Real Social Justice

“No human law,” writes the great Pope Leo XIII,
can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage, ordained by God’s authority from the beginning. Increase and multiply. Hence we have the family; the society of a man’s house — a society limited indeed in numbers, but no less a true society, anterior to every kind of State or nation, invested with rights and duties of its own, totally independent of the civil community (Rerum Novarum, 1891).
That passage above reveals why I cannot accept Catholic leftism — I hate to apply the good word “liberal” to a set of propositions that unite untrammeled sexual license with the power and boundless ambitions of a family-supplanting state. The Left, in fact, is wrong about abortion for the same reason that it is wrong about social justice: It conceives only of the state and of the individual pursuer of (usually material) goods.
We have a “social justice” committee in my parish. Despite the name, they do good work, collecting donations of food and distributing them to the poor. I say “despite the name,” because what they mean by social justice, and what the Catholic Left in general means by it, is something very different from what the popes and the Magisterium have meant by it.
The political philosopher Russell Hittinger recently remarked to me that the whole category of “social justice” had been transposed, and reduced, to mean “distributive justice to individuals.” That’s not surprising, since we in the West have almost wholly lost the sense that a state is made up of societies which themselves have duties and rights, societies that sometimes serve the state’s good better than the state itself can, but that ought to exist whether or not they happen to be better providers of education or alms or entertainment or whatever the good may be.
Man is not made for the state, the popes never tire of instructing us. Man is, rather, made for friendship, with God and with neighbor. It is the aim of social justice, properly understood, to foster those free associations of men, using their reason to provide for their towns, to aid the needy, to build schools, to celebrate feasts, to come together in work or play or common defense or worship.
Social justice demands that we give such societies their due — mainly, that we allow them free exercise, governed by right reason, in accord with the common good. But all my life I have watched as one pretext after another has been used by the state, with cheering from the Left, to neuter or destroy perfectly active and socially beneficial associations.
Need I catalogue them? Let me take one example. Free men came together to found the Jaycees and the Kiwanis clubs. Because those men actually did work that redounded to the benefit of the community,they were ruled “public accommodations,” rather like rest stops, whose membership might be determined by the state. Hence they were compelled to accept women as members.
I do not say they should have denied women membership. I have no opinion on the particulars of the matter, not being a member of those organizations myself. I am saying that, in a free country, such societies — all male, all female, men and women together, veterans only, Italians only, Christians only — not only have a right to exist, they have a right to pursue their vision of the common good, publicly, by transacting business, giving alms, engaging in political discourse, or whatever the need of the day may call them to do.
And yet there is a sense in which it was important for that coalition of sexual antinomians and statists to geld such men’s groups, as they wish to geld the Boy Scouts, and have gone far toward gelding the family. Recherchez le pouvoir. What stands in the way of the all-competent state, or the individual who trumpets his “right” to marry his male friend, or to view obscene pictures, or to divorce on a whim? All those societies, those often unwitting upholders of tradition, helping to police the neighborhood, they are in the way; in particular, those unions of free men who built the nation and who, if their small towns were threatened, might darned well make life uncomfortable for the smut peddler on the street corner or in the school department.
You can’t rob the house unless you bind the strong man first. Well, the strong man has been bound. Ask: What institution now is mighty enough to resist the onslaught of destruction about to rush upon us from the biotechnicians, with their proposals to hybridize man and beast? What school, county, town, club, or church wields the power to bring the wolfish state to heel, as it forces us to redefine marriage as something less than a business contract, entered into for the emotional fulfillment of the (note the word) partners? The ideal state for both the universal meddler and the irresponsible individual is one wherein all obstructing institutions are laid flat. It is a land without societies.
And what is the principal society whose function will be robbed? The family, of course. Engels understood that the family had to be co-opted by the state. The early feminists understood it, too — you know, the “good” ones like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who had not yet come around on the matter of killing children, but who wished to demote the father, who cast aspersions on the family, and who divorced individual rights from any claims the common good might lay upon us.
But the family, as Leo says, is anterior to the state. It has its own rights, not the sum of the rights of the individuals within it. It is good for us all that there should be families, not because fathers and mothers happen to do a better job at raising children than the state does, but because the very relationships of love and duty in a family reflect, even on earth, the fulfillment of man’s love and intellect in that city above, called the New Jerusalem.
Has the Left in my lifetime upheld the rights of the family? Not of the head of the family, and therefore not of the family itself. Will the Left soon institute programs designed to give young men good jobs so that they may marry and raise children and become strong heads of families and leaders in their societies? Not if it wants to retain its power — and its identity, as the dispenser of all good things to a debased, cultureless, helpless people.

Anthony Esolen


Professor Esolen is a teaching fellow and writer in residence at Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts, in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Dr. Esolen is a regular contributor to Crisis Magazine and the author of many books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization (Regnery Press, 2008); Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI Books, 2010) and Reflections on the Christian Life (Sophia Institute Press, 2013). His most recent books are Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching (Sophia Institute Press, 2014); Defending Marriage (Tan Books, 2014); Life Under Compulsion (ISI Books, 2015); and Out of the Ashes (Regnery, 2017).

  • Todd

    Three things:

    As for “the power and boundless ambitions of a family-supplanting state,” surely you include the warmongerers in the W administration as tragically illustrated by Zoe’s blog piece on Monday. I think we’ve had no better example, unless it were the current rulers of China. And they’re not Green enough to be Left: conservatives I’d call them.

    Not impressed by your name-calling either, Anthony. You make a better attempt at arguing a point by just stating what you know and what you support, rather than taking a blind stab at what you think you know about others.

    The truth of it is the injustices you describe are not the exclusive property of left, right, or center, but they are merely the product of human sin: greed, envy, pride, etc.. Sin knows no ideology and generally any attempt to raise one’s own ideologues to a position of moral superiority is bound to end with egg on a place not one’s plate.

  • Eric Pavlat

    I think your article, much as I appreciate the topic, unfortunately misapplies the West’s left-right political paradigm to the political teachings of the Church, with “Left” equaling “Wrong.” It may be tempting to believe you, as many read “Left” for “Dissenting” when discussing Church issues. However, you seem to be fudging political-left and Church-left here, when really, they’re two different things.

    The Church specifically teaches that political-right is not to be equated with the Catholic position: “To claim that one party or political coalition responds completely to the demands of faith or of Christian life would give rise to dangerous errors” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, parag. 573). Similarly, the bishops’ statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship reads that “As Catholics, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group” (parag. 14). In other words, sometimes the Republicans are correct; sometimes, the Democrats. Often, neither.

    Additionally, you wrote:

    It is the aim of social justice, properly understood, to foster those free associations of men, using their reason to provide for their towns, to aid the needy, to build schools, to celebrate feasts, to come together in work or play or common defense or worship.

    On the contrary, the Compendium says, “The social order and its development must invariably work to the benefit of the human person…. Every political, social, scientific, and cultural programme must be inspired by the awareness of the primacy of each human being over society” (parag. 132). (One could also see parag. 10 of “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”). The focus of social justice isn’t “associations,” but the human person.

    While I thank you for bringing up a topic too-often ignored, I am not convinced that this article accurately reflects the complexities of Catholic social doctrine.

  • Deacon Ed

    Readers might be interested in another perspective on this topic that departs from the usual interpretation of Church teaching on matters of social justice but is no less equally valid. One doesn’t hear this position advanced much in the Church because it is outside the political agenda of Church dissidents and activists. I believe you might be able to download of copy of this document from the web.

    “Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy”

  • Ender

    Todd wrote: The truth of it is the injustices you describe are not the exclusive property of left, right, or center, but they are merely the product of human sin: greed, envy, pride, etc.. Sin knows no ideology

    It is certainly true that sin knows no ideology but it is also valid to point out that the particular injustices the author addresses are primarily those of the left. It is undeniable that the right has its own failings but alluding to failures of one side is no rebuttal to the specific charges against the other.

  • Francis Wippel

    Great article, Anthony.

    It is a far cry from a government which seeks to help the needy, such as a family left without one or both parents due to untimely death, to a government which seeks to intervene itself into the family (or the business of private organizations like the Boy Scouts).

    The more the government seeks an active role in the family, the easier it is for leaders of that family to excuse themselves from their duties, knowing big brother will be there to pick up the slack. While the government will always claim that it is seeking the betterment of society with its actions, the results far too often tell a different story.

    The role of social justice in the Catholic Church is one that has always set me on edge a bit. Parish committees that seek to help the needy in their community are an important part of any parish. But when

  • Howard

    Social justice is indeed a prime Catholic value, and, as you point out, the right of natural associations to associate is an indispensable element. It is interesting that Catholics who have no pangs of conscience about supporting abortion rights will typically say that the really important issue is “social justice” — meaning the rights of Islamists to teach hatred, the rights of women to be ordained, the rights of gays to marry and head Boy Scouts organizations, the rights of sick people to destroy embryonic stem cells or have the benefits of assisted suicide, etc. Pope Leo XIII would view all of these “rights” as astute twisting of the concept of “social justice” into leftist nostrums. It is sad that the honorable ideals of classical liberalism have degenerated into such “liberal” mainstays.

  • Joe H

    While I actually agree with some of the statements Anthony made, particularly those which highlight the complimentary nature of individualism and statism, I think it is always bad form to assume that the opposition is malicious.

    Does “the Left” want to deny people good jobs so they can retain their identity as a source of welfare? Or does it really see problems in the economy which only government intervention can address? I think it is more wise and respectful to assume that people take their own stated premises seriously and not attribute alterior motives to them.

    And, it happens all too often with conservative social commentary, a crucial part of the picture is missing – the effects that industrialization and commerce have had on the family unit (and the Church fully recognizes these developments and their effects in all of her social doctrines).

    The state does not spring out of a historical vacuum, fully formed, ready to flatten the Burkean “little platoons.” The state merely accomodates what civil society has established; the disintegration of home and hearth, church and club, and the advent of the possessive individual, the social atom.

    The state solution is wrong. The state solution says, “we’re going to take a bad situation and make it worse.” But the state didn’t CAUSE this problem. The state doesn’t dictate the economic conditions that necessitate a two-income household just to make ends meet; the state didn’t dictate the conditions under which fights over money would become the leading cause of a 50% divorce rate. All the state did was accomodate, in a bad way, already-existing realities.

    Conspicously missing from the author’s list of modern evils are the influence of massive, transnational corporations that wield more power and authority than many of the world’s governments.

    Neither conservatives nor leftists can have it both ways – statism and corporatism work hand in hand to flatten communities, not just one or the other. We would have never lost our societies to begin with had conservatives not acquiesced to and later glorified the commodification of everything down to our core values. The sickening duality of Rupert Murdochs FOX networks encapsulate this contradiction: Bill O’Reilly on one channel giving us a lecture about family values and patriotism, and Fox’s latest reality show about strippers or nymphomaniaces or some other debased group on the other channel.

    I think conservatives are going to have to choose between values and corporate capitalism in its current form.

  • Todd

    ” … it is also valid to point out that the particular injustices the author addresses are primarily those of the left …”

    I can’t agree. At root all sin is pride, envy, sloth, greed, lust, gluttony, and wrath. Perhaps one can say no two sinners are identical in the details of their offenses. But one can always find in our wrongdoing the root of one or more of the seven deadlies.

    Anthony may not be intending to suggest his sins as a conservative are lesser than those of liberals, but the high-mannered tone that seeps into these kinds of debates often gives that impression. And we have conservatives devoted to maximizing profit for those who do not work at the expense of those who labor for their livelihood. Can we say that businesses that resist paying competitive or living wages simply because the “society” of shareholders wants to keep it that way isn’t really anti-family? What about the conservative indulgence for more prisons and wars as wives and children are left impoverished by the absence of men. Guess the neo-con “society” trumps the family, eh?

    Some of you conservatives remind me of the end of John 9 when the pharisees whined, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”

    And Jesus told them straight:

    “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.

    Anthony and others would do far better to steer clear of the moralizing and offer some concrete suggestions for real-life situations.

  • Marie

    Joe H wrote: … I think it is always bad form to assume that the opposition is malicious.

    … We would have never lost our societies to begin with had conservatives not acquiesced to and later glorified the commodification of everything down to our core values.

    I do not understand your post.

    Great essay. From reading the replies I think you hit the nail on the head.

  • Tricia

    Anthony thanks for a WELL NEEDED and extraordinary article. I’m convinced most in this culture don’t have a clue as to what real social justice looks like. As Marie pointed out, you “nailed it”; obvoious by the comments.

    Howard you are right about the “hijacking.” First the democratic party was hijacked, now they are hijacking “social justice”, and like “they do”, distort for their own greedy good. Just today a Washhington newspapar had a piece on “Obama being a secret Catholic.”

    Worst part is, many, including “catholics” are drinking the Kool-aid. Obama is as cathlic as the Pope is Hindu. If anything, he’s making a mockery of Catholicism, and few are out there defending Christ.

    Oh if the world, especially America, could only see the wisdom of our Church, especially throught the writings of many of our Popes.

  • Joe H

    The first item you quoted means what it means – don’t assume the opposition is malicious. Give people the benefit of the doubt. The author of this article assumes that liberals and leftists want people to be dependent on the state; what many of them actually believe is that there are problems which only the state can resolve.

    I think they are mistaken in that view, but can you see how these are two different beliefs, and how assuming the latter, which is what a lot of people on the left say they believe, is more charitable? More charitable than say, telling people what they believe?

    My second statement is simply regarding the alliance between conservatism and modern capitalism in the US.

    I think when they glorify competition, profit, and economic growth – which happened a lot under the “Reagan Revolution” – then you’re opening the floodgates for the proliferation of anything that people can make a profit on, including sex and violence. Things in other words that contribute to the erosion of public morality, which conservatives want to defend.

    I don’t think conservatives WANTED everything to become commodified – to become a thing with a price tag, to be bought or sold on the market – but I do think in that their traditional eagerness to combat “the Red Menace” they acquiesced to a form of predatory capitalism that makes no distinction between right and wrong, only profitable and unprofitable. And I think our cultural cesspool, not to mention our family crisis, is a part of that. Sex sells, violence sells, it makes a lot of people very wealthy and provides several tens of thousands of people with jobs.

  • John Jakubczyk

    A thought provoking article. So i will add another thought. Those of the Left are interested in control and their actions in many ways mimic the totalitarian states, both fascist and Marxist that have plagued the last century. Both denied the intrinsic worth of the person and the integral role of the family in the make-up of society. Only in a Catholic understanding of these components can one find the well being of the person, the family and society. I was impressed with the understanding that we all are part of many societies and that these societies also have rights as opposed to the state.

    Our founders were concerned about the power of the state. The power of the state can destroy these societies, including the family unit. That is what must concern us all.

    Again it is only in a proper understanding of the Gospel and the teachings of the Church can we have true freedom.

  • Todd

    “Those of the Left are interested in control and their actions in many ways mimic the totalitarian states, both fascist and Marxist that have plagued the last century. Both denied the intrinsic worth of the person and the integral role of the family in the make-up of society.”


    A most curious thought, given that I’ve always thought conservatives were control freaks. Not to mention that fascists and marxists were often at each others’ throats. Could it be that the current ideological indoctrination of the Right is not quite … right?

  • Joe H


    Perhaps they’ve been reading Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”.

    I think in America the old saying is, “the liberals want to tell you what to do with your wallet while the conservatives want to tell you what to do in the bedroom.” Both sides want to control different aspects of people’s behavior and hold certain freedoms higher than others.

    Far more importantly though is that no one is obliged to be either “left” or “right” – and that from the point of view of Catholic social teaching, extreme rightism is as bad as extreme leftism.

  • Jay Anderson

    For every issue you could name on which the right are supposedly “control freaks”, I can name you 10 where that description would apply to the left.

    And the left wants control of far more than just your wallet. What you eat, what you smoke, what kind of fuel you burn, how many kids you have, what kind of car you drive, etc., etc. ad infinitum. The “solutions” many on the left offer to solve “global climate change”, alone, are a grab bag of command and control that far outstrip anything the right might offer by way of being “control freaks”.

    As for those “bedroom issue” over which the right are allegedly “control freaks”, would that include such things as abortion? I often hear it lumped in with all the other “sex issues” over which conservatives are allegedly so overly-concerned. But let’s take a look at the sort of issues the Holy Father has said Catholics should be especially concerned with as a political matters:

    Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the European People’s Party, 30 March 2006 wrote: As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

    – protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

    – recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family – as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage – and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

    – the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

  • James

    I have always preferred the term “Social Mercy” over “Social Justice”. In a just society if you don’t work you starve. Try this exercise tonight when you pray: “Oh Lord, deal with me through your Justice. Look at me through your eyes of Justice.” Would a Catholic ever pray that prayer? Heck no, since we would be praying for an eternity in hell. So ditch “Social Justice” and call it what it is, Social Mercy.

    As far as “Left” vs. “Right”, we have to define our terms and look at root causes. The big problem today is the fall out of the government printing dollars. These dollars went to the banks first. At first glance we see a problem with “capitalism” as the banks screwed up. But use your brain and dig deeper. The Fed lowering interest rates to 1% is the root cause. Now a system where a group of men decides the interest rate, is that left wing or right wing?

    We need a gold backed currency, and we need to eliminate usury.

  • Robert Mosby

    As Eric mentions, the Church does not now align itself with particular political movements. Still, with no specific or oficial alignments there will be intermittant ends and means convergences with one or another such movement.

    Confidently leaving the defense of Esolen to Esolen, he can write firmly within the Tradition that properly understood social justice requires support of free associations. The reasons are manifold but two stand out:
    1. The principle of subsidiarity and efficiency of action. These embody Hayek’s information theory proofs that there is simple too much information for small gorpus of bureaucrats operating in too large an arena to process.
    2. Persons acting individually as well as within smaller associations can do good not just for those who need their help but crucially they can exercise virtue in themselves.

  • Joe H

    I think “bedroom control” is broadly meant to encompass censorship of sex in the media, the prohibitions on prostitution and gay marriage, etc. Leftists would say two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they please – and now they’re saying we have to be ok with it too, and I disagree with that.

    But let’s talk about what else “the right” has been advocating besides; the empowerment of the executive branch at the expense of the elected representatives of the people, warrantless wiretaps, domestic spying, infiltration of peaceful protest groups, privitization of the armed forces and increasingly handing over more responsibilities to unaccountable mercenary forces, support for dictatorial regimes that align with IT’S interests (such as Pinochet in Chile, the Saudi dynstay, or the nun-raping, priest-killing Contras in Nicaragua), abandoning rules against torture, and a ridiculously bloated defense budget – most of it in the name of a dubious “war on terror” which is projected to have no end. You might agree with the war in Iraq but the outspoken opposition of the previous Pope and the lukewarm response of the current Pope should at the very least mean that the rest of us can oppose it without being labeled anti-Christs in addition to America-haters.

    None of this is to say that the left is better than the right, but the left hasn’t been presiding over the erosion of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the collapse of American leadership in the international arena for the last eight years.

    At the top of society “left” and “right” become meaningless distinctions – so-called “neo-conservatism” is “neo” because it embraces many aspects of the welfare state that paleo or Reaganite conservatives have wanted to bury for the last 30 years. A police/scaled-down welfare state seems to be on the order of the day. We don’t need a leftist or rightist program, but a Catholic one.

  • Jay Anderson

    “But let’s talk about what else “the right” has been advocating besides; the empowerment of the executive branch at the expense of the elected representatives of the people, warrantless wiretaps, domestic spying, infiltration of peaceful protest groups, privitization of the armed forces and increasingly handing over more responsibilities to unaccountable mercenary forces, support for dictatorial regimes that align with IT’S interests (such as Pinochet in Chile, the Saudi dynstay, or the nun-raping, priest-killing Contras in Nicaragua), abandoning rules against torture, and a ridiculously bloated defense budget …”

    Nearly every one of those items could be said about “the left” when Bill Clinton was in office. You may have forgotten, but I haven’t forgotten Waco and Elian Gonzales. I haven’t forgotten the bombing of Serbian Christians on Orthodox Easter Sunday. I haven’t forgotten Clinton’s general – Weasely Clark – nearly starting WWIII with the Russians. I haven’t forgotten the Clinton Administration’s surveillance of pro-life and other Christian groups (including John Cardinal O’Connor) under the guise of stopping the allegedly rampant home-grown “terrorism” spawned by their “extremist” views.

    And who said I agree with the war in Iraq? There’s a link to my blog if you just click on the little icon of the planet earth on the lower right; why don’t you find all of my posts in which I show my support of the war? Stop making unfounded assumptions. Conservative doesn’t mean pro-everything-the-Republican-administration-is-doing.

    And I stand by my assertion that I can come up with a 10-1 ratio on leftists being more “control freaks” than conservatives.

  • Jeannine

    Joe H, the difference between government and corporations is that the government has power to compel, power to jail, power to tax. Corporations don’t have the sheer huge amount of power that we have granted to the federal government.

    Also, fascism is national socialism; it is not right-wing or conservative in the American sense. Rather, fascism is an offshoot of the left. Failure to understand this has deformed political thinking for too long. And, yes, read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, including the footnotes.

    Finally, hurray for Mr. Esolen! What a wonderful, coherent, well-reasoned article! Thank you!

  • Chris Chapman

    I think Anthony does an excellent job in a short amount of space to reveal the injustices of the “liberal left”. Those who are imputing to him ad hominem attacks are not reading the piece very closely. Mr. Esolen is arguing from the standpoint of justice. Justice is an objective and intelligible form as is the opposite, injustice.
    I think very few people doubt the sincerity of those on the left-the are completely sincere-but they are sincerely wrong. They misuderstand human nature. In their incorrect understanding of human nature they attempt to solve issues that plague humanity by applying unjust solutions. Their good intentions are irrelevant when criticising what they attempt to do-what is relevant is that they fail to understand the created order and end up succumbing to a kind of political messianism that sees the state as the only solution for man’s problem. They make matters worse by embracing injustices-couched in the terms of justice-such as abortion, therapeutic cloning, homosexual marriage etc.
    It may well be the case that those who espouse these views have the very best of intentions, but there is an old aphorism that tells us where merely good intentions can lead.
    Finally the article is dealing with the sins of the liberal world-view and should not be critiqued because it does not deal with a myriad of other issues like the sins of “worldly” conservatism (my term). Ultimately Catholic principles transcend any political system, but the fact is that in 2008 the liberals of the world are the ones who embrace a litany of intrinsically evil causes, while the right atleastpays lip-service to the rule of law and principle. Nevertheless there is another article to be written about the failures and flaws of the right.

  • Tony Esolen

    Thanks, folks, for the kind praise.


    You didn’t actually catch me defending capitalism (which I never do, unless with a lot of qualifications), did you? And I assure you, I know plenty of people on the left who are sincere. That and a dollar can buy you a hamburger at McDonald’s. Nor did I defend an untrammeled free market.

    I note, however, that the left believes only in that form of liberty, sexual license, that requires massive state intrusion into community life merely to reduce the resulting chaos to something like livable order. The freedom of the zipper — that’s it. Freedom of thought, or of speech? I am a conservative in academe. Need I say more? Free association? Look what the city of Philadelphia did to the Boy Scouts. Why? There probably isn’t a single working program in that whole rotten city that works with boys effectively. So they get rid of one that does — because it won’t promote the gay agenda….

    I believe that this leftism has gone hand in hand with big business; I am not buying that false dichotomy. But the library is shutting down — enough for the moment ….

  • Don LaCroix

    There are many shining examples of the deadly effects of the left’s lview of Social Justice.
    The first is the destruction of the black family since LBJ’s great society, so well documented by the black leaders, the left despises -Tom Sowell, Walter Williams etc. The result is a broken community that breeds a far disproportionate amount of criminals (mostly young black males)and fosters and glorifies overwhelming sexual freedom, but maintains for the left, a block of compliant voters and supporters. The cost to society is hardly understood, as its cultural and moral effects (music, glorifying evil)have contaminated much of non-black culture as well. The result and the true cost of the left’s help to the black family, is one of a slavery of the soul (the politically necessary victimhood and loss of hope and responsibility that characterizes Obama’s black liberation church)that is far more deadly than the physical slavery of history.

    The second- as short but no less important point is the destruction of the Church itself -the left’s revollution has left the Church inb a shambles where its Bishops have too often joined in the “revolution” or failed to aptly confront the direction the “spirit of Vatican II has wrought.
    It can best be viewed in the large numbers of clergy and religious who have lost or left their faith. The infamous Jesuit Cardinale brothers who opted to help the poor through taking up of revolutionary arms in Nicaraugua and dissing Pope John Paul II.
    The remnants of the Church are fighting a difficult battle to retain a spark of the faith – including belief that Christ is alive and well in the Eurcharist and in the words of absolution in the confessional.
    Social Justice begins and ends with faith – an item that the left has largely lost or recreated in the arrogance of its gnostic impulses.

  • Fr. Joseph

    Todd, Joe H–

    I note that Anthony uttered not a word of praise for the Bush Administration. In fact, he quite explicitly said that no institution COULD or WOULD resist the Leftism and Statism he was writing about, other than the family. Yet, you had to chime in instantly with items from your grab-bag of anti-Bush charges. “What could POSSIBLY be more anti-family than Bush’s attempt to delay for 15 months a review of the possible effects of the proposed revision of the minimum standards for eligibility of the blah blah blah? So there!”

    What this article was about was not this election, or George W. Bush, or either political party.

    What this article was about was:

    God made Man and Woman. The principal, ordinary way for Man and Woman to act like God–i.e., to be creative, life-giving, self-giving–is for Man and Woman to give themselves to one another, and to give themselves to their children.

    Satan is, to use the favored title St. Ignatius gives him, “the Enemy of our Human Nature.”[smiley=evil]

    Therefore, Satan–who is a Murderer–hates Man and Woman, hates the self-giving that is the essence of Matrimony, hates the transmission of life, hates the self-giving that follows, hates the love of children for their parents.

    This is why Satan loves fornication, sodomy, adultery, and abortion. This is why Satan loves the ideology that says that male and female are not naturally designed to give themselves to one another in Matrimony; Matrimony is only one culturally-conditioned, still-culturally-hegemonic option. In fact, there’s no such thing as male and female–there’s GLBTSMQ. I.e., the power of “choice” is not to choose between good and evil, nature and anti-nature; the power of “choice” is to determine what is good “for me,” what is evil “for me.”

    There is no political party that is wholly devoted to “the Lord’s work.”

    But anyone who can look at the American political landscape over the past century and CAN’T see who it is that has been promoting fornication, adultery, sodomy, abortion, secularism, and cuckolding by the State (i.e., the displacement of fathers by government), is willfully blind and deaf.[smiley=cool]

    If I were determined [smiley=think] to SEE where, in the American political landscape, Satan’s anti-human agenda was most thoroughly holding sway, I would look for those people, those organizations, and those political parties who hold that fifty million dead American babies are NOT ENOUGH.