It’s really hard to be a Catholic, or a Christian, and not lean left. I do not mean the authoritarian regimes that outlawed religion, but at the core of Christian faith lies the notion of equality, forgiveness and understanding the other, as well as loving everyone, even those who do not reciprocate.
I say this as an Atheist, that these ideas are pretty clever for a guy who lived 20 centuries ago.
Catholicism argues for allegiance to Christ through the Holy Roman Church not some earthly authority. It’s pretty clear that’s taken to heart when you look at the system that is the Catholic Church. I mean the pope has his own country?
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Catholicism is all about “working with what you have”. Abide by the earthly rules of your government, but your obligation to god is separate.
The idea that government and state should be be separate was driven by the desire to be free of the church being completely enmeshed with state.
But these things only hold personal spiritual/ redemptive value if done voluntarily.
Forced charity isn't charitable.
Not all ideals that you believe in (religious or not) should be manifested through political and then legal implementations.
And if you miss that key aspect... then it just becomes another philosophy where the ends justify the means.
If you voluntarily elect a government that will make it into law or work toward its establishment, your redemption is assured, because you did it voluntarily.
In this case, the end being the eradication of poverty and all its ills, wouldn't be a noble goal we could all work towards?
And, even if it never becomes codified as law, if it just become a universal social norm, to not work for the accumulation of resources and power, but instead to work for your own and other's betterment, wouldn't that goal be fulfilled?
'Voluntarily' supporting mandatory laws misses the entire point: that individual acts matter and sacrifice for others matters.
Especially when voting for tax schemes that might cost you very little because they're sold as "only taxing those that can afford it" or "the 1%" or whatever.
>If you voluntarily elect a government that will make it into law or work toward its establishment, your redemption is assured, because you did it voluntarily.0
You've just re-invented indulgences.
Catholicism (and Christianity more broadly) is close to 2000 years old, whereas the concepts of "left" and "right" are less than 250 years old, originating in the French Revolution. Both terms represent alliances of political positions on rather disparate topics, and many of those linkages may be more due to accidents of history than any essential connection. The precise mix of positions that make up the "left" or the "right" varies from country to country, and changes over time. The terms are useful as a rough approximation in describing the politics of some countries in particular: I think the hard two party system of the US encourages "left-vs-right" thinking, although that still ignores the internal contradictions within both alliances. Many other countries, especially those with softer two party systems, multiparty systems, and/or greater cultural diversity, politics can be more multi-dimensional, and "left-vs-right" often appears less useful; and the difference between "left-wing" and "right-wing" authoritarian regimes appears to be more style than substance, rendering the distinction rather useless in large parts of the world. When you take this broader historical view of "left-vs-right", it seems unsurprising that the labels perform poorly when applied to a religious tradition which is approximately 8 times older than those labels themselves are.
Catholics are Christians. Perhaps you mean Catholic or Protestant?
That's a really nonsensical argument. Most non-Catholic churches have authorities – Bishops, Conventions, whatever – just because they don't accept the authority of the Pope doesn't mean they don't accept have other ecclesial authorities which they do accept.
Also, Eastern Orthodox theologians–and even some Protestant theologians–have said they accept the Pope's authority in principle, but they cannot accept it in practice because the Popes have abused their power and given themselves far more power than they were ever meant to have – but, in principle, if the Catholic Church turned over a new leaf, and adopted a much more limited view of papal power, and if their other theological disputes with Catholicism could be satisfactorily resolved – then they'd be able to go back to accepting the Pope's authority, not just in principle, but in practice too.
I believe the Catholic response to that would be that before Christ returned to heaven he created a church, and he gave that church the authority to preach, to teach, and the forgive sins. It exists the continue Christ's mission on earth.
Christ then selected Peter to be the leader of the church and granted him authority over all the faithful ("I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.")
At this moment Christ instituted the office of the Papacy.
Whoever holds this office has authority over the universal church. This authority does not come from the man who holds the office but comes directly from Christ himself.
The Pope is not above Christ, the Pope answers to the authority of Christ. The Pope is just a man like anyone else.
So to summarize, why do Catholics answer to the Pope? Because that's what Christ wanted.
The political and cultural juggernaut that is the American Christian right would disagree.
>I say this as an Atheist, that these ideas are pretty clever for a guy who lived 20 centuries ago.
Every religion teaches the same basic social principles in some way or another. Jesus didn't invent any of it.
This is often repeated, seldom examined up close. It's true only in the vaguest sense, that "be good" is a common theme and that there are some overlaps in what constitutes good.
You usually need to get into the esoteric theology to find modern notions of equality in traditional religions. Many religions actually teach the opposite: "know your place".
Not every religion. The Rigveda and Manu Smriti core Vedic texts clearly teaches a divided society which resulted in untouchables. [0]
I am ok with no credit for Jesus movement but please don’t say superficially all religions teach the same basics which is simply not true.
[0] https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/readin...
They calling themselves Christian has nothing to do with whether they follow the ideas Jesus taught.
Remember the guy who said you should sell all your stuff and give the money to the poor was Jesus, not Karl Marx.
Id argue that Christianity is inherently conservative. Christianity finds the root cause of the imperfection of our world (and the systems it contains) in original sin. One doesn’t endlessly seek an answer for why systems eventually fail or bad things happen, because one recognizes that ultimately everything in this world suffers imperfection. For progressivism, original sin is open-ended, thereby allowing for any particular powerful entity to control what is considered the source of evil.
The Christian, by embracing the absurd belief of original sin, recognizes that ultimately even formal thought becomes informal. His belief protects him from the hubris of thinking that he has the power to fix what cannot ever be fixed. The progressive, by definition, must always be seeking a way “forward”, and in doing so tends to believe in other, more harmful absurd beliefs.
Catholicism has, at various times in modern history, represented both the far left and far right, or places in between.
I would be careful here. You are operating under a very peculiar view of left/right (not a very accurate view in my estimation). Left/right are generally labels of little value apart from particular time and place.
> at the core of Christian faith lies the notion of equality
Equality only as persons or in dignity, yes, but Christianity/Catholicism is anything but egalitarian. The distribution of qualities, both inherent and cultivated, is unequal. As Chesterton wrote IIRC, this latter sort of egalitarianism is the equality of envy and cutting down. Whereas an envious elitist may try to outdo his opponent, the egalitarian will deny or cut him down. Those are pride and envy, both mortal sins and therefore surefire ways to temporal disorder and the eternal self-destruction known as Hell.
> forgiveness and understanding the other
The coupling of these two seems to suggest that what is forgiven is understandable or resolved by understanding. But that is not true forgiveness. If someone were to wrong me in some grievous way, out of ill will, I should feel the proportionate degree of anger. Just as wrath, inordinate anger, is a defect, so is an absence of proportional anger. Anger moves us toward justice and its absence at times when it is needed encourages the continuation of evil since the trespasser is never sent a clear signal that his actions are evil. We forgive not because "it's okay", but because what has been done isn't! We want the contrition of the trespasser. And forgiveness does not rule out the need for justice. We may show mercy, but that is left to prudential judgement. Charity is totally subject to the truth. To quote St. Pius X, the "primary duty of charity does not lie in toleration of false ideas".
> as well as loving everyone, even those who do not reciprocate.
Love here is the love of willing the objective good of the other, not the sentimental ersatz variety commonly espoused today that rests on feelings. What is an enemy? Someone who is ill willed. We do not love him in any human way. We love him for his sake as an act of charity, for his conversion and repentance. Man's ultimate fulfillment is to know and love God, the supreme and inexhaustible cause, cause of causes. Good brings us into better alignment with that infinite and highest of goods, evil takes us away (though we are incapable of reconciling ourselves to that highest good on our own, hence the sacraments and grace).
You might find this post more informative than what I have written[0]. But to sum things us: Christianity/Catholicism is anything but the Church of Being A Nice Fellow. The military language (spiritual warfare, spiritual combat, the Church Militant here on earth, talk of spiritual battle in St. Michael's Prayer) in the Tradition are not a mistake. You just have to understand what the battle is all about. Read the New Testament and you don't get a picture of a Nice Jesus, only a charitable one. Nice people don't tell others that if they keep heading where they're heading, living in the way they're living, they'll not only end up miserable, but they'll end up in Hell. Nice people don't throw money changers out of the temple. Nice people don't speak truth to power. No, only loving people do that.
[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/11/against-candy-ass-c...
> You are operating under a very peculiar view of left/right
I am using the most current views - for instance, in the US, the "left" (there is no such thing as socialists in the US mainstream politics, or even a "proper" left) wants everyone to have healthcare, regardless of how much they can pay. The very far left of the US political spectrum are mild social democrats and Keynesians.
> Whereas an envious elitist may try to outdo his opponent, the egalitarian will deny or cut him down.
While neither of them is going to Heaven, that doesn't undo the notion that Jesus told people to get rid of all their worldly possessions, give the money to the poor, and join him.
> suggest that what is forgiven is understandable or resolved by understanding.
Not at all. One should understand and accept the other even when there are irreconcilable differences, for God made both and both deserve love.
> Christianity/Catholicism is anything but the Church of Being A Nice Fellow.
It has been used for purposes completely opposite to what Jesus taught, by fallible humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_August_Graf_von_Galen
However, Catholic church played an important role in supporting Hitler's fascist buddy Franco during the Spanish Civil war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_in_the_Second_Span....
I am sure there are many other examples on both sides. Similar to other religions. Some claim it is difficult to be Zionist or Shia Muslim and not lean left for example (counter to the common stereotype).
I think these guys might disagree: https://www.churchmilitant.com/
(Of course, following the laws, teachings and commandments is not the point of biblical Christianity (the idea being that it is impossible to in humanity’s current state), but Christians should want to, and strive towards being better at it, while being honest about their shortcomings!)