Retweets are not endorsements! I found these articles thought-provoking. There’s a good chance I agreed with something important in each, but maybe not, and, in any case, I absolutely do not endorse each and every claim made in each and every article.

“The kids are not alright – A look at US religious belief and practice,” by Brendan Hodge:

When you slice up the data in interesting ways, you get interesting results. It’s rare enough for surveys to go beyond mere religious self-identification (which is very close to statistically useless for detecting Catholics qua Catholics) to whether the subject actually attends Mass. It’s even rarer to see a survey approach the question generationally. These results are fascinating — and, very interestingly, they don’t show any significant decline in religious practice among young adults since the 1980s babies came of age.

In other words, Catholicism will bleed badly as the Silent Generation finishes dying and the Boomers start dying in earnest. The number of parishoners will shrink by… half? Three-quarters? Just eyeballing it there. But this graph suggests the decline won’t simply continue indefinitely until the Catholic Church vanishes from the United States; it will eventually hit a floor and stop.

Will this be the “smaller, purer Church… a Church that has lost much” that Fr. Ratzinger spoke of, long before he became pope? Or will it be a hellscape where the only Catholics left are the ones who argue angrily on the Internet — Mark Shea and Austin Ruse throat-punching each other in the corridor between universes for all eternity?

Dunno! We’ll find out. Speaking of which…

“Catholic Ideas and Catholic Realities,” by Ross Douthat:

…in a shrinking Church, the influence of its more committed members will wax, not wane. The diocesan ­fundraisers of the future will be hitting up populists and integralists, and perhaps even tradinistas, because the lukewarm cradle-Catholic donors of the present era won’t be available anymore. The parishes of the future will depend on benedictines for either renewal or survival. In a smaller, weaker Church, the influence of ideas that seem weird to the average Catholic today are likely to be magnified, as the Church becomes more an institution by, for, and of the weirdos.

I focus on the part about decline, but this article is better-known for the way it classifies the four current strains of Catholic intellectual thought: populists, integralists, BenOppers, and Tradinistas. (If these words are meaningless to you, you should probably read the article, if only to find out what Catholic intellectual discourse looks like these days.)

A columnist friend of mine (whom I leave anonymous, because she posted it on Facebook), points out that she doesn’t actually like any of the four camps, both because their loudest proponents are obnoxious (DENEEN MY OLD FRIEND) and because most of them seem to think the job of Catholic intellectuals is to Save Western Politics And Culture. In fact, our job is to save the few souls Christ gives us each a chance to help save, tho’ all Westernesse crumble into the sea.

I tend to agree, although I must make an exception for the BenOppers on both accounts. But maybe that’s just my BenOp sympathies showing. Let the reader decide!

Of course, all this somewhat depends on an assumption that the Catholic Church remains intact. On that, Douthat has a few other things to say…

“The Latin Mass in the Zero Sum Church,” by Ross Douthat:

Any sustainable decadence depends, by definition, on sustainability: A sense among the factions living with the stalemate that while they may not like each other, there will be enough to go around. Thus in Catholicism the muddling-through of the JPII era depended — for liberals who kept their heads down and stuck with the church as much as for conservatives who accepted the very partial restoration of authority — on the sense that things had somewhat stabilized after the shocks of the 1960s, that the condition of the faith was difficult but not exactly dire, and that every group had reasons to be patient, to live with one another and see what happened next. Whereas the pressures of the Francis era increasingly reflect a fear that stability is gone, that the bill is coming due, the money and numbers are drying up, and the only question is which faction will be left standing at the end. Intellectually this feeling can be a spur to creativity — the post-liberal arguments I try to limn in the First Things essay are definitely creative — but institutionally it’s how you end up with crises, breakage, schism.

This looks like another article about Catholicism, and… well, it is. But try reading it with my 2020 article about a new American Civil War in the front of your mind, and it takes on a much broader salience.

Hey, speaking of my 2020 article about a new American Civil War, remember when I said that Civil War was inevitable as long as we hated each other? Well, guess what!

We Hate Each Other: The Poll, by the University of Virginia Center for Politics (official title: “New Initiative Explores Deep, Persistent Divides Between Biden and Trump Voters”):

Overall, more than two-thirds support — and one-third strongly — emboldening and empowering strong leaders and taking the law into their own hands when it comes to dealing with people or groups they view as dangerous.

And their willingness to consider violating democratic tendencies and norms extends beyond the hypothetical and to a dangerous and alarming finding:

Roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters — or more than 31 million Americans — strongly agree it would be better if a “President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts” (as extrapolated from the results of this survey).

Roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.

Honestly, when I started telling friends in 2010 that thought it was very possible America could dissolve by 2040, they looked at me like I was a lunatic.

They don’t anymore! So ha!

“Human Dignity: A Puzzling and Possibly Dangerous Idea?” by Alasdair MacIntyre:

Incidentally, did it ever occur to you that the concept of “human dignity”–you know, the fundamental principle of law that most religious and non-religious people depend on in order to establish an agreed-upon foundation for a pluralist and humane society–was just kind of made up out of thin air less than a century ago, and that the content of this concept is an empty compromise at best, a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing at worst? Because now it can!

It has often crossed my mind that “human dignity” as used in most discourse is an empty phrase. Each religion and each ethical system has its own (usually incompatible) reasons for accepting human dignity. It’s fairly obvious that we settled on this phrase as a compromise in order to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights work without having to agree on all the metaphysical details. When you refer to “human dignity” in a debate about (say) abortion or the death penalty or same-sex marriage, what you’re really doing is saying, “I know you believe human life and happiness is valuable, even though you believe that for completely different reasons. So, instead of debating those reasons, I am referring to that shared conclusion while you supply your own justifications for it.” It’s an empty phrase that each belief system invests with its own meaning. That much was not new to me.

But MacIntyre’s idea that this compromise might actually be misleading or in some ways dangerous… that was a new thought in my head.

MacIntyre offers “justice” as a replacement for “human dignity,” and I’m open to reading more about what he has to say on the topic in a space where brevity is less of a concern… but, based on what he says about it here, I think “justice” fails to have universal pluralist appeal for the same reasons “human dignity” does.

Now, getting back to the decline and fall of religion specifically…

The Pillar Survey on Religious Attitude and Practice, by The Pillar & Brendan Hodge… in five parts, sorry:

Part 1: Religion in America (Overview),

Part 2: Why Cradle Catholics Leave,

Part 3: A Close Look at the “Nones”/Atheists,

Part 4: Did Covid Have Long-Term Attendance Effects? (Yes.),

Part 5: Catholic “Hot Button” Issues

Instead of pulling a quote here, I’ll pull two particularly interesting charts. But this survey is swimming in fascinating charts. As you can see, a lot of it is Catholic-related… and a lot of it isn’t! So dig in, regardless of religious affiliation or sociological interest! The Pillar has collected data that answers specific, important questions that (to my knowledge) nobody has ever collected before… including the Pew Research Center, ordinarily the gold standard for religion surveys.

…demonstrating fairly conclusively that >80% of Catholics are either nuts or simply not paying the slightest bit of attention to their bishops. My Commonweal article (far and away the most financially successful writing I’ve ever done) lays out where I think the laity should be, and I really expected these numbers to be closer to my position. (“Never trust a bishop.”)

But perhaps it’s simply the case that the overwhelming majority of Catholics who stop trusting their bishops swiftly cease identifying as Catholic, thus cleansing themselves from the sample? Defecting from the Faith over untrustworthy bishops would be kinda weird in a historical sense. I can’t imagine medieval peasants trusted their incredibly corrupt bishops too much, but the peasants still radiated Catholicism. And yet, what happens if you combine Catholicism’s post-Council-of-Trent ultra-ultramontanist culture of “bishops = Catholicism” with the American “consumer choice” mindset? I guess you’d get a lot of people leaving the Faith as soon as they stopped trusting the bishops.

Maybe I should write an article about how to walk that tightrope, I dunno.

Hello Catholic parents! Your primary responsibility as a Catholic parent is to ensure that all of your children grow up to become Catholics in the dark green bar. Weekly Mass attendance is not ambitious; it is a bare minimum requirement for a practicing Catholic. And your mission as a Catholic parent is to raise a Catholic saint.

If one of your children is not inside the dark green bar, he or she is in a state of serious sin, will likely enter an invalid marriage, and is (but for the grace of God, in Whom we dare hope that all men are saved) on the direct path to Hell. (Even children who are inside the dark green bar may well be committing other serious sins; see, for example, the rest of the utterly terrifying Part 2 of The Pillar‘s survey!)

So, fellow Catholic parents, how many of these things are you doing monthly or more with your children? My number is one! And it looks like even you parents doing all 5 can still expect one out of every three of your kids to fall out of the Faith of Our Fathers!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

“A Note to Me,” by Erick W. Erickson (an Evangelical layman) (and after that horrible last share I’m going to just quote this Worthy Read in its entirety):

I got back from the mountains yesterday. On my last night there, I let people ask me anything on Instagram. One of the questions was, “What would you tell your 21-year-old self?” I can’t remember what I said, but it was limited in the number of characters I could type anyway. I’ve been thinking about that question and think I have an answer. Here’s what I’d say to my twenty-one-year-old self.

Self,

A long time ago there was a guy named Irenaeus. He died in France. His body is there. We have a lot of his writings. We know he studied under a man named Polycarp. We know Polycarp existed, lived, and wrote. We have his writings. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a friend to a man named Ignatius, whose writings we have. Both men existed. Both men lived. Both men studied under a man named John.

We know from Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus that the man John wrote the Book of John in the Bible. He was not just an eyewitness to history, but a direct friend of Jesus. We know also from Polycarp and Ignatius that the other apostles lived. They knew Paul. They knew Peter. All of these men, except John, were executed for accepting Jesus as the risen Lord.

So Self, in church they teach that you believe by faith. But you don’t have blind faith. Your faith is built on eyewitness testimony. Ignatius was carried into the Circus Maximus, disemboweled, and set upon by wild animals because he refused to recant a faith in Christ he acquired through direct interaction with the apostles. Polycarp climbed onto a pyre and was burned alive for the same reason. Their friend Clement, who is mentioned in the Bible, who studied under Peter and Paul, and whose writings we have, was tied to an anchor and thrown into the sea for the same reason.

From the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, we can put together just about the entirety of the New Testament from their heavy quotations of the New Testament letters and that’s all less than two hundred years from the resurrection. They knew the men who wrote the letters and provide direct, eyewitness testimony of what happened and all save John refused to recant and were executed because of it.

Self, you believe without having known the apostles. They believed having known the apostles and provide a chain of collaboration and eyewitness testimony back to the resurrection itself. When they said they have the hope of the resurrection, what the Greek word really means is that they had profound certainty in the resurrection. Your hope is not a desire, a wish, or an expectation, but a profound certainty in the resurrection based on a faith that is not blind but comes with a chain of custody of truth that goes back two thousand years that kings and emperors and dictators tried to exterminate.

So self, act like you have that profound certainty that others die for. Act like God matters more than your paycheck. Act like God matters more than your luxuries. Act like God matters more than your job. Act like God matters more than your comfort. Act like God matters more than your politics. Act like God matters more than your favorite politicians. Act like God matters more than your life.

Self, the path you are on — law school and legal practice — will change in a few years. When it does, remember God has a plan and it has been running for a few thousand years so act like it matters more than what you’re about to be doing.

Can’t think of a more fitting way to end Decline & Religion week than that.

I’d love to see President Trump leave office.

He’s not a good person. We’ve known that at least since his sexual assault confessions leaked. Of course, bad people can still be decent presidents, as Bill Clinton supporters spent the ’90s loudly insisting. But Trump has been a pretty bad president in a great many ways. His signature domestic legislation was a bad law, and, in foreign affairs (theoretically the most important part of a presidency), the kindest thing you can say is that Trump’s policy has been… um… erratic. In the few ways that Trump is a good president (e.g. he appoints fantastic judges), any conservative — including Vice President Mike Pence — would be even better.

Moreover, Congress has been too timid about the impeachment power for decades… maybe centuries. Combined with other Congressional fecklessness, the result is that the president’s powers are now downright awe-inspiring, while the legislature is about as relevant as the Roman Senate post-Augustus. I would love to see Congress take back its prerogatives. I would love to see them make an example of one of our modern imperial presidents.

But the fact that I want President Trump out of office does not a “high crime or misdemeanor” make.

Now, I have pointed out for years that the standard for impeaching a president under the Constitution is much broader than most people (especially partisans) realize. You don’t have to prove an actual statutory violation to impeach; a sufficiently serious abuse of power, even if technically legal, can count as a “high crime or misdemeanor.” English high officials could be convicted of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for things as subjective as appointing “unfit and unworthy” officials and failing to enforce the laws passed by Parliament. That’s how the Founders understood the phrase, as explained in this 1974 Congressional memo (which, weird trivia fact, was worked on by a young Hillary Clinton).

You can’t impeach someone just for being incompetent (“maladministration” is specifically not a high crime), and you can’t impeach someone for generalized abusiveness (although I wish we could impeach for abuse of Twitter), but you can impeach for specific acts that egregiously abuse the powers of the presidential office. There are some subjective variables here, but that’s why the impeachment process gives us jurors: each U.S. Senator must weigh the evidence and decide whether they see a “high crime or misdemeanor” in the President’s behavior.

My role models in anti-Trumpism — David French, Ross Douthat, Jonah Goldberg — all appear to see exactly that in the Ukraine affair. I’ve always seen pretty much exactly what they see in the various Trump scandals, both the good and (mostly) the bad.

This time, though… I don’t get it.

The President of the United States heard and apparently believed a rumor that a United States official (former Vice President Biden) and/or his son had possibly engaged in corrupt behavior in Ukraine. Whether this rumor is true or false is immaterial. I’m personally inclined to believe it is false.

But the President believed it to be true, and that’s what matters. The story is not absurd on its face, so his interest in it cannot be dismissed as pretextual. The President has a positive responsibility to investigate corruption by U.S. officials under the “take care” clause. That’s true even when those officials happen to be political rivals, as Biden is. Since the alleged crimes took place within Ukraine, the President would naturally wish to enlist the assistance of the Ukrainian government and have them sniff around a bit on behalf of the American justice system.

Of course, foreign governments do not do “favors” for us just cuz we’re buds. That’s not how international diplomacy works. In fact, the Ukrainian government has strong incentives not to to get involved in domestic U.S. politics. So the President applied some light diplomatic pressure, vaguely suggesting that some foreign aid money would be unfrozen in exchange for the requested assistance. (Yes, Team Trump is being pretty silly to deny there was a quid pro quo. We can read; it’s right there. This is a very funny skewering of their talking point.)

No international deal, on any matter, large or small, has ever been accomplished without some kind of quid pro quo (whether explicit or, as here, merely implied). That’s not bribery; it’s the basic exercise of the constitutional foreign affairs power.

So the whole exchange, it seems to me, is, on its face, legitimate.

Now, when you dig in a bit to the context — Vice President Biden is, after all, President Trump’s most likely 2020 political opponent — “abuse of power” fits a little better. It starts to smell like maybe the President of the United States is using the immense power of his office, plus a little highly dubious foreign intelligence, to scare up some opposition research to help him win an upcoming election. A cynic might plausibly call that an egregious abuse of presidential power.

…of course, one must at this point observe that, just a couple years ago, President Obama relied on a little highly dubious foreign intelligence to get a FISA warrant on a Trump advisor, kicking into high gear a massive, multi-year exercise in opposition research, backed by the immense power of the U.S. intelligence community, which ultimately turned up… nothing much! But President Obama’s Russia investigation accomplished what a cynic might plausibly argue was President Obama’s goal: generating a giant cloud over the head of an incoming president Team Obama hated, and undeniably hobbling President-Elect Trump’s agenda for his entire first term. Not only has nobody I’ve read suggested Obama deserved impeachment over this tidy little affair, but many of the same Very Serious People calling for President Trump’s impeachment today claim with a straight face that President Obama had a “no-scandal” presidency!

Impeachment for abuse of power is, as I’ve said, somewhat subjective. Under the Constitution, we can have very lax interpretations of it and very strict ones. Both are legitimate, if applied consistently. But this scandal makes me think that there’s one standard for President Trump the year before his re-election campaign, and another standard for everybody else (both parties).

Consider all the times recent Presidents abused power much more obviously than President Trump did here, yet weren’t convicted (or, in most cases, even tried):

• President Clinton’s perjury
• President Clinton’s obstruction of justice
• President Bush’s establishment of a surveillance state with zero Congressional authorization or oversight
• President Bush’s firing of the U.S. attorneys
  • a scandal I admit I only dimly remember and barely followed
• President Obama’s obstinate refusal to follow the “take care” clause of the Constitution, both with respect to the insurance mandate and with respect to federal immigration law
  • remember that refusal to enforce the law was a key “high crime or misdemeanor” to the Founding Fathers
• President Obama’s interference with the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s criminal email server
• President Obama’s investigation into Candidate Trump
• President Trump’s own obstruction of justice during the Russia investigation
  • there doesn’t seem to have been collusion, but I tend to agree with my man Justin Amash that the coverup itself represented a major, and quite possibly impeachable, abuse of power

If Congress wishes to adopt a new, very strict standard whereby all Presidents are removed from office who seem, on clear and convincing evidence, to have abused their powers, then that’s their prerogative. I’ll be ecstatic: I’ll be rid of President Trump, and, bonus, future presidents will have to radically change how they operate compared to recent history. Congress would be in possession of at least some power again. Huzzah!

But does anyone really think that’s what’s going on here? Does anyone really think that there’s a great moral revolution happening in 2019 Washington, and the Great and the Good are finally realizing that they should have impeached President Obama the instant he suspended the employer mandate? Does anyone think Chuck Schumer is going to come out in the middle of all this Ukraine stuff and apologize for voting against Bill Clinton’s impeachment for caught-red-handed perjury in 1999? Or that Bill Kristol’s going to come out and condemn Iran-Contra?

I sure don’t. And if our standard for “abuse of office” is so lax for every other president and public official in the land, I don’t see how Trump’s inappropriate behavior in Ukraine suddenly meets the bar for impeachment, conviction, and removal.

But a bunch of right-wingers I respect do see it. That, more than anything, is why I felt the need to write this post. I hope this little half-hearted defense of Trump ages poorly. Because I don’t see it… but I’d like to!

*NOTE: I have no idea whether the image at the top of this post is authentic. Nixon resigned in August and was thus never impeached, so I’m not sure why gallery tickets to an October impeachment proceeding would ever have been printed. But it’s a great picture! Thanks, Google Image Search!

UPDATE: I changed my mind.