Eve. God’s command was obedience, nothing of a sensual nature. Obedience the red line of faith and trust in God. Obedience therefore for Christ was the means by which he made salvation possible. In that Original Sin of disobedience the future is understood, what Kalb calls narcissism of self and the present. The same sin repeated today. Man’s desire for absolute independence from natural law, “rules”, culture. Without God Man cannot understand himself because by his nature he’s ordained to find happiness in pursuit of due ends of acts. With State replacing the role of religion as the arbiter of moral truth other moral ends likewise dispossessed the natural order. Men are quite unhappy violently so. If freedom, the Justice Kennedy kind was intended to make us happy, the opposite was destined to occur. These are dangerous times. Despite that the Church should have a bright future. It may not, although in either instance we’re required to deepen our faith. And likely practice it heroically.

  9. I agree in most part with the article above. Society today is grossly trying to deny the “nature of the beast” when it comes to humankind. Man is a social creature most certainly. Humankind is also blessed/cursed with a sense of guilt (to varying degrees). While the animals do not have such a moral compass. Multi-culturalism is to be given respect but not at the cost of one’s own culture. To respect cultures is to respect all cultures. No one culture is the PERFECT one. Sins and sanctities have been commited by ALL cultures. Also, Plato was somehow impuned in the article. While Aristotle had a bit of an elitist bent Plato did not. He and Socrates recognized that rationality was not a racially or sexually determined quality. Women were given equal opportunity for contribution. Albeit women at that time were not privy to the access of such avenues.

    • In the Republic Plato said that women could do the same things as men but weren’t as strong and weren’t as good at a lot of them. And he said Greeks should be less ruthless when warring against other Greeks than when warring against barbarians.

  10. The world is simply too big, and too complex, to be successfully governable by utopian standards. Solutions at the community level seem commendable, while national and international overtures seem impossible without infringing on some peoples’ rights somewhere.

  11. “a discussion of a blogger’s claim that ‘the self is inherently violent.’ The example used was blogging, which was said to involve self-assertion that comes at the expense of other bloggers. It’s an interesting view,”

    Indeed, if by “interesting” you mean “stupid beyond belief.” By the reason used by that nitwit of a blogger, absolutely any statement made by anyone anywhere ever can be called “self-assertion that comes at the expense of others.” So nobody should ever talk or write.

    • That is indeed the claim – a logical extension of the prevailing view that speech you don’t like (any speech that expresses any point of view at odds with the current progressive orthodoxy) is itself violence. It truly is a recipe for absolute despair, since nothing you say can be true or good or valuable. And yet… people with that point of view are the loudest, it seems. And they really are miserable, which I don’t say with any pleasure, having experienced that misery first hand.

  12. ‘Getting what you want ..’ – ? would that not be good , if we truly know what we really want – being made in His image and likeness, to be able to love God with the Love with which He loves us ..Adam was meant to do so , in the gift of Divine Will, to be loving The Father in everything in creation , thus requiting His Love , to have been able to hear the never ending sing song – ‘love you ..Love You ‘ between The Father and Adam , all through creation ..Our Lord , in the silence of the desert , putting back that song , in every grain of sand ..in every drop of Precious Blood , drowning out the nothingness of the lies of the idols with its mirages to confuse us as to what we really want ..to be able to hear , ? even the sound of Adam again , as the ‘honey from The Rock ‘ – honey that reminds us about the goodness and order and working together in His Will of His little creatures , to know that we too deeply desire that sweetness in Oneness , in His sweet Divine Will …and the buzz of Radio waves and all too , to help us into the blessedness of what we truly want !

    https://radiomaria.us/learning-to-live/page/4/

  13. To elevate all humans is critical to world peace. For any single group to believe they are the true and intended policy-makers for everyone else is to create nothing more than authoritarian regimes and mass dissatisfaction. Humans instinctively need and want to grow emotionally and intellectually and to be more than hunters and gatherers every day of their lives. To follow an ancient dogma based on white patriarchal supremacy is exactly the opposite of emotional and intellectual growth not just at the individual level but also at the societal level. If the Catholic Church still ruled the world only priests and those born into wealth would be allowed to read books, to practice medicine, and to be wealth builders. Intelligent and independent women would be outcasts, intellects would be imprisoned as heretics, and the rich would pay their way to heaven. I’ve never understood this need to control the masses. This article above explains it perfectly. The author wrote: “Their plan, in effect, is to make the world more governable by destroying small-scale local order. That is what diversity and inclusiveness mean as overriding principles”. Small-scale local order compliments of white Christian men on city councils, state legislatures, schools, courts, and counties. We see you.

    • “To follow an ancient dogma based on white patriarchal supremacy…”

      Lots of CRT Kool-Aid making the rounds these days…

    • You seem to believe that “controlling the masses” means “letting people run things locally” and “permitting serious non-commercial and non-bureaucratic ties.” I don’t think that makes sense.

    • Woke, disrespectful, and bigoted Marxist – we also see you. Ironically, you are being and doing the very things you falsely accuse others of being and doing. You just don’t have the integrity to see it.

    • Janice, your knowledge of history is risible.

      “If the Catholic Church still ruled the world only priests and those born into wealth would be allowed to read books,”

      You ignore the fact that not a few of the priests (and monks – remember? the monks who painstakingly hand-copied manuscripts before the technology of printing came to be?) who were able to read were originally poor and unlettered, until the Church educated them. Are you laboring under the delusion that before the Church literacy was universal? Or that it was so in areas where the Church had not yet reached?

      “to practice medicine,”

      Like, say, John Bradmore?

      “and to be wealth builders.”

      Did you somehow miss all those medieval merchants making money?

      “Intelligent and independent women would be outcasts,”

      Oh, sure. Like St. Hildegard of Bingen, and St. Hilda of Whitby, and St. Catherine of Siena, and Berengaria the Great of Castile, and Isabella of Castile, and St. Joan of Arc, and St. Walpurga, and St. Lioba, and many others.

      “intellects would be imprisoned as heretics,”

      “Intellects,” huh? Like, say. St. Augustine, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus? Or do you count as “intellects” only those who disagreed with the Church?

      “and the rich would pay their way to heaven.”

      Show me one instance where a rich person was said to pay his way to heaven.

      I cannot tell you how much I hope that no woman who shares your views ever has authority or power over me or anybody else. It would be a nightmare and a disaster.

    • “… To follow an ancient dogma based on white patriarchal supremacy …”
      Never heard about Greek Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Assyrian Church of the East…?

      “…emotional and intellectual growth…”
      As I my guess from what you are writing, there is still much potential for intellectual growth.

  14. anyone else chuckle that the author’s proof of Pope Benedict’s 2006 statements would be denounced as white supremacy is just a stock link to a google search of “western civilization” + “white supremacy” with nothing to do with Pope Benedict (but very much to do with the actually-racist Steve King)? And that this launches the entire tirade of the article?

  15. I always appreciate Mr Kalb’s contributions, and this is no exception. Each time I reread it, it gets better. The behemoth State has advantages this time that were never previously present: the ability to track and document almost all people (via consumption patterns) and the ability to deliver tremendous modern bread and circuses to keep folks numb. Moreover, the discontent with reality is only possible because technology is available to alter reality—not only hormones, but the ability to sever sex from procreation, and comforts (heat, A/C, food out of season) that have allowed a considerable bulk of people to stop working for their subsistence. They can navel-gaze to their hearts’ content on the gov’t dime and create bizarre demands to be met as well.

    I like the cheerful ending, although the sanctuary that the Church is called to create in this dystopian haze will not be without harassment and real persecution. No matter, history shows us plenty such chapters in her saga—now it’s our turn. How can we ask heroic virtue of others without living it ourselves first? The only disagreement I have with the author is that decoupling the Church from the State will not be another setback, but a necessary step in purifying the message that God alone saves.

  16. “The self is inherently violent” is a thought that resonates profoundly to any ear that has heard of René Girard.

    Thank you for your excellent writing, James.

  17. The self-loathing that projects itself in a reductive, univocal contempt for Western civilisation is indeed a serious individual and social pathology in need of healing from the very sources it rejects: medical science and the grace of God made available in Christ and his Church.

  18. Kalb writes: “[Our] situation points to a problem more basic than moral panic or anti-Western bigotry: it is a sign of hatred of culture as such. That hatred, and not respect for other cultures, fuels multiculturalism [And then he asks} “How many fans of diversity care about Confucius, Chola sculpture, or Ibn Khaldun?”

    The reference to Ibn Khaldun overreaches. Ibn Khaldun, who preceded any equivalent Western sociology by at least three centuries, developed the concept of “GROUP FEELING” (asabiyyah) as the basis for social cohesion. If not the family and blood ties or religion, then something else, something more likely rooted only in myth or symbols. RATHER THAN resting in any coherence between faith and human reasoning—which is the cultural distinction of Christian reflection as leavened by the very Providential early contact between Christianity and universal Greek thought.

    Today’s fascination with fractious “IDENTITY POLITICS” (branded as wraparound “diversity”) too easily degenerates into a collage of mutually repulsed “group-feeling” substitute sub-cultures, in step with Ibn Khaldun. The situation in the non-Islamic west is not a hatred of cultures or sub-cultures as such, but a rejection of a unique culture deeper than graffiti street insignia, special interests, academic intersectionalities, or keyboard herds.

    The common denominator, then, is not hatred of cultures but REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY which includes, but is also categorically more than a “group feeling”—based as it is on something and Someone entirely new under the sun (“man does not live on group feeling alone.”) Where assimilative and opportunistic Islam poses as a “community of religions” (Kalb’s multiculturalism?), Pope Benedict (in Kalb’s opening) also had this to say about the vacuum left by decadent Christian culture:

    “I am urging people to realize that a war has indeed been declared on the West. I am NOT pushing for a rejection of dialogue, which we need more than ever with those Islamic countries that wish to live in peaceful coexistence with the West, to our mutual benefit. I am asking for something more fundamental: I am asking for people to realize that DIALOGUE WILL BE A WASTE OF TIME IF one of the two partners to the dialogue states beforehand that one idea is as good as the other (“Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam,” 2006, CAPS added).

    • Interesting comment on Ibn Khaldun. I mentioned him not to propose him as the standard for political thought but as a very great non-Western political thinker who like all very great non-Western cultural figures is of no interest to multiculturalists.

      I should say though that he didn’t present asabiyyah as the preferred basis for social cohesion generally but as the factual basis for the coherence and effectiveness of a ruling class. The practical alternative, he thought, was threats, violence, nepotism, cronyism, and gradual disintegration. And on that I think he has a point, just as Maistre had a point when he said that violent death is always basic to political order.

      I’m not sure what all that shows. Jesus notoriously owned nothing, didn’t marry, and had no formal position of any kind. Even so, private property, family life, and social and political hierarchies are necessary to a peaceful, productive, and public-spirited way of living.

      Ditto, I think, for group feeling. Christ tells us it’s not ultimate – in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female. But the whole of human life is not lived at the level of the ultimate. Natural human tendencies, particular communities based on particular connections, also play a legitimate role.

  19. I am an Orthodox Christian. While I do not agree completely with the Papacy in Rome, I do agree that the Christian Faith is under attack under the guise of “White Supremacy”. 99% of Christians are not “White Supremacists” but the liberals paint us to be that way. We must stand up to this injustice in a kind and peaceful way in the name of Christ. Remember, our faith has had a lot of trials and tribulations. We have had to go underground before. We have had to lie about our Faith. That is not a sin. The greatest sin is giving up the Faith. You must keep the Faith while keeping yourself safe. Be smart.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. EARLY VVEEKEND EDITION – Big Pulpit
  2. The Narcissism of Diversity | New Amsterdam Paleoconservative

Leave a Reply to Carl E. Olson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*