Are Catholics Against Social Activism?

[HumblePilgrim]

I have a question that has been bugging me for a while. I am in the process of becoming Catholic. I did my BA in International Relations so I have some background on world governments and social justice. It has been brought up in many of my classes that predominantly Catholic/monarchical style governments tend to encourage the formation of absolutist governments, dictatorships and other types of fascist governments; while Protestant/parliamentarian style governments tend to encourage the formation of democratic and more egalitarian systems. This of course is a HUGE simplification. One would have to look at the developmental systems of many nations to get more on this.But, Catholicism does stress suffering or taking up one’s cross or burden in life. This could mean that some people instead of railing against oppressive systems and/or governments prefer to suffer in silence letting vicious crimes continue to be perpetuated. Also, when it comes to wealth distribution in Western nations, the Catholic nations tend to be poor than the Protestant nations indicating a possible complacency with one’s lot in life and less of a desire to push against one’s present condition.
My question is: can one be Catholic and fight what may not be just one’s lot in life? Is the proper behaviour to just give in to adversity and suffer in silence and hopefully obtain God’s grace?
I would really like some opinions on this.

 

[JPUSC]

In my experience, it is the Catholics who are more involved in social justice than the Protestants.

In the U.S., I have observed that Evangelical Protestants, in particular, tend to focus more on faith and prayer (which is why they’re more active in trying to convert people into being “saved”) while Catholics tend to focus on faith, prayer and social justice. The missionary work Catholics do in third world countries focus more on alleviating suffering and helping the poor while the mission trips I’ve heard Protestants going on tend to focus on winning converts. I’ve heard of some groups going to predominantly Catholic countries and offering service only if the people convert.

As for Catholic nations being poor, it may have more to do with a region’s culture rather than the religion. The poor continue to be poor because of corruption, not because of their view of suffering. In fact, their Catholic faith is a comfort, not a hindrance to climbing the social ladder. Protestant nations are wealthy because it just so happened that the Industrial Revolution started in Protestant Britan and eventually spread to the United States, making them wealthy nations.

Also, the Protestant work ethic - the belief that a person’s worldly success is a sign of personal salvation - may have something to do with the capitalism associated with the United States. This eventually led to the materialistic culture we see in Western society today which is a contrast to the Catholic nations which have had more relaxed attitudes towards work and are less materialistic. In Catholic Europe, churches used to be the center of the town. In the modern United States, shopping malls have now become the center.

 

[1ke]

I think you need to read the Catechism regarding the Church’s social teacing.

You have a completely false idea of what Catholicism teaches regarding government, work, social justice, and oppression.

 

[HumblePilgrim]

I think you need to read the Catechism regarding the Church’s social teacing.

You have a completely false idea of what Catholicism teaches regarding government, work, social justice, and oppression.

I know what the Church teaches. What I am concerned about is actual practice. Most of the nations of Latin and South America have gone through turbulent political histories and still have problems. The Philippines has had social problems. Not to mention Spain, Portugal and Italy. My concern is not what the church teaches. But do WE as Catholic people acquiesce in the face of oppression more so than Protestants because of our beliefs?

 

[Joe_5859]

I know you said your concern is not with the teaching, but I can’t pass up the chance to plug this great resource given to us by the Church:

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

I cannot give you any sense of specific history or statistics regarding your question, but I would say, first and foremost, it does not matter if 90% of Catholics do not practice any sort of social activism and 90% of Protestants do. What matters is what you do and what the Church asks us to do.

That said, I cannot see how anyone could make the claim that Catholics or the Church rest on our laurels in regards to social justice unless that person is simply uninformed. The Catholic Church invented social activism. Hence the existence of so many Catholic hospitals, soup kitchens, crisis pregnancy centers, etc. Hence the existence of an Office of Catholic Charities in every diocese in the U.S., an office which exists solely to serve the poor of that diocese. Hence the reason why virtually every Confirmation program in the U.S. has some sort of service component to it.

Yes, we certainly bear our crosses, but it has never been the Catholic position to sit back and be passive about injustice. If some individual Catholics use this as an excuse to be lazy and shirk off their responsibilities, then that’s on them. But it’s not the norm.

Oh, and welcome to CAF

 

[1ke]

But do WE as Catholic people acquiesce in the face of oppression more so than Protestants because of our beliefs?

No more than Protestant Germany did to Hitler. No more than Orthodox Russia did to Stalin and Lenin. No more than Buddhist Cambodia did to Pol Pot. No more than Rationalist France did to Robspierre.

I think you see religious overtones in human behavior where there are none. I think your premise is totally flawed.

I would say it is not Catholicism that led people to the form of government they chose or the leaders who subjugated them, but rather Original Sin.

 

[HumblePilgrim]

No more than Protestant Germany did to Hitler. No more than Orthodox Russia did to Stalin and Lenin. No more than Buddhist Cambodia did to Pol Pot. No more than Rationalist France did to Robspierre.

I think you see religious overtones in human behavior where there are none. I think your premise is totally flawed.

I would say it is not Catholicism that led people to the form of government they chose or the leaders who subjugated them, but rather Original Sin.

Oh it’s not my premise. It’s what I was taught in college. That does not mean it is correct however, just a thesis.

 

[Swan]

Perhaps what your professors were referring to is the tendency of the Roman hierarcy to support right-wing totalitarian type goverments in Latin America - for example, in El Salvador, Brazil, Nicaragua, Chile, etc. In many cases, the poor were taught to simply accept their lot and not protest agains the wealty oligarchy. There was a class between some Catholic groups, including Jesuits I believe, who were working directly with the peasants in many of these countries and the Roman hierarchy over this issue. Oscar Romero springs to mind. Here is a link to an article containing some info on this subject that you might find interesting. I realize that the more conservative folks on CAF will diagree with much of what is said here and I am not posting the link to be argumentative, only to provide a link to info you might find interesting.

thirdworldtraveler.com/Independent_Media/Peoples_Church_SNM.html

 

[aball1035]

Is it true though that throughout history Catholics have tended to have less of a democratic government than Protestants? Why or why not?

 

[tpw]

There is a long tradition of Catholic activism in the U.S. Keep in mind these Catholic activists were often very unpopular (and still are!) with the conservative wing of the church. Catholics involved in the labor movement were big activists. There was a very strong Catholic presence in the industrial trade union movement in the late 19th century into the 20th century.

You also had people like Dorothy Day who was arrested on numerous occasions for acts of civil disobedience. She made some in the hierarchy very fearful though she was an utterly devout Catholic once she entered the church in her late 20’s during the late 1920’s.

The Berrigan Brothers were notorious and held with great suspicion by many during their time (although Fr. Dan Berrigan, SJ was recently arrested on his 89th birthday for some form of activity condemning militarism - again - something which the church holds with some suspicion…

Conscientious objection was acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council.

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes the right of non-violent civil disobedience.

Your comments re: the Church in Europe during the 18th, 19th and early 20th century are accurate. The whole question of church-state relations - always irksome - led the church during those years to support monarchies. It’s treatment by Napoleon in France and beyond made the hierarchy very, very suspicious of liberation movements…and to some degree with good reason.

It’s a different church now - contrary what some want to claim…what was…isn’t necessarily the case anymore…