Is CAF a good guide to theology, politics, and social attitudes among US Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Londoner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Usually I read all the posts before I reply but I haven’t now.

I would say that a higher percentage of US Catholics on CAF are as you describe, but that there is a higher percentage of those who are more like the Catholics you know IRL than you think 😉

I agree with you that US Catholics on CAF do not reflect US Catholics in general, (ETA) either theologically or politically.
 
Last edited:
Londoner just provided a well-thought-out medley of some of the decidedly angry and often xenophobic and racist comments on CAF that paint a highly unfavorable and inaccurate picture of our faith to outsiders. And the only response is a quip about how much time s/he spends online? 🤔 We can agree to disagree, but I think this is pretty serious stuff that shouldn’t be so readily dismissed.
on_the_hill said:
I think CAF tends to lean toward specific bands on the socio-politico spectrum.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this?
TheLittleLady said:
Parishes in general lean red or blue, mine is a predominately red parish in a deep red state. I truly dread election years because things get ugly in the parish.
Click to expand...
Is your parish close-knit? I must be lucky/blessed because between Mass and my limited ministry participation, I’ve been oblivious to any divisiveness within my parish walls.
 
I think only one of the above was from the News forum. And yes, the News forum is definitely weirder than the regular parts of CAF.
Tis_Bearself said:
I think you’re getting way too wrapped up in an Internet forum.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But it really does trouble me when I read comments along the lines of “White countries for white people; immigrants will not replace us” or “Hitler was a socialist” and that person is purporting to be expressing a point of view that is in some sense Catholic. It’s not everyone, it’s not even most people, but it’s some people. The Catholic Church is a broad church that has space in it for a lot of different points of view, but I draw the line at racism, barely concealed antisemitism, and imputations that homosexuality and paedophilia may be the same thing. You are quite possibly right that I allow myself to get too involved in some of these arguments, but they get to me because these views aren’t being expressed on a forum for racists or bigots, they are being expressed somewhere that is supposed to be Christian and these views aren’t Christian.
 
When I was taking Catechism classes as a kid, we always used the Baltimore Catechism. It was simple, and I do well with simple, not so well with complicated. Some might say that the Baltimore version was overly simplistic, but for kids, that was adequate for their level of understanding. I have no problem with today’s Catechism, as an adult. In fact, I refer to it quite a lot. There are sections in it that have helped me with my understanding of God’s laws and church teachings.
 
Repost of my post that I withdrew because the reply accidentally connected to a different poster rather than you, Londoner.
Londoner said:
But it really does trouble me when I read comments along the lines of “White countries for white people; immigrants will not replace us” or “Hitler was a socialist” and that person is purporting to be expressing a point of view that is in some sense Catholic . It’s not everyone, it’s not even most people,
Click to expand...
Comments such as you mention are why we have a flagging system. As you note, they aren’t the norm among Catholics, any more than a number of other statements on this forum which I would consider a little bit “off” (e.g. the conspiracy theory stuff) are the norm. When I see a racist or anti-semitic comment, I flag it. 9 times out of 10 it is removed very quickly and if the poster persists in making such posts then he too is removed by the mods. CA doesn’t want such stuff on their forum and as you yourself state it’s a small group who post it.

I would also note that we have had a number of people saying things like that who hail from Europe, because I’ve flagged about three of them myself. I would even go so far as to say such an attitude about “white countries for white people” is MORE prevalent in parts of Europe than it is in USA. The concern in USA about immigration is not so much because of race as it is because people come into the country illegally and then get various benefits and accommodations which must be funded at least in part by the legal citizens, in some cases including a large percentage of legal immigrants who are not happy that other people don’t have to follow the same rules they did. So comments about immigrants and race are not solely a “US Catholic” thing, to the extent they’re a “US thing” at all.

In any event, the vast majority of posters on here aren’t making posts about race or even posts biased against gays, any more than the vast majority of posters on here are making posts about conspiracy theory, etc. I think you are getting really focused on a small subset of posts that bother you when you should perhaps be flagging the ones that violate TOS (and it sounds like some of them do) and moving on rather than thinking some big percentage of Catholics, whether in the US or elsewhere, have such un-Christian views. In my experience, they don’t.
 
Last edited:
Servant31 said:
As charitable as I can be here. Considering many of the comments with an accusatory tone, implying intent, impuning motive, and general snark and hostility. I personally wouldn’t point to the OP as being near the top of the list of people I would prefer to steer clear of in this thread.
Click to expand...
First, I accidentally posted a reply to Londoner to you and withdrew it and reposted it to him, so that’s why the withdrawn post.

Second, where did I say anywhere I would prefer to steer clear of Londoner? My post expresses that he seems to be getting very wrapped up in a small percentage of nasty comments, which he himself states is a small percentage. There is a huge sea of “good posts” on this forum so it’s odd to me that someone would be so involved with the few “bad posts” beyond flagging them and moving on. It can be a sign of someone needing a board break when that happens, to take a step back.

I didn’t tell him I’d prefer to “steer clear” of him. Did you mean to reply to somebody else, because your post makes no sense to me. Nor does the “as charitable as I can be here” because I didn’t say anything uncharitable.
 
Last edited:
When you have 4 Sunday Masses, more than 1,000 families, “close knit” comes in groups of like-minded people who come together outside of Mass for fellowship.
 
blackforest said:
And the only response is a quip about how much time s/he spends online? 🤔
Click to expand...
I’ve posted multiple responses to Londoner all over this thread.
My original response wasn’t meant as a “quip” either.
Like I said, there’s a sea of posts on here every day. I probably see a couple of these angry and xenophobic posts a week; if they violate TOS, I flag them, which is how we’re supposed to respond. The moderators have suggested in the past that we shouldn’t engage with posters who are clearly violating TOS; we should flag and ignore and move on.

When someone is focusing on a dozen “bad” posts in a sea of 1,000 “good” posts, it’s reasonable to say, “Maybe you need to put this in perspective”.
 
Last edited:
Who was it who said “Everyone in America is Protestant, even the Jews and the Catholics”.
 
I’ve heard an analog of that.

Substitute Protestant with Calvinist.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Second, where did I say anywhere I would prefer to steer clear of Londoner? My post expresses that he seems to be getting very wrapped up in a small percentage of nasty comments, which he himself states is a small percentage. There is a huge sea of “good posts” on this forum so it’s odd to me that someone would be so involved with the few “bad posts” beyond flagging them and moving on. It can be a sign of someone needing a board break when that happens, to take a step back.
Click to expand...
Ms. Bearself, with all respect, I apologize if there was any confusion. But that’s really not what I said.

However, either way, I think this thread has run its course and I think its time for me to move on. Best regards.
 
There is a very big difference between “traditionalist” and “American conservative”. On CAF, you get the impression that a traditionalist Catholic despises universal health care, rejoices in gun rights, etc etc. This is not necessarily universal… a true traditionalist, to my mind, would not be comfortable with the very liberal experiment that is the American republic. A true Catholic traditionalist would be a monarchist. That is just one of many examples of “disconnects”.

Would St Aquinas have supported the American revolution? No way… just no way…
 
Last edited:
In Canada, first names are very much the norm… but a priest is ALWAYS still Father. It honestly shocks me that English Catholics address Father as “Joe” or “Bob”. I won’t say it’s wrong, but as a convert, I am surprised. In my experience, priests as “Father” is so deeply embedded within the very blood of Catholics.

Protestants call their pastor Bob or Joe. For Catholics, the priest is Father…simply Father. To me that’s as natural as breathing. I may not even know his name. I may never know his name. Yet I love him, and know him, and speak to him as Father… wherever I am in the world, I have followed this rule, and it creates an instant, immediate bond with any priest, regardless of cultural or linguistic barriers.

In Canada, every priest I’ve met is Father. Simply Father. In the US, every priest I’ve met is Father. In Latin America, every priest I’ve met is Father. In Europe, every priest I’ve met is Father.

“Bless me Bobby boy, for I have sinned.” I imagine “Father” would still apply in the confessional?
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Like I said, there’s a sea of posts on here every day. I probably see a couple of these angry and xenophobic posts a week; if they violate TOS, I flag them, which is how we’re supposed to respond.
Click to expand...
Can we flag posts that deny that racism even exists? Our Church calls it a sin, but I won’t say how many CAFers consider it some sort of boogy-man sin that doesn’t exist. (Unless it’s “reverse racism,” or whatever it’s called).
Tis_Bearself said:
When someone is focusing on a dozen “bad” posts in a sea of 1,000 “good” posts, it’s reasonable to say, “Maybe you need to put this in perspective”.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to quantify how often I see it, (lest I also be subject to the same criticism, however valid, for spending too much time on CAF), but it’s far more than should be coming from professed Catholics.
twf said:
There is a very big difference between “traditionalist” and “American conservative”.
Click to expand...
This is a really good point.
 
Last edited:
CAF is a good guide to opinions expressed on a number of issues by a lot of people. It is a forum, not necessarily a good guide towards anything in particular.
 
CTBcin said:
That’s not clericalism. A priest should really be called by his title, unless he gives permission otherwise. I wouldn’t call my professor or doctor by their first name.
Click to expand...
Unless any of those people used my first name.

I have no problem calling people by their titles as long as it’s reciprocal. I do have a problem with doctors, priests etc who expect to be called by title but think they should be calling me Julian.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I would also note that we have had a number of people saying things like that who hail from Europe, because I’ve flagged about three of them myself.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s not an exclusively US problem, but your comment did prompt me to think about something, and that is that in the US, “conservatism” is much more of a coherent worldview than it is in the UK.

Boris Johnson, for example, isn’t actually very conservative at all. He lives with his girlfriend in his official residence while still married to his second wife, who is the mother of four of his five or possibly six children. He is liberal on topics such as LGBTQ+ rights and abortion (although he has rather conspicuously failed to take part in any vote on abortion in the House of Commons) and is a self-described feminist. He is opposed to capital punishment. Although he wants to end free movement of people from EU countries, he is emphatically not opposed to immigration and has proposed an amnesty for illegal immigrants. He has praised multiculturalism and specifically highlighted his admiration of Islamic civilisation and his own Muslim ancestry. His plans for public spending on infrastructure and services (especially the NHS, state schools, and policing) are the most generous since the Labour Party was in power. He is also a strong environmentalist. He revels in a reputation as a classical scholar and enjoys quoting Latin authors off the cuff.

What I see with US posters on CAF isn’t necessarily people who are more conservative than some European or Commonwealth posters are on some issues, but people who are more consistently conservative, people for whom conservatism is a more coherent set of beliefs. I know some very racist people in the UK, which in some instances, oddly enough, makes them keen supporters of the EU, since the EU provides white immigration and reduces reliance on African and Asian immigration. Some people, of course, are against any immigration at all and are as hostile towards a Pole or a Romanian as they are to a Pakistani or a Nigerian. But British people who are against immigration or even actually racist don’t correlate with any other particularly conservative position except perhaps taking a harder line on law and order.

I think it’s fair to say that while in the US there is of course a diversity of positions on many issues, there is an ideological viewpoint that brings together a range of issues and that there is some correlation between favouring free-market capitalism, low taxation (or even no taxation!), low public spending, small government, a reduced role for federal government, states’ rights, subsidiarity, and being anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-2nd Amendment rights, pro-death penalty, anti-universal healthcare, and anti-welfare, as well as being sceptical of elites (such as academics and the media), sceptical of environmentalists and scientists (partly out of fear of higher taxes and more government interference), and regarding American culture as essentially white and Christian. That is just an impression I get from some commentary that I see coming from the US.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
BartholomewB:
In both the United States and the UK, there are Catholics on the left as well as on the right
Click to expand...
That’s for sure. If you want to see lefty Catholics, read the social media of “America” magazine or go visit a local parish heavily involved in social justice ministry. This forum would be too conservative for them. When you have someone ranting in feedback about having a pejorative term for the left censored, or endless threads complaining about the Pope, Fr Martin, etc then liberals are going to avoid.

As for the Baltimore Catechism, many of the people here including myself were taught from some version of it as a child. Many others are traditionalists and don’t like the new official Catechism. The Baltimore Catechism is also very simple, which the new Catechism is not (and frankly I think that’s a detriment of it).
Click to expand...
What I’ve found useful and easier to read and navigate than the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is its sister book, the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For me, it offers a more concise, easier to understand synopsis of all the essential elements of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Like the Baltimore Catechism, the Compendium is written in a Question and Answer format. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants a better understanding of the Catholic Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top