christiefan915
Catalyst
What does it mean to be a “good” Catholic in the voting booth?
That was the question being batted about on Wednesday, when The Atlantic published a lengthy reported piece entitled “Why Only Cafeteria Catholics Can Survive in American Politics.” In it, religion writer Emma Green gives voice to an argument often repeated by centrist Catholics in election years: that America’s rigid two-party system, divided along deeply entrenched ideological lines, makes it impossible for rank-and-file Catholics to register with a party that matches all aspects of official Church theology. She argues this forces American Catholics to “pick and choose” their theology—making them dreaded “cafeteria Catholics”—resulting in a “diluted identity” for American Catholicism.
It is objectively true that neither party lines up perfectly with the policy priorities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which boasts opposition to both same-sex marriage and the death penalty in most cases. It’s also true that many American Catholics espouse beliefs directly contrary to those preached by the Catholic hierarchy. But there remains a major problem with Green’s analysis: claiming a Catholic identity and harboring views contrary to Church hierarchy isn’t an American invention. It’s the norm in Catholicism, because being Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with bishops, or voting the way they want you to. And it never has.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church guarantees freedom of conscience for believers, and Catholics in America and elsewhere have long been willing to challenge the Church in the political sphere.
In 2014, a global survey conducted by Univision found that most of the planet’s Catholics disagree with the church on birth control, abortion rights, divorce, and priestly celibacy.
https://thinkprogress.org/no-americ...olics-catholicism-did-a705a5a70022#.lrdv2m30m
That was the question being batted about on Wednesday, when The Atlantic published a lengthy reported piece entitled “Why Only Cafeteria Catholics Can Survive in American Politics.” In it, religion writer Emma Green gives voice to an argument often repeated by centrist Catholics in election years: that America’s rigid two-party system, divided along deeply entrenched ideological lines, makes it impossible for rank-and-file Catholics to register with a party that matches all aspects of official Church theology. She argues this forces American Catholics to “pick and choose” their theology—making them dreaded “cafeteria Catholics”—resulting in a “diluted identity” for American Catholicism.
It is objectively true that neither party lines up perfectly with the policy priorities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which boasts opposition to both same-sex marriage and the death penalty in most cases. It’s also true that many American Catholics espouse beliefs directly contrary to those preached by the Catholic hierarchy. But there remains a major problem with Green’s analysis: claiming a Catholic identity and harboring views contrary to Church hierarchy isn’t an American invention. It’s the norm in Catholicism, because being Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with bishops, or voting the way they want you to. And it never has.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church guarantees freedom of conscience for believers, and Catholics in America and elsewhere have long been willing to challenge the Church in the political sphere.
In 2014, a global survey conducted by Univision found that most of the planet’s Catholics disagree with the church on birth control, abortion rights, divorce, and priestly celibacy.
https://thinkprogress.org/no-americ...olics-catholicism-did-a705a5a70022#.lrdv2m30m