Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
havok579257

Catholicism vs Nationalism

18 posts in this topic

I feel like when it comes to american catholics their nationalism is equal to their catholicism in terms of importance.  I feel like we as americans talk more about principles that this country was founded on and what we should do based on the founders of this country than what the catholic church teaches.  i feel like we as americans get more caught up in doing what the founders of this country would have wanted than what the church teaches.  I feel like this country puts nationalism equal to our faith.  At the same time I don't get that vibe from catholics of other countries.  Maybe I am wrong here when it comes to other countries but I just don't see the same zeal for nationalism in other countries as compared to america.

 

Anyone else agree?

BG45 props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I wouldn't say equal. I would say above faith in many instances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a very good reason that Americanism was specifically named and condemned by the Church.

Amppax and truthfinder prop this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All *-isms that reject all reason or logic and moral principles is not a good thing for humanity as a whole.  

Catholicism, Nationalism, capitalism, socialism, patriotism, etc., can coexist if you intelligently temper according to your moral principles and use reasonable logic to apply your principles.   Reasonable Catholics wouldn't support an assassination to install the Pope as a ruler of a country...   Supposedly...   Though some religious fanatics do claim such theological moral principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading a lot about this (of sorts). I'd be hesitant to call certain strains of American conservatism, or political philososphy more generally nationalist, though I have no qualms calling Trump that. I'd concur with Nihil and call it Americanism, though that too can be an imprecise term. 

Other than my quibbles about terminology, I agree, it is certainly something I've noticed, and something that I think is a problem. 

BG45 props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

All *-isms that reject all reason or logic and moral principles is not a good thing for humanity as a whole.

Atheism being the best example of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Peace said:

Atheism being the best example of the above.

Well, maybe your intellectually dishonest "version" of atheism that promulgates an illogical, and unprincipled / non-moral belief.

 Kind of like lumping all religions as the same as throat cutting ISIS.    Nice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Well, maybe your intellectually dishonest "version" of atheism that promulgates an illogical, and unprincipled / non-moral belief.

 Kind of like lumping all religions as the same as throat cutting ISIS.    Nice.  

No. Any version of Atheism is a perfect example of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peace said:

No. Any version of Atheism is a perfect example of that.

Such as Buddhism?  LOL. 

You're perfectly wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Such as Buddhism?  LOL. 

You're perfectly wrong.  

I am not very familiar with Buddhism but to the extent that it denies the existence of God, it is as absurd and illogical as any other form of Atheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

I am not very familiar with Buddhism but to the extent that it denies the existence of God, it is as absurd and illogical as any other form of Atheism.

Oh.  So what about being a perfect example of an unprincipled/ non-moral belief system?   Obviously, since you know little of it, you aren't applying much intellect to refute whether it is illogical or unreasonable.    

You may disagree, but without reason, logic, or moral principles, you're just tooting out of what ever end is more noticeable.  

Which was my point.  

Thirty points for Hufflepuff. 

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Oh.  So what about being a perfect example of an unprincipled/ non-moral belief system?

I wouldn't necessarily say this without studying whatever moral principals it may espouse, and the asserted basis therefore.

I took a quick look online and it does not even appear that Buddhism takes a view on the existence of God one way or the other, so I do not think it can be fairly classified as "theistic" or "atheistic"   any more so than capitalism or socialism can be considered to be a form of theism or Atheism.

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

  Obviously, since you know little of it, you aren't applying much intellect to refute whether it is illogical or unreasonable.    

2+2=4.

If you deny that 2+2=4, I do not need to know whether you believe that 2+2=5 or 2+2=6 to know that your reasoning is illogical.

Similarly, because the existence of God is also proven to any rational mind, I can know by your denial of God's existence that you are irrational. I do not need to know whatever else it is that you believe to know that your reasoning is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I wouldn't necessarily say this without studying whatever moral principals it may espouse, and the asserted basis therefore.

I took a quick look online and it does not even appear that Buddhism takes a view on the existence of God one way or the other, so I do not think it can be fairly classified as "theistic" or "atheistic"   any more so than capitalism or socialism can be considered to be a form of theism or Atheism.

2+2=4.

If you deny that 2+2=4, I do not need to know whether you believe that 2+2=5 or 2+2=6 to know that your reasoning is illogical.

Similarly, because the existence of God is also proven to any rational mind, I can know by your denial of God's existence that you are irrational. I do not need to know whatever else it is that you believe to know that your reasoning is absurd.

I think what you meant to say is Faith in God is not against reason, but belief is not entirely by rational logic alone.  

Twenty more points for Hufflepuff.  

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I think what you meant to say is Faith in God is not against reason, but belief is not entirely by rational logic alone.  

Twenty more points for Hufflepuff.  

No. The truth of God's existence can be known with certainty from the light of natural reason. That is basic Catholic teaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you read further along in your Catechism, it also says that man, given historical context(the Fall) also needs further revelation from God, that, theoretically, there are obstacles that prevent reason alone from that.    Read it all, not just enough to be snarky.    Your God isn't just a science experiment demonstrating an observable  chemical reaction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

And if you read further along in your Catechism, it also says that man, given historical context(the Fall) also needs further revelation from God, that, theoretically, there are obstacles that prevent reason alone from that.    Read it all, not just enough to be snarky.    

It does not state that there are obstacles that prevent all men from using reason alone. Consider yourself among the dimwitted (Psalm 14:1)

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Your God isn't just a science experiment demonstrating an observable  chemical reaction. 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have any number of friends who are Democrats first and Catholics second - or at least they are as Democratic as they are Catholic. They attend Church weekly, send their children to Catholic schools, are very active in retreats, volunteer for service projects (themselves and their high school/college-aged children), pray for the Pope - the whole package. And yet they will vote for a candidate that supports abortion, tax-funded abortion, gay marriage, exporting jobs, continuing a war, and any number of other issues with which they personally disagree. Because the candidate is a Democrat, and "the Democrats are the only ones who care about the working man." They have inherited their Democratic identity from their fathers and grandfathers, who were Kennedy Democrats and Roosevelt Democrats respectively. Roosevelt's most enduring legacy is his Democratic Coalition - urban, blue collar, minority The Democratic party has changed a good deal since those days, but the identity remains the same.

Do I have any number of friends who are Republicans first and Catholics second? I think there are some, but there are many fewer of them, and they are more recent converts to Republicanism - Reagan Republicans. The identity is based more directly and more recently on particular political stances and less on inherited identity. They went looking for a political party that reflected their religious beliefs. And in all honesty, the Republican party has been more open to their input than the Democratic party has been to the input of the working man or the social conservative.

Culture always gets intertwined with religion, and vise versa. Some people make a more or less conscious decision to give priority to one over the other, but some people just consider it part of their identity, even if the parts conflict.

 

dominicansoul props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The funny thing is America is so religious because it is so nationalist. It privatized religion and created a national federalist State that was purely secular. It allowed religious people to keep their fervent zeal but not to institutionalize it. The nation state is its own secular religion, but it allows different religious impulses to appropriate the nation according to their needs. So, America can claim as patriots: pacifists like the Quakers, prudes like the Baptists, and formalists like the Catholics. American Catholicism, in its heydey, was an immigrant phenomemon, a good example of a specific religious group using the nation for its own purposes (in the case of Catholicism, for international solidarity, which nativist Protestants feared under no less "patriotic" grounds). The old Christian Europe was the opposite: it had no national federalist State, instead it united each nation around one religion.

Edited by Era Might

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0