Thoughts on Impeachment

The recent decision to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump is a very troubling historical event.

The reason is that the government of the United States, in pursuing this path, is showing the telltale signs of decline, which will eventually lead to its downfall.

The strength of the United States of America, over the nearly 250 years of its existence, has been the stability of its government on the one hand, and the civility of its citizens, on the other. Both of these qualities are remarkable, given the fact that it is a federation of many states, covering a vast territory, and a people consisting of many differing cultures, backgrounds, races, and religions.

These disparate elements have managed to stay the course of unity through the determination of its citizens to make it work. Even the War Between the States was unable, in the long run, to reduce the nation to political rubble.

In the political world, there has always been a toleration and forbearance of the opposing party or parties, since there was a mechanism in place to peacefully replace the bearers of governmental power. The losers of an election, whether the liberals or the conservatives, simply had to bear up until the next election.

In the cultural and religious world, Americans always practiced a civility towards those who were not of your fold. America was a place in which you could make your own world, whether political, cultural or religious, while at the same time carefully observing a civil kindness and decency toward those who disagreed or who were different.

These factors are central and essential to America’s strength as a nation. They are disappearing.

Civil toleration of opposing political ideas has eroded very seriously.

In regard to the political situation, let us abstract for a moment from who is in the right in this impeachment controversy.

These troubling factors disquieted me very much in recent weeks:

• That the President of the United States could be spied upon in his own house in his private phone calls to foreign heads of State.
• That he would be accused by the Congress of serious (impeachable) wrongdoing on the word of one anonymous accuser.
• That the testimony of the “whistleblower” is based on second- and third-hand information, what is commonly known as hearsay evidence.
• That Mr. Rosenstein, who is effectively the prosecutor in this case, could so embroider the contents of the President’s conversation, that his rendering of it became an outright lie, although he himself dismissed it as a parody.
• That there was no outrage on the part of the members of Congress at this gross misrepresentation of the President’s words.

That these extremely grave violations of fundamental justice could take place at the highest levels of government is a very bad sign for the future of this country.

The fall of the Roman Empire was caused precisely by the uprising of various factions in the Roman government against the incuмbent emperor, many times causing their untimely and violent deaths.

The Byzantine Empire also succuмbed to the Mohammedans because of an interior weakness of warring factions in the government, which also resulted in the ousting of emperors, often with cruel tortures, such as having their eyes gouged out.

The Russian Empire fell to communism not only because of weakness of the Czarist government, but mostly because of strident factionalism within the Kerensky government.

France, since the Revolution of 1789, has changed constitutions and forms of government a dizzying amount of times, at least four times from 1789 to 1804, and then thirteen more times from 1804 to the present. Although it had a stable monarchy for one thousand years, from Charlemagne to Louis XVI, its course over the past 230 years has resembled more the government of a banana republic.

America, however, despite some fiery political oppositions, has managed to avoid up to now this instability of government through patience and civility.

The heat to impeach is so virulent that it reminds me of the Jacobins calling for the head of Louis XVI.

Impeachment of a president is so grave, and so dangerous to the general order of the nation, that it should be conducted with the utmost care, calm, and gravest respect for all of the standards of evidence and justice. But we have seen the precise opposite in recent weeks.

The very idea of an anonymous accuser is absolutely contrary to American culture and ideals. Who even knows if the “whistleblower” is a real person? The identity of the accuser is of supreme importance in any accusation, since his character and background are determining factors in his credibility. It is for this reason that they must appear in
court, and give their testimony in person.

Who ever heard of secret denunciations in the United States of America? And everyone knows that hearsay evidence is worthless in a court of law. Yet these are the very instruments being used to cut off the head of the President.

And how can can someone lie to Congress in a matter of so great moment as that of impeachment, and not be prosecuted for a crime?

For all of these reasons, the events of recent weeks are the sign of a deep political cancer in the organs of government, and are a portent of a fatal political instability and of a future weakness in the face of our enemies.

What I have said here could apply to any president, whether Republican or Democrat, whether liberal or conservative. For the stringent demands of justice, particularly in what concerns the impeachment of the Head of State, transcend political parties.

God have mercy on us.

I rather think it's precisely these things which has brought us to this point. A modern day Roman empire.

I agree with you and I think the good bishop made an error with this: “That Mr. Rosenstein, who is effectively the prosecutor in this case, could so embroider the contents of the President’s conversation, that his rendering of it became an outright lie, although he himself dismissed it as a parody.”


I think he meant Adam Schiff not Rosenstein.

Is not +Sanborn a sedevacantist?

He's a sedeprivationist.

Is not +Sanborn a sedevacantist? How can one depose a Pope by one's own personal judgment, but yet, express such great concern for the possibility of "legal" proceedings by Congress to remove a sitting president from office of a freemasonic institution?

Note: I put legal in quotations because Congress DOES have the authority to impeach a sitting president, but this Congress is acting unlawfully in pursuing this endeavor due to it's immoral/unlawful agenda.

Ohh the irony!

Have you ever read what the basis of the sedevacantist position is? No one is deposing a pope, which is heresy, we are simply recognizing the fact that the supposed pope is in fact not a true pope since he is not a member of the Church due to his being a manifest heretic. This is overwhelmingly held by the majority of theologians.

In the political world, there has always been a toleration and forbearance of the opposing party or parties, since there was a mechanism in place to peacefully replace the bearers of governmental power. The losers of an election, whether the liberals or the conservatives, simply had to bear up until the next election.

In the cultural and religious world, Americans always practiced a civility towards those who were not of your fold. America was a place in which you could make your own world, whether political, cultural or religious, while at the same time carefully observing a civil kindness and decency toward those who disagreed or who were different

I would tend to agree with the first paragraph above, and it is a useful thing to mention. But with increasing instability and degradation in the moral standards of society (which Bp. Dolan doesn't mention), politics have gone the same route - it is now possible to attempt to overthrow a legally elected POTUS, without greater society even questioning it. IMO, that's a form of moral degradation.

The second paragraph is problematic. The Puritans, who were the first Protestants to form societies in this country, were not tolerant. They were anything but. And their influence prevailed for a long time. The only good thing about them is that we still bear a legacy of wanting to observe the rule of law, which they always insisted upon. And of course there was much prejudice against Catholics in some of the early colonies, but not all. Sometimes Catholics were in the majority in some of the colonies. They tended to be more tolerant. Tolerance toward those who were "different" was not universal by any means.

Bp. Dolan doesn't mention specifics above as to whom he referring, regarding kindness and decency towards those who were "different," in the civil and cultural world. By "different", perhaps he means ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, or Muslims, Catholics, or something else.

Well, Bishop Sanborn here sounds like a bit of an Americanist ... as he regularly lauds the civil (and religious) liberties allowed by the United States.  Most of the original American Nine had this tendency and were also intertwined too much with the John Birch Society.

Practically, you have to work with what you have (legally speaking).  I'm sure no coherent Trad priest would object to a catholic monarchy in America, were the option available.  I just think he's arguing in favor of the laws on the books.  Even in a pagan country such as America, such laws should be upheld.  

Right, I know he's not, but just say that he SOUNDS like it.  It's the issue a lot of American Catholics had even before Vatican II.  If you parrot back a lot of the patriotic slogans you're supposed to believe as an American, some of those ideals run contrary to Catholic teaching.  This led to a lot of tension in American Catholicism.  Some of the American periti at Vatican II were key forces behind the declaration of Religious Liberty.  

John Courtney Murray comes to mind.

from Wikipedia --

John Courtney Murray, SJ, (September 12, 1904 – August 16, 1967), was an American Jesuit priest and theologian, who was especially known for his efforts to reconcile Catholicism and religious pluralism, particularly focusing on the relationship between religious freedom and the institutions of a democratically structured modern state.

During the Second Vatican Council, he played a key role in persuading the assembly of the Catholic bishops to adopt the Council's ground-breaking Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis humanae.