MAYBE ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS to understand about many right wing philanthropists is the deeply pragmatic and self-interested nature of their "philanthropy." A donation to an obscenely well endowed private university that maintains that original and most grotesquely anti-egalitarian, pro-old money form of affirmative action, legacy admission, is as "charitable" as money given for the direct and emergency aid to the least among us. In fact, under the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the product of such universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, direct aid to the least among us is rightly made illegal. They said so in one of their worst rulings of the past two years, the same Ivy League law school product who take millions from millionaires and billionaires who have business in front of the court and who legalized overt, post delivery payment of buying politicians (and no doubt "justices") so long as the quid is delivered after the quo.
So you'll read that Tim Busch, the man who said that the Trump II regime is the "most Christian he's ever seen. is a famous "philantropist" but one whose philanthropy seem to be exactly the kind of pragmatic, self-interested investment that he, no doubt, hopes will produce greater income and fewer taxes for him, his wealthy family and friends. And as Tim Busch is one of the major sugar daddies of the "trad-catholic" cult his "christianity" has to be considered in Catholic terms.
I recommended the reading of the fisking of what Busch wrote in all of its dishonesty, its hypocrisy and it's just plain and bald-faced lying because I can't do more than elaborate on what John Grosso did, giving many more instances in the myriads of examples of Trumpzi actions and words that prove that Busch either is lying about the words and actions of the central figure and ultimate authority of Christianity, Jesus or he is actually presenting anti-Christ as a substitute for Jesus. Sort of the same thing that the Roberts Court does in replacing grotesque privilege of the same class of wealthy people for that lie over the Courthouse door, "equal justice under law,"
I would not waste my breath on advising Tim Busch to take into account Matthew 19:23-24 but will recommend it as a means of understanding the inauthenticity of "trad-catholicism" which is pretty much, all of it, a contradiction of that passage which appears in pretty much all of the syoptics [Mark 10:23-27, Luke 18:24-27]. Since it's the trad-catholic cult I'm addressing, I'll give it in the Douay-Rheim translation of the Vulgate:
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
23 Jesus autem dixit discipulis suis: Amen dico vobis, quia dives difficile intrabit in regnum caelorum. 24 Et iterum dico vobis: Facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum caelorum.
In light of that you have to question whatever comes out of a rich man in terms of Christianity, what a rich man says about things and the kinds of things that he'll pay other People to say. I think that whenever something that comes from a rich man like Timothy Busch whose interests seem to so conspicuously be served by what he claims to be "christianity" and "catholicism," you have to conclude that he's just lying about his support of it Since it is one of those issues that is being most grotesquely distorted in the astro-turf of lies that are coming from trad-catholics, here's what John Grosso says about the theory of subsidiarity as a means of gutting government spending for the least among us as they give billionaires and millionaires tax breaks and aid in profiting from evil:
Busch's reference to subsidiarity is disingenuous and bastardizes the concept.
Subsidiarity is a core tenet of Catholic social teaching, which essentially states that when addressing a problem, intervention should occur on the smallest or most local level possible. The logic for this is sound — generally that the people closest to the problem have the best understanding of it and what they need to solve it.
Some problems, though, are so complex, pervasive, or resource-dependent that they cannot be dealt with by small communities, or even countries. Those problems require intervention from larger institutions, who are also tasked with resourcing and empowering smaller organizations in a way that is not oppressive or restrictive but instead helps address the common good.
Until the Trump administration gutted USAID, this was precisely how Catholic Relief Services functioned in their work abroad.
Busch is cynically using subsidiarity to rationalize Trump's anti-Christian foreign policy and to excuse the abandonment of the homeless, starving and hopeless of the world.
Tim Busch, like so many a phony Catholic focuses on distortions of stuff like neo-Thomist theology and the long and often far from clear and not infrequently far from Christian history of Catholicism while ignoring the Gospel, the Epistles, the Prophet and the Law. Since I'm a lot less polite than a writer for a respectable magazine, I'll say Busch is a better example of the devil quoting scripture than he is a Catholic. Jesus rejected the temptation of Satan quoting Scripture when he offered him the world if he'd surrender his soul, Busch clearly put a lower price on his. I'll also recommend what Grosso points out about the exemplars of Christianity according to Busch in the Trump II regime, since his Napa Institute is one of the major nags about infidelity to strict sexual morality according to right-wing Catholicism:
And here's a topic for a panel discussion at the next Napa Institute gathering: Trump, senior adviser Elon Musk, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have fathered 30-plus children with more than 12 women.
Busch's laudatory assessment doesn't even hold up when judging by the standards of the Napa Institute's brand of Catholicism.
For the record, I think the theology of Thomas Aquinas is a deeply mixed bag and the distortions of it by current right-wing Catholics is mostly a sack of shit. I would love to know more about the mystical experience that Aquinas had late in his life that led to him declaring that his enormous life's work was as valuable as straw and he stopped writing. I think if he'd been more candid and had more time he'd probably have revised it drastically. I think compared to the Cappadocians it's decidedly inferior theology whose adoption by the anti-Christ of "trad-catholicism" is a warning of how dangerous much of it can be.
Update: I can't remember which theologian it was said that in his experience neo-Thomists tend to be quite ignorant of Scripture, having concentrated on the Thomist system of theology to the exclusion of the Gospel, Epistles, etc. I am hardly a deep student of neo-Thomism or even authentic Thomism, having found too little sustenance of Christian faith in it for the bother of going through the dross that Thomas, himself, seems to have realized he'd written. I see no evidence that it produced a superior level of adherence to the teachings of Jesus in the long history of its testing. It can't match the Quakers and Mennonites in that regard and you can hardly find less Thomist traditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment