A Seventeenth-Century Trump?

David Byrne

Democrats are outraged. From their perspective, the worst human has assumed the highest office in the land. Trump is allegedly so bad, there have even been suggestions that the Electoral College rebuke over two hundred years of tradition and elect Hillary Clinton as president, thereby denying Trump a legitimate victory. Green Party demands for recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin threaten to delay if not derail a final vote of college electors to ratify the election result. Michael Signer argues in Time Magazine that the Electoral College was designed precisely to stop a “tyrannical mass leader” like Trump. To many liberals, these ideas make sense.

An analogous event happened in late seventh century England when unprecedented steps were taken to ensure the “worst possible human” didn’t maintain the highest office in the land. The culprit’s name was James II. His crime? He was Catholic.

After the English Civil War and the reign of Oliver Cromwell in the middle of the seventeenth century, Charles II was “restored” to the English throne. Charles accepted Anglicanism (although he was received in the Catholic Church on his deathbed), but there was a shadow over much of his reign because his younger brother and heir to the throne, James II, was openly Catholic (he converted around 1670).

English antipathy to Catholicism in the second half of the seventeenth century cannot be exaggerated. Catholics were akin to twenty-first century racists. The derogatory term to describe them was Papist. They were scapegoated and persecuted. They had to be eliminated. They weren’t fit to rule. They were… deplorable.

Opposition to James II was so strong, it led to the creation of the West’s first political party, the Whigs—the liberals of their day. The Whig Party had one goal, prevent James from inheriting the throne, despite his legitimate claim. He was to Whigs what Trump is to liberals. His reigned threatened the nation. Everything that had been gained would be lost.

James II ascension to the throne after Charles II death in 1685 can be likened to Trump’s victory: Life as we know it is over. There were, in fact, rebellions against James. Not My King could have been uttered to describe James. Audaciously, he allowed Catholics to occupy high offices in England and he sought religious freedom for Catholics. Things only got worse when a male heir was produced, suggesting perpetual Catholic rule. The Whigs had to act.

They hatched a plan. James II’s daughter was Mary, a legitimate heir to the throne. And she was Protestant. She lived in the Netherlands with her husband, William of Orange, a prince. Radical steps were taken—equivalent of the Electoral College rebuking Trump—when the Whigs wrote letters to William and Mary, offering them the English throne, if they could overthrow James II. It was unprecedented, but necessary for the Whigs. The fate of the nation hung in the balance. William and Mary agreed.

In October 1688, William’s fleet, with roughly 40,000 men, set sail for England. Upon landing, James’ army melted away, reluctant to fight for a king they were taught to despise. After minimal bloodshed, James evacuated the throne and fled to France in January 1689. This is England’s “Glorious Revolution” The King was overthrown, a seventeenth century coup d’etat against a hated Papist.

William and Mary were proclaimed joint monarchs by Parliament, but they became “limited monarchs.” Their powers were curbed by a “Bill of Rights,” which required free elections, freedom of speech and prohibited levying taxes without consent of Parliament. In theory, there was religious toleration, except a Catholic could never take the throne in England. This remains the case. Unlike the Tory royalists, Whigs sought to expand the power of Parliament at the expense of the monarchy.

The Whigs and their anti-Catholic zeal may seem strange to us, but Whigs included some of the intellectual luminaries of the seventeenth century, such as Isaac Newton and John Locke (history is littered with very intelligent people believing very irrational things).

The Glorious Revolution needed intellectual justification, and Locke provided it. In his Second Treatise on Government (1690), Locke argued that in the state of nature, all men are free and equal. People originally came together in the state of nature to protect their liberty and property (Protestant feared Catholics in England would return their property to the Church). Locke stated “Political power is that power which every man in the state of nature has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society has set over itself with this express or tacit trust that it shall be employed for their own good.” Locke continued that a contract existed between the government and the governed, and when the government violated the contract, it can be overthrown. Implicitly, James II violated this contract.

Locke’s interpretation of the Glorious Revolution had profound historical consequences. It contributed to the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson and American Revolutionaries inherited Locke’s views about the nature of government, the belief in equality of men, and the subsequent justness of revolution.

Will liberals have as much success as Whigs in preventing their bete noir from achieving the most powerful position in the land? Probably not. This only demonstrates the strength of anti-Catholic sentiment in late seventeenth century England.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/seventeenth-century-trump

Image credit: KENWOOD HOUSE (SUFFOLK COLLECTION) “James II as Duke of York” by Studio of Sir Peter LELY (1618-1680).

“This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!”

The President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University gave a lecture to students they’ll never forget.  Recently a student complained about a sermon that made him feel guilty and blamed the school for making students feel uncomfortable.  This is not uncommon.  Many universities now are so afraid of offending even one student, that political correctness has run amuck.  However, this University is based on religion and so one would expect that discipline, good character and personal accountability would be a big part of the curriculum.

Everett Piper, who is the President of the school, wrote a letter to the students admonishing them that playing the victim, blaming others and not admitting mistakes is not a way to live a productive and meaningful life.  Here is the letter titled “This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!”

This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university.

source okwu.edu

Socratic Reflections on Election Day

This column appears on the second Tuesday of November of the fourth year. On this sober day, this country freely (rigged or not!) chooses its fate. “Fate” and ”choice” for once go hand in hand. That we not talk about the candidates’ merits seems fitting. Things cannot turn out well. Our souls have already accepted too much evil for it to be otherwise. Elections are the “democratic” way of killing a tyrant without bloodshed. They can also choose a tyrant without overt revolution. We have already done this twice with Mr. Obama. So we can relax, in a way. Nothing is new.

The trial and death of Socrates (399 B.C.) inaugurate our civic tradition. We examine our souls in their light. Socrates clarifies the relation between truth and the city, between those who are “personally” opposed – but allow evil to happen – and those who die, politically or literally, rather than deny the truth that is theirs to affirm whatever the regime.

Socrates was accused of confusing the citizens by his probing search for truth. His accusers claimed that he did not believe in the gods of the city. He affirmed that spiritual things existed. He was charged with corrupting the youth. He thought that the youth were already corrupted by the sophists hired to teach them whatever they wanted to hear. These sophists are often called the first paid university professors.

Socrates explained that he followed the goddess at Delphi, who told his friend that Socrates was the wisest man in Greece. He doubted it. So he went around the city to find someone with better answers. He found that the ones who were thought wise were not really so. Leisured young men listened to him and imitated him. This angered their fathers, the rulers of the city. They accused him of corrupting their sons. They determined to kill him.

Socrates defended himself before a court of 501 citizen-judges. He explained that he was really the city’s benefactor. He prevented it from going to sleep by neglecting the important things, like what things are true and what things are not. When threatened with death, he replied that death was not the worst disorder. Doing evil was worse. We do not know whether death is an evil or a release to a life in which we are judged, where we live with those who did not renounce the truth, even when they were killed for holding it.

Socrates Drinking the Hemlock by Antonio Zucchi, 1767 [Nostell Priory, West Yorkshire]

The court condemned Socrates to death. He was to give a counterproposal. He thought that he deserved free room and board at the city’s expense. All he did with his life was to go about and ask the citizens to examine their lives. Were they living as a human being ought to live? If they were not, their lives were not really worth living. The city was embarrassed to kill their most famous citizen. Why could he not just pay a fine or go into exile or stop philosophizing and annoying everyone?

To accept any of these escapes, Socrates thought, would implicitly be an admission of guilt. It would be unjust for him to accept them. Socrates was hard on those who brought about his condemnation. He told them bluntly that for the rest of history, those who knew of his trial would say that they were the people who unjustly killed the best man. Political choices can taint our souls, forever. Plato wrote the Republicto prove this truth. No escape from evil is found in this world or the next for those who cause the great crimes in politics.

Socrates is content with the verdict of death. He knows that it is not the greatest evil. No evil can harm a good man. Modern politics, less confident about judgment and afterlife, believes it has corrected Socrates about the life of the city. It maintains that we can live a good life by being a politician, especially if we mitigate or eliminate the distinction between good and evil.

Socrates was not so sure. “Do not be angry at me for speaking the truth,” he told the jury. “No man will survive who genuinely opposes you or any other crowd and prevents the occurrence of many unjust and illegal happenings in the city. A man who really fights for justice must lead a private not a public life if he is to survive for even a short time.” (31e-32a) Socrates proved that not even the private life was safe in a polity that placed conformity to the laws of the city before the standard of truth.

This day is, as I said, sobering. With it, Socrates’ distinction between public and private mostly disappears. Socrates will not be condemned for impiety to the gods or corrupting the youth, but for not agreeing with and obeying the laws of the state, as they are rapidly being formulated for what will inevitably be called our “good.”

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/11/08/socratic-reflections-on-election-day/

© 2016 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Anonymous Just Released SHOCKING Video of Huma and Hillary Clinton – SCANDAL! Kosar Featured Contributor November 1, 2016

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/anonymous-just-shocking-video-huma-abedin-muslim-hillary-clinton-scandal/

Anonymous Just Released SHOCKING Video of Huma and Hillary Clinton – SCANDAL!

Kosar

Featured Contributor

November 1, 2016

There’s no question that Huma Abedin’s estranged husband Anthony Weiner has a perverted history. But the Hillary Clinton scandal is far worse!

Weiner, who clearly has serious personal problems, was too close to highly classified material that was transmitted between his wife and Hillary on an unsecured emails server.

Now, the hacker group Anonymous has exposed shocking, scandalous details about Huma Abedin which show exactly what she’s all about.

Hillary’s closest personal assistant has extensive personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother is a member of the group’s counterpart organization for women. With ties to Saudi Arabia, where she was raised, she started interning for Hillary at age 20 while working at a Jihadist legal publication which endorsed Sharia law.

Abedin’s family business is tied to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s family. How did she even pass a security background check? You have to see this…

Anonymous frequently takes liberal views about politics. But its’ clear that they are joining with WikiLeaks to expose the globalist corruption of Hillary Clinton and her criminal conflicts of interest. Hillary has broken laws that would send any other politician to prison for many decades, and yet Hillary Clinton is still the Democrat nominee for President in 2016.

The ties to Huma and Hillary run so deep that long-term rumors have swirled for years about the true nature of their relationship. Huma knows where the proverbial “bodies are buried,” which is why her current cooperation with FBI investigators has to be troubling for Team Hillary.

Anonymous also exposed just how expansive Hillary Clinton’s criminal career is. This is on a scale never-before-seen in American politics:

Share this important information with your family and friends before it’s too late!

And if you think Hillary belongs in a jail cell, LIKE our Facebook page: Hillary is a Criminal!

Fr. George Rutler - October 30, 2016 - The Presidential Election and Voting for Life

FROM THE PASTOR
October 30, 2016
by Fr. George W. Rutler

Exactly eight years ago I wrote a column titled “The One We Were Waiting For” in which I referred to a book by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, The Lord of the World. That dystopian novel has been cited by Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis said he has read it several times. The protagonist, if one can apply that term to an Anti-Christ, imposed a new world religion with Man himself as god.  His one foe was Christianity, which he thwarted in part by using “compromised Catholics and compliant priests to persuade timid Catholics.”

   Since then, that program has been realized in our time, to an extent beyond the warnings of the most dire pessimists. Our federal government has intimidated religious orders and churches, challenging religious freedom. The institution of the family has been re-defined, and sexual identity has been Gnosticized to the point of mocking biology. Assisted suicide is spreading, abortions since 1973 have reached a total equal to the population of Italy, and sexually transmitted diseases are at a record high. Objective journalism has died, justice has been corrupted, racial bitterness ruins cities, entertainment is degraded, knowledge of the liberal arts spirals downwards, and authentically Catholic universities have all but vanished. A weak and confused foreign policy has encouraged aggressor nations and terrorism, while metastasized immigration is destroying remnant western cultures, and genocide is slaughtering Christian populations. The cynical promise of economic prosperity is mocked by the lowest rate of labor participation in forty years, an unprecedented number of people on food stamps and welfare assistance, and the largest disparity in wealth in over a century.

   In his own grim days, Saint Augustine warned against nostalgia: “The past times that you think were good, are good because they are not yours here and now.” The present time, however, might try even his confidence. Sands blow over the ruins of churches he knew in North Africa where the Cross is virtually forbidden. By a blessed irony, a new church is opened every day in formerly Communist Russia, while churches in our own formerly Christian nation are being closed daily. For those who bought into the seductions of politicians’ false hopes, there is the counsel of Walt Kelly’s character Pogo: “It’s always darkest before it goes pitch black.”

   It is incorrect to say that the coming election poses a choice between two evils. For ethical and aesthetic reasons, there may be some bad in certain candidates, but badness consists in doing bad things. Evil is different: it is the deliberate destruction of truth, virtue and holiness. 

   While one may pragmatically vote for a flawed candidate, one may not vote for anyone who advocates and enables unmitigatedly evil acts, and that includes abortion. “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it'" (Evangelium Vitae, 73).
   At one party’s convention, the name of God was excluded from its platform and a woman who boasted of having aborted her child was applauded. It is a grave sin, requiring sacramental confession and penance, to become an accomplice in objective evil by voting for anyone who encourages it, for that imperils the nation and destroys the soul.

   It is also the duty of the clergy to make this clear and not to shrink, under the pretense of charity, from explaining the Church's censures. Wolves in sheep’s clothing are dangerous, but worse are wolves in shepherd’s clothing. While the evils foreseen eight years ago were realized, worse would come if those affronts to human dignity were endorsed again. In the most adverse prospect, God forbid, there might not be another free election, and soon Catholics would arrive at shuttered churches and vacant altars. The illusion of indifference cannot long be perpetuated by lame jokes and synthetic laughter at banquets, for there is handwriting on the wall.        

---

Make a Donation, of any amount, to the Church of St. Michael.

Our website is www.StMichaelNYC.com