The term “culture warrior” is often invoked, usually pejoratively, to describe a certain kind of conservative Catholic who fights in the political sphere for the Catholic viewpoint to be enshrined in law on certain hot-button issues. I say “pejoratively” since the charge is often made that these issues are best fought on the cultural level, via the path of persuasion rather than on the political level. Conservatives are thus accused of being simplistic and naïve in trying to impose by law points of view that have not prevailed in the cultural domain on the level of argument.
As with all caricatures, there is a modicum of truth in this assessment. And it is indeed true, by and large, that the conservative viewpoint on these issues has lost the cultural battle. This fact makes all political moves seem oriented toward an oppressive curtailment of activities that a majority have come to view as basic civil rights. This is certainly how the mainstream media do portray things, as we saw after Roe v. Wade was struck down. Conservatives were, and are, portrayed as coercive bigots intent on imposing a narrow “sectarian” view of abortion through draconian laws.
Obvious double standards
Nevertheless, I firmly reject this caricature, and for several reasons. First, while it is accurate to say there is a modicum of truth in the caricature, there is also more than a little deflection at play here. Quite often, when employed by “NCR(eporter) Catholics” it is used to justify paying no attention whatsoever to the public importance of these issues, relegating them to the putatively “private” realm of sexual morality, with the use of the utterly crass and inaccurate term “pelvic issues.” They may pay lip service to the importance of abortion, for example, and claim that it is indeed a part of the seamless garment of life ethic—but then proceed to put it on a back burner as an embarrassment.
Eventually, the mask drops entirely and we see that, for them, not all “pelvic issues” are equally apolitical and private. How many “Pride” flags will we see flying outside of Catholic institutions in June? How many comments on “X” from Fr. James Martin will we see celebrating the political gains made by the “LGBTQ+ movement” (or “community”) over the past twenty years? Apparently, the private sexual lives of same-sex attracted persons are a matter of deep public concern and importance. So important, in fact, that those in the Church who fight for this cause are never dismissed as mere “culture warriors”. Nope. They are instead lionized by leftist Catholics as champions of human rights.
This brings me to the second problem with the caricature. Who within the Catholic world gets to decide what counts as a “culture war” issue and what doesn’t? For example, abortion is a form of homicide, a form of premeditated murder, and yet we are told that we should not agitate in the political sphere to end it and to stick to purely cultural forms of persuasion. But when it comes to a fundamental question of human rights—in this case, the very right to life—there can be no question of kicking the political can down the road until such time as a more favorable cultural situation emerges.
Meanwhile, we are told that there can be no compromise with the forces of bigotry when it comes to “LGBTQ rights”. In almost every state where “gay marriage” was put up to a vote of the people, including deeply Blue California, it was voted down. The LGBTQ revolution happened in large measure as a result of top-down judicial imposition. So it would seem that the very designation of what counts as a culture war issue and what doesn’t is largely an invention of the Catholic Left—and is actually a form of rhetorical violence since its aims are malicious and deliberately tendentious. In other words, it is a form of propaganda. Culture has changed as a result of judicial decisions and nobody on the Catholic Left is arguing that these issues should have been resolved apolitically on a cultural level only.
Roe v. Wade is yet another example of a new class of rights, nowhere envisioned by the Constitution, suddenly emerging by judicial fiat. While it is true that a large segment of the American electorate was open to this liberalization, a large segment was not. The imposition of Roe v. Wade created an immediate, massive and ongoing backlash on the cultural level that poisoned our politics at its root, turning every Supreme Court nomination into a cage match, to the death, between deranged political pit bulls. And yet nobody on the secular Left opined that maybe the “culture” was not ready for legal prenatal homicide via judicial authority alone.
Polluting culture with trendy politics
What these two examples show us (specifically, Obergefell and Roe) is that the law has pedagogical value and that, once enacted, laws can change the culture in deep and profound ways.
A few years ago, Georgia passed a law saying that, in the public schools, there are to be two and only two kinds of bathrooms: one for people with penises and one for people with vaginas. Which is, of course, the pure commonsense realism of the entirety of human history and culture. The Left went berserk, including the sex-and-circuses Catholic Left, and threatened economic boycotts against Georgia and so forth. It was the usual bilge. Yet, today, with only small pockets of dissent, the law has had its effect, which (at the very least) means it has depoliticized bathrooms and returned them to the genuinely private sphere. And if there ever was a “mere pelvic issue”, bathroom usage, from toilets to urinals to bidets, would certainly be near the top of the list.
Along these lines, do I even need to mention the entire march of civil rights for African Americans? From the Civil War to the post-war constitutional amendments, on through the battle against Jim Crow laws and segregation, there is no way one can say that America waited until there was a deep and broad public, cultural consensus before it sought political and legal remedies to our racial sins. And why is that? Because the issue was deemed far too important, too foundational, and too constitutive of who we are as a people to be left to cultural drift as the only proper remedy.
This is why I think one of the most misused phrases, often employed by those who would dismiss us as mere culture warriors, is “politics is downstream of culture”. But this is only partly true and when it is elevated to some lofty status as an ironclad law of human nature it is deeply misleading. Because the lines of causation are not just one way, and quite often in our history the reverse has been true. Culture is, in fact, very frequently downstream of politics.
There is also the phrase, “You cannot legislate morality!” Tell that to Rosa Parks! Furthermore, it is sheer lunacy to suggest there isn’t a core moral claim in almost every piece of major legislation. Laws are by nature coercive. A stop sign is coercive. And thank God it is. The purpose of the coercive aspects of the law is to foster a moral vision of the common good on this or that issue—no matter how seemingly mundane. I am a notoriously impatient driver and I hate stop signs and red lights. But I am pleased to be coerced into safe driving since I value my life and the lives of everyone else on the road.
But we have gone so far down the path of caricaturing cultural conservatives as potential fascists intent on criminalizing everything fun and pleasurable, that my words here will be construed by many as a call to turn America into Catholic Sharia land. Never mind the Left has turned America into a pornified septic tank and a circus freak show of the “dragification” of everything. Never mind it is now the case in many States that parents can lose custodial rights to their children if they “misgender” them. Never mind it is now considered to be a form of rank bigotry if you think eight-year-old boys and girls should not have their bodies surgically mutilated beyond repair. Never mind the Left opposes all laws intended to prevent the soft infanticide of letting babies born alive after an abortion die of neglect. Never mind the modern Left doesn’t even have the virtue any longer of being the anti-war party. Or the anti-wealth party. Or the anti-surveillance State party.
Never mind all of that. Because, according to them, the Catholic culture warriors are here to turn all of our daughters into bipedal, ambulatory baby incubators for churning out the future fascists of America.
Rejecting the Catholic Left’s push for political and cultural hegemony
Finally, there is also the fact that many Catholic liberals, not content to criticize the politics of pro-life Catholics, are now moving the goalposts even further and claiming that even focusing on these issues in a purely cultural way, via the path of persuasion and evangelization, is deeply suspicious.
Returning to my last essay—on Massimo Faggioli’s fever dream of a new “Trump-Catholic” axis emerging—we see how Faggioli originally lumped Bishop Barron and Word on Fire into that axis. His evidence was that Bishop Barron likes to interview social conservatives, including Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. I guess Professor Faggioli was counting on nobody noticing that in none of these interviews is there even a hint of political advocacy for Trump. But, for him, being a socially conservative Catholic in and of itself is evidence enough of a closeted support for Trump, which (it goes without saying) he believes is awful.
Ponder that fact for a minute. Let it sink in. Because the claim is that not only is it wrong to be a culture warrior in a way that focuses on electoral politics, but it is also now deeply suspicious to focus on socially conservative issues in a way focused on the broader politics of the cultural polis and its many venues for public dialogue and conversation. We are damned if we focus on electoral politics. And now we are damned if we simply focus on the politics of culture, the latter being viewed as a mere cover for the former.
Therefore, it would seem that what the Catholic Left wants is both political and cultural hegemony. What they want is for all of the Catholic “deplorables” (indietrists!) to crawl back into their buried school buses on their Fatima survivalist compounds and to shut the hell up. But this is how Catholic liberals have always acted and so it should come as no surprise. They have a dead-end ecclesial project, which has failed spectacularly wherever it has been tried, and a theology that is little more than a warmed-over “Kantian/Marxist/Mall Rat” confluence of faculty lounge pretentiousness and the idolatry of the culture of sex and Mammon. Which is why they resort to the authoritarianism of the ecclesial bureaucratic apparatus. Synodality via Motu proprio. The typical faux democracy of the totalitarians.
While I am at it, I may as well address the fact that the combox attached to this article will remind me I am not a fan of Donald Trump. So how, it may be asked, can I offer up an apologia for pro-life politics all the while dismissing the man who really, more than any other, engineered the overturning of Roe? All I can say is that I give him kudos—and big ones—for that, and I harbor no ill will toward any Catholic who will vote for him for that reason. But my overall politics and my reasons for not voting for him or Biden are too complex to parse out here. It has something to do with my post-liberal soul; in fact my opposition to both candidates is not grounded in an indifference to politics at all, but the opposite. That will have to suffice for now until, perhaps, a future essay.
I will end with a proposal. Let us retire the use of the term “culture warrior” since it is at best a vacuous term meaning whatever we want it to mean. At worse it is a derisive term designed to malign in order to dismiss. I propose instead that we call ourselves by a different name. I would propose we call ourselves “Catholic sanity activists”.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
It might be helpful for conservative Catholics to differentiate between abortion and contraception. The vast majority of Catholics either use or have used contraceptives, and are not going to change. Focus on abortion.
Sorry, both are dealers in death and you may say is true, nevertheless it is still an offence before God.
Read the Gospels. Find one passage that mentions contraception. The focus is on helping the poor. Read Matthew 25.
Will: Read what Jesus said about future moral contingencies, and how His Church is to react, and honor Jesus with humble moral imagination.
And it’s rather silly to talk about “focus” as though there is such a thing a divide in moral awareness and obligations. Truth is a coherent whole. You want to deal with poverty? Then you can’t lie to yourself that sex abuse is not one of its causes.
Will, the Gospels may not mention it but Genesis 38:8-10 does.
You sound just like Melinda Gates. She started with rejecting the Church teaching on contraception and then moved on to abortion:
https://www.ncregister.com/news/melinda-gates-now-biggest-catholic-pro-abortion-donor
Genesis 38 is important to the developed Catholic position on why contraception is wrong, just as homosexuality and abortion are wrong. Abortion is most heinous since it involves the murder of an innocent human being. Whether most Catholics practice contraception does not make it less sinful.
Mrscracker rightly points you to Genesis 38. There, Onan ‘spills his seed’ to prevent a child’s conception. Onan engaged in sexual intercourse but did not complete the natural the act. He used his sexual organs not with their natural and God-given use in mind but he used his sexual organs against their natural use and purpose. Spilling one’s seed intentionally (through contraception, masturbation, or homosexuality) is gravely sinful.
See: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ Sad to say, these preconceptions have since become entrenched as a new exegetical ‘orthodoxy’ which can no longer see even a trace of indignation in this passage of Scripture against intrinsically sterile forms of genital activity as such.
We shall give the last word here to Pope Pius XI, who, in quoting the greatest of the Church Fathers, summed up and reaffirmed this unbroken tradition in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii (31 December 1930). After roundly condemning as intrinsically contrary to the natural moral law all practices which intend to deprive the conjugal act of its procreative power, the Pontiff gave an authoritative interpretation of this biblical text which not only confirms the tradition, but is itself confirmed by impartial and historically well-informed exegesis:
‘Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).23
Most people do not want 8 or 10 children, in most of our history people had to have lots of children to ensure that 2 or 3 would survive to adulthood. Those days are gone.
If you chose to eschew contraception, fine and dandy. Just do not try to force this view on the rest of us.
Who is forcing what upon whom? The Holy Spirit inspired men to write the scripture. Scripture is therefore the inspired word of God. Disregarding God’ word puts one’s eternal happiness at risk. Scripture tells us what God has said; my post reiterates Church teaching. Medical science or population parameters do not lead the Church to change her teaching.
Children represent the incarnate “two in one flesh” about which God has spoken. Scripture also tells us that children bless the couple who welcomes them.
Why do you insist on “the poor” meaning only the materially poor? Do you not see the spiritual and intellectual poverty in which the world is drowning? There is a reason that the Church has identified both Corporal AND Spiritual Works of Mercy.
Find one passage that mentions the Trinity! Does this mean that you practice contraception?
Excepting barrier devices, pretty much every sort of contraception can be abortifacient.
And our job as Catholics isn’t about politics or choosing between evils. It’s about obedience.
MRSC. You say “every sort of contraception can be abortifacient. Can NPF be a form of contraception? For the “practice” of limiting family size, the INTENT seems similar.
Educate yourself: “Why NFP Is NOT Contraception”.
Many Catholics use NFP in order to get pregnant. Not possible to do that with contraceptives. To state the obvious.
No, Mr. Morgan. Abstaining from marital relations is not contraceptive. No relations, nothing to contracept.
Right on, and my gut sense is increasingly that none of these “pelvic issues” will ever be solved individually. Only something which would bring about the re-sacralization of the procreative act and all that surrounds it culturally would right any of them. Its not in our power to accomplish this, it would take graces of God beyond what we are now seeing, but, as Francis says, God is a God of surprises, and as Benedict said, He acts in history. We need to think big and be ready to speak and act should providential circumstances ever bring such a moment about. Until then we are largely in a defensive position trying to keep things from getting worse and, where we can, lay the conceptual groundwork for such a time, planting seeds that others will harvest.
That is a good thing and why I will likely vote for Trump in November. He’s not going to make America great again, but his victory will keep things from getting vastly worst under Kamela Harris – it will buy time for seeds to sprout and grow.
It seems a profoundly stupid act for any “Catholic” not to vote for Trump…a sure sign of an outsized and supercilious ego.
A non-vote, a third party vote, a write-in vote or a vote for Biden are all the same thing.
You can not have an abortion culture without having a contraceptive culture. And how do you know evil doers can never change? Do you reject the effects of God’s intervention in our lives?
As has been said by many others, “Right is right even if no one is right, and Wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.
It might help if the evil of artificial contraception was taught, and I mean TAUGHT, not just have an official position. Given that a vast majority of Catholics of childbearing age either are using or have used artificial contraception, and that the Church’s teaching is that it is intrinsically evil, one might expect that it would be mentioned, at least occasionally, from the pulpit. But one would be wrong to expect that.
I agree with your comments Crusader but it should be pointed out that there’s no such thing as artificial contraception vs a natural version. Contraception is contraception.
NFP is not contraceptive.
Yes, which is why everyone that I know who employs NFP has 8 or 10 children. No thanks.
I think you misunderstood how NFP works Will.
Honestly, Mr. Will, I think you are protesting way too much, and too often. Except in forums such as CWR, Crisis, NCRegister or these other more “right leaning/Orthodox” websites, a person is just not going to encounter much about how contraception is a sin. The teaching is not putting anyone off or preventing anyone from joining.
And if it does, then I think that is an honest person.
In all my years (I’m a convert), the teaching has just not come up unless I went looking for it on my own. Not in RCIA, not in marriage prep, not during a homily at a Sunday Mass (at a Mass for an NFP convention or some, then yea, sure. But who goes to NFP conventions if they don’t use NFP?)
I would be shocked if anyone who was open about their contraception use (or IVF) was actually denied Communion (or prevented from being part of some church ministry) by their priest, even if said priest was one of the young-John-Paul-II-priests who are supposedly uber-orthodox.
So I think you are protesting too much for someone who is secure in the knowledge that contraception is not a sin, and the Church needs to change her teaching to reflect that if we are to grow in membership or reverts.
By the way, we used NFP (actually, it was more like calendar rhythm method half the time) and only had 3 children.
Yes Will. Contraception is not a “one size fits all”. Walk in my shoes before condemning me! God said “Go forth and multiply…” he did not say how many.
IRISH immigrant Grandma O’Neill had 14 children. She became a sexual object by a high libido “Catholic” monster who demeaned her. Some of her offspring showed evidence of mental illness. Her body was so stressed that she lost two. She was not a “hypocritical Catholic”, she was a saint.
When medical physical and mental issues dictate contraceptive use, the real “hypocritical Catholics” please stand up. “Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone”. God will heal all.
Yes, Crusader, the evil of contraception has not been taught, never been taught, to my knowledge. Only pronounced. And that’s just not good enough.
Contraception is evil all right, but its evil lies in the corruption of the male ejaculation. There is no purpose for the male ejaculation other than to fertilise the female’s egg. Anything that obstructs that purpose is a perversion of Nature, a perversion of God’s purpose/plan.
And anything that perverts God’s purpose is evil, by definition.
Leo, (your name). Are you RESPONDING to me? morganD, (crusader)? Your “pure” Catholic response makes a vailed implication that my GM was EVIL! I often use respect to a responder. Here, because I knew Gram and her saintly Catholic devotion, I will protect her memory. She sufferred horrable domestic violence. “evil”. She should have devorced him. Certantly not have an army of children.
He was certaintly evil.
Disregard if it was not your article. It was not a reply.
If this is true, I pray
morgan with respect, how would the use of contraception protect anyone from further domestic violence?
Numerous children are a great blessing, they’re not an “army”. I’m very sorry if your grandma was ill treated & disrespected but I’m guessing that contraception wouldn’t have been the cure. It comes with a whole new set of health concerns for women.
Trust me, they do.
The condemnation of contraception just does not happen by the clergy is any meaningful way. Just ask any NFP instructor in any diocese, even the so-called “good ones.”
This would ignore the reality that oral contraceptives can be abortifacient.
there is the problem of abortifacient hormonal birth control….why this is so vehemently denied is beyond me.
I have never heard a conservative Catholic or anyone else, fail to differentiate between contraception and abortion. Of course, what you really mean is “Say that contraception as just fine and dandy.” It was that attitude which created the epidemic of and widespread acceptance of abortion in the first place. Not to mention that hormonal “contraceptives” frequently (and it’s impossible to predict in which cases) act as abortifacients.
The fact is, if you are not with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic,And Apostolic Church, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), you are not Catholic.
Being in communion with Christ and His Church, is not a matter of degree.
“You cannot be My disciples, if you do not abide in My Word.”
See The Deposit Of Faith.
See Catholic Canon 750:
Canon 750 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines. 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.[new]
At the end of the Day, all Catholics are called to be “cultural warriors”, for only Perfect Love can serve for The Common Good.
And since it is True that God Is The Author Of our inherent Unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness, the purpose of which can only be what God intended , we can know through both Faith and reason, that Due Process is binding in both State and Federal Law. It would be an error in both Substantive and thus Procedural Due Process Law, to suggest that securing and protecting our inherent Rights through Due Process, is a State’s Right issue, and not a Human’s Right issue, and thus we can know through Faith and reason that the question as to whether the recent Due Process case as to “whether the judge erred on New York law or whether New York law violates due process”, like all Due Process cases, are ultimately up to The Supreme Court to decide.
Error begets error.
Contraceptuality is Homosexuality for Heterosexuals.
While homosexual acts “naturally” preclude reproduction due to the nature of the acts, heterosexuals have to douse women with powerful chemicals to achieve the same effect, barrenness.
A same-sex sexual relationship in all cases is devoid of Love, because every sexual act is ipso facto physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful.
Only by transforming a same-sex sexual relationship into a Loving friendship which is devoid of lust, and thus devoid of sexual acts, can such relationships become grounded in authentic Love.
Yes, Garry, and that’s why the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly acknowledged that, if we accept contraceptive intercourse, we must accept sodomy.
Culturally speaking, the use of the term ‘abortion’ is a Satanic lie. It actually is the murder of an innocent human being in the womb. Why succumb to a cultural perversion of language? Among its many egregious failures the Supreme Court is guilty of legitimizing slavery, murder of innocent children in the womb and sexual perversions including faux same sex ‘marriages’. The ‘Justices’ couldn’t even decide to protect a fully developed nine month old baby in the womb – why? Because it calls into question to whole immorality of destroying a child of God.
In Roanoke VA the Planned Parenthood now gets many visitors from WV, NC, SC, GA and KY who come here to murder their children. We live in a very sick country. One might be appalled at the obliviousness of local clergy except we must remember we cannot blame God for bad priests and ministers for if we did not have bad ones we’d hardly have any at all. May the Almighty have Mercy on His suffering Church.
Will above – Contrary to your usual one-note argument, evidence shows that increased contraception is linked to increased abortion.
My “usual one note argument?” Indeed. So what are you advocating? A civil law banning contraception? No thanks. Again, if you choose to eschew contraception, fine,that is your right. But it is not your right to prevent others from doing so. We are not a theocracy.
Your proposal is close, but yours truly is not quite with you on the label: “Catholic sanity activists.”
Politics is still downstream of real culture. And then, yes, real culture is downstream of “sanity.” And, yes, the so-called “conservative” is about sanity. But he is less about being an “activist” than he is about simply preserving reality from activ-iSM. As G.K. Chesterton (I think) observed: someone has to defend the whiteness of snow and the blueness of the sky…And “a madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason” (“Orthodoxy,” 1908…written still fourteen years before his conversion to the Catholic Church).
About activism, or even about thought itself, Etienne Gilson writes:
“Man is not a mind that thinks, but a being who know other beings as true, who loves them as good, and who enjoys them as beautiful. Fol all that which is, down to the humblest form of existence, exhibits the inseparable privileges of beings, which are truth, goodness and beauty” (“The Unity of Philosophical Experience,” 1937…during the few interwar years!).
For the long term, Gilson proposed a full and single sentence: “natural law always buries its undertakers.”
Thank you, Larry. You have challenged me on some of my views on not legislating morality. I see your point. I too am what you could call a conservative with a Catholic worker mentality. I also agree with you in not supporting either political candidate. I would welcome a viable third party such as the American Solidarity Party whose platform is based on Catholic teaching and practice. I believe that there are a large number of socially minded conservatives (Christian, Jews, and even unbelievers ) who are seeking a common morality anjd decency. I think many are fed up with the vile polarization that our current political state. We can do better if we ban together and make our voices heard. We don’t need to take it any longer.
I’m gonna sidestep the “debate” about contraception that’s gotten started here, and just say, thank God for Larry Chapp, and others like him–orthodox Christians (small “o”) who put Christ before politics, and who therefore don’t fit neatly into either of the “camps” we’ve allowed ourselves to be driven into.
At one time I didn’t quite get what was wrong with the “culture warrior”, but I think I get it now. I have problems with the label “Catholic left”; it’s about as clear and precise as “Catholic right”. I wouldn’t say that Pope John Paul II was a culture warrior, nor Benedict XVI–although they are employed by culture warriors. There are so many great theologians who are faithful to Catholic teaching who are not culture warriors. I wouldn’t even call Larry Chapp a culture warrior, just a toxic whiner, as of late. And I wouldn’t say that Father James Martin is preoccupied with pelvic issues. He’s not focused on sexual acts, but on welcoming those who don’t feel welcome, who feel excluded–whether they are actually unwelcome and excluded is irrelevant at this point. They don’t feel welcome; they feel excluded, so let’s bring them to Christ. His approach is entirely pastoral, whereas culture warriors are more preoccupied with the morality of sexual acts–they tend to be moralizers. It is not imprudent to be concerned about sexual acts, for they have a bearing on our relationships with others and with God. But they might be putting the cart before the horse. I think Francis said as much.
Certain Catholic journals are so negative and toxic that I just don’t bother with them anymore. Catholic World Report is moving in that direction. The comment section here seems to be filled with culture warriors. A good pastor is not a culture warrior, and some people would like their pastor to be the conduit of their own anger with the culture. One has to have lots of experience as a pastor, lots of experience with people and their struggles, experience that allows us to know what to say and what not to say, how to lead them to the Lord. Being a professor is not the same thing at all, but professors typically don’t get that. Many seem to think Catholicism is about having “answers”, answering questions, lectures, books, etc.
I don’t think this article gets at the heart of the matter. It misses the mark.
“I wouldn’t even call Larry Chapp a culture warrior, just a toxic whiner, as of late. … Certain Catholic journals are so negative and toxic that I just don’t bother with them anymore. Catholic World Report is moving in that direction. The comment section here seems to be filled with culture warriors.”
Speck. Eye. Log. Plenty of irony here, without doubt.
I’ve been reading CWR since 1996 or so and have been editing it since late 2011. It has not become more negative or toxic. In fact, it’s one of the few Catholic outlets that has not lost its head or fled from the various conflicts that, unfortunately, do exist and are very real.
The hypocrisy that Dr. Chapp describes here is hardly new (as he indicates); it’s been around for decades. It used to be that NCReporter was the main proponent of fads contrary to Catholic teaching and thought, but in recent years formerly venerable journals including “America” and “Commonweal” have been racing toward the bottom. Many of their articles indicate that certain authors are so fixated on Trump and on changing Catholic moral teaching that they have lost the plot, the thread, their minds.
Finally, CWR tries to allow for a robust and fairly free-flowing combox experiences, but it is, in ways, the most difficult part of the job. Many, many comments (across the spectrum) are not put through, mostly because they are nasty, personal, and not conducive to any sort of conversation. I have often considered, in recent years, of shutting down the comboxes, but think they are a worthwhile addition to the site. That said, the comboxes are not CWR. It’s a 101 point, but it seems to be difficult for some readers to grasp.
Carl,
I for one am very glad you keep the com-box open, in contrast to many other Catholic sites! Thank you!
I will also note that I stopped donating to some others, The Catholic Thing for instance, when they did away with the opportunity to discuss things. They want us to read and pay, but not discuss, and that offended me.
I am sorry that it takes so much work to weed out those who see the “distance” of the internet as an opportunity to say things they wouldn’t dare to say face to face. Its a shame because it gives the rest of us the opportunity to chip in with some perhaps worthwhile ideas or insights which might not surface any other way.
Anyway, thanks again for keeping it available, and God bless!
Mark
Carl – I have been reading the CWR for more than two decades. I think it is the best magazine/site around because of the balance of articles. I would hate to see the comments go away – they provide a way to “measure the temperature” of various topics.
I think it fair to say the readers of CWR are not typical Catholics/Christians. I would like to see some kind of survey of readers. Nothing fancy: male/female, how often do you attend Mass/Confession, are you a convert/cradle/revert, do you believe the Church has the fullness of faith, married/single/divorced/widow, democrat/republican/independent, do you work for the Church in some professional capacity. Anyway, you get the idea. It would be self-reporting so that is always questionable, but I think it would be interesting.
My comments, insightful though they are, frequently push the edge of the envelope. I am grateful to Mr. Olson for letting almost all of them through.
Carl,
I am another admirer of Catholic World Report and very glad that you keep the comboxes open! Thank you!
I realize it is hard, but I wish my other 2 favorite sites—The Catholic Thing and Crisis Magazine would also offer a combox.
I think it is important to have an exchange of ideas among all the different article writers, article readers, combox readers, and combox writers. This free exchange of ideas certainly helps me to better analyze the different topics and develop and refine my own beliefs. AND it is an inspiration to see that faithful Catholic teaching is still being taught and believed!
You don’t want a right wing echo chamber from the same few usual suspects. Most of the laity practice or have practiced contraception. They typically do not read your publication and comment. I do. You are a convert and thus have not been beaten by nuns or dealt with arrogant priests. I have and have seen Church authority figures in their “full glory.” The current obsession with pelvic issues reminds me of the 17th century obsession with astronomy, ditto the acceptance of slavery in the past. Things will change. They have to.
Will, “most of the laity” in my experience are part-time Catholics, that is, Shopping Cart Catholics, aka “lukewarm”. God’s word to the church of Laodicea (Rv 3:14-3:22) is very fitting.
And your final word is not true: “Things will change. They have to.” No, they don’t “have to.” All the faithful are called to pray, “Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as in heaven.” We are called to pray with faith in God, with hope for His will and truth, with holy charity in Him. “They” have free will; things do not “have to change” on this earth. All will be changed, not necessarily to the expectations of all, when He comes!
And maybe it is no mere coincidence that the church of Laodicea is the last church mentioned in the list, before God lists His responses to this world.
Will, please give it away.
Give what away? I will not change my mind and will not shut up.
Perhaps the “heart of the matter” is the morally critical subtlety of your reference to Fr. James Martin: “…His approach is entirely pastoral.” About which, this, from the dismissed Veritatis Splendor:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a moral judgment] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘thou shalt not…’]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
Entirely pastoral?
Re: Thomas James statement that Father James Martin is “entirely pastoral” rather than being “preoccupied with the morality of sexual acts.”
Rich young man – What must I do to be saved?
Jesus – Obey the commandments.
Being pastoral cannot mean confirming people in their sins.
I’d be proud to be called a culture warrior. I think our culture is worth fighting for.
I have 24 descendants and counting. Ive heard a rumor that number 25 is on the way.
The society my children and grandchildren inherit is important to me. What we fail to stand up for today will affect them tomorrow.
I beat you Mrs Cracker; I have 31 grandchildren
The race is still ongoing Mrs. Margaret.
🙂
Congratulations on your grandchildren. What a great blessing!
Ew, why are you turning this into a competition? Your daughters are human beings not a bunch a show pony brood mares. I guess some people prefer to act as animal breeders of their adult children than thankful and loving grandparents.
I am forever thankful my parents do not possess this disgusting mentality. They value me and my siblings for who we are and what we do, not how many children we produce.
Valuing the number of grandchildren you have over valuing the children themselves as individual people is absolutely horrifying. I am glad you are not the grandparent of my child. 🤮
Dear, oh dear, Kellan. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
It is indeed joyful for good and faithful Catholics to be so pleased about how many future saints they might have produced.
The disgusting mentality is yours – one which judges without a shred of evidence that parents and grandparents of large families do not value the individuals.
You are completely wrong, Leo. Celebrating the quantity of children over the quality of the families is despicable. Obviously children are nothing more than a commodity to you and people like you.
Adult children are not animals for you to breed at will. That’s so sick.
It is abhorrent that grandparents cannot be trusted to treat their adult children like human beings.
If you want to breed creatures, get a dog.
I just had an update, grandchild number 17 is on the way. Lord willing.
🙂
James Martin is a culture warrior, not a pastor, on this issue. He weaponizes whatever can be molded to his purpose of overturning this church teaching. A culture warrior uses human beings as a means to an end; say by photo op. A pastor does not. We’re disappointed but understanding when clergy fall short of Christ’s kingdom. But we cannot stomach their falling short of Kant’s kingdom of ends, of basic responsibility. If the best secular ethics can mop the floor with the Catholic left, it’s awfully weak sauce.
The revolutionaries, inside and outside the Church, believe in nothing but their flawed selves and maybe flawed other people. Without God, and lacking answers to their own emptiness, they decide the answer must be to change all the externals, which then surely will make them happy, and maybe others.
Those inside the Church, rather than admitting their own cynicism drives away members, decides failing social club membership (and shrinking dues for their own support) must mean that membership requirements are too stringent and need to be relaxed.
Inter alia, just too wordy, Mr. Chapp!
It is a false statement to say there is a Catholic “Left”. Those people are clearly not Catholic who support and endorse everything antithetical to God. God can not be both right and wrong at the same time.
Please stop using language as a weapon to call people Catholic when they are clearly not.
Excellent point.
Agree, excellent point.
Today’s lectionary reading from St. Jude shows that the problem of false teachers and pseudo Catholics is not a new one.
Catholic Republicans should now nominate and vote newly baptized Catholic Candace Owens for President.
One might ask how it is that being baptised by a Catholic priest makes one a Catholic. Baptism may be performed by anyone. In an instance such as an emergency baptism when a child is born with danger of death, what makes that child a Catholic or any other denomination of Christian ?
Indeed, the question arises as to what makes anyone a Catholic ? Many who have been baptised and confirmed in a Catholic church have gone off to, say, Buddhism. Are they Catholics ?
A cynic once said that outstanding critiques and 25 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. Today the only difference is the same will cost you five dollars. All that really matters in the end is the depth of our faith. Larry Chapp’s essay on his views of contemporary religious positions offers us, in our pursuit of truth, a different perspective, perhaps an improvement of our own ideas and a better understanding of others.
Comboxes are indeed worthwhile in a well managed open forum, because unlike the limitations of a limited pool of participants, the resource pool is virtually unlimited and potentially makes for greater success in the pursuit of truth.
You say: “Speck. Eye. Log. Plenty of irony here, without doubt”
??? Come off it. You see me obsessed with in Anti-Francis diatribes?
I’m glad you think CWR is not becoming more toxic. I hope you are right and see things objectively. From my vantage point, it seems to me that it is, with all the anti-Francis rhetoric. Sometimes its best to just leave certain things alone and focus on writing good and positive articles that inspire people to love the Lord more deeply. It’s that old expression: You win more flies with honey than with vinegar. There’s been lots of vinegar on CWR as of late. And there have certainly been articles on here that should never have seen the light of day (i.e., anything by Jim Russell, and others that I care not to recall). Also, your standard for determining what amounts to “racing to the bottom” is simply your own theological perspective. I’ve read more inspiring articles on America and on NCR in recent months than I have on this site. I hope that changes. A bit of advice: time to say goodbye to George Weigel. He reminds me of a “has been” country singer that a station in the deep south keeps playing, when there are so many new and exciting artists to choose from. He’s become so sour and smug. And it’s true that the commentators are not CWR, but they are drawn to CWR, and birds of a feather flock together. I mean, just read the comments on this article. My goodness! “Black and white, us and them, good and evil, and everyone who does not see things as I see them is not Catholic”. Sheeeesh!
I hope things pick up. There’s got to be some good Catholic writers out there who are not overly obsessed with Pope Francis and who can bring some fresh air into this place. Francis says so many good things that we don’t hear about, but when he says something that is slightly ambiguous, you’re all over it for weeks. People love things they can complain and whine about and look down their noses on. Try to avoid that stuff for a while and let’s bring in some inspiring pieces and some new writers, in particular those who do not write as though they have all the answers and “know it all”, who think that after 20 years of teaching theology at a university they have what it takes to govern the Church and advise the Holy Father on important pastoral matters.
“Has been ” country singers in the Deep South are known as Classic Country singers.
That’s the best kind.
🙂
Define “pastoral matters.”
No response? Well then, here’s a start:
“[‘the preferential option for the poor’] is not limited to material poverty, since it is well known that there are many other forms of poverty, especially in modern society–not only economic but cultural [!] and spiritual poverty as well” (Centesimus Annus, 1991, n. 58).
AND this:
“…the Church’s Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that THE RIGHT OF THE FAITHFUL [italics] to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 113). Inclusivity!
Happily pastoral, and even more, is Dignitas Infinita (2024)! But, thinking multiculturally from ancient Chinese wisdom: “a single flower does not a springtime make…”
Nope, Fiducial Supplicans (2023) remains uncorrected. However, some choristers might chirp that blessing two “persons” is pastorally equivalent to half-blessing a “couple”. The New Math! And likewise, and thinking ecologically, even an insect with segmented eyes might nod synodally at the apparent complexity of such things.
But, “backwardists,” informed by the un-bisected and pastoral coherence of Faith & Reason (1998), will accurately see Fiducia Supplicans as a detached retina floating in a cloud of double-speak and blindness.
Pastoral: P-a-s-t-o-r-a-l.
The culture wars are really nothing more than a war of what is true, right and good against that of lies, wrongs, and evil.
It is a spiritual war with those who believe in the one, true Triune God and those who do not.
It is an ongoing war that will last until Christ returns. Then, nothing else will matter to anyone except where Christ judges them to spend eternity.
Chapp: “While I am at it, I may as well address the fact that the combox attached to this article will remind me I am not a fan of Donald Trump….But my overall politics and my reasons for not voting for him or Biden are too complex to parse out here…”.
VOTING is really simple – and needs no future article about any “reasons too complex to parse out here”.
1. Unless a 3rd Party Candidate has any reason whatsoever to claim that a victory is possible – that candidate is simply a spoiler. E.g. Ross Perot handed the Presidency to Bill Clinton over HGW Bush in ’92. This year, RFK Jr. cannot win – he can only be a spoiler. “Protest votes” for such candidates have no meaning. Their only ACTUAL effect is to help one or the other of the 2 candidates who have the actual possibility of winning. Period.
2. “Not voting” or “Voting 3rd party” ACTUALLY hurts the candidate of the 2 real possibles that is the lesser objectionable to you by taking away a vote from his total and thereby clearly aiding the other most objectionable candidate to you. Simple as that.
3. We Deplorables (and though Hillary is the one who spoke that word publicly, rest assured that the Swamp Class that actually runs this country overwhelmingly “value” us exactly the same) still have one great opportunity to affect things and that is when we VOTE. It’s not the time to share some overblown existential angst about one or the other or both of the TWO ACTUAL possible winners – it’s the time to vote for the least worst one by your calculation – cuz one of those two IS going to be President. RFK Jr, just for example, is NOT going to be President. Take that to the bank!
4. Big picture – NOT voting for Trump only helps Biden. Period.
5. Voting Day is NOT a day for sharing your innermost emotions, feelings, or thoughts by either not voting or by voting for someone who can’t win. Voting Day is the day for you to help one or the other of the two actual possibles win. cuz one of them IS who we are going to get. Period.
6. On voting day, no one cares about your “protest” vote other than which one of the 2 actuals you helped to win – more foolishly unwittingly than wittingly on your part!
AFTER voting day, they don’t care about your “protest” vote at all.
7. Voting Day is a day to practice the virtue of HUMILITY and help the least objectionable of the 2 to win. Simple as that. The day is not about you!
Harry. Righto, righto, and righto again.
Personally, neither of the candidates is fit to win, and I am not going to vote for either of them. It really doesn’t matter to me which one wins. Instead, I will vote for someone whose platform I agree with whether they have any chance to win or not, and if enough people did that we would probably elect someone fit to hold the office.
I have a picture of Abraham Lincoln at home with the words “This is what happens when you vote third party” at its base. And that’s what I intend to do.
Then,you must be OK with our soldiers dying needlessly in foreign lands; exorbitant grocery prices which harms poor families; the suppression of many constitutional rights such as free speech, freedom of religion, and gun rights; jailing pro-life protesters, propagandizing small children through our public schools in sexual perversions; betraying our ally Israel after their people were murdered and kidnapped; having an open border through which flows millions of sex traffickers and drug dealers which results in many American deaths; the weaponization of our major govt institutions such as the FBI and justice dept to undermine and attack not only politicians with opposing views but PARENTS as well; intrusion into personal decisions involving the purchase of gas cars and home appliances; extreme crime in our cities with no consequences and a financial crisis brought about by illegal immigration.
Say what you want about Trump, he would NEVER allow these things to happen. If you are unhappy with Trump, ask yourself if its because you have believed DEM lies about him, or about aspects of his personality? I dont vote on personality. I vote for the person who will keep my family SAFE. That person is NOT Joe Biden. Nor will any other candidate get enough votes to win. Its a wasted vote which will ensure the election of dangerous Joe Biden.Time to smarten up. Or the blood of the country will be on your hands.
So Trump is our savior? The “annointed one?” It’s quite amazing that a carnival barker has generated such hero worship. Perhaps he can walk across the Potomac?
LJ, you sound unhinged. Rather than frothing at the mouth over things that are completely untrue, out of your control, or none of your business like you are some sort of rabid animal – I suggest you put the phone down and go touch some grass.
With respect, what events occurred after Lincoln was elected? I surely don’t look forward to repeating anything like that.
Consequentialism.
The underlying faulty premise in all of this is that the moral weight of the action is determined by the outcome.
Related to that is a desire to “win,” to achieve some kind of control or influence over circumstances that, for 99% of us, we have no real influence over.
When faced with the choice of sinning in order to win or simply accepting our lack of control, the right choice is to lose.
If someone is convinced that the system and candidates are such that any vote is morally repugnant, they have the right – indeed, obligation – to abstain. You may disagree, but they are beholden to their conscience, not your anxiety and political perspective.
It is better to be the victim who knows he has no power to prevent a particular evil than to align with the perpetrator under the illusion of thinking it gives one the power to do good. We are not, in fact, required to participate in a false binary of worldly power because we know there are higher things.
I have not made up my mind, but I find consequentialist apocalyptic rhetoric deeply unappealing.
Since every man is a sinner, a vote for any candidate is always a vote for a sinner. At what point does voting for a sinner become consequentialism? I never vote for the lessor of two evils but for what is best for my city, state, or country, according to Catholic principles. Is that consequentialism?
Those are good points Mr.Bill.
False binaries, eschewing power, accepting suffering. Thank you Father Alex for introducing Christ to a conversation premised on the assumption that we can minimize suffering by voting for one party and not another. We will continue to suffer as the parties take turns savaging one Catholic principle or another, dealing death one way or another. Enthusiasm for voting, then, is just a variant of Stockholm Syndrome. One might still accept voting as a painful duty. But it’s natural if some Catholics, instead, fear that voting makes them hostages, or complicit in sin in a way that they need not be.
Congratulations Mr. Chapp! In my opinion, this is one of the best articles written this year in this Reporter. It’s a take out “the hat” invitation. Touch ground in a very direct way. Thanks! Continue this way.
Mr. Chapp, in your commentary said,
“Never mind all of that. Because, according to them, the Catholic culture warriors are here to turn all of our daughters into bipedal, ambulatory baby incubators for churning out the future fascists of America.”
You forgot an important word: barefoot!
Under no circumstances must they wear shoes. We must never forget we want our women “barefoot and pregnant”! Never!
I think you mistake a judicial determination that something can’t be prohibited under the law, based on a lawsuit by someone at the bottom facing the unlawful prohibition, for the “top down” judicial “imposition” of that thing that the law can’t prohibit. When I was a lawyer in Switzerland, that was the one-sentence parody summary of Swiss law — “Some things are prohibited, everything else is mandatory.” But that understanding is just plain wrong.
I see the words “liberal” and ” conservative” thrown about here. A conservative is nothing more than a person who eventually accepts the liberal position some time/years later as the new normal.
I propose a word that I have not seen in this discussion. Traditionalist. The Traditionalist remains true to what is rightly ordered and true and does not follow the conservative in accepting the new normal.
That’s a good point.
“Conservatives” are often just a few steps behind the liberals. They move as the goalposts are moved also, but a little more slowly.
Great now do an article on the hypocrisy of the Catholic right. There is a growing number of Catholics falling victim to Evangelical Protestantism and valuing nationalism OVER their catholic faith. It goes both ways.
I hardly use absolutes, all and none, unless I’m factually sure.
The Hill: “The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court is on appeal from a federal circuit court”.
“I hardly use absolutes, all and none, unless I’m factually sure.”
Years of reading your comments raise doubts about this claim.
Carl, I keep on trying. Thanks for the heads-up.
I propose that 1) all would-be and actual theologians henceforth not be permitted to air their views in prestigious Catholic publications on law and politics in America until they prove that they have graduated from an American law school; and 2) that only actual Th.D. theologians be permitted to publish their views on theology in the same publications. How about that?
Now that you have erred your views, readers are impressed that you surely have both degrees.
what did I say wrong this time??