It is no coincidence that there has only ever been one Catholic President in the entire history of the United States of America. And why? Because most voters are worried that if a Catholic were to take office, he would merely follow what the Pope thinks. In effect, the Pope would be the President. It is because of this that Al Smith lost the race despite winning virtually all of the Catholic vote in 1928. It is because of this that John F. Kennedy was pretty much forced to address to the electorate that no one would tell him how to lead: "Whatever issue may come before me as president …] I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise." Therefore, I’m not the only exhibiting these views.
Well, the Catholic vote was obviously a lot smaller during the days that Al Smith ran. And, it should be duly observed that John F. Kennedy was not a good Catholic. In fact, you’d be interested to know that some are now calling George W. Bush the first Catholic President, because many of his aides, speech writers, and policy makers were Catholic. In the same mold that many people considered Bill Clinton to be the first black President, some scholars now say Bush the younger was the first Catholic President.
Furthermore on Catholic politics in the U.S. there are currently 6 Catholic justices on the Supreme Court (though only Roberts, Scalia, and Alito are actually good orthodox Catholics… and possibly Clarence Thomas is as well, but less hailed as such).
BB2:
- When I said Protestantism as a denomination, I was emphasizing their similarities. Despite their differences, Protestants also share same views on a number of topics. Perhaps most prominently, and intuitively, is rejection of the Pope’s authority. So depending on the context, you can regard Protestantism as either a “denomination” or “denominations”.
They have to reject the Pope… they are Protestants… in order to have any authority they must actively protest against the truth of the Catholic Church. That’s why they constantly make bigoted and prejudicial attacks against the Church, it’s the gorilla in the room. Even Martin Luther said “we are greatly indebted to the Catholics for they preserved the Bible for us”.
And yes, you can certainly regard them as a single denomination, or as many… this is beautifully shown with this example:
christianpost.com/news/most-evangelical-leaders-ok-with-birth-control-45493/
On the one hand, there are some 45,000 different churches. On the other hand, they can find common ground in their support for birth control and contraception. When over 90% of the pastors of these 45,000 churches say they support it.
BB2:
- However, I have an issue with what seems to be Catholicism’s “one size fits all” prescription that people should spend their lives being poor. This is in stark contrast to Protestantism’s general message, as Max Weber points out, of working hard and contributing to society. Some historians have gone so far as to suggest that without Protestantism, we wouldn’t have Capitalism as we know it. This is why Max Weber termed it the “Protestant work ethic”. And I would much prefer myself, as I’m sure many others do, to be literate than to spend my life as an unintelligent meek person.
The Pope himself is a pretty successful man (intellectual, author, has a lot of power, lives in a fancy place, diplomatic immunity, kings bow down to him, etc), so I take these recommendations to be “meek in spirit”, “poor”, etc, with a pinch of salt. I believe that these recommendations only exist to keep the poor happy that they will get some kind of “reward” in the “afterlife”. Personally, I live in the here and now, as I’m sure many do.
Well, what’s counter cultural about becoming rich and educated? It necessarily goes against the fundamental teachings of the most famous sermon in Christian history… the sermon on the mount.
Catholic economic teaching does not favour capitalism, it favours Distributism. Which is half way in between socialism and capitalism. Here’s a diagram showing that Catholic economic teaching is moral, whereas both socialism and capitalism… which you and Protestants seem to praise are both actually immoral.
You and many can live in the here and now, but when the Day of Judgement comes… just as my priest said last Sunday, “I the rich, powerful, and famous are not in a state of grace when they die, then their entire lives have been lived in vain.”
So, you can appeal to human nature for lust, power, greed, envy, jealousy, etc. Because what else other than evil fuels capitalism and competition? It all comes back to selfishness, which Jesus Christ condemns.
And I’ll make that point utterly clear now: the Catholic Church is not against Capitalism, Jesus Christ is against Capitalism.
Jesus Christ is the cause of every position of His Holy Church and His Vicar on Earth. I’m not going to lose focus of that. People can make an enemy of the Pope or the Catholic Church, but if they do so, they make themselves to be nothing less than an enemy of Jesus Christ.
So, really… enough about the Pope and the Catholic Church. Any disagreement you have with them stems from a disagreement you have with Jesus Christ.
. I understand the teaching that what the Pope says on matters outside of faith and “morals” (broad term) isn’t ex cathedra. That doesn’t change the fact that there are Catholics out there who allow the Pope to dictate how they should think. Jesus says you will know a tree by its fruit, and when I see a group of people closely follow every pronouncement the Pope makes, what do you expect me to think? A religious institution that encourages free-thought, or a religious institution that encourages blind obedience to the “Vicar of Christ”?
