Trump as Constantine

Constantinus Palazzo_dei_Conservatori smI was sent a link to an interesting take on the election.  I’m not saying one way or another what I think about it, but it is engaging.

From MercatorNet:

Is Trump the new Constantine?
The conservative Christian case for The Donald

Christians are unable to speak freely. Religious freedom is under attack. Society is materialistic and immoral. Western civilisation is facing huge threats, from within and without. And apparently the one powerful emerging leader is no saint.

You’re thinking America 2016? No. Rome 312.

The leader is Constantine, who is vying to become the Roman Emperor. Constantine had many defects: he had multiple wives and even put one of them to death, was extremely ambitious, and was a ruthless general and politician. But the legend remains that he had a “Road to Damascus” moment, saw a vision, converted to Christianity, triumphed over his opponents, and became a great emperor of Rome.

Constantine would go on to not only save the Roman Empire, but also liberate Christianity. He signed the Edict of Milan in 313, giving Christians the right to practice their faith and speak freely. This was enough to allow Christians to engage in the public sphere with freedom, thereby enabling them to spread the Christian message to the ends of the empire and Christianise a pagan culture.

Constantine himself was no pillar of virtue, but he created the environment which gave Christians the freedom to influence society. The early Christians were perfectly capable of influencing society themselves; all they needed from the emperor was the freedom to do so.

Fast forward to 2016, and we can see many obvious similarities. Western society has many problems. Conservative Christians have the solutions to many of those problems, but cannot articulate them freely in the public square due to endemic political correctness and cultural Marxism.

Conservatives do not lack will, good arguments, or articulate defenders; what they lack is the freedom to speak bluntly about social issues without being shouted down by the vindictive hordes of secular progressivism for “offending” particular groups of people. Donald Trump is the only person who can give us that freedom.

But first, consider the following:


Read the rest there.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. CradleRevert says:

    I hate sensational, pre-game predictions like these. Constantine was “Great” because of his legacy. At this point, Trump does not yet have a legacy. He hasn’t even begun his presidency. We hope that he is great, but raising such high expectations now is only setting ourselves up for disappointment and for being discredited.

  2. scotus says:

    Yes, ‘sensational, pre-game predictions’ are pretty crummy. But that comment is totally off-beam with regard to the article it purports to comment on. Let’s look at the argument in the article rather than just make snide comments. What the author is saying is that a Trump Presidency might (note, might) create an atmosphere which undermines the chief tactic used by the cultural Marxists. ie. shouting down their opponents by using abusive terms. It doesn’t say that under Trump America will have a superb foreign policy. It doesn’t say that under Trump the economy will be just fine. It doesn’t say that under Trump all of America’s social problems will be permanently solved. It just says that there is a possibility that a Trump Presidency will create the conditions which will allow the arguments of those who oppose cultural Marxism to be given a chance to be heard. That seems a reasonable viewpoint to take. Whether it will happen remains to be seen but let’s not just dismiss it out-of-hand.

  3. kekeak2008 says:

    The article makes very compelling arguments, and illustrates why a knowledge of history (especially ancient history) is crucial in our understanding of politics, economics, and society. Such historical knowledge is crucial for perspective.

  4. jskelley says:

    Semper Fi!

  5. anilwang says:

    Personally, I think there’s a better analogy since Trump isn’t starting something new, he’s just restoring what was subverted.

    IMO, Obama is best modeled as Emperor Julian the Apostate. Before Obama, all presidents were required to at least give lip service to Christianity and none would openly talk about subverting or changing Christianity. But with Obama, the government tried to replace Christianity, freedom or religion was replaced by freedom of worship…as long as you don’t oppose “government orthodoxy”, Christians are forced to deny their faith and “anything but Christianity” is supported as long as it weakens or crushes Christianity. Pretty much what Emperor Julian the Apostate attempted to do.

    With this analogy, Trump is Emperor Jovian, the emperor that came after Julian which canceled all Emperor Julian’s “executive orders” and government programs against the faith, re-introduced the edict of toleration and freedom of conscience. He’s scarcely remembered by anyone and continued the decline of the empire, but he was God’s instrument to protect the faith.

  6. Chris Rawlings says:

    It’s also a little reported fact about Constantine that he made a name for himself by hosting reality television shows and joining Howardus Sternus in his vulgarian morning drive show.

  7. Chris Rawlings says:

    By the way, the Goths invaded roughly 50 after the Edict of Milan, beginning the gradual large-scale winnowing of the Roman Empire. Constantine did not save Rome from itself. I’m quite certain that Trump will fare even worse with America today.

  8. un-ionized says:

    Chris, many a chariot ran off the road due to Howardus Sternus.

  9. Bosco says:

    I rather like the counsel given by Ann Barnhardt in a recent posting of hers: “Stay Frosty!”

    Time will tell, of course, what Mr. Trump will achieve; however, notwithstanding, it is the sentiments of the American electorate more so than his character which has put him in his present position.

    I, for one, am reasonably convinced that had Catholic-Blue Collar-VP Uncle Joe Biden run, and not eschewed a run for the Democratic nomination following the death of his son, Beau, in May 2015, the grieving, jocular, and ‘aw shucks’ Biden would have won Pennsylvania and other close states.

    God’s ways are above our understanding but we might have a Catholic Obama in the White House and every bit as hostile to the Faith as Clinton was.

    “Stay Frosty!”.

  10. EoinOBolguidhir says:

    The Empire would have been spared the horrors of Constantius II, Constantine II, Constans, and Julian the Apostate if Constantine’s megalomania hadn’t let him be led to murdering his one competent son, Flavius Julius Crispus. Part of his legacy, at least, is that the consequences of his evils were visited upon his family for generations, and that they had the rule of multitudes of souls. Let’s hope Trump doesn’t start a dynasty.

  11. pseudomodo says:

    “At this point, Trump does not yet have a legacy. He hasn’t even begun his presidency. ”

    In that case he is right on track for the Nobel Prize if I recall my (relatively recent) history.

    Perhaps in Economics….

  12. Prayerful says:

    Flavia Maxima Fausta perhaps died in the traditional Roman manner, being given the strong suggestion to take what was for a Roman aristocrat, the honourable way out. Her death by smothering in an over steamed bathhouse could have been at her orders, wikipedia suggests that this could have been connected to an abortion by a child by adultery with step son Crispus, a great general executed after court martial for conspiracy, but thanks to damnatio memoriae, nothing definite is known. Although Constantine restricted pagan sacrifice, blood sacrifice was restricted, he was content to accept temples dedicated to him and accepted the title of Pontifex Maximus like all Emperors until Gratian, that is, foremost pagan priest. He became more notably devout if not entirely orthodox, late in life (probably semi-Arian like his biographer Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, although his late baptism was common enough for the time).

    The Roman Empire would expire in the west a bit over a century and a half later, but in the East New Rome from its new city of seven hills in Constantinople, with later modification by Theodosius Magnus and Heraclius, would have a thousand, two hundred plus more years of existence. Consuls ceased to be in the ninth century and the Senate vanished in the fourteenth century, but Constantine, who considered himself equal of the Apostles, if his tomb is a guide (stone coffin with twelve dummy stone coffins), created something truly great. He was not entirely moral in a conventional sense, but I can see why the Eastern Orthodox schismatics hold him to be St Constantine Equal to the Apostles.

    Constantine was complicated, but did great things. Same, perhaps for Donald Trump. Hard to tell for now.

  13. gracie says:

    Chris Rawlings,

    The article isn’t promoting the eternal rule of an American Empire. It is hoping that a Trump Presidency will allow Christianity to flourish once again, as it continued to do even when the Roman Empire collapsed. Remember that most European Christians – and many of us by extension – are descended from those barbarians that stormed the gates of Rome. Although I personally hope for a return to a Pax Americana (and long may her flag wave!) empires come and go and our goal is to see Christianity get passed down from generation to generation no matter who the temporal powers are.

  14. CradleRevert says:


    I think you misunderstood me. I didn’t dismiss the potential out-of-hand of Trump becoming a Constantine; I just said that such speculation is far too premature.

  15. gracie says:

    A question came up several years ago about whether or not Constantine is or is not a declared Saint. I’ve never been able to get a complete answer. As far as I can tell, the Orthodox Church recognizes him as one. Then sources will say, “and also some Byzantine Churches do” but aren’t clear about what that means. So do Eastern Rite Catholics recognize Constantine as a Saint, or does it mean Greek Orthodox as well as Russian Orthodox do? (I’m not completely straight on all the possible permutations). If anyone knows if ER Catholics do recognize the man as a Saint I would appreciate knowing it. (And, yes, I do know that his mother, St. Helena, is recognized as such in the Latin Rite Church.)

  16. While I hope for the best for our new president, I think this comparison is almost entirely inapt.

    Constantine ended active persecution; while we have problems, there are no authorities arresting and torturing Christians for Mr. Trump to call off. Constantine had expansive powers that, Mr. Obama’s constitutional depredations notwithstanding, Mr. Trump happily lacks. President Trump won’t be able to hand over wealth and real estate to the Church as Constantine did.

    Further, the problem we face is only partly one of law, and even there, Mr. Trump cannot simply undo that. Let us hope he appoints someone very good to the U.S. Supreme Court; that gets us back to where we were with Scalia, right? And that Supreme Court gave us Obergefell, redefining marriage. For various reasons too tedious to explain, we are likely to have to wait, and hope, that yet another good nomination would result, replacing Kennedy, Breyer or Ginsberg (replacing, say, Thomas doesn’t advance us). And that could be a long wait. Meanwhile, there are all the lower judges who aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, and further, all the legal precedents can’t just be wiped away. And that’s just one part of the law.

    Most of the problem isn’t law, but culture, and it’s a bit much to think that President Trump is going to change the cultural climate all that much. Set aside the obvious fact that he’s more a part of the cultural problem than he is the solution — how, exactly, is the next, or any, President going to effect such a dramatic change?

    It doesn’t happen this way. Not that having a friend in the White House won’t help, but he’s not Constantine.

  17. Jack Orlando says:

    A friend of mine has written: “Trump the new Constantine? I prefer to see him as the new Vespasian, who brought back sane government after the era of the kook emperors. Also a pedantic note… the Latin phrase has always bothered me. A classical Latin writer of quality like the great Sallust would write hoc signo vinces. ‘In’ is trashy Latin.”

    For my own information: I’ve often seen written on crosses “IHS”. Is this in hoc signo or the consonants for Our Lord’s Holy Name?

  18. jaykay says:

    Jack Orlando: the IHS is Greek, a Latin transcription of the Greek letters iota, eta, sigma, being the first three letters of the name of Jesus in Greek. The “eta” looks like a “H” and the sigma is rendered as a Latin S, whereas in Greek it could look either like a “C” or a… capital sigma! Sorry, can’t access the Greek font, but it looks like a right-facing square bracket with a bend in the middle! Others can undoubtedly do better than I.

  19. Traductora says:

    No way. I voted for Trump, but I certainly don’t think he’s any friend of the Church or even a friend of any part of Western culture that doesn’t favor him personally. I hope I’m wrong. But he has already gushed over Obama and taken the “restrict Muslim immigration” thing off his website, so I’d say Catholics shouldn’t think he’s their savior.

    Maybe he’ll rise to the challenge and become an adult human being with principles. We must all not only pray for this, but work for it by encouraging anything favorable he does. I think he responds to praise.

  20. Charles E Flynn says:

    Crucifixes may have on them the letters “INRI”, which stand for “Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm”, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”.

    I am pleased to report that I cannot recall any age at which the crucifix in my bedroom, which had “INRI” on it, made me think that the Crucifixion had taken place in Rhode Island.

  21. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    gracie (at 2;52 PM),

    I’ve been wondering that, too: St. Helen(a) certainly is – long – recognized as such, (I think) universally. Johann Peter Kirsch 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article about her says, “She was revered as a saint, and the veneration spread, early in the ninth century, even to Western countries.” That is certainly pre-Schism, but did – and does – it also apply to Constantine?

    Adrian Fortescue’s 1908 article, “The Rite of Constantinople”, is a bit frustrating as, in introducing the section ‘The Byzantine Rite at the present time’, he says, “The Uniats use Greek at Constantinople, in Italy, and partially in Syria and Egypt, Arabic chiefly in these countries, Old Slavonic in Slav lands, and Rumanian in Rumania”, but in the immediately following subsection on ‘The calendar’ he seems to be talking about “the Orthodox” when he specifies “Certain chief saints (the Apostles, the three holy hierarchs — Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom — 30 January, the holy and equal-to-the-Apostles Sovereigns, Constantine and Helen, etc.) have middle feasts”.

    The Wikipedia article, “Equal-to-apostles”, has an interesting discussion as to whether Eusebius used the term of Constantine and whether he used it of himself, including, ” Aidan Nichols also shares this view, positing that Eusebius did indeed describe Constantine as isapóstolos, but that a later editor, or ‘interpolator,’ had reduced his status to isepiskopos—Equal-to-a-Bishop—so as to make Constantine seem more modest.” Maybe some of the sources cited there would also say something about the contours of his cult…

    Bosco’s saying, “it is the sentiments of the American electorate more so than his character which has put him in his present position” reminded me that “Constantine joined his father, under whom he had just time to distinguish himself in Britain before death carried off Constantius (25 July, 306). Constantine was immediately proclaimed Caesar by his troops, and his title was acknowledged by Galerius somewhat hesitatingly” (as Charles Herbermann and Georg Grupp put in their 1908 article, “Constantine the Great”).

    As Fr Martin Fox may be further implicitly reminding us, Constantine had a quarter-century (312-37) – more than even FDR managed (as it were) to help himself to.

    Browsing New Advent for ‘equal-to-the-Apostles’ references led me to St. John Chrysostom’s “Homily 46” on St. Matthew 13:24-30, which includes, “if you desire to become equal to the apostles, there is nothing to hinder you”, and ends, “From all worldly things, therefore, let us withdraw ourselves, and dedicate ourselves to Christ, that we may both be made equal to the apostles according to His declaration, and may enjoy eternal life; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen.”

  22. Michael_Thoma says:

    St. Constantine is recognized as such by Catholics of multiple Byzantine Churches, therefore he’s a Catholic saint

  23. exNOAAman says:

    I recognized this a couple months ago and began fervent prayer to the great (Orthodox) St. Constantine, in addition to the more popular novenas. With God’s favorable election outcome, I’m becoming convinced there is a connection. I will be sending a Constantine holy card to Prez Trump. (Yes they’re hard to find, but I travel in Orthodox circles). If, in the coming year, Prez Trump experiences a serious suffering, like Reagan’s shooting, or Gov Hogan’s cancer…start paying attention.
    I know I am out of line with the naysayers, but the Holy Spirit has pointed me to this. Sounds like I’m not the only one.
    Thanks be to God and His great saints Helen and Constantine.

  24. robtbrown says:

    Fr Martin Fox says:

    While I hope for the best for our new president, I think this comparison is almost entirely inapt.

    Constantine ended active persecution; while we have problems, there are no authorities arresting and torturing Christians for Mr. Trump to call off.

    My understanding is that according to Obamacare (exec regs, I think), the Little Sisters of the Poor would be fined if they failed to comply. What if they failed to pay the fine?

  25. robtbrown says:

    Traductora says,

    I voted for Trump, but I certainly don’t think he’s any friend of the Church . . .

    It’s irrelevant whether he’s a friend of the Church–but very relevant whether he’s a friend of the Free Exercise Clause.

  26. Pingback: Post-Election Day in America 2016 Friday Edition | Big Pulpit

  27. Chris Rawlings says:

    “Hoping that a Trump Presidency will allow Christianity to flourish once again”

    If you are relying on the good will of the President if the United States today ensure that Christianity flourishes, you’re doing it wrong.

    If you are relying on Donald Trump to ensure that Christianity flourishes, you are out of your mind.

    At some point, a point long past us, actually, Catholics need to understand that we live in a cultural environment we do because the people around believe foul, pagan things. The solution is conversion of society, not electing men who spend entire career promoting things that degrade our national culture. Electing and supporting a man who avidly supports America’s largest abortion provider, promotes gay rights at his national nominating convention, and assures us that he never asks for forgiveness for anything, is not a friend to Christianity. It does not help Christianity flourish.

  28. gracie says:

    Chris Rawlings,

    “If you are relying on the good all of the President of the United States today to ensure that Christianity flourishes, you are doing it wrong. If you are relying on Donald Trump to ensure that Christianity flourishes, you are out of your mind.”

    Then maybe God is out of His mind, too, for I truly believe that God answered our prayers when Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. God works through flawed individuals and there is every reason to hope that Mr. Trump will stop the political persecution of Christians. This in itself will provide the necessary conditions for Catholicism to flourish IF Catholics themselves are willing to do the hard work of making it happen. He is the vine; we are the branches. Without Him we can do nothing; without us there will be no fruit for God has set it up that way – occasions when He overrides the laws of nature notwithstanding. Constantine was a pagan who had many bloody interludes to his credit but it was through him that God ended the persecution of Christianity. There is every reason to hope that God will use a flawed Donald Trump to restore to us the religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution, which is the framework for the political system under which America governs itself. Pray that it may be so.

  29. JonPatrick says:

    One difference I see in this analogy is that at the time of Constantine the Church having endured a couple of centuries of persecution was strong and united in its faith. One certainly cannot say that about the Church today – in fact we are going through something like an Arian crisis of our own. We may get rid of the persecution from the outside, but the persecution from those inside the church will still continue. The Supreme Court may change, but those in power in our own Church who are fighting authentic Catholic tradition will be around for a long time.

  30. Robertbrown said:

    My understanding is that according to Obamacare (exec regs, I think), the Little Sisters of the Poor would be fined if they failed to comply. What if they failed to pay the fine?

    Bad things, no doubt, but it’s still not Diocletian.

  31. juergensen says:

    I don’t say as many Rosaries as I should, but I said one the day before Election Day for Donald Trump, for the Supreme Court, for the babies in wombs, and for my “babies”, who are teenagers and would have had to live their lives under the demonic horrors spewed from a Supreme Court packed by Hillary Clinton. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Mary.

  32. juergensen says:

    [Chris Rawlings says: If you are relying on Donald Trump to ensure that Christianity flourishes, you are out of your mind.]

    Who should we rely on? The USCCB, which has given Catholics de facto license to vote for baby-butchering Democrats in “Faithful Citizenship”?

  33. Semper Gumby says:

    anilwang: Good analogy, Julian the Apostate for the last few years in these United States also crossed my mind. If I recall, Jovian’s reign was brief, hopefully the 45th President will preside longer, more productively, and prayerfully.

  34. Kathleen10 says:

    I better start looking for a home in the deep woods, because even people in these Catholic comboxes are beginning to sound strange to me.
    Donald Trump is far, far better in just so many ways. We should be celebrating. But there seems to be some, what, Hillary nostalgia? Some misgivings? Or are we so beaten up by the Left we can’t even enjoy the fact that we just won the presidency and Congress, and SCOTUS, plus lots more. It is weird and freaky to read comments by supposed Catholics that we can’t trust Donald Trump at all and he is sure to disappoint us. I think a good comparison can be made to Constantine. Anyone who thinks we weren’t facing impending persecution is just blind, not paying attention, wake up for God’s sake. It was already in play. The Sisters of the Poor, EWTN, Catholic hospitals, little bakers of wedding cakes who refused to bake for same-sex couples, people who don’t believe sexual predators should be allowed in ladies rooms, the IRS targeting conservative groups, I mean, how much do you need to see to comprehend that because of this election, we are far, FAR better off under a President Donald Trump, because all of that stuff is going to go away! As Fr. Z. says, “Nota bene”, no one is saying he is a saint. But speaking for us, we are thrilled, THRILLED, that he was elected and not she. It is almost a miracle, and I for one believe God’s hand is all over it. Personally, I believe Donald Trump was singularly capable of pulling this off, with God’s help, whether or not Trump even knows it. There are signs he is a good man, maybe better than that. We should not let the Left continue to dictate to us who and what is acceptable. We better find our identity, start rejecting the Left’s definition of what we care about and stand for, and start to defend Christian culture with vigor and confidence. This election is a stopgap, not a permanent reprieve. The Left will regroup and be back, and they will be violent, obstructionist, and threatening, all along the way. Someone’s culture will win the day, theirs? Or ours. They define our Catholic/Christian culture as “hate”. Are we letting that get to us?

  35. Jenson71 says:

    Do you think there’s any potential drawback to believing that God hand picked your leader in government? Immediately coming to mind, if you truly believe the leader is God’s chosen one, it is easy to justify any action said leader takes as being part of God’s plan. And if someone criticizes the leader, you may feel as if the critic is criticizing God, and are unlikely to think about the substance of the criticism.

    I know there’s been criticism of Pope Francis for things he says or actions he takes on this blog, and, as far as I know, it’s still Catholic belief that the Holy Spirit directly guides the Cardinals in the selection of our Pope. [I agree with Joseph Ratzinger that the role of the Holy Spirit is more to prevent total disaster in the election than to guide it.] So, I’m not too concerned about that second potential drawback. But the first justification one is worth thinking about.

    The presumptuousness also leads down some real rabbit holes. Is there really any theological authority to think God handpicks the president of the United States and helped him by getting voters to weigh their choices, register to vote, watch the debates? And if you think so, are you okay with me saying God handpicked Barack Obama to be president for eight years? And if God didn’t do that, why did he choose to sit out the 2008 and 2012 elections? Or did he handpick the loser?

    History is replete with confident declarations that God is on the side of a political leader, country, football team, whatever, and in hindsight, it doesn’t always turn out so good. If you ever see the film Triumph of the Will, notice that opening footage. Where does he appear to come from? Heaven. A savior.

  36. SKAY says:

    I agree Kathleen10. Great comment.
    Had the election gone the other way I would have read this article and been
    sure this would be coming our way very soon.

    Thankfully for the time being we can breathe within the United States. That was the first thing
    most of my friends and family said to me on Wednesday.
    However,it seems clear that these protests and riots were planned and the organizers are paid just as the released WikiLeaks emails revealed that Black Lives Matter was originally funded by Soros to
    create chaos.
    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ”
    John Adams

  37. Gilbert Fritz says:

    “Blessed are those who expect nothing, for they will not be disappointed.”

    The Trump supporters on here sure have a rosy vision of what he will do. Let’s not put our trust in men, even ones with bright orange hair.

    In the end, Trump can’t fix our problems; he can’t give what he does not have. The problem is that almost half the voters thought Clinton would make a good president, and that a significant fraction think Trump is a good role model. With the country divided this way, and the terrible state of the people’s souls and minds, no good results can be expected. It would take a miracle of mass conversion to save the country. (Not to mention all the temporal order problems, such as 13 Trillion in debt. Or the fact that only 37% of Americans have more the $1000 in savings. Or the fact that if Trump actually decided to make some sane decisions, he would find all the moneyed and bureaucratic class united in opposition to him.)

    Really and truly, are we not expecting too much of a man who is not Catholic, not even very Christian in the Traditional sense of the word?

    He has already demolished the powerful Clinton and Bush political machines. For this we should give thanks to God; but if our battering ram does not turn into a precision watch or a laser pointer, we should not be disappointed.

  38. ChgoCatholic says:

    Brava, Kathleen10! Joan of Arc would be proud :) Your comment hit home for me especially because of all the hate being sent toward we who, heaven forbid, refused to vote for our fellow woman. All the more reason that we need to stop letting these cultural Marxists dictate to us. Their highest good is what their fellow man tells them; their feasance is to other sinners, not to God! Women play their important role in this by educating their children in the True Faith, as well as by standing tall for the Truth in the public square. It gets the feminists riled up, but we especially need to start speaking about and exemplifying what true God-given womanhood and femininity mean. Time to take back womanhood from the Marxist feminazis!

    I work in the public sector and know what they think of us, how deep the anti-religious and specifically anti-Catholic mindset runs in govt. Many don’t see themselves that way. They’ve been educated to think, as noted, that they’re simply being “good people” by rejecting the “bigotry” and “outdated views” of the Church.

    I have known this for some time, but never did it crystallize so much than over the past few days. The deep disappointment, anger, and discouragement was PALPABLE on Wednesday! “How is the silent majority not following our Right Thinking?” Flummoxed, indeed. Myself and other faithful among my colleagues and friends, who have felt the pressure to keep our heads down, now are breathing a sigh of relief. My husband and I voted for Trump, but I am so grateful others did too. As you say, Kathleen10, now is not the time to be cowed about our choice!

    While I cannot know what Trump will do, as Kathleen10 said, a far better chance now exists that the building persecution will be slowed, at least. I also agree that God saved us. The good news is that I think it shows there were and are enough faithful people in this country who know what is at stake and begged God for mercy. For a chance to make it right.

    Hopefully this slows the tide against us long enough for us to rebuild our courage and begin defining ourselves and drawing boundaries fearlessly in the public square. We must see this as an indicator to prepare for the fight that, as we’ve seen in the streets the last few days, is not over. Not by a long shot!

  39. Gratias says:

    I agree this is a time to rejoice that Christian Civilization will be saved by a valiant champion. Our Donald has proposed ending the Lyndon Johnson amendment that limits speech from the pulpit. With Trump political correctness goes out. With Trump we will have Constitutionalist judges that will save US from cultural Marxism, late-term abortion, and Obamacare euthanasia.

    This election has been a miracle. I prayed the Rosary, which never do, and am convinced God listened. You are quite welcome. I also included periodic donations to As a double assurance.

    This country is no longer Christian but it could be again. Russia has restored Christianity as a social force and so might we. An alliance between the sole two Christian nations in the world would bring a long period of prosperity. The future looks bright and we should celebrate now. Compare to the alternative· Globalism.

  40. Chris Rawlings says:

    “I agree this is a time to rejoice that Christian Civilization will be saved by a valiant champion.”

    Donald Trump? Are you serious?

  41. Kathleen10 says:

    Chris Rawlings, I don’t know if you’re American, but this election is just shy of a miracle. You may not agree, but seeing the forces aligned against Donald Trump, how this campaign went, what he had to endure, the reason I would see God’s hand in this is that he was able to endure it at all. He was uniquely prepared in a way no other candidate even came near. He had to be a tough New Yorker, he had to have a personality that made him charge ahead, defending his position, when most candidates would have withered and apologized, which is just what the Left now expects (and gets) from every Republican or conservative. Trump didn’t do that. Now does he have baggage, yes, he sure does, but somehow this man was able to have enough grit to stay the course. People who are not American may not get it, there are not just powerful people or groups behind the DNC, there are powers and principalities. It is almost humanly impossible to do what he just did. That he did it, has to mean he had heavenly assistance of some kind. We don’t see him as the Second Coming or a Savior, but there is no doubt we have been given a gift, with every indication we have been spared something terrible. God probably does not select candidates, we get the candidate we select, but He heard the prayers of millions of people, and for the first time really, in many years, something went our way against all odds. If people want to focus on the man’s past, his moral failings in the past, his hair, his tan, then I don’t know what to say to that. But Christians in America were just spared the chopping block, and we had better thank God for it and take advantage of this opportunity.

  42. un-ionized says:

    Gilbert, the Donald’s hair is yellow, it’s his skin that is orange, though a muted tone.

    I was struck by the silence in my workplace for the two days after the election. Everyone seemed to be sulking in their offices with the door closed. There were a few childish demonstrations on office doors, as one would expect from failed academics in their job of last resort.

    But now anyway I will not have to be silent while people claim that I am a traitor or stupid (how a stupid person can be a top performer they never explain), though the HR department has been taken over by the forces of perversion as has happened all over.

    I will continue to be the token Catholic but now I have less fear of termination than before.

  43. Bosco says:

    Semper vigilans! Let us be clear-eyed about all of this.

    “But of the times and moments, brethren, you need not, that we should write to you; For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night.

    For when they shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape.

    But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. For all you are the children of light, and children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

    Therefore, let us not sleep, as others do; but let us watch, and be sober. ” 1 Thessalonians 5: 1-6

  44. Imrahil says:

    The problem is that almost half the voters thought Clinton would make a good president, and that a significant fraction think Trump is a good role model.

    You’re reading too much into this election, at least as for the first statement. The fact is that half the electorate thought Clinton (for all her faults, which many of them thought were many) would still make a better president than Trump – but that doesn’t make them think she would actually make a good one. And half the electorate thought that Trump (for all his faults, which many of them thought were many) would still be preferable to a Clinton presidency. Oh, and that is only the votes for these two candidates. One half of the electorate gave their vote either not at all (the vast majority in this subgroup) and some to third parties.

  45. I wish the very best for President-elect Trump; I will be thrilled if turns out to be as awesome as so many say he will.

    But there were and are very good reasons why many people found him troubling and disturbing. If you really want me to recount the list, I can, but I don’t see any need, unless you deny such a list can even be produced.

    Here’s the thing some folks might do well to ponder: the danger that Mr. Trump does not restrain his worst impulses, and both creates a political disaster for two and four years from now; along the way, damaging the reputation and credibility of prolifers and conservatives, and rendering their causes toxic.

    In the 1930s, in Spain, there was a government allied with communists, and which persecuted the Church ferociously. Many Catholics were thrilled by Franco opposing the government, and rallied to his cause. When he took power, the Church became closely allied with him — including all the evil he went on to do.

    It was very harmful to the Church in Spain, to this day.

    No, Trump isn’t Franco. The point is, be careful who you ally with, and to whom you lend credibility.

  46. Venerator Sti Lot says:


    You say, “One half of the electorate gave their vote either not at all (the vast majority in this subgroup) and some to third parties.”

    That sort of thing always interests me. While ‘The Green Papers’ site tells me (to list the major examples) that Dr. Castle received 181,741 votes; Mr. Johnson, 4, 136, 253; Mr. McMullin, 469, 852; Dr. Stein, 1,243,574 – and (to list a couple others) ‘Blank’ came in at 48,098 and ‘None of these candidates’ at 28,872 – I can’t find any figures for things eligible or registered to vote, but not voting.

    What’s your source?

  47. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Fr. Martin Fox,

    It is an interesting question who will treat prolifers and conservatives as well as their causes as “toxic” no matter what (though nearly always finding new ‘plausible’ excuses to do so), and who, not having yet done so, would come to do so, and for what reasons – interesting, and probably not easy to answer accurately.

    Another interesting question is why various folk who supported that “government allied with communists, and which persecuted the Church ferociously” are so often and widely, down to today, treated, not as “toxic” but pretty indiscriminately as noble, heroic, etc.

  48. Imrahil says:

    Dear Venerator Sti Lot,

    on second checking I do not actually have a source. Still, with Trump and Clinton summing up to 120 million, the figure makes sense…

  49. Venerator:

    In answer to your question about why prolifers should be hit hard from association from Trump, but not liberals in association with Obama or Clinton, I offer what my mother told me growing up: Who says life is supposed to be fair.

    And let me refine my point a little further. I wasn’t suggesting that our association with Trump will make lefties hate us more. Rather, that we will have to spend time defending things we neither want nor need to defend. It’s happening already: lots of good people spent the last months defending and explaining (and sometimes justifying) Mr. Trump’s behavior toward women. This doesn’t help us.

  50. Chris Rawlings says:

    Fr. Fox is correct.

    We’ve heard a lot from traditionalist Catholics that the Church’s teaching on marriage is in deeper need of clear, bold, and courageous proclamation, in witness and in word. We’ve heard many angrily accuse the Pope of not adequately defending the truth about marriage.

    And what then do these same Catholics do when it’s time to elect a new president? They elect the thrice-married guy who bragged about adultery, refused to call it a sin, ran a strip joint inside a casino, ignored the breakdown of the family during his campaign, and even presented himself as at least moderately favorable to gay rights. You elected this guy, and then you have the audacity to proclaim that his election is a miracle and that he is God’s candidate.


    This, people, is why nobody takes us seriously when we talk about moral issues in the public square. And, frankly, based on some stuff I’m reading here, I’m not sure we should be taken so seriously.

  51. rhhenry says:

    My wife and I were discussing the election results on Thursday, and we came to the conclusion that we should let out a big sigh of relief that Clinton was not elected, then immediately draw in a new breath and hold it, for we’re not sure what Trump will do.

  52. un-ionized says:

    VSL, does that include people who are not even registered? I know lots of them, of all ages and walks of life. When asked, the reason I hear most is they wish to avoid jury duty!

  53. Venerator Sti Lot says:


    I suppose so: I ‘ve certainly seen figures for past Presidential elections of people ‘eligible but not voting’ (or some such description) – though not (as far as I recall) how they were arrived at. I seem to remember it sometimes being something like a third of the eligible people not voting, meaning that, whichever major candidate you considered, a majority of those eligible had not voted for him.

  54. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Fr Martin Fox,

    If as you suggest, it is a matter of simple radical unfairness on the part of many, than no matter who one (to whatever degree and for whatever – permissible -reasons) supported of ‘position deemed toxic’, one would either have to be engaged in apologetics or not ‘ bother’ to do so, from whatever prudential considerations in either case.

    If (as I think you have always done) one starts from the permissibility of voting for a particular candidate, then one “will have to spend time defending things” that indicate why a given permissible choice is a preferable one – or prudentially deciding not to devote time and energy to such defence.

    Given permissibility, I don’t see there’s any help for it (prudentially defending preferability or not): but I don’t see that it need entail “defending things we neither want nor need to defend” per se.

  55. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Chris Rawlings,

    The question is, do any of the things you cite preclude the permissibility of voting/having voted for Mr. Trump and, if not, the preferability of voting/having voted for him over other candidates?

    If these things do not preclude such permissibility, that does not mean Mr. Trump cannot be ‘tackled’ on any of them, when President(-elect).

    I don’t know much about Cyrus, but we are authoritatively told that God chose him – for which perhaps your “he is God’s candidate” is not an unacceptable paraphrase (Isaiah 45). We are not similarly authoritatively told that about St. Constantine or President-elect Trump. To apply some words of Fr. Cavalcoli in another context as recently translated by Edward Pentin: “This is a very delicate discourse, one can have some opinions, but one cannot be certain … unless one has divine illumination.” Given such lucid provision, can one not very unauthoritatively opine that the prevention of Secretary Clinton’s Presidency by means of Mr. Trump is… wonderful?

  56. SKAY says:

    Two very interesting comments from Venerator Sti Lot’s link–

    “Catholics were crucial to Trump’s election: he won 52% of the Catholic vote, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 45%. ”

    “Nicholson told the Register Nov. 10 that the newly elected President is not only an “intent listener” who heeded their advice in the lead up to Tuesday’s ballot, but also “asks very good questions”. He therefore believes the group could have a “very positive effect on President-elect Trump”.

    Very Good News.

    “Given such lucid provision, can one not very unauthoritatively opine that the prevention of Secretary Clinton’s Presidency by means of Mr. Trump is… wonderful?”

    Absolutely wonderful Ven!!!!!!!! :-D

  57. Venerator Sti Lot says:



Comments are closed.