https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/254072/fbi-used-undercover-agent-to-investigate-catholics-says-weaponization-committee-chairman

“A new document revealed that the Richmond Federal Bureau of Investigation used at least one undercover agent to obtain information about traditionalist Catholics, said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who chairs the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.“

This information has been in the public eye for over a week. It is based on claims from Jim Jordan, who does not have a credible record on his Weaponization committee; in fact, he hasn't let Dem members question witnesses at all. You'll remark that his hearings have produced next to nothing in terms of evidence of "weaponization" or other misconduct.

Your own source casts doubt on the argument. Note that "the excerpts from the document that were released to the public do not specifically mention an undercover agent"--meaning that the source for the claim that there was an agent is Jordan, based on documents that few if any other people have seen. It may be that he is correct, but only an idiot would infer as much from the fact that he stated it. The bulk of the quotations and "facts" likewise come from Jordan.

Did you consider the fact that Jordan and the Catholic News Agency are interested parties who have incentives to conjure this stuff up? While the article certainly gives Jordan center stage, it is careful not to suggest that the representative's assertions are true.

Friends don't let friends play stooge for Jim Jordan.

...and his shenanegans, I would not be surprised at all if there was a link between some traditional Roman Catholics and the white supremacist movement.

I am right now specifically thinking of my mother's oldest brother, a practicing conservative Irish Catholic (that is part of my ancestry on my mom's side) who is still alive. In 2022, he visited our house and began talking about how #45 (I won't mention his name) really won the 2020 U.S. presidential election. When I visibly shook my head at his remarks, he became very angry. So did my mother who threatened to shoo him out of the house. For many years, this uncle and a younger brother (who is now deceased) worked at Lockheed-Martin, and neither liked black people nor the civil rights and other gains that African-americans made during the 1960s. In addition, this uncle's current girlfriend is a former cop who also didn't like the gains made by other races in the U.S.

So, no. I wouldn't be surprised if a connection emerged between conservative Catholics and white supremacists. However, like you, I am convinced that Jim Jordan is not to be trusted when makes said claims and that evidence from other sources must be unearthed to give these claims more credibility.

As usual, you and I are on the same page. Protestants don't have a monopoly on American bigotry, and racism has a long history in the Catholic church.

My point is simply that Jordan is like Giuliani: "I read that. I can't prove it. . . yet," so let's just go ahead and claim it publicly and in court.

It's essential to keep the difference between excited utterances and demonstrated facts.

I agree, blindguy (and LW). Over here in France, traditionalist catholics have historically been associated with the extreme right (since the 19th century at least), and still are. They were instrumental, for example, in hiding several very nasty French fascists from the authorities (Paul Touvier, in particular) and from retribution.

It's worth remembering too that, during the Dreyfus affair in the 19th century, the main Catholic daily newspaper, La Croix, proclaimed in a banner across its front page that it was "the most anti-Jewish newspaper in France".

No faith or creed has a monopoly on nasty people and no ideology appears to protect against them, sadly.

The traditionalist group cited in the article, the Society of St. Pius X, was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who carried a certain reputation even among U.S. Catholics.

I just shared the article and a quote from it. I realize it’s from Gym Jordan who is a snake who can’t be trusted, but, he has receipts and is digging into it. It wouldn’t surprise me if the FBI was keeping an eye on religiously motivated domestic terrorists. That’s their job.

but all of these white nationalist groups have an imagary mythological background and revenge fears of those they hate "taking over."

I would also add other groups such as Buddhist majority Myanmar/Burma who despise the ethnic Islamic minority.

I think it's important to remember that there is an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics worldwide. Catholicism is a "big tent" religion that has to accommodate a lot of different views.

Trying to get any two Catholics on the same page about everything is a pretty much impossible task. Having said that, the majority of Catholics shake their heads at those church members who are on the extreme right of their faith. Even Catholics regard them as religious nutters. My experience has been that those on the extreme right of the church (at least in the U.S.,) tend to limit their extremism to ecclesiastical matters. I'm not aware that this has crossed over into politics saving the abortion issue. If some of them have become MAGA-loving Christian nationalists, my best guess is that this is an accidental association, and not baked into the faith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2023 08:42AM by summer.

I agree (although I'm not a catholic ;-). There is also a very well-developed (and probably larger) catholic centre-left/left in France. As well as all colours in between ;-)

I amended what I wrote to reflect that my knowledge is only of American Catholicism.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My experience
> has been that those on the extreme right of the
> church (at least in the U.S.,) tend to limit their
> extremism to ecclesiastical matters. I'm not aware
> that this has crossed over into politics saving
> the abortion issue.

Catholics were key to passing Prop H8 in CA, along with Mormons.

https://cacatholic.org/article/statement-catholic-bishops-california-support-proposition-8

“First, same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions. The marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father. We recognize that there are parents who are single and we laud them for the great sacrifices they make in raising their children.”

If that was the pedophile Bishops #1 issue, why not outlaw marriages between infertile couples?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2023 01:19PM by schrodingerscat.

You make a good point, but I would say that the "no marriage between gays" is reflective of Catholic teachings of the mainstream church, and is not necessarily a position solely of the traditional Catholics. Also, as always, individual Catholics will have their own opinions about it.

Reading between the lines, I don't think that the representative from Ohio is arguing that the links between conservative Catholics and the MAGA should be investigated; in truth, he is arguing quite the opposite. Basically, Mr. Jordan is using his chairperson's position to argue that the government should *not* be investigating religious affiliations with the MAGA movement--that any investigation by the FBI in to these links is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's religious freedom clause in its First Amendment.

I have two basic problems with this position. First, Mr. Jordan is not being evenhanded as he doesn't mind (in fact he encourages) the investigation of groups, including religious groups, who speak out against the MAGA crowd. More importantly (and maybe the courts will have to rule on this), many religious types, including the late Father Coughlin (a pro-Nazi Catholic priest from the 1930s and 1940s) believe that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives them rights to do and say things that are prohibited to others in the population (like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater). Like the other liberties U.S. citizens have, religious liberties should not be considered unlimited--especially when they attack the religious views of others and, even more especially, when they involve themselves in rhetoric that encourages the overthrow of the U.S. government.