Let’s be honest: for French Catholics (and Jews, too), it’s now a matter of survival. Who among us hasn’t already experienced an attack by Islamists? This is why we care about borders. Our far right, unlike the American one, is reasonable. We are trying to protect ourselves from sharia, not from fellow Catholics (Latin American migrants).
There's a lot more to the illegal immigration/border issue in the US than "protect[ion] from fellow Catholics (Latin American migrants). And plenty of dangerous actors, including Islamists have been crossing that border as well. Your characterization is uninformed - and offensive.
Have you had to decide whether or not to leave Easter Mass with your children because there was a direct bomb threat? I have. It has never happened to us, however, in the U.S.--only in France. What I want to see here, in the U.S., is more Catholics who are concerned about their fellow Catholics, who are looking for a better way of life. Yes, borders are important in the U.S., too. But what we face at them is NOT the same thing. Americans have an opportunity--Latinos. The French have a threat--Islamists. Americans live in the most prosperous, most powerful, most just country in the world. And one of the most beautiful countries! But we're not grateful for what we have, we just see problems. When they are opportunities.
Did you know the majority of those crossing the US Southern Border are not even Latin Americans anymore? Large groups of single (no families) military-age males from Africa, Turkey, and East Asia.
And the attrition rate of Catholic immigrants is horrendous. Most of the parents already didn’t have strong connections to the Church, but it’s long been the rule that a Latino migrant’s kids will 120% abandon the Catholic Faith.
You’re commenting like one of those self-righteous euros who thinks they’re so much more enlightened than “those stupid ignorant Americans” yet fails to realize you have fallen into all the same traps. You clearly know little about the political/cultural/anthropologic/economic/ situation in the USA.
Let's split the difference - -my comment alluded to Matthew's on the nature of those crossing our borders. Many potentially bad actors from a variety of unfriendly nations are taking advantage of this moment. Security is lax. God help us, we could indeed face exactly that bomb threat Dr. B mentions. We are not just hating on Catholics from Latin America when we say "Police the borders!"
And Dr. B has a point ... As to the Latin American "opportunity", I work in the Southwest, in diocesan parish faith formation. I am SURROUNDED by passionate and very attached 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos who want nothing more than to work for the Church in some ministry capacity. Dr. B is correct in saying they are open to catechesis and their sense of belonging to the Church is very "thick". It is certainly not true that "120% abandon the Catholic faith" but the demographic decline is similar in both Anglo and Spanish communities. In my diocese when the Bishop says: "I want all catechists to get certified - the Latinos rush to obey. And the Anglos yawn." So, yeah.
Anecdotes do not disprove trends. Given the numbers of Latino Americans who’ve immigrated to the US since the 80s (~50 million says Pew Research), weekly Mass attendance is still in the gutter, sacraments are still down, and less than 1/3 of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Latino Immigrants were once touted in 90s/00s as the thing that would save American Catholicism. That turned out to be total bunk.
I’m glad you have some vibrant communities. But much like here in the upper Midwest (where large numbers of Latino immigrants have settled) the few small enclaves of Latinos with vibrant and strong faiths are surrounded by innumerable masses of apostatized Latinos who are just as much only-vaguely-culturally-catholic as any other ethnic group here.
Agreed. Anecdotes are far too often used to avoid hard truths. I acknowledged demographic decline in both Anglo and Spanish communities - which has greatly contributed to the massive closures in many upper midwest and northeastern dioceses. Nevertheless - you asserted that 120% of Latinos apostasize. I'll take your hyperbole and raise you an anecdote. :)
“Did you know the majority of those crossing the US Southern Border are not even Latin Americans anymore? Large groups of single (no families) military-age males from Africa, Turkey, and East Asia.”
This is incredibly false. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has fallen - replaced mostly by people from Central and South America.
Your allusion to “military-aged men” is pure scaremongering. This population has always been over represented among illegal immigrants because they are young men coming in hopes of working to support the very families you assume do not exist.
The border is a troubling and complicated issue but the U.S is not under attack or being invaded. Falsely claiming otherwise is irresponsible and uncharitable. This seems to be contrary to the situation in parts of Europe.
1) a reminder that the window of political discourse in the West has shifted so far left that even moderate positions are considered right-wing now. Center-left policies in the mid-60s would get a party lumped in with Right-Wingers today.
2) Catholic Social Teaching™️ (in the post-mid-century package that it’s often presented as) is generally hogwash. It’s entirely impractical and irrelevant. It’s often in contradiction to the actual traditional guidance that the Church gives on matters of state/politics/finances/business/social issues/etc. It appears by all accounts to be a total novelty, a nifty framework developed in the 60s/70s when there was this pervasive idea that liberal secular modernity could be reconciled with Christendom. It has entrenched a large number of completely novel foreign ideas. The Church abandoned her teaching on the intrinsic grave moral evil of usury long before Pope Francis and Death Penalty.
3) I find it interesting that the EU holds its elections on a Sunday. In the US, we hold all elections on Tuesdays because back in the day it often took a full day’s travel to reach your polling location. Thus, you rest on Sunday, set out on your journey to the polls on Monday, then vote and make your way home on Tuesday. The EU post-2000s wants to create a neo-Christendom united Europe, but the religion is secular modernity, the church is the überstaten, and the New Rome is Brussels. Of course elections are on the Sabbath Day of Rest.
I don’t know what’s more shocking: reading a Catholic describe Catholic social teaching as “generally hogwash” and “entirely impractical and irrelevant” or that comment getting 6 “likes.”
I would like to know exactly what part of Catholic social teaching is “generally hogwash” and “entirely impractical and irrelevant.”
In the US, at least, there are specific policies and platforms that are presented as "Catholic Social Teaching" that are arguably not. There are a lot of opinions about immigration reform/border control, education, care for the poor, prison reform, health care, and perhaps most of all what exactly the appropriate role of government is for any of those (and at what level). It gets tiresome to be told "this political party's position, wholesale, is *the* Catholic position and you're a bad Catholic if you don't vote for these candidates or this policy" when there are valid questions about whether the policies actually work, elements that might or definitely do contradict the faith, etc. I think that's the point of the "TM" after "Catholic Social Teaching." Some people in authority want to label things as Catholic social teaching that are not. It's a cheap and manipulative ploy and we should do better than that.
Re: Election Day, it annoys me to no end that in the US it isn't a civic holiday, but yes, Sunday is worse.
Okay, maybe “Catholic Social Teaching (TM)” differs somehow from “Catholic Social Teaching.” But my question remains: what exactly are we talking about being “generally hogwash,” “impractical,” “irrelevant,” or a “cheap and manipulative ploy”?
Please go and read The Compendium of the Social Doctrine (published finally in 2005 after the Cardinal tasked to oversee it went to his eternal reward before its completion). It’s free on the Vatican Website like the catechism. (The printed copy spares the soul from the parchment tho). It was a project of John Paul II and is absolutely intentionally written to complement the Catechism.
It’s also about as ‘practical’ as the catechism is for living the faith because it’s about principles that should deeply inform and assess economic, social and political policies of all stripes, not proscriptions about ‘what is the Catholic Position’ on X problem in y country. The Magesterium rightly points out that do so would be counter productive and to inhibit the Holy Spirit’s real working in the people who form and lead our societies across space and time.
Seriously. Go and read it. Don’t be like the too online trads and blue rinse boomers banging on about Vatican II who haven’t actually read the documents.
Also, in Australia, our voting day is always a sensible Saturday, and voting is... compulsory. You get a (token) fine if you don’t vote.
They did, and used frequency of Mass attendance as a proxy for devoutness/likely to be ‘more Catholic. Its a pretty standard polling measure religiosity and it allows for a gauge of ‘cultural’ versus actually believe, show up and embrace counter cultural aspects of Catholic teachings and life.
Thanks, I didn't at first see the link to the full report. 49% of French voters are Catholic, but 70% of French Catholics do not practice. Practicing Catholics are less inclined to support the far right but lean more for the center-right.
That used to be true, but polling has suddenly got much less reliable for a variety of structural and methodological reasons. A lot of committed Catholics are going to get ‘reclassified’ as ‘far right’ as the definitions and associated policies keep drifting leftward. I know I am a ‘far right’ because of my ‘extreme’ pro-life views in my country (never mind I’ve worked with completely secular progressive prolifers who also don’t believe the answer to human poverty and suffering is killing innocent children). I am also generally pro-immigration (left to the centre) but I am also very anti-human trafficking that exploit the openness and good will of both western countries receiving desperate migrants and the migrants themselves at the cost of their life (apparently a right wing stance). My support of the Nordic model to curb prostitution is ‘right wing’ too apparently now because “sex work is real work..” 🤷🏼♀️
I used be loosely slightly right of centre in 2008 when I started voting. Now I’m right wing. My positions haven’t changed much in substance in that time either.
Sad how every German bishop denounced AfD. Goes to show prelates are eager to dive into politics if they consider the issue important enough. Imaginary "racism" is a bigger problem than babies being murdered in abortion for example.
Honestly, the German bishops denouncing a party is very good reason to support said party.
Let’s be honest: for French Catholics (and Jews, too), it’s now a matter of survival. Who among us hasn’t already experienced an attack by Islamists? This is why we care about borders. Our far right, unlike the American one, is reasonable. We are trying to protect ourselves from sharia, not from fellow Catholics (Latin American migrants).
Written by someone that thinks outsiders don't understand what is happening in Frace but thinks he knows what is happening in the US
There's a lot more to the illegal immigration/border issue in the US than "protect[ion] from fellow Catholics (Latin American migrants). And plenty of dangerous actors, including Islamists have been crossing that border as well. Your characterization is uninformed - and offensive.
Have you had to decide whether or not to leave Easter Mass with your children because there was a direct bomb threat? I have. It has never happened to us, however, in the U.S.--only in France. What I want to see here, in the U.S., is more Catholics who are concerned about their fellow Catholics, who are looking for a better way of life. Yes, borders are important in the U.S., too. But what we face at them is NOT the same thing. Americans have an opportunity--Latinos. The French have a threat--Islamists. Americans live in the most prosperous, most powerful, most just country in the world. And one of the most beautiful countries! But we're not grateful for what we have, we just see problems. When they are opportunities.
You clearly do not have any exposure to daily life in the American Southwest or in any major urban city in the United States.
I teach a course on Catholicism to Latino college students in Denver. They are so open to catechesis. Let’s pray for each other.
Did you know the majority of those crossing the US Southern Border are not even Latin Americans anymore? Large groups of single (no families) military-age males from Africa, Turkey, and East Asia.
And the attrition rate of Catholic immigrants is horrendous. Most of the parents already didn’t have strong connections to the Church, but it’s long been the rule that a Latino migrant’s kids will 120% abandon the Catholic Faith.
You’re commenting like one of those self-righteous euros who thinks they’re so much more enlightened than “those stupid ignorant Americans” yet fails to realize you have fallen into all the same traps. You clearly know little about the political/cultural/anthropologic/economic/ situation in the USA.
Let's split the difference - -my comment alluded to Matthew's on the nature of those crossing our borders. Many potentially bad actors from a variety of unfriendly nations are taking advantage of this moment. Security is lax. God help us, we could indeed face exactly that bomb threat Dr. B mentions. We are not just hating on Catholics from Latin America when we say "Police the borders!"
And Dr. B has a point ... As to the Latin American "opportunity", I work in the Southwest, in diocesan parish faith formation. I am SURROUNDED by passionate and very attached 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos who want nothing more than to work for the Church in some ministry capacity. Dr. B is correct in saying they are open to catechesis and their sense of belonging to the Church is very "thick". It is certainly not true that "120% abandon the Catholic faith" but the demographic decline is similar in both Anglo and Spanish communities. In my diocese when the Bishop says: "I want all catechists to get certified - the Latinos rush to obey. And the Anglos yawn." So, yeah.
Anecdotes do not disprove trends. Given the numbers of Latino Americans who’ve immigrated to the US since the 80s (~50 million says Pew Research), weekly Mass attendance is still in the gutter, sacraments are still down, and less than 1/3 of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Latino Immigrants were once touted in 90s/00s as the thing that would save American Catholicism. That turned out to be total bunk.
I’m glad you have some vibrant communities. But much like here in the upper Midwest (where large numbers of Latino immigrants have settled) the few small enclaves of Latinos with vibrant and strong faiths are surrounded by innumerable masses of apostatized Latinos who are just as much only-vaguely-culturally-catholic as any other ethnic group here.
Agreed. Anecdotes are far too often used to avoid hard truths. I acknowledged demographic decline in both Anglo and Spanish communities - which has greatly contributed to the massive closures in many upper midwest and northeastern dioceses. Nevertheless - you asserted that 120% of Latinos apostasize. I'll take your hyperbole and raise you an anecdote. :)
“Did you know the majority of those crossing the US Southern Border are not even Latin Americans anymore? Large groups of single (no families) military-age males from Africa, Turkey, and East Asia.”
This is incredibly false. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has fallen - replaced mostly by people from Central and South America.
Your allusion to “military-aged men” is pure scaremongering. This population has always been over represented among illegal immigrants because they are young men coming in hopes of working to support the very families you assume do not exist.
The border is a troubling and complicated issue but the U.S is not under attack or being invaded. Falsely claiming otherwise is irresponsible and uncharitable. This seems to be contrary to the situation in parts of Europe.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/16/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/
A few thoughts:
1) a reminder that the window of political discourse in the West has shifted so far left that even moderate positions are considered right-wing now. Center-left policies in the mid-60s would get a party lumped in with Right-Wingers today.
2) Catholic Social Teaching™️ (in the post-mid-century package that it’s often presented as) is generally hogwash. It’s entirely impractical and irrelevant. It’s often in contradiction to the actual traditional guidance that the Church gives on matters of state/politics/finances/business/social issues/etc. It appears by all accounts to be a total novelty, a nifty framework developed in the 60s/70s when there was this pervasive idea that liberal secular modernity could be reconciled with Christendom. It has entrenched a large number of completely novel foreign ideas. The Church abandoned her teaching on the intrinsic grave moral evil of usury long before Pope Francis and Death Penalty.
3) I find it interesting that the EU holds its elections on a Sunday. In the US, we hold all elections on Tuesdays because back in the day it often took a full day’s travel to reach your polling location. Thus, you rest on Sunday, set out on your journey to the polls on Monday, then vote and make your way home on Tuesday. The EU post-2000s wants to create a neo-Christendom united Europe, but the religion is secular modernity, the church is the überstaten, and the New Rome is Brussels. Of course elections are on the Sabbath Day of Rest.
I don’t know what’s more shocking: reading a Catholic describe Catholic social teaching as “generally hogwash” and “entirely impractical and irrelevant” or that comment getting 6 “likes.”
I would like to know exactly what part of Catholic social teaching is “generally hogwash” and “entirely impractical and irrelevant.”
In the US, at least, there are specific policies and platforms that are presented as "Catholic Social Teaching" that are arguably not. There are a lot of opinions about immigration reform/border control, education, care for the poor, prison reform, health care, and perhaps most of all what exactly the appropriate role of government is for any of those (and at what level). It gets tiresome to be told "this political party's position, wholesale, is *the* Catholic position and you're a bad Catholic if you don't vote for these candidates or this policy" when there are valid questions about whether the policies actually work, elements that might or definitely do contradict the faith, etc. I think that's the point of the "TM" after "Catholic Social Teaching." Some people in authority want to label things as Catholic social teaching that are not. It's a cheap and manipulative ploy and we should do better than that.
Re: Election Day, it annoys me to no end that in the US it isn't a civic holiday, but yes, Sunday is worse.
Okay, maybe “Catholic Social Teaching (TM)” differs somehow from “Catholic Social Teaching.” But my question remains: what exactly are we talking about being “generally hogwash,” “impractical,” “irrelevant,” or a “cheap and manipulative ploy”?
Please go and read The Compendium of the Social Doctrine (published finally in 2005 after the Cardinal tasked to oversee it went to his eternal reward before its completion). It’s free on the Vatican Website like the catechism. (The printed copy spares the soul from the parchment tho). It was a project of John Paul II and is absolutely intentionally written to complement the Catechism.
It’s also about as ‘practical’ as the catechism is for living the faith because it’s about principles that should deeply inform and assess economic, social and political policies of all stripes, not proscriptions about ‘what is the Catholic Position’ on X problem in y country. The Magesterium rightly points out that do so would be counter productive and to inhibit the Holy Spirit’s real working in the people who form and lead our societies across space and time.
Seriously. Go and read it. Don’t be like the too online trads and blue rinse boomers banging on about Vatican II who haven’t actually read the documents.
Also, in Australia, our voting day is always a sensible Saturday, and voting is... compulsory. You get a (token) fine if you don’t vote.
No where in the article does it say what portion of French voters meet their various definitions of Catholic.
They did, and used frequency of Mass attendance as a proxy for devoutness/likely to be ‘more Catholic. Its a pretty standard polling measure religiosity and it allows for a gauge of ‘cultural’ versus actually believe, show up and embrace counter cultural aspects of Catholic teachings and life.
Thanks, I didn't at first see the link to the full report. 49% of French voters are Catholic, but 70% of French Catholics do not practice. Practicing Catholics are less inclined to support the far right but lean more for the center-right.
That used to be true, but polling has suddenly got much less reliable for a variety of structural and methodological reasons. A lot of committed Catholics are going to get ‘reclassified’ as ‘far right’ as the definitions and associated policies keep drifting leftward. I know I am a ‘far right’ because of my ‘extreme’ pro-life views in my country (never mind I’ve worked with completely secular progressive prolifers who also don’t believe the answer to human poverty and suffering is killing innocent children). I am also generally pro-immigration (left to the centre) but I am also very anti-human trafficking that exploit the openness and good will of both western countries receiving desperate migrants and the migrants themselves at the cost of their life (apparently a right wing stance). My support of the Nordic model to curb prostitution is ‘right wing’ too apparently now because “sex work is real work..” 🤷🏼♀️
I used be loosely slightly right of centre in 2008 when I started voting. Now I’m right wing. My positions haven’t changed much in substance in that time either.
Sad how every German bishop denounced AfD. Goes to show prelates are eager to dive into politics if they consider the issue important enough. Imaginary "racism" is a bigger problem than babies being murdered in abortion for example.
Honestly, the German bishops denouncing a party is very good reason to support said party.
Certainly Catholics who rejected the Zentrum for the NSDAP would agree with that.