Thank you so much for publishing this, Mark!  Your synopsis of Rand’s philosophy, and it’s impact on our current world, is spot-on.

Peace,
Del Allan

Mark, so enjoyed your commentary above.
When I was young, and before I reentered the Church, I was a Rand devotee—like many self-absorbed young people. I don’t dispute your characterization of Rand as full of pride. But in more recent years I have pondered the power of her books. Remember they were published during a Cold War period in which intellectual elites preached collectivism and individual achievement was under siege.  Milton Friedman’s aphorism—“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” sums up an important truth embedded in Rand’s rants. The central exception to the rule that we must “earn” what we receive in life is Christ’s redeeming love. We don’t earn his love, its superabundance flows from the wellspring of all love and is given gratis to those creatures the Creator made “for their own sake.”
Another partial truth embedded in Rand’s novels is the notion that the conjugal act is designed to affirm the person’s deepest values. That is not the whole truth, of course and Rand’s profound selfishness undermines the full purpose of this act and what it should intend. As one Catholic who has found deep insights in the late John Paul II’s theology of the body, it seems to me that we can engage Rand’s devotees on these points and then draw them to the full truth regarding the dignity of the human person and the natural law.

Thank you for the clarity in regard to Rand.  I have never known how to articulate her views to family who think she is genius worthy.  Now, I do.

The best part of this, to me, was the comparision of Orwell and Huxley.  Having read “Brave New World”, I see it taking place now.  Children are pacified with electronic hand-held games, videos in cars, Wii and X-Box games, which render them passive and quiet, yet also stir up violent tendencies and dull the mind with repeated exposure to inappropriate themes.  Adults are tethered to computers, iPhones or Blackberries, whatever technology is available to feed the addiction to information.  I also indulge in this and my Lenten attempt at fasting was to reduce my use of e-mail and the Internet.  I did not completely succeed.  The fruit of all this is a more angry, impatient and self-absorbed culture of people who are not used to analytical thought and cannot follow a logical path to try to predict the consequences of actions.  I suppose you can apply that statement to any number of things we’ve seen in the US over the past 20 years from education to war to banking to health care debates.  Because we are not thinking about the long-term effects of any of our actions, we are going to be doomed to suffer the unintended consequences of everything that our leaders have been doing for years now.  We need to untether ourselves, get used to thinking again and also pray.  Otherwise, we will remain mired in this awful muck of technological pacification.

Dorothy Day was one of Stalin’s “useful idiots” and praised Fidel Castro; Ayn Rand (her real name was Alice Rosenbrg, but she wanted to symbolize her leaving the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to worship the Almighty Dollar), hated “altruism” in favor of “The Virtue of Selfishness” (to quote the title of one of her books).
Ironically, despite praising those who benefited society she lived off society, by surrounding herslf with wealthy sycophants.
Frnk Lloyd Wright (the supposed inspiration of “The Fountainhead”) despised her for living in a fantasy world, and she fueded with real conservatives ranging from Murray Rothbard to William F. Buckley Jr..  (In fact, Buckley didn’t let any of her followers write for National Review, which is why followers of Ayn Rand had to wait for Buckley to die to declare themselves the true conservatives.)

I’d take Day’s Christian socialism* over Rand’s godless capitalism any day.

*Or whatever it should properly be called.

Day’s “socialism” was rooted in the pre-Vatican II encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII… she merely felt that it was time for Catholics to arm themselves with those encyclicals. Day will never be canonized, but if you read her writings, and read about what she lived through, and read her conversion story in The Long Loneliness, well, anyway, I believe she’s a saint before the Throne of Cod. She was instrumental in my own conversion, I thank God for Day and her witness. She was (and is) quite a woman. I only wish more people knew about her…

All the best… just my thoughts.

Mark, if you are not aware already you will be interested to learn that Day occasionally referred to her principles as libertarian (or occasionally even anarchist, with some qualifications). The heart of the Catholic Worker’s economic principles is decentralization, but they recognize that private corporations are just as significant a force of centralization as any given government, and that a true libertarianism therefore cannot be based simply on classical-liberal notions of private property and individual freedom. She explicitly states that the private charity of the Catholic Worker houses are meant to stop the coming of the impersonal charity of the welfare state. In The Long Loneliness she discusses figures like Stalin and Mao, and explains that the cult of the dynamic leader has developed because of the hole left in society by the absence of God, and that the solution is to return God to his proper place in society. She is certainly not a “conservative” or a “constitutionalist,” but she’s also quite clear about her opposition to communism. If one must search out a secular equivalent to the Catholic Worker movement (which I don’t recommend)a more accurate comparison would be to “hippy communes” which concentrate on personal relationships and hand-production, but then she would not agree with their sexual libertinism.

By no reasonable stretch of the definition does Ayn Rand qualify as philosopher.  Thinker? Perhaps.  Ranter? Definitely.  Philosopher. No way.

I believe that there may be some truth Glen Beck’s statement about Dorthy Day, however once she found Christ, His Church and embraced its teachings she in no way could support socialism. 

A little known fact about her was her unsuccessful campaign to stop the US bishops from supporting FDR’s 1930’s social legislation.  Her reasoning was based on Christ’s teaching that we are our brother’s keepers not the state.  She argued that if you allowed the state to take on the responsibility of being our brothers keepers this bond would be broken resulting in the institutionalization of charity by the state. 

Sadly for us, Dorothy Day, who is now recognized by the Church officially as a “Servant of God”, was right and we are now suffering the effects state institutionalization of charity. There has been a horible price (welfare abuse, state sponsored abortion, rampet growth of the gay agenda, many Church leaders not proclaiming Church’s teachings and objections regarding these evils in society for fear of loosing Federal and State money for its charities) that the Church and the threat to the very existance of our very Republic and for which it stands.

Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and We the Living were instrumental in my trip out the door of the Catholic Church when I was 19.  While I would not have been able to label it at that time, in ‘struth I wanted to embrace that cool controlled “virtue of selfishness” I found to be oh so brave and romantic in the novels. I wanted to be a composite of Dagny, Dominique and Kira.  But the return to faith and my dear Catholic Church 11 years later was a spectacular reawakening, thanks be to God.  How many people did not make it back to God after a dose of Rand?  How many souls died as a result of her self-absorbed philosophies?

I can’t claim any knowledge Dorothy Day, but thanks to Martin W. Howser for his critique which I find encouraging and hopefully accurate.
However, with regard to Rand, let’s be careful when casting stones. While I agree her extreme capitalistic philosophy seems overly selfish, it is without question the vehicle that creates the wealth which enables other free people, more correctly embracing Christ, to properly help those in need to their heart’s content. That is true Christian Charity. Though thinking it foolish, Rand would not interfere in any such voluntary exchange. Only useful idiots, promoting socialism and charity at the point of a gun, despite its imprudence (based in theft and lack of subsidiarity, for starters), would have cause to be concerned. If she goes to hell, she’s taking only herself there, whereas the prophets of socialism and communism dish out their involuntary destruction to whomever gets in their evil way. The two philosophies can not be seriously compared.

Many of the comments of Desmond and Schenk above are quite accurate.  I am a reserved fan of Rand, although I think her writing and ‘philosophy’ are clearly sophomoric, her instincts were correct.  I disagree with Shea that her concepts are sinful in themselves, but in their conclusions, yes.  Not remotely like Stalin, she exalted achievement of the individual.  She just missed the part that such achievement was for the glory of God. 

I am far less impressed with Dorothy Day and agree that she was a useful idiot for Communism.  She simply used a folkish theology to justify collectivist objectives.

In short the two women were far less than their followers would like.  Their relation to Christianity would seem to tangent at the parable of the talents.  There, Rand would to her dismay agree with Christ, while Day would simply want to take them.

I belong to a (small?) group of Catholics who see in the institution of the State a terrible danger to the Church and humanity as a whole. Our views often get lumped in with “libertarianism,” and to a certain extent, it is accurate to do so. I mention this, because I’d also like to testify that I have always found the writings and the life of Ayn Rand to be utterly terrible, and I’d say that while most “libertarians” respect Rand to varying degrees (I don’t at all), most also look at her life and her teachings as embarrassing, and don’t really take her that seriously. I’d also like to mention that Glenn Beck is NOT a libertarian. He is an opportunist, just like the vast majority of contributors to Fox News. He and others employed by that network smell a profit to be made in pandering to the indignant, and once someone takes the presidency whom Fox News prefers, they will revert back to “All Hail Bush” mode. Just clarifying…

“I belong to a (small?) group of Catholics who see in the institution of the State a terrible danger to the Church and humanity as a whole.”

I find this curious since the Church does not view the State in this manner.  Can you explain your position based upon the Catechism and other Church documents?

I concur, I was a little ‘surprised’ and winced when Glenn was so quick to accuse Dorothy Day, admitting he doesn’t know anything about her, but I do the same thing. I’d say we’re all guilty of it from time to time, however, not all of us have tv shows where so many can be either wounded or seriously damaged from comments. But that being said, we all, or most of us, have access to computers/libraries/Google and can ‘read up b’ and do our own homework, which is something we all need to do and he should have done first. I forgive him for being hasty. I’ve been so more often than not in my life, especially when emotions run high. Rather than jumping on the “Bash Beck bandwagon” however, should we not just see his error as just that? An error? That he misspoke? Mark, have you written Glenn and explained to him, in the spirit of Christian love, who Dorothy Day is? Have you contacted him or his website, to ‘correct him in all gentleness and charity?’  That is what I’d like to know.  I’ve met Glenn, talked to him, and spent a little time with him in 2003 on the Caravan he had for his Rally for America.  He’s a good man. He’s humble and wants to know the truth. So, since you took the time to write this post, maybe make another effort to share the truth with him, huh? I wasn’t Catholic at the time we were with Glenn. I do know he was a Catholic, and went to Catholic grade school for a time, at least I read that somewhere. Like so many thousands, he was probably poorly catechised, and maybe only went to first communion and then wasn’t in Catholic schools any longer and/or left the Church. I’m sure Mormonism has made its impact on him. No doubt he’s seen them “live out their faith” more wholly and with more ‘love’ than many Catholics. Sad but true. That’s why “cults” have such a pull on “ignorant Catholics.” But I would hope you’d attempt to contact him, or call his radio program and talk to him, if you were so “exasperated” by his comments on tv.  That seems the more Christian thing to do than ‘bash Beck.’ It seems to me that he spoke in ignorance, not meaning to indict her as he did. Even if he meant to, it wasn’t a lie about her and where she was at the time. We need it clarified surely, but don’t harbor “ill will’ towards him who you also ‘don’t know.’ He usually is more prepared so it’s too bad disparaging remarks were made. That being said, I’ve always had a problem with Dorothy Day, a “gut” thing for me personally, b/c most of her “supporters” seem much more in favor of pacifism and socialism than I care to find in the CC running so rampant and misguiding so many souls. I don’t know too much about her either, but I do know a strong devotee of hers, who’s also, oddly enough involved with Call to Action, so there ya go. I think we all know that THAT particular “movement” is nothing short of “commie.” If you’re going to criticize Glenn, then make every attempt first to get to “know him” and contact him with the “truth about Dorothy” or you might come off as a bit of a high-brow, arrogant “blow hard” as well.

Best regards,
susie
http://revertconvert.blogspot.com

I’ve read Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was just so sadly misguided. She tried to divorce capitalism from charity. The truth is that capitalism only flourishes when charity is active for the reason that if my brother has no money how can he buy my goods? The result of writings like hers has been a society trying to operate without God and without neighbor and failing miserably on both counts.

“Indeed, it could well be argued that the gospel of selfishness Rand preached is capable of doing more damage than communism did.” You’ve revealed your ignorance of both Rand and communism.

In the 20th-Century communist governments murdered 100 million civilians.

By contrast, Rand devoted her life to fighting for freedom - the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property.  She taught that once a government banishes the use of violence and physical coercion from private relations, capitalism is the spontaneous system of peaceful trade that develops between free and equal individuals.  She considered this ideal.  Is this what you consider so evil? And how does it compare to the slaughter of 100 million innocents? 

Shame on you for daring to compare an eccentric writer with whom you obviously disagree to the bloody nightmare that has been the history of communism.  Disgusting.

For some reason, in your evangelical fervor for your Cult Leader, Alano, you chose to ignore her zeal for abortion, which has killed 1.4 million people each year since 1973 in this country alone.  Add in the worldwide statistics for the past 40 odd years and the numbers dwarf even the Commie slaughters.

Rand’s individualism was contemptuous of God and the weak and regarded children as an impediment to personal autonomy.  It is a philosophy worthy of hell and it has indeed aided and abetted in the murder of countless millions—just like communism.  Excuses for it are disgusting.

Mark:

I’m about two-thirds of the way through Atlas Shrugged. Although I can’t say that I understand Ms. Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism (or why everybody makes such a fuss about it), I can say that the book is a rant *against* communism. However, her apparent solution to the Marxist maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a pure capitalism based upon the ideal man, an almost religious fervor for the celebration of personal achievement. While an admirable idea, especially when in service of our fellow men and ultimately achievement that encompasses a sacrifice of love, Rand’s epitome of human purpose is to achieve the ideal man at the expense of our fellow men. And while the “fellow men” in Atlas Shrugged are depraved, selfish and animalistic, it is this unrealistic characterization of of extremes beaten almost to death in the book to make a point which is disturbing.  But the most disturbing thing is is what Rand doesn’t write about. Nowhere in the book does anyone *love* another person. Even the “idealistic” love of Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon, is based upon their idealistic images of what the other *represents* as a model of the ideal man.

It makes me think that Ms. Rand doesn’t really understand love, and that is the primary ingredient missing from her literature.

FWIW

Sir, I’m not going to stoop to your level and engage in name calling (e.g. “Cult Leader”).  Were it not so trite I would point out how “unchristian” it is to engage such behavior.

First, surely you will concede that to Rand (and plenty of others) abortion is not murder.  You might consider it murder, but surely you recognize that plenty of people don’t see it as murder.  About half the population believes abortion is murder; whereas, about 100 percent of the population would call what the communists did murder.  Isn’t that alone a big difference between Rand and the Communists? 

The communists knew full well that they were murdering real, living, breathing, thinking human beings - human beings who, as they slowly starved to death or looked down the barrel of a gun - were aware of what was happening to them.  The communists knew what they were murdering; Rand honestly believed abortion was not murder.

Second, abortion – like gun rights—was a topic Rand seldom discussed.  She knew there were plenty of other people out there who felt like she did, and so there wasn’t much she could add to the national dialogue.  So it’s hard to hold her personally responsible for the number of abortions in the world.  If Rand had never existed, there’s a darn good chance that just as many abortions would have occurred over the years.  By contrast, it’s safe to say that had communism never existed, those 100 million people would not have been murdered by communist governments.  In short, the loose causal connection between Rand’s positions on abortion and and the number of abortions performed makes it difficult to hold her responsible.  Is Rand any more responsible than any other pro-choice person for the number of abortions in the world?  Is Rand any more responsible than pro-life individuals who were once pro-choice?

Third, everywhere communism has been put into practice – in scores of countries located on every continent – it has resulted in gulags, slavery, starvation (planned and unplanned), reeducation camps, tons of abortions (often forced), and mass slaughter of innocent civilians.  There’s something inherent to communism that leads to death camps. In strong contrast, those countries that have come the closest to Rand’s vision of a society of free and equal traders, with minimal government, have seen a lasting peace and prosperity previously unknown in human history.  The United States, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, and the countries of Western Europe are the freest and most capitalist countries.  Thus, there’s no empirical reason to associate Rand’s philosophy with (non-abortion)  murder.

I stick by my assertion that comparing Rand to Stalin or Rand’s philosophy to communism is crude, silly, and disgusting.

Well, I’ve read your critique, and since I actually know a great deal about Rand (read most of her nonfiction, all of her fiction, and her biography by Jennifer Burns), I can say with great certainty that you are completely wrong and have greatly misrepresented Rand.  Let’s go piece by piece.

“Rand’s attitude toward the weak is, as Chambers pointed out, “To a gas chamber—go!” ”

Rand’s attitude for the weak is not “to a gas chamber, go.”  That is Hitler and the Nazis, whom she wrote quite vehemently against, blasting both their policies and their underlying ideology.  Rather, Rand’s view towards the “weak” would be more accurately characterized by the words of her character Roark in the Fountainhead who said, “Granted it is a vicious evil to punish a man simply because he is weak and small.  How much worse is it then, to punish him simply because he is strong and great.”  She defended the geniuses because she saw them as the people most in need of defense (which, under collectivism, they are).  She vehemently denied the idea that the weak had some sort of intrinsic right to the products of the strong as well as the ideologies (Communism, Socialism, Fascism, collectivism) which peddled such things.  But that is not the same thing as “hating the weak.”

“And I do most firmly believe that Rand’s philosophy is quite capable of damning a soul to hell.  She is radically selfish and filled with pride, the sin that made the devil the devil.”

Rand used the word “selfish” to deliberately inflame her opposition.  The less inflammatory translation would be “rational self-interest.”  The idea is to do what is best for you in the long term: work hard, save, invest, live honestly and well.  Her heroes were wealthy, but they gained their wealth through honest means and hard work, not fraud or theft.  As for pride, you’ve got it wrong; it’s not pride but arrogance that is the true sin, which is undeserved pride.  Rand came to this country as an immigrant with nothing who didn’t know the language, and wrote books that sold literally millions of copies and are still in print today.  Atlas Shrugged was a NYT bestseller last year and sold nearly 500,000 copies, and we’re talking a 1,000 page, 50 year old novel.  Is that not something of which a person could honestly be incredibly proud?

“Rand’s philosophy is radically opposed to the gospel of Christ”

Yes and no.  Rand was specifically opposed to altruism when it was defined as the sacrificing of a greater value for a lesser one.  She saw Christ as the penultimate in such sacrifice, since the fundamental idea behind Christianity is that of the sacrifice of the only perfect man in human existence, Jesus Christ, for the sake of lesser men.  However, that does not mean that Rand was opposed to the idea of charitable donations.  Rather, she opposed the idea that those who donated had a duty to do so, those who received had a right to that money, and that to give such money without expecting some sort of trade-off in return (which could just be the satisfaction of having helped someone) is a moral thing to do.

She also would have defended to the death your right to practice your religion as you saw fit.  She was not out to squash your morals; rather, what she fought against was the idea that you had the right to force your morals on her.

“as is Stalin’s”

No, we never find the ideas of how noble it is to sacrifice our lives for others in the bible.  “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” could never find any support in the Christian bible.

“At the end of the day, one racked up a higher body count in terms of public violence, but both are capable of killing souls (and bodies if you count her zeal for abortion) with great alacrity.”

Rand was indeed strongly pro-choice in that she thought it was absolutely a woman’s choice as to whether or not a woman should bear a child.  She viewed a fetus as a “potential life,” and abhorred the idea that a potential life should take precedence over the life that was already here, which was the life of the mother.  However, I do not think you can equate a vehement defense of abortion with a zeal to terminate pregnancies.  I view a fetus as a “potential life,” but that does not mean that I enjoy the idea of a pregnancy being terminated, or that I do not feel pain when even a potential life is cut short.  And give Rand credit where credit is due; she may have been a strong pro-choice woman, but she would have completely a woman’s right to choose whether a woman chose to keep the child or not.  Can you say the same of many of today’s supposed “pro-choice” women?

“Indeed, it could well be argued that the gospel of selfishness Rand preached is capable of doing more damage than communism did.  “

Rand championed objective reality, reason as the ultimate source of all human wealth and progress, inalienable human rights including property rights, and a limited government restricted solely to the protection of those rights.  The country she loved more than any other, because she viewed it as the one that had put her ideas more fully into practice than any other, was the United States of America.  America has been in existence for over 230 years.  I’m still waiting for those gulags and famines to start.

“Rand’s contempt for children (surely the weakest among us) “

Have you ever read any of her essays slamming modern educators for indoctrinating children with false theories and failing to teach them how to think?  One of the reasons I loved Rand’s fiction so much growing up was because I viewed her ideas as a defense of my existence which I had failed to find almost anywhere else.

“and her zeal for sterile sex is echoed in our culture,”

Rand viewed sex as the ultimate expression of a person’s highest values and viewed indiscriminate, sterile sex as a sign that the person doing it had no values to express.  She did not view sex solely as a tool of procreation and she did not issue any blanket condemnation of sex outside marriage, but to characterize her as an advocate of the sort of indiscriminate sex characterized by Huxley’s “Brave New World” is utterly unfair.

“which has already racked up a body count far greater than Stalin’s—and one which implicates, not just a few hundred thousand troops acting under orders, but millions and millions of private citizens acting of their own free will”

Communism has killed 100 million people.  Ayn Rand fought against the fundamental ideas behind collectivism and collectivism’s body count almost literally to her dying breath.  You may not agree with her, but at least grant her the respect of noting that what she explicitly stood for was exactly the same thing our country stands for: the right to pursue your own life and happiness free of the unwanted interference of government or your fellow citizens.  I’m still waiting for the body count that occurred as the result of those ideals.

But what about Dorothy Day?  I know she did have an abortion, and also a deep conversion. I know she did ‘good’ but did she or did she not have Marxist leanings? She was a pacifist also, correct? That’s a bit troubling, especially in the wake of 9/11. Do pacifists *ever* believe in defending the innocent with more than a ‘scolding’ over espresso/biscotti? She was firmly against the death penalty, and that’s ok, you can be a good Catholic and believe either way on that, since it’s not an ‘intrinsic’ evil, as is abortion. Oh, maybe I should just go to the library or do more research on line. Has there been anything done or any effort made to enlighten Glenn Beck on DD? I appreciate your wisdom and all you do for the Church, Mark, but I still hope you’ll not leave Glenn “in the dark.” You of anyone should be able to contact him and give him the facts on her.  If not, why not?  It’s our job as Christians to ‘speak the Truth in love’ to all. I believe he’d take your call or appreciate any attempt you’d have at correcting his error.  That’s more my concern at this point than Rand. But these are surely “colorful” comments and interesting reads. God bless.

You say you know something about Rand and then engage in a description of her ideas that indicates otherwise. She did not have the view of “the weak” that you speak of. Her view of the common man (a term she didn’t like) was that they had a great deal of sense and virtue to them.

Was her philosophy opposed to that of Christ (as described in the N.T.)? Yes. I would agree with her there as a former Christian turned atheist. As for “killing souls” that is, of course, an unprovable statement based more on your theology than on any real evidence. And she did support a woman’s right to choose, as do about half of all Americans. But I am glad to see you associating such individual, social freedoms with capitalism. I have long tried to get people to understand that capitalism is a force for social liberalism. I’m glad you recognize that even if you oppose said social freedom (and apparently economic freedom as well).  It is one reason that I have long thought that political policy based on Catholicism is more akin to fascism than to anything else.

Thank you, Briana, for correcting Mr. Shea’s ridiculous misrepresentations. His claimed knowledge of Ayn Rand is nowhere in evidence.

Dear Writer,

You simply know not a single fact about Ayn Rand’s philosopie.

For example “Rand’s attitude toward the weak is, as Chambers pointed out, “To a gas chamber—go!” “

She never ever said something even close to that but she argued heavily against such a principle. She simply wanted people to be able to be left alone in a society and not to be expropriated by communists.

If you do not understand this simple difference - comprehensible to a grammar school kid - maybe you should not write about Ayn Rand? The least thing you could do is inform yourself about her philosophy instead of starting a smear campaign out of misknowledge.

:) Gotta love The People’s Cube
http://www.zazzle.com/pd/realviewpopup?url=http://rlv.zcache.com/isapi/designall.dll?action=realview&pdt=shirt&pending=false&pid=235638885189497698&rvtype=product&view=front&max_dim=770&bg=0xffffff&square_it=true&draw_relative_size=true&style=basic_tshirt&color=white&size=a_l&context=mfong&side_front=vert&group=mens&lifestyle=classic&lifeStyle=classic&drawareaboundingbox=false&drawsafearea=false&view_auto=1.4&dim=770

I am reminded of Theodore Dalrymple’s note that the supporters of Ayn Rand are only topped in their intolerance of a dissenting view of their hero by supporters of Virginia Woolf. I’m not much of a fan of either.

Glenn Beck absolutely admits when he is incorrect and wrong.  He has no problem with it!  Just don’t bash him without sharing the information with him.  Call him, email him, twitter him, FB him—he does it all and he is certainly reachable!  Do that first.

Oh, if anyone is interested in what Glenn’s “fight” on social justice is about, check out the link below. 

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/04/what_glenn_beck_meant_about_social_justice.html

You’re absolutely right, Nicole, but who knows if Mr. Shea will get in touch w/ him. I really hope he does, otherwise he loses some respect from me. Not that that matters to him I suppose, but it should, b/c we all have responsibility to “be Christ to others” and enlightening those who are ‘in the dark’ about something, is one way to be “Christ.” Glenn knows more about liberation theology and the harm it’s done and is doing to the Church than many “Catholics” I know!! That’s for dang sure!  We’re waiting, Mark.  Maybe you could even be on the program and enlighten more than Glenn.

I’m so excited that this was here when I did a search on Dorothy Day and pro-life today. 

Your Orwellian reference made me think about this movie clip where this guy talks about us building our own prisons where we become guards of those prisons as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uAiWFdoJDg&feature=player_embedded

Promised myself to watch the movie, but got sidetracked with the British version of All in the Family.  Ugh!