Rebuttal of the myth that Catholics can fully embrace either political conservatism or liberalism, by a Franciscan University of Steubenville professo

[St_Francis]

Well, yes, but the problem, as I see it, is that the leaders and ideology-shapers of political Conservative Movement don’t just want VOTERS, they want TRUE BELIEVERS. They want capture the MINDS and SOULS of Catholics and other Americans so that Catholics and other Americans will PRAISE and ENDORSE and PROMOTE absolutely EVERYTHING that the leaders of the political Conservative Movement do.

I don’t know where you are getting this from, as I see this happening much more on “the other side.”

They scare us, and manipulate us, just conservative political did in Europe in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. YES, COMMUNISM was REAL and TERRIBLE danger in Europe in that period. But just because that was true did not mean that entire agenda of the political Conservative parties in Europe in the 20s, 30s, and 40s was flawless and deserving of endorsement and approval by Catholics and others.

The matter of which candidate or party to VOTE for is, to me, a completely different matter about what to BELIEVE regarding social policy. For social policy, we Catholics have Catholic Social Doctrine. Any ideology or movement that proposes values and truths that conflict with what the pope and bishops teach in Catholic Social Doctrine is an ideology or movement that a Catholic cannot not accept or endorse in a “blank check” fashion.

We Catholics have BRAINS, and we are meant to USE THEM.

We are meant to JUDGE political leaders, parties and movements by the STANDARDS of CATHOLIC SOCIAL DOCTRINE.

We are NOT meant to be Cafeteria Catholics of the Liberal persuasion or of the Conservative persuasion and so limit our acceptance of Catholic Social Doctrine or Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine to whatever a political party or movement accepts and approvals of.

As I see it, the current political situation in the USA leaves us with no political party or movement to fully support or embrace. There is no Catholic party.

Instead, there is Party X, which demands that we WORSHIP (or approve of the worship of) the GOLDEN CALF (gay marriage; pornography; abortion; etc.).

Then there is Party Y, which demands that we WORSHIP (or approve of the worship of) MAMMON (accept that getting rich is glorious, is the point of life, and is the measure of “winning” and “losing” in life; no taxation for big corporations; no regulation for big corporation; allowing the super rich to control Congress and the Presidency via campaign donations and endless lobbying; repealing of all income redistribution laws; repeal of all economic safety net laws; repeal of all anti-monopoly laws; repeal of all banking regulation laws; elimination of all laws that support labor unions; repeal of all minimum wage laws repeal of Social Security; repeal of Medicare for the elderly; repeal of all environmental laws that Big Business doesn’t want; etc.).

In fact, most of what you have written here is not what conservatives advocate in and of themselves but of the spin their political opponents have put on their proposals. Yes, there are individual conservatives who have advocated some of these, but where have you seen “NO taxation for big corporations”?

Reduction of regulation, yes, but not elimination of regulation. The vast majority of conservatives believe that some regulation is a good thing, but that overhwleming regulation is a bad thing, and, among other things, too much regulation is *against *Catholic principles *because *the regulations form a barrier to entry: a person cannot get a business started because the regulations increase the start-up cost so much.

I agree about the political influence large corporations weild, and I think that’s bad, but notice that the president who said no lobbyists when he was running has done aboslutely nothing to curb this after the election–this is a problem of *both *sides, not just one.

I have not heard *any *actual politician endorce repealing all social safety net or income redistribution laws. Sometimes you have to find out what the actual politician said and not just listen to the opposition’s explanation of what they said, kinda like if you want to find out about Catholicism, it’s better to read what Catholics wrote rather than what protestants or atheists write…

Yes, we have had repeal of *some *banking regulations, but again, not all.

And when you look at what the labor unions in the US currently do, why *should *we support them? What we call labor unions are just as bad as the large corporations, if not worse! I have nothing against labor unions, *as they are meant to be; *I have a huge problem with manipulative, lying, bullying organizations which *call *themselves labor unions and claim some sort of moral high ground as a result.

Minimum wage laws have caused a lot of unemployment, esp among young people who are minoirities.

Social Security is going bankrupt. What the conservatives proposed was *an alternate system, *which would maintain some security for people who would retire in the future, as opposed to SS which will be able to guarantee *nothing *without extreme increases in deductions in people’s paychecks. Again, read what the people themselves say, and not what their opponents say about what they said.

Repeal of Medicare? What do you think Obamacare is? We have a similar problem with Medicare as we do with Social Security: too many recipients for the number of taxpayers. In the early 1960s, there were 13 people working for every retiree (and that was before women entered the workforce in such great numbers!). The last I heard, a few years ago, there were 3 people working for every person receiving Social Security and/or SSI.

WRT both Medicare and Social Security, the percentage of retirees to workers is going up: how many workers does it take to provide Social Security and cover the medical expenses of one elderly person? *Something does need to be done, *because the current system is *unsustainable. *

As to environmental regulations, the companies in the US have done a great deal to reduce their pollution, *as they should. *I remember back in the 1960s how much pollution there was, and it was a lot more. Entire rivers were so polluted that when I fell in and my mother had to bleach my brand-new jeans to white to get the smell out (I had forgotten the jeans in the trunk of the car), I thought the pollution had done it. Now people can swim in the river.

However, there comes a point at which regulations are too much: the companies cannot operate. We cannot ask companies to continue to make what we want to buy, at a low price which we can afford, and mitigate their pollution… something has to give. So far, a lot has been done by somply transferring the pollution out of the country, so we have affordable computers without the pollution. But I don’t think putting our own people out of work and polluting *other *places so we can ahve cheap computers, etc., is the answer. Maybe we should accept our own pollution for our own stuff, or else pay the higher prices, no?

It’s not that I agree with everything any conservative advocates, but at least let’s get our criticisms right.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know where you are getting this from, as I see this happening much more on “the other side.”.

I think there is a kernel of truth in what Bart is saying, despite all the weird font shifts (I never do trust people who feel the need to use such tactics). I surely have noted here that those who support the bishops on social issues frequently are attacked on their stance.

 

[manualman]

I agree in principle aith Bart as well. But I worry that his tone in many posts here is one of moral equivalence that has historically had the effect of enabling catholics to anesthetize their consciences and feel good about voting for abominable candidates because they held the better position on some issues of LESSER importance than the primary moral issues.

By all means, folks, PLEASE remember that party affiliations for catholics must be temporary arrangements for our moral / political goals. We must not allow ourselves to become [insert party here] first and catholics second.

 

[Seeker1961]

I agree in principle aith Bart as well. But I worry that his tone in many posts here is one of moral equivalence that has historically had the effect of enabling catholics to anesthetize their consciences and feel good about voting for abominable candidates because they held the better position on some issues of LESSER importance than the primary moral issues.

By all means, folks, PLEASE remember that party affiliations for catholics must be temporary arrangements for our moral / political goals. We must not allow ourselves to become [insert party here] first and catholics second.

A good point, particularly today.

 

[je333]

Well, yes, but the problem, as I see it, is that the leaders and ideology-shapers of political Conservative Movement don’t just want VOTERS, they want TRUE BELIEVERS. They want capture the MINDS and SOULS of Catholics and other Americans so that Catholics and other Americans will PRAISE and ENDORSE and PROMOTE absolutely EVERYTHING that the leaders of the political Conservative Movement do.

Yes, yes, yes! I would like to point out that the POLITICAL conserverative movement is not the same as the religious conservatives like the popes that focus on JESUS and Catholic teachings.

It is hard for me to associate with the POLITICAL CONSERVATIVES such as this particular group:

cPolitical activities

See: Unification Church political activities
The Unification Church was noted for its political activities, especially its support for United States president Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal,[235] its support for anti-communism during the Cold War,[236][237] and its ownership of various news media outlets through News World Communications, an international news media conglomerate which publishes the Washington Times newspaper in Washington, D.C., and newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America, which tend to support conservatism.[238]

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Unification Church, otherwise known as 'The Moonies" – as in “Reverend” (cough) Sun Yung Moon, is/was a cult which also had a brainwashing arm among its special approaches. It has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

I have to say, you’re all over the map here, OP. It’s hard to know what your real purpose or message here is, relative to Catholic issues on a Catholic discussion forum, on which you posted a portion of an address by the Bishop of Rome, not an official of a dubiously named non-Catholic “church.”

You’ve lost me, and it seems I’m not the only one here.

 

[manualman]

By all means, folks, PLEASE remember that party affiliations for catholics must be temporary arrangements for our moral / political goals. We must not allow ourselves to become [insert party here] first and catholics second.

I’m remiss in not pointing out that failure to follow this advice is what got us into this mess we are in today. Catholics were NATURAL Democrats in the 40’s through the early 60’s. There was a tremendously good fit to the point where people began to conflate catholicism and the Democratic party. The fact that the killing of tens of millions of innocents hasn’t yet been enough incentive to decouple that misguided loyalty should serve as warning enough going forward not to allow our moral/religious loyalties to become conflated with party ties or big tent political agendas in the first place. Political alliances are temporary. Catholic moral teaching is eternal.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I’m not sure that you’re aware that it has been said. On CAF. On various threads. For example, the discussion of the Ryan budget proposal, the first time which (I believe) was in Social Justice, several months ago. Several of us remarked on the conundrum between voting for an anti-life party and an anti-social-justice party. (I’m simplifying, and not only that, I don’t think it’s that black-and-white; however, the emphasis of each party is there.)

Yes, I see. Thank you.

I guess I am coming to see political Conservatism as an almost rival religion.

People get caught up in the political Conservative Movement, and they see that Movement and its ideology as being the Salvation of the nation and the world. It can all become very exciting and thrilling.

Many Catholics seem to switch their main allegiance to the political Conservative Movement and away from the Holy Catholic Church. I really have seen it happen, in people I know, even in myself at times!

For some people, defeating Liberals in government and in culture becomes the purpose of their very lives! And to accomplish this Great Mission (defeating the Liberals), the believe the political Conservative Movement must be very UNIFIED. That means NO DISSENT from the ideology that is laid out by the leaders of the political Conservative Movement.

If the leaders of the political Conservative Movement say that we all must be for the repeal of all Inheritance Taxes, then we ALL must be for their repeal! If they say we must deny that humans are causing dangerous Climate Change, then we ALL must say that too! If they say that any Minimum Wage is harmful and immoral and unconstitutional, then we ALL must say the same thing! And so on.

In short, the ideology of political Conservatism becomes like a fundamentalists Religion, and no dissent or heresy from the Party Line is allowed.

In the end, to fully accept the political Conservative ideology means dissenting from many teachings of Catholic Social Doctrine. That I WILL NOT DO. I will not let a bunch of political ideologues tell me what parts of MY CATHOLIC FAITH I can embrace and which parts I cannot.

To me, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY means that I am FREE to embrace the WHOLE of MY CATHOLIC FAITH, no matter what the powerful and famous leaders of a powerful political party say.

 

[je333]

The Unification Church, otherwise known as 'The Moonies" – as in “Reverend” (cough) Sun Yung Moon, is/was a cult which also had a brainwashing arm among its special approaches. It has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

I have to say, you’re all over the map here, OP. It’s hard to know what your real purpose or message here is, relative to Catholic issues on a Catholic discussion forum, on which you posted a portion of an address by the Bishop of Rome, not an official of a dubiously named non-Catholic “church.”

You’ve lost me, and it seems I’m not the only one here.

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas
“Well, yes, but the problem, as I see it, is that the leaders and ideology-shapers of political Conservative Movement don’t just want VOTERS, they want TRUE BELIEVERS. They want capture the MINDS and SOULS of Catholics and other Americans so that Catholics and other Americans will PRAISE and ENDORSE and PROMOTE absolutely EVERYTHING that the leaders of the political Conservative Movement do.”

Sorry, I was trying to make a comment to the above highlighted post:

I know that Sun Myung Moon and his church is not Catholic and am aware of their brainwashing approach. I want to emphasize that Sun Myung Moon is one of the leaders, ideology-shapers, BIG money contributor to the POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT. POLITICAL CONSERVATISM is not equal to RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM. The POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE groups are after the religious conservatives. SMM and the whole political conservative movement are tarnishing the religous groups for decades… And because of this, Catholics should not embrace the POLITICAL conservative movement.

 

[St_Francis]

I think there is a kernel of truth in what Bart is saying, despite all the weird font shifts (I never do trust people who feel the need to use such tactics). I surely have noted here that those who support the bishops on social issues frequently are attacked on their stance.

First, the bishops are individuals, the national conference is not at a higher level of teaching than any individual bishop.

Second, the matters are prudential, so there is no particularly Catholic take on many issues.

Thirdly, I have seen plenty of people here at CAF attacked for following *Church *teaching on moral issues.

However, I do agree with you about the whole font thing

 

[pnewton]

First, the bishops are individuals, the national conference is not at a higher level of teaching than any individual bishop.

Yes, I was referring to the bishops in the plural because there is more than one.

Second, the matters are prudential, so there is no particularly Catholic take on many issues.

On some this is the case. On others there are Catholic principles, and even issues, that should be adhered to. Even in abortion, which is always gravely immoral, the addressing of the issue is a matter of prudence. This does not mean there is no Catholic position. Catholics are expected to be prudent.

 

[aragonjohn1]

yes, like fulton sheen said “dont worry about politics be an Authentic Catholic”

 

[mercytruth]

To me, it is shocking and amazing to see that an esteemed professor at Franciscan University of Steubenville (NOT a liberal or wishy-washy Catholic university) is saying clearly and directly proving that Catholics CANNOT embrace or endorse the full agenda and platform of the political Conservative Movement in the USA, and that any Catholic who does fully embrace and endorse the entire agenda and platform of the political Conservative Movement is a DISSENTER, just like all the Catholics dissenters who embrace the political Liberal Movement.

I find this so amazing, so refreshing, so helpful!

To me, this enables one to be and remain a Christian, without getting caught up in the intense and ever-present Propaganda Machines of either the Left or the Right.

Thank you and God bless you Professor Krason!

Amen!

 

[St_Francis]

I think there is a kernel of truth in what Bart is saying, despite all the weird font shifts (I never do trust people who feel the need to use such tactics). *I surely have noted here that those who support the bishops on social issues frequently are attacked on their stance.

Yes, I was referring to the bishops in the plural because there is more than one.*
*
*On some this is the case. *On others there are Catholic principles, and even issues, that should be adhered to. * Even in abortion, which is always gravely immoral, the addressing of the issue is a matter of prudence. *This does not mean there is no Catholic position. Catholics are expected to be prudent.

What I was trying to say is that sometimes people have the same goal, which is Catholic, but they have different solutions to the problem, which is the prudential aspect.*

I have seen people who do not agree with “the bishops” attacked also, on the basis merely that they do not agree with the *solution *advocated by the bishops, as if to disagree with bishops in a matter of prudence is somehow un-Catholic.

I also see people accused of the same because they considered abortion to be more important than government aid to the poor, and I see a manipulation of social justice issues to convince people to vote for people who advocate abortion.

I guess my overall point is that the attacking is not done just by one side–both sides get quite passionate.

And in the same way, I disagreed with Bartolome that only one side of our politics wants to be worshipped. It’s not the conservates who regulate political correctness, after all.

 

[je333]

I think there is a kernel of truth in what Bart is saying, despite all the weird font shifts (I never do trust people who feel the need to use such tactics). I surely have noted here that those who support the bishops on social issues frequently are attacked on their stance.

You don’t trust people who use font shifts? That’s weird! Then you don’t trust yourself because this is always on weird font shift.

*“I like at the end of my opinions to say, ‘Fact,’ because some people believe it.”

Michael Berry*

Indirect personal attack is useless and shallow. Be honest why you distrust people who use weird font shifts. The font shifts, the smilies are here for use.

 

[St_Francis]

You don’t trust people who use font shifts? That’s weird! Then you don’t trust yourself because this is always on weird font shift.

*“I like at the end of my opinions to say, ‘Fact,’ because some people believe it.”

Michael Berry*

Indirect personal attack is useless and shallow. Be honest why you distrust people who use weird font shifts. The font shifts, the smilies are here for use.

Smilies are important as we don’t have the usual facial or voice cues to indicate emotional tone.

But font and size and color shifts indicate an urgency which, when disproportionately used, give the appearance of manipulation, not to mention being a distraction from what the person is trying to say.

I used to be in publishing, so maybe I am more sensitive to this. Bartolome seems very sincere, but each time you make a change, you are increasing the emphasis, and people can only handle so much of that.

 

[mercytruth]

Smilies are important as we don’t have the usual facial or voice cues to indicate emotional tone.

But font and size and color shifts indicate an urgency which, when disproportionately used, give the appearance of manipulation, not to mention being a distraction from what the person is trying to say.

I used to be in publishing, so maybe I am more sensitive to this. Bartolome seems very sincere, but each time you make a change, you are increasing the emphasis, and people can only handle so much of that.

What you are saying is understandable. However this is an issue that is rarely discussed either in the secular media, or even Catholic/Christian media.

I personally am **very **distressed and saddened by the division that is occurring in my own family between the political liberal social/economic justice Catholic members of my family, and the political conservative social/moral Catholic members of my family. This sadness can be broadened to include the Catholic members of the church, and to Christianity in general.

If ever, Catholics and Christians could unite on the issues of our Catholic and Christian faith rather than be divided by the political machinations of the media and the parties, we would have a powerful voice in this country. As it is, I feel we are being manipulated by political idealogues and opportunists even as the media smirks in the background.

So there is this fontal passion for those of us who hate was is happening to our families, our church and the country. The book of Proverbs states above all things, God hates those who sow discord among the brethren. Every decent Catholic and Christian should not listen to these talking heads of the left, and the right who are sowing discord in our faimilies, in our Church and in our nation.

May the peace of God prevail over discord.

 

[je333]

Smilies are important as we don’t have the usual facial or voice cues to indicate emotional tone.

But font and size and color shifts indicate an urgency which, when disproportionately used, give the appearance of manipulation, not to mention being a distraction from what the person is trying to say.

I used to be in publishing, so maybe I am more sensitive to this. Bartolome seems very sincere, but each time you make a change, you are increasing the emphasis, and people can only handle so much of that.

If the usage of font shifts is too distracting for other people, then, yes, I can understand their frustration. It’s personal preference and taste. As an artist myself, I like to emphasize on what I think is important but never as a means to manipulate people. Never!
And if I may appear to treat my post as a canvas, then, I apologize.

However, in my opinion, this is beyond the usage of font shifts. I am a passionate, religious and devoted Catholic but has never encountered such collaborated personal attacks from other fellow Catholics for my political, social, economic stance until I joined Catholic Answer Forum. It is quite bothersome to encounter such distrust and hatred from other people. And as far as manipulation and brainwashing is concerned, it’s the people from the far right that are doing more of these things. They condemn and demonize those who hold different political, social and economic views.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

If ever, Catholics and Christians could unite on the issues of our Catholic and Christian faith rather than be divided by the political machinations of the media and the parties, we would have a powerful voice in this country. As it is, I feel we are being manipulated by political idealogues and opportunists even as the media smirks in the background.

So there is this fontal passion for those of us who hate was is happening to our families, our church and the country. The book of Proverbs states above all things, God hates those who sow discord among the brethren. Every decent Catholic and Christian should not listen to these talking heads of the left, and the right who are sowing discord in our faimilies, in our Church and in our nation.

May the peace of God prevail over discord.

Nice.

 

[lynnvinc]

What I’ve found in my recent studies is that American Catholics are still somewhat (tho not a whole lot) more into social justice and are more concerned about their fellow humans than non-Catholics. That was the finding of Andrew Greeley in his sociological studies, and also a recent survey showed that 68% of American Catholics accept anthropogenic climate change, while only 62% of non-Catholics do.

It’s still pretty bad that 32% of American Catholics reject ACC – since it is one of the biggest threats to life on earth, tho it will take decades and centuries for our current harms to play out, so it doesn’t get much traction among the people. But I suspect this is due to the issues raised here. If the conservative party line says ACC is a hoax, then conservative Catholics tend to follow lock-step along with it.

It would be great if we had some candidate for whom to vote who truly embodied all Catholic principles (which are all good). As it is we have to choose between pro-death and pro-death candidates. It’s not a happy situation.