Conservatism’s Inevitable Conversion to Catholicism

If Catholicism, in the end, managed to elude the political hatred it engenders, I have almost no doubt that this same spirit of the age which seems so opposed to it would become supportive and that it would suddenly achieve extensive conquests. —Alexis de Tocqueville

Almost two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that Americans would either totally abandon Christianity or convert to Catholicism, writing, “our descendants will tend increasingly to divide into only two parts, some leaving Christianity entirely and the others embracing the Church of Rome.”

He predicted a smaller Church—of which Pope Benedict XVI agrees—saying, “Nowadays, more than in previous times, we see Catholics losing their faith and Protestants converting to Catholicism.” He went on to write that in a post-Christian liberal democracy, Catholicism would be the only viable remaining option:

America is the most democratic country on earth while, at the same time, the country, where, according to reputable reports, the Catholic religion makes the most progress…Men who live in democratic times are, therefore, predisposed to slide away from all religious authority. But, if they agree to obey such an authority, they insist at least that it is unique and of one character for their intelligence has a natural abhorrence of religious powers which do not emanate from the same center and they find it almost as easy to imagine that there is no religion as several…

I think de Tocqueville’s prediction is coming to fruition. The Left has entirely abandoned Christianity and fully embraced secular liberalism. I believe the Right, though still deeply influenced by liberalism—especially classical liberalism—will more and more find its way toward the Tiber. This is at least what I have observed in the last three years since my own conversion to Catholicism and in the witness of conversion among my peers. My friends, including fellow graduates of Liberty University (the epicenter of American evangelicalism) and other Washington, D.C., conservatives, have either returned to the Catholic Church after going through a Protestant phase or are seriously flirting with the idea of converting to Catholicism themselves.

Even among conservative intellectuals, there is a growing trend toward Catholicism. Consider clinical psychologist and post-modern critic Jordan Peterson, who said, “Catholicism is as sane as people can get.” Though he’s not yet Catholic, some would argue he’s well on his way. Or consider the Catholic conversion of likely U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance, or even the extremely interesting theological evolution of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio.

But perhaps the most interesting prospect to Catholicism among those in conservative circles is Charlie Kirk, who in an interview with Church Militant admitted, “The world is a better place because of the Catholic Church, and that needs to be said more.” He went on to express that he has “so much respect for the Catholic Tradition and Church.”

When asked if he’s considered converting to Catholicism, he reveals “my friends try to convince me to become Catholic all the time.”

“Some of my greatest friends in the world are Catholic…I go to Catholic Mass every once in a while. I don’t take the Eucharist, don’t worry you don’t have to report me…The joke is that serious evangelicals become Catholic. And I’ve seen that happen. I’m open-minded, but I’m not there yet.”

There were two things that struck me in the Kirk interview. The first was my gut telling me that Kirk is well on his way to becoming Catholic (which is the True, the good, and the beautiful that he alludes to). The second was that by the nature of his answers, social conservatism needs Catholicism just as much as Christianity does.

Which brings me to my own prediction: conservatism, in its quest for identity post-Trump, will eventually convert to Catholicism and be deeply influenced by Catholic integralists. A political philosophy and ideology needs an intrinsic telos. It was Cardinal Manning who once said that “all human conflict is ultimately theological.” What then is conservatism but a commitment to conserving tradition? And what is Western tradition? Christianity, The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In the midst of his responses, Kirk reveals the weaknesses of Protestantism and conservatism. Protestants and conservatives share the same dilemma: They have competing traditions and interpretations, and are thus fractured and splintered in a way that harms their cause. They have no unified authority, and with a lack of consensus and ultimate source of Truth, debate inevitably devolves into personal interpretation and preference. The Catholic Church is the solution for both groups theologically and philosophically.

In a religious context, without an infallible Church (that gave us the infallible word of God) there is no final authority on its interpretation. Kirk makes this case, ironically, by his answer in regard to progressive Christianity, saying, “They’re misrepresenting the Gospel, they’re misrepresenting biblical truth and the biblical text—I guess they have a right to do that. I’m not going to disallow them from doing that obviously in a pluralistic society in that sense. However, I will say that a true interpretation of the Scriptures cannot possibly lead to the public policy decisions they’re coming to.”

But who decides which interpretation is correct? And why should they, or anyone, have a right to misrepresent the Truth? Error has no rights.

One practical example of division in the realm of social issue policy is birth control. Kirk admires the Church for its commitment to life and marriage, saying, “I love the uncompromising Catholic social teaching when it comes to abortion and marriage. I absolutely love it.” But, assuming he’s like most modern evangelicals, he will totally miss the boat on contraception as the obvious legal precursor to the “right to privacy” that gave way for abortion. Kirk has said he’s against the public funding of contraception because of rights to religious conscience, though he is most likely fine with the legalization of it and the use of it within marriage (even though Protestants were against contraception too, until very recently).

While integralism will certainly not be the Republican Party platform for 2024, it will be the new libertarianism of the present-day Right, the thorn in the side of non-purists. But rather than champion a hyper-individualism, their focus will be on facilitating the common good and establishing a society ordered toward objective Truth that aids in human flourishing. The closest example modern conservatism has to anything “integral” is Catholic Senator Marco Rubio’s “Common Good Capitalism,” an address he gave at The Catholic University of America where he quoted Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, which ironically also speaks to the present-day dilemma of conservativism:

When a society is perishing, the wholesome advice to give to those who would restore it is to call it to the principles from which it sprang; for the purpose and perfection of an association is to aim at and to attain that for which it is formed, and its efforts should be put in motion and inspired by the end and object which originally gave it being. Hence, to fall away from its primal constitution implies disease; to go back to it, recovery. —Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

Conservatism needs to heed de Tocqueville’s prophecy and take advantage of our post-Trump moment in an effort to redirect the Party toward its true end. Perhaps what is next needed is an institute for integralism—much like libertarianism’s Cato Institute—to further flesh out these ideas and reorient what we’re trying to conserve.

I do not: it is his conclusion here that it in error. If he were to see what your church has become then he would not have the same opinion.

And What HAS the Church become? You mean like universally cherished and accepted? Like in the 1850's- Like now?
C'mon man- the catholic Church was even more despised in the 1850s than today- Catholic immigrants in America of that time were second-class.. and mostly despised- for Tocqueville to make THIS claim of UNITY - BACK THEN would have been MORE absurd then what you are trying to spin today. But it is closer to reality than you would like.
You are only thinking SHORT TERM. The Eucharist has remained the source and Summit of The Church for 2000 years… but again you continue to focus on MAN and man stumbling for God's Grace… The Church is of Christ- The Eucharist IS CHRIST You never put that in your heart, to understand beyond the clerical mindset you have assigned to the Church.
You discount the saints and martyrs who lived and died for the faith- for Christ. Thats what Tocqueville saw- what Newman saw... Today you point at someone who "claims" to be faithful- and says “Look bad man- bad Church” - The Church has NOT survived today because of some false sense of human purity. God is purity- not us.

No- the Church is an ugly, stinky, messy lumbering Ark moving along water to its destination. Those who have jumped shipped lost their Faith to pursue another faith..and another..and another… it does not end. The Ark still trudges along in all its ugliness- as it always has. Its more than neo-Marxist Popes who don’t twist scripture and sexually deviant men posing as Priests. A lot more.
Are your Christian congregations then defined by men of the likes of the Osteen's. Warren's, Zacharias’, Duggar’s, Lentz’s or Falwell’s?
C’mon man, you’re too smart to play the cultural equivalency game. Human’s sin… water is wet… why are we continually surprised? God is not. God knows what we are incapable of.

To the contrary, as seen in communist countries, it is far harder to reduce believers that share a basic common faith but have no central leadership than those that do.

Non-sequitur- Besides… tell that to the Uighurs being massacred that they should have had central leadership and their ordeal would have gone much quicker.. And as far as leadership goes.. you don't win battles without it.. we are talking about winning here...not just surviving... In your analogy of the Communist religion their central leadership is what reigns supreme- hence their total effectiveness… Leadership is visible as you point out yes, but in it's absence- diffusion.

Absurd. As said and substantiated, despite having no central head those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God have long testified to being far more unified in polled core beliefs and values than overall those whom Rome counts as members in life and in death. Thus evangelicals have been religious enemy #1 for liberals and Trad.Catholics alike in the West.

Again your thinking as man thinks- you're living in 2021. Next year is different and so on until were done.. every age has a different form of evil...but it's still evil.

Indeed, and while the young are becoming more liberal, it remains that those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God remain the most conservative large religious body, since it changes not, unlike central leadership. And in Catholicism it is those who reject your current pope or otherwise dissent from him that are most conservative. As seen on FR, you all cannot even be unified on who the living pope is.

Youre stuck in 2021… Pope Francis this – Pope Francis that… and the rad-trads in the Church are stuck in 1958…
Conservative - Liberal.. yada yada- EVIL does not care about who you vote for - just how weak you are to spin one off from the Salvation through Christ. Forget the labels...those are man made - God sees through all the posturing...
The bigger picture is the Church moving along since Christ- 2000 years ago…. Succumb to the fear of the unknown future if you must… but the next fight is here… and just like that- where the French Catholics gave the Colonies the support and chance to form a better union- 250 years ago- those days are going away. Like I’ve told you GOD is BULDING HIS KINGDOM… earthly Kingdoms come and ago- America is in its last decades… but the Church will navigate through it- like a big lumbering Ark. Hang onto coattails if you must- but the smarter play is Unity against the Divider. And Tocqueville saw this so long ago.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.