Evangelical Christianity and politics - the elephant in the room

[crazy canuck]

I agree.  And I think what has happened is that Protestant Evangelicalism didn't have more than looking for signs of the end times and making sure you were one of the chosen.  It took the right wing elements within Catholicism to give a deeper ideological/theological underpinning.

Yes.

And it leads to all sorts of weirdness - the pro-Trump Jericho March in December which had a Catholic Priest blessing an image of Our Lady of Guadelupe while an opera singer belted out Ave Maria in front of a mostly evangelical crowd. The image would later be presented to Melania Trump. It's a very weird ecumenism.

Then there's the Pope who has spoken twice now about the attack on the Capitol and there's something extraordinary about the Roman Pontiff warning against Know-Nothings subverting American democracy. But here we are.

And the Pope has said more about the attack than US bishops because they're profoundly split between pro and anti-Trump.

A modern day Great Schism in the making?

[Valmy]

A modern day Great Schism in the making?

I forsee this in the near future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRt2cKvJLlE

[Valmy]

did you read past the first line of the OP?

No I didn't. That is why I questioned its veracity in the first line of my post because I didn't read it.

Ok seriously, yes I obviously did read it. Was there some kind of special magic meaning I didn't get that was not evident in the words used?

[Josquius]

Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.

I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.

Evangelical Christianity in politics dates back to reagen and the invention of modern identity politics. Trump is merely the conclusion of where chasing that shit gets us.

[Sheilbh]

A modern day Great Schism in the making?

Possibly. Mainstream Catholic theologians, especially Europeans in America have suggested that chunks of American Catholicism is basically in a state of schism.

They are borderline sede vacantists in their attitudes to Francis. In part because they perceive Francis as anti-Trump, but also because they align their project on a bad interpretation of JPII and Benedict and think Francis is leading the Church away from that - and there's nothing more disappointing to an integralist than the Church failing to do its thing. And a lot of it - which is why they may find friends in the wider Trump movement - is understood as Vatican corruption by a gay mafia covering up sexual abuse. Archbishop Vigano is key in this - he's made lots of accusations about Francis - and gave a video message to the Jericho March where he addressed the crowd as "the army of light". It's really striking and deserves to be studied.

You can kind of see this split in the furore over BLM. On the one hand you have the St John Paul II National Shrine hosting Trump during the BLM protests, at the same time you have the (African American) Archbishop of Washington calling that invitation "unconscionable". There's similar furores within the US Catholic media between a conservative/trad wing which cares more about American elections than the Pope v a liberal/moderate media and the same split in the US bishops. I think there was always a very strongly political element to conservative American Catholics but it was easier when Republicans and their leaders could be identified as in broad agreement with JPII and Benedict. They struggle more because Trump is so clearly antithetical not just to Francis but core Catholic teachings on things like immigration and the family.

[crazy canuck]

did you read past the first line of the OP?

No I didn't. That is why I questioned its veracity in the first line of my post because I didn't read it.

Ok seriously, yes I obviously did read it. Was there some kind of special magic meaning I didn't get that was not evident in the words used?

No magic, it is just, much like BB, your response was not related to what I had posted, which deals with the ideology of the evangelicals who support Trumpism.

[crazy canuck]

Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.

I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.

Evangelical Christianity in politics dates back to reagen and the invention of modern identity politics. Trump is merely the conclusion of where chasing that shit gets us.

Yeah the short sightedness is in denying or ignoring the ideology of this particular form of Christianity.

[crazy canuck]

A modern day Great Schism in the making?

Possibly. Mainstream Catholic theologians, especially Europeans in America have suggested that chunks of American Catholicism is basically in a state of schism.

They are borderline sede vacantists in their attitudes to Francis. In part because they perceive Francis as anti-Trump, but also because they align their project on a bad interpretation of JPII and Benedict and think Francis is leading the Church away from that - and there's nothing more disappointing to an integralist than the Church failing to do its thing. And a lot of it - which is why they may find friends in the wider Trump movement - is understood as Vatican corruption by a gay mafia covering up sexual abuse. Archbishop Vigano is key in this - he's made lots of accusations about Francis - and gave a video message to the Jericho March where he addressed the crowd as "the army of light". It's really striking and deserves to be studied.

You can kind of see this split in the furore over BLM. On the one hand you have the St John Paul II National Shrine hosting Trump during the BLM protests, at the same time you have the (African American) Archbishop of Washington calling that invitation "unconscionable". There's similar furores within the US Catholic media between a conservative/trad wing which cares more about American elections than the Pope v a liberal/moderate media and the same split in the US bishops. I think there was always a very strongly political element to conservative American Catholics but it was easier when Republicans and their leaders could be identified as in broad agreement with JPII and Benedict. They struggle more because Trump is so clearly antithetical not just to Francis but core Catholic teachings on things like immigration and the family.

So is it more a conflict within US Catholicism than between US Catholics and the wider Catholic world? 

[Malthus]

did you read past the first line of the OP?

No I didn't. That is why I questioned its veracity in the first line of my post because I didn't read it.

Ok seriously, yes I obviously did read it. Was there some kind of special magic meaning I didn't get that was not evident in the words used?

I get the impression that the thesis in the OP isn't really up for discussion, but merely for confirmation.

[DGuller]

I find that most people claiming to subscribe to a dogma of some kind subscribe to it selectively.  They do things as required by their dogma when they have a deep-seated desire to do it anyway, and they ignore their dogma when it gets in the way of doing what they want to do.  People selectively justify their actions by their dogma because it makes their actions and beliefs seem less arbitrary and more defensible than they really are.  It doesn't just apply to religion, it also applies to political philosophies.

[Sheilbh]

So is it more a conflict within US Catholicism than between US Catholics and the wider Catholic world?

Sort of but also sort of not.

There's clear links between this conservative wing in the US church and global movements. Steve Bannon tried to set up a "university for national populists" in an Italian monastery with backing by a fringe (but rich) American Catholic group. Similarly Archbishop Vigano, who's the former nuncio and an Italian, has said Trump supporters are defending "our homeland". There's a certain strand within global Catholicism that admires Orban, for example, which is closely linked to the radical trad community in the US - Archbishop Burke who is a cardinal is a key figure, former Archbishop of St Louis and a big figure in the trad world (once spoken of as a papabile). He also wrote a list of "dubia" or formal questions for Francis to clarify his teaching, it's very rare and widely interpreted as a challenge that Francis's teachings (this was on communion for the re-married) are wrong. There is a conservative, anti-Francis strand in Catholicism globally. And it has lots of the hallmarks of previous conservative movements in Catholicism: all their opponents are in a conspiracy, there are secret motivations to undermine the Church/civilisation itself, constant allegations of sexual deviance by the other side. Edit: It's fairly clear how they might find allies with some pro-Trumpers.

On the other hand the US thing is very political and weirdly political - I think in part because right-wing Republicans who came up in the 80s just always assumed there'd never be any conflict between their faith and their politics, so ended up reading them as one and the same. They are finding Trump and Francis discombobulating. But lots of the conservative, anti-Francis wing globally are not that political and don't particularly care about Trump or the US. Their genuine focus is that they object to Francis in their view "changing" teaching - so one of their icons is Cardinal Sarah from Guinea. I've never seen anything about him and Trump or national populism - I think he is genuinely concerned about Francis's views on liturgy or the re-married. He is political but it's been more about Islam and Muslim immigrants in Europe which is more traditionally conservative Catholic views, not the weirdness that's been going on in the US church.

But because they're anti-Francis the fightback against Francis would, in some way, restore the overlap of Church and the American right.

Edit: Massimo Faggioli (https://twitter.com/MassimoFaggioli) and David Gibson (https://twitter.com/GibsonWrites) are both really good on what's going on in the US Church and how odd it is especially when America's about to have a second Catholic President who is basically the embodiment of middle-of-the-road, standard Catholicism

[crazy canuck]

I find that most people claiming to subscribe to a dogma of some kind subscribe to it selectively.  They do things as required by their dogma when they have a deep-seated desire to do it anyway, and they ignore their dogma when it gets in the way of doing what they want to do.  People selectively justify their actions by their dogma because it makes their actions and beliefs seem less arbitrary and more defensible than they really are.  It doesn't just apply to religion, it also applies to political philosophies.

An evangelical politician's desire to reject all policies that do no conform to design to have government conform to his religious beliefs is not like political philosophy.  It is the imposition of religious belief.  Unless one wishes to ignore those distinctions and not subject the belief to scrutiny, which is the very problem.

[crazy canuck]

So is it more a conflict within US Catholicism than between US Catholics and the wider Catholic world?

Sort of but also sort of not.

There's clear links between this conservative wing in the US church and global movements. Steve Bannon tried to set up a "university for national populists" in an Italian monastery with backing by a fringe (but rich) American Catholic group. Similarly Archbishop Vigano, who's the former nuncio and an Italian, has said Trump supporters are defending "our homeland". There's a certain strand within global Catholicism that admires Orban, for example, which is closely linked to the radical trad community in the US - Archbishop Burke who is a cardinal is a key figure, former Archbishop of St Louis and a big figure in the trad world (once spoken of as a papabile). He also wrote a list of "dubia" or formal questions for Francis to clarify his teaching, it's very rare and widely interpreted as a challenge that Francis's teachings (this was on communion for the re-married) are wrong. There is a conservative, anti-Francis strand in Catholicism globally. And it has lots of the hallmarks of previous conservative movements in Catholicism: all their opponents are in a conspiracy, there are secret motivations to undermine the Church/civilisation itself, constant allegations of sexual deviance by the other side. Edit: It's fairly clear how they might find allies with some pro-Trumpers.

On the other hand the US thing is very political and weirdly political - I think in part because right-wing Republicans who came up in the 80s just always assumed there'd never be any conflict between their faith and their politics, so ended up reading them as one and the same. They are finding Trump and Francis discombobulating. But lots of the conservative, anti-Francis wing globally are not that political and don't particularly care about Trump or the US. Their genuine focus is that they object to Francis in their view "changing" teaching - so one of their icons is Cardinal Sarah from Guinea. I've never seen anything about him and Trump or national populism - I think he is genuinely concerned about Francis's views on liturgy or the re-married. He is political but it's been more about Islam and Muslim immigrants in Europe which is more traditionally conservative Catholic views, not the weirdness that's been going on in the US church.

But because they're anti-Francis the fightback against Francis would, in some way, restore the overlap of Church and the American right.

Interesting, how do you see this all playing out over the next few years?

[Sheilbh]

Interesting, how do you see this all playing out over the next few years?

Globally I think Francis has made enough appointments have been enough to cement his legacy and will make more. And I think for the foreseeable, chances are the most prominent leader from the global south will be the Pope (which I think will be challenging for European/American liberals and conservatives alike). After Francis I think we'll likely get another Latin American or an African pope and that will keep the Church moving in ways that aren't in lockstep with European/American conservatism in the way that JPII and Benedict were.

I think chances are the US - in my view - schism will deepen and will spread and will probably become a formal schism at some point (which will be messy because Americans are rich and generous in funding the Church). Basically I think theology of a Church increasingly led from the global South will go in a different way from an American and European church that is primarily interested in using theology to own the libs. I think there'll be an American Catholic church that wears a lot of bling and loves Latin but behaves a lot like American evangelical churches and probably doesn't acknowledge any pope since Benedict.

As an example - a couple of years ago Francis led a synod of bishops from the pan-Amazon region. The focus was on "new evangelism" (a Francis theme) in particular with indigenous communities at the heart. They looked at new rites/liturgy (like the new Congolese liturgy), possibility of married priests but also more political issues such as protecting the environment and the indigenous peoples of the Amazon - Francis denounced the exploitation of the Amazon and its peoples by the global market. As part of the synod there was a church in Rome with a collection of religious sculpture by different communities in the Amazon. Someone broke into the church and threw the sculptures into the Tiber because they were literally pagan/evil and this was cheered on by the conservative Catholic media - one prominent American called the statues "demonic".

You move on a year and those same websites were sponsoring novenas and rosaries for the protection of various statues in the US from BLM protests. I think moments like that example are going to happen more and more.

[Grey Fox]

I did nothing.