Hi Fr. Chris,

You wrote:

“I did not say that you care more about who says something than about what is being said. Please don’t attribute me words that I did not say.”

Well, here is the exact quote from your previous post:

“A good writer sticks to his subject and does not sow confusion by mixing in other subjects.”

You talk about the author. I talk about the text. In analyzing an argument, the author is less relevant. What was said is more important that who said it.”

If this doesn’t say what I have said it does, then I don’t know what is the meaning of your words. Unfortunately, your way of thinking is very far from my way of thinking, or maybe it is the language problem. In either case, I don’t feel like continuing this rather futile exchange. I remain unconvinced by your arguments. God Bless and goodbye!

Hi Hieronymus,

I did not say that you care more about who says something than about what is being said. Please don’t attribute me words that I did not say.

“But setting all of your misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions straight would take a very long time and a lot of words. I can’t afford either.”

If you say you are from the former Soviet block, you know that this is what the communists were saying: we don’t have time to persuade you; you are either with us or against us. When the power of persuasion did not work, they used the persuasion of power.

Agreeing with a statement does not make it right or correct. The truth is not the result of consensus.

In order for a statement to be considered true it has to be proven.

The arguments used by Mark to prove the minuses of the American Way are not sound, as I explained earlier.

Furthermore, he did not nominate the parts of “Catholic vision” that the American Way allegedly “stacked up against”.

Two unsound premises can not produce a true conclusion.

In the end, being or trying to be a Christian does not have anything to do with agreeing with Mark’s conclusion. It would be too simple…

Blessings.

Hello Fr. Chris,

I’m afraid you don’t quite understand what I have said in my reply. You are also very clearly confused about many issues - for example, that I care more about who says something than about what is being said. To state that “a good writer” wouldn’t do something is absolutely not the same as stating that because a good writer says it, it must be so. But setting all of your misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions straight would take a very long time and a lot of words. I can’t afford either. Let me just point out that Mark’s conclusion, to quote, “In short, while democratic capitalism and the American Way certainly have some big pluses, they also have some big minuses when stacked up against a Catholic vision of the Way Things Ought to Be.  America is not the Kingdom of Heaven” is hard not to agree with if you are - or at least try to be - a true Christian.

Hi Hieronymus,

Thanks for the reply.

Unfortunately, I can not agree with your statement that, because we are from the Soviet block, “we tend to be too suspicious.” You over generalize your experience to everybody else.

Because we don’t know each other, you can not know my intent, same as I can not know yours or Mark’s. The only things that we have in commune here is an article (words).

When you read his article as it is, leaving aside who the author is (which I don’t know), the arguments don’t make logical sense. 

You can not compare in your analysis the ideology from the Right with the people from the Left, or the ideology from the Left with the people from the Right.

This is like saying that the Protestant faith is better than the Catholic faith because the catholic priests are pedophiles.

I intentionally did not say “some catholic priests are pedophiles”, but I over generalized by implying that all the catholic priests are like that. This is exactly what Mark is doing in his article: over generalizing his experience with some conservative Catholics to all the conservative Catholics.

“He wrote an article about some shortcomings of the Catholic Conservatives because he wanted to write an article about this particular subject and not about the Catholic Left or about butterflies.”

Leaving aside the sarcasm, I don’t know what his intent was writing this article, so I can’t speculate about it.

The article is full of fallacies, or errors in reasoning, and does not offer sound premises for the conclusion that you mentioned.

“A good writer sticks to his subject and does not sow confusion by mixing in other subjects.”

You talk about the author. I talk about the text. In analyzing an argument, the author is less relevant. What was said is more important that who said it.

To Fr. Chris,

I am also originally from the Soviet block and I understand your way of thinking. Let’s be honest and admit that we tend to be too suspicious of the printed word and see in it some meanings which are not really there. That’s because we had been fed the “newspeak” for too long. It is not true, for example, that Mark does not say anything negative about the Left in his article. You yourself quote some examples of it in the course of your comment. Besides, Mark’s article is about the Catholic Conservatives, not about the “Catholic” Left so asking him why this is so is rather pointless. It is like asking why he didn’t write about butterflies instead. He wrote an article about some shortcomings of the Catholic Conservatives because he wanted to write an article about this particular subject and not about the Catholic Left or about butterflies. A good writer sticks to his subject and does not sow confusion by mixing in other subjects.

On the other hand, I completely agree with your comments on anger. Some people try to effectively neuter Christian opposition by forcefully (and hypocritically) reminding us that we are supposed to “turn another cheek” and “do not oppose evil”. While it is certainly one option suggested by Our Lord, the other option - which He chose in order to deal with the merchants in the Temple - is equally valid. Righteous anger is certainly not sinful.

This article is totally partisan, despite of what the author says claims.
Referring to the Left, Mark said: “That’s why I don’t bother trying to help them get their act together and win.  I don’t want them to win. ”
But in his entire article, he does not say ANYTHING negative about the Left, but just about Conservatism.

Read carefully, for example, this phrase of his:

“Indeed, [the Right] will be more immune to correction because it will have sealed itself off from any sense of a bad conscience by saying that, so long as it opposes abortion, all other forms of contempt for Church teaching are okay.  At least the Left doesn’t kid itself that it is faithful.  It openly and cheerfully treats Church teaching with scorn, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

He names the Conservatives a bunch of hypocrites and stubborn people while, indirectly, he praises the Leftists as being honest because, “at least,” they are openly fighting against the Church. Interesting analogy…

He also said: “There’s going to be a landslide this fall.  The Dems, in their blind arrogance,…”

This is another example that he is not at all objective. He is accusing in his article that there is something wrong with Conservatism as an ideology. But when referring to the Left, he implies that is the democrat’s arrogance that created the current mess. In other words, their ideology is good, but it is their personality that caused the mess.

I am an Eastern Rite Catholic priest from Eastern Europe who came in US a while ago (you might see from my writing that English is not my first language). I was born and raised in a communist country and I was indoctrinated in school with the socialist ideology.

When the communism failed in Eastern Europe, the old communists said that the communism is good, but people that were in charge to implement it did not do a good job. The neo-communists over there, hidden under the mask of “social-democracy,” are saying or implying the same thing now.
Mark is saying something similar here, that it is the democrat’s arrogance that got us into this mess.

No Mark, it is the Left ideology that got us into this mess. There were many arrogant leaders in the history that did many great things because they followed a good philosophy.

He continued: “That’s why there are Tea Parties.  People have had enough.  But, as James says, the anger of man does not bring about the righteousness of God.  The great failing of every revolutionary movement, says Chesterton, is that it knows what is wrong, but is very unclear about what is right.”

Again, Mark portrays these hard working Americans, Catholics or not, as an “angry mob”.  He even uses Scripture to do so.

Anger is part of the human behavior. Even Jesus got angry. The problem is what do you do with that anger? Paul says: “In your anger do not sin” (Eph. 4, 26). He did not say do not be angry. When you care, when you see injustice, you get angry. Paul is teaching us to put it to good use.

This article totally diminishes Mark’s credibility as an independent writer.

Mark, Thanks for your classy reply to R.C.

C’mon, Jack, tell us how you really feel!

In the other hand, this is a Catholic site and I can’t imagine Christ referring to anyone as an a** or a wh***.  Please think it over before you tell us.

“...and that any criticism of this makes one vehemently suspect of heresy and a traitor to the Faith…”

It would be nice if you would treat others with whom you disagree as you wished to be treated. Maybe, following the Golden Rule would be a good change for you Mark? Your accusation is exactly how you treat Catholic Conservatives - as traitors and heretics. Do you believe in tough love? A just war? Having the right to defend one’s nation?

I didn’t know that Hitler and Stalin did all those horrible things to the majority of people out of self defense or for the country’s national defense? Your exaggerations and even disingenuous linkage to so called “heresy” and making such outlandish statements as the one above claiming that Catholicism is incompatible with Americanism ( it didn’t say that - it basically said that Catholics must be very careful so that we don’t give up our Catholic faith in exchange for certain liberties) is why Catholic Conservatives hold your views or Catholic punditry with such contempt.

Your brand of Catholicism (harshness) instead of Catholic charity is what could drive a Catholic to leave the Church instead of having a debate or a teaching the Faith in a less divisive and uncharitable manner as you consistently do. With the yours and others silence it’s no wonder the Catholic Left feels like they have carte blanche to spread grave scandal evrywhere.

“That’s why I don’t bother trying to help them get their act together”

And aren’t we backward conservatives just so very lucky to have Your Wisdom to help sort us out ?

You’re a condescending a**, and a publicity wh***. The only way you can get people to read your trashy stuff is by insulting them enough that they flood you with comments. Well, I guess ANY attention is better than none, huh ?

RC:

Don’t sweat it.  As you note, my post was not worded with uber-clarity, so it’s understandable that somebody might misread it.

For my part, I want apologize for any harsh language or shortness of temper I have demonstrated here or elsewhere.  Also, I think I was out of line to call Paladino a creep.  Our sins do not name us, Jesus does.  I have to remember that even with sins I find particularly repellent.  Mea culpa.  May God have mercy on him and not remember his sins against him.

Hmm.

I have now read Mark’s comments in another thread, in reply to Pat Archbold, who was in turn replying to this post of Mark’s.

And I think I need to apologize to Mark for reading into his words a meaning he didn’t intend…although, to be scrupulously honest about it, it’ll be a half-apology because the way he wrote them lends itself rather too easily to misunderstanding.

Apparently when Mark began his piece with the words,

“Why am I so hard on Conservative American Catholics…who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

...he did not intend this to be read as,

“Why am I so hard on Conservative American Catholics, who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

...but rather to be read as,

“Why am I so hard on Conservative American Catholics who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

...which is rather different.

And it makes a difference.  Without the comma, one is saying,

“Why am I so hard on [a particular group of] Conservative American Catholics who [are distinguished] put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

Whereas I took Mark Shea to mean,

“Why am I so hard on Conservative American Catholics, who [uniformly or at least mostly] put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

Judging by what he wrote in the other thread in reply to Pat, he did not mean this, after all.

Now, on the basis of what he wrote here, I could not have guessed this.  Certainly nothing he said later lent itself to the interpretation that he thought the conservatives who practiced “Americanism” and who preached a false gospel of “democratic capitalism” (whatever that may be) and “disregard for the weak” were a minority of Conservative Catholics.

And I retain my other objections to his piece. The “Americanism” spoken of by Leo XIII is neither uniquely nor intrinsically American, as Leo himself noted when he stated that he was not taking exception to “your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed…” but only to “those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some ‘Americanism.’” Apparently the term was thought adequate by “some,” and the pope stated as much in making reference to it; but he himself left the matter of whether “Americanism” was the proper term for them open, stating only that those views were erroneous and not permitted to Catholics.

I myself agree of course: They are erroneous. I add only that “Americanism” is as silly and unjust a name for them as “Catholicism” is for the practice of clerical pedophilia, and for the same reasons. If one is disgusted by calling the latter “Catholicism,” then one ought to be disgusted by the practice of calling the former “Americanism.” It certainly is nothing which was or ever would be exalted by those who champion “the laws and customs by which [America is] governed,” let alone the Founders who created those laws and customs!

I also retain the objection that the conservatives he opposes who preach a gospel of “democratic capitalism” and “disregard for the weak” are largely chimerical. I am sure if he looks under enough rocks, he can find them. And he protested in the other thread that they could be found in the combox replies here.

I suppose that’s true, but despite the fact that I myself make frequent use of the medium, I think it unwise to judge any group by the subset of them that post in comboxes, a subset which is a tiny fraction of the whole, and often seems to self-select for anger, lack of reflection, poor spelling, and shaky grammar and punctuation.

So.

Mark, I apologize for misunderstanding you.  To be strictly honest, I think your piece remains problematic and partly erroneous or fantastical.

But you weren’t painting Conservative Catholics in general with so broad and tarry a brush as I originally thought. For that, and the especially hard words I wrote about your character in response to it, I apologize.

Mark, There you go again, with your sweeping condemnations of conservatives and conservative Catholics when you say, ” I do say the enthusiastic support he gets from prolife conservatives (including a lot of Catholics) demonstrates the disease that is at work in so-called conservative Catholic political culture”. So, now we Catholic conservatives are all diseased because of our political philosophy which happens to differ from yours.

You go on to say, conservative Catholics will “enthusiastically back a fan of bestiality, p*rn and racism, just so long as he says he’s prolife”.  Wow, those non-thinking Cro-Magnon cretins all over the U.S. including a majority who don’t have a clue who Carl Paladino is!

As I suspected, you are mixing your spirituality with your politics, and damaging both. First, you are condemning all of your conservative Catholic brothers and sisters without evidence instead of reaching out to them.  If we Catholic Christians can not discuss issues in a calm reasoned manner, what hope is there for the rest of the country? The terms “conservative Catholic” and “liberal Catholic” bother me because the message I get from Christ is that we are supposed to be just Catholic, applying his teaching and his grace to our lives.

Second, you are engaging in the combative politics of our secular culture which is poisoning our country.  Many Catholics of all political persuasions are no longer discussing what is best for our country and its people, but repeating the phrases of the politics of personal destruction fed to us by our secular culture. They are not making our culture more Christian.  Instead, they are being changed by the culture.

So, the question is, are we Catholics of all political persuasions going to be changed by our crude secular culture and join in the condemnation of the “creeps” of other political persuasions?  Or are we going to shine the light of Christ on our political process as our forefathers did over 200 years ago to nurture the gift of our God-given rights and the freedom to enjoy them. 

I can’t answer for anyone else, but I don’t choose to allow the secular culture to overpower my faith and the teaching of my Church. I won’t play their game.

Mark,

Your diatribes against “Americanism” and Catholic Conservatives would be justified, if:

(a.) There were something particularly “American” about what you call “Americanism” (but there isn’t), and,

(b.) There were something particularly Conservative about the things you criticize in Catholic Conservatives (but there isn’t).

Let me spell out the relevant principle, here:

When one criticizes a thing, one can either criticize the thing WHOLESALE, and thus argue that the thing ought not exist; or, one can criticize the FLAWS in the thing.

And when one criticizes the FLAWS in the thing, one must differentiate between flaws which are part of the identity or nature of the thing, and flaws which are deviations from the identity or nature of the thing.

If the flaws are unbearable and are intrinsic to the identity or nature of the thing, then criticizing those flaws as unbearable is the same as saying the thing shouldn’t exist.

But if the flaws are not intrinsic to the identity or nature of the thing, but are deviations from its identity, or even destructive of its identity, then to criticizing those flaws is actually to call the thing to BE ITSELF, to champion it against its own degradation.

For example, one may justly criticize the Catholic Church in various ways, such as for failing to adequately catechize the laity in various ways.

But one would not say that the Catholic Church was, itself, intrinsically evil because it produced poorly catechized Catholics! That would only make sense if the Church, as part of its core identity, intended and championed bad catechesis…which is the opposite of the truth. Indeed, to criticize bad catechesis in the Church is to call the Church to be ITSELF, as it is supposed to be: The pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the teacher of “everything [Jesus] has commanded [us].”

Got it? That’s the principle; let’s apply it.

Re: “Americanism”: Spell out the particular philosophical assertions and policies that make up what you’re calling “Americanism” and you’ll find that while they’re rampant in America, and perhaps became rampant in the U.S. earlier than elsewhere (in Europe or Japan, say), they are (a.) not unique to the U.S.; (b.) worse outside the U.S. than in many other places; and most importantly (c.) not intrinsic to the values and principles by which America defines itself. This does not mean that they aren’t bad. It doesn’t mean they don’t happen to be particularly bad in America. It just means it’s silly to call them by the name “Americanism,” for the same reason that it’s silly to call pedophilia by the name “Catholicism.”

Re: Conservative Catholics: Mark, you’re funny, and a credit to the Church in many ways, but you’re a dishonorable polemicist (and thus a discredit to the Church) in one respect: When debating against someone with whose conclusions you disagree, you habitually ignore the actual steps by which they arrived at those conclusions, and replace them with absurd straw man arguments (at best caricaturing their actual reasons) and insinuations of evil intent to arrive at their conclusions.

Then, when they complain that “that’s not what we said, nor ever thought,” you claim that you weren’t misrepresenting them, because you correctly identified their conclusions.

This pattern has become so predictable as to be a sort of signature flourish in your writing.

Two examples:

EXAMPLE 1: “But when alleged conservative Catholics tell me that they would rather get their social teaching from a talking hairdo on FOX than from the bishops…”

Who, precisely, told you that? I’m confident no-one did, and certainly not in those terms. That’s how you’re characterizing the belief of some conservatives that a minority of American bishops allow their leftist political leanings to warp the teachings of the Church, causing them to view political and economic pronouncements from said bishops with skepticism. But you don’t say it that way, because it is neither funny (and you prefer to be an entertaining writer when you can) nor as easy to argue against.

EXAMPLE 2: “...their gospel of democratic capitalism, laissez faire, and disregard for the weak…”

The term conservatives use is “free-market capitalism,” as an approach to the structures of the economy; just as “constitutional democratic republicanism” is their approach to the structures of government. They don’t, as a rule, say “democratic capitalism” as a term. “Laissez faire” is an important part of the mix, but is a shorthand for opposition to protectionism and to the anti-capitalist “corporate welfare” of onerous regulations which makes entrepreneurialism impossible by making compliance costs too burdensome to be borne by any but the largest firms.

As for “disregard for the weak”: You’re embarrassing yourself. You ought to know by now—the statistics are publicly available, and there are books about it—that conservatives in America, as a culture, give roughly twice as much alms to the poor as their left-leaning neighbors (both in absolute dollar amounts, and as a percentage of income, and at every income level). Conservatives also volunteer more, give blood more, and contribute more to their churches, thus allowing the churches to assist the poor.

They don’t, by-and-large support the welfare state because it is unconstitutional (so that having it, in spite of its unconstitutionality, undermines the rule of law in the U.S.) and because they believe it tends to harm poor people far more than it helps them.

You may disagree about the constitutionality question—which brings up the question of whether stare decisis or the demonstrably obvious original intent of an author should prevail—and you may believe they’re wrong about the harm that the welfare state does to poor people. But that would lead you into arguments that you apparently don’t have the patience for. You prefer, in rank disregard of the evidence of their generous voluntary giving, to say they believe in a “gospel” of “disregard for the weak.”

Contemptible slander, sir. And damnable, if this was knowing strategy rather than invincible ignorance on your part.

Your books are good. Your sense of humor is good. Your love of Chesterton is good.

Your slander is not. I respectfully suggest that you stick to what you’re good at.

If you click on the link (text in red) you will see what bothers me about Mr. Paladino, and why I think “creep” is a perfectly just title.

Of course opposition to abortion is not a blot.  Using it as a shield to cover up other gross evil is, particularly when we have no particular reason to believe Paladino means a word he says.

I don’t say, Paladino is emblematic of all conservative Catholics.  I do say the enthusiastic support he gets from prolife conservatives (including a lot of Catholics) demonstrates the disease that is at work in so-called conservative Catholic political culture, which will enthusiastically back a fan of bestiality, p*rn and racism, just so long as he says he’s prolife.  Seriously, click the link, and (if you have a daughter) imagine this guy asking to go out with her.

If you wouldn’t trust this guy with you daughter, why would you entrust the entire state of New York to him, much less defend him as a “traditional values” candidate?

Mark, Carl Paladino, who I know little about as a resident of Virginia, does not represent all conservative Catholics.  I sense some anger in your remarks, so he must have rubbed you the wrong way.  But, don’t get your politics and spirituality mixed up or they will both suffer.

We agree that “opposition to abortion does not take away the sins of the world, nor confer on a repulsive creep an indulgence for any other evils he may advocate or participate in.”  But, opposition to abortion, which the Church defines as a serious sin, is not a blot on conservative Catholics.  Other positions they hold may be wrong, but you have to communicate what they are to make your case.  Since I don’t know Mr. Paladino, I have no idea what is bothering you.

PS I would never refer to someone I disagreed with as a “creep”.  I don’t believe that meets Jesus command to “love one another”.

Not all conservative Catholics (and I am one of them) are doing all the things Barbara claims they do .. she’s generalizing.  Obviously, we are against abortion, legally recognized homosexual unions, women’s ordination, liberation theology, socialism, - but many of us are also currently suffering from the economic situation (joblessness, lack of health insurance, etc).  The healthcare reform is wrong - socialized system that forces people to have horrible govt. insurance and paying for abortion and euthanasia - not something we want to have in this country.
Social justice has to be defined properly in the proper context.  Catholics should simply follow Christ in all they do .. and that is why I said, none of the parties represents the Gospel’s teaching in its fulness.
Choosing the lesser of two evils (ie the Republican party) because we have no other choice ... OR DO WE? ... is not the ideal thing for us, Catholics.  We should be able to form a party that reflects our beliefs in full without any compromises.  Then, I could call this country a free and truly civilized society.  What do you say to that?

The conservative Catholics I know are perfectly familiar with Rerum Novarum. They tithe, volunteer, attend Mass frfequently, have large families, educate them in the Faith, and have to vote Republican as the lesser of two evils. The live in a free-market, capitalist economy - an economic system, while flawed is the reality. Their prosperity enables them to provide for themselves and others.
  What do we see from liberal or dissident Catholics? Liberation theology, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, women priests, etc.
  Your anger should be directed at those Catholics who’re right on proclaiming concern for social justice but in reality are demanding socialism as a solution. Rerum Novarum most specifically protected private property rights and spoke out against socialism. Where’s subsidiarity in modern liberal thought? Cafeteria Catholicism at it’s worst.

I think it is time that you stopped alluding to the moral shortcomings of conservative Catholics and define what it is about them that bothers you.

Meet Carl Paladino, Conservative, Catholic, Tea Party favorite, standard bearer for Traditional Values—and repellent human being.  WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC AND GROSS IMAGERY.

Oh!  But he mouths the words “I’m prolife!” so that means all right-thinking people should totally trust this man and support him and if you don’t (as I most certainly would not if this creep tried to date my daughter, much less run my entire state), I am somehow “being used by the devil to keep people from voting Republican” as one reader charmingly put it.

No.  I’m saying “30% less evil than the other leading brand” is still evil.  I’m saying that opposition to abortion does not take away the sins of the world, nor confer on a repulsive creep an indulgence for any other evils he may advocate or participate in.  Noting that Paladino is revolting is not endorsing his opponent.  It is saying, “Stop treating opposition to abortion as though it confers competence and sinlessness on candidates.”

Mark, You say, “opposition to abortion does not take away the sins of the world or give us a 007 to support whatever grave intrinsic evils the Right happens to turn a blind eye to.” I think it is time that you stopped alluding to the moral shortcomings of conservative Catholics and define what it is about them that bothers you.

I am a conservative pro-life Catholic, but I don’t disregard Catholic social teaching. I don’t put my politics ahead of Church teaching. I volunteer at our town’s free clinic and work in our parish’s social outreach programs.

But, I don’t believe that the government is the answer to all of our social problems, and I don’t see the love of Christ being shown by the huge federal programs managed by bureaucrats. I believe in this country’s constitutional guarantees of our rights from God because they give us the freedom to be all that we were created to be, not what our government thinks we should be.

So, please tell us a little bit about this “conservative Catholic” you are so upset about so we can better understand what is bothering you.

Abortion is not just another social issue.  It is the linchpin of all social issues.  The Mother of all social injustice.

I know.  That’s why I said that “Abortion is the Pre-Eminent Moral Issue of our Time”.

I merely also point out that opposition to abortion does not take away the sins of the world or give us a 007 to support whatever grave intrinsic evils the Right happens to turn a blind eye to.  Nor does it give us license to ignore the rest of Magisterial teaching.  My counsel, believe it or not, is to embrace *all* of Catholic teaching, not merely the anti-abortion parts.  That’s why I find it so mysterious when so many conservatives respond, “Why don’t you just go write for the Reporter!”  Last I checked, the Reporter was discouraging people from fidelity to the Magisterium, a policy I protest just as strenuously when liberals do it as when conservatives do.

Abortion is not just another social issue.  It is the linchpin of all social issues.  The Mother of all social injustice.  If you do not consider the defense of the most defenseless and the most threatened members of society our most profound concern as Catholics then I would suggest a quick reread of Evangelium Vitae.  The fact that Classical Western ideals, the teachings of our Countries Founding Fathers, conservative viewpoints, Protestant Christian perspective and yes, authentic Roman Catholic perspective is converging against this diabolical practice is nothing short of the hand of God.  It is not to be belittled.

This is mere justification for your bad targeting.  You are so hard on all “conservative” Catholics because a few happen to vocally disagree with you on a few issues over which many have a disagreement.  You lay it on rather thickly, particularly with the anti-war and anti-torture rhetoric, which is especially grating to your readers since you and your “conservative” targets cannot agree on a definition of either “just war” or “torture.”  And you constantly bring up those two themes even when the subject matter has nothing to do with either.  Those two horses have been thoroughly beaten to death; please stop dragging the corpses out every time you wish to make a point.

Catholics should be authentic followers of Christ and His teaching - the Gospel.  Just read St. Paul’s Epistles to see that.  Unfortunately, many choose to follow a political party and identify themselves more with it than their Catholic Faith and Church.  If people identified themselves first and foremost as a follower of Christ, a Catholic Christian, they would spend more time figuring out what that truly means and how to achieve it ... and live it authentically.  At that point, a political party affiliation might not be as important anymore because none of the political parties truly embraces the Gospel of Christ.  Of course, there are many Catholics who do not see the value of human life and dignity as the foundation and basis for all other aspects of humanity.  Life is the first and foremost Gift that God bestowed on us and we MAY NOT interfere with that!  I wonder when a Catholic comes to me showing me the Faithful Citizenship document and pointing out that they identify more with the racism issue than the abortion issue.  Is the Church having a basic communication problem that people are still this backwards?
Someone help me understand, please.

What a bunch of crap you write!!

“Why Am I So Hard on Conservative American Catholics…” is a title that shows the division in the Catholic Church.  We Catholics need to pray for the healing of our Church and do whatChrist said in John 13:34-35:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

“Be in this world but not of this world”, as long as it doesn’t prevent us from seeing evil for what it is.”

That is the essence of what my words are trying to say, even if I am not very good at expressing them (how ironic that I cannot recall to quote such a perfect and succinct passage from the Bible when it is one of the cornerstones of belief try to most adhere to).  I believe we have arrived to the crux of the matter, simply by different paths.  I will submit that custody of ones on eyes is far more effective at lessening ones view of temptation, but at 65 mph on the highway in traffic, it tends to create other more pressing and immediate issues.  All joking aside, I agree with you and I simply want to be clear that we should not worry too much about those who will not, or refuse, to listen, as we are no better than anyone else if we are always fixing our eyes on others rather than ourselves.

Unless there is really more at stake with the issue, I would say we let this poor blog post to rest, as it has been definitely driven around the block many times since its posting.  I can’t even find where I left off any more quickly.

As a conservative my fellow “liberal” Catholics puzzle me. I cannot understand why they would want to rely on government aid to finance Catholic programs.  The current administration is the most pro-abortion one in the history of the United States—America now funds abortion world wide. The most Catholic country in Africa was attacked when U.S. taxpayer money was sent to Kenya to support a “pro-choice” presidential candidate. It is foolish to trust politicians who have so betrayed the most important Catholic issue—respect for life. The “social justice” of the government is NOT the same as Catholic “social justice.“Even though most conservatives tithe, support all pillars of the Church and the magisterium, and believe in helping those less fortunate, the “liberal” Catholics claim that we are political before we are Catholic, that we are “cafeteria” Catholics, etc. The main disagreements are about the source of funding and the matter of responsibility! The bottom line is that liberal Catholics are VERY political, which is dangerous.  The Catholic people of Cuba and now China know what it is to have state involvement in the Church.

Mark,

As usual, you seem weak in defining your terms. Love of neighbor, if it is true love, can never be at odds with love of God. By that a I mean love of neighbor (caritas, agape) that is both subjectively and objectively conformed to the Will of the Father. At times to “leave” mother and father, etc. is in reality manifesting a great love for mother and father. To disobey the state if is trying to force me to adhere to principles that are intrinsically evil, is really to love the state as it should be. But I fear you have never understood my advising you to “please” define your important words. No, I have not read all of your articles in the newspaper to which you refer. Nor do I have the inclination to do so, as I know it will only add to my confusion. I do think that if you would write clearly and concisely some of us would not arrive at the opinion that your are just another dissident trying to persuade us to go against essential catholic teaching. For instance, I do not know what you mean by chasing rabbit holes, or something to that effect. (see above blog written by you.)

Mary Anne:

Nowhere have I ever said or suggested that patriotism is not okay.  On the contrary, I have made clear here, here, and here (these articles ran right here in the Register) that patriotism is an act of obedience to the second greatest commandment: love your neighbor.  It is also obedience to the command to love your father and mother.  However, as I also make clear, the fact that it is the *second* greatest commandment means that our love of neighbor and parents, like our love of all creatures *must* take a back seat to the love of God, which was my point in this blog entry.

Mark:

I think you are selling a lot of conservative Catholics short. Who among us has not committed some sin? (Remember that verse?)So conservatives aren’t perfect. But I don’t believe “Americanism” is heresy.” What the commenter above says about the “City of God” is correct. America was founded on a creed, and a lot of people have died to support that creed in the country’s 200+ year history, beginning with the soliders under George Washington.  That fact, unfortunately, is being lost in today’s classrooms and on television in favor of a sort of collective guilty consciensce for our failings, primarily the failing of slavery and what followed. 

I don’t like Glenn Beck either, but a lot of people do, so something he is saying resonates. It’s worth it to pay attention to him. Same goes for Hannity.  As annoying as he can be, he is usually right, hence his popularity.  And I don’t think Fox is guiding the nation. Fox News is simply a catalyst for a lot of thoughts and emotions that the liberal media doesn’t allow “conservatives” to express or even acknowledge. 

Fox News has simply given people the message: It’s okay to be conservative. It’s okay to resent the fact that a Mexican might take your job.(although the Church might disagree with that.) It’s okay to be pro-life.  It’s okay to be patriotic. 

Whether you like it or not, that’s how many people will read your article—it’s NOT okay to be patriotic. Remember what Christ said about giving Caesar his due.  The United State of America is due some credit for what it has spawned in the world. Yes, there’s been violence and bloodshed and destruction, we are respondible for that as well.  But I choose to believe the goodness of American can and will overcome the evil in the country. This will only be true if enough people choose to believe that way. And your writing doesn’t contribute to that truth.

When you stand with me outside an abortion clinic, then you can advise me on my standing as a Catholic. Until then nice try.

How do you know I haven’t?  Further, why do you think I was advising you on your standing as a Catholic?  Who made me your judge?

Deus et Patria:

I don’t really have anything to argue with you about.  I have no problem acknowledging that the *way* I put things might well be aggravating and unhelpful.  Certainly people say that a lot and I have no reason to doubt them.  So I will try to do better (and likely fail since I can’t see the wood for the trees).  I am gratified that you see my point, despite my failure to communicate it as well as I might.

I have no idea how people could conclude I am a leftist, much less pro-abortion, except that they assume that criticising somebody on the Right means endorsing somebody on the Left.

I agree and take issue with you Mark.

First, the point of your whole article…spot on. I see how some people let their politics rule their decision making instead of their religion ruling their politics and everything else. I believe that’s what you partly mean by “Americanism”. I call it the Hannitization of Catholics.

He is an example of many conservatives (by the way, I now prefer to be called Orthodox or Traditional even in political debates). That man more vehemently defends his name than the Church. His actions are disappointing, to say the least, by someone who calls himself Catholic. His opinion of birth control is a prime exhibition of this.

But Mark I take affront at the incendiary manner in which you present your opinion. I understand your manner but just think that you’re alienating people rather than being pastoral. Yes, your point is right (God above all). No, don’t back down from your message. No, don’t dilute it. But it’s not as cogent as a man of your ability can make it.

I’d like a little more on how you can be a faithful Catholic (always) AND a patriot. The bent on your writings easily lead people to believe your a leftist loon. You’re not but the inference is easy to make. Too easy.

But it does make people react (your intent?).

I am a conservative Catholic. I have stood out side Abortion clinics holding a Cross with other conservative Catholics. Our social justice begins there.
If you remember it was the failure of our good Bishops to voice concern over the pro abortion policies of Obama that helped get the biggest pro abortionist president in our history elected. He made sure that the Supreme Court had another pro abortion justice seated.
There can be no social justice in this country until all Catholics and all people respect the unborn baby.
Say what you want about Fox network but just remember they are the only network that actively speaks up against abortion and for the sanctity of life. When you stand with me outside an abortion clinic, then you can advise me on my standing as a Catholic. Until then nice try.

Hegel, I see it as a sign of weakness when someone deletes an statement they cannot adequately answer. Frankly I was surprised. I like Mr. Shea’s books and was actually being very friendly. I thought there would be a civil discussion. I was very wrong. In many ways he is the mirror image of progressive Catholics who regard everyone else as idiots. I hope that he matures over time.

Fr J, I see you have experienced the “Shea Airbrush,” too: in which he deletes all embarrassing (to him) posts…Come see a blog he can’t control:  https://heimdallsblast.wordpress.com/

To Anthony,

I must begin by apologizing again, this time for the horrible editing of my previous post - I even managed there to create a new word, “restrainment”...8-(

I basically agree with what you are saying, although some of your arguments come dangerously close to the more controversial interpretations of the theology of the body (I mean the exercise of the strength of will instead of applying the more effective custody of the eyes.) Just the same, an inundation of lascivious images is not the only problem created by americanism for the real Catholics. It seems to me that the only way to go is the one indicated by Our Lord: “Be in this world but not of this world”, as long as it doesn’t prevent us from seeing evil for what it is.

To Hieronymus,

Indeed we are subjected to the images everyday, but we can learn to see them for what they are, and not what they can do to us if we let them.  I for one am becoming amazed just how ambivalent I am to these images now that I older and more mature.  While I can appreciate the beauty of the human form, I can also quickly discern the vulgarity of its context.  That which does not kill us (morally or physically) only makes us stronger. 
I will agree and make no arguement that it is a shame there is so much of it, not because it is there, but because there is so little in the way of other things.  Billboards and advertisements perhaps of charity and messages of character would be a welcome respite from the torrent of images of the flesh, but again,  we can do better by voting and checking our own behavior.
Ultimately, again, the freedom to choose is the greatest gift God gave us.  We have failed miserably since the Garden mind you, but if it was the Gods choosing that we have that will, it is NO mans right, under any circumstances, to take it from me, and I am willing to fight and die for that gift.

Mark, often when you criticize you do so all to often to a straw man. Also you can be uncharitable and even vicious. You particularly don’t like it when the debate doesn’t go your way, I found that out. I remember backing you into a corner and then suddenly being deleted. Your opinion on magisterial teaching is NOT magisterial. I suggest you consider the virtue of humility.

You could just as well ask, “Why are many of us so hard on Liberal American Catholics…who put their liberalism ahead of their Catholic Faith?

People like Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry get their Catholic faith from Frances Kissling and dissident groups like Catholics for a Free Choice, certainly not from the bishops, pope, magisterium and Catechism.

I still recall finding a link for “Catholics” on the Democrat National Committee’s website with a link to Kissling’s explanation that Catholics can get abortions and be in favor of abortion and remain good Catholics. The Democrats not only refused to delete this link from their website, but Nancy Pelosi actually used parts of Kissling’s explanation verbatim on the abortion topic in a TV interview that brought public correction from numerous Catholic bishops. How many Democrat Catholics read that drivel on the website and believed it must be true?

The late Ted Kennedy reportedly summoned numerous Catholic theologians, including preists Theodore Hessburg and the Berenson (sp.?) brothers to Hyanisport to gauge their reaction to the Democrat Party’s then-proposed support of abortion. The response he was reportedly given was that Catholics could be convinced it was OK to support it and it wouldn’t hurt the Party at the voting booth.

Hey, Mark, the liberals get their theology from Hollywood, the polls and whatever feels good or is convenient. The U.S. bishops are always right when they agree with the liberals and always wrong when they disagree with them.

As for the conservatives, I don’t know any—and most of my friends are conservative—who would ever condone disobedience to the pope or magisterium on moral teaching. Moreover, every one of them gives generously of their time, talent and treasure to support the poor, the needy, the elderly, etc. I get sick to death with all the homilies on social justice because no one can possibly disagree that we have an obligation to the poor, but just dare give a homily on abortion or embryonic stem cell research and the priest will get an earful after Mass!

Here’s the thing… Captialism, with all its faults, is much more generous, much more open, than forced taxation/socialism. I think it would be better for my soul, and for the community at large, to give FREELY rather than to be taxed into submission. When someone else says I have too much property (I don’t, by the way), and wants to force me to give to the government for redistribution, how is that a violation of the 10th Commandment? I can’t speak to “torture,” because I look at what our enemies do as compared to what we do. I have never been a soldier; I have never been asked to put my life on the line for my country.

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE! American Catholics only become more and more protestant by selling themselves out to the American dream and capitalism, it drives me crazy to watch it! Politics are not church doctrine! America is not heaven by any means! Stop looking down on the poor that you are supposed to be standing up for.

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.  Render unto God what is God’s.”  I read this twice before fully comprehending its message.  Christianity is not a designed plan to administrate a nation.  It is the proper faith by which an individual receives Divine Grace and is allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  While a nation full of Christians acting daily on their faith is ideal, to expect it in a political form runs the risk of a theocracy in the same manner as the secular Statist movement places its “faith” in government. The Church is the earth-bound moral compass in line with God’s Will.  It should TEACH & INSTRUCT rather than DIRECT.  But it is up to us as Catholics to LEARN.  Our Founding Fathers included the freedom of religion in our Constitution to allow all churches the liberty to morally guide their flocks without political interjections.  Sadly, this is no longer so.  Hence, the issue with Catholic Conservatives can get muddled.  As a Conservative, I want my nation to operate in fiscally responsible manner and with minimal involvement in my personal life.  That part of me is dedicated to God.  Charity originates in the heart, not in a policy letter or a tax law.  One cannot expect to pass through Heaven’s Gates because they paid taxes.  But in the public arena, I would like to see the Church demand the guidance of its flock back from every government.  Let’s run our nation like responsible humans.  Let’s run our lives like faithful souls.  I love my nation, but it is not God.  And I am ever on guard never to confuse the two.

In short, while democratic capitalism and the American Way certainly have some big plusses, they also have some big minuses when stacked up against a Catholic vision of the Way Things Ought to Be.

What place and time in history were or are things run as a “Catholic vision of the Way Things Ought to Be”? The Papal States, which were some of the most backwards parts of Europe, the Hapsburg empire, Spanish Latin America, or France under Louis XIV??? This “catholic vision” reminds me of CS Lewis commenting about the worse place to live would be a country run by do gooder nanny staters.

My only critique, Mark, if it can be called that, is with this line: “I can only say that the Right is becoming as mindlessly ideological as the Left.”

Hate to break it to you, but in the Church, anyway, it is precisely the *right* that has been mindlessly ideological for as long as memory serves and what is usually labelled as “left” is nothing such, but really the orthodox center that tries to keep the line where it belongs - with the Church rather than the GOP or Tea Party (or Dems or Socialist Workers for that matter, though this is hardly a threat in today’s American Catholic experience).

So while the secular left may be as idealogical as the right in politics and culture, within the Church it is only what conservative idealogues mislabel as “left” which has refrained from partisanship and maintained orthodoxy - and they are only identified as left because any truly liberal Catholic got fed up with the church and left decades ago, if such an animal ever existed.

I am glad a Catholic who is comfortable wearing the conservative label has been willing to address this constant problem in the church!

To Anthony (sorry about misspelling your name before),

“Were are individuals as Catholics, in fact we are all individuals.  Period.  There can be no argument to the contrary.  The bible clearly states each one of us will be judged on our own merits, not on the collection of actions we are swept up into by the masses.”

That’s exactly what I meant, thank you. In other words, it is not enough to superficially belong to the Catholic tribe, one must follow the Catholic teachings to the letter in one’s personal life. That’s why most of the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Sr. Carol and other similarly misguided souls have no moral right to call themselves Catholics. But this is an aside.

“No matter where you are, hedonism will take form, be it a pilgrims village in early America with the lustful eye of a man bored of his wife and seeks his neighbors wife, or the billboard laden streets of the 20th century with near naked women showing themselves to passersby.”

The difference lies both in the degree of availability and the extent of encouragement. In Pilgrim America, adultery was relatively scarce and severely punished; in modern America pornography is not only ubiquitous but also protected as freedom of speech. In the former it wasn’t very difficult to exercise restrainment; in the latter the custody of eyes is practically impossible. I must repeat: americanism equals hedonism equals godlessness.

I admire blogs like these, because you have the eloquence that I lack to put these thoughts that we share down in text. Thanks, Mark.

Sean,

Can’t quote you the exact encyclical.  If its not in Caritas in Veritate it is certainly in one of the social encyclicals of JP II.

There is a difference between Catholic principles and Catholic solutions.  The principles are the matter for laymen to learn.  Thus there may be some social situations that are wrong.  Thus perhaps what you allude to.  However, the solution to the errors in the world are practical applications of those principles.  The practical application of those principles are the solutions laymen propose for given social problems.  Thus there are no specific Catholic solutions but rather solutions that take from the Catholic principles.

This is quite consistent with CST and the CCC.

Mark and Michel did not at all answer my questions. Michael quotes the CCC which begins “torture which, etc.” This seems to demonstrate my point. Obviously a definition of torture is already understood when the CCC that torture cnnot be used for, etc., etc.

I am not sure what is meant by a logical columniator. I am rather convinced that in argumentation the beginning must be a firm understanding of “what” one is discussing. That means there must be clear definitions, NOT examples, descriptions, etc. which already presume there are clearly known common definitions

But I give up. I shall no longer try to “throw pearls before…..?”

I am against torture. I know what it means. I am also certain that the devolution of the world is due in great part by not adhering to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church as I understand it.

Come on Mark! Nail him!  Show no mercy man!

Count me as another stupid American troglodyte who loves his country and its founding ideals. I am a Christian first, a father second, and an American third however, and I don’t believe I have ever confused the order of those priorities. Frankly, I get the idea the Mark would vociferously defend the economic principles of the same liberal Catholics who gleefully preside over the deaths of millions of American Children via abortion….unfortunatley I don’t think Mark gets it…the thinking of American Liberals isn’t just wrongheaded,; it’s a disease…these people believe right is wrong and wrong is right. They believe the poor become prosperous when the wealthy become poor. They believe the jobless get jobs by penalizing those who provide jobs. They believe health becomes universally better when no one gets good health care and everyone gets substandard care. They believe equality is promoted by destroying the rights of those who disagree with them. Sorry Mark, but Christians who pride themselves in their “objectivity” about the right are just useful idiots for the Left to overwhelm everything we hold dear…your attitudes, despite your noble efforts in your own home, are certain to bring dhimmitude to Islam your way…hope you enjoy it. We silly, stupid, uneducated (though I have post grad degrees—as an MD— I am automatically an idiot because I vote Republican) Alabamians are armed and won’t go down without a fight…DDD

Philippus,

And who do we vote for to establish a Catholic Monarchy?  Is that a third party on the ballot?

And why, since we’re all pretending to be Catholics here, doesn’t anyone bring in the definition of torture from the CCC?

“Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” (Para 2297)

Don’t see anything about “unjust” in it.  “Unjust” is kind of like “unclear” don’t you think?

Mark,
I’m not off MY point, which is you’re an illogical calumnator.

james mittelstadt,
Sorry, by some people’s logic on this blog, you support torture now.

Phillip,

It is interesting that you say there isn’t a “Catholic” solution to the social order. Can you cite where in the CC, CST, or anywhere else it states such a thing? Because from my reading of all of the popes since Leo XIII, I fail to grasp how any one can come to that conclusion. In fact, according to Pius XI in Ubi Arcano (quoted somewhere in the combox), the popes specifically call social modernism that which is NOT in conformity with a specific view of the social, economic, and political views of the Church.

Certainly there is some wiggle room, but I fail to see how it is unclear.

As far as definition goes, I’ve been around this block many, many times.  Here’s as good a summary as any of that particular rabbit trail.

But, as I have also pointed out a thousand times, the real issue is not “How close can we get to torture without quite committing a mortal sin?”  The real question is “How do we obey the Church’s command that prisoners be treated humanely and still get the intel we need?”  If we are serious about treating prisoners humanely, we won’t have to worry about accidently torturing them or coming up with fine-tuned rationales for inflicting drowning, or cold cells or suffocating stress positions on them—as we, in fact,  did.  We will instead treat them humanely as the Church says to.  And, as we found when we did that with Nazis and Commies, we will get the intel we need.

That said, you and Michael are getting pretty far afield from my original point.

Same old mark shea again. He talks about examples of torture without ever giving a clear and precise definition of what torture is. What is the definition of americanism? what is the definition of conservatism? I AM a human being, hopefully raised with a supernatural reality whereby I can love and serve God. I am a realist in the aristotelean-thomistic sense.

I have read with God’d grace rerum novarum and quadragesismo anno together with many other documents and try to think seriously about the content.

Torture is an intrinsic evil and thereby condemned by the catholic church. Torture is: “The unjust application of physical or spiritual harm upon another human being.’ What is “unjust”. therein lies a great question. Can you answer it for me, Mark?

Mark,

I totally agree with you!  You’re weren’t “lying” even though you admitted to knowing the truth but telling us the opposite.  You were “unclear.”
You’re not committing calumny by accusing whole groups of catholics of Americanism, you’re just “being hard on conservative american catholics.”
I get your point.

I wasn’t lying.  “Abortion” is a euphemism for “child murder” just as “enhanced interrogation” is a euphemism for torture.  Politicians prefer euphemisms when doing evil.  Hence Dems have long traded in terms like “abortion” or “fetal tissue” when speaking of “killing” and “babies”.  So there is no plank in the Dem platform which uses these plain English words because the goal is to cover up what is being spoken.  Instead we get Newspeak about “pregnancy termination”, “abortion” and, of course, “choice” without reference to what is being chosen.  Standard operating procedure for obfuscating the reality of the evil being done.

“Of course they didn’t make torture a plank in the platform, any more than Democrats made “child murder” a plank in theirs. “
“I’m sorry.  I was unclear.  I know the right to *abortion* is in the platform.”
“As I say, politicians always use euphemism when they wish to do evil.”

Mark,

You’ll be happy to know I totally agree with you about politicians who use euphamisms, they are trying to do evil.  Like those politicians who refuse to admit they’re wrong, but use the euphemism “unclear” when they’re lying to you about what they just said.

“...which is why I qualified this piece by directing it to conservative Catholics who put being American and conservative before being Catholic.”

Though I would say being American or conservative can be put “with” being Catholic as being a husband or father or plumber can be.  They can be part of our identity that is informed by our faith and which in turn can enrich our faith.  As John Paul II noted that culture is part of the person.  That which is Catholic does not replace this, but takes part in that culture.

This in turn can lead us to have American and conservative perspectives which, if in harmony with the faith, offers a true personalist perspective - a perspective of a person fully informed by his faith and identity. 

This is also so with CST.  Where conservatives say we should limit program this is not that we are necessarily denying the poor.  It may be because the programs do not work or that other aspects of the common good are being harmed by such programs.  This is so as well with govt. programs that in good faith we deem create excessive dependency which is also contrary to CST.  Or where one may say that increased taxes may unjustly take too much from individuals or in turn increase their dependency on the state.  Or where one may hold that certain programs cannot achieve what they seek to achieve nor that a perfect society can be achieved in this life as CST also teaches.

Many things to consider I agree.  But there is wide room for legitimate disagreement in CST.

Again, we agree—which is why I qualified this piece by directing it to conservative Catholics who put being American and conservative before being Catholic.

As to whether the sanctity of Enhanced Interrogation will ever become a plank, hard to say.  But I don’t think it matters much.  It’s already been shown that for self-described conservative Catholics, torture is supported in larger proportion than it is among ordinary Americans.  That’s as much of a scandal as Pelosi’s abortion zeal, because conservative Catholics claim to be faithful to the Magisterium, while Pelosi and her ilk don’t even bother to pretend they care about the Church’s teaching.  As I told Pat Archbold:  those to whom much is given, much will be required.  If we stake our claim on “I’m faithful to the Magisterium” then we had better *be* faithful to the Magisterium.  When it comes to torture, the majority of Catholics (57%) think torture can be justified (albeit 27% say “rarely”). 

I’m sorry, but I have to get going.  Blessings!

Re : “You don’t give enough credit to the system we have in America.  It is the closest thing to idealistic conditions as humanly possible.”

May God have mercy on our souls!

I am not sure which is more frightening, that soemone wrote the above or that nobody seems bothered by it.

On the right for some but not for all.  And for some Catholics but not for all.  I also suspect that enhanced interrogation as a plank in the Republican platform will never exist.

I’m sorry.  I was unclear.  I know the right to *abortion* is in the platform.  That’s because abortion is the euphemism for “child murder”.  As I say, politicians always use euphemism when they wish to do evil.  As to “enhanced interrogation” not being in the platform (yet), it doesn’t much matter.  It’s deeply enmeshed in allegedly conservative culture and policy.  Very, very popular on the right.

Actually the right to an abortion is in the Democratic platform.  I don’t think even enhanced interrogation is in the Republican platform though I might be wrong on that.

Of course they didn’t make torture a plank in the platform, any more than Democrats made “child murder” a plank in theirs.  Politicians are not fools.  When they seek to do evil, they cover it in euphemism, tergiversation, and doubletalk.  “Enhanced interrogation” was the preferred locution on the Right, and the applause for it was deafening every time some party spokesman or Talk Radio shill made excuses for it.  There’s a reason conservatives thought “I’d rather be waterboarding” shirts were hilarious.

Same reason that abortion humor from the likes of a Sarah Silverman is so easily received and popular on the Left.  What people find funny tells you a whole lot about a subculture.  Whether they encode those values into a plank on a platform is entirely secondary.

Though I would argue that (while a number of Catholics openly support torture) the Republican platform has never made torture a cornerstone of its beliefs as the Dems have made abortion.  McCain even sought to prevent the interrogation methods of the Bush administration.

Also in 2004, then Cardinal Ratzinger in his letter to Cardinal McCarrick noted that Catholics in good conscience could disagree about the justice of a given war.  Since this was after the Iraq War started I suspect he might have held that one could disagree on this.

Beck is a fallen away Catholic who found in Mormonism something he couldn’t find in his false understanding of Catholicism.  I don’t expect him to make distinctions in the term “social justice” nor do I expect to learn Catholicism from him.

I understand that *you* don’t.  But the point of my article is that a great many people do expect to learn their social doctrine from him and, in fact, have told me repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that they *prefer* to learn their social doctrine from him and other Talk Radio Heads and not from the Church, which they deride as “liberal”.

Phillip:

If we keep agreeing like this, we’ll have nothing left to argue about.  Once again, you are spot on about the distinction between grave evil and prudential judgment.  Only, the thing is, the Catholic right, in statistical averages larger than the American population, rejects your inclusion of torture with abortion and contraception as grave moral evils, which is pretty much my point.  The Thing that Used to Be Conservatism followed the lead of the Bush Administration in embracing the use of torture and prisoner abuse and regurgitated the talking points fed to it for years in order to justify torture and ridicule opponents of same—because the ideology demanded it.  For similar reasons, the Hannitized Right (Catholics included) ignored the guidance of two Popes and most of the world’s bishops and charged full speed into a war that manifestly did not not fit Just War Teaching—all with the easy dismissal that it’s not infallible teaching, so we could ignore it.  Humanae Vitae is also not an infallible definition of doctrine, yet no conservative Catholic treats it with such cavalier dismissal.

What we need to learn is a new way of approaching the guidance of the Church in something other than Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking which says, “What is the minimum I have to accept in order to be a Catholic?  The rest is “prudential judgement” which I can ignore if it doesn’t suit my politics or lifestyle choices.”  I’m afraid an awful lot of Catholics think this way, judging from a whole lot of conversations I’ve had both on line and in person.

Beck is a fallen away Catholic who found in Mormonism something he couldn’t find in his false understanding of Catholicism.  I don’t expect him to make distinctions in the term “social justice” nor do I expect to learn Catholicism from him. 

If some hold that all social justice is corrupt, they are wrong.  If one is suspect of how some use “social justice” as a bludgeon for a liberal ideology then I suspect they are being mature Catholics applying (or at least using the BS detector) to appropriately question what is an abuse of Church teaching.

Phillip:

Once again, we agree.  However, given that I’m being repeatedly excoriated for allegedly tarring with a broad brush in this comment thread even though I made clear that I was speaking only of conservative Catholics who put ideology before faith, I can only say that it would be nice if the people who are concerned about lack of distinctions here showed similar concern when Beck made *real* blanket condemnations and urged his audience to apostasy.  It’s quite true that “social justice” *can* be a code word.  But Beck didn’t bother to note that there is also a legitimate use for the term.  Had he made similar blanket denunciations of, say, people who murder abortionists as representative of prolifers, I feel certain the condemnations would have been loud and long (justly so).  But since “social justice” is seen as one of those lefty things, the response was pretty muted.  The message that came across from the non-response of conservative Catholics was: Not our ox being gored, so not that big of a deal.

“But we righties have to get over that idea that abortion and contraception are the only parts of Catholic social teaching that really matter and that everything else is up for grabs.”

I agree with this also except that abortion and contraception and torture are intrinsic evils and can never be supported.  The right policy to aid the poor, limits on immigration, how to implement medical care etc. are prudential judgments are allow great room for differences of opinion that are valid when offered in good faith for the common good.

“But when pundit says, “I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!” he is not urging people to be faithful Catholics, he is urging them to be apostate Catholics.”

Though I agree, I would also state that the term “social justice” is used by many groups with many different interpretaions.  Some of those interpretations are contrary to CST.  Some of those who use “social justice” in a Catholic context are also using it in a political and ideological context - generally of a liberal bent and insist that these are the “Catholic solutions.”  And in doing so they do injustice to true CST.

“The heresy of Americanism wasn’t about being a capitalist or about being patriotic, it was about the authority of lay people versus the authority of the hierarchy and the separation of Church and state. Despite the condemnation, many of the “Americanist” ideas on religious liberty and separation of Church and State were essentially adopted as acceptable views by the Church at Vatican II. The notions on democratizing the Church, such as the election of pastors by lay boards, certainly haven’t resurfaced among conservative Catholics.”

That is quite true.  The cry of Americanism does not mean one cannot love their country or be proud of their institutions.  If one sets up one’s country ahead of God or Church that would be a sin of a different order.

All can be faithful Catholics.  All can be applying CST.  None necessarily has the “Catholic” solution.

I quite agree, which is why I never said a word against this point.  But when pundit says, “I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!” he is not urging people to be faithful Catholics, he is urging them to be apostate Catholics.  Likewise, when a Catholic declares that when the Pope says the prohibition against torture may never contravened, it’s just his opinion and can be safely ignored, that’s not legitimate diversity of opinion.  It’s dissent, just as surely as artificial birth control is dissent from Humanae Vitae.  You betcha, there’s lot of room for how to enact Catholic Social Teaching.  But we righties have to get over that idea that abortion and contraception are the only parts of Catholic social teaching that really matter and that everything else is up for grabs.  In just the same way, lefties have to get past the notion that the only part of Catholic teaching that matters is “primacy of conscience” while picking and choosing the rest of it to suit their tastes.  The way to do that is to get our formation from the Church first, and only make use of secular sources when they comport with the Church’s teaching, not vice versa.

“Could have something to do with the fact that when I say, “How about we get our social doctrine from the Church’s Compendium of Social Teaching and not talking hairdos on TV?” I am accused of being a bombastic omniscient Mormon-hating liberal and excoriated for thinking that bishops might actually be the teachers Christ appointed to teach us Catholic doctrine.”

Though when one goes to encyclicals or the Compendium one can find things about the right to private property, denunciations of the welfare state and levels of taxes that discourage productivity, the right of the state to limit immigration and to deport those who migrate illegally, etc.  There is even the endorsement of the free market. 

These are points that can be overlooked even by the Bishops.  But they are part of CST.  And CST also teaches that there is no “Catholic” solution to the problems of the world and that Catholics in good faith can disagree.  I think a Catholic can look at the world from a conservative perspective and apply CST in good faith based upon certain conservative premises even as I think one can apply liberal premises and come to different conclusions.  Just as at the same time distributists apply their principles hopefully recognizing they are a set of premises applied by Catholics that are not necessarily more Catholic than those applied by liberals.  Liberal, conservative, distributist.  All can be faithful Catholics.  All can be applying CST.  None necessarily has the “Catholic” solution.

To Hieronymus

“If we are not Catholics as individuals, what we are as a group within a state? Totalitarianism kills the body, hedonism kills the soul.”

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.  Were are individuals as Catholics, in fact we are all individuals.  Period.  There can be no argument to the contrary.  The bible clearly states each one of us will be judged on our own merits, not on the collection of actions we are swept up into by the masses.  Did God not spare the only soul worthy of saving in Sodom and Gomora?  No matte where you are, hedonism will take form, be it a pilgrims village in early America with the lustful eye of a man bored of his wife and seeks his neighbors wife, or the billboard laden streets of the 20th century with near naked women showing themselves to passersby.  Again, that is why is is so important to distinctly recognize the opportunity this country avails everyone to make the right decision should they choose to.  No nanny state or amount of intimidation or “lack of icons” can keep Satan from trying his best to make us fall.  We as individuals have a blessed opportunity to make things relatively better in this country by the power of the vote, but even this to its own end will not change single heart.  In spite of the excesses of his time, the Lord suffered not Hedonism for he fasted himself to his Father.  The overt, the profane, that which be forced upon, ie the body, even our Lord suffered.  Remember, don’t worry so much about the flesh, we leave it behind.

To those who say they do not know the Catholic conservatives(not all Catholic conservatives) to whom Mark Shea is referring - I see and read their comments all the time on the web and many in response to Mark’s articles and blogs so I think it disingenuous, to say the least, to claim that one knows nothing of these folk…And lo and behold, after reading some of the comments on here - why, there they are again popping up like daisies after a rain storm….Is Mark Shea acerbic? Yes…is he accurate? I think so but that is open for discussion of course…We should always be willing to take an unflattering look at ourselves…even if the opinions expressed are not entirely accurate - it pays off in the long run much more than the self righteous pat on one’s own back….and Mark Shea is certainly willing to make that unflattering self appraisal, otherwise he would not blog for all the world to see and comment on…Haters, you need to take a deep breath and step back….Let the peace that passeth understanding give you some relief…Good grief!

“Jacob:

There’s only so much room for a headline. “
This is of course true,but it’s more the “never mentioned again” part that I was referring to. It comes across as little more than an afterthought.
_P_
I understand that putting a qualifier along the lines of “now I know there are conservative leaning people who aren’t retarded” every other sentence would both take away from what you’re saying and how you are saying it, and it may just be that I haven’t read enough of your articles, but while I’ve seen much of referring to the craziness of the crazy conservatives as conservatism, I have seen this qualifier maybe twice. Of course, twice really should be enough, but your writing style is a bit… expressive? energetic? boisterous, perhaps - and it often appears that your disdain for such things as attempting to defend torture overflows onto the more reasonable of us. Again, no one can expect you to qualify everything, that would make your writing boring and less effective. But this particular article would have been a reasonably good place to stretch the “...who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith” out a bit into a few more lines and be a little clearer about who you’re talking about, and, almost as importantly, who you’re not. It wouldn’t change much perhaps, but you may get less comments along the lines of “What you just said is stupid, you should have said [what you just said].”

While I do understand Mark, I think he is making right wind political conservatism the only face of Conservative Catholics. Moreover, Traditional Catholics are not to be taken necessarily as either one.
Tradition can have a conservative face, yes, but does not include all St. Paul tell us about “keeping the Traditions…”

Wow. What a variety of reactions. I can’t help but think that some of the most vitriolic responses, are from people who actually agree with you, but for some reason took your article to be an attack on them personally.
I thought you were spot on. You aren’t calling me a name, telling me how to educate my kids,who to watch on TV news or chastizing me for efforts I am making etc.. You are merely sending out a warning shot. I get it , and thanks for the reminder. Truth is truth. Catholic is Catholic.
I do enjoy Glen Beck, and occasionally I can stomach Hannity (not so much O’Reilly). I watch with interest and plenty of livingroom commentary. The Catholic church has so much more to offer than is found on FOX. Hopefully American Catholics will continue to make the effort to find out what the fullness of that offering is.

pax

I’m with dancingcrane—people seem to miss the “who put their conservative Americanism before their faith.” If you are not that, why take offense?
I believe a healthy patriotism is good—one that does not worship country or expect it to solve all problems, but which contributes to and is appropriately grateful to the land where one lives. But I have seen, in my own parish, those who feel a Good Catholic can only be politically conservative. And while I’m a default Republican (the Dems just got too whacked for me), and on many ‘social issues’ would be considered conservative, I agree with Mark’s article overall.

Maria:

It’s a paraphrase of a remark C.S. Lewis makes in, IIRC, Mere Christianity.  Your image of the boat, by the way, is found in “The Screwtape Letters”.  Great minds think alike. :)

Jacob:

There’s only so much room for a headline.

Good post, Mark.  I agree with dancingcrane, why would anyone get defensive about this article if they have read that first line?  He is very specific about who he is criticizing.
“The devil always sends lies into the world in pairs so that, fleeing one, we might embrace the other.”  That’s a great line, Mark, is it your own or someone else’s?  I always think of it this way, the Church is a boat, and we can fall overboard on the port or starboard side, and be equally drowning either way.

Really my primary problem with this post can be summed up by the title: “Why Am I So Hard on Conservative American Catholics… ” in big huge bold with “...who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?” following after as part of the body of the text, in much smaller print, and never mentioned again. You make it sound as though all conservatives are bad Catholics, which appears to cause much resentment. I think I’ve come to terms with your style and meaning, but at times it is hard to tell. I myself am labeled as conservative by nearly everyone I know, however I do not find myself magically supporting the torture or slaughter of innocents, or the deportation of anyone with a Spanish sounding name as a result of this labeling, and have even managed to convince myself to let the wisdom of the Bishops overrule my gut feelings on the death penalty (for which I want a cookie). I also have completely failed to materialize a desire to conquer the world and for the purpose of ending government charity (I do think that Charity is much more valuable when it is direct, as it both helps the recipient and the giver in different ways, but I recognize the need for the indirect charity which is government support of the poor and such). So can I assume that when you say “far right” you aren’t talking about me and those like me, or must I join the ranks of those who are called right simply because they deny what passes for values on the far left, and are then mocked for it? Oh, I also have never saluted Hitler, if that helps you make up your mind.

I am stunned at the number of ‘conservatives’ in the comments who have missed what Mark made plain in his title and first sentence:

“Why Am I So Hard on Conservative American Catholics…
...who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

if you put your Catholic faith before your American conservatism, good for you!

If you put your American conservatism before your Catholic faith, you deserve to be chastised.

Those of you who insist that you put your faith first, please reread Mark’s post!

“Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

“There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism”(Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio §60-61).

Given enough rope, Mark, your most vocal combox critics hang themselves with astonishing speed, but “Wisdom is proved right by all her children.”

Your very wise not to rise to the bait.

Here in the south it’s called “stink bait”.

I like some of what you say—I think that all Catholics ought to put being Catholic before political ideology—but you seem guilty of “creeping infallibility” in your treatment of Catholic social teaching. When something truly is a matter of prudential judgement, as with our political and economic system, it truly is up to each individual’s conscience to do its best to discern with political solution best meets the Gospel values of justice and charity. Catholic social teaching espouses broad principles which have to be balanced against each other, and there is no one correct “Catholic” view of government. A Catholic is in no way obligated to be a distributist, simply because Chesterton and other Catholics felt that this was the “right” economic or political system, just as they aren’t obligated to be monarchists, even though this was the “officially best” system of government in Catholic thought for a long while. The form of government or economics isn’t a matter of faith and morals.

The heresy of Americanism wasn’t about being a capitalist or about being patriotic, it was about the authority of lay people versus the authority of the hierarchy and the separation of Church and state. Despite the condemnation, many of the “Americanist” ideas on religious liberty and separation of Church and State were essentially adopted as acceptable views by the Church at Vatican II. The notions on democratizing the Church, such as the election of pastors by lay boards, certainly haven’t resurfaced among conservative Catholics.

Such a conservative as described in this article would indeed need to be denounced.  The question is whether such conservatives as described in this article actually exist outside of the fringes.

Perhaps Shea does not intend to do so, but his article seems to give the impression that all conservatives are like this, and this is a problem.

In logic, the contradictory of ‘all conservatives are [x]’ is not ‘no conservatives are [x]’ (This would be a “contrary”) but rather ‘some conservatives are not [x].’

Since Shea paints with such a broad brush and without distinction, it seems he is alleging “all conservatives are [x].”  All we need to then do is point to a Catholic who is a self proclaimed conservative who does not believe as Shea describes (see: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/who-is-mark-shea-talking-about ) and his article becomes either:

1) Unjust or
2) Failing to distinguish that he is describing a subset.

Now, for the record, I do not consider myself to be “Conservative.”  My view is that political views need to be judged through Church teaching and not the reverse.

Antony said:

““It is absolutely true that a culture based on hedonism (i.e., americanism) is more damaging to religion than a culture based on ideology (i.e., fascism, nazism, stalinism)”
That is true, but only of the individual, not the state.”

If we are not Catholics as individuals, what we are as a group within a state? Totalitarianism kills the body, hedonism kills the soul.

I think the Emperor in Star Wars - Return of the Jedi said it for me best:
“The hate is swelling in you now. .... Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.”

Ahhh!  Another blog and set of glorious comments that only the real dark lord can enjoy. 

“Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you”

I think that if you were offended by this article it might be time for you to do a check up on your relationship with Jesus and Catholic teaching.

Mark,

Although I don’‘t generally enjoy your tone, you made some good points.

Americanism is a heresy as Popes have laid out. And to be fair, our Bishops and Fox news need to be checked by our Catechism. I am never comfortable wit the Papal flag being put side by side with the American flag at our churches. It somehow means that the Papacy and America are one and neither can be complete without the other. I’m sorry, but my true allegiance is to the Pope not America.

Secondly, this novel political system at 300+ years old is far from perfect. It is not a model that encourages and enables us to really live out our faith. It’s a political system that celebrates the individual to a fault. In other words, it’s much like the “Spirit of Vatican II” Novus Ordo mass I would distance myself from (where the real meaning of why we are at mass is completely replaced with celebrating the congregation). 

It does seem as though we are free in this country, but I’d rather be an English martyr than a slave in the servile state.

It is why I wait for the return of Catholic Monarchism. After all, I know there are many canonized, Blesseds and Servants of God who were Monarchs (as well as those like Henry the VIII who went the other way). I don’t know of any modern leaders that is yet to be raised to the altars…and it’s been 300 years. We just have more numbers of people who committed crimes than we can bear to remember.

“When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenseless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government” (John Paul II, CA, §33)

What, depend on the State for assistance?

“Systems of social insurance and social security can make a most effective contribution to the overall distribution of national income in accordance with the principles of justice and equity. They can therefore be instrumental in reducing imbalances between the different classes of citizens” (John XXIII, Mater et Magistra §136)

Wait, health insurance and social security? But isn’t that the New Deal, and isn’t the New Deal a violation of Catholic Social Teaching???

American Catholics are in another world. They should get out more.

Mark,

As one of your few European readers, and as a man who served in the United States Marine Corps, I must say you are entirely correct. Americanism is the problem.

BTW: to the commentator who said Distributism is merely private initiative, not only have you failed to understand Distributism, but Catholic Social Teaching.

The misuse of the term ‘left’ and its zombie-like overuse is most unhelpful.
For example, in Catholic Social Teaching and in Pope Paul VI’s encyclicals especially one sees that to be a labor (trade)unionist and to call for the maintenance of public ownership of ports, water, electricity etc are perfectly acceptable and good.
Yet the so-called ‘conservatives’ lump this in with ‘socialism’.  So childish and so Americanist.
Australians, Westerna nd Northern European nations have been enjying the benefits of public ownership for years now and it has nothing to do with Soviet ‘socialism’

Mark:
You used an extremely broad-brush in your comments, treating almost all Conservative Catholics who’ve gotten involved in politics in one way or the other as Right-Wing Ideologues who don’t care about the poor and disenfranchised. In one paragraph, you go so far as to state:
“But when alleged conservative Catholics tell me that they would rather get their social teaching from a talking hairdo on FOX than from the bishops, when they tell me that it is “moralistic” not to be willing to put your soul at risk of the fires of hell by committing what used to be called “war crimes”, when they make excuses for buffoons who think saluting the brave idealists of the Waffen SS with their sons is a sure fire indication of sound judgment—and that any criticism of this makes one vehemently suspect of heresy and a traitor to the Faith—I can only say that the Right is becoming as mindlessly ideological as the Left….”
I personally know of NO Conservative Catholic who would even consider doing as you described:
—We use FOXNews for News & POLITICAL Opinion - We use Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium of the Church for Moral Teaching… & Some of us add 2 or 3 sources for News & op[inion if you don’t mind…
—The Waffen SS may have fought courageously, but they fought for an evil cause. In Addition, as has been explained to me by someone who survived the Holocaust, and held the record for most Escape Attempts from Hungary in 1956, National Socialism was a form of Socialism, just as Communism was a form of International Socialism - Both were Left-Wing Totalitarian Governments…
—Conservatives desire a Smaller Less Intrusive Government that knows its limits and knows that its primary purpose is to protect the God-Given Rights of the People.
I don’t know about you, but I take the Scriptural Injunctions to feed the poor and to help those in need quite seriously, and reach into my own wallet to do so whenever the occasion arises. I live on a fixed income, and still spend 2 to 3% of my monthly income taking hungry people out to lunch or driving people home or just giving them cash… I’ve met some very interesting people this way - a homeless Vietnam Vet, a “Drag Queen” who had been “Gay-Bashed”, an Aggressive Panhandler I trained to stop scaring the tourists, a Fellow Catholic on SSI and a friend who has a GIANT Health Insurance Bill…
I’m one of those mean, cruel Conservative Catholics you talked about. I’m sure many of the others who read your article are just like I am…
In christ, Michael

I think we need a temporary “Cease-Fire” on the Vitriol. I don’t like what Mark said more than Michael & some of the others, but that’s no reason to “Dress the man down” and treat him as badly as some have here… Don’t get me wrong, Mark, I think your statements about Conservative Catholics were a violation of the 8th commandment - You failed to discern between the majority of Patriotic American Catholics who love their country and know that their country has flaws and will never be anywhere near perfect with Nationalistic American catholics who think America “can do know wrong” and if America has done wrong, see rule #1… It seems that you forgot that only those who loves their families, their communities and their countries will work to make those better and persevere in making those better when times are rough. It seems that you forgot that those who love their families and their countries run into burning buildings and try to block terrorists from getting into cares and malls packed with people while whose who either hate or who are apathetic towards their communities and their countries run away from those situations and watch as innocent people die…

Please consider this, and consider the difference between Patriotism, which is necessary, and Nationalism, which is poisonous…

Sweeney

“It is absolutely true that a culture based on hedonism (i.e., americanism) is more damaging to religion than a culture based on ideology (i.e., fascism, nazism, stalinism)”
That is true, but only of the individual, not the state.  Ultimately, our form of government is the best because it allows every soul to take responsibility for its own actions.  Hedomism, which I find a little out of place when describing the politics of our country, but that not withstanding, is a collective of personal behavior, and again, I’ll take care of my self, thank you very much.  Will I try to point others in the right direction, sure.  Will I club them over the head (i.e., fascism, nazism, stalinism)to make that change happen, never.  We all serve as examples to others.  Hopefully we all learn the lessons we need to before our time is up.  To compare the “Hedonism” of America to the state ideals of the latter suggested forms of government is not a valid comparison.  Even if we were living in a fascist “Catholic” state, our judgment will be based upon what is in our hearts, not our heads.  The actions we take that are forced upon us are no actions at all.  I say let the opportunity for sin be present so we may discern with our own eyes and know the Lord and the simple fact that we are sinners and how easy it is to fall prey to it.  This affords us little excuse and makes the very necessity to “get right” with the Lord more apparent than it already should be.
Will we be more holy for keeping the American ideal alive, no, but we will be afforded the greatest opportunity to be as such if we do.  No form of governance will ever make a path to heaven, so the best form of government is the type that gets out of the way so each of us can make our own path there.

In this “great blog” about Catholic Social Doctrine, how is it that I (the evil conservative american catholic with a personal vendetta) am the first person to use the words, Solidarity, Subsidiarity, and Common Good in a sentence?  (Where you ask? Look back, just did it.)
Maybe our esteemed blogger is not as catholic (or as familiar with the Compendium) as he purports to be!

We can add Glen Beck to the great list of “Catholic-educated” people such as Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedy’s, Madonna, Lady Gaga, and Mark Shea.

Brennan,

I’m the hater?  I’m the one not displaying fruits of the Holy Spirit?  Have you read Mark’s blog?
My responses are public because Mark’s blog is public!  Keep my pride in check?? I’m not the one with a public blog and a column in a newspaper self-rightously denouncing whole groups of decent people! 
Hello, Brennan!  Wake up!

Oh, and one more thing to the people who love to bash Glenn Beck.  Beck went to Catholic grade schools and was raised Catholic.  Perhaps if he’d been properly educated about the faith, he wouldn’t be a Mormon today.  Those progressive nuns infiltrated our schools and destroyed them. 

In my parish’s school, they don’t do the Angelus.  I asked a teacher why not and she replied that the teachers don’t know it.  One of the many reasons I homeschool, using a Catholic curriculum of course.

Perhaps Beck wouldn’t be such a success today (which is partly due to his faith) if the Church had not failed him in his formation.

Mark, I appreciate your concern but feel you are painting every conservative Catholic with the same brush. Perhaps I am wrong. You know, there isn’t very good adult education and it’s quite possible that many Catholics don’t even know there is an official document espousing Catholic Social Teaching.  As a matter of fact, a lot of what is wrong with the Church in the USA is a result of poor teaching, from K-adult.

When I see nuns fighting to support Obamacare, and the nuns are still in good standing with the Church, I wonder if the Bishops really care. When I see Bishops like Weakland still in good standing, I’m hesitant to follow the USCCB leadership. My archdiocese was decimated by a bad bishop, who is still in good standing.

Right now, it seems the Church is in a weeding out period and weeding through what is and isn’t bonafide Christian Catholic Social Teaching. I’m waiting for it all to be resolved, hopefully in my lifetime, and sadly view almost anything that comes from the USCCB with suspicion based upon the past actions of the bishops themselves. I will follow it, because as a Catholic I have to believe that Christ will never abandon his Church and that he is ultimately in charge of everything, but I’m not so naive as to believe that there are no errors being taught right now by the USCCB. I just have to wait and hope and trust that Our Lord will clean up the current mess. In the interim, I have to put life issues first when choosing whom to vote for and if that makes me a right wing conservative, so be it. 

People don’t trust the bishops for a reason and it is all the bishops’ fault. I am faithful to the Church even when I don’t trust the messengers. Perhaps you just don’t know that many serious conservative Catholics.

Oh for goodness sake are you people not able to Google “COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH”?

The Vatican has put it online, read it at your leisure http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

It is absolutely true that a culture based on hedonism (i.e., americanism) is more damaging to religion than a culture based on ideology (i.e., fascism, nazism, stalinism). However, both of them contradict the Christian ideal of aiming to become God-like. But this path is narrow and only a few are chosen. Genuine Christians abandon the world, the flesh and the devil (including the devils of the Republican and Democratic varieties) and care only for the theosis. They also most certainly do not watch TV…8-)

Michael,
Why are you hating so much on MS?  Are you trying to exemplify the fruits of the Spirit that you are so eager to display in a party based all on Catholic social doctrine?  Ease up on whatever personal vendetta you have going and email the man directly and keep your pride in check; please.

God bless you, Michael.  Have your say.  I’m done.

Come on Mark, respond.  This ought to be easy for you to call people names, you do this for a living.  You get paid to do this.  Some of us have to get up and go to a real job in the morning.  Jobs that if we acted as christian as you do, we’d be out of a job.

dancingcrane,

Wise up, Mark Shea is a Scribe and a Pharisee, not G.K. Chesterton.  Chesterton could say in one sentence what Mark can’t say in a whole blog.

I’d vote for a party based all on Catholic social doctrine, but you haven’t started one, all you do is bitch!  You bitch and criticize and then do nothing about it.  If this topic “excites” you so much, then DO something about it or stop bitching!

How incredibly Chestertonian are the responses! Some think you too conservative, others too liberal; some accuse you of ivory-tower conservatism, while others are sure you give the liberals a pass. Chesterton was right!

“Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has been already admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape.” GKC _Orthodoxy_

You aren’t perfect, none of us is—but as I recall, Our Lord was harsher by far to the moneychangers and Pharisees, than He ever was to the publicans and prostitutes….

You make me sick, Mark.  People are trying to fix things in this country and are you do is criticize.  You make me sick. 

You’re like all those people at church that show up for the “event”, but “forget” to stay to pick up after then complain when the works not done.  You make me sick.

Lots of us wicked “conservative american catholics” also have CCCs and Compendiums too.  Lots of us homeschool and don’t have television.  Lots of us are fed-up with the government as God in this country.  Lots of us are tired of a million abortions a year in this country.  Lots of us are fed up with scribes who place burdens on people and don’t lift a finger to help like you!

Don’t cloak yourself in self-rightousness, Mark.  Lots of those wicked “conservative american catholics” also believe bishops are teachers appointed to teach us Catholic doctrine.  But these teachers have let us down as you let us down.  You blow a whole column in the NCR on “Pants”, say nothing of what true catholic social doctrine is, then proceed to lambast us on your precious blog, as if we ought to know what it is.  You’re the poor teacher, who gives the grade and never gives the lesson.  I’ve never heard a social doctrine talk from the pulpit and I’ve never heard one from you.

Hm…  A “Hard on for Conservative Catholics” is polite and not a kick in the privates or anything, but objecting to that is rude and arrogant.  Fascinating.

Michael, I don’t know how many times I need to write “Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching” before the light dawns that it is the place to go to find out what real Catholic Social Teaching is.  If you are expecting me to cut and paste that book in this combox, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

Oh, and yes, I agree completely.  I’m no Chesterton.  I am, however, fat.

Now that’s the Mark I know! Rude and arrogant!  But not like G.K. Chesterton.  He would have said it so much better.  Mark, you’re no G.K. Chesterton.

So what about it Mark, are you going to enlighten us as to real Catholic Social Teaching or just kick us in the privates?

Michael:

You’ve got class with a capital K.  Thanks for doing so much to illustrate precisely my point.

Why do you think that Conservative American Catholics “are putting their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

Could have something to do with the fact that when I say, “How about we get our social doctrine from the Church’s Compendium of Social Teaching and not talking hairdos on TV?” I am accused of being a bombastic omniscient Mormon-hating liberal and excoriated for thinking that bishops might actually be the teachers Christ appointed to teach us Catholic doctrine.

Dastardly,

Mark’s not a liberal, he’s just got a “Hard On for Conservative American Catholics.”

Fascinating.

Mark, you can try and cloak your actions in a “more pure catholicism than You” excuse, as this rant suggets. Bottom line you attack conservatives because you are a liberal and that’s why you don’t bother to attack democrats, MSNBC, NY Times, or any of the other mainstream media. Shame on you.

Typical Mark Shea. The omniscient one uses many convoluted sentences and words without giving definitions of what he essentially means. Nor does he cite church documents to shore up his bombastic lines of thought. Hopefully someday good riddance!

Mark,

Are you a Mormon-hater?

“Catholic social teaching is what is right,” but nowhere in the article do you even explain what is authenic Catholic social teaching.  Most conservative Catholics have only heard false Catholic social teaching, like liberation theology, so they are rightly suspicious.

You haven’t freed from ignorance, just given a verbal beating.
So what is Catholic social teaching?
Does it mean we feed the poor?  Well, WIC, food stamps, and school lunches do that.  The government’s got that covered.

Does it mean we care for the sick?  Well the government’s got that covered with the the new health care legislation too.

Bury the dead? Some government agency will do that too in this country.

Instruct the ignorant?  Public schools, check.

Sounds like there’s not a place for the Church in our society.  Government’s got our every need covered.
All we have to do is put up with legalized abortion, legalized divorce, rampant contraception, etc.  But these aren’t really big problems in our society, or so they tell me.  They’re such a small price to pay for living in our wonderful country (Matt 4:8-9).

As for Glenn Beck, he is a Mormon, not a Christian. There is a difference. I hardly think that Chesterton would approve of the consumerism and cultural filth that defines modern American “culture” any more than Benedict XVI. I think it is doubtful also that he would have approved of the firebombing of hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians or of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki by the allies during WWII. How many Sebian Orthodox were murdered by our glorius military during the war on Kosovo.
As for politics. I think that Henry Adams summed it up pretty nicely when he wrote that “politics are organized systems of hatred.”

Even the Vatican, who is the guardian and architect of these Compendium of Catholic Teachings, has historically fallen short of the ideology you claim is the failure of conservative,capitalist, Americanism.I’m all for persuing Catholic idealism but you are fooling yourself if you expect to raise anyone on earth to your expectations. One would think you live as a hermit, flagelating yourself for the failures you see in others.They have professional help for that and it’s condoned by the Catholic Church.

Mark,

Why do you think that Conservative American Catholics “are putting their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”  Maybe they’re trying to put their faith into action in the political sphere which is what popes and bishops have been exhorting us to do for the past many years.

Mack: I don’t think Mark objects to your service to our nation in Viet Nam. I certainly thank you for it. I suspect that where both he and I may find ourselves a bit apprehensive is in your pride at being “raised on a farm.” Certainly, it is an honorable heritage, and I am thankful to God for farmers, as for clothiers, builders, electricians and plumbers. My father served in the Second World War and in the Korean War, and was a machinist and a barber. He and my mother handed on their Catholic faith to their six children. So, if Mark disavows any allegiance to Stalin, what exactly would be left to your point?

G.K. Chesterton is nothing short of prophetic, and Mark Shea is privileged to be his mouthpiece.

I admire GK Chesterton, but I think that distributionism must be an effort of the private sector and that the public sector should not prevent it. That would lead to a more just society.  Capitalism that encourages Judea-Christian ethics with regard to commerce and contracts allows for subsidiarity to flourish in the society.
I sense from people like Mark Shea that they don’t trust in the judgement of a group of populists, that they believe that we need a bigger institutional government approach to education and charity.  The public school movement started with an antireligious goal that was specifically anti-Catholic.  I think that Mr. Shea should be placing his worries with the inadequate formation of the Catholic in the pew and Catholic institutions and challenge them to stop the community organizing as we have seen with the CCHD and get back to basics of the faith and what it really means to love our neighbor as ourselves by keeping the commandments and putting God first.
I do think that Mark comes across as being one who attacks and would love the good old days of the birth of redistribuiton of the 1930’s through the 70’s.  But let us remember, that is the time where the Church dramatically lost its influence in the life of our society. 
Instead of beating up on those of the right, many of whom have had personal changes of heart with regard to the life issue,  we should remember they are infants in their road to grasp the whole issue of life including divorce, contraception, embryonic stem cells and other issues.  Use this time to lead them to the truth versus slap them in the face.
As a lifelong Republican since the 1970’s, my home has been there because I am a Catholic.  I could not understand how Catholics who identified predominantly with the other party could look the other way for so long with these entangled government/private charity arrangements that led to such things as our local Catholic Charities in the Silicon Valley giving contraceptive benefits to their employees, or where Catholics requesting a Catholic counselor charged for such a request not wanting the services of a counselor who had a Buddha on their desk, or being told for a family in need that the moneys allotted were for an ethnic refugee group (both should have been served and let God handle the how).

Sorry for not spell-checking myself….

remnantofremnant.blogspot.com

yes! TRhe older I get, the more I hate politics- and yes, it is possible to love the U.S. and the constitution without making it into a Bible

Thank you, Mark. Wise and needed thoughts.

Bros & Sisters:  Don’t shoot the messenger (Mark).  The message is pretty simple: we find Truth and Love in the Church, not in Politics.  We examine our conscience against what we are called to be by God, not against our position on the political spectrum.  Praise God, He gave us the Church to help us live our earthly, social lives. He doesn’t need help from the ‘Right’ or the ‘Left’.  And neither do we:  everything we need to know about abortion, feeding the hungry, homosexuality and treating strangers with dignity, we should learn from the Church.  It is nothing less than our obligation.

Figured as much, hence why I stopped whining a few months back.

I agree, it can be too easy for conservatives such as myself to get caught up in Americanism at the expense of the vast richness that our Catholic faith can provide.

Though I’m still an avowed free-market-capitalist, I’m making efforts to learn more about subsidiarity and distributism.

Give ‘em hell (so to speak) Mark!

Mack- Mark declares all republicans worse than Stalin….where?????

Seriously Mark, I have no idea how you can write when your words are so twisted. I don’t think I could handle someone taking my words and running off the deep end with them.

To say “Americanism, don’t forget, is a heresy.” as Mr. Shea was bold enough to offer is saying something quite different than Chesterton, who wrote,  “America is the only nation in the world founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. ... Nobody expects a modern political system to proceed logically in the application of such dogmas, and in the matter of God and government it is naturally God whose claim is taken more lightly. The point is that there is a creed. ... The melting pot must not melt. ... America invites all citizens to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. ... Nor do I say that they apply consistently this conception of a nation with the soul of a church, protected by religious, not racial selection. If they did apply that principle consistently, they would have to exclude pessimists and rich cynics who deny the democratic ideal; an excellent thing but a rather improbable one. What I say is that when we realize that this principle exists at all, we see the whole position in a totally different perspective.” (What I saw In America, G.K. Chesterton)

Again, the Holy Father writes, “Moral posturing is part and parcel of temptation. It does not invite us directly to do evil - no that would be far too blatant. It pretends to show us a better way, where we finally abandon our illusions and throw ourselves into the work of making the world a better place.” (Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI)

“Americanism” is not the enemy of Catholicism, nor does Catholicism require that we embrace the positivist view that society or the world are perfectible, and that which is not perfect must be rejected on moral grounds.

I was raised on a farm, I served in Viet-Nam, I worked my way through school as an LVN, I was voting Republican long before the fat boys on midday radio ingested their first chemicals, I worked in the private sector, I converted to Catholicism, and in mid-life became a public-school teacher—and for this the furry Mr. Shea dares judge me as worse than Stalin?

What an irrelevant ass.

I am totally fascinated by the comments that follow your articles Mark. If you criticize conservatives, people assume you must be letting liberals off loose (even though I have never EVER seen you do that).

Why is it so hard for people to think outside of the political dichotomy we have been handed?

And how come so many Catholics can write off obligations to help the poor?

Thanks for your article! I think the message is great…conservatism can be great…but it will always be imperfect compared with the Faith. I know where I hang my hope on.

“disturbed by how many Catholics I talk to give more credence the windbag Glenn Beck”.

Last I checked, Christian is Christian, and while I hold my church the first and the real official church, let’s not forget that no one is perfect, including the very intelligent and clear Mr. Beck.  Conservative Catholics, I included, are tired of namby pamby rhetoric spewed about meekness and the folly of strength.  I am meek before my Lord and his Father, and then to those who allow me to be so without detriment to my self and my family.  “That God created all men equal in his likeness”, if you are an American and believe the principals espoused means that being created does not make you equal there after. Martin Luther King summed it up quite succinctly when he said “one day I will be judged by the content of my character”.  There is more to that quote, but it is the only important part.  My actions and behavior determine who I am and how I stack up against others, both in the here and now, and on judgment day.  To be sure, thinking that all I do here if only for my own glory is the key to my salvation in the next life, I might as well give up any hope of an afterlife with God, but too much is made of the error of righteousness. 

If no one aspired to be righteous, then all would be lost and Lefty Louies would rule the world.  If we are to make the best of our imperfect selves, we need to try, no matter how flawed our attempts, to be righteous.  Jesus never gave anything to anyone out of institutional obligation, so I suggest to all that before a forked tongue lashes out against the injustices of America and Americans in our excesses, they should quickly recall that charity starts at home, and it really only lives there, and in no governing institution.  If we go to war, it is to keep war from coming to us, and that decision is not meted out lightly mind you.  Just because we attack Afghanistan after an APPAULING attack on US soil, we were not aggressors. We simply ensured that our enemies were not going to be able to do it again anytime soon.  The idea that we are to sit here and simply suffer the slings and stones of our enemies are not even espoused in the little charismatic parish I attend (staffed almost entirely of African priests who are here today by the miracle of the Lord, considering the tales they have told of their lives in worn torn homelands).  Charity, war, justice, all these things are a measure of each individual.  The sum of that determines a country.  So far by my estimates, America is doing A+ in all categories.  “Look not upon the sin of your people, but rather in the faith of your church”, while I cannot speak for non Catholics, I know in my heart my actions are based upon the faith instilled by God and his son in me.

We were placed here in preparation for the next life.  That is something straight out of one of my last masses I attended.  The Lord did not place us Earth to be cannon fodder for evil.  Sometimes how we do what we do, and not what we do, is the greatest contributing factor to ourselves personally and socially among others.  I am a PROUD CONSERVATIVE CATHOLIC and my church is my church, and the mysteries of faith are just that, but I cannot meet Christ on the day of Judgment and when asked what I did to correct wrongs in this world I reply “nothing beyond what passiveness could accomplish”.  Demonstrating strength and resolve is not a matter of sin, far from it, it how we demonstrate it, that ultimately decides who we are and separates our influence upon the world as sin or righteousness.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA! Hold on there. What’s with the maligning of Circus Clowns going on here? Circus Clowns, as clasically defined, are inoffensive merry-makers which have brought joy to literally millions of children over the past who-knows-how-many hundreds of years. Whatever your feelings are about greasepaint, squirting other people in their faces with trick flowers and cramming into tiny automobiles with loud horns are NOT things which are leading kids away from the faith.

Focus your vitriol on the REAL enemy.

Focus on Cirque du Soleil.

Mark—You’re probably still hurting from the spanking SQ above gave you, so I’ll try to be as gentle as possible:  Stop bashing people over the head and then wondering how they could be so stupid as to disagree with you.

Hey Mark- By this article you wrote, I heard loudly that you are criticizing the righties because there is hope for them/me… I pray that all Americans this election will vote for the people & propositions that are least harmful to families, rather than least harmful only to their/my wallet.

Wnderful, Mark. You are a true gift to Nat Cath Reg and its readers.

Mark,
You are dead on target with this article—as you often are in your critiques of Catholic conservatives. I am a conservative Catholic and a Catholic conservative who is often disturbed by how many Catholics I talk to give more credence the windbag Glenn Beck—a Catholic Church-hating ex-Catholic now Mormon—than they do their bishops. Appalling.

What you say would have weight but for the crazy “moral” teachings the American bishops have proclaimed throughout the years—some in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

One of my favorites of recent years is that it is a sin for one not to vote. If I remember correctly, it was said to be a mortal sin. Another screwball idea is contained in the almost perfect consensus among American bishops that American’s immigration laws can be discarded wholesale with moral impunity.  Another is the novel teaching beginning with Pope John Paul II that the death penalty is immoral. Track the Church’s teaching on that issue to understand how silly, unbiblical and out-of-line with previous teachings such thinking is.

One must have accurate and consistent teachings on moral issues that do not offend what was previously taught before they will become persuasive.

Mark,

Excellent article.  This needs to be said more and more.  I am currently reading The Church and the Libertarian by Christopher Ferrara.  Although I’m not quite finished, it is thus far the best presentation (and refutation of Libertarianism) of the social teaching of the Church that I’ve read.

I’d love to read an unbiased review of it from a good Catholic writer.

Mark, I think you’re making a straw man here. There are “political” Catholics on the right but most that you catoragize this way are tired of progressives twisting or lying about the Churches teaching, or outright ignoring it. You are harsh on the conservatives yet you seem to give liberals a pass most times. This I think is why so many conservative Catholics disregard you.
The Church is the Truth in the world and no political party will take it’s place. However the democrat party is openly at war with Christianity and morals. The conservatives are desparate for some political sanity, thus the Tea Party. Fox News is not so great but the liberal establishment makes it look phenominal. This is why you appear so progressive at times and your constant attacks on conservatives get them into a trench mentality.
I pray Christ brings us all back to sanity.

Mark,

You don’t give enough credit to the system we have in America.  It is the closest thing to idealistic conditions as humanly possible (City of God, Augustine).

You talk in vague generalities and offer glimpse specifics of the root of your indignaiton.  What do you mean when you say, “The Way Things Ought to be”?

Yes, the ways of God trump all and endure all, but be careful not to isolate yourself in an ivory tower that strictly deals in theorems and philosophy.

I don’t ever want to disagree with Church teaching.  It’s certainly a grace.

I am Catholic first.

I don’t fit into your stereotypes and I still think you are wrong.  I can never tell what you believe in.  Reading you I assume you think you’ve seen the light because you homeschool and don’t have a tv.  That’s about all I get from your writing. 

Maybe I should feel good about myself because my husband and I sacrifice to send our children to Catholic schools - actually “being there” to try and make them better. 

We can all fall into the pride trap in what we do, you know.  If Church teaching was all that you wrote about it might be interesting.

well said Mark! My favorite is when someone like you describe tries to justify saying, “well, technically it’s a prudential judgment, so I’m free to disagree with it.” Well, that may technically be true, but why in God’s name would anyone who knows that the Church IS who She says She IS, *want* to disagree with the prudential judgment of it’s leaders??

Psalms 118:9
9 Better to take refuge in the Lord than to put one’s trust in princes.

A story as old as time thankyou Mark for taking the time and having the courage to remind us of where the Truth is to be found.

I wonder if the message was as unpopular in the psalmist day as it is in ours.

The Crusaders in days of old left their manors and villages with high ideals and banners held proudly aloft. They went forth at the summons of several Popes, to liberate the Christians held captive by the Saracens. Somewhere along the route, though, instead of adhering to the highest ideals, many (not all) Crusaders began to pillage and to plunder, to attack Eastern Orthodox Christian neighborhoods as well as Jewish ones, and to behave not as Christian knights, but as pagan barbarians.

Somewhere along the way, these Crusaders had lost sight of the true right and the true good. Instead of keeping their eyes fixed firmly upon THE LORD, they fixed their eyes upon the inward mirror we all carry, in which we view our own image of *our self*. “Look at me! Aren’t I wonderful? Aren’t I a hero? Aren’t I to be congratulated for doing the Lord’s will? I thank thee, O God, that I am unlike these pagans and foreigners.” Once a man begins to think and to pray in this way, pride has him completely in its clutches. He is no longer a servant of God, but a monster, and he has become capable of anything.

Christians no longer use horses and swords nor carry banners aloft. Today it’s other tools, other weapons. But the same temptations, and the same distractions. To take one’s eyes of THE LORD is a fatal error. But this is precisely what men do when they scoff at the teachings of holy Church, any teaching.

i think what catholic conservatives need to realize is that all nations, even this great land of ours, will suffer and decay under its own weight. therefore we must cling to God and enter into the boat that will lead us safely thru the storm, his Church.  She has seen nations rise and fall, she will see many more.