• Subscribe to Crisis

  • Catholicism Must Be a Sign of Contradiction

    by James Kalb

    obama-gay

    Last month I noted that Catholics need settings in which they can lead a Catholic life among Catholics. For most of us, loving God and living as Christians take schooling and support, which we aren’t going to get from the world at large. That may be one reason the Apostle Paul’s letters focus more on the practical internal life of Christian communities than on evangelism. The ultimate ideal may be the New Jerusalem, in which the distinction between the Church and the World disappears, but we’re not likely to get there any time soon.

    Still, those who object to “fortress” or “ghetto” Catholicism have a point. Something of an inward focus may be necessary, because today’s world is so much at odds with the Faith, and we Catholics are not already everything we should be. It should not be exaggerated, however. Christ told his followers to go out and teach all nations, and love of neighbor means engagement with the world both individually and socially.

    But how do we engage the world socially when Caesar—and the media—are ever more powerful and anti-Catholic? During the Christian centuries, when social leaders accepted Catholic Christianity as the norm, it was natural for them to recognize the authority of the Church regarding matters on which she has special competence. It was no odder for the king to accept Church authority on faith and morals than it is today for a government to accept the authority of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or defer to the National Academy of Sciences on an engineering question.

    Those days are past, and it is less obvious today how the Church can play an effective social and political role. People mostly aren’t Catholic, and social leaders are less so than most. Vatican II, while reaffirming traditional doctrine on the duty of men and societies toward the Church and the true religion, recognized that reality. Ever since, Catholics have been trying to find practical ways to cooperate in building a better social order in a setting that does not accept Catholic doctrine as authoritative.

    Cooperative efforts require common ground, and the more complex and comprehensive the effort the more common ground is needed. In the absence of agreement on the most fundamental issues, Catholics have tried to base their cooperation with the extremely complex and comprehensive activities of the modern state and other secular actors on natural law.

    Natural law can be developed philosophically in various ways. At bottom, though, it’s a way of talking about the evident fact that man is not a blank slate for us to write on as we wish, and the world is not a collection of neutral resources for use in projects that we choose arbitrarily. There are goals and patterns that are natural to human life and touch it at all levels—physical, psychological, social, moral, aesthetic, spiritual. If we do not respect such things our life will become degraded or go haywire, like any complex structure that is dealt with in a way at odds with its basic principles of functioning.

    Many examples could be given, but those having to do with sex are especially conspicuous just now. Sexual relations create a fundamental connection between man and woman that extends to the whole person, so much so that limiting the connection in time, or artificially depriving it of its natural effect, violates the integrity of the relationship and its participants. That, or something tending in that direction, is the view not only of the Catholic Church but of other major religious and philosophical traditions. It is evident then that its truth is accessible to rational investigation and support, perhaps with the aid of the sifting and ordering of experience that goes on within a moral tradition in good working order. To make the point more evident, the disastrous results of accepting a radically opposing view that Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae become more obvious every day, even from the perspective of secular social science.

    Nonetheless, understanding the issues requires readiness to see a variety of goals and patterns that pervade human life as part of an overall structure that is meaningful, functional, and purposive. The mechanics of reproduction, the complementarity of the sexes, the subjective experience of sexual relations, the experience of viewing another person as an object of physical desire, the social nature of man, the process of raising children, our attachment to family and people: all must come together in a pattern that seems not arbitrary, but natural, authoritative and oriented toward the good life.

    Normal people have generally had no problem looking at things that way. The world is an arrangement of diverse systems that work together in a complex and subtle manner. Good sense is the ability to use our familiarity with such systems to know what’s what, and how things work in accordance with their intrinsic principles in this setting or that. That kind of good sense, which necessarily includes a sense of what’s normal, applies above all to human life. Since that is so, shouldn’t we expect the good life for man to be closely connected to the nature of man and how human life works? And why expect sex, which is a fundamental aspect of life, to be separable from life as a whole?

    Nonetheless, contemporary technological ways of thinking reject such considerations, because innate patterns and goals sound too much like the natural essences and teleology those ways of thinking reject as unscientific. They also reject the objective significance of aspects of reality, such as perceptions of value, that are vividly present to us subjectively but impossible to define physically. Instead of functional patterns, natural goals, and objective goods such ways of thought try to understand the world solely by reference to mechanical cause and effect, and apply the knowledge so gained to attaining whatever goals people happen to have. Instead of the good life as the standard, they propose the safe, pleasant, and efficient life.

    The result is that natural-law moral reasoning loses its basis in how reason and reality are publicly understood, and comes to seem an imposition of arbitrary demands that are at odds with perfectly valid (because peacefully achievable) human desires. To make matters worse, as moral standards come to conform themselves to what is now understood as reason, and to the tendency of a bureaucratic, commercial, and technocratic society to view everything from the standpoint of obvious immediate utility, natural-law moral reasoning comes to appear actively evil. After all, it tries to bring human life within natural patterns that are traditionally recognized, and that means stereotyping and discrimination, which are now considered the worst sins imaginable.

    That’s why Barack Obama got a rainbow-colored halo on the cover of Newsweek Magazine when he came out in favor of “gay marriage.” Indeed, the requirement under international law that governments suppress attitudes and practices stemming from belief in sexual complementarity suggests that extirpating natural-law considerations is now considered, by our most authoritative institutions, a basic responsibility of government.

    Under such circumstances, intelligent discussion of the public good, and of the complex and multi-leveled patterns and goals that shape human life, becomes impossible. So what do Catholics do when confronted with social authorities that insist, as a matter of fundamental principle, on replacement of human nature and the good by will and technology as the highest standard, and demand the imposition of their vision on the whole of life everywhere?

    It’s a difficult question, especially when the state and other centralized forms of social organization are as pervasive as they are today. What we obviously can’t do, though, is support the realization of the progressive vision. The egalitarian, bureaucratic, and centrally-administered conception of social justice on which it is based is something we can’t cooperate with. When we support it, as the case of Obamacare illustrates, we are strengthening what will crush us. We might as well support the construction of a universal caliphate.

    Instead, we must insistently, in season and out, in every possible setting, assert, argue for, and act on our own contrary understanding of human life. When there is a fundamental misconception the answer is not to join in the projects of the people who suffer from the misconception. It is to do whatever is needed to correct it. Today the Catholic view is simply not a presence in public life, and at best is misunderstood as an eccentric variation on some other view. Our most important political task is to change that.

    This column first appeared April 11, 2013 in Catholic World Report and is reprinted with permission.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      In 1958, Miss Anscombe, a Catholic and the translator and literary editor of Wittgenstein, wrote, “In present-day philosophy an explanation is required how an unjust man is a bad man, or an unjust action a bad one; to give such an explanation belongs to ethics; but it cannot even be begun until we are equipped with a sound philosophy of psychology. For the proof that an unjust man is a bad man would require a positive account of justice as a “virtue.” This part of the subject-matter of ethics, is however, completely closed to us until we have an account of what type of characteristic a virtue is – a problem, not of ethics, but of conceptual analysis – and how it relates to the actions in which it is instanced: a matter which I think Aristotle did not succeed in really making clear.”

      I do not believe the situation has changed.

    • TMJC

      “Normal people have generally had no problem looking at things that way.”

      But that is just it. “Normal” has become an offensive word. “Normal”, outside medical test results, has become a word that people don’t want attached to them. Haven’t you heard “experts” trotted out onto panel shows to give their important insight exclaim “What is normal? There is no such thing as normal.” Take a look at the advertisements for Mini Cooper: “Normal is regular, average…safe…it is what is, but it’s not great. Normal can never be amazing. WHO WOULD EVER WANT TO BE NORMAL?”
      It is this mindset that makes it often impossible to even be able to discuss the concept of natural law, which if you say it is natural or normal, or to quote the Mini commercial “it is what is”, then the knee jerk reaction from many people is either “That is YOUR definition of natural or normal” or again, “Who would ever want to be normal?”

    • AcceptingReality

      Put simply, faithful Catholics will continue to face the oppression of tyranny for a good while. You are correct in saying that what we can’t do is support the realization of a progressive vision. Can you please tell that to all the priests and Catholics in the pews who routinely vote for progressive candidates because the think they are the party of “social justice”.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        What we need to do is point out that abortion is the genocide of the poor.

    • publiusnj

      So long as we accept the premise that politicians are functioning in good faith, so long will our arguments based on philosphy be unsuccessful. In large measure, our politicians do not act in good faith; rather, they have dissected the population into chunks that they address with particular policies designed usually to redress some perceived victimization of the targeted chunk. So long as the targeted groups of persons “victimized” exceed the supposed victimizers, that is a recipe for continued governing of the populace (a modern day application of “divide et impera”). We therefore need to see politicians not as representatives of the zeitgeist but as manipulators of an increasingly at sea populace. The Church needs to address that populace directly and the best way to do that is to talk truth to power.

    • Dick Prudlo

      Vatican II “recognized the reality” of having to deal with the world, but perhaps, in its most ambiguous, manner formed a new faux irrenicisism with it and provided us with the bishops providing the state with its new authority over the Faith. Instead to saying to the state we will not comply, our fearless vat II prelates said we will if we lose in court. The nonsense continues……

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Sex follows money. These attitudes are not being taught as a rejection of natural law, but in the disordered service of the moral sin of greed. In 1970, the Guttmacher Institute wrote a report on what it would take to reduce the population of unwanted people (that is, those who threatened the material wealth of the elites in the Eastern United States). EVERYTHING we think of as “scientific” and “modern” attitudes about sex, from abortion to homosexuality to infanticide, sterilization, and forced birth control drugs in the water supply- was in there.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sam-Sundberg/100000503691206 Sam Sundberg

      May 30th: Catholics in America are so often confused because there simply is not strong, clear leadership from all our Bishops. Nancy Pelosi when asked why she continues to receive Communion despite the fact that she is such an aggressive promoter and supporter of abortion said that the Bishops are divided about this. Catholic Universities openly defy the Bishops by continuing to give rewards to pro-abortion figures. People have asked if the spontaneous talks given by Pope Francis could be discretely recorded and shared with the whole ‘flock’ since we are so in need, so weary, at times of the struggle but Pope Francis wants to keep his daily, informal talks just for those present -in a familiar setting. I love Pope Francis but more and more I feel (just a feeling not a fact) that he is turning away from the larger flock to focus on the locals – that’s fine for one who is just a Bishop – but the Vicar of Christ is for all the flock entrusted to his care and though I understand wanting to keep things local and familiar, I hope it won’t continue this way. The world is the Vicar of Christ’s parish…and we are all in desperate need of our Pastor…I hope he will turn from being just for the locals to the larger flock who are lost and in need of a good Shepherd – the prime Shepherd…Pope Francis.

    • ColdStanding

      The critics of “fortress” Catholicism do not have a point. You can not organize, train, and condition people for the work if you don’t have some territory which we, as Catholics, control for purpose of Catholicism. It is very difficult to argue against people saying that there is no difference between the Catholic faith and any other religion if there is no way to see how different and attractive a fully-bodied implementation our religious belief can be. It is freedom. True freedom. Well, as much as can be had in this life. Why do you think those arguments were framed, during the “enlightenment” period, to the effect that there was no difference between the Catholic Christian faith and every other religious conviction, if not for the purpose of undermining the authoritative vision of Catholicism? Why do you think the enemies of the Church have sought ever and always to drive the Catholic from their lands, if not because you can not serve to masters and they are Satan’s vassals?

      Look, don’t let them know, but our Churches are (should be) our fortresses! Right under their noses, even. It is there where we can put out into the spiritual deep and find some respite from the hubbub and hurly-burly life on land. Meet with our King and Savior one on one. Get some face time with the head honcho. We will not save the world for all our efforts. No, we are to help in the saving souls from the world, starting with our immediate families and friends, then our enemies. The world is Satan’s reward from our generous and loving God. Let him have it. Therefore, do not bemoan the fact that the leaders of the world are oppressing us, but see it as the action of our just God. They have their reward, we have chosen the better.

      Heavenly Father, have mercy on your errant children when you see our feeble attempts to repent of our sins. Send upon us the Holy Spirit so that we may be so filled with a radiant love for your Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that even our enemies seek to join us.

    • Paul McGuire

      Why can’t this theory of natural law coexist with the recognition that a small portion of society are born gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender? Nothing I’ve ever read from the people seeking equality for LGBT individuals indicates that they are in any way trying to change the way things work for everyone else.

      What makes the natural law position difficult to swallow for many is that many religious groups seem to ignore the evidence in front of them that a small segment of the population was born into a different way of being. People realize that at the time when these natural law theories originated, there was no scientific understanding of homosexuality. It is the equivalent of quoting the bible as the basis for opposing the theory of evolution.

      • Steph

        First, how is changing the very definition of marriage not “changing things for everyone else”, especially when such a change has broad legal implications?

        Second, the “born gay” argument is often used, but unsupported. Please see the amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh from Johns Hopkins:

        http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/McHugh.pdf

        Third, I am very tired of people using the “born this way” argument as though it, by itself, settles the ethical question of homosexuality once and for all. Even granting the hypothetical that people are “born gay”, let me point out the obvious (and I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before), that being born a certain way does not, and never has, by necessity justify a person’s actions in life. To use an extreme example, the violent actions of a psychopath are not justified because he or she was born without the ability to feel empathy. Are we to codify into law the proclivities of the psychopath community– assuredly a small segment of the population– because they were born with a predisposition towards morally dubious actions? People with mental defects are treated differently under the law when they commit a crime, but that does not mean we as a society condone their actions. My point here is not that homosexuality is the same as psychopathy or mental illness. Nor is it that we don’t take into account the circumstances of people’s birth when engaging in discussions on ethics, law and morality. Rather, my point is that the “born this way” argument has become undeservedly axiomatic bordering on trite. In reality the legal and ethical implications of the unavoidable circumstances of our birth are far more complex and deserve our careful deliberation.

        • Paul McGuire

          I have read the amicus brief you link to. The studies he cites discuss a fluid sexuality for many people. To me, this sounds like many bisexuals who decide at some point they are no longer interested in the same sex for whatever reason, whether it is pressure or religious pressure. Even then, if someone is bisexual and attracted to both sexes, to me it is morally wrong to deny that person the experience of true love if he happens to fall in love with a man. Many bisexuals are in committed relationships with people of the opposite sex and find fulfillment there. It all depends on meeting the right person.

          Two gay men are capable of forming an emotional bond (commonly known as love) that is the same as straight couples. If you asked a straight man if he is capable of the same deep emotional connection with another man that he has with his wife, he would say of course not. If you ask a gay man if he can have the same deep emotional connection with a woman that he has with his partner, he would say of course not.

          Giving gay and lesbian people access to marriage helps preserve marriage because you will have less failed marriages of the sort that occur when a gay man marries a straight woman. In China, due to extreme social pressures, gay men typically marry lesbian women so that they can appear to be conforming to the societal norm. Of course they are rarely intimate with each other but instead have same-sex partners on the side.
          (On the Straight Spouse problem See: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/23/us/left-behind-a-special-report-when-one-spouse-is-gay-and-a-marriage-unravels.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm )

          (On what is going on in China see: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/130412/china-gay-marriage-gays-marry-lesbians-lgbt )

          The problem with your third point is that each of the examples you bring up is one in which a person acts in a way that harms someone else, whether through violence or other crimes. When two people of the same sex fall in love and commit to each other there is no similar harm. The failure to point out specific harms that come from two people of the same sex getting married is exactly why society has been so quick to embrace the marriage equality movement.

          • disqus_BD1WTedpf7

            Why don’t people understand that Natural Law has nothing to do with what happens in the world, it has to do with using our natural faculty of reason to find the meaning and purpose of our actions.
            I think this whole debate rests on the premise that every person has a right to sexual satisfaction, and this is clearly false. The bar at which society seems to endorse free sexual expression seems to be getting lower and lower, but clearly no sane person or society can endorse this premise, though we seem to use it as a basis for alot of reasoning on gay marriage and homosexuality.
            The answer is to promote the single life of celibacy as a true, real and vital option for those that cannot adjust into a healthy straight married relationship. Is this so terrible? Well i suppose in this modern world,,, but it should be promoted.

            • Paul McGuire

              Yes I think promoting celibacy for gay men is so terrible. Unless someone is asexual, living a life of celibacy is quite difficult. I doubt any of the straight commenters here would be able to live celibate lives if they were unable to marry someone of the opposite sex.

              • Anthony Padua

                Hi Paul….meet a 42 yr old virgin…me! Very much attracted to women. Though unlucky in love it would seem. I’ve had my heart broken a couple times….And it seems to have fallen on me the “job” of taking care of a parent. Not exactly how I planned out my life. Celibacy can certainly be difficult. It’s gotten to the point where it’s more accepted to be a homosexual than a virgin…Nowadays I’m the oddball in society…But(at least in my case) perhaps made easier when done for a God who died for me. And who promises greater joys than sex for those who are faithful…Jesus Himself was celibate…and they don’t call her the “Virgin” Mary for nothing…many saints in the past and religious today live lives of celibacy…It would seem Heaven holds virginity in high regard…Now I know many people do not believe what I do…but I am still nonetheless(at the risk of being accused of hate and bigotry) compelled to make this a Christian world as much as possible…and to try and convince my “neighbor” of the Truth…shaking the dust from my feet and moving on if they refuse to listen

                • Paul McGuire

                  You are stronger than most. My aunt married late in life (I think late 40s) and now seems to be happy. She had a hard time finding the right man too.

              • disqus_BD1WTedpf7

                It is difficult, but for the love of God and His Kingdom, it is possible and even preferrable. I know.

          • Steph

            “Two gay men are capable of forming an emotional bond (commonly known as love) that is the same as straight couples.”

            And herein lies one of the definitions on which the traditional Christian and the modern man must disagree- the notion that the concept of love may be simplified down to an emotional bond, and from there reduced to the firing of neurons in the brain. There are different types of love, and while Christians believe that, yes, love has a physical/emotional component to it (and a very important one), human beings are more than the physical. A true definition of love is far more nuanced, and may only be fully understood in the reality of God himself. May I recommend Lewis’s Four Loves as a good foray into the traditional Christian understanding of the concept of love, if you’re at all interested. A discussion about love with a Christian must ultimately result in a discussion about the existence and nature of God, and the understanding that goodness resides apart from our own personal inclinations, passions and circumstances.

            On your final point, you are starting with the presupposition that our test for judging the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on the “harm” it causes others. This is a rather important point, so let me start with the question, what is your definition of harm? (On a side note, here is a word of caution from a definitely-not-Catholic writer on one of the potential drawbacks the attempt to redefine marriage will have: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/23/3743531.htm)

            • Paul McGuire

              Which of these four loves are you suggesting is impossible to experience between two men?

              As to your second point, that removal of adultery as a basis for divorce has already happened in the US through no fault divorce. I don’t see natural conception disappearing like that author suggests. That is always going to be the default way of doing things when it is possible.

              • Steph

                1) I made no such suggestion, though perhaps you reached that conclusion after reading the book?

                2) This is quite an oversimplification of the author’s concerns.

      • patricia m.

        “Nothing I’ve ever read from the people seeking equality for LGBT individuals indicates that they are in any way trying to change the way things work for everyone else.”

        No? I have been reading different things…

        - gay marriage
        - adoption of children
        - begetting of children
        - introduction in schools of LGBT related subjects to little children, so you can indoctrinate them

        You can love (or form an emotional bond) to anyone you want, as it has been happening throughout the centuries. Why now all of a sudden there’s this need, this urgency of being recognized, praised and accepted “as normal”, or as “mainstream”? The gay lobby is very, but very influential.

        • Paul McGuire

          The idea is to suggest that for gay men and lesbian women one path available for them is to marry someone of the same sex and as closely as possible raise a family. Everyone else who is straight is already doing this the “traditional” way.

          Your point about indoctrination of children is the perfect example of why there is still such a debate about whether it is a choice to be gay. Once it is recognized that it is not a choice, there will be fewer people suggesting that gay men want to indoctrinate children or turn them gay.
          No gay man would want his children to be gay knowing what he went through in his own life. However, for gay men to pair off and marry is the best chance a gay man has to live a happy and fulfilling life.

          To answer your last question, it is a combination of things. First, the recognition that gay men exist because they are no longer hiding in the shadows. There is no longer this idea that if you come out you will never be able to find success or find a job. (compare to the time during McCarthy when gay men could not get security clearance and were considered communists) Second, as more gay men and lesbian women come out, they are more likely to meet up and pair off once they get over the party stage. Third, once marriage becomes possible, more and more committed couples emerge to take advantage of that option.

          It took some time after the AIDS crisis for gay men to finally start to realize they could look forward to lifetime commitments. Now as more and more younger gay couples are falling in love and unrestrained by the restrictions of the past, they are demanding equality and recognition because to do so sends a message to young LGBT kids that they don’t need to hide and counters the messages from churches that would call them disordered.

          This all coincides with a society that is increasingly rejecting the rigid rules set forth by religion as outdated and antiquated. Many gay men leave the church completely, others move to more accepting denominations. No longer bound by the rules of religion, they see no rational reason why they should be prevented from marrying.

          • Anthony Padua

            You’ll never convince Christians(at least those who aren’t fooling themselves) that the Word of God in scripture is “outdated and antiquated”…or for that matter…the Sacred Tradition of Catholics…both sources are clear on the matter of homosexual relations…to be sure…a celibate life is required of unmarried heterosexuals as well…though many Protestants and Catholics alike fool themselves into believing otherwise…but…as you rightly point out….much of our society is “increasingly rejecting the rigid rules set forth by religion as outdated and antiquated”…only time will tell what that means for our culture…though it would seem not to bode well for souls in terms of their salvation(in my opinion)

          • patricia m.

            I have an objection. It hasn’t been proved that people were born this way, not yet. So it’s all hypothetical. But I’ve seen people that all of a sudden decided to “play in the other team”, and certainly they were not born that way. It happens a lot with women, when they get disillusioned by a previous relationship. So, still I am very much worried about indoctrination in school. Not all gays were born that way, for sure.

      • HigherCalling

        You misunderstand natural law theory. Whether or not homosexuality has a genetic basis is irrelevant to whether homosexuality is “natural” and has no bearing on natural law theory regarding homosexual desire. The “nature” of a thing concerns the purpose or function, form or essence, and final causes, it instantiates. Many unnatural traits have a genetic basis, yet they remain unnatural because they fail to conform to their correct essence or nature. A genetic basis for homosexuality, like the genetic basis for clubfootedness or blindness or alcoholism, proves nothing about its naturalness, and it is an intellectually immature leap to suggest that society ought to celebrate or embrace a trait merely because some people are “born that way.”

        The question then comes down to one of morality and answering why certain traits count as unnatural even when there is a genetic cause for them. Certainly clubfootedness, blindness or a predisposition to alcoholism are not immoral. They are unfortunate afflictions that should evoke sympathy and a genuine effort to realign to a proper function. Natural law theory and reference to final causes are the first principles on which all scientific understanding must be based, for science itself has its own essence and is subject to the natural law.

        • Paul McGuire

          I appreciate your clarification of the theory and I understand your position a little better now. I still don’t think that natural law theory is very persuasive for me and especially for gay and lesbian people who have left the church.

          I explained in some of my other replies on here how denying marriage to same sex couples leads to gay men marrying straight women and marriages that break down. I’ve read of some gay couples where each of the two men married a woman separately then came out, left their wives, and married. Each had children from the previous relationship that they now get to share with their ex-wives. It would be much better for the children in this case to have the stability of being raised by two men from the start rather than being sent back and forth between the two households.

      • Jambe d’Argent

        “Why can’t this theory of natural law coexist with the recognition that a
        small portion of society are born gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
        transgender”
        Simply because there is no scientific proof of this hypothesis.

    • Pingback: "One of Us" The Science of Life - BIG PULPIT

    • TomD

      “Under such circumstances (assuming that extirpating natural-law considerations . . [is] a basic responsibility of government), intelligent discussion of the public good, and of the complex and multi-leveled patterns and goals that shape human life, becomes impossible . . . [however] we must insistently, in season and out, in every possible setting, assert, argue for, and act on our own contrary understanding of human life.”

      Sounds like a key component of the New Evangelization to the secular world.

    • Pingback: How Catholics Can Avoid Cooperating with Evil | Crisis Magazine

    • Pingback: How Catholics Can Avoid Cooperating with Evil - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration

    • Pingback: How Catholics Can Avoid Cooperating with Evil in Public Life | Crisis Magazine

    • Pingback: How Catholics Can Avoid Cooperating with Evil in Public Life - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration

    • Pingback: How Catholics Can Avoid Cooperating with Evil in Public Life - Christian Forums