This answer kinda grew in its making, so I encourage
@Mosh to take this as an elaboration towards him as well, to see where I'm coming from.
Theology and politics are the same thing in much of America, despite The Constitution stating they shouldn't be.
Well, if that is the case (and I somewhat doubt this interpretation), then the Constitution then declares something that literally can't be done. People will always want to put ethics into law (it's its primary goal) and morality/ethics is a form of theology/belief, even if atheists tend to think that it's not.
Law should prohibit murder, right? But why? Why shouldn't, say, honor killing be allowed or even embraced, if many people agree it is the right thing to do? You won't find an answer to that that wouldn't come out of your own presuppositions and preconceptions. And that's a good thing.
If theology and state were separate, I wonder if you even had a Constitution. To quote John Adams
We had no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Let's see how democracy survives in a majority-secular countries and for how long. But that's besides the point.)
I don't want to speak for Mosh, but I think the point is not that the church itself would become fascist, but that the actions of the pope have widespread influence over Catholics at large. (Though if we're gonna nitpick there's a pretty good argument that the majority of organized religions are inherently fascist, but that's a different topic for a different day...) Catholics and political conservatives are often one and the same and share many of the same values, so electing a new pope right now who is markedly less progressive in his views would embolden those countries that are actively turning towards fascism.
And again, I ask in what particular things would you expect the more-conservative Pope to be more... well,
conservative so that it would embolden those countries.
Thing is, I would honestly prefer to use different terms within Church, because they really mean different things. In the Church, the "conservatives" are those who are really stressing the Truth and they refuse to stray from it, even at the risk of reaching less people (the parable of Jesus asking the rest of His disciples, after most had gone after saying something popular "And what about you, will you leave also?"), the "progressives" are those who are really stressing reaching as many people as possible, even at the risk of obfuscating the Truth (this one does not have a direct quotation, but it is often used that Jesus dined with prostitutes and tax-collectors (the latter being technically traitors to their own people and usurers at the same time) and offered them salvation).
This isn't a perfect comparison/explanation, but within the Church (and I don't talk about all the people who are "culturally Catholic" or at least claim to be such and yet don't care about the teachings in the slightest) there often isn't a "opposite end", or at least not such that it would have the effect you describe.
-----
I'm asking what specifically do you mean, for two reasons - first of all, Leo XIV seems to be probably more on the (Church)
conservative side than people realise (at least probably more than Francis), yet he will probably get along the best with moderate lefties.
Second, because I think this divides into two categories: a. things, in which Church conservatives and agree and will always agree (say, abortion) and b. on which the opposition isn't in a direct
political contrast to one another. I'll explain.
Catholicism is inherently philosophically
inclusive ("et... et...") which means it often recognises the truth of opposing facts which are true, yet the contradict each other.
Say, for example, immigration, which is something the Catholics could be (somewhat) divided - it is true that every single human life is precious, it is true that for example fleeing war or oppression deserve to be sheltered and it is true that people have right to seek out happiness and for that reason, they should be allowed to travel/migrate/translocate, whatever. And it is true that people are responsible with the well-being and the protection of their family AND that a state is responsible for the well-being and the protection of its citizens, meaning there should be limits and rules to immigration. These things contradict one another, yet both are true.
Now with a (politically) "progressive" Pope you might get more reminders that the first aspect is also important. With a (politically) "conservative" Pope you might (theoretically) get more reminders that the second aspect is also important.
But besides the fact the Pope always speaks for
all Catholics, both those into whose countries people are immigrating
and those that
are migrating (and the Church and Curia is so big with people from all over the world that you
can't literally hijack the conversation), there is the fact that the way these opposing points are delivered are ... well... kinda unthinkable in a fascist way.
Even in the quite inconceivable case that, say, Dolan was somehow elected pope, I can't imagine him releasing encyclicals encouraging countries to start militarising and protect their borders with walls, because this is really not part of the Catholic discourse.
I mean, John Paul II was
very conservative, yet he is remembered by people in my and many other neighbouring countries as someone who immensely helped the geopolitical situation and helped to promote peace. My father, who hates religion, the Church and Catholics in particular, always talked about him in superlatives, even when I was a kid and wanted to badmouth him because "Catholics bad, right?".
Compared with the secular world (or, well, Western world and US in particular), Francis was
very conservative on many issues (like abortion or LGBTQ issues, despite what you'd hear in some media) and yet he was well-liked and is fondly remembered.
Besides, the pope is a mere servant - the ship is too big to make any drastic swerves.
Also, I don't personally mind the overuse of the word fascism, but with this
Though if we're gonna nitpick there's a pretty good argument that the majority of organized religions are inherently fascist, but that's a different topic for a different day..
don't be surprised if you manage to completely re-legitimise the term, eventually, because people will think "oh, fascism isn't such a bad thing after all".
P. S. I know, No True Scotsman, but if you want to know what
true US Catholics do think (or at least are encouraged to do so), check out Trent Horn of the Counsel of Trent podcast/YT channel. He is both 100% orthodox, yet working within the specific US
milieu.
I know there are "Catholic" politicians on both sides of the political spectrum (Vance x Pelosi, for example), but I will refrain from commenting on that, however it is possible that they label themselves so without actually believing the tenets and potentially even get so far from the Church with their action, that they shouldn't be considered Catholic, for all intents and purposes.
