The Evils of Social-Emotional Learning

Catholic Candle note: The article below is a “companion” article to an earlier Catholic Candle article about the leftists’ use of an excessively-emotional and unreasonable counterfeit empathy.

That earlier article contrasts false empathy with true empathy and is entitled Empathy – a Tool for Good or for Evil.  The article can be found here:

The leftists have concocted an additional tool to ruin the minds of students.  It is called social-emotional learning (“SEL”).  It is currently one of the main programs that the leftists are pushing for the schools, especially the public schools.

SEL combines the leftists’ longstanding aim to dumb-down the education of the population and their aim to make the people more emotional and less able (as well as less ready) to use their reason.

Let us start our look at this evil trend (viz., social-emotional learning), by recalling some truths about reason:

  Reason is our highest faculty.  It is what makes us (our souls) immortal.

  Reason makes us capable of virtue.  Reason makes every human action either good or bad.  Every action which is not from reason is not a properly human action but stems from instinct and is on the level of the actions and impulses of beasts.

  The object and the perfection of the mind is truth.  Truth is the mind’s conformity with reality and our reason allows us to know the truth.  In other words, through our intellects, we know reality.

  Reason makes it possible for us to know universal, eternal truth.  (In other words, our reason makes us capable of knowing what is always and everywhere true.)

  Reason makes us capable of knowing the highest Truth – that is, God – Who is Truth Itself.  Reason is what makes the blessed capable of “seeing” and enjoying the Beatific Vision – which is an intellectual understanding of God’s Essence, that makes the blessed perfectly happy.

  Reason causes us to have free will, since our will is the rational appetite.  That is, our will is the power of desire regarding all things known by the mind.

  Reason makes us capable of receiving sanctifying grace and actual grace. 

  Reason makes us able to gain supernatural merit.

  Reason is a cause of all human achievements in the history of the world and is necessary for any deeds of honor, valor, or glory which were ever undertaken and attained.

  Reason is an essential foundation of true culture.  Reason is the well-spring of all of the arts and sciences.

  Reason is an essential cause of knowledge and wisdom. 

  Reason underpins happiness, and man cannot be happy except by following his reason.

  Reason is the basis for all justice, harmony, and peace in society.

  True education perfects the mind by facilitating the mind’s development in the truth.

Now let’s contrast these truths (above) with the leftist’ program for the schools which is called “social-emotional learning” (“SEL”).  As even the name indicates, “social-emotional learning” emphasizes:

  social conformity-training – so that the student parrots the same leftist (politically correct) conclusions as everyone else in the class, and


  emotional conditioning – so that the student is habituated to “feel” emotionally, instead of to think logically.

Proponents of “social-emotional learning” openly focus on feelings and downplay reasoning.  Here is the (fuzzy) way in which one prominent SEL website stated this:

Emotion is more important than understanding because, in lieu of all of our willful rationality and effortful pursuit of universal truths, we are ‘wired’ for emotion and it drives us forward – up, away, and back again in countless and quiet little cycles of life.  In the human brain, the neocortex facilitates ‘reason’ but is often encouraged to do so through feedback loops and dopamine rewards.[1]

Of course, the SEL jargon – like the phrase “emotional intelligence” – is really an oxymoron.  Emotions are not at all intelligent except to the extent that they are habituated to conform to the higher principle – viz., reason – through being trained like a dog.

Likewise, the phrase “social-emotional learning” makes no sense because emotions do not learn.  Learning occurs in the intellect.

The perfection of the mind is the truth, and truth is attained by reasoning, debating, discussing, by evidence, syllogizing, and careful analysis.  These are habits of mind that the leftists abhor and which the leftists blame for creating the injustice and oppression in the world.

Instead, the leftists use storytelling and counter-storytelling to appeal to the passion of fear and to other emotions.  They also use subjectively-interpreted “lived experience”.  These are the basis for their declaring their victimhood, e.g., on issues such as their promoting deviant, unnatural vice or attacking the strong virtue of purity. 

The leftists are unequipped and would never debate whether unnatural impurity is objectively evil.  Instead, they would insist on how much those (perverted) people feel “hurt” to be “marginalized” and not “seen” and “respected”.  They would demand that people of that ilk be given a “voice” which is “heard” and that they see in the public forum celebrities that are “like themselves”.

These leftist-trained dupes cannot think-through, discuss, and debate ideas with those who disagree with them.  They are entirely unequipped to evaluate rational discourse.  Such people are conditioned to simply demand the “cancelling” of those who disagree with them.

Thus, society has come to the chaotic condition in which emotionalism dominates debates and discussions throughout the U.S., especially on college campuses.  A claim that someone’s words are “triggering” or  “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of being offended.  It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong.  It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing a (supposed) offense. 

In our society, the “greatest sin” is to saying something which is labeled “offensive”.  By contrast, there is little mention of whether a person’s position is objectively false or true.  Instead, there is fuzzy reference to “your truth” and “my truth” as if the truth is not one (and as if the truth were not a transcendental concept which is convertible with being).

Truth is a “transcendental” concept – meaning that it is present in all categories of “what is and not only some categories.  The truth is mind’s conformity with reality and so, however much a person’s mind knows being, (i.e., knows reality) to that extent he possesses the truth.  For this reason, we say that “truth is convertible with being” – viz., the more a mind is conformed with objective reality, the more truth the mind has.  Truth is objective because reality is objective.  There is no “your truth” and “my truth” because there is no “your reality” and “my reality”.

Social-emotional learning does not aim at teaching a student how to think.  It aims at teaching him what to think – that is, politically-correct conclusions.

The ultimate goal of SEL is to erode traditional morals, beliefs, attitudes, and worldviews of students.  The goal is to manipulate students into accepting the latest leftist ideology.  This is one of the evils of SEL.

When one becomes attuned to listen for such emotion being substituted in the place of reason, then one begins to hear this occurring all around him.  It is everywhere in the media, too.  For example, in a mainstream radio “news” story on the day this article was begun, this is what one person said:

When I heard that [a particular event] occurred, I was so angry.  Then when I realized it could happen again, I was so scared.

As we wrote above, SEL uses social conformity and emotion-based reactions to erode traditional morals, beliefs, attitudes, culture, and practices of students.  The goal is to manipulate students into accepting the latest leftist indoctrination.

The promoters of SEL declare this goal themselves.  For example, the main promoters of SEL explain that SEL is very helpful as a way to inculcate into the students an “anti-racist” agenda.[2]  Such an “anti-racist” program attempts to convince blacks that they have been victimized and are owed monetary and/or non-monetary entitlements (freebies) because other persons in history with the same color skin were mistreated (and, in some cases, only allegedly mistreated) by people who are now dead but who had a different skin color.

The blacks are told that they don’t need to live disciplined, orderly lives because that is “for white people”.  Here is how the government inculcated this message in a poster[3] financed by the Smithsonian’s National Museum for African American History and Culture:

Thus, SEL’s so-called “anti-racist” training seeks to convince blacks that they are victims and that whites are the oppressors.  In other words, the SEL program seeks to do what Marx sought to do, viz., to stir up dissatisfaction and promote a feeling of victimhood in one part of society, by promoting (as he put it) a “ruthless criticism of all that exists”.[4]

This “anti-racist” training also seeks to make white people ashamed that they are white, including conditioning them “to try to be less white” as one (so-called) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program phrased it.[5] 

Such a message foments division and disharmony between groups (blacks and whites).  The Marxists’ chief strategy is to create such division in order to gain control of society.   As Pope Pius XI warned, the “preachers of Communism are proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms, political divisions, and oppositions.”[6]

SEL is also designed and promoted to serve other Marxist goals.  For example, SEL is promoted as a “lever for equity”.  So-called “equity” is one of the leftists’ core aims in order to re-make society according to “diversity, equity, and inclusion”.[7]

Let us examine a “case study” of SEL showing its results in practice.  The Chicago public school system is the nation’s leader in implementing “social-emotional learning”.  Let us see the effect of SEL on the Chicago Public School System (CPS).

Chicago’s school system has been committed to social-emotional learning since 2012 and has become a national leader in SEL.[8]  Chicago was aided in implementing SEL by the State of Illinois having created a statewide SEL curriculum; Illinois is the first state in the nation to pass standards for social emotional learning.[9]

But the Chicago Public Schools are among the worst in the nation.  The city’s own accountability report card demonstrates that huge majorities of students in the city’s worst schools – 75% in elementary and 95% in high school – failed to meet Illinois’ very low, dumbed-down state standards.[10]

Moreover, only 30% of Black students meet or exceed reading standards in the third grade, and only 14% of 11th graders do so, according the Illinois State Board of Education’s own data.[11]

Because it is so shameful that the Chicago Public Schools are failing so badly, Chicago’s leftist mayor (Brandon Johnson) decided that Chicago would no longer “grade” its school system by how well it teaches the students but would instead begin to “grade” the schools only by the total amount of money per student that Chicago spends on its schools.  As Johnson declared in a public interview:

“My responsibility is not simply to just grade the system, but to fund the system ….  That’s how I’m ultimately going to grade whether or not our public school system is working: based upon the investments that we make to the people who rely on it.”[12]

So, the Chicago Board of Education followed Mayor Johnson’s lead and scrapped its school rating policy, which had been designed to rate schools according to how well students learned.[13]

According to the Illinois State Board of Education’s own data, not even one student in the 22 schools analyzed in a widely read report can read at grade level.[14]  In 18 of those schools, there wasn’t a single student who demonstrated proficiency in math or reading.  Despite this, some of these same schools were given the rating “commendable.”[15]

Despite the Chicago Public Schools being such obvious failures, it is not because of a lack of funding.  CPS spends almost $30,000 per student!  (The exact number is $29,400 according to NPR.)[16]  That is more than double the national average ($14,347) of per student public school spending.[17]

So, by Mayor Brandon Johnson rating Chicago’s public schools according to spending rather than according to performance, (i.e., learning), Chicago’s schools with their heavy use of SEL, thereby go from one of the worst school systems in the country to one of the best! 

However, no thinking person would rate schools that way if he truly cared about education or about truth.  But Johnson and the leftists don’t care about real education or about the truth.  They care only about leftist indoctrination of the students.  That is the whole reason they use SEL, because it is an effective tool for their goal, which is to develop foot soldiers for their leftist revolution.

This is a good reminder about the lies continually told by the leftist politicians and teachers’ unions.  The problem is not a lack of funding but a failure to pursue the mission of education of the students, with discipline, common sense, and the methods that work well in private schools which only spend a tiny fraction of the excessive spending of the public schools.


[1]  (emphasis added; initial capital added to the quote).

[2]           See, e.g., this SEL promotional video:

[4]           Here is the longer quote from Marx:


Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally.  But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.


Letter of Marx to Arnold Ruge, Kreuznach, September 1843, found here:

[6]           Divini RedemptorisOn Atheistic Communism, by Pope Pius XI, 1937, paragraph 15.  Note, as quoted here, we remove the word “also” before the word “proficient”, because the other exploitations to which the pope refers are not part of the quote we give here.


[8]           See these brag-pieces, asserting the Chicago Public School System’s preeminence in this field:


Ø &



Leftist Destruction of Fatherhood Causes Sons to Be Failures

Catholic Candle note: This is a companion article to Catholic Candle’s article on the role and glory of womanhood.  This article is available here:

The article below can also be viewed as a companion article to the ones concerning the leftist attack on motherhood.  You can read these articles here:

Leftist Destruction of Fatherhood in Families Causes Sons to Be “Dad-Deprived” Failures

The leftist revolution is focused on destroying fatherhood.  One of the key reasons Marxists and feminists want to destroy the family is in order to destroy paternity and paternal authority.  No matter what else the leftists do, their revolution would fail if society were full of strong fathers fulfilling their duties of state.

The Marxists and feminists follow their founder and leader, Satan, attacking paternity because they hate God, Who is the Creator and Model of all fatherhood and “from Whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives its name”.  Ephesians, 3:14-15. 

Also, paternity is part of the Natural Law.  The feminists and Marxists hate paternity because they hate the Natural Law.[1]

Further, in order to enhance the power of the government (which is increasingly controlled by them), the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ want to destroy the basic “building block” of society (viz., the family) and substitute the individual in its place.  If society were founded on the individual instead of the family, then there would be no familial society to nurture the children and to be a haven of security and assistance for the members of the family.  This arrangement is like the one in communist countries, where they have “free” state-sponsored “child care” to minimize the influence of parents and families and to increase the role and influence of the state.

Under this arrangement, everyone who needs help of any type (especially the children) would have to depend on the government.  Along with destroying the family, the leftists also subvert, weaken, or destroy other non-governmental institutions such as the Human Element of the Church and non-government schools).  So, this on-going, leftists’ attack is made against the family and, secondarily, against other non-government institutions, in order to break down society’s mutual bonds and to make everyone depend more on the government, giving the government the power to increasingly control everything.

This attack on patriarchy and the family has been Satan’s plan for centuries but is succeeding much more fully now.  We see this plan sometimes stated openly.  For example, Cambacérès, the French revolutionary[2] and legislator, declared that:

Paternal power no longer exists.  A man should not have direct power over another, even if it be his own child.[3] 

This plan of Satan and his servants then, is that without fatherhood, only the government would have power over people.

Similarly, the French socialist, Benoît Malon, attacked fatherhood in these words: 

What must happen is to completely abolish the authority of the father and his almost royal power in the family.  In effect, equality only will be perfect if this is achieved.  Aren’t the children of as great a value as the parents?  By what right do the latter command the former?  Enough of obedience! Enough of inequality![4]

It is obvious under whose banner Benoît Malon (and the other enemies of Our Lord) are marching when they declare: “Enough of obedience!”  This declaration is another way of voicing their leader’s battle cry: “Non serviam!”

Benoît Malon and the other leftists have learned from Satan to also echo his words: “Enough of inequality!”  This malicious temptation comes from the original one who sewed discontent, who told Eve that God was trying to keep her from becoming equal with Him:

For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods.

Genesis, 3:5.

In fact, inequality is crucial to the proper order in everything.  Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ explanation of this fundamental truth:

It must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality.[5]

So, to the extent that the leftists destroy fatherhood in society, they destroy the family and the children, especially the sons.  One way the boys are destroyed is by not learning discipline and manly virtue from their father.

Dad-Deprived Boys Are More Likely to be Criminals.

Not only do the leftists successfully destabilize society by destroying the family, but they are also destabilizing society through the young criminals who are turned loose on society after growing up in dysfunctional families. 

Marxist revolutionaries know that marauding criminals destroy society’s peace and stability.  That is why one of the first things such revolutionaries do (when they are beginning to gain control) is to open the prisons and free the criminals.[6]   

One of the crucial harms resulting from the destruction of the family as an institution, is that boys are Dad-deprived.  The number of boys growing up without their fathers has almost doubled since 1960 (from 17% to 32%).[7] 

Those boys who don’t live with their fathers are about 50% more likely to be arrested by age 19 and more than twice as likely to be arrested by age 34.[8]

This connection (viz., between the father being present in the family home and the decreased likelihood of the sons going to prison) remains strong and statistically significant even after accounting for family income, race, maternal education, and age.[9]

It is striking that the most common aspect of a mass-shooter’s profile (besides that he is male) is that he was dad-deprived – i.e., he lacked a father figure in his life.[10]

To take just three infamous examples:

  Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 in a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, had a father who was imprisoned and had little contact with his son. 

  Adam Lanza, (Newtown, Connecticut in 2012), who murdered 26 people, did not often see his father, who was divorced from his mother.[11]


  Patrick Wood Crusius (El Paso Walmart on August 3, 2019) who murdered 23 people, had a father who was divorced from his mother when he was three years old.[12]

Of course, there are many higher, more hidden ways in which fathers are crucial to a family.  But this increased criminality of boys who are raised without their fathers, shows one dramatic type of loss to those families and society.

Without Their Fathers at Home, Boys are More Likely to Be Failures in Other Ways, Too.

There are many ways in which the father of a family has an irreplaceable role, as shown by the Natural Law and the Catholic Faith.  (Of course, the mother’s role is crucial too, but in an irreplaceably different way.)  Above, we saw that when the father lives with his family, his sons are more likely to stay out of trouble and avoid becoming criminals.

When, however, the father lives with his family, the family will also (statistically) have a larger income and more assets.[13]  This adds stability to a family.

Of course, there are more important things than more money, which are involved in growing up.  It is important for those sons to “make something of themselves”.  Sons who “drift” through life are on the path of failure rather than accomplishment.

But young men who are raised in a home with their father are more than two times as likely to graduate college by their late-20s, compared to those who grow up in families without their father (35% vs. 14%).[14]  See the graph of this data below.[15] 

This disparity and that benefit of the father’s presence is true regardless of race and family income (i.e., “controlling” for those factors).[16]  Further, this is statistically true even though many fathers do a poor job of fulfilling their paternal responsibilities.

A college degree is not the only way to see that a young man has some employment success and does not become a derelict.  As an alternative to the college route, a young man can live a productive life by getting a high school diploma and then holding a full-time job.

If the young man grew up in a home without his father present, that young man is almost twice as likely to live an idle life (i.e., having neither a job nor being in school) in his mid-twenties as compared to the boy who grew up in a home which includes his father.[17]  This disparity and that benefit of the father’s presence is true regardless of race and family income (i.e., “controlling” for those factors).[18]  See the graph below.[19]

We see that the family is a natural institution and has an essential need for its father.  This is a reflection of the perfect wisdom of God and the Natural Law!  He made the family to have a father as its head and a mother as its heart.  That is how the family ever was, how it is, and how it will be until the end of the world. 

It is crucial that boys are raised by their fathers and are taught by their fathers how to be men and how to live lives of sacrifice and virtue.  They must learn how to spend their lives fulfilling their manly role and responsibilities, how to fight in the Church Militant for Christ the King and against His enemies!

Those who reject God’s Plan are rejecting reality.  They are part of the wreckage which litters the history of mankind, and, if they continue on this path of failure, they will become desolate souls buried in the tomb of hell.

[1]           The Natural Law is what we know we must do, say, and think, by the light of the natural reason God gave us.  One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech. 

Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

[L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.  Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.  Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.  Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.  Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light.  It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

[4]           Quoting Malon from his book Le Socialisme Intégral, as quoted in The Authority of the Father, by Msgr. Henri Delassus, found here:  (emphasis added).

[5]           Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2 respondeo (emphasis added).

[6]           In his warning about the ongoing Marxist takeover of the U.S., KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov taught that the Marxists have four phases to their takeover of a nation (in this case, the U.S.):

  The first phase is called demoralization (that is the translation of the Russian word).  It involves the ideological brainwashing of an entire generation of people.  This includes moral corruption.  Bezmenov holds (correctly, we think), that this phase is sufficiently accomplished (although in the U.S., conditions continue to worsen).

  The second phase is called destabilization (again, that is the translation of a Russian word).  It consists of stirring up severe societal problems in the target country to create a crisis.  We are now in this stage.

  The third state is the crisis (likewise, that is the translation of a Russian word).  Bezmenov explains that this is a short period in which society experiences a sudden emergency which the Marxists take advantage of, to either seize full control of the country by force or they are invited (as a “savior”) to exercise control of the country because the people are so desperate for peace and stability and to end the great crisis.

  The fourth stage is called normalization (that is the translation of a Russian word).  This is where Marxists “stabilize” the nation, under their control.  This stabilization results from the iron fist of the totalitarian regime having full control of society causing everything to be quiet.  China has been “stable” like this for most of the last decades.

The above summary of Bezmenov’s presentation of this Marxist plan can be found here:


Another key factor in mass-shootings is that so many of these mass-shooters are on “attitude adjusters”, i.e., psychotropic drugs for their “psychological problems”.  See, e.g. these analyses here:

In St. Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Treatise on the Soul (“De Anima”), St. Thomas shows the truth that, aside from (unusual) medical problems in the brain as a bodily organ which are caused by disease or physical trauma, what people need, who have “psychological” problems, is wise advice, sometimes over a prolonged period, about how to change their thinking about life and what moral choices they should make. 


Thus, what is needed by people who have “psychological” problems is not someone with a particular academic degree or license but rather an advisor who has the virtue of Prudence, the Gift of the Holy Ghost which is called “Counsel”, and the other virtues and Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

[13]         For example, in a Newsweek article, citing U.S. Census data, it states:

Married mothers, ages 18-55, have a mean household income of $133,000, compared to $79,000 for childless, single women, 18-55 ….

The U.S. Economy compared to Leftist Spin about the Economy

Catholic Candle note: Below is an article concerning the U.S. economy in particular, and, by analogy, pertaining to the economies of other Western countries.

Catholic Candle usually writes on topics more directly related to the Catholic Faith, as well as Catholic philosophy and Catholic practice.  But there is an ongoing cultural and political revolution all around us, and this revolution has other aspects too.  That is why we also write on topics that could be called “political”, in order to shine a light on current evils in government and society.  Here are examples of such Catholic Candle articles:

  The COVID-19 “Vaccine’s” Harms Continue to Be Further Revealed:

  Glacier-Melting Alarmism:

  The Leftist Attack on the Moral Fiber of Society:

  The “Deadly Heat” Alarmism:

  The False Principle of “Diversity and Inclusion”:

  “Big Data” – a New Version of an Old Danger of Manipulation and Deception:

  Black Lives Matter is Showing its “True Colors” – and They are Red:

  The Evil & Dangers of Yoga:

  Wikipedia – a Deceptive Tool of the Leftists:


  The Current Leftists Follow the Usual “Tyrant’s Playbook”:


  Empathy – a Tool for Good or for Evil:


  Reject the COVID Vaccines!


  Face masks present grave health risks & are to control people, not a virus:

Catholic Candle holds that the globalists are positioning the U.S. economy and other economies in the Western World to be pushed into collapse if and as needed, to compel people to accept a future globalist tyranny.

Thus, we have an eye on the economy in order to monitor (in a general way) its condition and its readiness for use as a weapon compelling acceptance of a globalist tyranny.


The Condition of the U.S. Economy and Comparing it to Leftist Spin about the Economy

The National Debt

We live in dramatic times!  For “starters”, let us note that the National Debt Clock (using government data) currently shows the federal debt to be about $34½ trillion!  Here is a screen shot of the “U.S. Debt Clock” from a few days ago:

That is such a huge number it is hard to grasp in “everyday” terms.  One of the Catholic Candle Team checked this same “debt clock” almost 15 years ago, on March 6, 2009.  On that day, the “debt clock” was $10.95 trillion.  So, for comparison purposes, in nearly 15 years, the U.S. National Debt has increased more than $23 trillion!

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has graphs showing the growth of the U.S. National Debt.  Here is the graph which we downloaded a few days ago:

This graph available here:

This graph shows the same thing as the debt clock, viz., on roughly March 6, 2009 the graph shows (roughly) the National Debt of $11 trillion.

Look how the National Debt has skyrocketed in the last 15 years especially!  The above graph starts at roughly 1965.  From that date, it took (roughly) 20 years to reach the first $1 trillion, and (roughly) ten more years to add another $5 trillion to that amount (with a total debt of $6 trillion at about 1995).  Then it took about 13 years to add another $5 trillion to that (to a total of about $11 trillion in 2009).  In the 15 years since 2009, the National Debt has increased more than $23 trillion!

Such increases in our country’s debts are unsustainable.  Drunken sailors spend their money more carefully than our government!  Where is this all leading?  Ask yourself that.

The Annual Federal Deficit

Here is a little more information to help us to extrapolate where this is heading. 

Every year, the U.S. government makes fiscal matters much worse by adding to the National Debt.  And the government is adding to the total debt at a faster rate.  The U.S.’s annual budget deficit (i.e., the amount by which federal spending exceeds federal revenue) is currently 16% higher than it was a year ago.[1] 

The federal deficit for the first third of the current fiscal year is $532 billion.[2]  Multiplying this number by three (in order to “annualize” this deficit) shows that we are running an annual deficit of about $1.6 trillion ($532B x 3 = $1.596 trillion).  This shows the U.S. is running a larger budget deficit compared to the average of the last 15 years.

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank calculates the current annual federal budget deficit as larger than that – viz., approximately $1.7 trillion (viz., $1.695T).  See the upper left-hand corner of the graph below.

This graph is found here:

Notice on the St Louis Fed’s graph that, although the average of the last 15 years is $1.5T, the larger deficits are more recent.  Although the largest federal budget deficits were during the COVID scare, nonetheless, after this so-called “pandemic”, the deficit spending level continues to be larger than the largest deficits before that.  Again, the federal government’s current annual budget deficit is roughly $1.6T or $1.7T  So the U.S. government is adding a huge amount to the enormous existing federal debt.  So, extrapolating to this time next year (2025) the National Debt will be $36.2 trillion (or more).  And so on.

U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Is there any good news about the economy as a whole?  Perhaps you have heard that the most recent numbers for GDP (Gross Domestic Product) were higher than expected.  The mainstream media treated this as a good thing.  For example, one leftist news source, CNN, called the current GDP number “shockingly robust”.[3]  Strong GDP growth would have been good under other circumstances but not under the present ones.  Let us explain. 

The GDP is an important measure of national economic activity.  It is supposed to measure increase or decrease of the nation’s wealth by measuring economic activity.  But the GDP does this imperfectly and is, literally, simply measuring spending.  When this spending reflects increases (or decreases) of economic activity related to homes constructed and factories built, cars made, crops grown, etc., then GDP is a reasonably good proxy to measure the increase (or decrease) in the nation’s wealth.

But at present, this higher GDP largely reflects more government spending.  The government makes almost nothing and so its expenditures, for the most part, do not reflect things built and produced.  Government expenditures commonly reflect lots of waste.  For example, the government wasted hundreds of billions of dollars doling out COVID relief money which was stolen by fraudsters.[4]  Even the non-fraudulent trillions of COVID freebies the government handed out were not productive but largely paying for people to stay home.

Yet, even when the government spending is wasted or spent unproductively, it is counted as part of the GDP as long as the government money is spent/paid.[5]  So if the government spent money hiring persons to dig holes and then fill them in again (an unproductive activity), this would be counted as an increase in GDP, since money was spent on this.

With lots of wasteful government spending, it not only increases the federal debt and deficit but it is also counted as an increase of GDP and so is counted as a sign of a supposed “healthy economy”.

Besides out-and-out government waste, the government also spends huge amounts of money on non-productive activities, e.g., hiring more bureaucrats, passing more laws, enacting more regulations, increasing social welfare spending, etc

Further, our corrupt government’s spending so often does great harm.  Our Corrupt Government is about the only thing concerning which it would be better if we do not receive our “money’s worth”.  So often, we would be better off if our corrupt government just burned money instead of spending it.

So, unlike when the private sector manufactures, mines, or otherwise produces goods, the increase in GDP because of a strong increase of government spending is a bad thing, not a good thing, especially when it is deficit spending (as it is).

Thus, we have the government wasting money and causing much harm by spending money that it does not even have, and which it borrows.

Common sense shows the evil of this situation.

This federal spending is not like a family increasing its spending (investing) in order to buy a house, a farm, or a car.  The increases in spending of the federal government are for its “living expenses”, e.g., current welfare payments, current healthcare welfare payments (Obamacare etc.), current freebies for everything from unnecessary grants to foreign aid. 

This is like a family continually spending beyond its means for current expenditures in its monthly bills, e.g., food and rent.  The government’s spending is like a business which is borrowing to meet its current payroll and to pay rent for its factory building.  Such a business, or family, or the government is living beyond its means and is heading toward ruin.  We see that the government is spending like that now.

Is There a “Biden Bull Market”?

Let us briefly examine what the mainstream media says is the current “bull market” during the Biden presidency.  A “bull market” is a stock market that is rising because of a healthy and strong economy.

The mainstream media call the current stock market a “bull” market attempting to paint the economy as strong.  But “regular people” experience something largely the opposite.  That is why, for example, a few days ago The New York Times, in its election coverage, proclaimed that, despite the robust economy the voters are not giving Biden the credit for this

In other words, according to the media, Biden’s economy is really good but the voters somehow don’t realize this “fact” and so aren’t grateful to him.  The mainstream media misuses the economic data to claim there is a “Biden bull market”. 

Regardless of what the media claims, inflation is causing prices to go ever higher and people know this fact when they go to the grocery store, the gas station, etc.  Consumer prices have risen 20% in the last four years, according to government-issued statistics.[6]  There is good reason to believe that the government inflation numbers are a lie and a deceptive minimizing.  The apparently-more-accurate estimates show that last year’s inflation rate was about 18% and that the rate was 24% over the last four years.[7]

In that same four-year period, the costs which producers pay is up 35%.[8]  This gap between consumer and producer inflation is a typical pattern because, when producers’ costs go up, the producers initially absorb some of the increase in order to avoid angering consumers and losing market share.  So, although the producer inflation rate is now higher than the consumer rate, producers can only absorb the cost differential for so long.  Inevitably, consumer inflation will “catch up” to producer inflation eventually.

In this same last four years, the nation’s money supply has increased a whopping 39%![9]  This extraordinary increase shows us where our economy is heading.  This large increase in the money supply must result in greater inflation in the future.  When everyone has more money without changing the amount of goods available for purchase, then this circumstance MUST cause inflation.  For example, if suddenly, everyone received $1,000,000 with no increase in goods available, then people would be willing to pay a lot more for any given item.  Prices would go up.  This is inflation.  One way the economists speak of this situation is that “there are more dollars chasing the same quantity of goods”.

With all of this inflation, let us ask ourselves how this impacts Biden’s supposed “bull” market, i.e., the recent increase in the stock market.  Of course, with each dollar being inflated and worth less, the price of stocks must increase just to stay even in terms of “real dollars”.  This is like the fact that if there is a doubling of the money supply with no additional goods produced, then we would expect that the stock market would compensate and, over time, roughly double the price of the stock shares for sale, just to keep the shares valued at the same price in terms of “real dollars”.

Further, the current supposed “bull” market is a reversal of the previous Biden “bear” market and makes up for the stock market “tanking” and being about 15% lower in about October 2022 compared to when Biden took office.  In other words, most of the increase during the Biden “bull” market is merely making up for the 15% decline earlier in Biden’s tenure.[10]  So after taking account of the current stock market rise which merely returns the market to the pre-Biden level, and then after adjusting the market for inflation, the stock market’s increase is anemic and is a smaller annual increase than the average annual increase over the last 30 years. 

In contrast to Biden’s supposed current “bull” market, during Trump’s presidency, the S & P 500 stock index increased 36% in real, inflation-adjusted terms.  Below is a graph comparing how the stock market performed during the Trump and Biden presidencies, after adjusting for inflation:

This graph is available here:

So, we see that, as the economists say, “there is no such thing as a free lunch”.  When the federal government prints trillions of dollars “out of thin air”, this results in “more dollars chasing the same number of goods”.  This resulted in inflation and these inflated dollars caused, in part, the Biden fake “bull” market.


The U.S. economy is on a path to ruin.

The leftist agenda is bad for the economic health of the country and this Biden “bull” market is just another leftist lie.

We live in a strange and daunting time, so we must place ourselves in God’s Hands, by acts of our wills and intellects. 

Also, we must pray for our country, help each other, and pray for each other!

If we use this present time the way God wants us to use it, then this is a time of great blessings and merit!

Greta Thunberg and the “Doom Coming Soon” Alarmism

There is a young woman named Greta Thunberg who is an international celebrity climate activist who is heavily sponsored and promoted by the world’s major governments and quasi-governmental bodies[1], and is honored by prestigious organizations,[2] and is highly extolled by the mainstream media.[3] 

She is thoroughly imbued with the myth of climate catastrophe and is influential because of her international acclaim.

Greta is a dupe and a tool of the leftists.  She is not well informed but has nonetheless devoted her life to expressing her concern about impending climate devastation and the need to “save the planet”.  For example, she tweeted in 2018 that mankind would be wiped out if we did not stop all fossil fuel use by 2023.  Here is the tweet[4]:

Greta’s above link to an article on cites to a prominent Harvard University professor named James Anderson, who is an atmospheric chemistry (supposed) expert.  Professor Anderson gave this dire warning that humanity will go extinct unless man stops burning all fossil fuels by 2023.

Obviously though, however much Greta was sincerely terrified in 2018 and convinced that everyone is going to die soon unless all burning of fossil fuels stops within five years (by 2023), nonetheless, she sees later that she looks foolish now (in 2024) to have predicted that all mankind will soon be dead.  So sometime after March 7, 2023, Greta deleted her tweet.[5] 

But Greta is like the rest of the climate alarmists.  Do you think she admitted she was wrong?  No.  Did she acknowledge she was foolish?  Certainly not.  Like all of the rest of these climate “Chicken Littles”, she merely conceals her irrational scaremongering quietly and goes on to predict the next catastrophe a few years further into the future. 

This is like those “all-wise clairvoyants” in a companion article to this one[6], who declared that the glaciers would be entirely gone by 2020.  It is like those “prophets of alarm” in the 1970s[7] who declared that a permanent New Ice Age would soon arrive.

Thus, Greta shows these common traits shared with the other climate alarmists:

1.    Make a wild prediction of doom;

2.    Later, quietly conceal the false prediction when it becomes obvious to everyone that it is ludicrous; and

3.    Then make the next reckless forecast.

Besides this pattern of scaremongering, the second trait that Greta exemplifies is that young liberal women as a group have a substantially higher incidence of (so-called) “mental” problems (such as diagnosed, clinical depression), as contrasted not only to young conservatives of either sex, but also as compared to even young liberal men.[8]

Greta is an example of this, too.  She is a young liberal woman and has stated publicly that she has multiple diagnosed (so-called) “mental disorders” including clinical depression.[9]

All of these considerations remind us how the Dear Lord has blessed faithful and informed Catholics!  Truly, the full Traditional Catholic Faith is a treasure beyond price and is completely undeserved by us!

Let us thank our generous Lord for this great gift!  Let us guard this gift and do all we can do to strengthen it.  The Good Lord is now giving us this time to strengthen our Faith because, it seems, we will need that stronger Faith in the times to come!

[1]           For example, she has addressed the United Nations twice, addressed the British, European, and French parliaments, met with the Chancellor of Germany, met with Pope Francis, was invited to give testimony before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and gave a speech at the World Economic Forum.

[2]           For example, she was made an honorary fellow of the Fellowship of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society and was nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[3]           She was included in Time’s 100 most influential people, as well as was the youngest person ever to be made Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.  She was also included in the Forbes list of The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women.

[7]           Read this article: Recalling a 1970s Climate-Change Hoax:

The Leftist Attack on Personal Resilience

The Marxists and Leftists are intentionally undermining the moral fiber of society and the personal resilience of the people.  These enemies of Christ attempt to promote the idea that all people are fragile, and to convince the individual members of the public that they are so.

The Marxists’ motive is plain: no one can effectively resist their ongoing revolution and political power-grab if he believes himself to be:


  dependent on the Big Brother establishment (the “nanny state”) to take care of him,

  dependent on the government to give him money, (handouts/freebies, a so-called “minimum basic income”),

  dependent on a continual supply of “attitude adjusters” (anti-depressants) to “solve” his “mental” and emotional problems,

  dependent because of addictions due to the Leftists legalizing and promoting cannabis, opioids, and other hallucinogenic drugs,

  traumatized and “triggered”[1],

  frightened or disturbed by so-called “misgendering”, “transphobia”, or “microaggressions”,



  suffering from disruptive–impulsive disorder,

  continually needing “therapists” and counselors,


  suffering from ADHD,

  Enfeebled by an obsession with pornography (which the Leftists make widely available),

  weak and helpless,

  suffering from OCD (“Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder”), and/or

  other “disorders”.

A man cannot direct his efforts, attention, and will-power to resist the Marxist power-grab when that man is (or believes himself to be) so broken, dysfunctional, and constantly needing to keep his appointments to “treat” his attention deficit disorder (or other such “disorders”).

The Leftists promote the idea that, if something goes wrong in a person’s life, he is entitled to become emotional and upset if the government does not swoop in and take care of him, making everything better like a nanny swooping in to help a small child who falls on the floor of the nursery. 

The Leftists want each person to believe that he has a right to expect that a “government safety net” will protect him from everything, cushion his every misfortune, assuage his every hurt, and treat his every wound.

The Leftists want to avoid a man being resourceful, provident, hard-working, honest, courageous, self-sacrificing, self-controlled, self-reliant, virtuous, and taking responsibility for his own decisions, choices, and actions.

An important result of our Holy Catholic Faith is that it is the greatest source of genuine resilience which has ever existed.  We Catholics must strive to completely conform our wills to God’s Will.  We know that everything that happens to us which is out of our control, is for our good and is a source of good for us.

We know infallibly that God’s Will is always the best and wisest.  What a comfort!  We know that all things, including tribulations,work together unto the good, for those who love God”.  Romans, 8:28.

This Catholic resilience is completely unlike the fake, modern “resilience” of the ungodly, which is mostly self-deception and “positive thinking”.  (Somewhat similar to this fake, modern “resilience” is the sham resilience of the Stoics of ancient times, which was actually mere endurance, not real resilience.)

We close with one example showing the extent to which the Leftists have succeeded in largely destroying the character and resilience of the people in our society.  This example concerns the fragility on display at the Leftist-controlled U.S. State Department.  The example shows how our current bizarre world is stranger-than-fiction and beyond parody.

The State Department (which has been entirely captured by the Leftists) was recently developing a computer program to more easily allow its employees to declare their “preferred pronouns” (e.g., “she/her/hers” or “he/him/his”).[2]

But a system-wide email glitch temporarily (and randomly) assigned pronouns and inserted them on the email “from” lines of all State Department personnel.[3]

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s Chief Information Officer both apologized profusely.  Blinken stated that he knew how “distressing” it was for department personnel that the computer system randomly assigned “preferred pronouns” to them.[4]

Because so many people were “triggered” by this glitch, the State Department offered all staff free “professional counseling” to help them “recover” from their “distress” at being “misgendered”.[5]

Resilience is a sort of heartiness in a person’s character.  We increasingly see the opposite in people’s characters today – they instead resemble a house of cards – ready to collapse at the smallest mishap or puff of air.

Obtaining this genuine resilience is certainly not the main reason we embrace the true Catholic Faith.  But it is one additional blessing that God gives to His friends.

This is another reason to be grateful for the countless blessings He gives us.  In return, Christ the King wants us to fight for Him, which is a great privilege and is our life’s work.

Let us fight against this Leftist power-grab by promoting the virtues and strength of character which are the resilience that the Leftists attack.  Let us fight together side-by-side, in the trenches of the Church Militant, for our Noble and Divine King!

[1]           Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “trigger” as follows: to cause an intense and usually negative emotional reaction in (someone)

Glacier-Melting Alarmism

Let us consider what is sometimes called the “deep state”.  The federal government has a small number of political appointees at the top of the various departments of the federal government.  These “bosses” are usually replaced when a new president takes office.

But underneath those bosses are a myriad of “career employees” who are supposedly non-political and who cannot be fired when the political administrations are changed.  Most of those career employees are liberals/leftists (of one sort or another) and they cannot be replaced even when a more conservative governor or president takes office. 

In about the 1960s, leftist leaders declared publicly that they would fill the federal bureaucracies with leftists who could not be fired because they were not political appointees although these workers, in their viewpoints, were/are highly political leftists.  The phrasing for this, which the leftists used at the time, was that they were undertaking “a long march through the institutions”.  That this march was a “long march” indicated that the leftists knew this was not the work of a couple of years, but rather, of decades.  This leftist campaign not only targeted the federal government bureaucracies but also the universities and other institutions. 

For purposes of this article, let us take one example.  Most of the U.S. National Park Service career employees are fully onboard with the leftist agenda.  Among other ways this is true is that they strongly promote climate alarmism, such as featuring brochures, signs, and films which boldly proclaimed (before 2020) that all glaciers at Glacier National Park (in Montana) are melting away rapidly and would soon be entirely gone (viz., by 2020).[1]

Here is a photo of one of these signs[2], which was installed sometime before 2010[3]:

Glacier National Park has reportedly removed and replaced signs that say, "the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020."

Notice that these climate-alarmist “scientists” assert that they “know” that the glaciers started forming 7000 years ago.  By our Catholic Faith, we understand that the world is only about that old.  But do these “scientists” really know when (and in particular 7000 years ago!) the present glaciers started forming (as these “scientists” assert that they know)?  That is very doubtful!

Further, these “scientists” speculate and say that they “know” that during the entirety of the last 7000 years, the glaciers never were larger than they were in the middle of the 1800s.  A thinking person would certainly consider that assertion very doubtful because that assertion would require the “experts” to know the relative sizes of the glaciers during the entire preceding 7000 years.  That is very doubtful! 

Leaving aside the shaky basis of these dubious claims, a thinking person would be able to discern the implicit admission contained in the sign above:

These “experts” say that, at the end of the particularly severe cold cycle (“The Little Ice Age”), the glaciers were at maximum size.  A thinking person would say, “of course the glaciers were at the maximum (or at least larger than they are now) at the end of the cold climate cycle called the “Little Ice Age”!  That is the whole point of a “Little Ice Age” – viz., that there is greater cold and hence, larger glaciers.

Further, the sign implicitly admits that the glaciers are shrinking (“rapidly” according to them!) because we are in a warming cycle (compared to the prior cold cycle).  So, the climate alarmists are solemnly warning that the glaciers which had grown in response to the prior cold cycle are now shrinking in response to the subsequent warming cycle.  So, what these “scientists” are really telling us is that the climate goes in cycles and we are in a warming cycle in which the glaciers are shrinking.  What “geniuses” they are!

But they are leftists (or the dupes of the leftists), so they cannot attribute this normal glacier shrinkage to these natural climate cycles.  No!  They must declare that man caused this glacier shrinkage in order that they can alarm people that these very ancient – 7000-year-old – glaciers are being lost and so (according to these “scientists”) we must fight anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming.

Notice in the sign above, the National Park Service leftists claim that there will be no more glaciers in 2020.  None.  Zip.  Nada.

But those glaciers are all still there![4]  All 29 of them!

The Park Service, however, is removing the signs warning that the glaciers will disappear any year now, because those signs now show the ridiculousness of this alarmist claim.[5]  Do the National Park Service leftists admit they were wrong?  Of course not.  They merely move on to a different alarmist claim predicting utter destruction and desolation a little further into the future. 

In this (“glaciers disappearing”) alarmism, the U.S. Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey like to display glacier photos from decades ago and compare them to more recent photos of the same location.  The problem is that those photos are dated showing the year but not the month of the year.  This is important because, every year, the glaciers grow in the winter and shrink in the summer.  So, to someone who understands how a glacier fluctuates every year, the photos do not prove anything unless we know in what month of the year the photo was snapped.

One exception to the rule (viz., that the month is not given for the glacier photos), is the photo of one of the best-known glaciers, Grinnell Glacier, taken by USGS scientist Daniel Fagre on August 26, 2010.  Knowing the month of this photo allows us to compare the photo to the same glacier at nearly the same time of the year, twelve years later, in 2022.  The 2022 photo was taken two weeks later on September 10, 2022, roughly at the time when the glaciers experience their first average freeze (which occurs on September 14).  Thus, the 2010 photo was taken before this glacier experienced its final two weeks of shrinking/thawing. 

This means that the Grinnell Glacier presumably experienced two more weeks of melting and so was smaller on the same calendar date (September 10) than it was when Fagre snapped the picture in 2010.  Here are the two photos (below).[6]  As you see, there is no apparent decrease in the size of that glacier over twelve years.

Incidentally, a team of glacier scientists from Lysander Spooner University visits Glacier National Park each September and has noted that the most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing – not shrinking – since about 2010.  The Jackson Glacier, which is easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.[7]  But do the leftists admit they are scaremongers?  No.  Do they admit they are wrong?  No.  They insist that there is an emergency and ignore their past ridiculous claims. 

Let these considerations help us to put things in perspective and help us to distrust the leftists’ lies and alarmist claims which are aimed at aiding the globalist power grab.


The Connection Between Virtue and Happiness – Part 2

Catholic Candle note: Recently, we published Part 1 of an article on the connection between virtue and happiness.  That article can be found here:

Summary of What We Covered in Part One

In Part 1, we saw that happiness is the one thing everyone wants for its own sake and that everything else (e.g., money, power, pleasure, and fame) is only desired for the sake of happiness.

We saw that happiness requires virtue.  We saw that friendship is the crown of the virtuous life and is impossible without that virtuous life.  Most people do not have genuine, significant friendships because such friendship requires genuine, significant virtue and most people do not have such virtue.  For a friendship that is not only genuine and significant but which is even very great, there is required as a condition, virtue which is also very great.

We saw that most people are unhappy and that they try to distract themselves from their unhappiness (with things such as pleasures, travel, rock music, videos, video games, money, fast cars, fame, hallucinogenic drugs, abusing alcohol, etc.).

We saw that those who are somewhat more conservative and have some tendency toward being more virtuous, are happier or less unhappy than those persons who are more liberal and are more immersed in sin and vice.

Part 2

The Connection Between Virtue and Happiness

Concerning The Happiness of Virtuous Persons;
The “Somewhat Happiness” of the “Somewhat Virtuous”;
And the Unhappiness of the Rest of Mankind

A Look at Depression – the “Flip-side” of Happiness

Let us now look at the flip-side of this “happiness gap” between conservatives and liberals.   That is, which group tends to be more depressed?  Predictably, the answer is the mirror image of the happiness studies.  Whereas conservatives are happier, so liberals are more depressed, especially liberal women, as shown in the graph below:Depression scores by gender and politics. Liberal girls rise first and highest.

This graph is taken from Gimbrone’s 2022 study, available here:

Pew Research Center gives additional data which shows the greater unhappiness of liberals (compared to conservatives):  Pew researchers asked their respondents whether they had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness.  Similar to the depression question above (and constituting a mirror image of the results of the happiness survey), liberals, especially liberal women, are much more likely to have been diagnosed with a mental illness.  Most of all, this is true about young liberal women.  See the graph below, where more than 50% of young liberal women responded that they were diagnosed with a mental illness.

Pew research graph showing three columns. Column 1 shows the percent of conservatives who were diagnosed with a mental health condition by gender. Second column are for moderates. Third are for liberals.

Figure 1.  Data from Pew Research, American Trends Panel Wave 64. The survey was fielded March 19–24, 2020. Graphed by Jon Haidt.  This graph is available here:

Keeping in mind the happiness research we reviewed earlier in this article, it is no surprise that liberals would be more depressed and be more likely to have “mental” problems because “mental” problems and depression are roughly the opposite of happiness, just like liberal doctrine is roughly the opposite of conservative doctrine.  But why are these problems worse in liberal women as compared to liberal men?  

One answer appears to be that young women are more liberal than young men.  So, it makes sense that just as liberalism correlates with unhappiness, and young women tend to be more liberal than young men, that young women would be more unhappy and depressed than young men.  See the Gallup poll data below.This Gallup poll data is from the Gallup Poll Social Series and it available here:

Also, just as it is consistent with young women tending to be more liberal, they also tend as a group to be more godless and irreligious.  So, whereas conservatives make a larger place in their lives for God and are happier, so young liberal women, especially, are less likely to make room for God in their lives and are more depressed and more likely to have been diagnosed with a mental illness.[1]  See the graph of Gallup poll data below.

The data from this Gallup poll is available at this link:

What we have seen in the article above not only fits with what Aristotle proves in the Nicomachean Ethics, Bk.10, ch.6, but also fits with the rest of what we know.  For example, there is the old French proverb: “A sad saint is a sad saint indeed”, (which is a pun equivocating on the meaning of “sad”) meaning that a saint who is unhappy is a poor excuse for a real saint.

Comparing the Happiness of Young Liberal Women to the Happiness of Young Conservative Women

How good God is, that the more we do His Will on earth, the more He prepares us for the perfect happiness of heaven while making us happy on earth!  Of course, the happiness God gives on earth is genuine but does not necessarily mean greater pleasure or riches.

Having just seen that young liberal women (as a group) are more depressed and more likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness than any other group, even more likely than young, liberal men, now let us compare young liberal women – who are the most unhappy group – with their opposites: young conservative women.  How do they compare? 

Before looking at the survey research, let us first of all reason about this question and see if we already know the answer that the survey will show us. 

Young Liberal Women are – as a Group – Farthest from the Life that God and Nature Intended for Them.

We know that happiness requires that we live in conformity with our nature and our highest faculty (reason).  And we know that the happy life is the virtuous life.  Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk.10, ch.6.

What does this mean more particularly?  One thing is that we must live the role in life that God created us to live.  So, the great work of a woman’s life – for which God made her – is usually to be (and to dedicate her life to being) a wife and mother[2] although God also can call her to be a spiritual wife (Bride of Christ) and mother in the religious life.  To take merely one of the proofs by which we infallibly know this truth, St. Paul teaches us:

She [viz., a woman] shall be saved through childbearing; if she continues in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” 

1 Timothy, 2:15.

The anti-feminist author, Mrs. Donna Steichen,[3]  describes a man’s vocation and role in the family in the following words:

A father’s role is of great importance … [b]ut normally he must be engaged elsewhere much of the time, dealing with the world, providing for his family’s material needs.[4]

So, a liberal, young woman is farther from the natural role in life for which God created her, than is the young liberal man.  This is because God made her to be creating a happy home for her husband and children and to spend her days caring for her children and her home.[5]  Instead, a liberal, young woman is out in the workplace, competing with men, earning a paycheck, trying to advance in the career world.  She cannot entirely escape realizing the emptiness of her life which she lives in opposition to the way she was created to live.  Often, she even murders her (unborn) babies rather than cherishing and nurturing them, as God intended and as He put into the very “fabric” of her being.

By contrast, even though most young, liberal men are not getting married (and so are rejecting the calls of their vocations) their lives are still largely spent “dealing with the world” outside the home as married men also do.  Thus, they are not as far from the life for which God created them as are those liberal women.  Of course, the work those men do is devoid of the greater significance which that work would have had, if they had been married and were doing that work for the sake of devotedly providing for their families’ material needs. 

Here is how Mrs. Steichen states this reality of the importance of a husband’s work being primarily in its final cause (goal) of supporting his family as a necessary part of fulfilling the vocation of his life:

Only a fortunate minority of men find work significant in itself.  For most, the knowledge that they are supporting their families is all that gives their labor meaning.[6]

Therefore, the young liberal man’s work has a large element of emptiness in it, because it lacks its familial purpose which “gives their labor meaning” (as Mrs. Steichen observes).  There is much greater satisfaction and meaning in the work of a man who is providing for the material needs of those whom he loves, compared to merely providing for himself.  We might say that providing for himself alone is much more a situation of focusing on himself and partaking more of a me-first and me-centered selfishness.  That never makes a person happy.


So, we see that the life and circumstances of young, liberal women are even more a cause of unhappiness than those of the liberal young man.  Like his work, her work is empty because it lacks God’s intended goal of that work and it is me-centric.  But in addition to that, her work is not centered on the type of activities that God gave her to do with her life, which constitute the happy life of a woman.  Thus, it makes sense that with a greater “distance” between her and the life she was created to live, there is also a greater “distance” between her and happiness (as compared to even a liberal young man).

By contrast, look how there is virtually no difference between the depression scores of conservative men and women:Depression scores by gender and politics. Liberal girls rise first and highest.

This graph is taken from Gimbrone’s 2022 study, available here:

That makes sense because conservative men and women are both living more the lives God created them to live.  Conservatives are more likely to be married.  The husband/father is more likely to be supporting his family, with his wife more likely to be a homemaker raising children and living the life of the heart of the home.  Thus, although conservatives are not nearly as conservative and as virtuous as they should be, nonetheless, compared to liberals, they are happier and are living more the life God created them to live.  Since young conservative men and women are both living more the life that God, Nature, and reason direct them to live, they are both (roughly) equally happy – and happier than liberals.

Reasoning about Why a Woman Might Choose the Feminist Life

As we consider how young, liberal women – who are shown to be the most unhappy group – compare with their philosophical opposites: young, conservative women, let us pause before looking at the polling data to do some “Aristotelean” reasoning.  Let us consider this:

These unhappy liberal young women were not told that the feminist life they chose would make them unhappy.  (People don’t choose a course of conduct because they believe it will make them unhappy.)  So, what were these women told that the feminist lifestyle would accomplish for them? 

Isn’t the answer that they were told (at least implicitly) that feminism would make them happier, rather than unhappy and depressed?  They were told (really, lied to) that having a career would make them more “fulfilled”, right?  Isn’t this another way of being told they would be more satisfied and happier? 

But Aristotle and St. Thomas prove that happiness is caused by living according to our rational nature.  Further, the rational life is the life of virtue, as Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas prove because virtue is acting (and living) according to reason (our highest faculty).  For example, temperance is eating the amount of food that reason – not our passions – tell us is the correct amount.


Does the Feminist Life make a Woman Happier Because It Makes Her Richer?

So, when women are lied to that the feminist life will make them feel more “fulfilled”, what does that really mean?  One possibility is that these young women suppose that being “fulfilled” means making more money.  As we saw above, money does not cause happiness.  Having a larger “number” in your bank account does not cause a person to live better the life of reason and virtue.  Thus, being richer does not cause happiness. 

Further, focusing on acquiring money is an empty life, not a meaningful life.  Consider the man in the Gospel who gloried in his riches and exalted himself with having so much grain that he had to tear down his barns to build bigger ones.  This is what Our Lord declared to him:

Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?  So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God.

St. Luke’s Gospel, 12:20-21.

If money were to buy happiness, then rich people, (e.g., the lottery winners quoted earlier in this article), would be happier than other people – but they’re not.  In fact, the opposite is true: lottery jackpot winners are more unhappy than most people.

If money were to buy happiness, then having lots of money would help us to live more the life of reason, but it does not.  So, if being a career woman would make a woman richer, then this would not cause greater happiness because those riches would not be the cause of greater virtue and living a more rational life. 

Of course, by our Catholic Faith we know that money is not of great importance but the real problem is the desire for money (i.e., the lack of poverty of spirit).  So, the young liberal women would be led to unhappiness to the extent that they choose the life they do for the purpose of acquiring lots of money. 

Incidentally, it actually happens that single career women are usually not richer than women who live more the traditional life that God created them to live.  For example, in a Newsweek article, citing U.S. Census data, it states:

Married mothers ages 18-55 have a mean household income of $133,000, compared to $79,000 for childless, single women 18-55 ….[7]

In any event, if young liberal women live the feminist life in order to pursue money, that would explain their greater depression and unhappiness: money cannot buy happiness, and their feminist choices apparently do not lead to more money anyway. 

But let’s look at other possible motives for why young women live the feminist life.

Does the Feminist Life Make a Woman Happier by Giving Her a Life of Greater Pleasure?

Perhaps young liberal women gullibly believe that feminism would make them happier by increasing the amount of bodily pleasure in which they can indulge.[8]  But that cannot lead to happiness because living the life of pleasure makes it harder to live the life of reason because it increases passion and this passion obscures reason and promotes a life of slavery to one’s passions.  Thus, living the life which is focused on pleasure tends to decrease virtue and, therefore, also decrease happiness. 

Further, the life of pleasure is the life shared in common with the brute (irrational) beasts.  If (contrary to fact) the life of bodily pleasure were the cause of the happy life, then those who indulged most extremely in bodily pleasures would be the most extremely happy.  There are countless greatly-indulgent people who show this theory is false by their misery amidst their continual pleasures.  Those people tend to use pleasure as a distraction to help them forget their unhappiness.

Also, reflecting on our own experience and those of others, people who have lost a loved one know by experience that the hurt of that loss is not cured by pleasures and that those people in the midst of their loss don’t “feel like” indulging in pleasures because they know it won’t help their sorrow.

Moreover, if pleasure were the cause of happiness, why is it true throughout history, that there have been many poor people who did not have much bodily pleasure, yet were very happy and lacked nothing of happiness despite the austerity of their lives?  Consider the  saints and holy religious.

Lastly, focusing life on pleasure-seeking is recognized as low and empty.  People pity other people who have a pleasure-focused life.  People who live for pleasure try to hide this fact because this life is one of addiction (or something similar to an addiction).

In any event, if young liberal women live the feminist life in order to focus on pleasure, that would explain their greater depression and unhappiness.

Let’s look at other possible motives for why young women live the feminist life.

Does the feminist life make a woman happier by making her feel “empowered” and “honored”?  

Suppose a young liberal woman pursues the feminist lifestyle because she seeks and loves power, desires to be the boss, feels important because she receives business honors, or because she is the "first woman to reach such-and-such a height", etc.

Living dedicated to such goals, is to live according to the Pride of Life, one of the three causes of sin mentioned in St. John the Evangelist’s first epistle, 2: 16.  See also, Summa, Ia IIae, Q.77, a.5.  This life is caused by pride, which is the “inordinate desire of one’s own excellence”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.162, a.2, respondeo.

This is a life lived in a way which is the opposite of the way Our Lord commands us to live:

Learn of Me, because I am meek, and humble of heart. 

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 11:29. 

Because this life fosters the root of all evil, which is pride, this life does not foster virtue and so it cannot bring happiness.  Instead, this life to promotes unhappiness both in those who achieve the pinnacles of worldly human respect and in those who are disappointed and fail in their goal. 

In any event, if young liberal women live the feminist life in order to focus on the accolades of the world, this would explain their greater depression and unhappiness.

Does the Feminist Life Make a Woman Happier by Giving Her a Life Where She can Focus More on Herself?

Perhaps those young women gullibly believe that feminism would make them happier by increasing their ability to focus on themselves.  But such a me-first focus is a program of an emptier, more meaningless life.  By contrast, a life of loving, self-forgetful service to others (especially to God and family) is a satisfying life of purpose and accomplishment. 

God made woman to be generous and giving.  He made her to serve Him in her womanly vocation.  Here is one way St. Paul makes that connection:

She [viz., a woman] shall be saved through childbearing; if she continues in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. 

1 Timothy, 2:15.

When a woman has spent her life that way, she can look back at her life with true contentment.  This is because this life is devoted to the Good and to the love of this Good.

The current fad and modern jargon emphasize the importance of “self-care”.  In practice, such “self-care” is a “justification” for persons to eschew the responsibilities of selfless dedication to vocational responsibilities in order to have more time to focus on themselves.  In other words, this is an excuse for a more selfish, me-centered life.  One secular feminist leader used the following words to declare her own refusal of her vocational responsibilities so that she could free her time for whatever she would prefer to do instead:

I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness ….  Nothing will make me want a baby ….[9]

But let us ask ourselves:

Does this type of a more self-absorbed life result in greater happiness? 

We can rhetorically answer that question by asking another question:

When a person lives a more self-centered life, does that foster a life of reason and virtue, and therefore also greater happiness ? 

When a young liberal woman focuses on herself, this increases vice (e.g., pride and self-love), decreases her use of reason and weakens or destroys virtue.  Thus, if young liberal women live the feminist life in order to focus more on “self-care” and to have more time for themselves, that would explain their greater depression and unhappiness, as shown in the happiness polls earlier in this article (including part 1). 

Further, if self-centeredness were the cause of happiness, then the most self-centered people would be the happiest.  But we see they are not.  In fact, we observe the opposite: viz., the people who are the most self-centered are among the unhappiest people.

It is obvious to everyone that being more self-centered is connected to the vice of pride (and other vices), not to a life of reason and virtue.  Even the worldlings see self-centeredness as bad (at least in other people, even if they themselves are also self-centered).  Whenever someone is told “you are becoming more focused on yourself”, he never says “Oh, thank you!  That is so kind of you!”  Because everyone knows being me-focused is bad and shameful, people who are like that try to hide this fact.

But let’s now look at another possible motive for why young women might choose to live the feminist life.

Does such a Young Woman Suppose that the Feminist Life will Make Her Happier by Giving Her More Time in Which to Focus on Her Social Life?

Perhaps such a young woman naïvely believes that feminism would make her happier by increasing her opportunity to focus on her social life.  For example, she might think that instead of making dinner for her family, she can have dinner in a restaurant with her “friends” from her workplace.

But as Aristotle proves in his Nicomachean Ethics, a person cannot have a true friendship without true virtue.[10]  So whatever feminists suppose they will obtain, the truth is that they will fail to achieve real friendship without real virtue.

Let us ask ourselves:

Does this greater amount of social life result in greater happiness? 

We can rhetorically answer that question by asking another question:

When a person lives a more social life, does that foster a life of reason and

The answer, of course, is that if a more social life does not foster a life of reason and virtue, then it does not foster happiness.

By contrast, those traditional family responsibilities (which a feminist rejects) are great opportunities for acquiring (and increasing) virtue.  These maternal responsibilities are the fertile seedbed in which virtue and friendship can grow.  In her traditional role – for which her womanly nature has prepared her – this young woman could be spending her days and the focus of her thoughts upon doing as much good as possible to those she loves the most (her husband and children), as well as aging parents, etc..  Such a young woman lives in a partnership aimed at this very important work.  She teams up in this enterprise with her best friend and partner: her husband.

Of course, this family life is not a guaranty of virtue, friendship, or happiness.  Nor does family life mean that those great Goods always come, or come without effort.  Rather, this family life is a pathway which disposes the members of the family to attain these great Goods.  This is like a school disposing its students to knowledge but some students learn very little (i.e., get very little good out of the school) because they are unwilling and rebellious.

Further, just as a student can commit the further wrong by separating himself from his school (i.e., being a truant), so likewise a spouse can not only do a bad job fulfilling his family responsibilities, but even abandon those responsibilities entirely, through abandoning his family.  However, such bad conduct does not change the fact that a school and a family can be places of great Good, although that Good is not realized by ill-disposed persons. 

It is neither the “fault” of matrimony nor a school that some people are ill-disposed.  Nor does it mean that there is a better way to achieve those Goods than the way provided by those institutions.

So even though the feminists seek happiness like everyone else, they do not take the path which God and Nature intend for them – that is, the path which leads to happiness.  So, the feminists do not have true and deep friendships.  Often, they foolishly seek happiness by having more time to spend in shallow social interactions and transitory liaisons.  Perhaps the feminist young woman watches movies with her “friends” or has “health club buddies” with whom she spends time and money dining at restaurants, etc.  Any such “friendships” of pleasure are shallow and do not really satisfy the heart because those acquaintances lack the real virtue which is essential for real friendship.  The unsatisfying shallowness of these “friendships” is a crucial reason why young liberal women have a greater incidence of unhappiness and depression. 

As reported in an article in Newsweek on the subject, “single, childless women are about 60 percent more likely to report feelings of loneliness compared to married mothers.[11]  The reason is obvious: it is not a greater amount of social time or a larger number of supposed “friends” – but only the excellence of true friendships – which satisfies the heart and contributes to happiness and a satisfying life.  A person who lacks deep friendships and instead substitutes shallow (so-called) “friendships” is sometimes described as a person “being alone even in a crowd”.

So, the feminists find themselves with more social time but with an inability to be a real friend and to possess (and enjoy) real, true friendships.  Thus, the feminists spend their greater social time on emptier and more meaningless activities.  They often spend lots of time on “social media”.  They might have a great number of Facebook “friends” and foolishly follow their peers’ example of supposing that, the larger the number of Facebook “friends” they have, the happier and more popular they will be.  The truth is that this number of such “friends” is virtually irrelevant, even detrimental.

On Facebook, the use of the term “friend” is misleading.  The term “contact” would be more accurate.  The Facebook software prods each “friend” to “react” to the new pictures posted since the previous day by various “friends” and so, the more such “friends” a person has, the more time he needs to “keep up” with all of the “friends” and so it is a burden and time-drain to “have to” go through all of the usually-banal photos to tell each “friend” how “awesome” or “amazing” the photo is and try to find some witty words or insightful comment by which he can receive the attention of the rest of the ”friends” of that mutual “friend”.

The concept of Facebook “friends” turns true friendship on its head and exalts numbers (quantity) over quality, in direct contradiction to the truth.  Thus, a person might be thrilled by receiving approving responses from a thousand of his Facebook “friends”, but overlook the fact that, if he had one genuine, deep friend in his entire lifetime, that would be worth far more than twenty thousand of those so-called “friends”.

The emptiness of this “social” life is obvious to any sensible person.  This empty, feminist life with a greater amount of social time simply results in a greater incidence of unhappiness (and depression).    

If more time for a social life were the cause of happiness, then those persons who had the greatest time for socializing would be the happiest.  But they are not.  And those people who had the least amount of social time would be the least happy.  But they are not.

The fact that feminists are not the only ones who have rejected the life of virtue and reason (a life which causes happiness) does not change the fact that feminists do reject this life.  In any event, if young liberal women live the feminist life in order to focus on having more time for their social life, that would explain their greater incidence of depression and unhappiness.

Feminism Involves Hatred of the Feminine “Nature”

Feminism is an attack on the feminine nature of women and girls by Our Lord’s enemies.  Ultimately, this is the program of Satan, and his tools, the Marxists.  Feminism is the “gospel” that preaches that women are worthless (or worth less) unless they are like men.  This feminist “gospel” pushes women to live like men, dress like men, and try to be like men.  It is the “gospel” pushing women to be aggressive, manly, “business savvy”, powerful, un-maternal, un-nurturing, not homemakers – in short: un-womanly.

Instead of being glad for the feminine nature God gave to them, feminism tells young women that they should strive to be just like a man (although they do not phrase it that way).  Young women come to understand that, if they hope to be approved and to have their lives approved, they must try to be like a man.

Some of these young women try even harder than the others to be approved, by choosing the more extreme version of feminism, which is “transitioning” to “become” a “man”.  You can see why “transgenderism” is feminism taken to a more extreme level since it is a more extreme way for a young woman to follow the feminist “gospel”  to be like a man. 

“Transgenderism” is feminism which includes surgical mutilation and permanent chemically-induced ruining of their bodies, in order to try even harder to be like a man.  But this delusion merely causes more extreme unhappiness and even more depression because it is a more extreme rejection of God’s Will and of their feminine nature.

Although it is true that the leftists attack the whole population by promoting this gender dysphoria (“transgenderism”), the leftists especially prey upon young women.  According to one Wall Street Journal article, this “transgender” delusion “overwhelmingly afflicts girls”.[12] 

As compared to other groups, young women are most likely to declare themselves “transgender” – that is, to declare that they are really men.  These pitiable young women have been betrayed by their fathers who have neglected their paternal duties to guide and defend their daughters.  These young women have been tricked by society more broadly, e.g., by the media, academia, the entertainment industry, etc.  These young women are also betrayed by others such as their mothers.  But most of all, the corruption of society (including the “transgender” absurdity) is the fault of the men who did not do their duty to those under their care in their households.

So, feminism causes young women to be unhappy and have a higher incidence of depression.  For those who are deceived into declaring themselves to be men, this unhappiness and depression increases all the more.

Polling Data Comparing the Happiness of Liberal Women and Conservative Women

So, now let us look a little more at the polling data about the happiness of conservative young women, as compared to liberal young women.

  Conservative women are more likely to be married than liberal women.  Thirty-three percent of married mothers ages 18-55 say they are "completely satisfied" with their lives, compared to 15 percent of childless women in the same age range.[13] 


  Liberal women are more likely to be single and childless.  These women are about 60 percent more likely to report feelings of loneliness compared to married mothers.[14]

  Conservative women have a fifteen percentage-point advantage over liberal women in being “completely satisfied” with their lives.  Specifically, thirty-one percent of conservative women (18-55) are completely satisfied with their lives, versus sixteen percent of liberal women.  And this advantage can largely be explained by the fact that conservative women are 26 percentage points more likely to be married and 24 percentage points more likely to be happy with their family life.[15]

In the case of women, God’s purpose is inherently that women be wives and mothers (or spiritual wives – viz., religious sisters who are Brides of Christ; and spiritual mothers, such as teaching sisters, etc.)  

In other words, the happiest women in America today are those least likely to be following the profoundly self-centered and anti-family lifestyle promoted by the leftist establishment.


God made us to know, love, and serve Him in this life so that we can be happy with Him in the next.  That is our purpose.  We find our deepest satisfaction when living according to our purpose.  By contrast, we cannot find true satisfaction or happiness in rejecting God’s Plan for us. 

The more we strive for virtue and holiness, the more we will be happy.  If we are saintly, we will be extraordinarily happy.

Because the more we live the way God intended, the happier we will be, a woman’s happiness requires that she live the womanly life that God created for her to live.

Friendship is the crown of the virtuous life, and is incompatible with a life of sin and vice.  So, in this life virtue causes happiness and friendship which disposes us to the life of complete happiness and Divine friendship in heaven for all Eternity.


[1]           Concerning “Psychological” Problems and Counseling: In St. Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Treatise on the Soul (“De Anima”), St. Thomas shows the truth that, aside from medical problems in the brain as a bodily organ which are caused by disease or physical trauma, what people need, who have “psychological” problems, is wise advice, sometimes over a prolonged period, about how to change their thinking about life and what moral choices they should make.


Thus, what is needed by people who have “psychological” problems is not someone with a particular academic degree or license but rather an advisor who has the virtue of Prudence, the Gift of the Holy Ghost which is called “Counsel”, and the other virtues and Gifts of the Holy Ghost.


[4]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, Mrs. Donna Steichen, page 227, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991.

[6]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, Mrs. Donna Steichen, page 227, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991.

[8]           This is the false position of Gorgias, who was ably refuted in that eponymous Platonic dialogue by common sense and by Socrates.

[9]            Words of secular feminist leader, Amanda Marcotte, March 2014, found here:

[10]         See, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Books 8-9 and St. Thomas Aquinas’s commentary on those books.

[12]         When your Daughter Defies Biology, By Abigail Shrier, Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2019.

The Connection Between Virtue and Happiness – Part 1

Catholic Candle note: The article below is part one of an examination of the connection of virtue and happiness.

Concerning The Happiness of Virtuous Persons;
The “Somewhat Happiness” of the “Somewhat Virtuous”;
And the Unhappiness of the Rest of Mankind

We would like to point out some interesting, attention-grabbing research about happiness.  It is something we already know (or should know), if we think about it – but perhaps we have not thought about it for a long time.  

As we know, our society is segmented and polarized.  So, this research examines different parts of society and seeks to discover in which part of society the people are happier, by their own description.

Usually, if someone says he is unhappy, he would not say this unless it were true, since people find it embarrassing to admit they are unhappy.  On the other hand, if a person says that he is happy, it is possible that he is lying in order to look better and more successful or to impress the people he knows. 

We see people put on a show of being happy, e.g., people who post photos of themselves in fancy or exotic surroundings, trying to convince themselves and their “Facebook friends” that they are happy and enviable.  There is a great deal of research showing this but that is not the subject we consider now.

So, although a person’s description of his state (happiness or unhappiness) can possibly be false, this research was interesting nonetheless and is consistent with the strong proofs that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas give, showing that virtue causes happiness.

Happiness is the One Thing We Seek for Itself.  Other Things We Seek for the Sake of Happiness.

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, happiness is shown to be the Final End of all of our actions and is the reason for which all men desire everything else.  In other words, although we value other things such as pleasure, health, and honor, we only value them to the extent we suppose they will increase our happiness.

If a hermit lives in poverty (with poor food, wearing a rough and uncomfortable habit, and living in an unheated cell), yet, if he is extremely happy, then he lacks nothing.  Soft clothes or pampering food (or whatever similar goods) are irrelevant if those things do not add to his happiness.  Similarly, if a poor peasant family lives in deep mutual love and is exceedingly happy, what indeed do they lack or need?

Along the same line of thought, of what good are soft clothes or pampering food if a person is unhappy?  A good example of this is a person who has lost his best friend (e.g., to death).  A person who has lost such a best friend, or otherwise has great sorrow, cares nothing about pleasures and honors. 

Here is how St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, before his own conversion, describes his loss of a friend:

My heart was black with grief.  Whatever I looked upon had the air of death.  My native place was a prison-house and my home a strange unhappiness.  The things we had done together became sheer torment without him.  My eyes were restless looking for him, but he was not there.  I hated all places because he was not in them.  They could not say “He will come soon,” as they would in his life when he was absent. I became a great enigma to myself and I was forever asking my soul why it was sad and why it disquieted me so sorely.

Confessions of St. Augustine, Book 4, chapter 4.

So, again, happiness is what all men want.  All other goods they could possess (pleasure, health, honor, etc.) don’t matter unless they add in some way to happiness.  For example, a pleasurable dinner is a good thing when one is happily sharing it with his true friend.

Happiness Requires Virtue.

As Aristotle shows in the Nicomachean Ethics, friendship is the crown of the virtuous life and is impossible without that virtuous life.[1]  Most people do not have genuine, significant friendships because such friendship requires genuine, significant virtue and most people do not have such virtue.  For a friendship that is not only genuine and significant but which is even very great, there is required as a condition, virtue which is also very great.

In his sermon in praise of the man who is living a virtuous life, St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, teaches that the virtuous life is the happy life.  Here are his words: the virtuous man is “the most blessed of men, even in this life as well as in that to come”.  Sermon #12 on Philippians, 3:17.

When people are unhappy, they try to distract themselves from their unhappiness (with things such as pleasures, travel, rock music, videos, video games, money, fast cars, fame, hallucinogenic drugs, abusing alcohol, etc.).

Money does not necessarily add to a person’s happiness and, on the “flip side”, if he is happy, he does not covet money.  As one investigation into lottery winners stated: “You would be blown away to see how many winners wish they’d never won ….”[2]  A news article quotes one lottery winner as follows: “Before committing suicide, he said, ‘Winning the lottery is the worst thing that ever happened to me.’ ”[3] 

Why did those unhappy people wish they never won the money?  Because it made them unhappy (or more unhappy).  Money is undesirable if/when it makes a person unhappy (or more unhappy) – because happiness is what we all seek. 

The most senior member of the Catholic Candle Team unwaveringly told his children (when he was raising them) that if someone would offer him a million dollars, he would refuse it.  He wisely knew that money is not happiness and does not cause happiness.

Further, many people know very little about what happiness is (just as they know so little about what friendship is).  So, they suppose pleasure or money brings happiness (just like they suppose that “friendship of pleasure” or “friendship of utility” is real friendship).[4]

A Person’s Tendency Toward Being a Conservative is in Some Way a Tendency Toward the Person Being Happy.

Having recalled these truths to our minds, we begin now to examine how those truths connect the happiness (or unhappiness) of a person to his political affiliation.  Is there any reason that we would expect that political conservatives would be happier than political liberals?

We know that the saints are the happiest people and that, as Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas prove, the virtuous life is the happy life.  This is also the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, as quoted above. 

So, to the extent that conservatives have any general tendency – even a slight one – to be more virtuous than liberals, then we would expect that there would be some tendency – at least a slight one – that conservatives would be happier than liberals.

Certainly, those who are labeled as political conservatives are usually not truly very conservative.  For example, President Ronald Reagan – who was perhaps the most conservative U.S. president in modern times – was divorced from his wife (Jane Wyman) and was “re-married” to First Lady Nancy Reagan.  True conservatives preserve the true traditional Catholic teaching on all subjects, including her teaching on morals and in the Church’s “social” encyclicals such as Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas.

But although conservatives are usually not really very conservative or greatly virtuous, it does seem that they are relatively more conservative and comparatively more virtuous than liberals.  Thus, we would expect that most conservatives are not greatly happy because they are not greatly virtuous.  But we would expect that they are comparatively happier than liberals because they are relatively more virtuous.

Conservatives are More Likely to give some Role (or a Greater Role) to God in their Lives.

Most political conservatives are confused on matters of religion.  Most of them do not belong to the true Catholic religion.  Further, among even those conservatives (Republicans) who are Catholics, none (or almost none) of them practice the full traditions of the Catholic Church.  However, as compared to political liberals, it is more likely that God has some role in the lives of conservatives.  Granted, this is a low threshold for conservatives (viz., that they pay more attention to God than the liberals do).  But to the extent this is true, we would expect that this would result in a tendency toward greater happiness (or less unhappiness) than is true of liberals.

Conservatives are More Likely to Consider Themselves Bound by Fixed Moral Principles.

Similarly, political conservatives are more likely (as compared to liberals) to hold that there are fixed moral principles (rules of conduct) to which they must conform, even when they don’t feel like conforming to those principles.  Some of those conservatives’ moral principles are false – viz., where they diverge from Catholic moral principles.  However, conservatives are more likely to at least have some true moral principles and to consider themselves bound by them.  Thus, we would expect that this would result in at least some tendency that conservatives would be happier (or less unhappy) than is true of liberals.

Conservatives are (at least Somewhat More) likely to Follow Reason in Matters of Conduct.

Further, political conservatives are more likely than liberals to follow their reason on matters of their conduct.  For example, liberals are more likely to accept the absurd and rationally-incoherent position that a man becomes a woman if he decides he is one.  Conservatives are more likely to reject this claim.

Another example is liberals deciding it is fine to murder their babies if they don’t want those babies, and to call them “pieces of tissue” and merely a part of the woman’s body if those babies are unwanted.  (One pro-abortion U.S. Representative whom we know, explicitly compares an unborn baby to a gallbladder which needs to be removed.) 

But if liberals want to have a baby they speak differently and call him a preborn baby.  We see this in pro-abortion actresses when they want the baby that they are carrying, when (we are told) they post on social media that their baby will be due in six months (or whatever).

Reason is the highest power of the human soul.  Living in accordance with our highest faculty is the path of happiness (as Aristotle and St. Thomas prove).  So, although most conservatives are very far from living according to reason in every way, nonetheless, since political conservatives follow reason at least a little more than liberals do, we would expect that conservatives would generally be at least a little happier (or a little less unhappy) than liberals are.

Liberals are More Likely to Follow Some Version of Marxism.

The leftists are inexorably pushing Marxism, which is, essentially, a “gospel” of envy and hate, i.e., setting one group in society against another.[5]

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.  The Marxists focus on issues such as income inequality – as if it is somehow wrong or unfair for someone else to have more money or possessions than we do.

Happiness both requires virtue as well as requires us to rid ourselves of vices (such as envy), which are the opposites of virtues.  Thus, the leftists/Marxists are essentially preaching a “gospel” which promotes vice and thus, we would expect that this would make liberals less happy (or more unhappy) than conservatives.

Liberals are More Likely to Follow some Version of Socialism.

The liberals are more likely to promote or accept socialism, which is promotion of the government redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those who did not.

Socialism strongly opposes justice, the Natural Law, and the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As St. Paul said:

If any man will not work, neither let him eat.

2 Thessalonians, 3:10.

While it is certainly not unjust (in fact, it is laudable) for a person to give alms to the needy from his own property, that is not socialism.  Rather, socialism is the system of voting or deciding that your neighbor (i.e., other people) must be compelled to give “alms” by confiscating his property through unjust taxes to give to those who the government decides are more deserving of the confiscated property.

So, although most conservatives are not truly and fully conservative, they at least see more clearly than liberals the evil of socialism.  In this way, such conservatives are at least comparatively more virtuous than liberals in these matters of justice.

Liberals are More Likely to Consider Themselves to be Victims.

Seeing that Marxism is, fundamentally, the “gospel of envy”,  the Democratic constituency are told that the unhappiness of their lives is due to being victims of other people, e.g., the rich.  This is effective for the Marxist leaders because unhappy people are more easily formed into protesters.  By contrast, happy people are disinclined to be agitated into protest and rioting.

But persons who consider themselves to be victims of other people’s greed and selfishness are more likely to feel discontented and unhappy.  This results in liberals considering themselves less happy (or more unhappy) because of their (so-called) “victimhood”.  This is obvious: if a man sees someone wearing a very nice coat, he is much more likely to feel discontented and unhappy about this if he thinks the coat should belong to him instead of the man who is wearing it.

Conservatives are More Likely to get Married and Remain Married – this Makes Them Happier.

Conservatives are more likely to marry and remain married.  Thus, their lives are happier and more stable.  This is because they are answering the calls of their vocations[6] which they have from God and by their human nature and the Natural Law.[7]  Marriage also allows for the lifetime best-friendship that God blesses spouses with. 

Here is how the Catholic Church traditionally expresses this truth in the marriage ceremony:

O God, by Whom Woman is joined to Man, and the partnership, ordained from the beginning, is endowed with such blessing that it alone was not withdrawn either by the punishment of original sin, nor by the sentence of the flood, graciously look upon this, Thy handmaid, who, about to be joined in wedlock, seeks Thy defense and protection.

Quoted from the nuptial blessing of the Rite of Holy Matrimony.

Research (Polling Data) about Happiness

Now let’s look at the polling data.  Every year in a poll, the Pew Research Center has asked the very same questions about happiness.  This started in 1972 and every year the results are substantially the same.  (As many Catholic Candle readers know, Pew is in no way a conservative organization.  Far from it!)

In one copy of the annual poll (2006), roughly one third of people said that they are “very happy”.[8]  (The question is worded: “Generally, how would you say things are these days in your life – would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?”)

Graph: About One Third of Americans Are Very Happy











As noted earlier in this article, most conservatives are not really very virtuous compared to the saints and so are not really very capable of much happiness.  However, this Pew polling data and this present Catholic Candle article focus on the relative happiness of one group of people in society, compared to a contrasting group.  Of this group (viz., the one-third of people who respond that they are “very happy”), what traits do they tend to have in common?

Comparing the Traits of Conservatives to the Traits of Those Persons Who Reported Being “Very Happy”

As discussed above, conservatives are more likely to give some role (or a greater role) to God in their lives.  Consistent with that, the Pew polling data shows that, one trait of those persons who report being “very happy”, is that they give God a greater role in their lives (as compared to those that answer that they are “not too happy”).  Although it is true that most people are confused in matters of religion nowadays, nonetheless it is relatively better for a person to give God a place in his life, even if practicing a false religion, as compared to giving God no place.  It is especially true that it is “the fool that said in his heart there is no God.’”  Psalm, 52.

In our age of confusion and for the purpose of the polling questions, Pew attempts to make tangible the idea of people giving God a greater role in life by asking people how often they go to church.  This is not a perfect proxy but it does shed some light on this issue.


Graph: Frequent Church-Goers Are Happier

It turns out that those who describe themselves as “very happy” are also persons that attend church more frequently than those who say that they are “not too happy”.  Such “church-goers” are in a relatively less-bad situation (compared to those who hold that there is no God or, if there is, they own Him nothing) because regular “church-goers” appears to recognize at least their own Natural Law duty toward God.

So, in a very rough sort of way, this poll shows what we know infallibly by our Holy Catholic Faith, viz., “Happy is that people whose God is the Lord.”  Psalm, 143.

Married people, on Average, are Happier than Other Adults.

The polling data shows that, besides giving God a larger role in their lives, another trait that happier adults have in common is that they are married.  We see in the Pew Research poll (below) that 43% of married people say that they are “very happy” whereas only 24% of unmarried people say they are “very happy”.  Pew Research says that “this has been a consistent finding for many years and many surveys”.  2006 Study, p.7.

This greater happiness (enjoyed by married people) is the same in both men and women, as you see below.  2006 Study page 21.


Further, this greater happiness is not only among newly-weds.  Rather, it persists throughout the entire marriage.  Pew Research 2006 Study page 22.

Conservatives have a “Happiness Advantage” Because They are more Likely to get Married and Remain Married – this Tends to Make Them Happier.

Whereas the polling data shows that, typically, people who are more likely to marry and remain married, are happier, this characteristic describes those who are more conservative (as discussed above). 

This is another reason why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals.  Of course, the happiness of the married (and conservatives) would be far greater if they were far more virtuous, as Aristotle proves in Nichomachean Ethics, Bk.10, ch.6. 

The adjective “Republican” largely means that a person is somewhat conservative, even though not as conservative as a Traditional Catholic would know he needs to be.  Likewise, “Democrat” tends to mean that a person is more liberal, as compared to a Republican.  This label tends to reflect the happiness gap that we have already seen on the charts concerning religion and marriage.  See the chart below.

The graph immediately above is taken from: Are We Happy Yet?, page 5, Pew Research Center, results can be found here:

This is not surprising, since those party affiliations tend to serve as proxies for those habits of character regarding greater or lesser morality and use of reason.

As Pew Research Center explains:

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats and 29% of independents.  This finding has also been around a long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972.[9]  See the graph below.

One would be mistaken to think that the greater happiness of conservatives is because conservatives tend to have more money, although it is true that they do tend to have more money.  Common sense would tell us that conservatives would tend to have more money because greater wealth is a fruit of habits that are associated with conservative principles, e.g., hard work, delayed gratification, stable families, following the rules (i.e., having a “law and order” outlook), etc.

But money is not why conservatives are happier than liberals.  If we compare conservatives and liberals even in the same income brackets, the conservatives in every income bracket are more likely to say they are very happy, compared to liberals, by roughly the same proportions.  See the graph below.

The graph immediately above is taken from: Are We Happy Yet?, page 14, Pew Research Center, results can be found here:

In our godless, feminist, Marxist times, a person could (wrongly) suppose that perhaps the gender of the poll respondent played a role in the result that conservatives are happier than liberals.  But this is false.  Those respondents who are “very happy” were about the same in each gender. 

The graph immediately above is taken from: Are We Happy Yet?, page 27, Pew Research Center, results can be found here:

This makes sense because the happiness of the conservative life and principles is the life of relatively more virtue and use of reason and that is what makes people happier – both men and women, as Aristotle shows in the Nicomachean Ethics, Bk.10, ch.6.

This poll showing that Republicans are happier than Democrats is merely coming to the same fact as does Aristotle’s Ethics, but from a different direction.  Republicans, although very far from perfect, holy, and virtuous, are relatively more likely to emphasize the importance of God, virtue, and marriage, as compared to Democrats.

(To be continued)

[1]           See, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Books 8-9 and St. Thomas Aquinas’s commentary on those chapters.

[4]           Such people have so-called “friendships” which are merely convenient, comfortable, transitory liaisons, and are counterfeit “friendships” that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas call “friendships of pleasure” and “friendships of utility”.  See, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, especially chapters 3-5, and St. Thomas’s commentary on Book 8 of this work.

These “friendships” are not real friendships because real friendships are based on love of the friend and a focus on the good for the friend.  By contrast, “friendships of pleasure” and “friendships of utility” are based on (and focus on) the good for me, not for the friend.  

Examples of so-called “friendships of pleasure” are those based on a mutual enjoyment of video games and competing against each other in racket ball, or enjoying someone’s company as a “shopping buddy”, a “travel buddy” or a “movie buddy” (so that the person does not have to engage in such activities alone).

“Friendships of utility” are not real friendships either, but are based on a good I can get out of association with that other person, e.g., when other people are impressed with me because they see that I know important people such as the particular “friend” (e.g., they see that I am a friend of the pope, the president, or the celebrity); or the “friend” sends business to the company that I operate resulting in profit; or he gives me gifts.  The so-called “friendship of utility” is reflected in the ironic remark which is sometimes made concerning a rich person, who is described as having “all of the friends that money can buy.”


So, the point made immediately above this footnote, is that some people think that enjoying pleasure is the same thing as true happiness just like they think that friendships of pleasure are true friendship.  Similarly, such people sometimes think that possessing money is true happiness, just as they think that their associations with others which bring them money are true friendships.

[5]           See, e.g., this article regarding the similarity between the program of the Marxists and Satan.


[6]           This article is about the nature of happiness in the natural order, comparing conservatives and liberals.  It is beyond the article’s scope to consider the happiness of those with the supernatural vocation to the religious life.  However, the vocation to the religious life is a great calling and brings great happiness when this call is answered generously.

[7]           Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Suppl., Q.67, a.1.

[8]           Are We Happy Yet?, Pew Research Center, results can be found here:



Is Communism Dead?

Catholic Candle note:  The article below concerns the consecration of Russia which Heaven commanded to be performed by the pope and all of the bishops of the world.  This command pertains to the bishops in their capacity as wielding jurisdictional power to govern the Church throughout the world.  As such, the consecration can be performed by those Ordinaries who govern the Church, despite the doubtfulness that their conciliar consecrations give them the sacramental power of a bishop.  For an explanation of this, please read chapters 10 and 11 of this book:

Catholic Candle holds that a bishop should be presumed to have a valid Episcopal consecration when he is consecrated under normal conditions, by the Church in normal times.  In other words, the fact that he was consecrated under the Church’s normal conditions, in normal times, causes an appropriate presumption that he is a valid bishop.

However, this presumption (of the validity of such a bishop’s consecration) could be rebutted even in normal times, by a positive doubt – even a small positive doubt – concerning the validity of his particular consecration.  Read more about this principle here:

We hold that the consecrations performed outside these normal conditions and not during normal times, do not deserve such presumption of validity because the Church does not vouch for those consecrations.  Those consecrations should not be taken as valid unless they are proven valid.

For further information about the doubtfulness of the conciliar “consecration” rite, read this analysis:

For more about the principle that it is our duty to treat doubtful consecrations and ordinations as invalid, read this article here:


Is Communism Dead?

The short answer is No.

Webster’s Dictionary states that Communism is a theory advocating the elimination of private property.  That is one of the main goals of Communism and Socialism.  Another pillar is the eradication of our freedom to work and plan for a life on earth and salvation thereafter.

Perhaps because these Communist goals are so horrific to contemplate, most people today choose to simply ignore what this actually means and how the increasing rise of Communism is radically changing their lives and jeopardizing their salvation.  It is easier for them to believe that Marxism/Socialism/Communism were discredited decades ago and that the Blessed Mother’s command in 1917 no longer applies, viz., that the pope and all the bishops of the world must consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

Wrong!  The dangers of Communism are now greater than ever and Our Lady’s command is more important than ever.  Our Blessed Mother gave us explicit instructions on what must be done to avoid wars and persecution of the Church.                                                             

If people will do what I will tell them, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace.  The war is going to end.  But if they do not stop offending God, another and worse war will break out in the reign of Pius XI.  (1922-1939)  [This refers to World War II.] 

When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that it is the great sign that God gives you, that He is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.”[1]

To forestall this great tragedy, she asked for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart and for Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays.

If they heed my request, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace.  If not, she shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecutions of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated…”[2]

Well, what do you think?  Has the world taken her warning to heart?  Have people become more religious, more devout?  Or even more law-abiding?

On the contrary.  Because Rome did not heed Our Lady’s admonition, many of these things have come to pass.  The civilized world is suffering because Russia continues to spread her errors, causing widespread chaos.  We have a bad pope who also is head of the anti-Catholic conciliar church; (thus, we don’t expect him to consecrate Russia,[3] despite the occasional attempts at consecration that various (so-called) bishops have tried.  (Note: Our Lady specified that the consecration must be done universally, by the pope and all the bishops at the same time.) 

Worldwide, there are currently two major wars and many smaller conflicts.  The number of vocations and people attending church are greatly decreased.  Although in most or all places in the world, faithful and informed Catholics have nowhere to attend Mass because they have no access to an uncompromising priest, this is not the reason for greatly decreased church attendance throughout the Western World.  Instead, church attendance is way down because people ignore God, not because they shun compromising priests.

Public immorality is rampant.  Satan worship is on the rise.  Abortion is considered a “right” (by some tortured use of the word).  Birth control is a matter of convenience.  Hundreds of thousands (some say, millions) of vulnerable children have been brainwashed into believing they are not who they thought they were and are in need of ongoing surgeries and unending “treatments.”  (The implication is that “God made a mistake.”) 

We are edging toward complete lawlessness, as demonstrated by the following:

ü  Moves to defund the police;

ü  No cash bail for criminals (i.e., so they are free to commit more crimes until their trials come up – if they’re still around);


ü  Smash and grabs thefts from stores are increasingly common, and in many cities (e.g., San Francisco) the police ignore the thefts unless the value of the goods stolen is over $1,000;

ü  Arson and rioting are accepted and tolerated; and

ü  Blatant corruption is in the highest levels of government.

The goal of this Marxist push is to make citizens feel so unsafe that they will demand that the government should implement a police state, as happened in the Communist takeover of Russia during the Bolshevik (Communist) Revolution of 1917. 

The governments throughout the Western World will continue with their insane upside-down policies and attack anyone pushing back against them.  One example of the increasing U.S. police state is the leftists weaponizing the FBI – as happened in Virginia recently when the FBI placed “spies” in more conservative “Latin Mass” churches, until a whistleblower disclosed this fact publicly, after which this spying was supposedly stopped and the FBI policy memo was quietly withdrawn.  

Unfortunately, most people have a very obscured understanding of the difference between right and wrong, between the true and the false, and between good and evil.  Such people (and their parents and their children) have been “educated” in an educational system which, for the past 70 years, has been predominantly left-wing.

The planned convulsions in society, the riots, the attacks on the family, and the full-tilt assaults on every aspect of our culture are all direct results of failure to follow Our Lady’s command at Fatima.

Not a rosy picture, is it?  Were it not for realizing that God knows what is going on here in the world He created, it would be panic-time.  As it is, He expects us to keep up the good fight and trust in His love for us.  Thus, our job is to live the Catholic life and hold the Catholic Faith without any compromise.  Let us do this without fear!

[1]           Mother of Christ Crusade, Fr. John de Marchi, I.M.C., (Published by the Mother of Christ Crusade, 1947,) Chapter V.

[2]           Mother of Christ Crusade, Fr. John de Marchi, I.M.C., (Published by the Mother of Christ Crusade, 1947,) Chapter V.

[3]           For an analysis of why the pope’s 2022 “consecration” did not fulfill Our Lady’s command, read this article:


The Leftist Attack on the Moral Fiber of Society

Let us reflect on the impoverished character we generally see in so many people in society around us, especially members of the last three generations.  This moral decline is getting progressively worse as time goes on – with each passing year and with each new generation.

So many members of these generations display their weakness of character and their wallowing in vice through what they set as their highest values and goals: comfort, convenience, pleasure, entertainment, conformity, and being coddled.[1]

So many such people stand for little-or-nothing that requires personal sacrifice or for which they would willingly give up their lives.

  They “stand for” forcing the government to give free medical care to them and to others. 

  They “stand for” having the federal government waive the repayments of their student loans.

  The “stand for” welfare payments and government subsidies for practically everything.

  They “stand for” forcing employers to pay workers more money through a government-mandated minimum wage.

  They “stand for” taxing more money from the rich.

  They “stand for” pressuring the government to bail out foolish risk-taking that turns out badly, such as building or buying a house in a flood zone.

  They “stand for” collecting money through being a “political activist” or a “community organizer” without having to get a real and productive job.

  They “stand for” street protests in order to get their way.

  They “stand for” commuter transit subsidies.

  They “stand for” the government forcing taxpayers to subsidize foolish and non-cost-effective electric cars, solar and wind power, and other boondoggles.

  And so on. 

Many such people slouch through life seeking pleasure and entertainment.  They are unwilling to make personal sacrifices.  Sacrifice is painful – whereas their shallow lives are filled as much as possible with continual self-indulgence.  Even if they are (gullibly) terrified by the emotional alarmism that the Establishment feeds them (e.g., global destruction because of climate change), nonetheless, such a bogeyman does not make their own lives uncomfortable or require of them any significant sacrifice.  They simply demand that the government “do something” to “fix” the problem.

They are unwilling to make personal sacrifices because pain is the opposite of the comfortable life at which they aim.  They do not get married and they frustrate Nature through abortion by refusing the children whom God sends them or naturally would send them.  This should not surprise us because marriage involves taking responsibility.  Likewise, it involves accepting responsibility when a person welcomes into the world and into his family, the children that God would send him.

So many such people do not pursue the truth because that pursuit: 1) takes effort, 2) is unpopular, and 3) might present to them an uncomfortable conflict between the popular “correct” opinions they want to hold and whatever they might discover to really be the truth.  Thus, they find the truth to be “inconvenient” or they deny the existence of truth – instead saying everyone has his “own truth”, which merely means his opinion.

Instead of the truth, they merely latch onto the self-interested, “approved” propaganda that they are fed by the mainstream media, by the entertainment industry, by the universities, and by other leftists.  These people would usually ignore an account of the truth available from a conservative source because such an account takes too much effort to find and because the truth could expose them to being accused by their peer group of “disinformation”.

The disciples of the leftist leaders do not value thinking or the truth but only value having the “correct” opinions.  For this reason, they justly possess a reputation of wanting to silence whatever opposes their own “correct” opinions.[2]  Such people cannot think-through, discuss, and debate ideas with those who have a contrary opinion.  This is the reason why there are leftist fads such as “safe spaces” on college campuses where leftist students do not need to “fear” encountering someone who disagrees with them.[3]

At bottom, these people are stunted both in their intellects and in their wills.  Because of their underdeveloped wills, they have no real love – i.e., no real noble, sacrificial, unshakable love.

When a person loves something, he stands for it.  When he loves something, he fights for it.  When he loves something, he honors and respects it, he sacrifices for it, and he is willing to die for it (if necessary).

Thus, we see that many such people in society do not love the truth and are not devoted to it.  They do not have a real love of any people and do not have real friendships.  Instead, they have convenient, comfortable, transitory liaisons, which are counterfeit “friendships” that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas call “friendships of pleasure” and “friendships of utility”.[4]

In contrast to these sham “friendships”, here is the character of the real sacrificial love of genuine friendship:

If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he shall despise it as nothing.

Canticle of Canticles, 8:7.

Such real, committed love does not shrink in the face of difficulties.  It lasts “until death do us part”, as Sacred Scripture teaches us:

Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm, for love is strong as death ….

Canticle of Canticles, 8:6.

These people in society have no real love for persons around them and this is a reflection of their lack of any real love of God.  Thus, they are irreligious, do not attend church, and have no spiritual anchor.

We should pray for these confused, pitiable followers of the leftist leaders who guide them down the path of unhappiness in this life, as a foreshadowing of the unspeakable eternal misery to come (unless they convert and repent). 

Our being God’s tool in their conversion is a very worthy purpose for our lives!

[1]           The Coddling of the American Mind, Atlantic Magazine, found here:

[2]           Read, e.g., this September 25, 2023 article in Fortune Magazine (a mainstream media publication) entitled: Gen Z can’t work alongside people with different views because they ‘haven’t got the skills to disagree’ says British TV boss, found here:

[3]           The Coddling of the American Mind, Atlantic Magazine, found here:


[4]           See, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, especially chapters 3-5, and St. Thomas’s commentary on Book 8 of this work.


The “Deadly Heat” Alarmism

In the Northern Hemisphere, we are in summer, so it is warm and … well, summery.  As we saw in past Catholic Candle[1] analyses, the world has been in a normal, cyclical warming trend beginning roughly 40 years ago.  This warming trend is only one of many that have taken place during the centuries.  The current one began at the end of that period (the 1960s and 70s) during which the leftists had been alarming naïve and gullible people with a scare that we were entering a New Ice Age.[2]

Those who read the mainstream media’s reporting know that this media is currently in full-alarmist mode about a crisis of the so-called “deadly” heat.  We do not deny that heat can be deadly but rather, we know that the earth is like that: there are places where the heat is bad (especially during a warming cycle) and there are places where the cold is bad (especially during the cooling cycle). 

None of that is alarming, surprising, or new.  Below, are some of the recent alarmist headlines (with red underlining added). 

Here (below) is the Washington Post:[3]

Here (below) is the New York Times:





Here (below) is the leftist The Atlantic Magazine:

Here (below) is the UK’s daily newspaper, called The Guardian:

The leftist mainstream media and leftist governments are so “over-the-top” with this “deadly heat” alarmism that they declare that the earth is “boiling”!  For example, the U.S. Government’s worldwide media, Voice of America, amplifies the United Nations’ propaganda, declaring that the “planet is boiling”![4]  Here is one such alarmist declaration:

The mainstream media follows right along, declaring we are boiling!  Here, e.g., is the U.K.’s The Guardian[5]:

We are now in a media landscape where the leftist climate alarmism is parodying itself!  There is nothing more extreme for anyone to use to caricature this mainstream media burlesque!

To mislead the gullible people that we are “boiling”, the mainstream media has been obsessed lately with some local or regional temperature being hotter than usual or setting a heat record, in order to give the false impression that the heat record pertains broadly to the whole country or the whole world.  This summer, the mainstream media especially tries to alarm people about the temperatures in Phoenix, Arizona.

But the mainstream media does not mention the very many other local and regional places which have been below their usual average temperature this summer.  For example, 2023 has been a cooler than usual summer in the U.S. Midwest.  The national mainstream media would never include that perspective in order to provide some balance in their reporting, because they don’t want balanced reporting or the truth.

There are such a large number of places in the U.S. which are currently experiencing cooler than usual temperatures, that the average temperatures in the entire U.S. are very slightly lower than usual despite higher-than-usual temperatures in some places like Phoenix.  Here is data from a University of Oregon climate lab showing a slightly cooler than normal average temperature for the U.S. as a whole[6]:

Let us look at the comparison of high temperatures this summer compared to prior decades.

The U.S. has temperature records for Yosemite National Park which go back more than 120 years.  Here is a record of every occasion on which a temperature over 100°F was recorded there[7]:

In the above graph, we see that the temperatures at Yosemite were certainly hotter in the past, especially in about 1914.  Does that mean we are in a “scary” global cooling now and heading to a New Ice Age?  No.  It just means that temperatures vary over the years and in different locations, and that it happens that in other decades Yosemite reached temperatures much hotter than are currently occurring.

Let us look more broadly at extreme temperatures in the whole U.S. by looking at three things:

1.    The temperature records for the whole nation;

2.    Which show how many locations there were with temperatures above 100°F in 1936; and

3.    Also, those records which show how many places temperatures reached above 110°F that same year. 

After that, let us see how the number of these locations compare to the number of such locations during our current year[8]:

From these maps, we see that there were so many more places with those high temperatures in 1936 compared to the present year.  This matters because it is one of many ways to show that the leftists’ present alarmism is not justified by reality.  Instead, the “climate emergency” that the leftists have declared merely serves the leftist political agenda of the ongoing globalist power grab (as we saw in past Catholic Candle articles.[9]


Even Assuming (Contrary to Fact) that Humans Caused Increased Warming, Would That Extra Warming Be Good?

Above, we saw the alarmist hype about the heat being so extreme that it “tests the limits of survival” (as one mainstream daily newspaper declared).  But we saw that the truth is that dishonest mainstream media “cherry-picks” the places that happened to be hottest at a given time and does not balance its reporting with the essential prospective that there are so many places that are cooler than usual at that same time (as is true every year).  Nor does the mainstream media inform people that the present year is actually a year of (slightly lower than) average temperatures overall (as shown in the Oregon State University Climate Lab data and the other data).

But let us suppose – contrary to fact – that North America or the entire world were really warming beyond the normal cyclical warming which is part of the normal patterns that fluctuate over the course of the centuries, the decades, and the months of a year.  Would such (hypothetical) greater warming be bad?

Catholic Candle readers might already know the answer to that question by remembering from a past article[10] that, in the centuries-long warming cycle called the Medieval Warming Period, the extra warmth was so beneficial that scientists often call this period the Little Climatic Optimum to indicate its advantages. 

The truth is that any increased warming has important advantages.  Among other benefits, this increased warmth saves lives because far more human beings die of cold than of heat.  On every continent cold is more dangerous than heat.


Even the data from the prestigious, leftist medical journal, The Lancet, shows that there are far more deaths from cold than from heat.[11]  Look at this graph:[12]

The Lancet is a leftist medical journal which adheres to the leftist claim that human-caused global warming is a “fact”.  But even The Lancet data[13] shows that (the supposed) “global warming” SAVES about 167,000 lives per year (283,000 minus 116,000).  Look at this graph:[14]

If it were not a lie that “global warming” is caused by man and by the burning of fossil fuels, then we see that it would bring about beneficial changes and would save lives for us to burn more fossil fuels in order to warm the planet to reduce the number of deaths from cold.  Yet, because such burning of fossil fuels does not result in any relevant temperature difference to the world, burning more of those fuels does not make any relevant difference to the climate.

However, the leftists are not concerned with the truth or with saving lives.  They are concerned with promoting their agenda to grab global power.[15]  Thus, in its 2023 study, Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact assessment study of 854 cities in Europe, The Lancet publishes a deceptive graph which manipulates the X axis to represent five times as many heat deaths with the same length X axis as used for cold deaths.

Here is The Lancet graph (below).[16]  Look at the calibration markings on the left and right sides of the X axis (i.e., the horizontal axis).  The heat side represents five times the number of deaths as the cold side does, for the same length.  We added black ovals to this graph to show the location of this deception:  

Now let us reproduce that (above) The Lancet graph again, side-by-side with the same data with a non-deceptive graph, i.e., with the X axis which is calibrated the same way for both cold deaths and heat deaths.  Here is the graph:

We see that some leftists lie about the data.  See, e.g., “Big Data” – a New Version of an Old Danger of Manipulation and Deception: .  Others distort the true data by deceptive graphs, etc.

So again, we see that warming will help save lives now and will benefit the peoples of the world, as the greater warmth did during the Medieval Warming Period, a/k/a the Little Climactic Optimum.

We hope this information makes the truth clearer that there is no human-caused global warming and further, that global warming is nothing to fear.  We hope this is also a salutary warning to not believe or trust the leftist establishment and media.  They do the devil’s work and spread his lies.  They do not serve Our Lord, Who is the Truth.

Let us watch and pray, as Our Lord told us to do.  Let us serve Christ the King bravely and willingly, which is the reason He placed us in these times.

Let us fight together, side-by-side, in the trenches of the Church Militant, for Christ the King and against His enemies.


[1]           See, e.g., this article: Climate Alarmists Abuse Data from Natural Weather Cycles:

[2]           Read this article: Recalling a 1970s Climate-Change Hoax:

[3]           These headlines are collected here:  (Red underlining added.)

[6]           This data can be accessed here:

[10]         Read this article: Climate Alarmists Abuse Data from Natural Weather Cycles, found here:

The False Claim that Global Warming Causes Hurricanes to be More Severe – Part 2

Catholic Candle note: Below is the second and final part of an article which debunks the claim of the climate alarmists who assert that hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more severe because of man-made (anthropogenic) “climate change”.  The first part of this article is here:

In part one of this article, we saw that weather and climate go in cycles and that this applies to hurricanes, too.  We saw that N.O.A.A. (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and various studies conclude that, after adjusting for the pre-1972 hurricane under-count (before the use of weather satellites), there is no upward trend in the number or in the severity of hurricanes.

We saw that there was a deep trough in the hurricane cycle – in approximately 1980 – which would allow a dishonest manipulation of the data by deceptively cutting the data to begin there in order to give a false appearance of an alarming hurricane increase, as the climate alarmists falsely claim. 

Now, in the second and final part of this article, we look at the mainstream media making these false claims based on deceptively cutting the data and answer an objection concerning the increasing cost of hurricane damage.

False media claims of hurricanes increasing in number and intensity because of human-caused climate change.

Before we look at where the mainstream media cut the data, let us look at a few examples of what the mainstream media claims – viz., about major hurricanes supposedly becoming more common:

  The New York Times claimed, “strong storms are becoming more common in the Atlantic Ocean.”[1]


  A Washington Post headline warned, “climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes”, adding in the body of the article that “storms rated Category 4 or stronger … have increased in number in recent decades”.[2]


  ABC News declared, “Here’s how climate change intensifies hurricanes.”[3]

As we saw in part one of this article, N.O.A.A. and (the science journal) Nature studies conclude the opposite of what these mainstream media are telling people.  Further, we saw that the media “buried” those studies in silence.  But that media makes a show of using (but really abusing) the N.O.A.A. data.  See, for example:

  The New York Times saying that it is relying upon the same NOAA report that we showed in part 1, which concludes the opposite of what the media claims:

And similarly:

  ABC News claiming to rely on this NOAA report here:

But before we look at where the media cut the data, let us also look at an example of what the mainstream media says about the frequency of all hurricanes:

  The Financial Times claimed in an alarmist headline: “hurricane frequency is on the rise.”[4]

Again, N.O.A.A. and the (science journal) Nature studies conclude the opposite of these media claims, “burying” those studies in silence and yet making a show of using (but really abusing) N.O.A.A. data.

The Leftists Deceptively Cut the Data at 1980.

Now let us look at where the New York Times[5] article cut the data.

Notice the above graph begins in 1980.  Why didn’t the media use the longer data set that is readily available?  Because it would have shown the falsity of their claims.

Here (below), e.g., is a N.O.A.A. graph[6] showing the larger data set that the New York Times could have used (but did not use), going back 120 years further, to 1860:    

How different the data looks when we see it in context – when it is not cut deceptively, as the New York Times does!  Reviewing the entire data set, we see it would be absurd to worry about the hurricane cycle upswing beginning in 1980.

As shown in the Catholic Candle articles which are linked to the introduction of part 1 of this present article, when the temperature cycle was on a significant cooling trend, the climate alarmists tried to scare the public about the cooling being permanent and that we were entering a permanent “new ice age”.  Then, when the inevitable warming cycle began after that, they switched their scare tactics to “global warming” – all to promote increased government intrusion in people’s lives, a globalist power grab. 

But notice that the current scare about “stronger and more frequent hurricanes” did not have a predecessor scare when the hurricane cycle was going in the opposite direction.  The reason is obvious: people would not be afraid (in the years preceding roughly 1980) that climate change is causing a reduction in hurricanes.  So, the leftists had to wait to use hurricanes as a scare tactic until hurricanes began to rise out of the 1980’s era “deep minimum”.

Conclusion of this Section about Mainstream Media Reporting

The mainstream media ignore the key hurricane data in order to falsely claim that hurricanes are increasing in number and severity because of human-caused climate change.

Climate change alarmism based on the increased number and severity of hurricanes is deceptive and false and is aimed at a globalist power grab because of the supposed need for the government to regulate everything to “save us” from disaster.

This is a further reminder that the mainstream media lie to us.  They are not misguided bumblers who don’t succeed in their attempt to publish the truth.  Rather they are leftist liars who use every opportunity to indoctrinate us to promote the false globalist narrative and ongoing power grab.[7]  


The Increasing Cost of Hurricanes

Q.      Is it true that hurricanes are becoming more expensive? 

A.      Yes, but not because of climate change.

There has been a dramatic increase of persons and property in “harm’s way” in hurricane-prone coastal areas because the great increase in property development of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts (as well as because of inflation) – all these circumstances are used by the leftists to make hurricanes appear worse than 100 years ago.

This is one more way for the climate scare-mongers to alarm people and promote their globalist power-grab agenda.  They declare that the increasing cost of hurricanes – both the number and severity – show that climate crisis is a “fact”.

It is true that the cost of hurricanes is increasing, even when adjusted for inflation.  See, e.g., a graph (below) courtesy of Munich Re, a very large global property insurer with a huge loss database used for this graph.


This graph is available courtesy of Roger Pielke, Jr., in his article entitled: Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change, available here:

Although in this graph (above) we see the increasing cost of natural disasters, that is only half of the picture.  In fact, the upward trend in the cost of natural disasters is because we are getting richer and have more goods and property which can be destroyed in a disaster.  In other words, even adjusting for inflation, there is an increasing value of the property that is “in harm’s way”.

Look at the graph below, also courtesy of Munich Re.  It shows that natural disasters do destroy a higher value of property now but that value is proportional to our increase in wealth.  Owning more things means people have more things “in harm’s way” and available to be damaged.


This graph is available courtesy of Roger Pielke, Jr., in his article entitled: Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change, available here:

Taking greater wealth into account, the same level of storm frequency and severity does more harm.  You can see this is common sense.  If a person 100 years ago owned a dingy (row boat) docked on the Gulf Coast, he would be exposed to much less property damage potential than his grandson who keeps a large yacht in the same location during an equivalent storm.

It is especially striking how more people are moving into places which expose them to adverse natural occurrences (hurricanes, mudslides, etc.).

Consider how much more developed Miami Beach is today compared to a century ago. See below.

For this reason, if equal storms hit Miami Beach, Florida in 1925 and in 2017, the damage from the 2017 storm would be much greater because there are so many more people and so much more property “in harm’s way”.

Similarly, look at the Houston, Texas skyline in 1927 (below) and today (further below).

Current picture of the Houston skyline:

Because people are richer now than 100 years ago and because they (perhaps imprudently) place more valuable property at risk in attractive but hazardous locations, it is no wonder that a storm now would cause much more damage that an equal storm 100 years ago.

Leaving aside the upward trend (“correction”) from the “deep minimum” in the hurricane cycle which occurred in about the 1980s, there is no increase in the number and the severity of hurricanes; yet the same severity and number of hurricanes now often do more damage because there is more property “in harm’s way”.

In fact, the coastal urban areas are actually safer than ever, when computed as the number of persons killed by hurricanes, as a percentage of persons who are located in those hurricane-prone areas.  Here is how one recent study explained this:

Abstract: … Here, [i.e., in this study] we report on impacts of global coastal storm surge events since the year 1900, based on a compilation of events and data on loss of life.  We find that over the past, more than eight thousand people are killed and 1.5 million people are affected annually by storm surges [throughout the world].  The occurrence of very substantial loss of life (>10000 persons) from single events has, however, decreased over time.  Moreover, there is a consistent decrease in event mortality, measured by the fraction of exposed people that are killed, for all global regions, except South East Asia.  Average mortality for storm surges is slightly higher than for river floods, but lower than for flash floods.  We also find that for the same coastal surge water level, mortality has decreased over time.  This indicates that risk reduction efforts have been successful, but need to be continued with projected climate change, increased rates of sea-level rise and urbanisation in coastal zones.[8]

For example, Miami Beach had a population of 28,012 in 1940[9] and has a population of 80,671[10] now.  Because the city of Miami Beach has about three times as many people as it did 60 years ago, there are so many more people “in harm’s way” even though each person who is there is safer than he would have been in earlier decades.

Further, just as hurricane fatalities are not increasing as a percentage of the people who are living “in harm’s way”, likewise, the studies show that the amount of damage that hurricanes cause is not increasing when we take into account that people are bringing greater wealth into hurricane zones.  Here is how one study explained this fact:

In recent years claims have been made in venues including the authoritative reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in testimony before the US Congress that economic losses from weather events have been increasing beyond that which can be explained by societal change, based on loss data from the reinsurance industry and aggregated since 1980 at the global level.  Such claims imply a contradiction with a large set of peer-reviewed studies focused on regional losses, typically over a much longer time period, which concludes that loss trends are explained entirely by societal change.  To address this implied mismatch, we disaggregate global losses from a widely utilized reinsurance dataset into regional components and compare this disaggregation directly to the findings from the literature at the regional scale, most of which reach back much further in time.  We find that global losses increased at a rate of $3.1 billion/year (2008 USD) from 1980–2008 and losses from North American, Asian, European, and Australian storms and floods account for 97% of the increase.  In particular, North American storms, of which U.S. hurricane losses compose the bulk, account for 57% of global economic losses.  Longer-term loss trends in these regions can be explained entirely by socioeconomic factors in each region such as increasing wealth, population growth, and increasing development in vulnerable areas.  The remaining 3% of the global increase 1980 to 2008 is the result of losses for which regionally based studies have not yet been completed.  On climate time scales, societal change is sufficient to explain the increasing costs of disasters at the global level and claims to the contrary are not supported by aggregate loss data from the reinsurance industry.[11]

Here is the summary of a study where the researchers examined 106 years of hurricane data to compare the cost of hurricane losses, after adjusting them for inflation and for the amount of property “in harm’s way”:

Abstract: After more than two decades of relatively little Atlantic hurricane activity, the past decade saw heightened hurricane activity and more than $150 billion in damage in 2004 and 2005.  This paper normalizes mainland U.S. hurricane damage from 1900–2005 to 2005 values using two methodologies.  A normalization provides an estimate of the damage that would occur if storms from the past made landfall under another year’s societal conditions.  Our methods use changes in inflation and wealth at the national level and changes in population and housing units at the coastal county level.  Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed over the twentieth century. The 1970s and 1980s were notable because of the extremely low amounts of damage compared to other decades. The decade 1996–2005 has the second most damage among the past 11 decades, with only the decade 1926–1935 surpassing its costs. Over the 106 years of record, the average annual normalized damage in the continental United States is about $10 billion under both methods.  The most damaging single storm is the 1926 Great Miami storm, with $140–157 billion of normalized damage: the most damaging years are 1926 and 2005.  Of the total damage, about 85% is accounted for by the intense hurricanes Saffir-Simpson Categories 3, 4, and 5, yet these have comprised only 24% of the U.S. landfalling tropical cyclones.[12]

This last study predicts that hurricane damage will continue to trend upward because more and more people and property are moving into the hurricane-prone areas.  Here is how the study concludes this:

Unless action is taken to address the growing concentration of people and properties in coastal areas where hurricanes strike, damage will increase, and by a great deal, as more and wealthier people increasingly inhabit these coastal locations.[13]


Conclusion of the Entire Article

We see that:

  The climate goes in cycles of various sizes from daily cycles to centuries-long cycles, with other cycles in between.


  Hurricanes go in cycles too – annual cycles and decades-long cycles.  Perhaps hurricanes also follow multi-year cycles and multi-century cycles but we will leave those inquiries aside for now.

  NOAA and its studies conclude that there is no trend toward increasing numbers or severity of hurricanes, although these conclusions are buried and not publicized.


  In about the 1980s, there was a “deep minimum” of hurricane activity, which the leftists use as the beginning of their data set to make the hurricane cycle’s returning to normalcy falsely appear (to the gullible) as an alarming upward trend.


  The leftist media and climate alarmists in the popular press falsely promote a supposed climate emergency to worry people and attempt to grab power and take the people’s freedom because this is “necessary” in order for mankind to survive.


  During the last hundred years, there has been a dramatic increase in people and property being located in hurricane-prone coastal areas.  If we adjust for the large increase in people in “harm’s way”, these coastal areas have become much safer and there has been a dramatic decrease in the percentage of people killed in the areas where hurricanes strike.  Likewise, if we adjust for inflation and for the increase in the value of property that people choose to bring into those areas, hurricanes destroy a decreasing percentage of the property which is exposed to storm hazards.


  Don’t be deceived by the claim that man-caused climate change is causing an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes.

[5]           Reproduced from The New York Times article entitled Ian Moves North, found here:

[6]           This graph beginning in 1860, is taken from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: at figure 4, ratio of Atlantic major hurricanes (Cat 3-5) to all hurricanes (Cat 1-5).  The gray curve is prior to adjustment; blue curves include an adjustment for estimated missing storms.  This graph and data were originally published in ecchi et al. 2021.           

[7]           For a further analysis of how the mainstream media and other leftists deceive us through data manipulation, read this article: “Big Data” – A New Version of an Old Danger of Manipulation and Deception found here:

[8]           Global mortality from storm surges is decreasing, by Laurens M Bouwer and Sebastian N Jonkman, Published 5 January 2018 • © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. Environmental Research LettersVolume 13Number 1 Citation, Laurens M Bouwer and Sebastiaan N Jonkman, 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 014008 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/aa98a3.  (Emphasis added and bracketed words added to show the context.)  This study is available here:


[9]           Population data found here: Webster’s 6th Collegiate Dictionary, ©1940 in the Pronouncing Gazetteer, page 1118.

[11]         Quoted from: Reconciliation of Trends in Global and Regional Economic Losses from Weather Events: 1980–2008, Shalini Mohleji and Roger Pielke, Jr., available here:

[12]         Quoted from: Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005, Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; Joel Gratz; Christopher W. Landsea; Douglas Collins; Mark A. Saunders; and Rade Musulin, DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1527-698820089:129.  This study can be found here:

[13]         Quoted from: Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005, Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; Joel Gratz; Christopher W. Landsea; Douglas Collins; Mark A. Saunders; and Rade Musulin, DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1527-698820089:129.  This study can be found here:

The False Claim that Global Warming Causes Hurricanes to be More Severe – Part 1

Catholic Candle note: The globalists are seeking to grab power by frightening gullible people that there is a climate emergency that requires the globalists to save us by wielding totalitarian power for our own good.

These globalists falsify and deceptively use climate data as part of their scheme to alarm people with a supposed global-warming emergency.  In roughly the 1970s, the globalists tried (and largely succeeded) in alarming people by the scare of global cooling and the (supposed) coming of a “new ice age”.

The globalists use cyclical climate trends to alarm the people, as if the climate cycle was going to continue without end in the same direction.  In an earlier article, we examined the fact that the climate is naturally cyclical.  There are daily cycles, yearly cycles, decades-long cycles and centuries-long cycles.  Read this article: Climate Alarmists Abuse Data from Natural Weather Cycles:

The article below treats of a related topic, debunking the claims of the climate alarmists who assert that hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more severe because of man-made (anthropogenic) “climate change”. 

Part 1

The leftists seek to alarm gullible people (especially the young) by claiming that the current warming cycle (which the leftists call “global warming”) is harmful because this warming causes hurricanes to be more numerous and more severe.  This alarmism is false as we will see.

Just as the temperature goes in long and in short-term cycles, it would not surprise any thinking person that hurricanes go in cycles too.  There is an obvious annual hurricane cycle, because of which part of the year is called the “hurricane season”, especially in places such as the Gulf of Mexico.  Here is a NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) graph of the annual hurricane cycle:

In addition to those annual cycles, hurricanes also follow decades-long cycles.  Below are some graphs showing such decades-long cycles.  The first one[1] is averaged to make the graph less “spikey”.  The second one[2] (the one from the U.S. E.P.A. i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency) is the non-averaged, “spikier” version of the first graph.  We see that both of them display a cyclical pattern that takes decades to repeat itself.

A graph showing the calculated number of Atlantic hurricanes

Line graph showing the number of hurricanes that formed in the North Atlantic Ocean and the number that made landfall in the United States each year. 

It would seem plausible that there would also be hurricane cycles that take centuries to repeat, just as there are centuries-long temperature cycles.[3]  But we have no information on that question, one way or the other.

Regarding these hurricane cycle graphs (above), notice that the U.S. E.P.A. graph refers to the pre-1972 data being “adjusted”.  The U.S. government began wide-spread use of weather satellites that year.  The U.S. government and academic researchers all adjust the pre-1972 data and they all agree that an upward adjustment is necessary because the pre-1972 data for hurricanes missed all hurricanes that did not reach landfall unless a ship at sea happened to see the hurricane.  It is reasonable and obvious to everybody that this pre-1972 tracking system missed many hurricanes and so the data is adjusted upward to account for this under-count in both government and academic records. 

Because hurricanes occur in cycles (like the weather more generally), this enables climate alarmists to manipulate the hurricane data to have it “prove” what they want.  So, e.g., “cutting” the data (i.e., starting their graph) at a low point allows the climate alarmists to claim that the upward slope of the normal hurricane cycle “proves” that there is an “alarming” hurricane increase (which they blame on a global warming emergency).

Although the government weather and climate services, as well as academia (university researchers) are controlled by the leftists, they cannot entirely avoid the truth that the climate data does not support climate alarmism.  So, when government or university reports dispel alarmist myths, those reports are “buried” and de-emphasized, all the while the leftist media, academia, and government agencies continue to insist on dire climate danger and the need for drastic reductions in human-caused carbon emissions.

One example of the truth coming out recently – but being “buried” – is a NOAA hurricane study that came out in October 2022.  Immediately below are NOAA’s conclusions regarding no trend in the strengthening of storms which would cause them to become major hurricanes:

After adjusting for changes in observing capabilities (limited ship observations) in the pre-satellite era, there is no significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.  We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major.[4]

NOAA provides the graph (below) of 160 years of data, adjusted to account for inferior sighting and tracking ability before 1972.  This graph, is called “figure 4” in the NOAA report.  The graph not only does not show an increasing proportion of hurricanes becoming major, but rather it shows greater proportions of hurricanes being major in the 1960s hurricane cycle (compared to now) and an even-greater proportion of major storms in the 1910-1930s cycle.  See below.[5]    

NOAA is telling us that the evidence shows cycles but shows no “significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes”.  NOAA adds (in the quote above) that there is no “compelling evidence” that greenhouse gases cause more storms to become major hurricanes – although the climate alarmists insist the opposite. 

NOAA (despite being controlled by leftists) admits that the data does not support the supposition that there is an increase in the severity of hurricanes, once a person adjusts (as all the studies do) for the obvious under-count which occurred when hurricanes were counted by chance ship observations rather than by ever-“watching” satellites, as occurred beginning about 1972.

Let us look again at the graph above.  We see from graphs such as this one that in roughly 1980, there was the bottom (trough) of a down cycle.  In fact, here is a lengthy study, Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, which observes on this issue:

Nevertheless, the recent increase in the proportion of NA HUs [i.e., North American Hurricanes] becoming MHs [i.e., major hurricanes], after adjustment, which is also reflected in the results of ref. 14, [which is a data source on which this report relies] is not a continuation or acceleration of a long-term trend, but rather is a rebound from a deep minimum in the decades surrounding the 1980s ….

We find that recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend. After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s. …

Our results indicate that the recent increase in NA basin-wide MH/HU ratio or MH frequency is not part of a century-scale increase.  Rather it is a rebound from a deep local minimum in the 1960s–1980s.  …

[T]he inactive period in the late 20th century may have been the most inactive period in recent centuries.[6]

Notice in the graph above that a person could cut the graph at roughly 1980 if he wanted to fool gullible people into believing that hurricanes are becoming more intense.  This is because graphs or data sets that begin in roughly 1980 lack the context of the fact that 1980 is the trough of a prior cycle.  Such a graph misleadingly shows an increase in hurricanes and major hurricanes which make the graph or data look as if there is an alarming acceleration in these storms, as the climate extremists falsely claim.  This same hurricane study remarks about this false appearance in these words:

Furthermore, the 1980–2019 increases in basin-wide HU [i.e., hurricanes] and MH [i.e., major hurricanes] frequency are not a continuation of a longer-term trend, but reflect a recovery from a strong minimum in the 1970s and 1980s ….[7]

Now let us look at the leftists’ other alarmist hurricane assertion, viz., that anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases are causing a greater number of hurricanes. 

NOAA’s report concludes that, aside from the usual hurricane cycles, there is no trend toward an increasing number of hurricanes – after adjusting for under-counting in the pre-satellite data.  Here are NOAA’s conclusions:

After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era, there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts.  The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.[8]

NOAA’s report combines and summarizes its findings as follows:

We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.[9]

We see that even the leftist-controlled NOAA is admitting that it is false to say that greenhouse gases are causing a greater number of hurricanes or a larger number of major hurricanes.  But these truths do not change what the leftists are claiming in the mainstream media, academia, and government because the leftists are not seeking the truth (as Karl Marx did not seek the truth).  Instead, the leftists seek to complete their globalist power grab. 

The leftists would be embarrassed by reports such as the NOAA, Vecchi, and Nature reports above, if those reports became well-known to the public.  But the leftist know that few people will ever know the truth because their comrades in the media will “bury” these reports in silence and their comrades in the universities will continue to lie to their students that hurricane frequency and severity “prove” that there is an anthropogenic climate crisis.

Conclusion of Part 1 of this Article

We see that weather and climate go in cycles and that this applies to hurricanes, too.  We see that NOAA (and the studies it relies on) conclude that, after adjusting for the pre-1972 hurricane under-count, there is no upward trend in the number or in the severity of hurricanes. 

We see that there was a deep trough in the hurricane cycle – in approximately 1980 – which would allow a dishonest manipulation of the data by deceptively cutting the data there in order to give a false appearance of an alarming hurricane increase, as the climate alarmists fraudulently claim. 

Remember this trough in 1980 because next month we will look at deceptive alarmist graphs beginning then.

To be continued


[4]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: (parenthetical words in the original; emphasis added).

[5]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: at figure 4, ratio of Atlantic major hurricanes (Cat 3-5) to all hurricanes (Cat 1-5).  The gray curve is prior to adjustment; blue curves include an adjustment for estimated missing storms.  This graph and data were originally published in Vecchi et al. 2021.

The reference to “Vecchi et al., 2021” in NOAA’s graph description (quoted immediately above), is merely NOAA’s attributing the source of the graph that it was using.  This study and report, issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is available here:

[6]           Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, citing (in the statements above) the following studies:

  Kossin, J. P., Knapp, K. R., Olander, T. L. & Velden, C. S. Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades, Proc. Natil Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11975–11980 (2020) in “ref. 14”;

  Chenoweth, M. & Divine, D. A document-based 318-year record of tropical cyclones in the Lesser Antilles, 1690 – 2007. Geo- chem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9, Q08013 (2008); and

  Nyberg, J. et al., Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years, Nature, 447, 698–701 (2007).

      Emphasis added and bracketed comments added for clarity.

[7]           Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, Emphasis added.


[8]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here:

[9]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here:


More Information to Remind Us to Avoid the Covid “Vaccine”

Catholic Candle note: The so-called Covid “vaccine” is not really a vaccine but is really gene therapy.[1]  This “vaccine” is a mortal sin to accept just like all vaccines developed through abortion.

The SSPX used to uphold this Traditional Catholic position that vaccines developed through abortion are always mortally sinful to receive.  But the now-liberal SSPX has completely reversed itself and now accepts the conciliar position.  To read the SSPX’s prior prohibition and its current permissive words, read part 3 of this article: (citing to the SSPX’s own sources).  The “new” SSPX’s current liberal position includes permitting not only receiving abortion-related vaccines but also the Covid so-called “vaccine”.

Further, this Covid “vaccine” is very harmful in many ways, especially harming the immune system[2] and causing grave cardiac problems.[3]  As explained below, the “vaccine” offers negative protection even for Covid itself nor does it “stop the spread” as the leftists lied that it would.

The short article below is merely a reminder to avoid the Covid “vaccine” for all of these reasons.

We hope and pray that Catholic Candle’s readers had the good judgment and firmness of principles to not get the Covid jab(s).  Our lives should be a principled stance against all of the evils of our time, including this “vaccine”.

However, to help our readers to inform others, we report to you an interesting risk-benefit analysis performed recently which examined the impact of Covid booster mandates for university students.  The test group was people in the age bracket of 18-29.

As shown in the study discussed below, this risk-benefit analysis shows that the Covid gene therapy (the so-called “vaccine”) does more harm than good.  Of course, the more important point is that receiving these Covid boosters constitutes mortal sins since they are cooperating in the murders of innocent babies in abortion, and the further evil of the vivisection of those babies without anesthesia to enhance their “cell lines” for research purposes. 

But this summary of the recent interesting study reminds us to avoid this evil “vaccine” and also to not trust the leftists who control the mainstream channels of information.

The recent risk-benefit analysis on young adults

This risk-benefit analysis which was recently conducted examines the impact of booster mandates for North American university students.  It concludes that:

  Between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected adults (aged 18 to 29) must be boosted with an mRNA “vaccine” to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization.

  For each hospitalization prevented, the jab will cause 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3 “booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities”.

  That means mandating a third COVID shot for university students will result in “a net expected harm”.


  The study emphasizes that the results are actually worse than that because “Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favorable.”[4] 

The study concludes that university booster mandates are unethical for five reasons:

1.    There has been no formal risk-benefit assessment pertaining to this age group;


2.    The vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;

3.    The mandates are not proportionate: the expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits – given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;


4.    U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and


5.    The mandates create wider social harms. The study’s authors consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.

This interesting risk-benefit analysis was financed by the leftist Wellcome Trust.  The study is currently in “preprint” advanced publication.  The study’s principal author is Dr. Kevin Bardosh, from the School of Public Health, University of Washington, USA, and the Division of Infection Medicine, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, UK.[5]

Dear Readers, if anyone wonders why/how this study “came out of the blue”, then he is not keeping himself informed.  This study is merely one of many.

There is a constant trickle of new studies – mostly ignored by the mainstream media – showing how harmful the Covid “vaccine” is.  Each study comes from a different “angle”.  The studies are not all exactly the same but they all show, in their own way, that the Covid “vaccine” is dangerous and is harmful to the recipients.  (We also know that it is an additional mortal sin since it causes the recipients to share culpability for the murder of those innocent babies). 

Another recent news report concerns a new study from researchers in the Netherlands which shows area-by-area of that country, the close correlation between Covid “vaccine” rates and the all-cause mortality rates in those same areas.[6]  In other words, wherever, in the Netherlands, the Covid “vaccine” rate is higher, the all-cause mortality rate is higher.  Wherever one rate is lower so too is the other rate.  It makes sense to look at the all-cause mortality rates in relation to the Covid jab because it causes so many serious health problems of so many types.

Yet another recent study showed that, in college and professional athletes, there is close correlation between Covid “vaccine” uptake and career-ending heart inflammation, especially in previously-healthy young men.[7] 

A different study showed that the rate of professional athletes who are dropping dead without warning, is many times higher than the annual averages “pre-Covid-vaccine”.  As our readers might know, the professional sports leagues require Covid “vaccination” for all of their players.[8]

A further study showed a higher rate of catching Covid for those who are “vaccinated”.  These studies show a very short protective benefit, followed by “negative protection”.[9]

Another study showed a higher rate of hospitalization and a higher rate of death from Covid for those who are “vaccinated”.[10]

The “experts” are supposedly puzzled by the onset of “sudden adult death syndrome”.[11]  But people who do not gullibly believe the mainstream media lies and spin are able to “put two and two together”.

There are so many other studies.  They show, each in its own way, that the Covid “vaccine” is harmful.

A person might naively wonder why our leaders don’t know about these studies.  The answer is: they DO know!  There are several reasons why they are acting the way they are – and all of those reasons are evil, e.g., to reduce the world’s population to make it easier for the globalist to achieve control.

This is a good reminder, too, that we should not rely on the public health “experts” and mainstream media concerning the harm of accepting that booster.


[4]           You can find the entire study here:


[5]           You can find the entire study here: