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

[twf]

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?

Within the context of my earlier post, I was thinking more in terms of political conservatism - particularly in the US a Republican worldview - and how this has led some (not all) otherwise orthodox Catholics to take on a more conservative American Protestant outlook on certain issues.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

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”.

I believe that one of the authors of the piece, Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro, is close to the Pope and his journal must get approval from the powers that be before being published.

The fortnightly journal is reviewed by the Vatican’s secretary of state before publication, and is seen as reflecting the “official” views of the Holy See.

onepeterfive.com/insightful-profile-of-the-popes-mouthpiece-fr-antonio-spadaro/

Not knowing Vatican hierarchy nor politics, it sounds on the surface that if it isn’t approved by the secretary of state, it doesn’t get published.

 

[commenter]

People on the Left, and on the Right, tend to over react with hope, or fear, at every cough, sneeze, and murmur coming out of someone who works in, or near, the Vatican.
Keep in mind:

• Publications generally allow writers to express their views on controversial topics. Even if an administrator in the Vatican has a connection to a journal, that does not mean he “approves” everything that is written in it.
• Even if he does “approve” something that is written, that generally means it is approved insofar as it does not directly contradict the Catholic Faith. For example, an article that contradicts the Trinity would not get “approved”. But an article for, **and **an article against, some controversial position, could **both **get published. It is common for books taking opposite sides on an issue to both get an imprimatur for instance, as long as neither directly contradicts Catholic doctrine.
• There are *many *papal advisers, *many *Vatican insiders, and ever-so-many “Friends of the Pope” (a new ecclesiastic title created by the media). Pay no attention to them. The real papal confidants never talk to the media.
• Keep in mind there is a whole religious media industry, people who **must **find a “Vatican Shot Across the Bow” every week or so, to boost their website hits.

 

[philipl]

What exactly is a hard-line U.S. Catholic?

Anyone that disagrees with the church being more progressive.

 

[philipl]

Well…I agree…you only have to look at some of the posters on CAF…especially those here in the US…they pretty much are in sync with right wing Evangelicals on certain major issues…Immigration… Healthcare…Capitalism V Socialism…Capital Punishment…Climate Change…yet when ever the Pope (or the Bishops of the Catholic church) says anything counter to their beliefs on these issues then they just brush it off as the Pope isn’t speaking “ex cathedra” so they can just disagree with or ignore him…same goes towards the Bishops of the church…Evangelical politics has become the new religion here in the US for some Catholics…the left is no better on the other extreme…( I thought I’d add that in case I get accused of being a left wing liberal…instead of the RINO which I am )

That is exactly what I do, I am not required to obey the church or the pope just because it declares something. This new belief we can not disagree with the church is dangerous.

 

[shockerfan]

That is exactly what I do, I am not required to obey the church or the pope just because it declares something. This new belief we can not disagree with the church is dangerous.

Perhaps clarification of your point is necessary. On matters of faith and morals, especially for definitive statements, Catholics are sometimes required to provide “obedience of faith”, and opposition would be “heresy”.

Now contrast that with statements of opinion that come from “Vatican official” on matters of prudential judgement. If its a matter of prudential judgement on an issue of faith or morals, then there is still a level of “religious submission” required, although there is room for critique and theological disagreement, since not all of these statements are infallible.

If that statement of opinion is on an issue outside of faith and morals (like on environmental science, finance, etc), there most certainly is the ability to disagree (in a charitable way).

I found this link helpful in understanding the levels of magisterial teaching.
catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I believe that one of the authors of the piece, Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro, is close to the Pope and his journal must get approval from the powers that be before being published.

onepeterfive.com/insightful-profile-of-the-popes-mouthpiece-fr-antonio-spadaro/

Not knowing Vatican hierarchy nor politics, it sounds on the surface that if it isn’t approved by the secretary of state, it doesn’t get published.

“Organisationally”, nothing can be taken at reputed “face” value at all.

And no, Skojec and Laurence are not insightful.

If the Pope slides, we are meant to keep him and each other steady, NOT hide behind his skirts like all these creeps in the “hope” his purported “successor” will give us brownie points.

This is nothing new.

JP II over-promoted “communion” as smarties. In my younger day over half the congregation sat out every time - including, usually, us. The sitters-out need some solidarity shown to them. That’s the lateral thinking way through, that cuts the Gordian them-and-us knot.

 

[Theo520]

What exactly is a hard-line U.S. Catholic?

Someone who believes in the ‘rule of law’
something which I thought was also supported by Church teachings.

 

[lynnvinc]

Anyone that disagrees with the church being more progressive.

I think there is a false dichotomy – perhaps enhanced by election politics – between red and blue, conservative and progressive.

What about “green”? It seems to me that all people would want to live in a healthy, life-hospitable environment, whether they be “conservative” or “progressive.” I was pretty much reared a conservative Republican, but from an early age was also concerned about environmental issues, harm to God’s great creation. It didn’t used to be that conservative meant being anti-environment, falling in lock-step with big corp pollution and lies about environmental issues. In fact, Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt (both conservatives) are considered the best environmental presidents in the US.

Now that we have come to a new phase in environmental issues and life on planet earth is being threatened by environmental problems, from local to global, and esp future generations, anyone who cares about life and future generations should be concerned and mitigating the problems when feasible, and calling for others to do so.

The Pope is aware of the harms to people in very poor nations, their inability to get pollution-free potable water, the climate changing and harming their agriculture, etc. He is more aware than people living in wealthy, climate-controlled places. He really does care about people and life, so naturally he would be concerned about the lack of concern in some wealthy nations and their participation in perpetrating the harms, perhaps unwittingly.

He has been trying to inform people and reach out with speeches, messages, and encyclicals, but the “hard-line” refuses to listen. That is a serious concern.

The “hard-line” are those who don’t care enough to reduce their harms to others; they may be concerned about other people having abortions, but that seems to be the extent of their concern about life. That’s what “hard-line” means to me. Plus those who tend to lack sympathy for the suffering, maybe because they are too concerned and focused on their own well-being.

 

[10gr8kids]

Then there are those who seem to care more about making sure there is zero pollution in the environment than for those who will be killed before they get to experience life in this environment. I am all for taking care of the environment, I hang my clothes to dry, grow my own fruits, and vegetables without use of chemicals, have free range chickens for my own eggs, a dairy cow for our milk, and mainly eat venison for our meat. I’ve never flown on a plane, and I hardly ever drive my car anywhere. My kids are homeschooled, so we don’t use a bus to get back and forth to school…I could go on and on about how ‘green’ I live.

I don’t believe in pollution, but I don’t believe we can take away the rights of other’s. (Does that sound familiar?)

I don’t really believe we can’t take away right’s of others when it will have a detrimental effect on someone else, but I do believe the right to life is the first right one has. If we don’t have that right, no other right matters.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Indeed, “Church Militant” have occasionally been unreliable in their comments e.g by defending a thieving and molesting bishop, despite the fact that they would possibly rather be seen more often doing the opposite.

I hope that may have been a bad mistake rather than a devious manoeuvre.

On some occasions, I had a strong feeling they appeared to have a point.

This in no way weakens my comments on the crawling all these authors are doing.

 

[Rau]

What exactly is a hard-line U.S. Catholic?

The answer may depend on who asks the question. To some, a Catholic who believes abortion or same sex marriage is wrong is “hard line”. To believe contraception is wrong might be “ultra hard line”. You get the idea.

 

[Rau]

…Now contrast that with statements of opinion that come from “Vatican official” on matters of prudential judgement. If its a matter of prudential judgement on an issue of faith or morals, then there is still a level of “religious submission” required, although there is room for critique and theological disagreement, since not all of these statements are infallible.

I think this is too strong. We should anticipate that the Church/Church leaders will not be routinely wrong on such matters, but I believe there is no compulsion to accept their judgements.

 

[lynnvinc]

Then there are those who seem to care more about making sure there is zero pollution in the environment than for those who will be killed before they get to experience life in this environment. I am all for taking care of the environment, I hang my clothes to dry, grow my own fruits, and vegetables without use of chemicals, have free range chickens for my own eggs, a dairy cow for our milk, and mainly eat venison for our meat. I’ve never flown on a plane, and I hardly ever drive my car anywhere. My kids are homeschooled, so we don’t use a bus to get back and forth to school…I could go on and on about how ‘green’ I live.

That’s really great! Much much better than my efforts, which seem meager by comparison.

I don’t believe in pollution, but I don’t believe we can take away the rights of other’s. (Does that sound familiar?)

There really are serious pollution problems. In a town near mine there was one year when all the births were stillbirths and they have section of their graveyard just for the many babies who died because of pollution from an Agent Orange factory that was located right in the middle of a low-income neighborhood.

Then in another town near mine people are dying of leukemia and other cancers from the 33 acre plume of benzene under their neighborhood, which the state refuses to clean up.

And there are many many other such stories here in the US, and it is even worse in developing nations.

But it seems you live in a paradise without pollution, so that is really great for your area and people.

However, if we look at the prospects for future generations (if there is anyone to care for them), the situation looks bleak IF we don’t address the serious regional and global environmental problems.

The Pope is well aware of these and is not only looking at the env plight of the poor, but also of future generations.

It’s interesting that a person without children would be more concerned about the future for the children & their children than those who have children. But I certainly won’t judge, since parents have to be focused on the immediate needs of their children, which is an all-consuming job.

I’ll say it again, you are doing really great things re the env. I wish many others would follow your example, including me.

 

[Rau]

…I don’t believe in pollution, but I don’t believe we can take away the rights of other’s. (Does that sound familiar?)

No - I’ve never heard a person say “I don’t believe in pollution”. I don’t know what that statement means.

 

[Peter_J]

No - I’ve never heard a person say “I don’t believe in pollution”. I don’t know what that statement means.

Heh. Well I haven’t either, but the sentence you quoted, “…I don’t believe in pollution, but I don’t believe we can take away the rights of other’s” does remind me of somebody: me. I don’t believe that homosexual acts are morally permissible, but I don’t support efforts to recriminalize them.

 

[o_mlly]

What exactly is a hard-line U.S. Catholic?

Catholicism is*** the*** hard-line Christianity simply because we believe in Christ’s “hard sayings” especially Eucharist.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you (John 6:53).

 

[Rau]

Heh. Well I haven’t either, but the sentence you quoted, “…I don’t believe in pollution, but I don’t believe we can take away the rights of other’s” does remind me of somebody: me. I don’t believe that homosexual acts are morally permissible, but I don’t support efforts to recriminalize them.

While the sentence forms are equivalent, the subject matter (pollution, homosexual acts) is different, hence there is no reason to hold the validity of one sentence implies the validity of the other.

 

[Peter_J]

While the sentence forms are equivalent, the subject matter (pollution, homosexual acts) is different, hence there is no reason to hold the validity of one sentence implies the validity of the other.

Funny how that works isn’t it: I mean how you can take a true sentence, change some words without changing the form or structure, and get a false statement.

 

[Rau]

Funny how that works isn’t it: I mean how you can take a true sentence, change some words without changing the form or structure, and get a false statement.

Yeah, amazing!