The Conceit of Primacy
October 16, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
Not long ago, while discussing the viability of a continued Eucharistic church given the dearth of priestly vocations, I told someone that the outlook is better than our perceptions would have us believe. In Maryland, Colorado, Missouri, and other parts of the Midwest, for instance, and even in the American South, some seminaries are at capacity.
My good news was met with a snort of derision and a joke about corn-fed simplicity. “Oh, the Midwest; oh, the South,” my friend said, sounding for all the world like Nathaniel asking whether anything good could come from Nazareth. “What about the coast? What about Boston, and New York,” where the empty seminary halls, we are told, produce only echoes of bygone days?
I resisted reminding my friend that America has more than one coast because I didn’t want to distract him from learning that even in those cities, even in California, the number of seminarians in formation for the priesthood is on the rise, if only slightly.
“Slightly,” he said, again with the snort, adding that the number of new ordinations cannot keep up with losses due to death or retirement.
Just as coastal conceit can devalue what comes out of “flyover country,” our First-world conceit can blind us to what is happening in the church “out there” among the “thems.” Upon learning that in 2004 Hungarian Archbishop Csaba Ternyakny reported such a worldwide increase in seminarians that the number bested the Catholic heyday of 1961, my friend was stopped in mid-snort. No provincial, he, the notion that third-world priests would be missioning the church in America nevertheless left him discomfited. We wouldn’t need to be missioned-to, he argued, if the church would just be reasonable, do its social duty and either allow priests to marry, ordain women, or both.
His harangue hasn’t changed in our twenty-year acquaintance, but this time it occurred to me that there was a tinge of conceit to it—that he resented the idea of being ministered to by people who, in all likelihood, were too inclined toward curial-obedience and therefore couldn’t possibly have much to say to his finely tuned sensibilities. When I said so, things erupted into a predictable donnybrook, with each of us accusing the other of being narrow-minded in how we defined the universality of the church.
There exists an undeniable tension between left-leaning “social justice” Catholics and the right-leaning “pro-life” side; they share a conceit of primacy—one side sees itself as more compassionate; the other as more obedient. I personally know “social justice” Catholics who will pretend pro-lifers care nothing for the poor. And I certainly know pro-lifers who think the “social justice” side pays only reluctant lip-service to church teachings on abortion and euthanasia.
That we do not wholly respect each other is inarguable; I credit “nun on the bus” Sister Simone Campbell for speaking with refreshing honesty when she said, “I have allowed a very narrow perspective on what is life . . . I don’t want to be thought of as in [the pro-life] camp. Because of my pride, as opposed to my faith.”
I wait in joyful hope for the day a pro-lifer can admit that, while she cares deeply for the plight of the poor, she just can’t stand the idea of being associated with that “kumbaya hippie remnant.”
Our unwillingness to charitably credit each other with being truly concerned about both “life” and “justice” issues—to see them as shared burdens differentiated only by their weight of emphasis and theoretical “solutions”—is tearing us apart.
Contemplating this past Sunday’s gospel reading could, I think, help mend our rifts.
A man ran up,
knelt down before him, and asked him,
“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good?
No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments: You shall not kill;
you shall not commit adultery;
you shall not steal;
you shall not bear false witness;
you shall not defraud;
honor your father and your mother.”
These words are all about life and justice; their shared importance is part of that tenuous balancing between left and right—both sides of which Christ embraced, equally, upon the cross.
Then follows:
He replied and said to him,
“Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.”
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him,
“You are lacking in one thing.
Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
At that statement his face fell,
and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
In social media, I noticed the predictable in-fighting; some of my friends focused solely on the latter message—about giving to the poor—while others noted that Jesus’ first words were to life.
Elsewhere in scripture, Christ tells us that the poor are forever with us—they are ours to see and to serve, for the sake of our very souls. Why, then, this insistence by Jesus that we give everything away?
To fixate on the material is perhaps to miss Christ’s deeper challenge, which is to rid ourselves of anything that keeps us earthbound and distracted from God’s constant desire for our interaction with him; to surrender our conceits of self-sufficiency, self-importance—or even of the primacy of our moral outrage—in order to place our entire security into the hands of God.
All things work to God’s purpose. Perhaps our third-world priests, many up from poverty we Westerners cannot imagine, are meant to teach us just how that is done.
And perhaps we can all badger each other a little less by recalling Jesus’ first lesson in this gospel reading: No one is good but God alone.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Worldwide Seminary Optimism
Increased U.S. Seminary Numbers
Seminary Enrollments Half the Story
Next Generation of Priests
Boston Seminary Sees Increase
California Seminaries
Sister Simone's Candor
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
10.16.2012 | 10:37am
Adam_Baum says:
"And I certainly know pro-lifers who think the “social justice” side pays only reluctant lip-service to church teachings on abortion and euthanasia."
I would suggest that opinion is likely to be a correct assessment of the "social justice" types.
Not only do "social justice" types pay "reluctant lip-service" to the defenseless-when they pay any-they insist that "social justice" means the eager submission to an all-powerful, unbounded state state as an all-wise, beneficient and incorrupt mediator of justice and progress. They consider taxes, especially those levied against the "rich" to be acts of personal charity. In doing so, they ignore the injunction against false gods and the record of failure, waste and abuse and never question the moral debasement that accompanied the welfare state.
As for crediting "Sister" Simone Campbell for speaking with refreshing honesty, so what-evil is often candid. She is a tool of those who who subordinate the Church to statist political goals. Her platform is one of celebrity, not authority or expertise. I will not credit her for anything but arrogance and ignorance. In a couple of years, she will be as current and silent as Cindy Sheehan. It is the "social justice" types and their vacant slogans i.e., "seamless garment" that have given us the HHS mandate.
I would suggest that opinion is likely to be a correct assessment of the "social justice" types.
Not only do "social justice" types pay "reluctant lip-service" to the defenseless-when they pay any-they insist that "social justice" means the eager submission to an all-powerful, unbounded state state as an all-wise, beneficient and incorrupt mediator of justice and progress. They consider taxes, especially those levied against the "rich" to be acts of personal charity. In doing so, they ignore the injunction against false gods and the record of failure, waste and abuse and never question the moral debasement that accompanied the welfare state.
As for crediting "Sister" Simone Campbell for speaking with refreshing honesty, so what-evil is often candid. She is a tool of those who who subordinate the Church to statist political goals. Her platform is one of celebrity, not authority or expertise. I will not credit her for anything but arrogance and ignorance. In a couple of years, she will be as current and silent as Cindy Sheehan. It is the "social justice" types and their vacant slogans i.e., "seamless garment" that have given us the HHS mandate.
10.16.2012 | 11:07am
George @ Convert Journal says:
If we are Catholic, we care about issues of the poor and life. This is not an either / or proposition but a both / and one. That said, the Church is clear that issues of life have primacy -- there is no wiggle room on that.
Speaking of life is inclusive of several areas, but abortion is by far the most serious. In the US alone, there are 1.2M innocent human deaths per year. It is a fairly clear-cut issue. Either abortion happens or it doesn't. It is not morally open to prudential judgement.
In contrast, issues of the poor are largely immersed in prudential judgement. One side claims greater government involvement will directly alleviate their immediate suffering. The other claims such involvement is opposed to subsidiarity and burdens society in a manner contrary to the long-term interest of the poor. Both make good points.
Regardless, errors in judgement in helping the poor may cause prolonged suffering, but at least could be remedied in the future. There is no such opportunity to reverse the fate of aborted babies.
Speaking of life is inclusive of several areas, but abortion is by far the most serious. In the US alone, there are 1.2M innocent human deaths per year. It is a fairly clear-cut issue. Either abortion happens or it doesn't. It is not morally open to prudential judgement.
In contrast, issues of the poor are largely immersed in prudential judgement. One side claims greater government involvement will directly alleviate their immediate suffering. The other claims such involvement is opposed to subsidiarity and burdens society in a manner contrary to the long-term interest of the poor. Both make good points.
Regardless, errors in judgement in helping the poor may cause prolonged suffering, but at least could be remedied in the future. There is no such opportunity to reverse the fate of aborted babies.
10.16.2012 | 11:12am
JDD says:
Thank you for your essay, Elizabeth.
Almost without exception, those clergy from other countries have struck me - in their speech and in their smiling faces - as being closer to God because of their poverty. In particular, the visiting Bishops. When they visit our local Parish, you can watch the entire congregation lean forward in engagement during the homily.
Almost without exception, those clergy from other countries have struck me - in their speech and in their smiling faces - as being closer to God because of their poverty. In particular, the visiting Bishops. When they visit our local Parish, you can watch the entire congregation lean forward in engagement during the homily.
10.16.2012 | 11:13am
JDD says:
"...the boys have each other in headlocks."
My best friend included, back in high school. And then we went off and launched model rockets.
You've highlighted the differences between the two genders - to be used for God's purposes. I don't think you truly believe it is automatically a flaw, but you mentioned it as if it were.
My best friend included, back in high school. And then we went off and launched model rockets.
You've highlighted the differences between the two genders - to be used for God's purposes. I don't think you truly believe it is automatically a flaw, but you mentioned it as if it were.
10.16.2012 | 11:23am
Mark Simpson says:
Adam and George: Amen.
"And I certainly know pro-lifers who think the “social justice” side pays only reluctant lip-service to church teachings on abortion and euthanasia."
You could add reluctant lip service to embryonic cell destruction, IVF, contraception, human sexuality, the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Orders, Holy Mass obligations and the Magesterium in general.
The "social justice" catholics are protestants, pure and simple, disputing any number of the Church's teachings. I defy anyone to name one prominent Pro Life Catholic who does the same.
"And I certainly know pro-lifers who think the “social justice” side pays only reluctant lip-service to church teachings on abortion and euthanasia."
You could add reluctant lip service to embryonic cell destruction, IVF, contraception, human sexuality, the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Orders, Holy Mass obligations and the Magesterium in general.
The "social justice" catholics are protestants, pure and simple, disputing any number of the Church's teachings. I defy anyone to name one prominent Pro Life Catholic who does the same.
10.16.2012 | 11:38am
Joseph Marshall says:
"Christ tells us that the poor are forever with us—they are ours to see and to serve, for the sake of our very souls."
Exactly. And "caring for the plight of the poor" is really not the same thing as seeing them or serving them. It is about the plight in the abstract and not the poor themselves. I think that "caring for the plight of the poor" is largely an engagement with a fictional plight drawn from Dickens. It is Tiny Tim by the humble fireside at Christmas saying, "And may God bless us, every one!"
Americans who are well off (ie with stable incomes of about $30,000+) largely do not see the poor within their midst, no matter how religious they may be. And they give no real and serious thought about how to serve them.
Consider these facts about the employees of Wal-Mart: 80% of them receive Federal Food Assistance, "food stamps"; they are usually near or at the top of the groups receiving state Medicaid; and they absorb $2.66 billion dollars in Federal aid or about $420,000 per store!
And they could not sustain themselves if they didn't. The money paid to them is, essentially, a Federal subsidy of Wal-Mart to pay its employees far less than a living wage.
And how many of us think of the friendly and helpful folks in the dark blue polo shirts and plastic name tags as anything but part of the scenery of our shopping trip? They are the real "poor" whom well off Americans do not see, and not just the homeless getting a free Thanksgiving dinner on the Evening News.
What Christians among the well off give any thought to "serving" these folks?
For aesthetic reasons, I'm not all that big on kumbya either, but I have two eyes and they are open. To see and serve the poor you need open eyes as well as an open heart.
Exactly. And "caring for the plight of the poor" is really not the same thing as seeing them or serving them. It is about the plight in the abstract and not the poor themselves. I think that "caring for the plight of the poor" is largely an engagement with a fictional plight drawn from Dickens. It is Tiny Tim by the humble fireside at Christmas saying, "And may God bless us, every one!"
Americans who are well off (ie with stable incomes of about $30,000+) largely do not see the poor within their midst, no matter how religious they may be. And they give no real and serious thought about how to serve them.
Consider these facts about the employees of Wal-Mart: 80% of them receive Federal Food Assistance, "food stamps"; they are usually near or at the top of the groups receiving state Medicaid; and they absorb $2.66 billion dollars in Federal aid or about $420,000 per store!
And they could not sustain themselves if they didn't. The money paid to them is, essentially, a Federal subsidy of Wal-Mart to pay its employees far less than a living wage.
And how many of us think of the friendly and helpful folks in the dark blue polo shirts and plastic name tags as anything but part of the scenery of our shopping trip? They are the real "poor" whom well off Americans do not see, and not just the homeless getting a free Thanksgiving dinner on the Evening News.
What Christians among the well off give any thought to "serving" these folks?
For aesthetic reasons, I'm not all that big on kumbya either, but I have two eyes and they are open. To see and serve the poor you need open eyes as well as an open heart.
10.16.2012 | 12:09pm
Fr. J says:
Bill, yet you "tear us apart" by opposing male and female. I think it is more that you don't like what some of those bloggers say and this is your way of discrediting them. Thus proving you are part of the very problem you decry.
10.16.2012 | 12:23pm
Brendan says:
Along with the excellent comments by Adam and George, I would add that another key distinction between Catholics in the "pro-life camp" and the "social justice camp" is the issue of sexual ethics. I would probably go so far as to say it is the vital distinction between the two camps and is the foundation for many people in the "social justice camp" only paying lip service to the life issues. Far too many Catholics do not adhere to the Church's teaching on matters of sexual ethics, but somehow they believe that their heart for the poor and their activities on behalf of the poor (setting aside for a second the great comments from Adam and George about government intervention/solidarity/subsidiarity) make up for the fact that they dissent from Church teaching. Such individuals seem to resent chastity, and they certainly demonstrate (even if just implicitly) the connection between the contraceptive mindset and abortion that Blessed Pope John Paul II describes in Evangelium Vitae. I should also just mention that many dissenting Catholics, a lot of whom are in the "social justice camp," buy into the ideas of consequentialism and proportionalism instead of adhering to the Church's teaching about morality, such as expressed in Veritatis Splendor by Blessed Pope John Paul II.
10.16.2012 | 12:34pm
Tom Never says:
Thank you for writing this and highlighting the problem. The "undeniable tension" seems palpable (to this reader, anyway) at every level of Catholic discourse - from national politics to local/parish meetings/initiatives. And you're spot on that it's "tearing us apart." Screwtape must be hard at work.
10.16.2012 | 1:13pm
Terryc says:
Of course there is two sides to the Wal-Mart story. One side is the fact that in the absence of over-arching government programs that Wal-Mart would have to pay a living wage or they would not be able to find workers.
The other is that every worker at Wal-Mart is there as the result of a series of bad decisions. True, such decisions were not made in a vacuum. They were informed by environment, many probably the result of broken homes, poor parenting, depressed social economic lifestyles as children, etc. Still, others from those same environments managed to reach much higher. In the United States today we have universal education. Some states, such as Texas, guarantee acceptance to college for anyone in the top 10% of their class, no matter how bad the school. Anyone who performs well in school can go to college, thanks to a huge number of scholarships, grant and loans.
Many of those bad environments are the results of permissive social attitudes concerning per-marital sex, easy divorce, single parenthood resulting from the previous two items, and failure to teach and support old fashion Christian(or any other) morals.
Like ancient Israel we have sowed the seeds of our own destruction. We have devalued the family, we have taken God out of society. We are rushing headlong over the cliff.
If we want to help these working poor the best way is to fix society, because we'll never be able to help them as long as we make them comfortable in their poverty. The best way to help them is to convince them they need a better job. they won't work for that as long as their getting by.
The other is that every worker at Wal-Mart is there as the result of a series of bad decisions. True, such decisions were not made in a vacuum. They were informed by environment, many probably the result of broken homes, poor parenting, depressed social economic lifestyles as children, etc. Still, others from those same environments managed to reach much higher. In the United States today we have universal education. Some states, such as Texas, guarantee acceptance to college for anyone in the top 10% of their class, no matter how bad the school. Anyone who performs well in school can go to college, thanks to a huge number of scholarships, grant and loans.
Many of those bad environments are the results of permissive social attitudes concerning per-marital sex, easy divorce, single parenthood resulting from the previous two items, and failure to teach and support old fashion Christian(or any other) morals.
Like ancient Israel we have sowed the seeds of our own destruction. We have devalued the family, we have taken God out of society. We are rushing headlong over the cliff.
If we want to help these working poor the best way is to fix society, because we'll never be able to help them as long as we make them comfortable in their poverty. The best way to help them is to convince them they need a better job. they won't work for that as long as their getting by.
10.16.2012 | 1:18pm
NewCatholic08 says:
I believe there are hungry people in the US. Many of us Pro-Life Catholics regularly give to programs that serve the poor and hungry. In fact, the biggest givers to programs for the needy are the politically conservative regions of this country where the amount of donations and the percentage of donations exceed the averages for the politically liberal areas of the country by multiples. The politically conservative populations (both Catholic and Protestant) are more likely to donate their money and time to blood drives, Boy Scouts, food kitchens and shelters, than are the politically liberal. In my very short time as a Catholic I have never heard a single Pro-Life Catholic demean the programs of the Social Justice Catholics. I have, however, heard many Social Justice Catholics scoff at the provincialism of the Pro-Life Catholics. Without life, there is no social justice.
10.16.2012 | 1:26pm
Adam Baum says:
"Consider these facts about the employees of Wal-Mart: 80% of them receive Federal Food Assistance, "food stamps"; they are usually near or at the top of the groups receiving state Medicaid; and they absorb $2.66 billion dollars in Federal aid or about $420,000 per store!
And they could not sustain themselves if they didn't. The money paid to them is, essentially, a Federal subsidy of Wal-Mart to pay its employees far less than a living wage."
Congratulations, Joseph, you have just pointed out how social welfare programs create "rent-seeking" opportunities, often in insidious and inobvious ways. Consider that if you know that Wal-Mart is dependent upon this implicit subsidy-so does Wal Mart (and I'm guessing other mass market retailers have similar staffing and compensation programs).
Ironic then, that the religious left never seems to understand how they further the cause of the income inequality they despise with their reflexive and indiscriminate support for government programs putatively designed to benefit "the poor", but that enrich other interests who cleverly and successfully exploit them in just this sort of way.
The duty of charity is personal and non-transferrrable. You can't outsource your obligation for others to the government. Authentic poverty is more than just a limited income.
And they could not sustain themselves if they didn't. The money paid to them is, essentially, a Federal subsidy of Wal-Mart to pay its employees far less than a living wage."
Congratulations, Joseph, you have just pointed out how social welfare programs create "rent-seeking" opportunities, often in insidious and inobvious ways. Consider that if you know that Wal-Mart is dependent upon this implicit subsidy-so does Wal Mart (and I'm guessing other mass market retailers have similar staffing and compensation programs).
Ironic then, that the religious left never seems to understand how they further the cause of the income inequality they despise with their reflexive and indiscriminate support for government programs putatively designed to benefit "the poor", but that enrich other interests who cleverly and successfully exploit them in just this sort of way.
The duty of charity is personal and non-transferrrable. You can't outsource your obligation for others to the government. Authentic poverty is more than just a limited income.
10.16.2012 | 1:52pm
bill bannon says:
Fr. J,
I oppose abortion in Beijing each month for years now with an amount of money that hurts me in its leaving. You might be discerning the secrets of hearts incorrectly. Christ never spoke against abortion but we assume it disgusted Him. And that in part is what Elizabeth is talking about....mind reading.
But to your other concern. Name to yourself a female blog that panders to the divisive within the righteous mind.
I oppose abortion in Beijing each month for years now with an amount of money that hurts me in its leaving. You might be discerning the secrets of hearts incorrectly. Christ never spoke against abortion but we assume it disgusted Him. And that in part is what Elizabeth is talking about....mind reading.
But to your other concern. Name to yourself a female blog that panders to the divisive within the righteous mind.
10.16.2012 | 1:55pm
Howard says:
Yeah, it's tearing us apart. Who could have guessed? This situation is a total surprise to anyone who has never paid attention to Luke 12:51-53.
The same thing was heard around AD 40: "This insistence on Jesus of Nazareth is pulling our synagogues apart!"
And in 350: "This little flap over the iota is pulling the Church apart!"
And in 1550: "This insistence on Tradition, Magisterium, and the Sacraments is tearing the Church apart!"
Get used to it, sister. It will be this way until Christ returns.
The same thing was heard around AD 40: "This insistence on Jesus of Nazareth is pulling our synagogues apart!"
And in 350: "This little flap over the iota is pulling the Church apart!"
And in 1550: "This insistence on Tradition, Magisterium, and the Sacraments is tearing the Church apart!"
Get used to it, sister. It will be this way until Christ returns.
10.16.2012 | 2:21pm
Rene says:
The issue is not whether some Catholics are 'social justice' or 'pro-life.' The issue is whether Catholics are willing to obey what the Church says. Jesus said, that those who listen to the apostles (and their successors who govern the Church) listen to him and that those who do not, do not listen to him. Abortion, contraception, adultery and homosexual relations are intrinsically evil acts. While exploiting the poor is also intrinsically evil, the approach you take to help the poor (whether by promoting economic growth or by giving them handouts) is a prudential judgment.
10.16.2012 | 2:59pm
Michael PS says:
We tend to forget that for precisely one thousand years, the principle source of poor relief was the tithe.
The legal obligation to pay tithe began with an ordinance of Charlemagne, as King of the Franks in 778-779. A Capitular of 800 extended it to the whole Western Empire. Pope Leo III and the Roman clergy greeted its promulgation with cries of "Life and victory to our ever-august Emperor!"
From this time onwards, therefore, we may say the civil law superseded any merely spiritual admonitions as to the payment of tithes. Their payment was no longer a religious duty alone it was a legal obligation, enforceable by the laws of the civil head of Christendom.
The Dîme or tithe was abolished in 1789 by the French Revolution.
The legal obligation to pay tithe began with an ordinance of Charlemagne, as King of the Franks in 778-779. A Capitular of 800 extended it to the whole Western Empire. Pope Leo III and the Roman clergy greeted its promulgation with cries of "Life and victory to our ever-august Emperor!"
From this time onwards, therefore, we may say the civil law superseded any merely spiritual admonitions as to the payment of tithes. Their payment was no longer a religious duty alone it was a legal obligation, enforceable by the laws of the civil head of Christendom.
The Dîme or tithe was abolished in 1789 by the French Revolution.
10.16.2012 | 3:10pm
MRD says:
Why this assumption that "social justice" Catholics in fact care about the poor? I would maintain that such Catholics, to the effect they support the traditional leftist policies advocated by liberals, do not care about the poor. At least they do not care enough about the poor to actually look at the evidence of what effect such policies have on the poor. If they did they would say... gee... policy X or policy Y seems not to work, lets try something different! In fact I can not think of a single case where they have done this, but the evidence is very great that many of the policies they favor do not work. We have spent 16 trillion dollars on programs for the poor since the beginning of the "war on poverty, and yet poverty rates have remained essentially flat since the "war on poverty" was begun in the mid 1960s. In fact the number of people in poverty was rapidly declining before this and post "war on poverty this decline leveled off. This suggests that not only were these liberal policies ineffective, they may have even been harmful! If one looks at the misery index ( One would think that a marker for harm for the poor, after all inflation and unemployment both impact the poor adversely) We have one of the greatest declines in the misery index under the Reagan administration ( not someone the social justice crowd loved) and one of the worst increases under the current occupant of the white house. This makes me think the "social justice " crowd cares nothing for the poor. They are analogous to a doctor who claimed to care about sick people but was continuing to administer a medication that kept killing them. This is at best culpably ignorant. So its time to stop all this hand wringing about the divide between "social justice Catholics" and pro- life Catholics. In present day America there is no conflict. There are those who favor pro-life politicians and there are those who because of their Pharisaical moral posturing about the poor actually throw the unborn under the bus while supporting policies that in fact make the poor more miserable and less able to climb from poverty. Have these people never looked at Detroit and observed what unopposed liberalism does to a place? This is not to say we should not care about the poor, the gospels are clear we have a moral duty to do so, maybe just maybe we should care enough to ask if the leftist policies the "social justice" crowd likes so much do any good.
10.16.2012 | 3:15pm
Crude says:
I admit, I do not understand Scalia's piece here.
She seems to be suggesting that a major problem among Catholics is that there's a division between left and right, with both sides seeing each other as insincere. But she gives an example of pretty obvious insincerity on the left: the Catholic snorting about the need for more seminarians when in actuality the desire seems to be for married and female priests, and making the church more liberal. It doesn't seem like a mere 'perception problem' to think her friend had that attitude - that seems to really be the case.
She seems to be suggesting that a major problem among Catholics is that there's a division between left and right, with both sides seeing each other as insincere. But she gives an example of pretty obvious insincerity on the left: the Catholic snorting about the need for more seminarians when in actuality the desire seems to be for married and female priests, and making the church more liberal. It doesn't seem like a mere 'perception problem' to think her friend had that attitude - that seems to really be the case.
10.16.2012 | 3:22pm
Joseph Marshall says:
"The other is that every worker at Wal-Mart is there as the result of a series of bad decisions."
Give me a break, Terrye! You completely miss the point of Christ's comment about the poor always being with us. Income inequality is inherent, just like inequality of height or intelligence. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all going to become as rich as Mitt Romney merely by incredible foresight, gumption, and ambition, nor are we even all going to make at least $50,000 a year--this is why that figure is the median income. Nobody has a moral right to demand anything else from these workers but a work ethic and work discipline. They largely have this, and the poor among them are merely people who have not got much money, not moral lepers.
Anybody with a genuine work ethic ought to be able to survive here even if they are as dumb as a hay rake. If being "the land of opportunity" doesn't mean at least this, then it means nothing. And if only such assistance can make this happen, then we need to have such assistance.
The question is what should a Christian do to see and serve the working poor, who, even in this current economy are the vast majority of people on assistance. My point is that they are never seen or served by anyone, let alone Christians, except in the de facto sense of collective service through government assistance.
This seems to me to be hardly adequate as a moral basis for individual Christian conduct. Ms. Scalia is correct that the moral problem is that of the Christians who are not poor. And my point is that the Gospel clearly means what it says about cultivating an active relation to the poor rather than merely trusting all things "as God's wills". If it didn't, why would Christ bring up the issue at all?
Now, Adam Baum, no one on my side of the political fence would claim that we should make "every man a King." The matter is not that of income inequality, it is one of making a decent life so you don't have to turn to crime to survive, even if you are poor. It means keeping enough food on the table for an entire family's health, and access to sufficient medical care so that you can continue to do honest work and support your family.
Is it inherently necessary to do this through government assistance? I don't know. But government assistance actually does this right now, whatever it's other flaws. And I don't think any American who cares about the quality of life for all of us has any business demanding that government assistance stop without a serious suggestion of something to take its place. I haven't heard one my entire life, except that to be poor is always and everywhere a matter of moral turpitude, so one can, as a Christian, simply ignore the demand of the Gospel in this matter.
On my side, as a Buddhist, we are taught to cultivate active generosity within our means, and to deliberately and consciously give at least prayers when we cannot give anything else. We are also taught that miserliness toward others is a moral flaw that will subject us to poverty in future lives, and maybe a future that is far, far worse.
Nobody here needs to believe any of that. But as a mere matter of common sense, it seems to me that the Gospel should be taken literally about the poverty of others, is quite clear about proper Christian response to the poor, and is largely ignored or forgotten by most Christians.
And I can assure you that Buddhists are not allowed to forget the Buddhist equivalent to this and are clearly told why they shouldn't forget it.
Give me a break, Terrye! You completely miss the point of Christ's comment about the poor always being with us. Income inequality is inherent, just like inequality of height or intelligence. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all going to become as rich as Mitt Romney merely by incredible foresight, gumption, and ambition, nor are we even all going to make at least $50,000 a year--this is why that figure is the median income. Nobody has a moral right to demand anything else from these workers but a work ethic and work discipline. They largely have this, and the poor among them are merely people who have not got much money, not moral lepers.
Anybody with a genuine work ethic ought to be able to survive here even if they are as dumb as a hay rake. If being "the land of opportunity" doesn't mean at least this, then it means nothing. And if only such assistance can make this happen, then we need to have such assistance.
The question is what should a Christian do to see and serve the working poor, who, even in this current economy are the vast majority of people on assistance. My point is that they are never seen or served by anyone, let alone Christians, except in the de facto sense of collective service through government assistance.
This seems to me to be hardly adequate as a moral basis for individual Christian conduct. Ms. Scalia is correct that the moral problem is that of the Christians who are not poor. And my point is that the Gospel clearly means what it says about cultivating an active relation to the poor rather than merely trusting all things "as God's wills". If it didn't, why would Christ bring up the issue at all?
Now, Adam Baum, no one on my side of the political fence would claim that we should make "every man a King." The matter is not that of income inequality, it is one of making a decent life so you don't have to turn to crime to survive, even if you are poor. It means keeping enough food on the table for an entire family's health, and access to sufficient medical care so that you can continue to do honest work and support your family.
Is it inherently necessary to do this through government assistance? I don't know. But government assistance actually does this right now, whatever it's other flaws. And I don't think any American who cares about the quality of life for all of us has any business demanding that government assistance stop without a serious suggestion of something to take its place. I haven't heard one my entire life, except that to be poor is always and everywhere a matter of moral turpitude, so one can, as a Christian, simply ignore the demand of the Gospel in this matter.
On my side, as a Buddhist, we are taught to cultivate active generosity within our means, and to deliberately and consciously give at least prayers when we cannot give anything else. We are also taught that miserliness toward others is a moral flaw that will subject us to poverty in future lives, and maybe a future that is far, far worse.
Nobody here needs to believe any of that. But as a mere matter of common sense, it seems to me that the Gospel should be taken literally about the poverty of others, is quite clear about proper Christian response to the poor, and is largely ignored or forgotten by most Christians.
And I can assure you that Buddhists are not allowed to forget the Buddhist equivalent to this and are clearly told why they shouldn't forget it.
10.16.2012 | 3:33pm
j says:
Michael PS,
It's good you see the connection with Ecclesiastical coincidence in secular power and the French Revolution. You should notice, as well, that the French Revolution, the single greatest (lasting) cause of anti-Catholicism in the world today was a reaction to the evils of coincidence of church and state.
The assumption of secular power by the church was the worst thing that ever happened to the church. The French Revolution was a tragedy that could not not happen. But it was bound to happen because Christianity invented the separation of church and state, and cannot exist without it.
It's good you see the connection with Ecclesiastical coincidence in secular power and the French Revolution. You should notice, as well, that the French Revolution, the single greatest (lasting) cause of anti-Catholicism in the world today was a reaction to the evils of coincidence of church and state.
The assumption of secular power by the church was the worst thing that ever happened to the church. The French Revolution was a tragedy that could not not happen. But it was bound to happen because Christianity invented the separation of church and state, and cannot exist without it.
10.16.2012 | 3:56pm
TheInformer says:
Remember too, great that men from Africa and much of Asia are getting ordained (they with the Latin Americans are the bulk of the seminarians in Los Angeles...not native born American) but when they come here they bring their cultural influences to the Mass.
Predominantly Filipino parishes are very "song and dance" in the Mass. Great. Fine. But for others of a more staid and contemplative spirit, this is BIG distraction. But that's the way they do it in the PI.
The Mass often seems foreign to me, subjectively.
Predominantly Filipino parishes are very "song and dance" in the Mass. Great. Fine. But for others of a more staid and contemplative spirit, this is BIG distraction. But that's the way they do it in the PI.
The Mass often seems foreign to me, subjectively.
10.16.2012 | 5:04pm
Maria says:
I would argue that the first half of the gospel story is not about life so much as it is about obedience. Obedience comes first, then sacrifice.
10.16.2012 | 5:11pm
Joseph says:
It seems to me, and I may be incorrect, that in commenting, no one has strictly defined the term "social justice." Therefore how can I understand your meaning when using the term?
10.16.2012 | 5:11pm
Mark Simpson says:
I would also put forth the premise that the "full" seminarys in the South and Midwest are full of young men from Pro Life families. The "social justice" catholics are contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence.
10.16.2012 | 5:15pm
Billiamo says:
the notion that third-world priests would be missioning the church in America nevertheless left him discomfited
Poor, benighted man.
The priest who heard my confession last week grew up in a village in Nigeria; I grew up in an affluent California suburb. This unlikely convergence seems utterly appropriate to me. It helps that he is an excellent confessor.
Poor, benighted man.
The priest who heard my confession last week grew up in a village in Nigeria; I grew up in an affluent California suburb. This unlikely convergence seems utterly appropriate to me. It helps that he is an excellent confessor.
10.16.2012 | 5:41pm
John Hinshaw says:
As one who has done pro-life activism and bought the whole "kumbaya hippie remnant" to the extent of 30+ years of vegetarianism and a career working with the poor - I want the discussion brought to us by Elizabeth Scalia to continue. My own perspective is that Pro-Lifers are more willing to listen to "social justice advocates" than the other way around. The two "factions" should be able to meet over the issue of women in problem pregnancies, yet, even there, the Social Justice Catholics were late in arriving (some still haven't). I agree with the posting which suggests one problem between the two is the matter of sexual ethics. I will also have to say that, especially in these recent hard times, economic pronouncements from the Church's Social Justice "faction" have been frequently out of touch and unhelpful.
10.16.2012 | 6:07pm
Charles Cassil says:
Joseph,
Excellent comment! F. A. Hayek wrote--And I tend to agree--"put 'social' in front of almost any noun, and the resulting phrase has no meaning."
Excellent comment! F. A. Hayek wrote--And I tend to agree--"put 'social' in front of almost any noun, and the resulting phrase has no meaning."
10.16.2012 | 6:22pm
Adam Baum says:
"The matter is not that of income inequality, it is one of making a decent life so you don't have to turn to crime to survive, even if you are poor."
What nonsense. People don't turn to crime to "make a decent" life, they turn to crime to get rich and be free of the responsibility of work. It just so happens, I spent some of my time working in a correctional setting and the principal ingredient(s) to criminality is not poverty, it is greed and rebellion. Poverty doesn't cause crime-crime causes poverty-and if you don't believe that, let's open up a business in South Central LA.
Nobody else can make a "decent" life for you, and we have spent trillions of dollars-making children yet unborn into human annuities-in the pursuit of a war on poverty that the left simply will not even rethink, let alone abandon, despite its horrific record of waste, ineffectiveness and counter-productivity.
"the notion that third-world priests would be missioning the church in America nevertheless left him discomfited
Poor, benighted man."
Amen!
What nonsense. People don't turn to crime to "make a decent" life, they turn to crime to get rich and be free of the responsibility of work. It just so happens, I spent some of my time working in a correctional setting and the principal ingredient(s) to criminality is not poverty, it is greed and rebellion. Poverty doesn't cause crime-crime causes poverty-and if you don't believe that, let's open up a business in South Central LA.
Nobody else can make a "decent" life for you, and we have spent trillions of dollars-making children yet unborn into human annuities-in the pursuit of a war on poverty that the left simply will not even rethink, let alone abandon, despite its horrific record of waste, ineffectiveness and counter-productivity.
"the notion that third-world priests would be missioning the church in America nevertheless left him discomfited
Poor, benighted man."
Amen!
10.16.2012 | 8:00pm
TeaPot562 says:
Personal experience is that those of us who support shelters for women in crisis pregnancy also support our parishes, Catholic Relief Services, St. Vincent de Paul Society and other work. We try to take seriously the lessons from the parables in Matt. 25:31-46 and Luke 16:19-31.
And I don't believe that Jesus intends us to limit our concern for those less well off than ourselves to paying taxes, thereby transferring the obligation to care for the poor to the state.
TeaPot562
And I don't believe that Jesus intends us to limit our concern for those less well off than ourselves to paying taxes, thereby transferring the obligation to care for the poor to the state.
TeaPot562
10.16.2012 | 10:13pm
Glenna says:
Gosh, has no one on this thread read "Caritas in Veritate"? B16 begins with citing Humanae Vitae, ends with world justice issues & weaves "Populorum Progressio" throughout the whole awesome encyclical. If we profess to be Catholic, the least we could do is read & follow the person who God's given us as a leader.
10.17.2012 | 9:39am
Andy says:
I find it interesting that in reading comments I see displayed exactly what Ms. Scalia is writing about. The social justice types only give lip service to the teachings of the church. Fascinating - all social justice types are alike, and not catholic, at least according to Mr. Simpson, I didn't know that. I also didn't know that the pro-life crowd has the corner on what the church teaches, and that are above reproach. I thought that all of us, are works in progress and that to judge anyone as other than that is wrong.
The division seems based far more in politics and economics then it does spiritual, at least to me. Both sides of the aisle if you will are equally guilty of picking and choosing what they want to follow of church teaching. On the left it comes down to conscience, on the right it is a prudential judgement. Both ideas cover a multitude of disagreements.
I know many people who are fervently pro-life and yet who would fall into what seems to be derisively social justice camp,and not be accepted in the social justice environs. I know many social justice people who are adamantly pro-life, but would not be accepted as pro-life.
The problem/division is exacerbated by the toxic atmosphere of the blogs - not a male vs. female activity, but an I am anonymous and so I can say what I want. I do not have to be responsible for how you might feel or interpret what I write. it is very easy to be disparaging of another person or persons when you do not have to face them. It is very easy to become an "expert" when there is no way to check on credentials or expertise. Maybe a little humility and charity in trying to understand each other is needed far more than strident commentary.
The division seems based far more in politics and economics then it does spiritual, at least to me. Both sides of the aisle if you will are equally guilty of picking and choosing what they want to follow of church teaching. On the left it comes down to conscience, on the right it is a prudential judgement. Both ideas cover a multitude of disagreements.
I know many people who are fervently pro-life and yet who would fall into what seems to be derisively social justice camp,and not be accepted in the social justice environs. I know many social justice people who are adamantly pro-life, but would not be accepted as pro-life.
The problem/division is exacerbated by the toxic atmosphere of the blogs - not a male vs. female activity, but an I am anonymous and so I can say what I want. I do not have to be responsible for how you might feel or interpret what I write. it is very easy to be disparaging of another person or persons when you do not have to face them. It is very easy to become an "expert" when there is no way to check on credentials or expertise. Maybe a little humility and charity in trying to understand each other is needed far more than strident commentary.
10.17.2012 | 10:58am
MRD says:
I would like to try one more time. I would like to see someone like Ms Scalia who I think styles her self a moderate answer the following questions
1) Should it matter if the actual policies favored by the social justice crowd work? In other words should they care about the results? I know of no conservatives who do not think policies should be implemented to help the poor, so the central issue to me seems one of outcomes.
If the answer to that question is yes the outcomes matter, than the Catholic left has an argument with conservatives that is not theological/religious ( there is no principle at stake) but really based on empirical evidence. This is not about Catholicism its about economic data. I am concerned about the poor as much as they are, I simply think if you listen to the social justice crowd over at the USCCB about what helps the poor you in fact hurt the poor and guarantee they stay impoverished. The left wing Bishops have no more expertise on the best policies to help the poor than they have on the best way to treat leukemia! These are technical questions, the first involves the principles of economics and the second involves the science of medicine. In both cases everyone agrees that the goal should be to help the poor or cure the sick. Thankfully the Bishops do not believe they are expert hematologists so have not opined on issues involving leukemia therapy. I can not understand why the Catholic left does not understand that the bishops are not economists either, and their social justice prescriptions on specific policies are therefore often not helpful. The broad generalizations that we should care for the poor are universally accepted by both sides. ( with the exception perhaps of Libertarians)
Abortion policy is fundamentally different in that there is a question of a principle, not what precise law should be enacted to legally protect unborn children but whether unborn children should be protected by the law from being killed at all. Of course this is a fundamental principle of both natural law and has been clearly enunciated in Church teaching at Vatican II. In this are the Bishops have some divine protection from error ( That is in speaking about the principles of the natural law. As such at Vatican II they declared that abortion is an unspeakable crime). In Evangelium Vitae Blessed John Paul II makes it clear why it is murder and why the state fails in its most basic obligations if it does not legally proscribe it. In this case if you reject the teaching and are for legal abortion you reject the Church magestirium and in fact clearly do not believe the Church is what it claims to be. In that sense leaving technicalities of Canon law aside, you are no longer a Catholic.
Given this obvious difference between the issues which any 12 year old could comprehend, It strikes me that the reason there is a divide between social justice and pro-life Catholics is because the social justice Catholics are not really Catholic at all, they are baptized leftists who are willing to throw their Catholicism aside when they favor pro-abortion politicians in order to other advance leftist ideas. Moreover they advance these ideas to promote things other than the "welfare of the poor" because they show little or no interest in the actual outcomes of their policies on the poor.
Where is the evidence to contradict this?
1) Should it matter if the actual policies favored by the social justice crowd work? In other words should they care about the results? I know of no conservatives who do not think policies should be implemented to help the poor, so the central issue to me seems one of outcomes.
If the answer to that question is yes the outcomes matter, than the Catholic left has an argument with conservatives that is not theological/religious ( there is no principle at stake) but really based on empirical evidence. This is not about Catholicism its about economic data. I am concerned about the poor as much as they are, I simply think if you listen to the social justice crowd over at the USCCB about what helps the poor you in fact hurt the poor and guarantee they stay impoverished. The left wing Bishops have no more expertise on the best policies to help the poor than they have on the best way to treat leukemia! These are technical questions, the first involves the principles of economics and the second involves the science of medicine. In both cases everyone agrees that the goal should be to help the poor or cure the sick. Thankfully the Bishops do not believe they are expert hematologists so have not opined on issues involving leukemia therapy. I can not understand why the Catholic left does not understand that the bishops are not economists either, and their social justice prescriptions on specific policies are therefore often not helpful. The broad generalizations that we should care for the poor are universally accepted by both sides. ( with the exception perhaps of Libertarians)
Abortion policy is fundamentally different in that there is a question of a principle, not what precise law should be enacted to legally protect unborn children but whether unborn children should be protected by the law from being killed at all. Of course this is a fundamental principle of both natural law and has been clearly enunciated in Church teaching at Vatican II. In this are the Bishops have some divine protection from error ( That is in speaking about the principles of the natural law. As such at Vatican II they declared that abortion is an unspeakable crime). In Evangelium Vitae Blessed John Paul II makes it clear why it is murder and why the state fails in its most basic obligations if it does not legally proscribe it. In this case if you reject the teaching and are for legal abortion you reject the Church magestirium and in fact clearly do not believe the Church is what it claims to be. In that sense leaving technicalities of Canon law aside, you are no longer a Catholic.
Given this obvious difference between the issues which any 12 year old could comprehend, It strikes me that the reason there is a divide between social justice and pro-life Catholics is because the social justice Catholics are not really Catholic at all, they are baptized leftists who are willing to throw their Catholicism aside when they favor pro-abortion politicians in order to other advance leftist ideas. Moreover they advance these ideas to promote things other than the "welfare of the poor" because they show little or no interest in the actual outcomes of their policies on the poor.
Where is the evidence to contradict this?
10.17.2012 | 11:56am
Gail Finke says:
I agree with John Himshaw: Among the people I know, anyway, the pro-life folks as a group are far more willing to listen to the social-justice folks than the other way around. But among individuals of my aquaintence, I know all kinds. Some of the "social justice" people in my parish are incredibly kind and devout and very much people I emulate. Some of the pro-life people I know (although certainly the minority) are mean in general and contemptuous of the poor, and are people I keep from emulating! But as a group the pro-life folks I know are willing to pray for others, no matter how much they disagree, and think the best of others and their motivations. It is not the same in the other direction -- again, as a group not necessarily as individuals.
A recent study RR Reno wrote about in the magazine showed that while conservatives can describe liberal arguments and positions, liberals cannot do the same for conservative ones, consistently misstating and distorting them. I find this to be true! And Elizabeth, I will be happy to volunteer and say it: I love and want to help the poor, but I am not comfortable with the granola crowd. As a whole I find them arrogant and contemptuous (again -- NOT ALL OF THEM!!!) In my previous life as a purely secular person, I felt the same way (even moreso) about pro-life people, whose position and arguments I was completely wrong about. As I grew older I reassessed many things, and came to appreciate their arguments (which I now realize are true) and their characters. I cannot say the same for the social justice people. They grate on my nerves. Sometimes they are right, and it's very important to recognize that. A lot of the time they are wrong. I do my best to put aside my feelings and my stereotypes and look at each person I meet as an individual. It is difficult, but worth it. If we all did so it would be much better!
A recent study RR Reno wrote about in the magazine showed that while conservatives can describe liberal arguments and positions, liberals cannot do the same for conservative ones, consistently misstating and distorting them. I find this to be true! And Elizabeth, I will be happy to volunteer and say it: I love and want to help the poor, but I am not comfortable with the granola crowd. As a whole I find them arrogant and contemptuous (again -- NOT ALL OF THEM!!!) In my previous life as a purely secular person, I felt the same way (even moreso) about pro-life people, whose position and arguments I was completely wrong about. As I grew older I reassessed many things, and came to appreciate their arguments (which I now realize are true) and their characters. I cannot say the same for the social justice people. They grate on my nerves. Sometimes they are right, and it's very important to recognize that. A lot of the time they are wrong. I do my best to put aside my feelings and my stereotypes and look at each person I meet as an individual. It is difficult, but worth it. If we all did so it would be much better!
10.17.2012 | 1:25pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Well, Adam, there is plenty of historical evidence that people will steal bread if they need it to survive. And plenty of evidence for this in the parts of the world where people are actually starving to death. The reason they don't do it here and now is that they don't have to. They have government assistance to keep eating, both directly through food stamps and indirectly through food pantry support. D'oh.
Stealing bread in order to eat is not comparable in any way to career crime, except that both are breaking the law.
Our prisons are now crowded with career criminals (and our overall crime rates are lower) because in the digital age you can track repeat offenders, concentrate on prosecuting them, offer them little to no plea deals, and take advantage of either stiffer contemporary fixed sentences or indeterminent sentencing. Nothing like this was in place in the 1970's and 1980's crime wave. And it was only starting to pull together in the 1990's.
Life on the street is nowhere near like it was even 20 years ago, and a good percentage of the people who made it that way are already incarcerated.
Now I repeat what I said, anyone with a work ethic and work discipline should be able to feed their families through honest work. And if they can't, they should be assisted to do so. Period. If you can find any better moral qualification than a work ethic for this, I'd be happy to hear it. We have gone far past the stage where "welfare" was not "workfare", and we went past it 15 years ago. I personally know people who, during the major gasoline price spikes of a few years back were making a net negative income because what they were paying for work-related driving was costing more than the hourly that they were making!
What better work ethic can you ask for: people so willing to hold down a job that they will even pay to do it until that literally becomes impossible to do?
You need to stop merely reading the propaganda of the Conservative Noise Machine and catch up to all this. The cartoon caricature of "Liberals" you are spouting is simply ludicrous fiction.
If they sit down and think about it, nobody these days is so unsophisticated as to expect that differences in income will completely disappear or that we will "eliminate poverty". But what we can do is what anyone with any compassion already supports doing, giving people food during famine and starvation to keep them alive. And we can do it without actually having to have starving people on our streets first.
If you are Christian, I would recommend you return to the parts of the Gospel pointed out by Ms. Scalia, for you are neither seeing nor serving the poor.
Stealing bread in order to eat is not comparable in any way to career crime, except that both are breaking the law.
Our prisons are now crowded with career criminals (and our overall crime rates are lower) because in the digital age you can track repeat offenders, concentrate on prosecuting them, offer them little to no plea deals, and take advantage of either stiffer contemporary fixed sentences or indeterminent sentencing. Nothing like this was in place in the 1970's and 1980's crime wave. And it was only starting to pull together in the 1990's.
Life on the street is nowhere near like it was even 20 years ago, and a good percentage of the people who made it that way are already incarcerated.
Now I repeat what I said, anyone with a work ethic and work discipline should be able to feed their families through honest work. And if they can't, they should be assisted to do so. Period. If you can find any better moral qualification than a work ethic for this, I'd be happy to hear it. We have gone far past the stage where "welfare" was not "workfare", and we went past it 15 years ago. I personally know people who, during the major gasoline price spikes of a few years back were making a net negative income because what they were paying for work-related driving was costing more than the hourly that they were making!
What better work ethic can you ask for: people so willing to hold down a job that they will even pay to do it until that literally becomes impossible to do?
You need to stop merely reading the propaganda of the Conservative Noise Machine and catch up to all this. The cartoon caricature of "Liberals" you are spouting is simply ludicrous fiction.
If they sit down and think about it, nobody these days is so unsophisticated as to expect that differences in income will completely disappear or that we will "eliminate poverty". But what we can do is what anyone with any compassion already supports doing, giving people food during famine and starvation to keep them alive. And we can do it without actually having to have starving people on our streets first.
If you are Christian, I would recommend you return to the parts of the Gospel pointed out by Ms. Scalia, for you are neither seeing nor serving the poor.
10.17.2012 | 5:52pm
Simon says:
The problem is simply that the social justice types have mistaken the technical solutions offered by 20th-century American progressives for the social teaching of the Church. They believe that they are defending the teaching of the Church, while they are in fact defending specific political programs, and failing to see the different, they are incapable of understanding that an attack on one is not an attack on the other.
"tearing us apart" process but I can think of many male blogs including those by clergy who delight in the fight. Look at a playground where third graders are having a recess from school. The girls are talking; the boys have each other in headlocks.