When did Catholics shift this far towards the right/conservatism?

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Wow, I feel unliked. I have only 2.7K in 13 years. (Never knew you could even check that until this thread.)

I Iike ya, buddy.

 

[Methodist]

There are more responses here than I think I am going to get through, and I see that the thread will automatically close tomorrow (I am not sure why). However, this was one post to which I definitely wanted to try to reply while I can.

I should have thought that vanquishing communism was a focus for virtually all Christians during the Cold War era. The only Christian leader of any prominence whom I can think of who actually supported communism, specifically Soviet communism, was Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury and previously of Manchester.

Reagan certainly deserves credit for his role in the end of the Cold War and the demise of communism in Europe, but his role should not be exaggerated, and we should not fall into the error of imagining that his political opponents in the US were in any way favourable towards communism. Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were notable opponents of communism, and even Carter adopted a tough stance against the Soviet Union following the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan was one of a number of key players who all came to prominence around the same time: John Paul II becoming pope in 1978, Margaret Thatcher becoming prime minister in 1979, Helmut Kohl becoming chancellor in 1982, and, most importantly of all, Mikhail Gorbachev becoming general secretary in 1985. It was in any case inevitable that communism in Europe would eventually collapse due to irreversible economic decline and the growing strength of internal opposition, especially in Poland, where Solidarity had already become an important movement before Reagan was even elected. Anyway, that is a long way of saying that if I had been a US voter in 1980 or 1984, I would not necessarily have seen a vote for Carter or Mondale as being a vote for communism, not a vote for Reagan as being a necessary or sufficient step towards its ultimate defeat.

Something else that I also sense is that many people seem to have adopted an all-or-nothing approach to supporting or opposing a political party or candidate. Personally, I admire Thatcher for her role in the Cold War and the end of European communism, her victory in the Falklands, some economic growth and reduction of inflation, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and her prescient warnings about global warming. She was intelligent, hard-working, a devout Christian, a woman of strong moral principles, and reportedly kind to those she new personally. On the other hand, I always vehemently disagreed with many of her core policies, which led to two recessions, a resurgence of inflation, record unemployment, an increase in the gap between the wealthiest and poorest in society, weaker trade unions, drastic reduction of the social housing stock combined with increased house prices, greater personal debt, risky private pension schemes, and a decline in the provision of public services. She also supported abortion and capital punishment, did not really oppose apartheid in South Africa, and introduced a law which essentially banned teachers from discussing homosexuality lest they be accused of promoting it.

I feel that what has been lost is fairness and nuance.

 

[Methodist]

It’s insane that having a secure border and immigration laws that benefit our country are somehow controversial.

There are honestly not a lot of people who are arguing for no borders and no immigration laws. There are some, for sure, but they are a fringe movement. What is more common is people who would argue:

• Do not dehumanise migrants in the language you use to talk about them.
• Migrants are entitled to be treated humanely.
• Understand that most illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants for a good reason. They are seeking a better life for themselves and their family.
• Recognise the reality that most western countries have significant numbers of illegal immigrants, and that it just makes more sense to give them legal status so that they can become regular members of society.
• Respect the evidence, e.g. illegal immigrants do not commit more crime than the rest of the population; illegal immigrants do not use public services without paying tax - most of them actually pay tax but don’t use public services.
• One of the main reasons to strength borders and strengthen immigration laws is for the benefit of the migrants themselves, who undertake risky journeys facilitated by organised criminals who do not care about them and only wish to exploit them.
• The best way of tackling illegal immigration is by tackling the causes of illegal immigration, i.e. reducing conflict and poverty around the world.
• If countries cooperate with each other, we can share the burden of supporting migrants more fairly, and we can reduce risks, e.g. by processing asylum claims in refugee camps rather than in destination countries.

This is the attitude that was common among Catholics in the UK in the 1970-90s when I was a practising Catholic. It is not the attitude I am seeing on CAF.

 

[Methodist]

In general, I would say that perhaps the people who run CAF need to be more aware of the audience. If CAF is basically for Catholics arguing among themselves, it’s fine. People who are practising Catholics, especially in the US, will know that the views expressed by some of the most vocal contributors on here are not representative and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Church. However, for somebody like me, who came here after spending some 20 years away from the Church, or for people who have no experience of the Church at all, the experience could be very off-putting.

I know otherwise intelligent and well educated people who have some very odd ideas about Catholicism. Examples would include somebody who said to me, “Catholics don’t believe in contraception because they think it’s killing babies” (and no, he was not referring specifically to potentially abortifacient methods). Somebody once said to me, “One has to understand that to Catholics, the pope is literally God”. Somebody also once revealed that she was under the impression that priests and religious are required to be virgins, and she was astonished to learn that widows and widowers with adult children were eligible to be ordained or become religious. Regarding the Mass, somebody once asked me, “Oh, is that when they do the sacrifice and eat their god [sic]?” With such errors abounding, somebody coming to CAF looking for reliable information about mainstream Catholicism could easily be deceived into thinking that Catholicism is closely aligned with far-right political ideologies and conspiracy theories.

 

[JimG]

That’s why the CAF website has always been a little hazardous for people asking questions about Catholicism. There are some extremely knowledgeable posters whose knowledge of doctrine, theology, morals, and canon law are always spot on. But non-Catholics cannot necessarily distinguish them from those who give incomplete, confusing, or wrong answers. Sometimes I have seen a poster asking a perfectly reasonable question, which is then answered succinctly and accurately. But then the discussion continues with differing answers and at-length argumentation, further confusing the issue.

That’s why I think that Catholic.com is a better site for inquirers.

 

[RhodesianSon]

Migrants are entitled to be treated humanely.

Sure. Humanely send them home if they entered illegally.

Understand that most illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants for a good reason. They are seeking a better life for themselves and their family.

They should better their countries, not flee it and come to ours.

Recognise the reality that most western countries have significant numbers of illegal immigrants, and that it just makes more sense to give them legal status so that they can become regular members of society.

We should not reward law breakers, they should be sent home.

Respect the evidence, e.g. illegal immigrants do not commit more crime than the rest of the population; illegal immigrants do not use public services without paying tax - most of them actually pay tax but don’t use public services.

I don’t care, their mere present consumes resources that would otherwise go to our citizens. A nations first duty is to its countrymen, not foreigners.

The best way of tackling illegal immigration is by tackling the causes of illegal immigration, i.e. reducing conflict and poverty around the world.

100% on board. Let’s encouragement investment and discourage brain drain on poor countries and not let their best and brightest flee to an easier place to live.

 

[MikeInVA]

migrants

Migrants are people who move from place to place, generally following a pattern. Examples include Bedouins and Eskimos. Immigrants are people moving permanently from one country to the other. The confusion over terms leads to a lot of confusing discussion on the subject of immigration.

 

[TRose225]

There is nothing wrong with being for nationalism/secured borders. We have a huge population compared to the UK. We have countries for a reason. And many MANY countries make it difficult to gain citizenship. Not just the US.It’s hard economically as it is to pay for Federal subsidies let alone a universal healthcare program and methods of income redistribution for all including illegal immigrants. Also,judging by the UK abortion rate universal healthcare has done nothing to decrease the abortion rate. It’s very close to ours in the US where we religious people still do not have to pay for all abortions like you do in the UK. I guess the big difference between UK and U.S. is that we were founded on freedom of religion and that includes freedom from the government imposing it’s will against our religious beliefs.

 

[Lea101]

The vast majority of overweight people are overweight due to a lack of personal self discipline

There’s actually some interesting research going on that suggest that there may be some genetic predisposition that makes them consume bigger amounts of food or feel less full than the average individual. I believe there’s some hormonal variances, although I’m not sure if it’s been replicated.

There’s also binge eating disorder, and they would require therapy for that. Ironically, a focus on being thin can sometimes make it worse as these individuals compared to other obese individuals, have a bigger fixation on weight.

read that at Bob Jones University, it was once the rule that male students were permitted neither long hair nor a beard. Supposedly there is some biblical justification for insisting that men should have short hair

Interesting tidbit here: Singapore, where I’m from, used to discriminate against men with long hair due to the hippie culture in the west. It was a silly rule, but artists from overseas would either have to cut their hair or not come and men with long hair here would be served last in places like the post office! What a silly time, lol.

 

[Kei]

drink a LOT of soda (a six-pack a day of 16.9 oz bottles), and I pay around 33 cents a bottle for this–while bottled water costs around 1.99/bottle.

That sounds like a LOT of added sugar!
It also seems to be comparing a pack of soda and individually-sold bottles of water. You can get a big pack of water for about two of those single bottles! Or, a good water purifier (a GOOD one) could be cheaper.

 

[jeannetherese]

So, the reason for banning beards on the Bob Jones campus was not theological, but political.

Did the University say this, or is this your analysis?

 

[Freddy]

As I said, I’m sympathetic; but it’s not sympathetic to ask someone else to pay for their services.

You going to pay for someone to police your neighbourhood? Going to get a private company to put out any fires you may have? You going to check on terrorist activity in the States? Going to organise your own coastguard? Form up a militia?

Where’s that line you draw?

 

[meltzerboy2]

I’m not so sure that what you’re saying about the Church is accurate. Judging by Pope Francis’ attitudes concerning several issues you mention, as well as the attitudes of many bishops, I would say the Church, at least its leaders, seem to be pretty much left rather than right, unless the issues squarely conflict with its religious principles.

 

[F_Marturana]

I’m sorry to hear that.

I hope he recovers quickly and without any problems.

 

[Methodist]

Did the University say this, or is this your analysis?

It’s in Adam Laats, Fundamentalist U: Keeping the Faith in American Higher Education (Oxford University Press, 2018). I don’t have a copy to hand right now to quote word for word, but the university explicitly admitted that the Bible does not mandate shaving for men and that the expectation that men would be clean shaven was grounded in the cultural norms of conservative American values. In any case, I do not think that it is controversial to state that beards are permitted in Christianity. The reason for BJU outlawing beards was purely cultural.

Of course, BJU infamously banned students from interracial dating on theological grounds, which is rather hard to justify now that interracial dating is permitted. On the other hand, some other fundamentalist colleges admitted that there was no theological basis for banning interracial dating, but banned it on the grounds that it would harm the college’s reputation in the community.

I’m not so sure that what you’re saying about the Church is accurate. Judging by Pope Francis’ attitudes concerning several issues you mention, as well as the attitudes of many bishops, I would say the Church, at least its leaders, seem to be pretty much left rather than right, unless the issues squarely conflict with its religious principles.

Well, that may indeed be the case. However, what I am seeing on CAF suggests that many Catholics, especially in the US today, are seriously out of step with both the pope and their own bishops. To pick just two examples, we know that Pope Francis has said that capital punishment is inadmissible, and we know that he is seriously concerned about the damage that people are doing to the planet. However, based on what I have seen on CAF, I would estimate that at least half of Catholics in the pew are in favour of the death penalty (indeed, regard support for the death penalty as a litmus test of orthodoxy) and deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change (or any climate change however caused).

 

[jeannetherese]

It’s in Adam Laats, Fundamentalist U: Keeping the Faith in American Higher Education (Oxford University Press, 2018). I don’t have a copy to hand right now to quote word for word, but the university explicitly admitted that the Bible does not mandate shaving for men and that the expectation that men would be clean shaven was grounded in the cultural norms of conservative American values. In any case, I do not think that it is controversial to state that beards are permitted in Christianity. The reason for BJU outlawing beards was purely cultural.

Possibly, but you have just shifted your argument from theology vs. politics to being clean shaven has been part of the Bob Jones university culture.
This new position seems reasonable as one may review practices at the University to see that such practices have been part of the culture for some time.

 

[Peeps]

That sounds like a LOT of added sugar!

Diet, almost always. I’ll sneak in a Mountain Dew a couple times a week, but usually, it’s Diet Coke.

 

[Methodist]

There is nothing wrong with being for nationalism/secured borders.

I don’t think that believing in having secure borders is the same as nationalism. I believe that the UK should have secure borders, but I am not a nationalist. I believe that the Catholic Church has generally encouraged patriotism (love of one’s country), but I do not think that the Catholic Church has ever endorsed nationalism as an ideology.

We have a huge population compared to the UK.

Indeed. That larger population, combined with having more space, more resources, and a bigger economy, means that the United States could quite easily absorb more immigrants. Furthermore, the United States is a country built on immigration. Immigration does not have to be a drain on resources, and resources are not finite.

judging by the UK abortion rate universal healthcare has done nothing to decrease the abortion rate.

I didn’t say that universal healthcare means that we don’t have abortion. I just said that there is clearly no correlation between universal healthcare and abortion and euthanasia being legal. However, it is the case that in the US, although the Democrats are a pro-choice party, the number of abortions in the US always goes down under Democratic administrations due to better investment in public services.

I guess the big difference between UK and U.S. is that we were founded on freedom of religion

Well, yes, the UK wasn’t really founded, so we cannot make any such claim. However, the freedom of the English Church was guaranteed in the Magna Carta of 1215 and is one of only three clauses of Magna Carta to remain in force in English law to this day. Freedom of religion for individuals is guaranteed under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been in force since 1953. This became part of UK domestic law as part of the Human Rights Act 1998 (specifically, Schedule 1, Part 1, Article 9). Great Britain/the UK repealed virtually all discriminatory legislation concerning Catholics, Protestant non-conformists, Jews, etc in the 18th and 19th centuries. The only remaining discriminatory legislation is the law requiring the monarch to be an Anglican.

 

[mqm311]

You really have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s dishonest to yourself and to others. It wasn’t just some random quote from a BLM member that she described herself as a trained Marxist, it was one of the three co-founders of BLM. In fact, all three BLM co-founders describe themselves as trained Marxists or “Queer”. Moving forward, Nelson Mandela’s issues have to do with his belief and acceptance of Communism. Communism is one of the deadliest and satanic ideologies humanity has ever seen. Over 100M victims in the 20th century alone; my grandma’s family included. Communism is an inherently anti-Catholic philosophy and the Church fought a cold war with the Soviets over this. Look at how many Catholic priests and Bishops were framed by Russians and the Soviet Bloc in the 20th century.

Go read Ronald J. Rychlak and Ion Mihai Pacepa’s book on Marxism and the Catholic Church (Disinformation) and then you’ll realize being Christian means putting your religion above your politics.

 

[Methodist]

Possibly, but you have just shifted your argument from theology vs. politics to being clean shaven has been part of the Bob Jones university culture.
This new position seems reasonable as one may review practices at the University to see that such practices have been part of the culture for some time.

I haven’t shifted my argument at all. BJU mandated that all male students and staff had to have short hair and be clean shaven. They did this because having long hair and a beard was associated with hippies. There was a shred of biblical justification for men having short hair, but the rule against beards was purely for political reasons. The post to which I was originally responding was one which stated that some US conservatives feel compelled to be climate change deniers not because of any scientific reasons but because they regard climate science as being somehow a part of liberal culture. I was saying that the BJU beard rule was rather similar: they don’t actually have anything against beards, but if hippies have beards, BJU has to have a rule against beards.

I am not even sure why you are being so argumentative over this point. It’s not like what I am saying is particularly controversial, and it’s also not like Catholics have traditionally been supports of BJU.