The partisan division that runs deep in America has recently taken a violent turn. Political affiliations manifest competing visions for the country’s future, and increasingly, for human life itself.
Is freedom absolute in a way that should progress no matter the consequences? Or, are there fundamental truths and goods that should be conserved and respected?
We often speak of the fundamental divide between these general positions as right-wing and left-wing, conservative and liberal, as solely political, without realizing the surprising Catholic connection to their origin.
It’s common to hear Catholics object to the use of right-left and conservative-liberal labels in the Church. Nonetheless, it’s impossible to deny the existence of factions that have arisen broadly along these lines. Factions are nothing new, of course, as St. Paul made clear to the Corinthians: “For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:18-19). Controversies over doctrine, liturgy and morality tend to divide into two major factions, and conservative and liberal labels capture, in a generally accurate way, the positions of either preservation or innovation.
Contemporary divisions within the Church, although not identical to political camps, often align in surprising ways. This reality took center stage recently as a major figure in the progressive Catholic camp, Cardinal Blaise Cupich, created enormous controversy in seeking to honor a Democratic politician, Senator Dick Durbin, with a long track record of supporting abortion. On the other hand, churchmen dedicated to the defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom often find allies in the Republican party. In fact, three bishops in the United States currently serve on President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. Given dynamics both within and outside of the Church, the “left and right” or “liberal and conservative” should not be dismissed as inapplicable or irrelevant.
“Right” and “left” as political labels go back to the French Revolution, particularly to the National Assembly, where representatives lined up either to the right or left of the Assembly’s President, depending on whether they supported the rights of the king (the right), the position of most Catholics, or favored abolishing the monarchy (the left) and the rights of the Church along with it. After the king’s downfall, those considered to be on the right favored a restoration of the ancien régime, while the left continued to advocate for the further liberalization of society along republican or democratic lines.
This political division carried enormous religious significance, as one side advanced the French notion of laicité (the removal of any public role for the Church) and the legalization of divorce, while the other sought to restore the union of throne and altar.
Following the French Revolution, popes supported the restoration of Catholic monarchs and even disciplined priests who advocated for democracy. The Second Vatican Council, however, brought about a rehabilitation for Catholics holding positions associated with political liberalism by fostering greater openness to the modern world. Vatican II largely buried the traditional right-left division among Catholics, who had supported either the restoration of monarchy or modern democracy (although the word “democracy” does not appear in its documents).
The right-left divide in recent decades now mostly breaks along the lines of those who support traditional values within modern democracy (the new right) versus those continuing to push the revolution against any form of traditional authority and morality (the new left).
Vatican II, however, created a new form of the right-left divide, not wholly unrelated to the prior usage. On the one hand, there is the conservative or traditional movement, which emphasizes continuity with the Church’s tradition prior to the Council, particularly in relation to the liturgy. On the other hand, progressives stress openness to modern culture, shaped by modern democracy and its emphasis on freedom.
Pope Benedict XVI had his own way of characterizing it as two competing hermeneutics (interpretations) of Vatican II, typified on the one hand by “discontinuity and rupture,” which “has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.” On the other hand, he identifies a “hermeneutic of reform,” typified by “renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us” (Address to Roman Curia, December 22, 2005).
This divide certainly exists and shapes how many pursue priorities in the Church. Often, those dedicated to conserving the theological tradition of the Church also seek to uphold fundamental values of life and the family. Those who favor rupture in matters of doctrine and morality often prioritize social justice over other issues.
Perhaps factions are inevitable or even necessary, as Paul conceded. Catholics must take a stand on pressing issues—social ones, such as voting, and spiritual ones, like finding a new parish, with many willing to drive outside their immediate territorial parish for more traditional or contemporary options. In an age of change, when everything seems in flux, Catholics face two major choices: either to dig in their heels to some degree or follow along with the current of change.
The Body of Christ, however, cannot be divided in its essence. Factions may exist due to human weakness, though there is only “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). Even as we take a stand, work with like-minded people, and oppose evil, we must do so as Christians who ultimately transcend party politics. More than a call to “get along,” we need a primary commitment to Christ that rises above divisions and other allegiances. The Beatitudes offer a concrete path to transcend factionalism and rise above squabbles, no matter how important. We will be blessed if we seek the Kingdom before all else, make peace, remain meek and merciful and suffer for righteousness’ sake rather than retaliating or seeking revenge.
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.
In all major variants of modern self-understanding—the idealistic (liberal), the materialist (Marxist), the existentialist (e.g., Nietzsche), and the positivist (Comte)—man tends to see himself as a fundamentally cosmopolitan being, discovering the world and forming his identity primarily through his actions. In this anthropological perspective, the religious dimension of human life is often treated as secondary or, at times, dispensable.
This modern mindset helps explain the post-conciliar debates within the Church, particularly the tension between those emphasizing discontinuity and rupture and those advocating reform in continuity, as identified by Pope Benedict XVI. Cultural currents in which religion is marginal or instrumental naturally shape how Catholics approach modernity, morality, and political engagement.
A parallel can be drawn to international politics, where two schools of thought—the “universalists,” who envision world peace through the transcendence of nation-states, and the “realists,” who prioritize the concrete interests of states—have clashed over the last century. Both, lacking a profound theology of history, have tended toward utopianism or Machiavellian pragmatism. Similarly, within the Church, the polarization between the modernist (typically German-Lutheran) and the traditionalist (Latin) approaches illustrates the tension between idealism and continuity.
Yet the Church’s social doctrine offers a clear framework that transcends these factions. It identifies three poles of engagement: the horizontal pole of justice, the vertical pole of natural law with its non-negotiable principles, and the pole of religious freedom (as articulated in Dignitatis humanae). By attending to all three, Catholics can navigate contemporary challenges, uphold core truths, and act in the world without succumbing to factionalism.
I am a devout Catholic parishioner my whole life. There is a controversy in our Tyler Diocese. Certain Priest and Bishops are promoting that Illegals should just be accepted and given all the benefits of Citizens and Naturalized Legal Citizens.
Free everything including medical care?
I’m only going to say this once. There are approximately 20,000,000 ILLEGALS in our country. Most are illiterate and never assimilate. Your priest, all the way to the Pope, live in a closed protected society. All of the trials of our country do not affect the leadership of the Church. Everything is provided for them. The Pope has a walled home. Nothing overburdens him. No flocks of social services draining deadbeats and harden criminals. No inflation, nothing in public life changes one moment of their protected lives. This Sunday it was publicly spoken we should pray for our political leaders to approve medical care for all of these non-deserving ILLEGALS. THE VERY THING WASHINGTON IS SHUT DOWN FOR! The ICE facilities have been criticized. Especially Alligator Alcatraz! I really love my faith, but this is not part of my Churches teachings. I’m considering leaving the Church. I feel my President is doing exactly what we elected him for. We are already overwhelmed in our social services and welfare government agencies. Twenty million illegals came into our country strictly for the Democrats vote. Regaining power. They can’t do it on their base anymore. As a Conservative Catholic, and Military Vet. I can’t accept this travesty caused by Joe criminal Anti-American treasonous Biden.
I want something done immediately. Keep the politics out of the pulpit! Not a request! It’s a demand. Teach the Bible not the Democrats agenda. Church is not a place for it!
Sincerely,
Danny Ray Grimes Sr.
Military Vet.
Conservative Catholic
“Free everything including medical care?”
Since citizens are not entitled to free healthcare, that is actually something more and greater.
“Your priest, all the way to the Pope, live in a closed protected society. All of the trials of our country do not affect the leadership of the Church. Everything is provided for them.”
And this is a huge problem. While the clergy has a difficult job, but they don’t report to the factory, mine or mill or to the somewhat more insidiously degrading cubicle farm. The Episcopacy is even more removed from the indignities of sweating because a report is late or getting on some imperious boss’s bad side (save of course those that drew the ire of Pope Francis). None have ever had to come to a wife or kids and say “I was fired today”. They haven’t had to deal with a delayed shipment that screws up a major project, the death or departure of a key employee or the sudden obsolescence of a major product.
And yet there they sit telling us the capacity to accept foreigners must be unlimited, (many of whom have every intention of conquest – see Dearborn Michigan) is unlimited and that we may not impose any burden of gratitude, process, self reliance or civic virtue on the those enter-all in contradiction to ¶2241.
When the history of the Church is written, the infiltration by the sexually incontinent deviants that have caused so much grief and bankruptcy in recent decades will be rivalled by spiritual corrosion caused by the moral hijackers who make the imperative prudential and prudential imperative.
Meanwhile, Mass attendance is abysmal. The young cohabitate and don’t bother baptizing the few young that are being born, if they do marry they happily contracept with hormonal pollutants. So-called “Catholic” schools fire teachers who quote saints critical of Islam are fired.
The older I get the more I think that St John Chrysostom’s adage about few Bishops making it to heaven is more an inventory count that a hyperbolic caution.
Hmm. My friends, colleagues, and family do NOT believe, as a deacon at the local parish teaches to RCIA groups, and repeats endlessly, that “an entirely church came into being with Vatican II” – in other words, we are with B16 and the hermeneutic of continuity, with Communio not Concilium. Yet we see NO conflict between what I think you mean by “social justice” and what we treasure – there is no conflict between the corporal works of mercy and the spiritual ones. Because we respect the dignity of the Mass does not mean we reject Christ’s teachings on our neighbors!
The problem is that too many of the local parishioners see the leftist platform as HIGHER than the Church. I had a professor at Yale – a professed religious sister – argue strenuously for leftist positions on euthanasia etc by bending and twisting the faith (“if we are dying, it must be God’s will – so shouldn’t we RUN to do His will by killing ourselves?” I am paraphrasing but that was the gist. She did the same for all the DNC talking points. She wanted to church to be a handmaiden to the Democrat party. (Note – the Republican party is no prize either lately!)
The rift is not between left and right, nor between those who care about “social justice” and those who care about, I don’t know, adoration and such. It is between those who think the words of Christ ae definitive for all time, that the Church on earth is an extension of the Incarnation, not a mouthpiece for the DNC. The church is unity not uniformity, and one can as a faithful Catholic believe there are prudential judgments (in how to help the poor for example – more welfare, or more jobs?).
But some things are not prudential judgments but doctrine.
Amen.
Another screed from academia on the terminology of left-and-right as applied to the perennial Catholic Church, even as Jimmy Martin’s involved LGBTQ acronym has given an entirely new meaning to the term “left behind.”
The Body of Christ has two hands. The issue is not right or left, it is right or wrong. God is omnipotent. He will be Good no matter what we do. Christians follow His Word of Truth. Sin must be cut out of our lives if we are to be united to the Body of Christ. (Mark 1:15, Matthew 5:30)
Right on: you are truly a fool for Christ.
Well said.
So–why is no one recognizing that there are plenty of “MODERATES” in the U.S.A.?!
I consider myself a “moderate who leans conservative in most issues (voted for Pres. Trump twice and celebrated when he won!), but who also supports some of the liberal causes”.
E.g., I am totally pro-life and believe that ALL abortion, including many of the abortions that are done to supposedly “save the life of the mother”, is EVIL and needs to be outlawed, with those who break the law and provide abortion liable for arrest, trial, and punishment.
I also think that many birth control methods are evil, as they work by preventing fertilized embryos from implanting. I have no objections to the “natural family planning methods” of family planning.
I have to admit that one of the reasons why I am so opposed to abortion and other forms of infant and child murder is that currently, the U.S.A. has an alarmingly-low population and many professions, especially the health care professions and the skilled trades, are dangerously short-staffed. This is terrifying for those of us who are still fairly young Baby Boomers (and for any “Great Generation” folks who are still alive!), because who will take care of us in our old age deterioration?!!
When I was working in the hospital lab up until 2020 when my husband passed away of COVID, we were always short-staffed, as were the other departments (nursing, X-ray, respiratory, MRI, maintenance, engineering, E.R., etc.)–THIS SHOULD BE TERRIFYING to all the younger Boomers and also the “Millennials” (our children who are now mostly grown and working)!!! Again, WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF US?!
And low or stagnant population, along with all the young people who currently spend their time on their phones or playing video games instead of getting part-time jobs in fast-food restaurants and small retail outlets is another reason why our government is continually short on cash and is borrowing from the “future”, which will mean disaster for the younger Millennials as well as the Generations X, Y, etc.!! THERE AREN’T ENOUGH PEOPLE WORKING AND PAYING INTO THE TAXES!!!
I know from my own family that there are still many young people who are literally afraid to go out into the world because of the COVID pandemic and the isolation and terror that it brought to the U.S., as well as the many deaths of loved ones (like my husband, who was only 62 when he died).
This is one of the reasons that I am supportive of opening our borders to all immigrants who plan to become American citizens, get jobs, learn enough English to communicate fairly easily, and become law-abiding American citizens who don’t reject their heritage and customs, but add them to the “Melting Pot” that has characterized the U.S.A. since the beginning of our great country!
Yes, we need to deport CRIMINALS, gang members, drug pushers, etc.! And we certainly cannot allow a group of immigrants to form their own “separate country” with laws that allow violence against those they judge to be “dissenters”, “infidels”, or “rebels.”
Years ago in the 1980s, there was a large number of Asian immigrants into our country–and they have added so much to our nation’s culture! I think that we need to allow the various peoples in the world who seek freedom and are willing to work for it to enter our country and become American citizens who contribute good things to the U.S.A.
And there is plenty of room! Most cities and towns have buildings and homes that have been vacant for years. In the farm country of Illinois where I grew up, a Mexican family bought a small farm that had been vacant for decades–they lived in their trailer for many years while they worked to clean up the property, rent equipment to plow the fields and plant corn, rebuild the house and the barns, and purchase a few steers. Every time I went home, they had accomplished more of the restoration, and were becoming friends with all the other nearby farmers as well as the folks in the small town near their land. A few years ago, I went home–and found that they still had a smallish house–but they had built a RODEO STADIUM on one of their fields. This
stadium offers a weekly RODEO featuring barrel racers (mainly girls and their horses), and other traditional rodeo events. My brother (who has a family farm near them) says that on Saturday nights, the place is packed with people who PAY to go to the rodeo! And now, they not only have steers, but a herd of beautiful show horses!
I believe many immigrants are capable of great accomplishments like this because they ARE WILLING TO WORK and don’t plan to live on “government aid” or “charity.”
So if supporting legal immigration makes me a “liberal”, I’m fine with that. And if my support of ending ALL abortion makes me a “conservative,” I’m fine with that. I consider myself a true “moderate” who decides what to support based on the issues, not the “label.”
Mrs. Sharon, I do know a handful of Catholics who oppose any more *legal* immigration but those folks are outside the norm. That’s not really what’s in question.
A population of 340 million people is not low, stagnant, or declining. That is a patently ridiculous assertion.
Our population is ageing though Athanasius. And reproducing itself at a 1.65 fertility rate. That’s the problem.
School districts are already reporting declines in students. That’s going to be increasing.
Mrs. Sharon: I’m a moderate, but many on this site don’t seem to accept the possibility of such a position. If you dare to disagree with them, they label you as a “liberal “. It seems anything left of “their”right is wrong. For years I dealt with this mentality in Protestant Fundamentalistic circles. They were so narrow minded and judgmental that they would split over very trivial matters and consider those who differed as having one foot in hell. As Catholics we must avoid this mentality. We must listen to each other and realize that the other person’s convictions may disagree with ours, but they may be sincere and well meaning. And it’s all together possible that they may be a lot more sanctified than we are.
Says the person who thinks that the US under Trump is becoming Nazi Germany. And you recently referred to people as climate deniers. These are not moderate positions. They are progressive talking points.
My boy, you still don’t get it. You don’t have to be liberal to see which way President Trump is taking us. It Parallels the progression of NAZI Germany in the thirties. I did not say that he WAS a Nazi. Our government is in many ways going that direction though. For the record : although I am in no way a Liberal, I do agree with some of their positions. Just as I agree with many of the positions (not saying I agree with all of the means they are using to obtain them) of the Republican party’s talking points. I have yet to see a stated platform formulated by the party prior to the election. If you have one, please send a link. Thanks and God bless.
Pareidolia is a disorder where one infers patterns that do not exist. It can be treated. Get help.
If they would quit mandating vaccines like the flu and covid, I can think of one young man who would be very valuable in the medical profession. But it isn’t worth risking his own cardiac health for it.
First a commendable assessment of Left Right starting with French revolution politics ending with what most of us [at risk of disagreement I would say the Right] agree, a “primary commitment to Christ that rises above divisions and other allegiances” (Staudt). Therein, should there be no squabbles?
Trouble is we’re not living in a perfect world. A world in which all are members of the Mystical Body living in perfect practice. But that sounds like heaven. Reality differs.
Being that were immersed in a very imperfect world the Left, as distasteful as it may be, are a necessary evil. Pourquoi? That the world other than Roman Catholicism is quite irreligious, there’s the anomaly that Roman Catholicism itself struggles with irreligiosity. There needs be that mediating voice however leaning to the Left that inspires a search for a Ratzingerisch hermeneutic of continuity.
We socalled Rightists aren’t always right, and the Left, however uncomfortable it makes us by the serendipity of the Fates frequently offers us, if not the resolution, the direction where it’s found.
Do “Right” and “Left” Belong in the Catholic Church?”
*********
Nope.
Perhaps not, but there here and here they should stay. It’s a family problem and we must try to deal with it as such- as a family.
Is the family problem today not rather between Traditional Catholicism ad33-1962 and Post-Conciliarism, with its permanent accommodation to the Prince of this World?
Within Post-Conciliarism is situated the new right and new left with it’s openly vindicated hermenutics of continuity (ppBXVI) and discontinuity (Francis) precisely WITH Traditional Catholicism.
Is the result not rather a hybrid of Catholicism that would have been declared Apostate by all who went before ad33-1962? And is THAT not rather the problem, beyond left-right Post-Conciliar ecclesial politics?
It’s not an issue related to our Faith though Mr James.
Christianity isn’t political.
You’re correct as an Ideal, but unfortunately the reality is a different kettle of fish as both extremes in the Church have tried to force their agendas into their political boxes.
There’s a couple of other ways that the Catholic Church in the United States has gotten entwined in the partisan divide between the Left and Right: through extensive lobbying activities, and through pursuing funding through government grants and contracts to perform functions for federal programs, mainly social services and immigration-related services. (This also occurs on the state level but I will leave that out to save space.)
I can’t say that the lobbying activities are surprising, because sending out lobbyists to develop relationships with legislators and federal agencies is the readiest way to influence government policy and legislation. However, I was surprised by the extent to which organizations like the USCCB, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Relief Services, and individual dioceses are invested in lobbying and related activities such as grantsmaking. Some degree of advocacy work is probably unavoidable because Church leaders want to be able to influence decisions about core issues. But I cannot see how the Church can get heavily involved in lobbying work without coming in contact with the messy, morally debatable world of influence-peddling. That contact poses a risk to the way the Church is viewed, particularly when Church leaders such as bishops become associated with the positions of a particular party–for instance, as is currently happening with the immigration debate, where public comments by Church leaders reflect left-wing and Democratic Party poaitions. The Church may still see itself as a neutral observer and commentator on immigration matters, but much of the rest of the world does not.
What may even be riskier, in terms of getting drawn into the realm of party politics, Is taking funding through federal grants and contracts to perform services for federal programs. Some of this is unavoidable: for instance, apparently, for priests who aren’t military chaplains to serve as chaplains in military hospitals and institutions, they must be under a contractual agreement. In other situations, Church leaders are choosing to work under grants and contracts so that they can expand their charitable services.
Many programs are discretionary and under the overall purview of the Administration according to its policy priorities. Thus, programs can change considerably from one administration to the next, or even be eliminated. This, in itself, is not something essentially unjust and unfair, but just part of the way that the federal government operates. The government does not give money to nonprofit organizations to support charitable work. It contracts or makes grants for specific goods and services that would otherwise be done by federal workers, so the organizations are essentially extensions of the government for the course of the contract or grant. (Also, federal contracts and grants always have strings attached that limit what the contractor can do, so some of the Church’s usual activities may even be off-limits.)
However, this creates a big problem, because programs are often more connected to one or the other party. If the party in control of the administration cuts a program cherished by the other party, and Church organizations with contracts for that program go to bat for it (by instance, by suing the administration as happened earlier this year) then those organizations can no longer present themselves as neutral, and they will get labeled as a result. At the present moment, as Democrats and liberals.
Mary E: well put.
Thank you!
As already stated by Benay Byrne and God’s Fool, the dividing line in the Church is about belief, between those who are faithful to Jesus and the faith taught by the apostles and evangelists, and those who are not.
My sense is that describing divisions in terms of left and right serves no purpose regarding the apostolic faith.
People are united or divided by believing or disbelieving that Jesus is God-from-God, conceived by The Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified to atone for our sins, and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. Those who believe and disbelieve in the above are united by, or divided by, those beliefs.
Earthly unity, and earthy division, is a mere by-product of unity or disunity with Jesus.
Any man or woman who denies the essential beliefs of the apostolic faith is NOT united with Jesus, and therefore is likewise divided from The Body of Christ. Such men, for example Cardinal Kasper (who denies the resurrection) and Cardinal Hollerich (who denies the sexual morals taught by Jesus and St. Paul) are divided from Jesus and therefore excluded by Jesus from the Body of Christ.
Faithfulness and unfaithfulness is the cause of all divisions. That’s all.
All that matterss is what is True vs that which is not true.
All that matters is that which is of the Good vs that which is evil and sinful.
All that matters is what is of the Beautiful vs that which is sullied, ugly, distasteful.
All else is irrelevant if you’re Catholic.
Beautifully put Ed.
I agree that there shouldn’t be left or right factions within the Church. These categories, most often associated with liberalism and conservatism, are both associated with Enlightenment ideology that is problematic for Christianity. Both types of ideology have points that seem positive as well as points that are less compatible with Christianity. While it’s quite legitimate to try to sort out various solutions to political and other problems, our “ideology” should be the faith. That was the worldview in the Christian West before the Enlightenment.
The recent synod left several unresolved issues perhaps due to the passing of Pope Francis.
What are the rules on whether a priest can/ must marry LGBT couples? What are the rules, organizationally, for priests who rape young people? For both victim and predator? China executes 10,000 to 13,000 prisoners per year. America’s numbers fluctuate, about 20 – 30. The French Revolution guillotined some 45,000 – 50, 000, over several years. What is the church’s position, globally, on the death penalty?
I question whether left – right labels align with our reality.
Well, where we live they’re trying to reinstate the death penalty for child rapists. I don’t as much care what a religious order or diocesan rules are in those instances. These sorts of crimes should have immediately been turned over to law enforcement. Not an order or bishop.
Hopefully going forward we’ve learned that lesson.
The problem we face in the Catholic Church today involves a battle between those whose goals are to change infallible Church teachings versus those who recognize infallibility. This country was founded on Christian principles. Today we face a culture that supports the atheistic principles of abortion, gay relationships, including gay marriage, and transgenderism with the sexual mutilation of children. This has led to the persecution of Christians, which have been branded as “hateful” because of their belief in marriage as defined by God, which is a single union between a man and a woman. Gay relationships are an abomination before God. Thus, the problem goes beyond simply political disagreement between the right and the left.
Precisely.
Political sentiments aren’t unidimensional, so representing them as falling along along a left/right line is foolish inside or outside the Church.
In the context of US politics today I find this statement of the author’s problematic.
“The right-left divide in recent decades now mostly breaks along the lines of those who support traditional values within modern democracy (the new right) versus those continuing to push the revolution against any form of traditional authority and morality (the new left).”
In many respects it can be said that the current administration is in the process of undermining the pillars of US democracy and does not fit the accepted definition of conservative. Steven Miller’s recent statement that President Trump has plenary power is one example. It is now undeniable that the agenda outlined in Project 2025 is being implemented. There is a very strong connection to a catholic contingency from the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society in the work of Leonard Leo and Kevin Roberts. Both have strong links with Opus Dei and it can be said that Opus Dei operates somewhat under a cloak of mystery.
It would seem that if we are to follow Jesus then he gave many indicators in his teaching and his actions in response to the issues of his day. His ministry was against the way if the zealots in addressing the political situation in Israel at the time. The priesthood of Jesus was in the order of Melchizedek. He rallied against the Levitical priesthood of the time.
Jesus call us, his followers, to be of the kingdom of heaven and to be salt of the earth. Salt is a preservative. It stops things from going rotten.
In the political dimension it can be said that politics goes rotten at the extremes of left and right. The battle against the extremes of the left were up front during the last century.
It seems that we have entered a time when the extremes of the right are mow needing to be addressed.
My heart grieves at the trajectory that the current Republican Government’s trajectory and hope that we all answer the call of Jesus to know him and follow him as Priest in the order of Melchizedek, to be salt of the earth, to ascribe to the kingdom of heaven while living the reality of our time on earth.
“In many respects it can be said that the current administration is in the process of undermining the pillars of US democracy”
And when “democracy” (the idea that when responsible voters are displeased by the elected, so they change them) is deformed into a charade when those in power, either through election or appointment are displeased by the voters, they change them through invasion, dependency, the investiture of power into the administrative state or the courts or other chicaneries) then what?
Your post is as risible as it is transparently partisan.
Dear Pitchfork Rebel, In some respects, I found your reply to my post a bit difficult to understand. I was in two minds as to whether to respond. I figure you are somewhat disenchanted with the manner in which democracy is conducted in the US.
As you ask the question “and then what?” I will endeavour to give a thoughtful answer because this question brings me to the central point of my post.
Having studied revolutionary history and having questions of how to make the world a better place during my youth, a journey incidentally that led me to a renewed commitment to following Jesus, I became aware of some of the key factors that enabled governments of Western democracies to prosper while governments of the extreme left, the communist nations, failed to prosper in a similar manner. I will try to keep this short. Those nations that had a revolution or an overthrow of an established government replaced that former system with an authoritarian model in the absence of effective checks and balances, the rule of law etc, the other accountability mechanisms. Even if the leadership of such a change is benevolent and has the needs of the people at heart there is no longer the safeguard in place to prevent an overthrow of leadership by a malevolent leader as happened in the Russian revolution.
The great advantage that a democracy has are effective these effective checks balances so all power does not reside in the executive. It is essential the US does not do away with this advantage. I hold a position that even with some level of dysfunction a democracy intact with effective checks and balances , the rule of law l, independent judiciary and policing and military, a free press that speaks truth to power, etc etc is better than the alternative. This was the great advantage that the UK USA, France Australia, Canada etc had over the governments born of revolution where authoritarian regimes becsme the government.
The indicators are many. I see America is in the process of throwing that advantage away. I used to fear the radical left movements may achieve what have outlined a above so my fewr is not of a partisan nature I can assure you.
The last point i would like to make is that of the importance of the separation of church and state. The state is of this world. Irrespective of the particular partisan government in power being conservative or progressive, left or right, a church that is embedded or entwined in that government will end up doing deals with the devil. I chose in a very deliberate manner not to chose the ways of this world, in my vocation, my marriage, how i earn my living.
In reference to the values and principles of the Kingdom of Heaven, all examples of earthy government are compromised. For the followers of Jesus my take is to approach with extreme caution and avoid entanglement.
You know of course that the USA was born from a revolution also? Or war of secession, civil war, etc