James K. Fitzpatrick at Catholic Exchange writes an article in response to Sr. Chittister and a recent column by Fr. McBrien.
The first question we must deal with is whether McBrien and Chittister are sincere, or if they are using the Church’s teachings to further the agenda of the Democratic Party. We can test them. What do you think they would say to a Catholic who agreed with them that a Catholic has a responsibility to seek social justice on the very issues that concern them, but proposed the following ways to achieve that goal?
What if our imaginary Catholic contended that his goal was to improve our society’s child-care and educational systems by promoting vouchers so that parents could escape the public school monopoly? What if his answer to the housing needs of our people was to end rent control and union work rules that increase construction costs? If his efforts to provide quality health care for the small number of uninsured in our country started with the premise that we should not tamper with the essentials of the employer-provided, private insurance system that has made quality health care such a great bargain for over 80 percent of the American people? Do you think Chittister and McBrien would be nodding in approval at his way of grappling with the issues?
What if his preferred method of dealing with racial injustice was to end the reverse discrimination against working-class white students implicit in affirmative action programs? What if he was convinced on the basis of his reading of Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman that the only socially just approach to taxation was to repeal the current loophole-ridden tax code in favor of a flat tax? What if his analysis of the world scene convinced him that a vigorous application of American military force was the only realistic way to deal with the threat of world terrorism? Do you think McBrien and Chittister would invite him to their next symposium as an example of a Catholic who was dedicated to seeking social justice? I don’t think so.
What if our imaginary Catholic took up McBrien’s challenge to deal with the issue of “sexual orientation” from a Catholic perspective by applying the Church’s teaching that homosexual actions are either sins or a manifestation of a severe psychological disorder; and if he insisted that we keep this in mind when considering the questions of homosexual marriage, adoption and hiring practices in schools and other child-care facilities? Do you think McBrien would pat him on the back for his concern for issues of life that arise after birth?
Come on — it is obvious. McBrien’s and Chittister’s use of the term “pro-birth” for pro-life Catholics is not meant to prod Catholics into focusing on questions of social justice from a Catholic perspective. It is meant to nudge Catholics into thinking that it is necessary for them to support the big-government social programs favored by liberal Democrats as an example of what they call a “consistent ethic of life.” Which is humbug. McBrien and Chittister are acting as political partisans, not teachers of the Faith or the Magisterium.
9 comments
It’s likely that McBrien and Chitt’r WILL agree on the value of the Consumption Tax, however.
Steve Forbes’ name is not attached to it, and hey! it’s a blow against Consumerism.
On second thought….naaaaah…
To condense this: Would you give unqualified praise to someone whose views are opposed to yours? The answer is no. You may say, for example, “X is a good singer, but she really shouldn’t talk about politics or be critical of the Bush administration.” Or you might say “X is a skilled soccer player, but he really needs to cool his temper and realize that taunting from the opposing team is part and parcel of the business.” But to give unqualified praise? That won’t happen, and nor should it. The suggestion that’s it’s at all intellectually dishonest not to do so is nonsense.
(And I really hate the notion (all too common among conservatives) that “affirmative action” is the worst example of “racial injustice” to deal with. Smacks of narcissism, to me – “Why aren’t you talking about how bad *I* have it?”)
Okay, maybe the second example was a little irrelevant.
Amen! It is about time that orthodox Catholics reveal the real identity of Chisstler and McBrien. They are both agents of Move.org and hardly even fit the description of an authentic Catholic cleric and religious seeking to bring the Gospel of Jesus to the people. They are Democratic Party public relations officers who seek to promote the socialist ideals of the democratic party, even those extreme views condemned by the Church, like abortion on demand and same sex marriages.
Perhaps we should just ditch the spiritual and corporal works of mercy and replace them with the
Contemporary Works of Mercy
Protest war
Lobby the government
Protect the environment
Empower the oppressed (everyone except white men)
Oppose capitalism
Demand equal outcomes
I don’t know Sr. Chittister that well, but Fr. McBrien is anathema.
I’m done.
Dare we criticize the Marx and Engels of the Progressive American Katholic Church, especially since they are probably masters of enneagrams?
I was once horrified to flip through a book Sr. Chittister wrote on modern women saints. She included Simone de Beauvoir, mistress of John Paul Satre, the nihilist existentialist. She may have like the Beavoir statement that marriage is slavery, or her approval of abortion to liberate women.
I was once horrified to flip through a book Sr. Chittister wrote on modern women saints. She included Simone de Beauvoir, mistress of John Paul Satre, the nihilist existentialist.
That is simply appalling and shameful.