Political Catholicism

I’m puzzled by tweets by serious people who are appalled at the introduction of religion into the public square by Trump and Vance. They call it “the instrumentalization of religion” or “political Catholicism”. 

It feels like a lot of people wouldn't take their own side in a bet if it meant surrendering their right to virtue signal.

It’s hard to know what they mean exactly from a random X post. Likely they’re taking issue when someone has a stand on a political issue and they defend it by quoting out of context from the Bible or the Catechism. Apparently this just started this year, go figure. Those suddenly complaining about the politicization/instrumentalism of religion seem like they didn't much complain when it was done by the Left, or when it was not done at all (since, after all, Christians are supposed to be like the children in the old days, seen but not heard). 

Perhaps it’s that they don’t like the messenger and feel Trump’s giving a bad image to Christianity by associating himself with it. It’s as if the Church has a brand and we don’t want to tarnish it with sinners let alone political leaders. If George W. Bush made Christians nervous, those who belong to the creed of “winsomeness” and “a marketable witness”, then how much more Trump and Vance! But in the end conversions don’t happen via the good or bad examples of political leaders but by God’s gratuitous grace. 

God seems to have less a problem with Trump and Vance than the complainers since he seems to have put his thumb on the scale given Trump miraculously survived a couple assassination attempts. Maybe it’s actually not His will to bring back the Obama/Biden years and keep religion in the closet and privatized.

**

Wheaton, a Christian college, recently came under fire for congratulating an alumnus who was confirmed to a White House post. They took down the X post and apologized. 

I puzzle over the apology and explanation. It fascinates me because it's related to my own Catholic high school's praise of a Kamala Harris aide (I complained and received a boiler-plated a non-response response). 

Is there any hypothetical point at which the Democrat Party can be seen as functionally irreligious and incompatible with the Catholic faith, i.e. on par with the masons? Is there anything more they can do to communicate that? Have they not tried their best?  Harris herself said take that Jesus stuff out to the Trump rally down the street. If David French were fed to the lions would he cry, "If MAGA had been more winsome and accommodating, this wouldn't be happening!" 

So Wheaton said this: 

"The recognition and prayer is something we would typically do for any graduate who reached that level of government."

In other words, it is completely irrelevant if the graduate is working hard for abortion on demand, transsexual rights, the suppression of free speech, or even the abolition of Wheaton College. Got it, though I don't quite understand it. 

"It was not our intention to embroil the College in a political discussion or dispute."

Ahh, well, you might not be interested in politics but alas politics is interested in you. 

"Our institutional and theological commitments are clear that the College, as a non-profit institution, does not make political endorsements [...and is a] deliberately non-partisan institution." 

Yes, as a 501 3-c you need to get the tax deductions for donations. LBJ approves. 

"This is both for missional purposes and legal reasons. Within the evangelical community—both domestically and internationally—we encompass a spectrum of political perspectives..."

So the goal of the college is to mirror the political perspectives of the evangelical community? Then why go to Wheaton if it has no wisdom to impart of its own? Or does the college prefer to appeal to the broadest range of people purely for remunerative purposes? 

"The College’s moral commitments on the sanctity of life, human sexuality, ethnic diversity, racial unity, justice, poverty, and stewardship intersect with politics complexly, not simplistically, especially in a two-party system."

This was the least offensive part of the statement. Yes no party has a monopoly on truth. I do wonder if there's anything one of the parties could do, hypothetically, that could draw out Wheaton to make a choice, to take a stand.  Perhaps if the student body was mostly drawn from only one of the political parties. Then, it seems, it would be an easy call...