Modern politics go to extremes.
There are a variety of reasons for that. One is that modern thought likes to draw far-reaching conclusions from a few simple principles. In the natural sciences, where exact verification is possible, it has been extremely productive.
In politics, it leads to insanity.
That’s what has happened to liberalism. It once seemed moderate, practical, and reform-minded. Its belief in the rule of law and constitutional protections for individual rights seemed part of that. But the logic of those principles said otherwise. Liberal rights famously evolve, and they trump practical considerations, so the liberal right to equal freedom eventually comes to require the eradication of all traditionally accepted human distinctions.
The result is that liberal rationality has gone insane, and liberalism itself has become extreme and illiberal.
The Great Awokening, which began in earnest a decade or so ago and reached its peak in 2020, was the collapse of liberal moderation in favor of the progressive radicalism that now dominates respectable opinion. The latter has softened a bit, at least temporarily, but the former seems unlikely to return. Basic liberal commitments leave no principled case to make against radicalism. “You’re right, but you’re in too much of a hurry” is not a winning political slogan in the face of what have come to be considered the demands of basic justice and decency.
But is Catholic political thought different? Does it also go to extremes, at least when it can? Influential people think so. Are they right?
Standards of extremism vary. Rejection of transgenderism is commonly considered extreme today. And even people who are willing to concede some legitimacy to that position are likely to consider those who think there are differences between the sexes that sometimes give men a legitimate advantage—for example, in the military—to be simply bigots.
Others, of course, believe that today’s progressive views demonstrate deep deficiencies in public thought. Sexual differences go back to Adam and Eve, and perhaps hundreds of millions of years before that. What sense, they ask, does it make to consider them a human construction with no special significance?
Such disputes are notoriously difficult to decide in a way that seems rational to both sides. We should nonetheless make the attempt.
Concepts such as God, sin, and “no salvation outside the Church” certainly have extreme aspects. And the saints are known for doing extreme things. If Catholic social and political views follow from basic Catholic beliefs, as they should, it seems they would have extreme aspects as well.
But there are other considerations. One is the Christian injunction to respect the powers that be. That injunction has been ingrained among Catholics to a degree some have found excessive, as with the 1933 Reichskonkordat with Germany and the current Vatican deal with China. So it has sometimes led to a degree of cooperation with extremist regimes, to the extent needed to secure permission for the Church to operate. Even so, it leaves little room for the Church to pursue its own forms of political extremism.
Another is that Catholic thought insists on the human tendency to make a mess of things, and the acute need for each of us to guard against that tendency. An implication of that insistence is an emphasis on caution in practical affairs, including politics.
Still another consideration is the emphasis on the authority of the hierarchy, which values its independence from secular powers, and whose training and concerns differ radically from those of politicians and secular officials. These qualities favor a generally arm’s-length approach to practical politics. In addition, the Catholic hierarchy runs a very large and very ancient organization, so its members have personal as well as long institutional experience of the practical difficulties of governing. That experience inculcates realism.
The most basic consideration, perhaps, is that Catholicism is not fundamentally about politics, and does not put its hope there. Some very influential people in the Church have been trying to change that in recent decades: consider, for example, the pronouncements of the Synod on Synodality, which seem to make the Faith mostly a matter of promoting solutions to global social problems, as defined from a progressive perspective.
But this politicizing tendency is likely to be transitory, and is not truly radical in any event. Whatever may have been true decades ago, the people now attached to such projects are mostly aging religious professionals who are more interested in their careers and the memories of their youth than radical social transformation. As such, their “radicalism” is likely to consist mostly of verbal support for progressive initiatives such as unrestricted migration that are already being pushed by powerful mainstream institutions.
That situation is unlikely to change. Ordinary people—and talented young people choosing careers—probably will not bother with the Church if she only tells them the same things as secular political movements, but with the addition of religious rhetoric, baggage from the past that must constantly be explained away, and a requirement, however vestigial, of obedience. So the effort to make the Church basically about the progressive version of social justice means a weak and imitative church run by mediocrities. Such a church can pose no threat of extremism.
It seems clear, then, that Catholicism is fundamentally biased against political extremism. But how, as a practical matter, has that worked out?
To start with, the grossest form of extremism—terrorism or religiously motivated violence—has been rare among Catholics. The Rhineland Massacres during the Crusades provide an example. But mindless mob violence partially motivated by greed is not usually counted as terrorism or even as political.
The Gunpowder Plot, in which Catholics plotted to blow up the House of Lords as part of a scheme to bring about a Catholic restoration, and the Catholic anti-communist group Black Hand in Slovenia, which was active during the Second World War, are more distinct examples of terrorist efforts. During the latter period, many Catholics—notably in Croatia—also supported right-wing regimes that engaged in terrorist conduct. But the support was, in most cases, a response to violence in a period in which good alternatives seemed hard to find.
That’s not many clear-cut examples, and it’s hard to think of others other than a very few violent anti-abortion activists. Some Catholics, including clerics, aligned themselves with violent revolutionaries under the inspiration of liberation theology during the post-1965 period. But it is not clear how often that went beyond verbal expressions of sympathy with movements whose basic inspiration was not Catholic at all.
Compared with secular and certain other religious tendencies, Catholics and Catholic organizations seem unusually resistant to the appeal of political violence.
But what about Catholic political behavior when aligned with power?
Integralism, which might be defined as the view that Catholicism ought to play a political role rather like that now played by the liberal conception of human rights, is commonly considered extreme. And indeed a pope like Innocent III exercised extensive political power—organizing crusades, intervening in the choice of emperors, annulling Magna Carta, and so on.
But some view of man and the world always provides the setting for politics. Why is Catholicism a worse choice than an ever-changing understanding of human rights that easily becomes overreaching? The question is not whether there is a social orthodoxy—there always is, in any reasonably coherent and functional society—but what the consequences of whatever the orthodoxy might be.
And in fact, Catholic rule has generally been comparatively mild. As the Germans said when there were Prince-Bishops, “Es ist gut leben unter dem Krummstab”—it’s good to live under the crozier. The example thought to demonstrate the essential extremism of Catholicism is the Inquisition, and prosecutions for heresy generally. But when stripped of Black Legends and other exaggerations, such conduct seems much more limited than recent secular persecutions of opinion.
Liberalism itself has persecuted opinion, sometimes violently, as during the French Revolution, and sometimes not violently but nonetheless steadily, as in present-day Britain.
Neither theory nor history suggests that a religion that places its ultimate hope in God’s action is more at risk of abusive conduct—which is, perhaps, the best definition of extremism—than secular faiths that put their hope in the organized physical force of state action.
What reason is there to think otherwise?
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.
Some good points about the Leftist extremism of Democrats, but little about Republicans vectoring too far right. Balance?
Honestly speaking, I’m not sure that the average Republican is an extremist. For many decades, neocons and RINOs steered the party, and there was not really much of a difference between the parties from a practical standpoint. I think Republicans are moving from the center & center/left to the right, which is actually an appropriate course correction. We should be upholding the rule of law, deporting illegals, and offering economic opportunities for people. I think that half of the issues in our country would disappear relatively quickly if people were thriving economically.
Yes,upholding the rule of law, deporting illegals,but adhering to the Constitution. For example, tariffs are a tax, which according to the Constitution are the realm of the Congress, not the President. Being conservative and Right Wing are not the same. Mussolini was not a conservative. He was a right Wing dictator. Supporting right wing dictators is not “conservative.”
Mussolini was a fascist, so he was left wing, not right wing.
Mussolini and Hitler were right wing. Stalin was Left Wing. All were deplorable.
Since when was Mussolini left wing? Read History! Or has Trump changed that too?
No. “Right wing” was a pejorative used by the Communists against the Fascists because they were slightly to the right of the communists themselves. Both were of course massively behind extreme central planning, the polar opposite of what the right believes. Both wanted to wipe out all history and tradition that went before, both were virulent socialists – Mussolini was a socialist his entire life- though one group believed in socialism in the national form while the other wanted to bring it internationally (hence the anthem , “The Internationale”. The Communists took over the means of production directly, while the Fascists, like the leftists/Democrats in the USA, prefer the control of businesses via excessive regulation and micromanaging, which was a win/win for Germany: they got all of the benefits of the many many industries they controlled, while taking on none of the risk, which remained with the putative owners. And hatred of the Jews is something today’s left has in common with National Socialism.
Nazism and communism are two sides of the exact same coin, and that the Nazis referred to as leftists only because the Communists were sneering at them, is well known by academics in historians today. Unfortunately, many many people were badly educated into a simple, black and white, Fascists-are-right-wing but of nonsense. I think about it. It doesn’t even make any sense at all. Everything the fascist stand for, control of entrepreneurs in industry, massive, central planning, etc., is an anathema to conservatives.
William, James Connor, and everyone else propagandized into simplistic history, Athanasius::
Any desire to change the world, in any form, is leftism, an intrinsic evil. All ideologies are evil. Ideologies are premised on the notion that truth is manmade and malleable. Authentic religion, which is labled “right wing,” rejects the vanity of all human ideology and insists that truth never changes. Klanners, Nazis, Fascists, Maoists and other communists, and revolutionaries of every variety, are all leftists.
“tariffs are a tax, which according to the Constitution are the realm of the Congress, not the President. ”
Several statutes that may authorize the President or an executive agency to impose tariffs under various circumstances are currently in effect. Here are six: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; Sections 122, 201, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930; and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. These laws afford varying degrees of discretion to the President. For example, some of these statutes require an executive agency to conduct an investigation and make certain findings as a prerequisite to raising tariffs.
Congress should have some input on an issue of taxation. Trump is filling a vacuum due to the cowardice and incompetence of Congress. It would have gone much better had there been a well planned grand strategy, rather than emotional, shoot from the hip type tariffs. The tariff action with Canada appeared to be emotional bullying, rather than planned targeting of certain industries.
Many of the tariffs made no sense, such as with Kenya and coffee. We don’t grow coffee in the US. Why punish Kenya?
You praise Trump no matter how little sense his trade policies make. I could agree with Trump tariffs if they made sense.
Hitler was a leftist. His party was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. Socialism is left wing, not right wing. Same with Mussolini. Historians have established this. The centrality of the state above all else is a leftist principle, not a right wing idea.
Among the essential attributes of what is so inadequately called left wing are atheism, collectivism, and statism. It was no accident that until Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Nazi Germany and the USSR were allied.
It’s almost amusing that they stammer indignantly with all the rage conjured from the political nonsense gleaned from a distortions of 7th grade social studies book from 1975 or a contemporary college government class.
Then again, they all the other great monsters of history. Castro, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. I’m not sure why they huff and puff over Hitler
Totalitarian is as totalitarian does. Right & Left are just labels. Those who suffer under totalitarian regimes don’t really care what flavor those regimes identify as.
Good summary
Your “example” is another of your many fraudulent assertions. A tarriff is not a tax. Even if it has a temporary effect of a limited raising of prices on some imports, it generates more revenue from exports which has greater economic benefit to more Americans. You should be less gullible towards monolithic propaganda. The long term effect of tariffs is to lower prices.
Where is this happening?
You really need to get help for your political hallucinations.
What do you mean?
That’s a placement error, not meant for you.
I write about the left because I take them more seriously than the right. Their views seem to me more unified, and they align more with dominant tendencies in public thought. The right as it actually exists seems to me more reactive and lacking in vision. So it’s harder to see it as an a live alternative to an overall Catholic view of things.
Maybe it’s simplest to say that progressivism is a substitute for religion. There’s no real equivalent to that on the right. So I’m more concerned about the left.
The left is not “unified”, it’s conformist. There’s a reason they are described as hive-minded and with the “NPC” meme. Their “locus of identity” is pathologically external. It’s also why something like the “Talking Points Memo”, which debuted 11/12/2000 and still persists and why that political cohort constantly cries for “leadership” (by which they mean submission to an approved position, enforced through coercion or violence if necessary). They also have a tendency to call for “vision” which is equally nebulous.
Of course, assuming that political sentiments are unidimensional and can be depicted along a line segment is a gross oversimplification, perhaps worse than those bowling ball on a bed sheet depictions of how mass distorts space-time to produce gravity. Political sentiments might be mapped in a geometric object, but it would be in a tesseract or higher dimensional hypercube, not on a line segment. It’s especially noxious when one assumes that “the center” is correct or amiable.
People have all sorts of preferences that combine into final disposition.
“Political correctness” implies a correct answer to every question, “wokeness” an obvious social reality that anybody can see just by looking about him. It seems to me progressives really do understand the world that way. The “approved position” is indeed articulated by an elite – that’s true of every political movement – but there’s rarely much doubt about what it is.
So it really does seem to me that progressivism is a generally unified tendency with a distinct logic behind it, certainly as political tendencies go. It’s true, as you note, that the views of particular people vary randomly, and they’re often incoherent, but I think it’s still possible to identify progressivism as a particular distinct and very influential tendency.
MAGA has morphed into a religion with its own orange faced messiah, who, many of his followers appear to believe is infallible. What is your take on MAGA which often borders on idolatry?
The Left has its excesses of course, but the Right does not? Read the comments on this website and see the almost religious devotion to MAGA. What is your take on this?
I think your perspective is fundamentally dishonest and manipulative, truth be told, and you know that. No one is “religiously devoted to MAGA.” That is an ad hominem attack and a straw man. Most thoughtful people are well aware of Trump’s faults and limitations, but they see him as the only viable alternative to people like Obama, Biden, Clinton, and other leftists. If you focused more on policies than personality, you might be able to see and understand this. Your commitment to progressive ideology is far more dangerous to our republic than anything that comes from the right at this moment in our history.
But most MAGA people are not thoughtful. Also, I am not a “progressive.” I am a classic conservative. MAGA is not conservative, it is right wing.
I’m not necessarily a MAGA person. But it’s really more about populism than a particular cult idol. Populism can have its good points. And it can have its excesses. People are attracted to populist candidates because they’re outside the Establishment & often get things done. If you don’t like what’s being done that’s a separate conversation I think.
And being a populist leader can be very dangerous. Ask Huey Long or Donald Trump.
Stop projecting.
We all remember when the press told us Obama had an “incandescent intellect” and “he was watching us watch him” and when his acolytes swayed in unison with lighters held aloft in Grant Park on election night 2008.
And of course Bill Clinton was supposed to be a genius because he was a Rhodes Scholar…
William, You are supposedly looking for balance, but your question is so biased as it is. You already know the answer that you want, why do you even ask? What if someone gives you an answer that you don’t like? Are you looking for a fight?
Crossing swords with nitwits can be entertaining. Most MAGA types cannot think critically, they just parrot right wing bromides. Their blind allegiance to Trump is curious. He is such an obvious fraud, a shill for the billionaires, yet the MAGA crowd cannot seem to grasp it. Idolatry pure and simple.
You are projecting and fantasizing, as usual.
I think if you lived in Illinois, you might have a different perspective on Pres. Trump’s policies. Total all the state taxes you pay in the Prairie State (none of it benefits you or your city)–open that tax bill and weep!
I moved to Missouri and pay 2.79/gal at the most for gas. (If I’m alert, I can find places that are selling it for 2.39/gal.) I also get a break on my state taxes because I am a senior citizen.
When I go home to Illinois, I spend 3.59-3.79/gal for gas. I think most of that money goes to the state Democratic bureaucracy, mainly to inner city Chicago, to the Univ. of Illinois, and to the abortion clinics which are everywhere in Illinois.
Next time elections are held, check out the Illinois “red/blue” map–you’ll see that the only “blue” sections are all of the Chicago area and all of Champaign-Urbana (40,000 college students, plus faculty members.). The REST OF ILLINOIS VOTES RED for Republicans–but there aren’t enough people in all of those Red counties combined to be able to overpower the population of Chicago and Champaign-Urbana! (Just a note–many Illinoisians think those “blue” votes out of Chicago come from beyond the grave–maybe that’s what the “Reds” should do?!)
William: Since you asked. My take is that you are sadly ignorant. Without a sense of irony and without critical intelligence you parrot left wing narratives. The concept of a political spectrum began with the Frence Revolution, where, within their assemblies, the revolutionaries insisted on sitting on the left, and relegated everyone else to sit on the right, the religious, the doubters of revolution, and the actual poor, everyone they viewed as suitable for the guillotine.
Trump’s anti-elitist values are clearly an affront to invincibly stubborn accolytes of state power and phony enlightenment.
I find that those who are practical atheists i.e. have no lived experience/relationship with God evetually wind up worshipping the Self and the State. Worship of God tempers both.
MAGA seems to ring of state worship!
That’s your thing.
How long have you suffered from political tinnitus?
MAGA kind of feels more like a rejection of the Big State, Brother Jacques. More about populism. For better and for worse.
Br. Jaques: Yet another instance when your leftist woke TDS inanity rises to the surface.
Just the opposite. When and where did you acquire your Orwellian mind?
Speaking of foot stomping and holding your ground Nancy has finally announced her retirement.
That’s good news. Thank you.
I hope and pray that God will give her enough time to put her spirituality in order. She knows the Catholic faith, she claims she believes it, but the demands of politics forced her to choose the wrong path, even to the extent of weaponizing the faith. I never liked her, but for some reason, I am afraid for her now that she is really, really old. And it’s not even charity on my part. I am just so scared of hell that the thought of anyone ending there terrifies me.
Yay!! It’s about time! She needs to go home and take care of all the homeless people who live in her city and camp out around her giant mansion. Isn’t care for the homeless a Democratic concern?
Ever since she ripped up Pres. Trump’s State of the Union address on national TV, I have had NO RESPECT for her! This kind of childish behavior is totally inappropriate for an elected high official who supposedly supports democracy and the will of the people. I don’t recall any Republicans ripping up any of Pres. Biden’s speeches, and when the President faltered in his “debate” with Donald Trump, Mr. Trump reacted with, IMO, gentleness and compassion–a little humor, but he applied that humor to himself, too–it wasn’t “mean-spirited” or demeaning. When Speaker Pelosi ripped up a Presidential speech, I was reminded of a little girl who was mad at her teacher and ripped up her “failed test” to express herself instead of asking the teacher, “What can I do to make up for this failure on my part?”
I think ripping up the State of the Union address was something planned ahead of time.
They were still upset Hillary wasn’t giving the speech!
Just reflect on where the poir dear received her “Catholic” university education.
I’ve read where people have been copying her investments and beating the market handily even as high as it’s been. Can anyone in that business sorta vouch for that?
She denies any insider info being moved around.
The only real oligarchy exists in the liberal establishment. Liberals involved in graft, insider trading, etc, are non-prosecutable because they are “for the people.” Oh, neither are rape and murder.
The whole “oligarchy”/ “autocracy” thing makes me laugh harder since the Democrats removed their candidate and replaced him with the laughing hyena-not single vote cast.
Extremism, or “complexity”?
We live in an era of photo ops, slogans, abbreviated “texting” and memes. Is the term “extremism” also a meme? Does it falsely imply a middle ground when (as Kalb affirms) the reality of the incarnate Jesus Christ cannot be reduced to a middle ground between political “extremes”?
Take, for example, the passing remark that Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta. Extremism, or complexity…
The Magna Carta arose in a complicated context. It’s a listing of rights violated by King John, based on the earlier Charter of Rights granted by Henry I. The principal author of the Magna Carta was Stephen Langton, a Catholic archbishop (!). The broad intricacy of Church-State entanglement involved papal financial expectations from England to help prevent the German Hohenstaufen dynasty from taking Sicily, plus threats of interdict and invasion, plus the fact that King John had made England a papal fief, plus the immediate fact that Langton’s pope (Innocent III) then opposed the Magna Carta as having been extracted under duress by the barons (whom he excommunicated), and under oath which the pope regarded as invalid without his sanction. A revised version was produced in 1225 (Innocent died in 1216).
Complexity and selective optics? Media-driven politics today, (the 24-hour news cycle) is crippled by near-sightedness and amnesia, and could learn from the fact that the early 17th-century scientific world produced the twin inventions of the microscope and the telescope. Together, a complex and yet coherent picture.
It’s almost as if the Second Vatican Council was onto something when it combined “aggiornamento” (engagement with the world) together with “ressourcement” (a return to sources–like the well-grounded Church Fathers and the historicity of the Gospels and the witnessed Incarnation).
In politics, it leads to insanity. What does? Modern thought that draws extreme conclusions from simple principles, basing its hopes on the physical force of state action (synopsis on Kalb opening argument).
From this writer’s perspective Catholicism has reduced itself amid the influence of modernism, as might be predicted by Pius X into a whining puppy. Faith in God Kalb says does not risk abuse of opinion as seriously as liberalism. Perhaps the closing query whether we might think otherwise may be best responded by regarding our voice, loud and clear in remembrance and deference to the early Church in not too distant circumstances.
No mention of Saul Alinsky?
To what end need he be mentioned?
By otherwise, I agree with Kalb, although I include reference to the interpretation by liberals that the simple difference of belief in context of opinion is perceived as an illegal attack on democracy, which leaves Catholics with little option other than standing openly and strong on what we’ve been commissioned to witness to.
Political extremism exists on BOTH sides of the spectrum and both are equally dangerous in different ways and must be exposed and avoided. Catholics are misled and used by both ends. To be anti ( you fill in a name ) does not automatically make one pro ( you fill in a name). Many on this site can’t seem to get this through their heads. As Catholics we must stand with ALL of the teachings of the Church which frequently cross party lines. It’s time to stop rationalizing actions and ideals which are not in line with Catholic teachings. Pro life and pro environment, for instance, both are part of our teaching and should be upheld. Some issues are more important than others, but that does not mean that some should be ignored or rejected. Not all people need to work on all issues, not all are called to the same ministries. Scripture teaches us that there are many members of the body and all are important and none should be scorned. To be pro one doesn’t mean you are anti another. It’s time to work together and try to understand each other with respect and charity. There’s a lot of work to be done and much can be accepted if we all work together for the common good. We have a new Pope and we must be willing to listen to him and work with him. We don’t need to agree with him all the time, but we must respect, love and support him. His job is not an easy one and we must not question his every move or motive. He’s human and will make mistakes. If we can’t give him the benefit of doubt,perhaps it would be best for all to leave the Church and join others of like minds. Our in fighting is used by the Devil to cause the world to mock us so they will not take us seriously. Why be a Catholic if this is the way they act? The world is watching our every move and our actions should be in line with our words. Enough said. I am trying to change, are you?
Do you have anything but tedious hyperventilation and tu quoque arguments?
I’m not sure if I agree with everything you post on this site Mr. James but I basically agree with your comments here. Thank you.
Yes, being prolife means more than opposing feticide. We have increasing euthanasia, IVF , etc. I belief prolife usually means anti death penalty also. But we can start throwing things into the mix that really are more about using prudential judgment and issues Christians can legitimately hold different views on.
God bless!
@Mrscracker, I am not pro-life because that phrase has been subverted to equivocate executing convicted, depraved murderers with killing innocent babies. I refuse to play that game.
I don’t concern myself w/ the moving goalposts of what being “pro-life” is; I’m not pro-life; I’m completely anti-abortion. That’s the hill I’ll die on & no other social issue needs to be tacked onto it.
For me, it’s easiest to take it as a single issue, because it really is a singular evil. I’m anti-abortion & that’s enough.
I’m anti -feticide, also.
This post is a good example of thinking that is deeply disconnected from political and social realities. Extremism on both sides. Do you actually believe that or are you just being dishonest and manipulative? Which side of the political spectrum supports: transitioning children in service to the transgender agenda; drag queen story hour in libraries; abortion through the 9th month of pregnancy; open borders; the weaponization of government agencies to silence opposition; anti-white discrimination & antisemitism; socialistic wealth redistribution; woke ideologies; assisted suicide; and homosexuality as normative? No reasonable person on the right embraces and supports any of those issues. Those are leftist policies.
You claim that people should work together. Really? How exactly is that going to happen from a practical standpoint? How are we to go about establishing consensus when it is clear and obvious that people have radically different ideas about what the common good is?
Lastly, you claim to be “trying to change.” Really? Since when? You recently posted here that you think America is turning into Nazi Germany and that Trump is Hitler. You called people “climate deniers.” Your posts are often nothing more than NPR/DNC talking points. Forgive me if I take your assertion with a grain of salt.
“Dishonest and manipulative.” You use that phrase constantly and engage in insult as debate. You are not convincing anyone.
James Connor, you said: ” As Catholics we must stand with ALL of the teachings of the Church which frequently cross party lines.” How often do the teachings of the Church cross over to the other side? Thanks.
Extremism means absolutely nothing. If you insist that the law should protect the unborn, you are an “extremist”, if you believe marriage is between one man and one woman and is indissoluble except by death, you are an “extremist”. If you believe that a person is born with an immutable sex and attempts to alter it are merely mutilation, you are an “extremist”.
In a relativistic society where even the most objective fact is be seen through the lens of private belief, the temptation to argumentum ad temperantiam argument is deep, but it’s still a fallacy. In spite of what one Brittany Marshall “tweeted” five years ago 2+2 always equals four.
Permission to murder soon to be born, vulnerable and defensive babies, is permission to murder anyone, anywhere and anyhow.
Exactly – it’ll end up that way. Didn’t mother Theresa say something to that effect? What’s then stopping them from killing you?
Today presents a political morass. I did not realize that Liberal politics was “WOKE”. Is there an “extreme Liberal, like extreme/radical/lunatic “Right and Left? I am struggling with Red and Blue states. I prefer to see political ORDER, not polarization. Red, White and Blue, please.
Webster: “A Liberal believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change.” How active? Can dogma save the lesser of us? Catholic strictures can be daunting. Ex: The Catholic Catechism. The Doxology is daunting. Will I be lost to Gehennah if I don’t condemn transgenderism? Should I be the first to cast the stone?
My devoted Catholic family has forever been Liberal Democrats. They may have been confused, saying “priests were ALL Republicans.” When I became an altar server, I discovered that that was only partially true. Interesting when my mom told us not to use “all-inclusives”.
Dogmatic excerpt challenging prothelization: “Sexual differences go back to Adam and Eve, and perhaps hundreds of millions of years before that.” Was Adam created from dust? Was Eve really created from Adam’s rib? Would an all-loving God create the female subordinate for eyons?
The Church continues to place holy women in that darkness. It took women’s suffrage to bring women from the political darkness. Fast-forward to 2025…
In just 8 months, Trump has caused havoc across the nation and around the world. Some obviously sinful political acts.
COVID pandemic: Purposely delayed the development of the vaccine, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. He was told, “Testing is showing more cases.” His response… “Just stop the testing.”
January 6, 2021: Trump incited the incursion of the US Capitol, causing the deaths of Capitol defenders. There were more than 1500 convicted criminals that Trump later pardoned. Several invaders have returned to crime.
The national strangulation of the Government shutdown: The longest in US history, and by far, the most disruptive and cruel. Polarization runs rampant with no end in sight. Legislation has stopped while important bills are left on the shelf. House Speaker Johnson has sent House members home for more than one month for nefarious reasons. He refuses to swear in a newly elected congresswoman, leaving her constituents without representation.
The current madness will be hard to fix. I would offer that we pray often and hold more Town Halls to flush them out.
On August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was finally ratified, enfranchising all American women and declaring for the first time that they, like men, deserve all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
I don’t consider the shutdown of the government “cruel”–in my city, many organizations, especially churches, have taken it upon themselves to provide what the government usually provides for the poor, the homeless, the victims of natural disasters, etc., rather than sitting back and complaining that the government is abandoning people in need. And I’m pretty certain those involved on the “front lines” of those churches and charities are receiving rewards in their hearts!
This is the way it SHOULD BE!–a church or charitable organization providing food is going to have a lot less bureaucracy and expense than a government organization that has to pay employees, consultants, rent for a building (or for a brand new building!), insurance and other overheads, transportation costs, etc. Churches and other local charitable organizations appeal to their congregations and to the citizens to step up and get involved–and this feels GOOD rather than like “taxation” to us citizens! (Plus we can deduct charitable donations from our income taxes!)
As for those who are out-of-work–well, I believe that wise people will always keep in mind that they may be unable to work for some reason–and save some money and resources for such a time. I also believe that family, friends and neighbors, and of course, churches, should step up and help those who have been “laid off” or who are lacking the government benefits that once provided them with necessities. And I believe that all employers should pay their employees a “living wage.” Sadly, many of the jobs (e.g., fast food) that once were reserved for teenagers and college students are now held by adults who for various reasons don’t have an adequate education to qualify for a job that pays a living wage–and these jobs are forced to pay $20/hour or more instead of the minimum wage that they used to pay 16-year old kids.
I watch a lot of HGTV, and even though I enjoy seeing the beautiful homes, I cringe wondering how many Americans decide to “remodel their home” and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (usually on credit) for this privilege. Or how many people feel obligated to “update their wardrobes” constantly, and buy expensive makeup and hair products, or join expensive health clubs to walk instead of just finding a safe park or neighborhood to walk in? How many of us have credit card debt that is more than our annual income?! How many of us take vacations to Hawaii or Europe instead of to local or state parks and museums? And most of all, how many of us (me, me, me!) go OUT to eat several times a week instead of enjoying a simple and cheaper meal at home?
All his life Pres. Trump (and his father before him) has provided Americans with JOBS that pay a living wage–have you ever noticed that none of his previous employees have ever spoken against him or have contracted to write a book titled “Donald Trump–A Scrooge Reincarnation: My Life of Slavery and Low Pay Working for Him!”
And take a good look at his kids–ALL of them helped campaign, and Barron actually took charge of getting the YOUNG PEOPLE to vote for his father! NONE of these kids have been found guilty of any crimes or shocking scandals. And ALL of them were present at his inauguration. Did you know that he requires all his kids to WORK when they are old enough?–they spent time doing various jobs with his construction projects and learned from the professionals who were doing the building! (His father did the same for Donald while he was growing up.)
Finally, consider the alternative candidate–you would have preferred to have Kamala Harris as your POTUS? No matter what you think of Pres. Trump, Pres. Harris would have been…well, she would look beautiful and has a cute giggle. You had two realistic choices–Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, and most of us apparently voted for the more qualified candidate. Thank God for our country and our leaders!
The reason morganD sees the government shutdown as “cruel” is because he/she/it/they (can’t presume anything with leftist) has a demonstrated commentary indicating a strong affinity to what is called the “political left” with most of the usual attributes, including state idolatry. In addition they don’t think or reason, they emote.
Misusing a word like “cruel” to define the partial shutdown belies a disordered emotional attachment. On the contrary, the cruelty of government is experienced when it is open, issuing diktats and engaged in perfidious legerdemain, yoking the grandchildren of the grandchildren of the diminishing number of the unborn to an insurmountable debt burden. (This is clearly usury).
The same people that cherry-pick Encyclicals to pick pockets and demand the construction of government bureaus never stop to consider the every growing governmental debt which is used to buy votes, engage in social engineering and fund continual war might need to have this part of Paragraph 24 of Populorum Progresso applied:
“24. If certain landed estates impede the , general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”
What’s sad about your clearly well considered effort is that it is futile. If the left doesn’t regard government as a deity, it regards it as a maternal entity and like any small toddler having a meltdown when fearful of separation from mommy, no amount of rational argumentation will have any bearing on their discontent.
Dear Pitchfork. The cruel shutdown is not partial.
I was hesitant to offer a response to your complicated and somewhat conflated response. I had much trouble trying to “bulletize” the “themes”. The main theme seems to be cruelty. Cruelty takes on several manifestations. The current administration seems to be the most visible and main catalyst for cruelty. Cruelty is a mortal sin. The execution of the innocent unborn. The abandonment of the ill seniors.
>SNAP. The removal of food stamps and the emergence of food banks have forced even hungry homeless Vets to wait in long lines to seek help from benevolent citizens. Political cruelty.
>USAID. Cruel dismantling U.S. foreign assistance to Southern Sudan, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of babies. Their farming fields are dust. They can’t grow crops. Trump’s EO let food and medical supplies sit rotting on warehouse decks.
>ICE cruelty needs little explanation. The optics are truly horrifying.
>Trump one. Immigration one. Hack Stephen Miller cruelly separated mothers from their babies. Today, there are still children not united with their families.
Say a prayer that cruelty is exposed and does not evolve into an autocracy.
It was partial. The essential functions continued. I go to a gym and work out with active duty military. They remained in active service and were paid.
More emotionalism:
“ICE cruelty needs little explanation. The optics are truly horrifying.”
Not a single feigned indignity in your predictable screed involves any objective fact.
Horrifying is fearing that you operate a motor vehicle.
“Not a single feigned indignity in your predictable screed involves any objective fact.”
In one sentence, you have captured the essence of most of morganD’s posts here over the years.
I think home ec should be a required year in high school – both sexes
There is so much fraud in these programs. Able bodied people refusing to work or not reporting income so they keep getting their benefits. It’s not as black and white às you think.
Many Trump voters voted for him as the classic “lesser of two evils.” You however, seem to regard him as some sort of heroic figure. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR all rolled into one. Agreed that Harris was a terrible candidate, but your idolization of Trump is puzzling given his obvious shortcomings.
Every candidate has shortcomings. It’s hilarious that after the sputtering of the “No Kings” events, nobody has had the thought that the megalomaniac FDR was closest we came to a King. A book about his cousin Theodore by Edmund Morris is entitled Theodore Rex-and I’m not sure if it’s as more a reference to the ne plus ultra predator Tyrannosaur Rex than some implied regality.
Good point about FDR. He was elected four times. He broke the George Washington precedent of two terms, that Presidents of all parties had respected for all of our history. Yes, he was dangerously close to a king.
The executive branch has become too powerful. Much of this is due to the failure of the Congress to perform its basic functions, like passing an actual budget, not CR’s. Also failure to declare war (not since 1941). Congressmen are obsessed with reelection and no longer interested in actually legislating. The result is a Presidency on steroids.
Regarding Speaker of the House Johnson, he is not a strong man. The President is the leader of his political party, but the Speaker is not his servant. A little independence on the part of the Speaker is not a bad thing.
People may like an all powerful President who “gets things done” when he is of their party. But what happens when you have an all powerful President from the other party? Maybe that old idea of checks and balances is still valid?
I think President Trump and Teddy Roosevelt have some things in common Mr William. Besides being shot giving a speech. I think their reactions were pretty heroic. And rather similar.
The cost of living and unexpected expenses (thanks in no small part to faulty money policies in Washington) can put a tremendous burden on family’s finances; many cannot even afford to start a family (and they don’t live lavishly).
In other words, it goes much deeper than planning, no matter what some of the radio finance people say.
Also,young people don’t get cost of living adjustments like those of us on SS.
Jesus did say the poor will always be with us.
If you want to be poor, listen to radio finance people (Ramsey).
Beyond get out of debt and control your spending they have very little to offer.
The other night I heard one tell a caller to COMPLETELY cut 401k deferrals, not to cut them to the minimum necessary to obtain the maximum employer match. Rarely do they discuss life insurance outside of “buy term” and I don’t think I’ve ever heard them discuss disability insurance-but those sort of risks are very real and can be devastating.
Your finances are like you physical health, personal and your provider needs a history and appropriate test results. Serious financial planning can’t be done without a visit to somebody who knows what they are doing.
Well, the one problem I have is everyone cannot just pick up and find another job and make more money; the other is I’ve heard them talk almost with delight about making money off other people’s misery/poor decisions.
Being in debt and not knowing how to get out is a way to stay poor also. If you just take that counseling from people like Dave Ramsey you can leave the rest behind. Making a budget isn’t a bad idea either. Many people have no idea what they spend each month. Seeing that in black and white gives you something to start with.
Nefarious reasons? Which nefarious reasons are those, please?
Responding to Kalb’s observation that the Left offers practical, observable visions the Right has no more to offer than stridency. Insofar as Catholic literature themes are generally reduced to affirming some Christian principle. What’s missing is the Aesthetic.
Renaissance art captured the nobility and beauty of the human creature in visual art as well as literature. Emphasis on the splendor of Man, male and female is readily seen in Caravaggio, Botticelli, El Greco in a language that reflects assimilation of the Greek ideal and the Christian reality, the greatness of a culture that can produce this.
As such what would benefit the Christian contribution as an appealing unique response could seemingly be found in the arts. The Christian milieu is, or should be both spiritually sacrificial and manifestly beautiful in which excellence is found more in being than production.
Mercy! I can’t reply directly to Carl and Pitchfork, so I will try a new attempt to salvage my place in CWR history with short comments.
Carl has reappeared with a scorching response to my posts. He notes my longevity of misinformation… “lies”. If he resurrected to belatedly observe such actions over the millennia, why did he not respond earlier to salvage me from those sins?
PitchFork: Notice the word resurrected “. Military Times… While the White House was able to pull together funds to pay troops on Oct. 15 and now Nov. 1, some officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have said it’s doubtful service members will receive pay on Nov. 15 unless the shutdown ends.
https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/mil-money/2025/10/31/troops-have-been-paid-again-but-what-comes-next/
I will continue to gather the FACTS without fear of exhausting diatribe.
I would suggest using examples of the purported issues. And, did you ever see a post where I was right?
Pray for me. I will be sure to reciprocate.
“have said it’s doubtful service members will receive pay on Nov. 15 unless the shutdown ends.”
Well, that didn’t end well. Problem solved.
If you asking me if I’ve made a comprehensive audit of your comments, the answer is no, so I cannot say that you’ve never said something correct or right (they are different). My immediate memory is that you do not show any statement that is not based on an emotional and usually histrionic reaction.
Frankly, your command of the facts is more inadequate than your rhetorical skills.
Have you considered abiding the Churchill adage that it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt?