MSNBC’s Morning Joe rains hell on right-wing Christians for choosing Trump’s 'blasphemy' over Christ's teachings

@Ridgerunner, @vz71, instead of answering your posts in this thread, can I ask that we get back to the topic of this thread, which is Trump’s behavior at the National Prayer Breakfast, mocking the keynote speaker’s serious citation of the Gospel? On the other hand, if you prefer talking about who one may legitimately vote for, I would suggest that we continue that discussion in the existing thread in Moral Theology called “Can a Catholic be Democrat?”, which can be found here:

I don’t remember reading about gun control in the catechism when I got to be serious about the faith. Could you please link a reference or the number. I thought the USCCB had a searchable version but it appears not. I’m genuinely curious.

Re: the thread

The article said,

The “Morning Joe” host called out evangelical leaders and Republican lawmakers who clapped and laughed as the president attacked his enemies and made a mockery of their religious values during the National Prayer Breakfast.

Other headlines say he attacked Pelosi and Romney. Can anyone provide links and the times for this. I scanned a transcript and I didn’t see any mention of Pelosi or Romney. All I could find was

But I can say that going beyond that, we’re grateful to the people in this room for the love they show to religion. Not one religion, but many religions. They are brave, they are brilliant, they are fighters. They like people, and sometimes they hate people. I am sorry, I apologize. I am trying to learn. It’s not easy. It’s not easy. When they impeach you for nothing, then you’re supposed to like them. It’s not easy, folks. I do my best. But I’ll tell you what we are doing.


And Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you. But I don’t if Arthur’s going to like what I’m going to say. But I loved listening to you, it was really great. Thank you very much.

Is there more than what I found? The following is what I looked through.

Here is a statement about gun control at the USCCB website:

Now, you might think a USCCB statement will carry weight in a forum like this. It doesn’t. You will hear how this is a statement of a single bishop or how the bishops don’t understand this issue, etc.

What matters here is abortion. It is the ‘preeminent’ issue and hence the only issue that Catholics can consider when making a decision on whom to vote for because, if you vote for a pro-choice candidate, you will be damned. Now, this might seem out of line with another USCCB document on Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which states that Catholics are not single issue voters, but it’s okay. Abortion is not a single issue, they will say.

Now, of course, this truthfully leaves no room for Catholics to take any other political action on any other moral issue such as climate change, torture, unjust wars or racism like Bishop McElroy suggests. However, don’t worry because someone will provide an EWTN document or a post by some layperson to justify why it is okay to ignore the points of Bishop McElroy and he is wrong.

Which is probably why George Weigel is right to say to avoid the Catholic blogosphere.

I’d suggest spending less time on line unless it is at the USCCB site.

1 Like

Nope. Being pro-life means you can forgive all behaviors as long as the person says they are not pro-choice.

BTW, many of the pro-life people do support abortion.

Here is the quote that referred to Romney first, and then Pelosi.

“I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you,’ when they know that’s not so.”

I must have missed this.
Exactly what did he say that mocked anyone?

I am not sure about your point? Could you clarify?

Does your thinking on the right to self-defense include a mother whose life is threatened by the unborn child she is carrying?

He mocked the Gospel, by joking that he didn’t think he could agree with it. (Unless he wasn’t joking, in which case it’s even worse.)

Again, what exactly did he say that mocked anyone?

I didn’t say he mocked anyone. I said he mocked the Gospel, which is even worse.

Same question again.
What exactly was said that was mocking to anyone?

Same answer. He mocked the Gospel. The exact words were quoted previously.

I must have missed those, can you post these exact words again?

Here’s from the official white house website transcript:

Thank you. Well, thank you very much. I’m working very hard for you, I will tell you. (Laughter.) And sometimes you don’t make it easy, and I certainly don’t make it easy on you. (Laughter.) And I will continue that tradition, if I might, this morning. And, Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you. (Laughter.) But I don’t know if Arthur is going to like what I’m going to say.

This was immediately after keynote speaker Arthur Brooks spoke on Matthew 5:44, where Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Brooks said This thinking changed the world 2,000 years ago, and it’s as “subversive and counterintuitive today as it was then.”

“How many of you love somebody with whom you disagree politically?” Brooks asked the group of politicians. Raising his own hand, Brooks indicated they all should raise their hands if they do love such a person. At this point, President Trump, who was sitting to Brooks’ right side and in the camera shot, didn’t raise his. Brooks then said that moral courage isn’t necessarily standing up to your enemies or the people who disagree with you. Rather, it is standing up to the people with whom you agree on behalf of those with whom you disagree. “Can you do it? Are you up for it?” he asked the room.

One of the main points Brooks made is that anger is not the problem–contempt is. Quoting 19th-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, Brooks defined contempt as “the unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.”

Seems a little shaky as far as evidence goes.
I do not see anything actually mocking in that quote.
Perhaps you can explain what exactly leads you to believe he is mocking.
What words precisely and what is the meaning you are attributing to them.

1 Like

Trump as much as admitted that “love your enemies” is not to be taken seriously. He made a joke of it, starting with denying that he agreed with it. He went on to confirm that he did not agree with it by stating that the keynote speaker might not like what he was going to say. He went on to prove he did not take Jesus’ words seriously by showing how much he hates his so-called enemies (which at this point is a very long list) starting with a Senator in his own party, Romney, who alone had the moral courage to stand up to Trump and vote his conscience in the impeachment trial. Trump said he doesn’t like people like that, and denied that Romney was acting out of his deep convictions of his faith - something Trump could not possible know anything about. Then Trump went on to deny the sincerity of Pelosi when she said she prayed for him - again, something he could not possibly know anything about. And he said he didn’t like people like that either. He went on to desecrate the entire event by turning it into one of his typical rants against his “enemies”, thus thoroughly demolishing any shred of respect he might have had for Jesus’ words so eloquently cited by the keynote speaker. It was the National Prayer Breakfast - something that has always be held in a certain degree of reverence by past Presidents, and not an occasion for disrespecting his enemies, disrespecting the tradition of the event, disrespecting a member of his own party, disrespecting the keynote speaker, and disrespecting the words of Jesus.

That is your claim.
But it doesn’t stand scrutiny.

He is quite likely making a joke out of his own disbelief of the interpretation of the scripture.

To attribute nefarious motivation when there is a perfectly logical and less nefarious explanation is extremely uncharitable.

Really? I do not recall him admitting to hate at all. You should provide the exact quote for this.

With this be akin to your interpretation of hatred on his part when you do not know his heart?

Given the quote you provided, and what you claim it means, I find this charge dubious at best.
Do you have actual quotes and why they are a desecration of the event?

Perhaps, but I do not think it rises to the level of holiness one would expect by the word desecration you have thrown around.

1 Like

Oh, so he doesn’t even believe in the honest interpretation of Jesus’ words? That at least is consistent with everything else we know about his life.

This Joe character does not use the word blasphemy correctly. It is a strong, harsh term, one which brought about the death penalty in Judea. The president did not commit this crime. He stated he did not agree with it. That is not blasphemy. Following the whole of the speech, the President somewhat backtracks, saying that it is tough to follow. I do not think the President was simply honest about what he was feeling. Now his statement comparing himself to Christ was blasphemy. This was not.

It was however crass, inappropriate, and most decidedly un-presidential - the things that helped him get elected in our problematic culture. I will agree with Joe that I am still amazed at the things that he can get away with and maintain Christian support.

Thought for the month: He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor. - Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1 Like

But that also does not make him the hateful person you portrayed.

I think you need to reevaluate your attributing hatred to him. You have made a big item out of some not knowing the heart of an individual and thus being unable to pass a judgement like that.
Yet somehow claim for yourself the ability to know Trump’s heart.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit