Why do some Catholics repudiate our American values?

  • Thread starter Thread starter do_justly_love_mercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

do_justly_love_mercy

Guest
I’d like to ask a question about a particular school of thought among Catholics that I did not in fact know existed until I began to read these forums. In the heading I have referred to “American” values, but in fact the values to which I refer could be found in many countries around the world today. I am focusing on the United States because I am from the United States myself and I think the people who repudiate our values are also from the United States. The values to which I refer would include, but not be limited to:
  • The equality of all people
  • The inalienable rights of all people
  • Freedom
  • Popular sovereignty
  • Democracy
  • Universal suffrage
  • Republicanism
  • Prohibition of titles of nobility
  • Separation of the state and religion
  • Freedom of thought and expression
  • A written constitution as the supreme law of the land
  • Separation of powers
  • Equality of branches of government
  • Checks and balances
  • Federalism
  • Fixed terms and term limits for office holders
In addition to these values I would mention:
  • The Enlightenment
  • Industrialization
  • Urbanization
  • Cooperation between states and respect for the rules-based international system
  • Self-determination and decolonization
  • Separation of the spiritual and temporal powers of the Church
  • Repudiation of violence committed in the name of religion
  • Removal of the state from the sphere of personal morality
  • Equality of the sexes
I believed that these were things that were now universally accepted. However, I have become aware that there is quite a visible group of Catholics whose views include:
  • Restoration of the concept of Christendom
  • Restoration of the Papal States
  • Reasserting the supremacy of the pope over temporal rulers
  • Restoration of the Holy Roman Empire under the papacy
  • Restoration of monarchy as the normative constitutional model
  • Restoration of the concept of a noble class
  • Abolition or significant abridgement of democracy, perhaps reducing representative democracy only to a council of noble advisers or a chamber of representatives of the landed gentry
  • Where elections are still held, reducing the electorate to those with substantial wealth
  • Restoration of feudalism
  • Establishment of the Catholic Church as the state church of all Christendom
  • Alignment between Church doctrine and the civil law
  • Censorship
  • Criminalization of heresy
  • Glorifying the Crusades
  • Suppression of Freemasonry
  • Agrarianism/restoring an economy of farmers and artisans with most people living in rural areas or small towns
  • Distinct roles for men and women with women largely restricted to the domestic sphere and subject to controls such as a strict code of modesty in dress
I am wondering whether anybody can explain to me the origins of the movement and how widespread it is.
 
Benedict XVI described the dynamic with his usual insight in his 2005 address to the curia at Christmas:
In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church’s faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences, which also claimed to embrace with their knowledge the whole of reality to its limit, stubbornly proposing to make the “hypothesis of God” superfluous, had elicited from the Church a bitter and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, it seemed that there was no longer any milieu open to a positive and fruitful understanding, and the rejection by those who felt they were the representatives of the modern era was also drastic.

In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution.
…

So it was that both parties were gradually beginning to open up to each other. In the period between the two World Wars and especially after the Second World War, Catholic statesmen demonstrated that a modern secular State could exist that was not neutral regarding values but alive, drawing from the great ethical sources opened by Christianity.
…

It might be said that three circles of questions had formed which then, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, were expecting an answer. First of all, the relationship between faith and modern science had to be redefined. Furthermore, this did not only concern the natural sciences but also historical science for, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed to have the last word on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding total exclusivity for its interpretation of Sacred Scripture, was opposed to important points in the interpretation elaborated by the faith of the Church.

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.
Click to expand...
 
do_justly_love_mercy said:
how widespread
Click to expand...
I think it’s limited to theological illiterates living in their parent’s dimly lit basement with an unfortunate access to the internet.

I’m only half-joking of course, but I find many (not all) of those views trot out quite frequently by a very vocal minority on another Catholic forum. My impression of them is that they’re very disenfranchised, socially ostracized and minimally educated (especially theologically). It’s a dangerous combination that makes one liable to extremist beliefs of any persuasion.

Edit: To clarify, I don’t think of it as so much a Catholic/theological issue inasmuch as it’s a social problem. There’s a parallel movement in American evangelical churches (whose name I’ve frustratingly forgot) and it seems to me that the most proximate cause of both movements lies in local social/cultural/political dynamics.
 
Last edited:
I think your post is a little too extreme. Yes, some people hold onto SOME of what you mention, but few believe all of it. But you must look at it from a religious perspective.

Yes, there are some Catholics who would prefer a Catholic Monarchy vs a Republic.

Historic, western philosophy (which is what a lot of Catholic Social teaching is based on) always taught the following :
  • The best form of government (when there is a good leader) is a [Catholic] Monarchy. If there is a good leader, this is the best. When there is a bad leader, this is horrible
  • The worst form of government is real democracy because it is effectively mob rule.
  • The compromise between the two is Republicanism. However, a Republic is not better than a good Catholic Monarchy.
You will always have people who would like to return back to the “glory days” or restore a particular aspect of the past to current society. It’s not really that complex.

As far as “criminalization of heresy” - let’s look at it from a purely religious point of view. First, not all heresy was criminal. Typically, the only heresies that were criminal were ones considered public manifestations of mortal sin. NOW, with that said, as an orthodox believing Christian - if you honestly believed that a particular heresy was going to cause A LOT people to go to hell (whether they believe it or not) what would be the Christian thing to do? Let the people go to hell or work to outlaw that particular heresy? The orthodox answer is work to outlaw that particular heresy.

In regards to the “glorifying the Crusades,” the reason for this is because the Crusades are very much misunderstood by modern people. 18th / 19th century Europeans really misunderstood the crusades themselves and mistakenly associated it with colonialism (which it wasn’t). Today, there is A LOT of new, computer assisted research into the Crusades that is making people realize that it wasn’t what popular protestant, muslim and secular society like to it make out as.

I highly recommend the following CD/MP3s:




Plus there is this book, called “The Glory of the Crusades”

 
Last edited:
I believe the values of American Catholics are true.
The politicians, and those polarized to the extreme left and extreme right, keep trying to pull up apart.
 
Bithynian said:
My impression of them is that they’re very disenfranchised, socially ostracized and minimally educated (especially theologically).
Click to expand...
NOTE: many are NOT minimally educated. I know of several who have law degrees, Ph.D, etc. And I wouldn’t even say they are socially ostracized, as many are very social and likeable people.

BUT they are disenfranchised in many situations, aka very frustrated with the status quo and leadership.
 
There is no ‘movement’ in the examples given. The United States began as a Christian Nation and separation of church and state was for the very reason of freedom of religion ( not like some non American groups who call themselves Freedom from religion.) We are a Judeo / Christian Nation which has now become secular, atheistic , and other religions are on the rise.
The other examples given in the second category are extreme and I have never met an USA Catholic promoting 1/8 th of what was stated.
 
Not all Catholics are American. The values and standards for one country and indeed region, vary from anothers.
Our values should be firstly those of our religion.
Fr John Hardon has some interesting comments in the 90’s on this topic.

Running down your list, I question the Enlightenment and its confluence with Catholicism.

I also question the idea of freedom of thought and expression as it is heading where Catholics and Christians express their opposition to things that are not of Catholic values, and are then persecuted for this. Or where a person might, as recently in Australia, fly the nazi flag, opposite the house of a holocaust surviver.
 
Last edited:
do_justly_love_mercy said:
I am wondering whether anybody can explain to me the origins of the movement and how widespread it is.
Click to expand...
In every place and age, there are whackadoodles.

Today, they have the internet where they can spread their ideas and appear to be a larger contingent than they really are.
 
Last edited:
I’m sure the OP would be shocked to learn that several constitutional monarchies rank higher than the US on indexes that measure effective democracy and standard of living…
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
Not all Catholics are American. The values and standards for one country and indeed region, vary from anothers.
Our values should be firstly those of our religion.
Fr John Hardon has some interesting comments in the 90’s on this topic.

Running down your list, I question the Enlightenment and its confluence with Catholicism.

I also question the idea of freedom of thought and expression as it is heading where Catholics and Christians express their opposition to things that are not of Catholic values, and are then persecuted for this. Or where a person might, as recently in Australia, fly the nazi flag, opposite the house of a holocaust surviver.
Click to expand...
This is quite correct. As we see daily in the media, our current “cancel culture” and “woke” political purity tests are far, far more threatening to freedom of expression than anything in current Christian in general, or Catholic in particular, teachings.
 
I struggle to understand how urbanization is an American value and why agrarianism is inherently a bad thing.
 
do_justly_love_mercy said:
  • The equality of all people
  • The inalienable rights of all people
  • Freedom
  • Popular sovereignty
  • Democracy
  • Universal suffrage
  • Republicanism
  • Prohibition of titles of nobility
  • Separation of the state and religion
  • Freedom of thought and expression
  • A written constitution as the supreme law of the land
  • Separation of powers
  • Equality of branches of government
  • Checks and balances
  • Federalism
  • Fixed terms and term limits for office holders
Click to expand...
You should send this list to Trump. Either he doesn’t know American values or he tramples all over many of them.
 
Last edited:
do_justly_love_mercy said:
I believed that these were things that were now universally accepted. However, I have become aware that there is quite a visible group of Catholics whose views include:
  • Restoration of the concept of Christendom
  • Restoration of the Papal States
  • Reasserting the supremacy of the pope over temporal rulers
  • Restoration of the Holy Roman Empire under the papacy
  • Restoration of monarchy as the normative constitutional model
  • Restoration of the concept of a noble class
  • Abolition or significant abridgement of democracy, perhaps reducing representative democracy only to a council of noble advisers or a chamber of representatives of the landed gentry
  • Where elections are still held, reducing the electorate to those with substantial wealth
  • Restoration of feudalism
  • Establishment of the Catholic Church as the state church of all Christendom
  • Alignment between Church doctrine and the civil law
  • Censorship
  • Criminalization of heresy
  • Glorifying the Crusades
  • Suppression of Freemasonry
  • Agrarianism/restoring an economy of farmers and artisans with most people living in rural areas or small towns
  • Distinct roles for men and women with women largely restricted to the domestic sphere and subject to controls such as a strict code of modesty in dress
I am wondering whether anybody can explain to me the origins of the movement and how widespread it is.
Click to expand...
I agree with your observation in general as I’ve noticed a similar ‘worldview’ among a type of Catholic on the net as well over about 10 years. I’ve clocked a number of aspects of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes behind their views. I generally find that their Catholicism is ‘foreign’ to me as a cradle Catholic. There seems to be a general contempt for the basics of Catholic society like the primacy of the common good and the value of the natural law. They also have a gnosticism going ie. believing that by virtue of some sort of election, they have a superiority or divine knowledge that is greater than the Magisterium and the sensus fidelium.

It is a curious worldview and I sometimes think that it is piggy backing the Catholic model only to establish it’s own power base without having to prove itself.
 
I’m not sure why some of these values need be supported by Catholics at all. Several items on the OP’s list are secular American values that are not in any way relevant to the Catholic faith. An American may support them…but there’s no reason for a Catholic elsewhere to entertain some of these notions.

Federalism? Does every country need to be a federation? Are unitary republics, for example, intrinsically evil?
Republicanism? My own country, Canada, is a constitutional monarchy. Its worked pretty well so far. I don’t see why a republic is intrinsically better.
Prohibition of titles of nobility. Does this also apply to the Church? When I meet my Archbishop, I address him as “your grace”, as per custom in Commonwealth countries. Should I just call him “Michael”? (Also as a side question…could you please identify the last President of the United States who grew up as the underprivileged son of a working class couple in a poor neighborhood?)
These next two don’t really work in a Westminster Parliamentary context…yet the various Westminster Parliamentary Democracies function quite well:
  • A written constitution as the supreme law of the land
  • Equality of branches of government
 
Last edited:
I would disagree that urbanization is an American thing; the same thing is occurring with a vengeance, for example, in China right now.

I happen to know some rather well-off (financially) farmers. There are precious few of them who are sustaining on 1 or 2 hundred acres. When my great grandfather moved out to Oregon, he came with a wife, a baby, a blanket and $50.00. However, $50 was a lot of money at the time; and he bought and farmed several hundred acres; when he died, my grandmother, one of his children, inherited 40 acres of his land. Her husband, my grandfather, farmed it (wheat), but most definitely did not make a living from it; he was a mechanic and worked on cars, rucks and farm machinery. The wheat was a supplementary income.

One of his son-in-laws started farming after WW2 and through careful financing, owned something in the range of a thousand aces or so; he raised multiple crops and made his living that way. Of his three sons, one went into farming and made a good living doing so. That cousin also inherited the 40 acres, which was probably 10 miles or so from his main farm, and he planted wheat (and perhaps rotated it with clover). He died several years ago, and that is the last of the farmers back to my grandparents (I don’t know about my great grandfather’s other children).

The short of it is that not all farming is sufficient to keep one in business; some of that has to do with where in the US the farmland is; what crops can be grown, the weather (which can destroy a crop almost instantaneously), and the continually rising cost of farmland and availability of additional land, machinery, and the vagaries of the market for crops. People need to feed, clothe and house their families, and just because the children are raised on a farm dos not mean they have their interest, or the aptitude to farm after they reach adulthood; and if the farm goes to the children, it may only be capable of sustaining one of them and their family. The other children often have other talents, and/or see moving away as their only means of employment.

From a different tack, you might read Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance.
 
Why are the thoughts of “some Catholics” even important? The danger was written of and conversed about over 100 years ago. “Americanism” - an end unto itself, was not entirely consistent with the Christian faith. Oh, there were and are parallels, but our faith must define who we are - not a national border or a political alliance.

God has no borders - except the gates of heaven. On this flawed earth, left and right argue against center about how to accomplish things, not necessarily what should be accomplished.

Generally speaking, the less political we are, and the more faithful, the happier and more content we will be. This does in no way divorce us from the responsibility to cast our vote, but that vote must be consistent with our faith, first and foremost.
 
otjm said:
I would disagree that urbanization is an American thing; the same thing is occurring with a vengeance, for example, in China right now.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing urbanization is solely America. It’s a global trend. I’m actually not arguing for anything. I’m confused by the OP considering urbanization an American value. And the OP treats agrarianism as if it’s inherently a bad thing.
Agrarianism is a social philosophy or political philosophy which values rural society as superior to urban society and the independent farmer as superior to the paid worker, and sees farming as a way of life that can shape the ideal social values.[1] It stresses the superiority of a simpler rural life as opposed to the complexity of city life.
Click to expand...

And I find this striking from the above link:
United States president (1801–1809) Thomas Jefferson was a representative agrarian who built Jeffersonian democracy around the notion that farmers are “the most valuable citizens” and the truest republicans
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
twf said:
These next two don’t really work in a Westminster Parliamentary context…yet the various Westminster Parliamentary Democracies function quite well:
  • A written constitution as the supreme law of the land
  • Equality of branches of government
Click to expand...
That’s the case for Australia since 1901 (?). And increasingly for Canada and the UK (the second point) too (sadly).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top