Vatican Shot Across the Bow for Hard-Line U.S. Catholics

[1Lord1Faith]

Yes, some conservative American Catholics have been unduly influenced by an Evangelical Protestant approach to faith. They and they alone understand the Magisterium as the pope and bishops sound too “Democrat” to their ears on certain topics. There’s also a strain of anti-intellectualism that has no place in Catholicism - issues like evolution and climate change come to mind. In general, a very “us” vs “them” approach to evangelism.

Is it because they are Protestant converts?

The attitudes you described can be found here on CAF quite often. I would add an attitude of rule-following also. I don’t really know what to make of it. A good example is in a now closed thread where someone could not fathom that an exception to a general rule of natural law, given by his pastor, could be followed in a last ditch effort to save a marriage. It reminded me of Jesus being accused of breaking the law when He was healing people on the sabbath.

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic Answers came to my mind when I read the article. It won’t be very popular in these parts.

Hmmm … my experience suggests that most posters here are pretty negative toward Evangelicals. (Unless perhaps that has changed in recent years.)

 

[JimG]

Straw man. He wasn’t referring to Catholic orthodoxy, in fact he specifically said that it was possible to be faithful to the Magisterium without taking on an American conservative world view, and by “anti-intellectualism” he was referring to rejection of scientific principles, not of the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

Which is why I agreed with him, because his observations are quite astute; N. American conservative Catholicism does very much resemble the world-view of N. America evangelical protestantism. I rejected that world view, being openly wooed by evangelicals back when I was flirting with a return to Christianity, by coming back to Catholicism. As a scientist, I truly appreciated the fact that Catholicism welcomed scientific inquiry and intellectual development. It shows through in fact, in the Church’s theology which is IMHO the most profoundly intellectual and developed theology in Christianity. There is a beautiful logic to Aquinas, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

Being Catholic did not require that I reject scientific principle, but that instead I assent to Catholic doctrine, which is in no way incompatible with scientific discovery, evolution, climate change, etc.

Alas the points he brings up are seen all too frequently on this forum where the ability for critial thought seems lost among many of the self-described “conservatives”.

I agree entirely with your comments about the Church’s acceptance of scientific inquiry and the intellectual achievements of Catholic theologians, philosphers, scientists, and clerics, among which I would include the persons and institutions I mentioned. Being on the conservative side of the political spectrum or the orthodox side of the theological spectrum does not make one anti-intellectual. That’s why I thought that such a characterization was unfair.

 

[ATraveller]

Most Evangelicals who voted for Trump weren’t thinking about establishing a theocracy. I believe those described by the authors are a very tiny minority. I think most wanted a candidate who promised to protect their freedoms that are under heavy assault to win. They wanted someone who claimed he would protect the unborn as opposed to someone who doesn’t care much about the unborn and her party that was openly hostile to pro-lifers.
As for the Evangelical leadership, did the authors know about this in February:

More than 500 conservative evangelical pastors and leaders representing all 50 states are urging President Donald Trump to reverse his temporary ban on refugee resettlement and his “dramatic reduction” of the total America will accept this fiscal year.

Among them are very influential evangelical pastors, Tim Keller and Max Lucado.
christianitytoday.com/news/2017/february/why-tim-keller-max-lucado-evangelicals-trump-refugee-ban.html

 

[Peter_habeo]

It’s natural for the Pope to glom onto climate change because the proposed solution involves the “redistribution of wealth” from rich countries to poor countries. That was also a message that St. John Paul II could embrace, although the idea of redistribution for the sake of environmental “justice” had not arisen during his time.

Now, a lot of “conservative” Catholics in the US who have always backed the Vatican because they believed it stood with them in the culture war have become disillusioned. It seems to me the Pope wants to change the emphasis away from a confrontational stand which pretended to be, but truly was not, apolitical, to a stance that is allied with political activism, with a strong emphasis on progressive economic justice.

St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not indifferent to these issues, but they spoke more about Western culture’s tendency to abandon and reject the moral (personal) and ethical (dogmatic) teachings of the Church. I do not believe that Pope Francis embraces cultural decadence, but has concluded that these issues are alienating , and the Church becomes a poor witness if it seems Pharisaical and judgmental, whatever the intention might be.

The article, however, seems to distort the conservative alliance between Catholics and Evangelicals, branding it a kind of theopolitical hate movement, rather than its true nature, which is an alliance for religious freedom within the secular state. The article appears simply as a leftist political screed, which fails to understand those who feel that the state has become hostile to the long-standing teachings of the Church. One must ask, how should a Catholic who wishes to adhere to the Church teachings behave when confronted by a hostile, secular state? It seems any opposition will be branded an “ecumenism of hate”.

 

[commenter]

Yes, some conservative American Catholics have been unduly influenced by an Evangelical Protestant approach to faith. .

Pope Francis, and other recent popes, have encouraged ecumenism. This includes being open to good ideas that may come from Protestantism, cooperating in areas of common interest. Both as an archbishop in Argentina and as pope, he has sought good relations with evangelicals. His election to the papacy was applauded by evangelicals in South America.

Why is ecumenism “good” when liberal Protestantism is involved, and “unduly influenced” when evangelical Protestantism is involved? I don’t know what “conservative American Catholics” means. If you are fearful of “unduly influenced”, what would “duly influenced” be?
Why should Catholics be so fearful?

 

[GEddie]

Pope Francis, and other recent popes, have encouraged ecumenism. This includes being open to good ideas that may come from Protestantism, cooperating in areas of common interest. Both as an archbishop in Argentina and as pope, he has sought good relations with evangelicals. His election to the papacy was applauded by evangelicals in South America.

Why is ecumenism “good” when liberal Protestantism is involved, and “unduly influenced” when evangelical Protestantism is involved? I don’t know what “conservative American Catholics” means. If you are fearful of “unduly influenced”, what would “duly influenced” be?
Why should Catholics be so fearful?

Because liberal Protestantism is no longer perceived as actively poaching members from the Catholic Church, but in the Hispanosphere particularly, the Evangelical sector has done just that for some years?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Jigsaw in post 82 has made some excellent points.

Personally there are two types of things I can’t stand:

• Pat Robertson types who pretend to reach out to the lonely and aren’t genuinely informative (some of these may be Catholic)
• those who point fingers at the ordinary members of the world (by contrast with those with their hands on the levers of power) - and they are of any denomination

In both Europe and America as far as I can see we are a bit behindhand in making known how Christ’s ministry is made effective towards each other, so that outsiders could see and want to join.

Just because there aren’t so many Protestants in Italy, and because Italians don’t care to look at the violence against persons and things Catholic in the UK, most of Germany, Netherlands, the British and Dutch Empires, etc throughout much of their rather recent history, and whilst it’s a good job all of you are debating the ACTUAL issues, I think the authors cited are snobbish and trying to coat-tail and wedge drive.

The thesis was - suave Europeans good, rough diamond Americans bad.

In the real real world I think we have had and still have hundreds of millions of middle of the road good hearted Christians of all denominations in both continents, when not pressured by bad politics. I don’t see any strong reason not to see the Pope as being with all of us basically.

Maybe there aren’t any dodgy political parties in the Vatican city?

I don’t think there’s a call to regard particular publications as specifically “papal”.

Whilst one may want to debate with Abp Chaput on the odd detail, his comment on this particular piece is spot on.

 

[commenter]

Because liberal Protestantism is no longer perceived as actively poaching members from the Catholic Church, but in the Hispanosphere particularly, the Evangelical sector has done just that for some years?

ICXC NIKA

It is true liberal Protestants do not evangelize. (This lack is nothing to brag about).

But actually liberal Protestants do “poach” Catholics to come over to their POV. They urge Catholics to lobby their bishops to change Church teaching on abortion, SSM, and ordination of women. Dissenting liberal Catholic organizations that oppose Church teaching get financial and other support from liberal Protestant groups.

They find that rather than giving money to non Catholic groups that oppose the Catholic Church, they can get more for their money by funding “Catholic” groups that oppose Catholic teaching.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think I see part of the problem. The original article in the Italian paper discusses fundamentalism as a problem, with which I would agree. See laciviltacattolica.it/articolo/evangelical-fundamentalism-and-catholic-integralism-in-the-usa-a-surprising-ecumenism/

I see fundamentalism as addressing the bad and wrong things about our modern world, and rightly doing so, but going to a rigid extreme that is also not good. Whether it be Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or another other type of fundamentalism – they have a legit point, but go to a very bad and dangerous extreme in dealing with it … sort of like Thurber’s “The Bear Who Let It Alone.”

A problem specifically re America and fundamentalism is viewing the US as something extraordinarily special, blessed by God, the promised land. Here’s what they write:

The social-religious groups inspired by authors such as Stewart [father of fundamentalism] consider the United States to be a nation blessed by God. And they do not hesitate to base the economic growth of the country on a literal adherence to the Bible. Over more recent years this current of thought has been fed by the stigmatization of enemies who are often ‘demonized.’

The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the ‘promised land,’ rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels.

I for one have always been concerned about the negative aspects of America (while appreciating the positive) and certainly do NOT consider it especially good. There is the issue of genocide and robbery against Native Americans, which is our foundation we tend to bury. And the economic growth & success to me has been also a sign of anti-Christian values, like greed, mammon-worship, climbing the ladder of success often enough by stomping on and cheating others, etc. And now we find out that industrial pollution is causing harms and death, even at the global level in global warming.

This article helps me understand why so many conservative Christians in the US deny climate change. It’s not so much they are afraid of having to turn off lights not in use, or tighten their belts, or that they may have interest in the fossil fuel industries. It’s a world view thing. If they see the US as blessed by God, the promised land, and industrialization as sign of goodness and religious righteousness, then there is no way they can accept that there is a negative side to it, such as various pollutions that harm and kill at the local, regional and global levels.

It seems to me that is part of the problem, the concern the Vatican may have about Catholics falling in for the fundamentalist world view that is actually not good and not Christian at all.

And one could go on about polarization and hatred, “us v. them” mentalities, that really go against loving thine enemy and praying for those who persecute you, taking the plank out of one’s own eye first before dealing with the speck in the other’s eye.

 

[Joseph0312]

A man who finds himself sliding into an abyss is enthusiastically grateful for a tree root he happens to grasp on the way down. And he remains so, holds on, and hopes the root will not come off in his hand.

It’s no great mystery why many still support Trump. If I had to guess, I would guess if the election were held again today, the result would be the same, despite all the efforts of the left to persuade people to let go of that tree root. Hard to convince people to do that.

This is perhaps one of the best explanations for why Trump won that I have ever heard. Very interesting. . I was unable to pull the lever for Trump. Yet, I understand why some felt they had to. The only thing I might question is whether Trump would win again if the election were held today.

 

[Peter_habeo]

… This article helps me understand why so many conservative Christians in the US deny climate change. It’s not so much they are afraid of having to turn off lights not in use, or tighten their belts, or that they may have interest in the fossil fuel industries. It’s a world view thing. If they see the US as blessed by God, the promised land, and industrialization as sign of goodness and religious righteousness, then there is no way they can accept that there is a negative side to it, such as various pollutions that harm and kill at the local, regional and global levels.

I think you are partly correct; but I believe the opposition to climate change among conservatives is really an opposition to the prescribed remedies, not so much the idea that God’s blessings reign down on us, so that there can be nothing negative about it.

Conservatives are also known as reactionaries, and all of the talk about the greatness of the founding and the blessings life has for us here is a reaction against the criticisms which they believe to be blown out of proportion. This ideology is so one-sided that it cannot even acknowledge the shortcomings of the country, which is necessary for a balanced view, not to mention a balanced mind.

The founding fathers did not mix religion much with their patriotism. But many of today’s conservatives link them together, at least here in the US. I remember going into a Barns & Noble in the area, and I was browsing in the Bible section. There I found a Bible called the Patriot’s Bible. It was the perfect expression of religious faith co-mingled with Patriotism; to many conservatives they are inseparable, you can’t have one without the other.

 

[commenter]

It seems to me that is part of the problem, the concern the Vatican may have about Catholics falling in for the fundamentalist world view that is actually not good and not Christian at all.

Be careful about this kind of statement. Hundreds of people work in or around or on behalf of “the Vatican”. Probably all of them have “concerns”. Certain types of concerns get highlighted by the media, which is agenda driven. The great majority of those persons, and the great majority of those concerns, do not get media coverage.

So a better way is to describe the “concerns” as reflecting on the individual writers only. They may represent 1% or 50% of “the Vatican”.

 

[commenter]

The founding fathers did not mix religion much with their patriotism.

Yes they did. The founding documents have much “Natural Law” philosophy expressed or assumed in them.
They are based on “truths” which are described as older than governments. “Rights” for people are described, which are endowed by the people’s Creator, not society, or any government.

They did not try to impose any specific type of Christianity, true. But Judeo-Christianity is the assumption, they unchangeable foundation on which the country was built, wherein individuals could freely choose which Christian or Jewish group to join or not join, which particular faith to believe, or not believe in.

 

[twf]

By anti-intellectualism, are you referring to people like Archbishop Charles Chaput, Bishop Conley, Robert George, Robert Royal, George Weigel, Fr. Raymond de Souza, or institutions like Franciscan University of Steubenville, Belmont Abbey College, Mount St. Mary’s University, Benedictine College? Do persons and institutions get more points for intellectualism by being somewhat less orthodox in their Catholicism than others?

I think Ora responded on my behalf quite well. Orthodoxy does not necessarily equate Conservatism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What truly astonishes me is the seeming lack of understanding of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism so many exhibit.

If anything, Evangelicals are more diverse than mainline protestants. They can’t all be characterized as believing one particular thing. There are liberal Evangelicals, conservative Evangelicals, and every degree in between. Fundamentalists are considerably more uniform in their beliefs, but not in detail. And equating Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism is a big mistake. They’re not the same things. As people sometimes note, there are something like 40,000 protestant sects in the U.S. alone. Categorizing them broadly is really just a bias in which all are painted with the same brush that can only be applied properly to some.

In my parish, most of the converts are from the Fundamentalist sects; fewer from the Evangelical groups. And the reason why so many are from Fundamentalist groups is that when it comes to beliefs and morals they’re not really very different from Catholicism.

Which is not to say there aren’t Fundamentalist “crazies”, but they’re a very small minority.

And it’s absolutely true that there are a lot of converts among Hispanics to Evangelical groups. A lot. Particularly among the Central Americans who don’t identify with Catholicism as strongly as Mexicans do. With Mexicans, there is a strong “ethnic/racial” connection that the Central Americans don’t have. But there are still Mexican converts to Evangelical sects.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think Ora responded on my behalf quite well. Orthodoxy does not necessarily equate Conservatism.

What sort of conservatism are we talking about here? When it comes to religion are we talking about adhering to the teachings of the Church or something else? When it comes to politics, are we talking about rejection of MMGW or something else?

 

[OraLabora]

I agree entirely with your comments about the Church’s acceptance of scientific inquiry and the intellectual achievements of Catholic theologians, philosphers, scientists, and clerics, among which I would include the persons and institutions I mentioned. Being on the conservative side of the political spectrum or the orthodox side of the theological spectrum does not make one anti-intellectual. That’s why I thought that such a characterization was unfair.

I agree that neither conservatism nor orthodoxy alone imply anti-intellectualism.

Twf though, did qualify his post as some conservative Catholics. And while I agree that being a conservative Catholic is not a guarantee of anti-intellectualism, there is a strain of conservative Catholics that are anti-intellectual along the lines of some Evangelical Protestants.

They are no more correct than the liberals who are heterodox. Both do a disservice to the Church. Those who are orthodox though, can be either conservative or liberal as well.

The Catholic labelling game is fraught with “gotchas”

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

The pro-abortion president and prime minister question is a totally separate issue. You shouldn’t conflate the two… with that said, pro-abortion leaders are terrible and what you describe is despicable.

That doesn’t make the statements by the authors of the article wrong. It seems that you have a problem that they spoke out at all on these issues when there are other issues that you would prefer they talk about.

It’s not that they spoke out (padded their piece with plausible issues).

It’s that they hijack these for their real purpose which is to show off what creeps they are in hiding behind the Pope’s skirts and that we non-fluffy lot won’t earn enough brownie points because we don’t do so.

I’m certain the Pope is easier with people that are only halfway on board, and plain about it, like the Copelandists, than with people who make such a song and dance about exactly what St Robert Bellarmine and his near contemporary the theologian Suarez - and J H Newman to boot - tell us not to do.

Folks, please take this to heart: I lived through the situation in which certain individuals stabbed my Bishop in the back while accusing others of doing so. This left predators the chance to muscle in. All lay people and all clergy throughout my diocese are reeling, ashamed, confused and paralysed, thirty years on. The back stabbers as I have called them and the predators as I have called them, were equally two-faced.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… against persons and things Catholic …

And against Protestants too. Northern Ireland, France.

Do the authors think being Italian exempts them from caring that Magdeburg, which should have made a more balanced capital for Germany than Berlin, was trashed by a “Catholic” power (that wasn’t the Pope incidentally)?

Their short-term finnicking gives the game away for one thing.