Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[Contarini]

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.

Actually, it is the refusal to use “political” terms about Catholicism as a human community that muddles things.

You can’t use “orthodox” to distinguish your particular faction, when your faction argues with other factions precisely about what is orthodox.

The attempt to replace “conservative” with “orthodox” is at best muddled and naive, and at worst a cynical linguistic power play.

“Conservative” and “liberal” refer to how one interprets the basic standards of one’s particular community.

“Orthodox” vs. “unorthodox” refers to whether or not one accepts those standards.

Naturally conservatives will see liberals as unorthodox. But whether they are or not is precisely the point in dispute between them, so conservatives can’t complain when liberals and moderates refuse simply to label them “orthodox.”

Edwin

 

[CesarAugustus]

I think the problem is that when you have a very Catholic-thinking Catholic, the US conservatives look at him as too liberal, and the liberals look at him as too conservative.

…

But probably the hardest part of all this is that Wentern political thinking these days is based on the so-called** Enlightenment, a coalition of materialist, often anti-Catholic philosophies**, and the jump is a big one.

Well said. Modern right and left are the product of that disgrace called the French Revolution. Catholic Doctrine goes beyond that.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

I wouldn’t say Jesus was economically liberal or socially conservative. It’s hard to put frames around Jesus’ views because a. he came to save the world and not to be a political leader b. he lived in a different time than us. But I think we can (somewhat) come to a conclusion about his political views based on the Church today. So that would mean socially conservative (or moderate at the most liberal) since social liberalism includes plenty of intrinsically evil things, and economically different. (Well I guess that disregards my opening statement, doesn’t it? ) I wouldn’t say economically liberal since that implies big government, which the Church has been critical of and it was the kind of government that crucified Christ. Not to mention the governments in the middle ages which (sometimes) reflected more of what the Church wanted were small.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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

Was that really necessary? :ehh:

 

[Contarini]

Well said. Modern right and left are the product of that disgrace called the French Revolution.

But your language itself identifies you as “right wing.”

It’s a bit ironic to claim to “go beyond” political language by making stridently political statements.

(I am not a fan of the French Revolution either–but it’s superficial and irrational to claim that just because the language of “left” and “right” came from there, therefore the concept of liberal and conservative has no validity unless you accept the French Revolution.)

Edwin

 

[CesarAugustus]

But your language itself identifies you as “right wing.”

It’s a bit ironic to claim to “go beyond” political language by making stridently political statements.

(I am not a fan of the French Revolution either–but it’s superficial and irrational to claim that just because the language of “left” and “right” came from there, therefore the concept of liberal and conservative has no validity unless you accept the French Revolution.)

Edwin

I was speaking of the parties and ideologies in the right and left.

Also, from my point of view, most conservatives of today are just moderate liberals.

Outside USA the terms have different usage (I’m from South America).

For example, what you call liberal there (Democrat) is just secular right wing and centrists over here.

And some “conservatives” in our countries, are liberal regarding things like divorce, contraception, etc. But, militaristic and security focused. The same could be said of most right-wing parties. The difference with the new left, is the speed needed to apply change. Leftist want immediate change, but the right wants slow changes.

Try to place Catholic Doctrine in a spot in the right-left paradigm. Is difficult.

 

[ProVobis]

(I am not a fan of the French Revolution either–but it’s superficial and irrational to claim that just because the language of “left” and “right” came from there, therefore the concept of liberal and conservative has no validity unless you accept the French Revolution.)

I thought “right” and “left” came from “dexter” and “sinister.”

 

[Holly3278]

I would say it is because the vast majority of Catholics on here are conservative and orthodox Catholics.

 

[Gaber]

This website is run by apologists. Apologists seem to be more of the “Peter” and “James” types. Tradition, dotting i’s and crossing t’s, vehemently holding one’s intellectual position. Others, like me, see ourselves more as “Paul” or “John” type. We want to know, where is the love? Why are our leaders hypocrites? We talk more about the Holy Spirit – not a good topic for the Peter and James type because they like traditional rules and the Holy Spirit implies there is guidance beyond what is written and what we can humanly extrapolate from it.

Also I notice a great deal of emphasis on sins of the flesh. I have ideas about why, but so does everyone else I suspect.

That said, over my years on the forum it seems we have had increasing numbers of people posting about mysticism and touchy-feely stuff than before. About the allegorical and deeper levels of scripture and not just the same old arguments about literal meanings. My CAF experience, anyway, seems like it’is evolving in a positive direction. The biggest thing that has helped me lose my anxiety for CAF is to convince myself I neither have to be seen as right, nor do I have convince anyone else they are wrong. I can try to do it, but no longer do I feel the aching compulsion of trying to fix everyone and everything.

While that’s true, the opposite is also very true. I see discussions on things that people who never talk about in person. For example, sins of the flesh. People who try to be “good Catholics” get precious little information through other means, about what is or isn’t permitted in a marital bedroom. (Which I personally think is and overrated discussion.) Or in a non-marital situation for that matter. And any friends they’d even possibly be able to open up to, are just a ill-informed. Or other personal issues not related to sex such as family issues that result in all sorts of problems and divides. We hear confessions of one family member holding grudges against other family members, even though the families themselves know nothing about the issues discussed. Plus we do get a lot of discussions about how a person can improve with regard to a particular sin or virtue. That’s why I like it here – many hearfelt discussions. I’m sure there are phony posters who just lead others on, but if I can’t tell from the discussion then I may as well treat it as an authentic problem.

Actually I don’t mind getting many opinions on each issue because it gives me the best chance that some combination of them is actually true, or at least helpful. I’d much rather that than listen to any one source which supposedly is accurate – according to itself and or others. I have yet to find such a source on this earth – including my pastor and SD – that I consider infallible and can safely ignore all other sources.

Also I’ve learned that one does not need to get personally upset when threads go stupid or wrong. If we get upset, then that’s our own spiritual problem to deal with – not the fault of the other poster. Gosh if we are that touchy, all it would take would be a 'bot to get us all agitated.

Alan

That is well said. I like the Peter/James–Paul/John analogy, even if there is huge doubt that Peter wrote what is attributed to him. And some of Paul. about the short side of half. And other such. Uh-oh…

 

[ReapReason]

It’s fairly simple really. The highly devout are highly likely to be very conservative, and the highly devout are most likely to be regular visitors to a forum about Catholicism. Those who are less devout would be less likely to visit a board like this, and those who interpret the rules of the church more liberally are apt to be less concerned with official church teachings anyway.

I tend to find that many conservative Catholics on this forum hold views that tend to contradict Catholic social teaching.

There is an ultra-capitalism that tends to permeate the opinions of so-called devout Catholics/ American Catholics in particular. They tend to give the impression that private property and profit always comes first even before the lives of the most poorest in American society. They think they have an unconditional right to private property regardless of any harm it causes. They are always complaining about Government interference in their financial lives even when its for the benefit of those in poverty. I even see some of them say that the poor should not receive benefits from the government, and that the fate of their heath and existence should rest on the promise of charity alone; from the very same people who have a problem being taxed in-order to distribute money to the poor. They are quick to accuse anybody of communism as soon as somebody suggests that the rich ought to be taxed for the benefit and dignity of society as a whole.

Their excuse always rests on the idea that a fair distribution of wealth in society is theft.

Personally I think their views are not Catholic at all.

 

[ManOnFire]

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

Judgmental, like the ugly hypocrites who have judged it acceptable to cheat on their income taxes while voting for more social programs? Or, judgmental, like those free willingly cheat the system? Or, judgmental like those who have judged it OK that some people should be free to act, while innocent people should pay for the results? Like those non-judgmental people? You, my friend, need to truly open your mind to all sides, instead of the bigoted version you’ve been spoon fed. You just haven’t realized it yet.

 

[ManOnFire]

I wouldn’t say Jesus was economically liberal or socially conservative. It’s hard to put frames around Jesus’ views because a. he came to save the world and not to be a political leader b. he lived in a different time than us. But I think we can (somewhat) come to a conclusion about his political views based on the Church today. So that would mean socially conservative (or moderate at the most liberal) since social liberalism includes plenty of intrinsically evil things, and economically different. (Well I guess that disregards my opening statement, doesn’t it? ) I wouldn’t say economically liberal since that implies big government, which the Church has been critical of and it was the kind of government that crucified Christ. Not to mention the governments in the middle ages which (sometimes) reflected more of what the Church wanted were small.

Jesus was liberal with forgiveness. Social liberalism is a good excuse for us to act on basic instincts. We all want to, but just imagine the mess we would have if the MAJORITY did. There would be few left to pay the tab. Just look at Europe. Some countries are paying people to have kids because much of the population wants the easy life which involves bullet proof birth control. Becoming a parent forced me to grow up.

 

[ManOnFire]

Was that really necessary? :ehh:

That’s OK. Truly open minded people enjoy a little debate.

 

[ManOnFire]

I tend to find that many conservative Catholics on this forum hold views that tend to contradict Catholic social teaching.

There is an ultra-capitalism that tends to permeate the opinions of so-called devout Catholics/ American Catholics in particular. They tend to give the impression that private property and profit always comes first even before the lives of the most poorest in American society. They think they have an unconditional right to private property regardless of any harm it causes. They are always complaining about Government interference in their financial lives even when its for the benefit of those in poverty. I even see some of them say that the poor should not receive benefits from the government, and that the fate of their heath and existence should rest on the promise of charity alone; from the very same people who have a problem being taxed in-order to distribute money to the poor. They are quick to accuse anybody of communism as soon as somebody suggests that the rich ought to be taxed for the benefit and dignity of society as a whole.

Their excuse always rests on the idea that a fair distribution of wealth in society is theft.

Personally I think their views are not Catholic at all.

This, I don’t understand at all. People have free will. You act like people are being forced to buy the expensive materialstic things that are being sold in the left wing media. Use that free will to not buy shallow stuff that will keep one poor. For those who do not spend money wisely to improve their lives, tripling their income will not make them any richer, and could help them into an unhealthy addiction. If all comes down to values. The lower the values, the more screwed we are, the more aid people will need. How is that progress? Stop tempting the poor into dependency with these liberal lifestyles, then you’ll see their quality of life increase.

 

[ReapReason]

This, I don’t understand at all. People have free will. You act like people are being forced to buy the expensive materialstic things that are being sold in the left wing media. Use that free will to not buy shallow stuff that will keep one poor. For those who do not spend money wisely to improve their lives, tripling their income will not make them any richer, and could help them into an unhealthy addiction. If all comes down to values. The lower the values, the more screwed we are, the more aid people will need. How is that progress? Stop tempting the poor into dependency with these liberal lifestyles, then you’ll see their quality of life increase.

Ah, i see your angle. Blame the poor, and then you won’t have to feel selfish. And yet for all your shallow talk, you obviously think its good to be rich.

The reality is, the poor are deprived of the dignity they deserve. And they certainly don’t have the freedom to better themselves in a system where rage slavery is rife, a system that is dependent on the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

Poverty and economic slavery is real whether you accept the reality of it or not.

 

[Contarini]

Try to place Catholic Doctrine in a spot in the right-left paradigm. Is difficult.

I agree. But I’m not trying to place Catholic doctrine there. I’m placing specific factions within Catholicism there.

And I’m not talking about secular political opinions primarily. Certainly most folks on these forums are what Americans call “conservatives”–that is to say, nationalistic pro-capitalists. I actually think that the conservative-liberal definition is harder to apply to American politics (for the fundamental reason that the traditions of American politics are “liberal” in the classical sense).

Edwin

 

[ManOnFire]

Ah, i see your angle. Blame the poor, and then you won’t have to feel selfish. And yet for all your shallow talk, you obviously think its good to be rich.

The reality is, the poor are deprived of the dignity they deserve. And they certainly don’t have the freedom to better themselves in a system where rage slavery is rife, a system that is dependent on the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

Poverty and economic slavery is real whether you accept the reality of it or not.

I think it’s good to free the poor and all citizens from the profiteers who are selling themes of violence, drug use, and abandonment of mothers. I’m not blaming the poor who use free will wisely. I worked in the inner city for years. The reality is, many are participating in lifestyles which they are being spoon fed by those who pretend to care, which lead to dependency. It’s time educate people to start asking why. Until then, we shouldn’t expect True progress.

Everyone who has not enough money to retire is an economic slave. Just ask Billy Joel.

 

[BobCatholic]

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?

Atheistic communism (like the USSR China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) has been condemned.

The big differences (I made it clear in my posts) are that the Atheistic communism does not serve God and are mandatory, while Catholic Religious Orders serve God and are voluntary. Atheistic communism worships the government instead of God, is another difference.

Aside from that, there is no private property ownership, all things are shared in common, and that’s the parts of communism that the Church’s religious orders practice.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

But possibly this website’s supposedly “judgmental” (without the first ‘e’) members are “vastly” (or slightly) more educated.

Compassion and acceptance of human beings–which Jesus undeniably taught and which I have never seen a “conservative” (i.e., traditional) Catholic ever deny-- has nothing to do with one’s position on the moral code. Jesus was a faithful Jew during his earthly ministry – compliant to the personal behavior required of the Mosaic code, a set of behaviors which included a comprehensive sexual restraint & personal self-monitoring (please read Matthew Chapter 5) more demanding than simply not “commiting adultery” and not “killing.”

The Gospels recall and relate the News, the Changes, the Differences Jesus brought to the adherence to Jewish Law and to the relationship between the individual Jew and God, as well as the relationship of the Jewish community to God. If those changes included a loosening of personal morality (sexual or any other Jewish commands), every Gospel would have recorded such stunning changes, and factions/battles about those topics would have been recorded in Acts and in the Epistles. The New Testament books would not have deliberately or accidentally omitted evidence of such disagreements (and such Changes would have unquestionably enkindled disagreements); we know this because of the many other disagreements during and after Jesus’ earthly life which were in fact reported. (During his life, controversy about table fellowship and dietary & Sabbath restrictions; after his life, controversy about circumcision for Gentiles and other matters.)

Not understanding that is a failure to be well read and catechized in scripture. and how that scripture communicates the moral code, a problem which afflicts many modern Catholics by creating a distorted “populist” (and inaccurate) image of Jesus.

 

[Jimmygill88]

Judgmental, like the ugly hypocrites who have judged it acceptable to cheat on their income taxes while voting for more social programs? Or, judgmental, like those free willingly cheat the system? Or, judgmental like those who have judged it OK that some people should be free to act, while innocent people should pay for the results? Like those non-judgmental people? You, my friend, need to truly open your mind to all sides, instead of the bigoted version you’ve been spoon fed. You just haven’t realized it yet.

WOW! Calm down I apologise for hitting that nerve…oh and You, are not my ‘friend’