( for ) or for
The R C Church's |
blind support of Trump
It's well-known that the Klans detested Roman Catholics almost as much as blacks. The reason for this was that so many of the immigrant "foreigners" that they perceived at that time as a threat to their way of life were coming from either the Roman Catholic countries of Europe or from the "Latin", i.e. Roman Catholic, countries to their south.
Now many liberals and Democrats since that time make the mistake of thinking that, unlike the European Catholic hierarchy which has usually been quite conservative, that the U.S. Catholic hierarchy is more liberal and more "democratic". For a time, that may have been true, i.e. when most of their flocks were poor, recent immigrants to America. During that period, the Catholic church's leadership in Rome allowed bishops in this country to become a lot more sympathetic to the underdog, i.e. liberal, because their flocks were the underdogs at the time. We are seeing some of that same spirit return, now that there is such a huge influx of Roman Catholic "latinos". But, the Roman Catholic hierarchy's natural tendency is to be as close to the seats of power as they can. And now that America's Catholics have made their church powerful enough to gain 6 of the 9 seats of the U.S. Supreme Court, the essentially arbitrary, conservative, authoritarianism of Roman Catholicism is out of the closet. None of the bishops of this church are elected democratically. They are all appointed by their church's absolute ruler, the pope. The vast majority of America's bishops were appointed by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both of whom were very conventional conservatives. I can't find any sign that a single one of them did much to counter the huge effort made by several conservative Catholic organizations to promote - not just Trump over Hillary,- but every Republican over every Democrat, for that matter.
Given the fact that the huge majority of hispanics are still close to their Roman Catholic roots, it's quite likely that Donald Trump owes his victory in part to the R.C. hierarchy's efforts to prevent the many hispanic Catholics from supporting Hillary as enthusiastically as they might have liked.
God only knows how many bishops or any other powerful leading Catholics were supporting Hillary. If there were any but the busload of "Nuns on the bus", I can't find any trace of them.
According to a July 13 poll by the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, 77 per cent of Hispanic Catholics were backing Clinton vs.e 16 per cent supporting Trump, with five per cent either not sure or not saying. Here is the way that the dishonest pro-life "lifenews.com" The Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life found that . . . Hispanic Catholics overwhelmingly support Clinton, who is radically pro-abortion." This is douobling inaccurate and/or dishonest because on the one hand, pro-choice advocates are not promoters of abortion, any more than capital punishment defenders are promoters of death, and on the other, that report gives the mis-leading impression that Pew had asked Hispanics if they supported the "radically pro-abortion Hillary Clinton".
By the time of the election, four months later, the conservative R.C. machine persuaded 10% of the Clinton supporters to switch their vote to Trump. And as the old saying goes, " the rest is history!"
The history of the Roman Catholic Church, when its conservatives were at the helm, is unbelievably atrocious. While this church's current conservative leaders frequently accuse others of "Moral Relativism", it is difficult to find any group or individuals who have more expertise in its practice than the Roman Catholic Church, for which everything that serves its interests is moral, and everything that threatens its interests is "immoral", as we show in great detail in the very original and well-researched collection of web pages I call