Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[edwest2]

This is the Internet. This is not the Catholic Church. You’re reading thoughts and opinions expressed by anonymous Internet strangers, not official Church teachings or anything even approaching that. As with any information you get from anonymous sources, take everything you read here with a massive grain of salt.

Luna

I disagree. That blanket statement is not true when Catholics provide links to Vatican Documents and Catholic news sources. I encourage all Catholics to provide links to Church documents and Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

My parents who were totally secular, atheists and highly educated said the same thing. Socialism/communism or any of the “isms” that depend on the honesty and generous spirit of EVERYONE will always fail. As my father said, the problem with socialism and communism is that it doesn’t take into account lazy people or ambitious people. No matter how many times these systems fail, people still think they will work, it’s just a matter of tweaking them…too bad you cannot change our sinful human nature.

As to the thread, why are the CAF so conservative? I think what used to be ordinary traditional values have become “conservative.” If you believe in personal responsibility (which includes responsibility for a life you may create), strong marriages and families (man woman normal marriages not Sue and Jill or Bob and Fred), earned success rather than learned dependency, working to achieve goals such as education, “the American dream,” helping your neighbor, well you are suddenly a dinosaur mired in the 50s. What used to be taken for granted is now considered an anomoly. The Church supports what used to be traditional values and if one is a serious Mass attending and faithful Catholic you are probably going to be labeled “conservative” because of social and fiscal alignment with the conservative politics.

Lisa

Thank you, Lisa.

Today, all parents should teach their children regarding their behavior, personal responsibility, to value hard work and achievement, helping your neighbor, getting a good education and a sober, Christian worldview. Yes, I lived through a time period where it was exactly like this. It worked. No, it was not perfect. But it was a lot, lot better than the rampant hedonism we have today.

And families. For the past 40 years - everything imaginable was done to destroy the basic building block of society. It happened so gradually that too many Catholics fell into the trap. Contraception, abortion, sex with anybody and now, gay marriage.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

Without discounting much of what you have written, 'the American Dream" is an outgrowth of the fiction that 'we are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to pursue happiness". I can not find that in the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This myth that began with the American Revolution has rejected the teaching of Jesus Christ which is 'the denial of self, the taking up of one’s cross daily for the sake of Jesus Christ. ’

Where else but in America, do we need to be reminded every day 'not to love the world, neither the things that are in the world"? “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life are not of the Father, but are of the world.”

I guess you have a different version of “The American Dream” than do I. You seem to equate it with the old bumper sticker “He who dies with the most toys wins!” which IMO is a sort of adolescent male fantasy world.

My understanding of “The American Dream” is that we can pursue any endeavor for which we are capable (IOW no “caste” system or hereditary fiat) marry, raise our family to share our values, and have the loves and joys that go with that freedom. Yes some people achieve greater financial benefits than others but that isn’t a key to “happiness” is it?

As to “taking up our cross” this comports completely with a conservative outlook of the self sacrifice of parents who want a better life for their children, dads who go to work every day even if the work isn’t fun, moms who get up in the middle of the night for a sick child or a child who cares for an elderly parent. I don’t know of many examples of self sacrifice that exceed those of everyday moms and dads, maybe our military and first responders but again, these are traditional American values and comport with Jesus’ teaching that those who lay down their life for a friend show the greatest love of all.

I see nothing in “the American Dream” that suggests lust, coveting, envy or opposition to Biblical teachings.

Lisa

 

[mercytruth]

You may not define the “American Dream” in that manner, but a comfortable life for oneself and one’s children procured by a fair wage for an honest day’s work is portrayed in the media as part of the ‘American Dream’. How many times do we hear comments about
the failure of the "American Dream’ since the recession, and the accompanying loss of good paying jobs?

The American opportunity to become financially successful, or influential is also part of the picture portrayed. Basically, it is a dream not so much to serve Jesus Christ, but the the freedom to pursue one’s own ambitions and desires.

More importantly, it seems to me that the pursuit of happiness is so ingrained in our American psyche, that we think we have the right to pursue personal happiness in this life. Eventhough the apostle Paul says, "If our hope is in this life only, we of all men are most miserable’.

 

[St_Francis]

The American Dream is defined in Wikipedia as: The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States; a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility achieved through hard work. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.[1]

And in Merriam-Webster as: The traditional social ideals of the United States, such as equality, democracy, and material prosperity.

The first one has a problem in that not everyone can improve and move upwards, because there just isn’t enough *room. *There are fewer and fewer positions in the upper levels, so it is right off the bat doomed to failure.

The second definition shows that one of the three main aspects is material prosperity, and nothing in either definition has anything to do with holiness!

When you consider what the Catholic Church teaches, it is different. First, the main focus is on holiness, both one’s own holiness and helping others to achieve holiness. The next focus, in terms of society, is on everyone’s working *together *so each person can be in a good place.

 

[Qoeleth]

I agree, but many of the threads (especially in the Philosophy section) show an impressive level of education.

People perhaps naturally tend to be conservative in a wave of enthusiam!

In the ‘real world’ I would generally be regarded as an very conservative Catholic. Among the present company, I often seem to be on the less conservative side of things.

 

[LisaA]

The American Dream is defined in Wikipedia as: The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States; a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility achieved through hard work. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.[1]

And in Merriam-Webster as: The traditional social ideals of the United States, such as equality, democracy, and material prosperity.

The first one has a problem in that not everyone can improve and move upwards, because there just isn’t enough *room. *There are fewer and fewer positions in the upper levels, so it is right off the bat doomed to failure.

The second definition shows that one of the three main aspects is material prosperity, and nothing in either definition has anything to do with holiness!

When you consider what the Catholic Church teaches, it is different. First, the main focus is on holiness, both one’s own holiness and helping others to achieve holiness. The next focus, in terms of society, is on everyone’s working *together *so each person can be in a good place.

Do not want to risk derailing the thread so I hope this is on point. I think you missed an important word in the first definition, “opportunity.” There are no guarnties but our society should protect the opportunity to achieve “based on hard work and achievement.” IOW our society should not lock people into a caste system or only allow certain demographic groups to be educated. I just heard an interview with Marco Rubio. His family escaped from Cuba and started at the bottom. His dad was a bartender and his mom had some kind of blue collar job. But all four of their children had the opportumity to get college educations and among them is a US Senator. How many countries would allow this to happen?

As to saying definition 1 is erroneous because there are fewer positions at the top, it ignores the reality that not everyone is born with the same talents, intelligence, energy, or health. But we should be allowed the opportunity to pursue our goals and passions. I will never be a professional basketball player or opera singer but our society would have allowed me to try!

I also think the term prosperity is relative. In compared to many countries, our poor would be considered rich. I also think that “prosperity” is an American value in that we don’t allow people to live in garbage dumps or die in the streets. This is a very generous and compassionate country and that is an American value.

Obviously the American Dream is not meant to be a substitute for the catechism but I think our traditional American values are not in opposition to the Church’s teaching. Maybe you can provide specifics?

Lisa

 

[edwest2]

I heard one religious on Catholic Radio say that all men should live in dignity.

In my working class neighborhood in the 1960s, we learned and practiced our faith daily. We had enough to buy a few “nice” things but we had our priorities straight. And we had something I rarely hear about today: We were content with what we had. Oh sure, many of us would have appreciated more, but if our current situation, regardless of our best efforts, prevented that - that was fine.

Things went in this order: God, country, our family, our neighbors and ourselves. And for the most part, our country supported our Christian values. And we had fun doing simple things like going to the park as a family, going to the orchard and picking fruit as a family, and we lived in a community that, even though we weren’t all Catholics, shared strong bonds of trust, friendship and a willingness to lend your neighbor a hand. It was not perfect. We had a few bad apples.

Our parents generally had it much harder growing up, but we mostly lived in simple woodframe houses, did our chores, did our homework, watched a little TV and went to bed. We had a few rare individuals who drove the big cars and wore more expensive clothes. We were taught to be thrifty, to save our money, to cut our neighbors’ lawns in the summer or shovel their snow in the winter. That gave us enough to buy a toy or present for our parents or friends. Me and my sister were very happy to get two toys each for Christmas.

It was not a ‘simpler time,’ but a time where our faith was integrated seamlessly into our lives.

Peace,
Ed

 

[the_phoenix]

There’s following the Pope, and there’s not following the Pope.
If following the Pope gets me labeled as Conservative,
so be it.

 

[LisaA]

I heard one religious on Catholic Radio say that all men should live in dignity.

In my working class neighborhood in the 1960s, we learned and practiced our faith daily. We had enough to buy a few “nice” things but we had our priorities straight. And we had something I rarely hear about today: We were content with what we had. Oh sure, many of us would have appreciated more, but if our current situation, regardless of our best efforts, prevented that - that was fine.

Things went in this order: God, country, our family, our neighbors and ourselves. And for the most part, our country supported our Christian values. And we had fun doing simple things like going to the park as a family, going to the orchard and picking fruit as a family, and we lived in a community that, even though we weren’t all Catholics, shared strong bonds of trust, friendship and a willingness to lend your neighbor a hand. It was not perfect. We had a few bad apples.

Our parents generally had it much harder growing up, but we mostly lived in simple woodframe houses, did our chores, did our homework, watched a little TV and went to bed. We had a few rare individuals who drove the big cars and wore more expensive clothes. We were taught to be thrifty, to save our money, to cut our neighbors’ lawns in the summer or shovel their snow in the winter. That gave us enough to buy a toy or present for our parents or friends. Me and my sister were very happy to get two toys each for Christmas.

It was not a ‘simpler time,’ but a time where our faith was integrated seamlessly into our lives.

Peace,
Ed

We had a similar upbringing although my family was not religious, the basic traditional values were intact. It’s funny when I was a kid getting a soda was SPECIAL. We only got to drink them for the 4th of July picnics or special occasions.

Ditto with a few simple gifts at Christmas or birthdays. Ditto with helping our neighbors.

Issues like “gay marriage” or abortion or even divorce were not even on the radar. As I said before, what used to be the norm is now considered incredibly conservative.

Oh and for those who will jump in with the presumption that we held prejudices against people of color or those of different religions, sorry didn’t happen in my neighborhood.

Lisa

 

[edwest2]

We had a similar upbringing although my family was not religious, the basic traditional values were intact. It’s funny when I was a kid getting a soda was SPECIAL. We only got to drink them for the 4th of July picnics or special occasions.

Ditto with a few simple gifts at Christmas or birthdays. Ditto with helping our neighbors.

Issues like “gay marriage” or abortion or even divorce were not even on the radar. As I said before, what used to be the norm is now considered incredibly conservative.

Oh and for those who will jump in with the presumption that we held prejudices against people of color or those of different religions, sorry didn’t happen in my neighborhood.

Lisa

My mother worked in a large bakery in downtown Detroit in the early 1950s. She was never bothered by people of color or cat-called. That during a time when she and my dad got around on buses. We knew we had people who went to different churches, but we did generally get along.

Peace,
Ed

 

[BobCatholic]

I don’t see how the Church teachings overlap with economic conservatism. Economic conservatism is rugged individualism. In Acts, we see the believers actually practicing socialism – they pooled their resources.

Acts 4
32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.
33 With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all.
34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

Right?

Alan

This is the only example of Communism that works - and that is in Roman Catholic Religious Orders.

The ONLY example where it works.

Remember that.

This is because Roman Catholic Religious Orders are VOLUNTARY and GOD-CENTERED.

The secular equivalent can never work because it violates both of those.

The secular Communism is unjust and horrible, history has shown that time after time after time. Same thing with Socialism, Nazism, and other similar totalitarian regimes are also rejected by the Church.

That does not mean the Catholic Church likes Capitalism either, it doesn’t due to the injustice there as well.

One economic system that the Church COULD approve of is Distributism.

When it comes to economics, the Catholic Church is not “left wing” or “right wing”. The Church is Catholic.

 

[JRKH]

I heard one religious on Catholic Radio say that all men should live in dignity.

In my working class neighborhood in the 1960s, we learned and practiced our faith daily. We had enough to buy a few “nice” things but we had our priorities straight. And we had something I rarely hear about today: We were content with what we had. Oh sure, many of us would have appreciated more, but if our current situation, regardless of our best efforts, prevented that - that was fine.

Things went in this order: God, country, our family, our neighbors and ourselves. And for the most part, our country supported our Christian values. And we had fun doing simple things like going to the park as a family, going to the orchard and picking fruit as a family, and we lived in a community that, even though we weren’t all Catholics, shared strong bonds of trust, friendship and a willingness to lend your neighbor a hand. It was not perfect. We had a few bad apples.

Our parents generally had it much harder growing up, but we mostly lived in simple woodframe houses, did our chores, did our homework, watched a little TV and went to bed. We had a few rare individuals who drove the big cars and wore more expensive clothes. We were taught to be thrifty, to save our money, to cut our neighbors’ lawns in the summer or shovel their snow in the winter. That gave us enough to buy a toy or present for our parents or friends. Me and my sister were very happy to get two toys each for Christmas.

It was not a ‘simpler time,’ but a time where our faith was integrated seamlessly into our lives.

Peace,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

This is the only example of Communism that works - and that is in Roman Catholic Religious Orders.

Religious orders should not be called communist. Communism has been condemned by the Church–do you think the Popes would have condemned it is that was what the religious orders were practicing?

 

[St_Francis]

Do not want to risk derailing the thread so I hope this is on point. I think you missed an important word in the first definition, “opportunity.” There are no guarnties but our society should protect the opportunity to achieve “based on hard work and achievement.” IOW our society should not lock people into a caste system or only allow certain demographic groups to be educated. I just heard an interview with Marco Rubio. His family escaped from Cuba and started at the bottom. His dad was a bartender and his mom had some kind of blue collar job. But all four of their children had the opportumity to get college educations and among them is a US Senator. How many countries would allow this to happen?

As to saying definition 1 is erroneous because there are fewer positions at the top, it ignores the reality that not everyone is born with the same talents, intelligence, energy, or health. But we should be allowed the opportunity to pursue our goals and passions. I will never be a professional basketball player or opera singer but our society would have allowed me to try!

I also think the term prosperity is relative. In compared to many countries, our poor would be considered rich. I also think that “prosperity” is an American value in that we don’t allow people to live in garbage dumps or die in the streets. This is a very generous and compassionate country and that is an American value.

Obviously the American Dream is not meant to be a substitute for the catechism but I think our traditional American values are not in opposition to the Church’s teaching. Maybe you can provide specifics?

Lisa

I think it’s probably case a case of different viewpoints: certainly Catholic teaching would not enforce some sort of caste system or deny opportunity to people, but I see the American Dream as somewhat focused on the material. I’m probably being overly sensitive.

 

[JRKH]

Religious orders should not be called communist. Communism has been condemned by the Church–do you think the Popes would have condemned it is that was what the religious orders were practicing?

True true…

Religious orders live in community, not in communism.

Peace
James

 

[ManOnFire]

Jesus was socially conservative and economically liberal. This is closer to Justice in a generally innocent society, because it’s more difficult for people to go astray. OTOH, a liberal society can tempt people into sin because sin is easier and feels better than being an ambitious rule follower. Then, voters can vote themselves a bigger ego by forcing innocent peole to pay for the free will choices of sinners. It makes the voters feel good, without much sacrifice or effort. If you threaten to take away the liberals’ sin and temptation (social conservatism), they will fight you tooth and nail, because you are removing their fun, easy, and feels better lifestyle. You won’t see billboards and PSAs alerting people to the hypocrisy of thsoe who both cheat on their income taxes (stealing) as they vote for more social programs even though those tax cheaters are directly stealing from those they profess to want to help. So, the object of the game is to free willingly seek the fun and easy life while conning someone else into paying for it, except this is essentially stealing, and it will come to a crashing end once the takers outnumber the givers.

 

[Jimmygill88]

Jesus was socially conservative and economically liberal. This is closer to Justice in a generally innocent society, because it’s more difficult for people to go astray. OTOH, a liberal society can tempt people into sin because sin is easier and feels better than being an ambitious rule follower. Then, voters can vote themselves a bigger ego by forcing innocent peole to pay for the free will choices of sinners. It makes the voters feel good, without much sacrifice or effort. If you threaten to take away the liberals’ sin and temptation (social conservatism), they will fight you tooth and nail, because you are removing their fun, easy, and feels better lifestyle. You won’t see billboards and PSAs alerting people to the hypocrisy of thsoe who both cheat on their income taxes (stealing) as they vote for more social programs even though those tax cheaters are directly stealing from those they profess to want to help. So, the object of the game is to free willingly seek the fun and easy life while conning someone else into paying for it, except this is essentially stealing, and it will come to a crashing end once the takers outnumber the givers.

Was Jesus socially conservative. He consorted with Tax Colllectors and sinners. He prevented the execution of an adulteress. He seemed vastly more socially liberal than many of this website’s judgemental members

 

[Contarini]

If I were a person seeking for religious truth I think in general I would be put off the Catholic religion by some of these fora. Many of them are over concerned with externals and sacramentals. Many of them (particularly the threads regarding creationism and Jose Escriba and snake handling) are astonishingly undereducated. And others display an a almost uniform demand that the Church is viewed through an arch conservative lens.

It’s quite simple.

The forum is hosted by Catholic Answers, which is a very conservative organization.

If you were to judge Catholicism by the comments on the online version of the National Catholic Reporter, you would come to very different conclusions. . . .

OK, it’s not quite that simple. The reasons others give are also in play. The influence of organizations like Catholic Answers is on the rise, in part in my opinion because more moderate Catholic academics don’t bother themselves with popular media too much (though this may be changing; see this excellent group blog, many of whose authors are friends of mine from graduate school).

But it is important to understand that this isn’t just a generic “Catholic forum.” It’s a forum established under the auspices of a conservative apologetics organization.

That being said, CA has been very generous in allowing a wide diversity of opinions to be expressed here. The longer this forum exists and the bigger it gets, the more representative it becomes, I think.

Edwin

 

[Elizium23]

Again, you misuse the term “conservative” which you seem to be using to replace “faithful” or “orthodox”. Please don’t muddle the issues by applying poitical terms to religious ideas.