Iconoclasm, Traditionalist Roman Catholicism and Trump

I occasionally listen to Taylor Marshall as well as some other Roman Catholic Traditionalists. For obvious reasons I don't agree with Marshall but I like some of the topics he covers and I've long been intrigued by Roman Catholic history – especially in the wake of the 19^th century. This was only amplified by the time I spent in Italy along with the multiple trips I took to Rome. It whets the appetite to be sure. I'm not speaking in terms of conversion but rather the intrigue and frankly, the evil.

Marshall is interesting because he attempts to wrestle with the controversial aspects of this history. He doesn't obfuscate as much as you might expect but at the same time he does engage in a great deal of spin and re-direction.  That said, not everything he says is without value and so I continue to listen from time to time.

For Marshall everything is the fault of the liberals – the plotting secularists and Marxists that have conspired to overthrow the Catholic Church. It's interesting because on one level Rome is still very powerful (more than people realise) and without a doubt there is a history of Masonic conspiracy and other groups that have sought to subvert it.

On the other hand the Roman Catholic Church is an idolatrous and apostate False Church and so I view these things through a very different lens. Not that I appreciate the ideological and political forces that have sought the downfall of Rome but rather the nature of the attacks and what Marshall defends – well, let's just say I often have a different take on it all.

And while Rome has its own battles between liberals and conservatives – unlike many Evangelicals who continue to flirt with Rome, I am not encouraged by the Catholic conservatives. And in many cases their ideas are just as theologically aberrant and ethically dubious as their liberal counterparts – like two sides of a rotten counterfeit coin.

Marshall was recently upset over rioters breaking into 'churches' and smashing up Catholic statues. I was reminded of Stalin demolishing Orthodox church buildings in the 1930's. On the one hand Stalin as well as the contemporary vandals are wicked – in their minds they're attacking Christianity. On the other hand the breaking of the Orthodox temples and Catholic idols is righteous providential judgment and I do not lament it taking place. I wouldn't encourage it but I'm hardly sad about it.

Protestant iconoclasts in the 16^th century were largely engaged in a form of political protest and in most cases they actually celebrated the buildings and their sacral architecture – indeed the whole sacral system. Their grievance was with Rome and the statues that represented its system. Religiously and even theologically motivated to be sure, the politics nevertheless loomed large and while I'm not in agreement with likes of Francis Schaeffer who treasured the art and wanted to see it preserved – I nevertheless don't believe it's our task to smash up buildings. New Testament Christians wouldn't be interested in 're-capturing' or even 'reforming' their buildings anyway. They were part and parcel elements of the system the socio-political order of Christendom that was a form of apostasy. In light of that the statues seem to be of far less significance.

That said, the iconoclastic scene in the 1970 film Cromwell remains one of my favourites and there's been more than one occasion that I've felt like doing just that when walking into a Baptist church or even a Reformed congregation and finding crosses, candles, advent wreaths and the like. In the film Cromwell (played by Richard Harris) marches to the front, denounces the candles, golden cross and the like and proceeds to knock them over and throw them down. Of course he also denounces the king – and while the Stewarts were indeed awful, I cannot agree with him or the other rebels and regicides. I hate the idolatrous additions but all too often displays of iconoclasm have a strong political element.

Marshall studiously avoids the reality that many of the Catholic Church's evil deeds and schemes took place in the context of Right-wing alliances – the Vatican allying with the American Deep State as represented by the CIA, Pentagon and in particular the Republican presidencies. These entities worked with the Christian Democratic forces within Italy, allied with Franco in Spain and frequently worked directly with the Vatican. And while Marshall knows there are Masonic and mafia factors in these relationships – they were not tied to the political Left but in every case they were in alliance with the Right – even with elements and remnants of World War II era fascism.

As Marshall speaks of the disgraced Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and paedophile rings operating within ecclesiastical circles – I'm not thinking of Leftist politicians, bankers and the like. No, I'm thinking about the CIA and powerful elements within the government and Wall Street (hardly the haunt of Leftist activists) that use such people as both facilitators and subjects of blackmail. I immediately think of someone like Attorney General William Barr – hardly a leftist – a person who has deep ties to the CIA and has worked to cover up the many dark deeds of his government and its projects which have at times overlapped with Rome and the Vatican leadership. One thinks of Right-wing death squads in Latin America which often targeted priests advocating Liberation Theology as well as banking scandals which often overlapped with proxy wars and the funding of Right-wing anti-communist elements that were supported by and working in collaboration with the Roman hierarchy.

Marshall may want to present the Vatican Bank scandal as the result of leftist infiltration but this is of course laughable. The scandal was but a component of a wider net that involved Right-wing paramilitaries, anti-communist activities, ex-Nazis, Wall Street money laundering, coups d'état and a long list of other dark deeds. But in virtually every case the agenda is one in accord with the Right. While I don't doubt theological liberalism has led to an embrace of feminism and sodomy, plenty of the dirty and perverted priests have been part of the Right-wing spectrum and have (hypocritically of course) argued for traditional and family values. And in other cases they have supported Right-wing causes and violent actions abroad. Francis Spellman (hardly a leftist) immediately comes to mind.

Marshall rightly remarks on the similarities between the McCarrick ring and Jeffrey Epstein's network and yet does he think that Epstein (with his political and intelligence connections) was part of some Leftist plot? It's not really even a case of right vs. left but Marshall (good right-winger that he is) wants to ignore the crimes of the politicians and prelates he likes and instead wants to blame all of Rome's corruption on the 'progressives' whom he views as infiltrators. And as far as the Epstein scandal goes – it clearly transcends the phony political divide.

And when someone's dark deeds are revealed he seems desperate to find a connection to some 'left wing' institution, foundation, political group or the like so that he can claim that in reality they were actually leftists and theological liberals.

It's just not that cut and dry.

Rome has been infiltrated but the nature of the infiltration is not what he thinks it is. There's an intellectual and ideological battle which was exacerbated by the industrial revolution and yes, there are Catholic liberals. But at the same time, unlike Albert Mohler I can hardly get excited about Catholic conservatives. They're not Christians and their entire structure of authority and epistemology is built on completely different foundations.

Rome is tainted, stained beyond repair or reform and yet its re-cast and re-born 20^th century empire wields considerable power. Its influence is tremendous and it is fascinating to consider and so I still follow its developments, twists and turns and of course its endless scandals.

But Marshall really surprised me when he suggested that because Francis is suppressing the McCarrick report – Catholics should call on Trump to investigate the conspiracy of high-ranking paedophile clerics.

That was an eye-opener and unexpected from a traditionalist Catholic. I would think many traditionalists would have taken sharp exception to his suggestion, especially given the centuries-long history of states attempting to garner judicial jurisdiction over Catholic clerics. This was a major struggle within the Middle Ages and yet Marshall is seemingly unaware that his suggestion regarding Trump all but demands that he would have supported Henry II over Thomas Beckett, Henry IV over Gregory VII (Hildebrand) and Louis IV over John XXII.

Is a traditionalist Catholic really calling on a modern secular state to investigate the Roman Catholic hierarchy and to potentially try and jail its leaders and perhaps its complicit priests and staffers?

Many leftists, ecclesiastical liberals and secularists would applaud this but I would think those in the traditionalist community would call out Taylor Marshall and urge him to retract his statement. Are they unaware of the liberal and even Magisterially Protestant nature of his suggestion?

Or has their zeal for Trump and hatred for Francis blinded them and they're reduced to talking foolishly?