This laughable article from the National Catholic Reporter again goes after Catholic Answer’s voting guide and Karl Keating in particular.
I will admit that I do not lead a Catholic apologetics and evangelization organization, so I may lack some of Mr. Keating’s sophistication in these matters. But “chang[ing] the face of American politics” seems like a very strange goal for a Catholic apologetics and evangelization organization. I readily can understand a desire to win souls or to stop abortions by winning souls. I have a bit more trouble understanding why the things of Caesar — “the face of American politics” — occupy such expensive real estate in Mr. Keating’s world.
It is not a choice between stopping abortion and changing American politics to value all life. Political actions have to match personal efforts to advance the culture of life. Legalizing abortion created a greater demand for abortion and by government endorsement it made it easier for people to more blindly seek an abortion.
But perhaps the better answer is that we do not need him — or, to be more precise, his organization — at all because the universality of the church must admit to more than one political perspective. This is why even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has described “proportionate reasons” for supporting candidates who happen to be pro-choice. This also is why the church has inveighed against mixing politics with the faith since the earliest period of Christianity. We must not allow the view of our ultimate goal to become clouded by the temporal and obviously partisan cares of this world.
The universality of the church does not admit to more then one perspective on divorce and remarriage, abortion, ESCR, homosexual marriages etc. It is universal because truth is universal and applies to all equally. Cardinal Ratzinger must blanched every time someone used his words to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is one that is not Then also notice the "who happen" to be pro-choice. He betrays his earlier sentence about stopping abortion by using pro-abortion rhetoric.
At the start of the article he asks: "I have a question for Karl Keating: Why do we need you?"
A better question is for the National Catholic Reporter: Why do we need you? We don’t need a anti-Catechism that is more like a bizarro world version of Catholic theology. We also don’t need a paper that is just an outlet for dissident voices in the Church. We don’t need collarless priests preaching the gospel of modernism nor dour religious sisters bemoaning that they can’t be priests.
While Catholic apologetics will still be around long after Karl Keating or Catholic Answers have passed on, they have done extremely valuable work. I have heard and read about many people who thank Catholic Answers for helping them to either return to the Church or to convert to it. I have never heard or read of anybody that after reading the NCR decided to convert. They will only learn how the Church still has not conceded to modern times and allowed women priests and the wonders of homosexuality. NCR provides no joys of the truth of Catholicism, but only wishful thinking that one day the Church will see it as they do. The exception to prove the rule seems to be John Allen’s column Word from Rome.
7 comments
Hear, hear! I am so sick of all of these anti-activists who go out of their way not to educate people, as Catholic Answers does, but to detract from those who have given their life to spreading the Gospel.
To co-opt the words of the classic Stevie Wonder song: National Catholic Reporter, “You haven’t done nothing”.
I think it’s great how the laity are taking more responsibility for evangelizing the faithful. It’s not fair to leave is completely up to the bishops. They could use (and appreciate) the help anyways.
Isn’t this the “new evangelization” that the Holy Father has talked so much about?
Some people just can’t part with their birth control pills.
Wasn’t it the liberals in the Church who used to demand more involvement for the laity in the Church?
Now only the bishops can talk about the gospel?
I guess that was before the liberals realized that the laity are often more conservative than the clergy.
🙂
Since when have pro-life issues become “temporal and partisan concerns” for Catholics? They are issues that EVERY AUTHENTIC CATHOLIC needs to become actively involved in through prayer and fasting, self-education and educating others in the Truth, contacting congressmen in protest of the immorality that exists in our country today and expressing disapproval of through our votes.
This guy has obviously been living in his Ivory Tower way too long. He needs to come down and stand outside an abortion mill for a day, talk to some of his students who have experienced the trauma of abortion, and perhaps READ some of the recent studies on abortion, same sex unions, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and euthanasia. But even before he does any of that, I would strongly suggest he dust off his Catholic Catechism and read the Catholic Church’s position on these issues. The Bible, the Encylicals of the Holy Father should also be on his list of required reading. Perhaps we should develop a syllabus for him for Catechism 1 — Not 101– that would be way too advanced!
The author of this article needs our prayers that the Holy Spirit will enlighten him and give him wisdom and also change his heart to have some compassion toward the “voiceless victims” — the unborn — and the other crucial pro-life issues.
May the Lord zap him like he did Saul, who later became St. Paul!
Wow. I just came into the church this year and use Catholic Answers frequently. I realize how busy the priests are in my community and have chosen to take responsibility for my faith by seeking answers from dedicated apologists like Keating, Shea, the Hahns, Cavin and the like.
Politics: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
Maybe I’m off the mark, but if politics as defined isn’t important why would The Holy See ever spend a single second talking to the leaders of nations. Isn’t he himself trying to change the face of politics using love?
Note the expression “candidates who happen to be pro-choice.”
What’s the fuss? My candidate happens to have thinning hair, or large ears, or a belief that tax dollars should pay for abortions.
As a general principle, though, I think opinion columnists should avoid going around asking other people, “Why do we need you?”