Why do some Catholics repudiate our American values?

[mrsdizzyd]

The idea of separating our politics from our faith is what got Trump elected.

I think many religious people and indeed many Catholics might object to this point…

 

[Salibi]

Scripture tells you to pass laws to forcibly convert non-Catholics?

 

[Salibi]

Oh…apologies. I mispoke. I meant public office. It was a direct translation from my native tongue that does not translate correctly into English.

Not that I think you would agree with me anyways, but for clarification, I do not believe religion should not be practiced publicly or “in public life”, as I now realize has a different meaning than what I originally meant.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

For the record I voted for him and plan to again.

It’s not so much about whether you voted for him. The why of it is what your post called into question. There are a great many people who see him as a ‘defender of the faith’. Those folks voted for him precisely because they did not separate their politics from their religion.

 

[tafan2]

Ok, I am busy today so only had a brief time to review what you posted. Let me say two things:

1. I apologize, I suppose I am good at mentally filtering out some of these threads. So I take back all I said . I will simply replace it with the idea that I do not believe the rafical views are very widespread at all and some of them may not be that radical if understood.
2. I have to ask, do you actually think the Christian victories over the Turks in the Battle if Vienna or the early Seige of Vienna were bad? I consider these, especially the victory of King Sobieski of Poland to be a great triumph, ranking right up there with Lepanto.

 

[goout]

Some facts that might surprise some people.
The United States of America has not been around very long in the grand scheme of history.

Empires come and go. Even empires that last for a millenia come and fade. The same can be expected of the US as a world power. The kingdom of God is not of this world.

Christ is not an American, nor is he beholden to American values, however you might want to formulate those values. I hope our American values are in line with Christian values, because I will be a Christian in eternity. I will only be an American for another 20 years or so.

3Put no trust in princes,
in children of Adam powerless to save.
4Who breathing his last, returns to the earth;
that day all his planning comes to nothing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Didn’t think I mentioned using the law.

You quoted and were refuting a posting by @Salibi who did mention the law.

Salibi:

Religion should be excluded from public life.

So… hide it under a basket?

We must be careful to distinguish between “public” in the sense of “government sanctioned” and “public” in the sense of what a private citizen, or even an organization like a church, does in the common areas of society. One can be fully in favor of religious people and institutions expressing their faith in the public square by such means as talking to others, displaying signs, clothing, marching, etc., and still oppose government action that recognizes the laws of some particular religious institution to be automatically incorporated into civic law that applies to all citizens. Sharia law comes to mind, for example.

 

[Salibi]

One can be fully in favor of religious people and institutions expressing their faith in the public square by such means as talking to others, displaying signs, clothing, marching, etc., and still oppose government action that recognizes the laws of some particular religious institution to be automatically incorporated into civic law that applies to all citizens.

Exactly…very well put!

 

[on_the_hill]

What I’d like to know is how long it took you to put that list together.

 

[Peeps]

Pelosi has been in office sine 1987, that’s 32 years.

I understand in theory people can be voted out, but without term limits it doesn’t happen that often

But for many years, she was just another Representative, one of hundreds, with very little power. It’s only when she became Speaker of the House that she had any power.

 

[on_the_hill]

I rather agree with @Emeraldlady. Maybe not to the extent that there’s a scheme to piggyback on Catholicism, but there has been a push to use politics to impose conservative Christian religious interpretations. And various power brokers are claiming Catholicism.

 

[poche]

In the beginning the reaction of the Vatican to the idea of freedom of religion was somewhat negative. I think that they had never encountered this type of political arrangement. However as bishops came over from the United States and described how the government didn’t interfere in the way that was apparently very common in Europe their opinions slowly changed.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In the beginning the reaction of the Vatican to the idea of freedom of religion was somewhat negative. I think that they had never encountered this type of political arrangement. However as bishops came over from the United States and described how the government didn’t interfere in the way that was apparently very common in Europe their opinions slowly changed.

I’m going to have to be careful what I say on here because apparently my reasonably expressed opinion on how I think the Vatican views the US was considered offensive and pulled by the moderator. Which, of course, doesn’t change my mind on the subject one iota.

But anyway, I don’t think the Vatican’s opinions so much changed, as that freedom of religion in most countries became the norm, and the Vatican became more concerned with the anti-clerical movements that were going beyond religious freedom and actually trying to destroy the Church than they were with countries that offered religious freedom in a relatively peaceful environment. It’s harder to point fingers at a country when hordes of Catholics are flocking there because they cannot freely practice their religions in Europe, but can somehow do so in USA, even if they suffer some persecution while practicing.

At this point pretty much every European country now has “freedom of religion”, and those that have a state-sponsored church don’t enforce that in terms of making everyone attend there (and such state-sponsored churches are generally not Catholic anyway) so the Vatican learned to live with it.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

@Tis_Bearself I did not mean that Americans should not have the freedom to argue against the very principles upon which our nation was founded. As you say, the US proudly upholds freedom of thought and speech for all. The thing that puzzles me is why some Americans are so strongly opposed to the things for which our country stands. I defend absolutely their right to hold those views.

Perhaps I have too American a view of how a nation should be governed. I do not see it as the role of government to uphold the teachings of the Church, nor of any religion. Few than 1 in 4 Americans identify as Catholic. Most people identifying as Catholics do not actually support Church teaching on all issues. On artificial birth control, about 98% of Catholics dissent. On abortion and gay marriage, Catholics divide more or less down the middle much like the rest of the population. At most, say, 10% of the population are Catholics who want the country to be governed in accordance with Church teaching.

A good way of looking at this is to consider secular (or de facto secular) democracies where a another religion is dominant. Turkey, for example. Turkey has a lot of problems, especially under its current leadership, but it is a model of good governance when compared with Islamic regimes such as Saudia Arabia and Iran. Although an overwhelming majority of Turks are Muslim, Turkey is a fairly tolerable place to live as a non-Muslim, a woman, or a gay or transgender person. It’s not like living in a western country, but it’s also not like living in a country run along strict Islamic lines. Or take the United Kingdom. Its government does not often align with Catholic teachings, but nor does it enforce Anglicanism or Presbyterianism. When it did enforce Protestantism as a state religion in any real sense, it went rather badly for Catholics (and for non-conformist Protestants).

Certainly you are right that I do not meet the kinds of people about whom I am speaking when I attend church. I have observed that this is very much an online phenomenon. Nonetheless, it intrigues me to try to understand who holds these views and where they come from. They are seemingly overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, male. It’s a macho culture, at times explicitly misogynistic. They often combine a right-wing political agenda with an almost naive attraction toward traditionalist Catholicism. And then they are fascinated not by history as an academic discipline (quite the opposite, one suspects), but by specific aspects of medieval (and some early modern) history and specific historical figures and events that assume an exaggerated significance, e.g. Charles Martel, Louis IX, the Battle of Lepanto, the Battle of Vienna, and the Crusades in general. The notion of Europe as a bastion of western civilization embattled against invading Muslims (whether Ottoman forces or 21st-century refugees) seems to be very important to them. There is a rather uncritical assumption that everything was better before the Enlightenment (often conflated with the principles of Freemasonry).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Nonetheless, it intrigues me to try to understand who holds these views and where they come from. They are seemingly overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, male. It’s a macho culture, at times explicitly misogynistic.
…

I guess if you find it intriguing, but these type guys like what you describe have been all over the Internet from day one of its being invented.
They’re not very unusual, nor very interesting to me.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Nonetheless, it intrigues me to try to understand who holds these views and where they come from. They are seemingly overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, male. It’s a macho culture, at times explicitly misogynistic. They often combine a right-wing political agenda with an almost naive attraction toward traditionalist Catholicism.

Yes, and they seem more besotted by people with wealth and power (even though they don’t have that themselves), than with holiness and holy poverty. I think of how the devil thought he could win over Jesus by promising to give Him wealth and power if He was willing to align with his agenda.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Yes, and they seem more besotted by people with wealth and power (even though they don’t have that themselves)

Yes, I have seen how some people advocate some very strange ideas such as making the right to vote contingent upon a certain level of property ownership or paying a certain amount of tax in the qualifying period. One person on these forums even said that he believed that his own mother should be denied the right to vote because she was a naturalized US citizen (he believed that only those born citizens should have the right to vote, and possibly not even all of those). But if I recall correctly, one of the people who was against democracy turned out to be a salesman. He wasn’t some New England blue blood with a pied-à-terre in Manhattan and a summer residence in the Hamptons. It reminds me of something I once read about Paul Burrell, who was most famous for having been a butler to the Princess of Wales. Somebody said that the key to understanding Mr. Burrell is realizing that he actually does believe that the royal family are his “betters”.

I guess if you find it intriguing, but these type guys like what you describe have been all over the Internet from day one of its being invented.

True, I have long been familiar with the men’s rights/red pill online community and with the more remote extremes of right-wing ideology, neither of which I find very remarkable. What made me more curious was seeing how people appropriate a religious and historical dimension either to justify their beliefs or as a way of framing their objectives. I had always known about the misogynists and wingnuts, but it was only when I started following this site that I discovered that there are people who get enthusiastic about schemes to restore the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire or propose absolute monarchy and the feudal system as viable alternatives to the status quo or who idolize right-wing dictators like Franco, Salazar, and Pinochet.

What I’d like to know is how long it took you to put that list together.

A few minutes. The idea had been forming at the back of my mind for a while.

 

[poche]

In the 1770s that was not the case.

 

[Maximus1]

I think you have created an interesting topic for discussion.
The marriage between a faith where it’s beatitudes glorify the meek, and pure in heart, with the Roman Empire, and it’s needs of Empire, has certainly affected it’s course and trajectory. Natural conflicts have emerged as well as unfortunate dark moments and practices… At a point in history where negatives flourished the “Enlightenment” ( sic) was born. It directly addressed legitimate grievance. It created a new dynamic that addressed human dignity.
It was never the result it is often touted in exhalation to be.
Individualism, Secularism, relativism and Consumerism have matured and generated their own list of negatives. A new form of repelling human dignity.
Want to measure some? Review Catholic Social Doctrine in it’s splendor. Objectively! Then count the ways it is anathema to the American ethic and practice. Attacked outright, until that attack is forced to be tempered via disclosure that," hey, this is the teaching of the Church." At Which point attack retreats to an uncomfortable figit.
I read a few really well written papers recently authored by David Bentley Hart. Regardless of his " personal" views, you usually get a pretty well synthesized account of the tradition, in it’s widest sense, filtered through one of the most brilliant minds of the last century from him. A mind adept at bringing together expertise in many areas.
His writings:
The influence of Capitalism in creating our current ever increasing Secular Society. A nation gripped by consumerism, and other " isms" that are responsible for a constellation of departures from Catholic social doctrines goals and principles. ( THE GOSPEL)
Interesting in the sense that as Americans, we are all complicit in the departure from the faith we so often complain about. As participants and advocates of the source of Secularism/ relativism. We really cannot point the scapegoat finger( a lesson inherent in fundamental Christian theology, but an old habit we still struggle with). Here is what we do:
We invent a random list of Christian positions and create a narrative that righteousness is FINALLY DETERMINED by which side of this finite list you fall. That established, we are free to return as full participants of the system generating the saquella of secularism, relativism and Consumerism to begin with. ( Incoherent!)( Like opposing homosexuality, then returning as fully participating citizens of Sodom)
Point: Hart offers no better plan besides recognising the truth of complicity. Recognizing and owning the truth! That the American ethic is a different list of flaws, not a vision of perfection. And the challenge is not actual perfection, it is the humility to accept truth as a starting point.

 

[AdamP88]

I am wondering whether anybody can explain to me the origins of the movement and how widespread it is.

So-Called American values are not necessarily Christian values. Democracy is not the only moral form of government. Also I doubt democracy will prevail forever as the normal form of government in the west. Sovereignty of the people is not an absolute good.