Mediaboss Marketing

Whitby Abbey in North Yorkshire, England. (Image: Anna cicicic/Unsplash.com)

I gave a talk recently on Catholic Church history an overview, a quick hits kind of tour. Instead of trying to actually go through a lot of dates and events, I focused on the Catholic understanding of history, contrasting it with the secular view which is the view most of us, Catholic or not, assume is the normative paradigm.

What is that secular view? That the human journey on earth is one ofprogressandadvancement.

It makes sense, in a way, for one of the major features of human life, especially since the Enlightenment is obvious technological and material progress and betterment. And expansion of our sense and experience of human rights and civil liberties. It is not surprising that this has become our dominant paradigm for comparing past and present.

Given spice, of course, since Marx and through to the present, with the paradigm of class and now identity struggle and conflict.

But thats not the Catholic paradigm. I reallycant do better than to quote this from Timothy ODonnell:

It is important to note that the Christo-centric view of history is fundamentally different from the ideology of the progress of man. Those who exclude the Incarnation from the story of man preach a different gospel: that man, through his continued enlightenment, will eventually make sense of sufferingor even eliminate it. On the contrary, in this fallen world there will always be sin, sorrow and suffering, and only through Christ do these mysteries find meaning. Christ, the Prince of Peace, turns the human story upside down by defeating sin and death on the Cross, and by sanctifying suffering.

And then Benedict XVI, from Spe Salvi:

That is, Church Fathers such as Eusebius and Augustine understood God as speaking to his people through history, and not simply Church history proper. The rise and fall of nations were to be understood in terms of God calling his people to himself.

At the same time, two categories become increasingly central to the idea of progress: reason and freedom. Progress is primarily associated with the growing dominion of reason, and this reason is obviously considered to be a force of good and a force for good. Progress is the overcoming of all forms of dependencyit is progress towards perfect freedom. Likewise freedom is seen purely as a promise, in which man becomes more and more fully himself. In both conceptsfreedom and reasonthere is a political aspect. The kingdom of reason, in fact, is expected as the new condition of the human race once it has attained total freedom. The political conditions of such a kingdom of reason and freedom, however, appear at first sight somewhat ill defined. Reason and freedom seem to guarantee by themselves, by virtue of their intrinsic goodness, a new and perfect human community. The two key concepts of reason and freedom, however,were tacitly interpreted as being in conflict with the shackles of faith and of the Church as well as those of the political structures of the period. Both concepts therefore contain a revolutionary potential of enormous explosive force.

On this subject, all we can attempt here are a few brief observations. First we must ask ourselves: what does progress really mean; what does it promise and what does it not promise? In the nineteenth century, faith in progress was already subject to critique. In the twentieth century, Theodor W. Adorno formulated the problem of faith in progress quite drastically: he said that progress, seen accurately, is progress from the sling to the atom bomb.Now this is certainly an aspect of progress that must not be concealed. To put it another way: the ambiguity of progress becomes evident.Without doubt, it offers new possibilities for good, but it also opens up appalling possibilities for evilpossibilities that formerly did not exist. We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in mans ethical formation, in mans inner growth (cf. Eph 3:16; 2 Cor 4:16), then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world. (Emphasis added)

And now to apply this to Church history specifically: Our stance towards the Catholic past just cannot be to point and laugh at how ignoranttheywere and howenlightenedwe are today.

No, our paradigm is to recognize that we all past, present and future share a common stance: on our knees before the Cross.

The Catholic view of our own history is one of humility and openness. We can learn, and we must learn its required, since our faith is rooted in both Revelation and Tradition, of course.

But we can take it in another direction, as well.

To engage with the past means to engage with human beings who might live in material circumstances, and social, political and economic landscapes that are quite different than ours, but who are still, at the beginning and end, human beings who were born, suffered, struggled, were in communion, and faced mortality under the same mysterious stars.

Encountering their traditions, ways and thoughts, we would do well to engage, rather than scoff, to dig deeply and ask why did they do this? What moved them? What do I share in common with those motivations? What do I do in the present that meets those same needs? Do my actions and choices make any more sense, in the end, than theirs do?

In other words, our instinctive reaction to some Catholic moment from the past might be:Wow, thats pretty crazy. And it might have been! But we might consider a follow-upas we consider our own lives:Wow, thats pretty crazy, too, to be honest.

As I said, ours is not to point and laugh and bask in our superiority. Because we dont have anything to brag about.

That is not to argue that the past is golden, ossified, and preserved in amber for our devotion and emulation. The Catholic past is a riotous dynamic which includes moments worth reverencing and moments worth critiquing.

For the history of the Church may not be properly understood by the secular definition of progress but it certainly has the dynamic of reform baked into it. That is indeed, our history: Establishing a thought or practice or other reality that is faithful to the Gospel, and then, invariably, that moment of drifting, corrupting and being an example, no longer of love, but of human pride and folly. And so we pray, discern, perhaps painfully tear down what have become idols, and begin again.

Again and again: rooting ourselves in the beauty and truth that has sprouted in the past, and then being completely open to the needs of the present moment, and then discerning, with the help of the Holy Spirit, what that moment calls for.

But never, ever laboring under the hubristic assumption that that our awareness of that Spirit represents any sort of necessary progressjust becauseitsnowand that wasthen.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives and Church history Catholic World Report - Catholic World Report

While most Americans were focused on partisan polarization in Washington, D.C., the U.S. criminal justice system has been quietly transformed by a group of radically liberal billionaires and millionaires. They have attacked our system of justice at its roots, bankrolling the campaigns of activist district attorney candidates who promise to give criminals soft sentences in the name of so-called social justice and equity.

Now self-styled progressive district attorneys, many of whom toppled conventional Democratic opponents across the country by running to their left, are enforcing their own warped sense of social justice instead of the actual law. Unsurprisingly, crime has risen in our cities the Council on Criminal Justice found that in 2021, murders increased in every major city in the U.S. My own state of Virginia is currently experiencing its highest murder rate in two decades.

The idea that being lenient on violent criminals will create a more just society is both naive and counterintuitive. Eliminating criminal justice is not criminal justice reform.

A new report from Capital Research revealed that progressives have spent nearly $30 million backing liberal activist district attorneys in over 20 communities, including big cities like Los Angeles and New York City, northern Virginia suburbs outside Washington, D.C., and rural communities in Georgia and Mississippi.

In Manhattan, the radical left spent over $1 million electing Alvin Bragg who, shortly after being sworn in, released a memo stating that his office would not seek any prison sentences for crimes such as armed robbery, drug dealing, and burglaries. Consequently, 72 of the 77 police precincts have seen an increase in crime; in Manhattan, NYPD CompStat numbers reveal that burglaries, grand larcenies, and felony assaults are rising at a rapid pace. These crimes not only violate decency in daily life theyre also gateway offenses for people who become career criminals.

Meanwhile, in the northern Virginia suburbs outside of Washington, D.C., liberal activist attorneys have been elected in Arlington County, Fairfax County, and Loudoun County.Fairfax County Commonwealths Attorney Steve Descano recently decided not to prosecute more than 20 different categories of crimes. Descano is trying to usurp the legislatures rightful role of deciding what is illegal and what is not and hes putting the public at risk in the process. Since Descanos election, the murder rate in Fairfax County has doubled, prompting a recall petition.

In fact, the alleged serial killer responsible for the murder and attempted murders of multiple homeless men in D.C. and New York City was previously arrested in Fairfax County. Steve Descano fought to lower his sentence and returned him to the streets.

Those murders shouldnt have happened. The criminal first, victim last mindset behind this tragedy is a danger to the public.

In an effort to make our cities and suburbs more secure, we need district attorneys who will follow the law instead of giving criminals a slap on the wrist.Arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement creates the dangerous precedent that there are no consequences for breaking the law.

The great irony is that the vast majority of the liberal elites bank-rolling this soft-on-crime agenda live in wealthy, gated neighborhoods and will never experience the consequences of their advocacy. The victims of this agenda are the poor, the working class, and the marginalized.

As a former city prosecutor, Ive held the hands of victims. I know that their worst fear is being forgotten, and that the person who hurt them will hurt someone else.Thats why I am proud to announce that I will serve as honorary chairman of Protecting Americans Project Action Fund.

This organization will serve as a new firewall to stop the advancement of dangerous left-wing prosecutors and their warped sense of justice.We will support individuals in key state and local elections who are committed to enforcing the law, calling balls and strikes, and putting the safety of our communities first.

Together, Protecting Americans Project Action Fund will work to elect officials who believe that our judicial system should be consistent and impartial, rather than serving as a fiefdom for liberal activist district attorneys administering the law as they see fit. Well work to restore accountability in the judicial process and faith that prosecutors will enforce the law and do the jobs they were elected to do.

Jason Miyares is attorney general of Virginia and the first Hispanic elected statewide in Virginia. He was previously a prosecutor in the City of Virginia Beach.

Read the original:
Progressive District Attorneys Are Making Our Cities Unsafe - RealClearPolitics

Online survey asks New Westminster residents and businesses to identify key priorities

The New West Progressives are holding a series of townhall forums to get input that will help shape their 2022 election platform.

Ken Armstrong, who is the New West Progressives mayoral candidate, has announced a series of townhall forums that will take place in May in the neighbourhoods across the city. Community members are invited to participate in the meetings, which are on May 5, 10 and 17.

In the 2018 civic, our team of candidates developed an amazing and comprehensive 10-point platformthat caught the publics attention, Armstrong said in a news release. It was so good, that the current city council even took a page or two out of it and began to implement some of our ideas.

When asked by the Record what NWP ideas the current city council had implemented, Armstrong cited its platforms promise to "increase the overall visibility and scope of our separated bike lane network and cycle paths. (The citys 2015 master transportation plan prioritized active transportation over motor vehicles, and cited comfortable bicycle facilities as one of its sustainable transportation priorities.)

We also campaigned on making New Westminster a more Fun City, in part by increasing approved patio spaces by 25% within five years, and we're pleased to see the temporary patio program trialled in the summer of 2020 and renewed in 2021 through to at least June 1 this year, he said in a statement to the Record.

(In response to indoor dining restrictions and concerns about the spread of COVID-19, the city expanded opportunities to create seasonal outdoor and curbside patios in 2020, something thats carried on since it was introduced. Council recently considered changes to various regulations aimed at further supporting a patio program.)

According to Armstrong, the New West Progressives will be issuinga report card on how many of current councils promises were implemented.

The New West Progressives townhall forums are taking place at the Queensborough Community Centre on Thursday, May 5 from 6:30 to 8 p.m.; at the Inn at the Quay on Tuesday, May 10 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.; and at the Royal City Curling Club on Tuesday, May 17 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.

Now that were able to gather in-person once again to get direct feedback from the community, its important we do so to ensure that our platform reflects their priorities, Armstrong said. This type of policy development and feedback needs to happen more regularly at city hall. Its something our team intends to implement rather quickly after we get elected.

In addition to the townhall forums, the New West Progressives have launched an online survey to garner additional feedback from local residents and small businesses. The deadline to complete the survey is May 31.

The survey includes a section where community members are asked to rank 12 issues in terms of their importance, including transportation and transit, truth and reconciliation, crime and safety, densification, and arts and culture. It then asks respondents to rate the current councils efforts in these areas and to provide additional feedback.

The New West Progressives say theyll use feedback from the survey and townhall forums to develop its council campaign platform that will be released prior to the Oct. 15 civic election.

To provide your input, go to http://www.nwprogressives.ca/survey.

Whos running?

To date, Armstrong is the only candidate to officially declare plans to run in the Oct. 15 civic election. Downtown businessman Paul Minhas, owner of Begbies Tavern and the former Heritage Grill, recently announced he would be seeking support to run on the New West Progressives team.

According to Armstrong, the New West Progressives will be announcing two candidates at an April 7 fundraiser at Frankie Gs Pub in Queensborough and another candidate at an April 28 event at Begbies in downtown New West.

Whats happening with Forward New West?

On Dec. 5, 2021, school board chair Gurveen Dhaliwal and Mayor Jonathan Cote issued a press release announcing the formation of the Together New West Electors Society, a group whose commitments include creating affordable housing, engaging in reconciliation and decolonization, addressing the climate emergency and supporting a strong public education system.

It immediately encountered issues, however, when the Downtown New West BIA voiced concerns that the groups name was the same as the #togethernewwest campaign the BIA had launched in the spring of 2020. Dhaliwal told the media the group had no plans to change its name, but Cote issued a statement apologizing to the BIA and expressing disappointment that the Together New West party executive had decided not to work with the BIA to fully address the legitimate concerns theyd raised.

On Dec. 23, Together New Westminster registered a new name with Elections BC Forward New West. On Jan. 1, Cote announced he would not be seeking reelection in the Oct. 15, 2022 civic election.

The Record has contactedDhaliwal, who is listed as the groups authorized principal official, for an update. More to come.

Follow Theresa McManus on Twitter@TheresaMcManusEmailtmcmanus@newwestrecord.ca

See the rest here:
New West Progressives holding townhall forums to shape 2022 election platform - The Record (New Westminster)

This op-ed is aresponse to A Progressive Response to Ukraine, published by In These Times on March14.

On March 14, In These Times publisher Joel Bleifuss published an editorial headlined, A Progressive Response to Ukraine, in which he mischaracterizes what the two of us have written about this crisis and fails to acknowledge the positive contributions that many progressive groups are making to both explain the crisis and work towards asolution.

Bleifuss cites our articles in his assertion that certain elements of the Left rationalized Russias actions and preemptively blamed the United States for any forthcoming militaryoperations.

In our writings since last November, we certainly described U.S. provocations: the Wests broken promises on NATO expansion; NATOs ill-advised promise of membership to Ukraine; the U.S. role in the 2014 overthrow of the Yanukovych government, which we argue was acoup; the Trump administrations support for President Zelenskys failure to deliver on the Minsk II agreement; and the Biden administrations refusal to negotiate seriously with Russia over its security concerns after 30years of expansionist U.S. and NATO policy inEurope.

We did not use these to justify the Russian invasion but to explain our governments role in stoking tensions. Once the invasion happened, we immediately condemned it as an unjustified, brutal, illegal act ofaggression.

Bleifuss insists that progressives should not fixate on NATO, and says that NATO is only relevant because Putin uses it to cynically stir up Russian resentment. But if NATO had disbanded as the Warsaw Pact did in 1991, or if it had not expanded to Russias border, we doubt that Russia would have invadedUkraine.

If anything, progressives should fixate more on NATO, an aggressive military alliance that has ahistory of illegally invading sovereign states, such as Afghanistan and Libya. It promotes avicious cycle of militarism by insisting that all 30 members spend 2% of their GDP on preparations for war instead of on the real needs of people and the planet. It is an alliance in constant search of new enemies to justify itsexistence.

Regrettably, the Ukraine crisis has given NATO an enormous boost. Right now, our call should be for no NATO expansion. But as soon as this crisis is over, we should join with our progressives colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to call for the disbanding ofNATO.

Bleifuss main point that progressives should be able to criticize the U.S. empire without denying that other bad state actors exist is precisely what most anti-war groups have beendoing.

On February 24, the very day of the Russian invasion, RootsAction, aprogressive group, condemned Russia and said that the world desperately needs asingle standard of accountability to prevent the crime of wara crime that the Russian government is now committing in Ukraine and the U.S. government continues to commit elsewhere as part of the ongoing war onterror.

Veterans for Peace, an anti-war organization, put out an excellent statement that begins: Just as Veterans For Peace condemned U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we strongly condemn Russias invasion of Ukraine and grieve for all those who have lost their lives in this horrific war. Numerous other progressive groups put out similar statements condemning both the Russian invasion and U.S.policies.

Right now, progressives should put their efforts into opposing the no-fly zone that Zelensky has been calling for. We must help people understand that this would trigger adirect U.S. confrontation with Russia and the real possibility of another world war, as well as anuclear confrontation. We should be pushing the White House and Congress to hold fast on their rejection of this request, and push them to give full support to the ongoing negotiations between Russia andUkraine.

This crisis should also make it crystal clear to progressives that we must get serious about building amassive global movement to support the UN Treaty to ban nuclearweapons.

Without condoning or excusing Putin, who bears the direct and immediate responsibility for the invasion of Ukraine, progressives need to push our government to stop fueling the war, and instead do everything it can to bring the war to anend.

And rather than fueling divisions among progressives, In These Times should be rallying progressives to do everything they canget out into the streets, make congressional calls, write op-eds, hold teach-insto end this war and to lay the foundations for amuch stronger and more effective U.S. anti-warmovement.

See the original post:
A More Progressive Response to the Ukraine Crisis - In These Times

Russias invasion of Ukraine and its bombardment of civilian populations has put usually dovish progressives in the odd spot of backing a forceful U.S. response.

The left wing of the Democratic Party has generally been skeptical ofAmericanmilitary involvement overseas and has been criticalofrising defense spending.Nearly two decades ago,manycondemned theU.S. war in Iraq, whichliberalsbroadly saw as an unnecessaryconflictmotivated by oil that tookthegovernment's eye offproblems at home.

For many progressives it has been challenging because we arent used to being in this position, where the U.S. isnt the one doing the invasion, said Alexander McCoy, a co-founder of the left-wing veterans organization Common Defense.

McCoy said part of the challenge for the left is figuring out exactly what it supports and does not support in the context of helping Ukraine fend off Russias aggression.

Much of the progressive movement has built our foreign policy reflexes around trying to stop the U.S. from doing bad things, going back to perhaps the Vietnam War or earlier, he said. But things are changing now, and progressives need to start defining ourselves by what we are for, not just what we are against.

Progressives have sided with President BidenJoe BidenEx-Trump personal assistant appears before Jan. 6 panel Defense & National Security Russia sends warnings to the West On The Money Feds propose new disclosure rule for public companies MORE in declaring Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinDefense & National Security Russia sends warnings to the West Biden tells CEOs they have 'patriotic obligation' to guard against Russian cyberattacks Russian chess grandmaster suspended for publicly supporting invasion MORE a war criminal.

They havebackedhis decision to spend nearly $14 billion in emergency aid to protect the sovereign nation against morebloody escalation.

And there is a push to accept Ukrainian refugees that fits previous calls by progressives to helpmigrants from other countries in times of political peril.

But for all of the support toward the administrations response,liberals are also worried about how rising gas prices exacerbated by the war on international sanctions imposed on Russia will affect poor and middle-class people in the United States.

Liberal Reps. Ilham Omar (Minn.) and Cori BushCori BushFar left, far right find common ground opposing US interventionism Rep. Bush explains vote against Russian oil ban The 17 lawmakers who voted against the Russian oil ban MORE (Mo.) were the only two Democrats to vote against a House measure blocking an end to oil imports from Russia.

Omars vote in part reflected her views that blocking Russian oil could lead the U.S. to rely more on and strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia. Progressives are critical that the Biden administration has not more forcefully pushed human rights in the kingdom out of concern it would harm U.S. and Saudi security and energy cooperation. This includes holding off sanctions on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the killing of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018; the jailing of dissidents and political opponents, in particular women; and Riyadhs role in civilian deaths in Yemens civil war.

Progressives also see humanitarian differences between how the U.S. and allies are responding to the deadly conflict in Ukraine and the ongoing strifein the Arab world. Liberals have for years called for an end to Americas rolein a Saudi-led coalition's military campaign in Yemen.

The Biden administration has rightly and forcefully condemned Russias invasion and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalThe Hill's 12:30 Report: Judge Jackson in the hotseat Daylight saving change faces trouble in House Progressive Caucus presses Biden for executive action on student loans, immigration MORE (D-Wash.) told The Hill. As we reflect on the perils of relying on autocratic governments for fossil fuels, there is no better time for the president to fulfill his commitment to end the United States' military involvement in the Saudi war in Yemen, she said.

Broadly speaking, while progressives haveembracedBidens actionsagainst Russiato date including mounting harsh financial sanctionson the country they are frustrated over what they contend is Americas deeply rooted reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

Climate activists are especially concerned that the war is devastating the environment. They are calling for Biden to lean more heavily on renewable energy sources to decrease Russias grip on internationalenergy supplies.

They acknowledge thats at odds with how the U.S. has traditionally acted in times of conflict but see Bidenssanctions as a promisingopportunity for other measures they thought werent previously possible. Some liberals privately contend that they were surprised that the president moved so quickly to curb the oil flow.

Its great to ban the import of Russian oil, but thats just the beginning, said Keya Chatterjee, executive director of the U.S. Climate Action Network. Relying on corrupt oil states for energy is not an approach thats doable.

Liberals like Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWhy you shouldn't expect profit margins to fall when prices rise Former Bernie Sanders press secretary: US should 'more holistically' fight climate change Gas prices lead to tensions within Democratic Party MORE (I-Vt.) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House are imploring Biden to use the Defense Production Act to increase energy production at home.

This is a moment for us to do things we havent done before, Chatterjee said, referencing using the law to spark more renewable resource production. What weve been doing has brought us a climate crisis and war.

Progressives are also seeing the Russian invasion as a way to mount a broader critique on structures theybelieve arepropping up an outdated foreign policy establishment view aroundthe military.They want more left-wing lawmakers in key posts to provide new perspectives.

In Congress, progressives are greatly underrepresented on the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee, McCoy, of Common Defense, said. Too few progressive organizations have invested in developing members who are impacted by foreign policy into leaders with deep policy expertise and the credibility and platform to counter the unrepresentative hawkish voices that dominate cable TV.

In doing so, however, many on the left continue to say Biden is on the right path with the crisis, a sentiment that is also reflected in recent polling amongDemocratic, Republican and independent voters alike. They acknowledge that while there are additional climate and humanitarian measures that the White House can act on, its imperative to show a united response against Russia.

The world has rightfully been horrified and outraged by Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine and the devastation it has wrought on the Ukrainian people, Jayapal said.

Progressives will continue to advocate that this administration act on its values and bring the same clarity regarding war crimes and human rights abuses in Ukraine to end U.S. military participation in Saudi Arabias war and relieve the suffering of the Yemeni people.

Laura Kelly contributed to this report.

View post:
Progressives in odd spot on Russian war | TheHill - The Hill