Even Catholics are quite inconsistent. There&#x27;s the oddly progressive Old Catholic Church that split off from the mainline at the turn of the 19th century over papal infallibility. There&#x27;s the sedevacantists who think all Catholic activity after the Second Vatican Council is illegitimate. Even among <i>those</i>, they can&#x27;t agree whether or not popes after Pius XII even can be legitimate if they recant their alleged heresy, or if it&#x27;s all lost. The latter conclavists thus actually get to elect their own popes (who are antipopes from the perspective of the mainline).<p>Then amongst traditionalists and others, they can&#x27;t agree on whether or not classical liberal principles are compatible with Catholic doctrine or not. Christopher Ferrara and others thinks that all of United States history was a giant mistake and that we should revert to pre-Enlightenment theocracy, Tom Woods and others argue that liberalism is what Catholicism logically leads to.<p>No, there isn&#x27;t much certainty about overarching principles. That you can&#x27;t conduct your own life based on secular morality is false. Most people don&#x27;t conduct their lives on <i>any</i> explicit morality. The ones that have ever pondered these questions in depth have always been a minority. Everyone else has only trickled down breadcrumbs from some clergyman, or ignored it.