![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2016\/02\/A_fist-fight_between_Lord_Brougham_and_Lord_Melbourne_as_Pea_Wellcome_V0050236-1024x776.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Readers, as much as this blog has been a bit neglected lately (coming up soon: \u201chow I moved my parents to an assisted living community and lived to tell about it\u201d), I still have opinions and I still have conversations, and I still bemoan in other forums the divisiveness around us, and, yes, after I manage to find more (non-retirement) writing time again, I will resume more regular blogging.\u00a0 But in the meantime, here\u2019s a guest post, by, let\u2019s say, \u201cJane Foster\u201d:<\/p>\n
***************************<\/p>\n
I\u2019d like to thank Jane the Actuary for giving me the space to write here. Two ground rules up front. One, these are my words, not hers. I made a comment on a Facebook page which she suggested I turn into an article. I appreciate the space, but I want you readers who disagree with this to take issue with me, not her.<\/p>\n
Second, I don\u2019t want to read \u201c\u2026but the right<\/em>\u201d in response to this article. Binary politics have poisoned our system, and everybody is guilty of whataboutism as a reflexive defense mechanism. But I predict that the first response to this article is going to tend towards: \u201cBut the right.\u201d Or \u201cBut Republicans.\u201d Or \u201cBut conservatives.\u201d Because the gut response in an accusation of wrongdoing is often to make the comparative point that whatever my sin is, somebody else has done worse.<\/p>\n I want to make clear here that I\u2019m not a Republican, and I don\u2019t identify as a conservative, and I\u2019m nowhere near a rad-trad Catholic, and I didn\u2019t vote for Trump in 2016. Whatever issues I have with the right, they will not be addressed here, because my specific concerns are with the left in this piece. If you cannot withstand scrutiny of your own issues, I don\u2019t want to hear from you. You\u2019ll have to take those up with God someday, and he is most definitely<\/em> not going to be responsive to \u201c\u2026but the right.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n So, a little story. Years ago, I heard a priest talk about the Life Teen program, and why it was so important. He recounted a story about a teenage ex-parishioner who\u2019d gone over to the local Protestant Church. The priest asked him a number of things: why\u2019d you leave? Do you not believe in the Eucharist? Oh, no. He believed. Was it the music? Oh, no, Catholic music was fine. Was it the Church\u2019s authority? Oh, no\u2014Jesus instituted the Church. So, what was it?<\/p>\n And the young man said: I don\u2019t feel loved here. I feel loved at that other church.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-<\/p>\n Have we always had a left-right split in the Church? I don\u2019t know. It\u2019s been much more pronounced since the 1990s, as far as I can remember. That was back when the world started to turn on homosexuality, when the Church started to realize that harshly yelling at pregnant women going into abortion clinics might not be the best method of saving babies. When the right was ascendant, the left side of the Church frequently appealed to Christ\u2019s love. Look, Jesus forgives! Hate the sinner, not the sin! Your harsh adherence to the rules is missing the point!<\/p>\n Somewhere in the last five years, you guys lost track of that.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know how else to put this to you: the liberal side of the Catholic Church has gone from loving to, well, mean<\/em>. You\u2019ve taken on a very dim view of anyone who isn\u2019t lockstep with you, and it\u2019s making for a very ugly presentation of what it takes to be a \u201ctrue\u201d Catholic who\u2019s in line with Christ. I understand when the harsh rebuke is necessary, and we all know that Jesus yelled at Peter and turned over tables in the Temple.<\/p>\n But that wasn\u2019t all<\/em> that Jesus was, and he could be as loving and welcoming as often as he was stern. Maybe more so. He rebuked his apostles before the cross. He didn\u2019t rebuke them when he was on<\/em> it, nor did he guilt them after.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure what\u2019s gone haywire with liberalism in general and liberal Catholics in the specific, but I\u2019m increasingly perceiving this inability to separate sin<\/em> from sinner<\/em>. Disagreement frequently becomes a separation between \u201cus\u201d and \u201cthem,\u201d the saved and the damned, and the damned are beyond redemption. Think me wrong? Consider: how often do you broadly judge things in terms of your opponent being Republican? Or conservative? Or male? Or white? When\u2019s the last time you used a phrase like \u201c\u2026conservative cisgender white men are so\u2026\u201d without really thinking through the implications of what that means?<\/p>\n There\u2019s a disturbing strain of Puritanism which has crept into liberalism of late, which I can only view as the impure is wrong<\/em>. Right now, the New York Times<\/em> is running a series of articles called \u201cThe 1619 Project,\u201d and although it purports to study slavery\u2019s effects on American history, it realistically seems to be suggesting that America is permanently tainted from its founding.<\/p>\n I\u2019m all for studying slavery so as to correct and avoid repeating it, but this strain of leftist Puritanism frequently seems to view America as irredeemable: once a slave country, forever a slave country. And yet, this ignores one salvific fact about America\u2019s founding: the signers of our Constitution recognized we were imperfect. The United States is accountable to its voters, and its leaders can be replaced when its people find that they\u2019re no longer working. And the Constitution itself is correctible: it\u2019s got a built-in amendment process that allows us to reconsider and improve the document.<\/p>\n For pity\u2019s sake, it\u2019s been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten at the outset! Slavery was wrong, but we fixed that. Denying suffrage was wrong, but we fixed that. By design, the Constitution says: we can do better. We are giving ourselves the means to do that<\/em>.<\/p>\n I bring up this dim view of America because, frankly, I see this in broad segments of liberal American Catholicism. Habitually, you are broadly writing off large segments of people. Men are corrupt. White people are corrupt. Conservatives are corrupt. Traditionalists are corrupt. I\u2019ve even seen blatant arguments: let us no longer associate with those who we consider evil. Only we<\/u> truly follow Christ.<\/p>\n It\u2019s no wonder that liberal Catholicism seems to be falling prey to two of the worst parts of modern America: \u201ccall-out\u201d culture<\/a> and \u201ccancel\u201d culture<\/a>, both of which seek to segment and destroy individuals for sins, perceived or real. If conservative Catholicism suffers from being \u201cChristianist\u201d rather than truly Christian, than liberal Catholicism suffers from becoming what I think of as \u201cToxic Catholicism.\u201d<\/p>\n And lest you think I\u2019m apologizing for what\u2019s being called out, I\u2019m not. I\u2019m saying the way you\u2019re going about it is entirely antithetical to Jesus\u2019 mission, and you\u2019re losing yourselves in the name of righteous anger. Call-out culture goes toxic when it stops being about targeting bad behavior and starts being about destroying the target, presumably to stoke your own endorphins.<\/p>\n What is Toxic Catholicism? I\u2019m still working through that, and maybe that\u2019ll be a future article if Jane allows it. But I\u2019m noticing recurring symptoms.<\/p>\n One: Toxic Catholicism is focused more on sinners than sin, which is why you end up advocating in terms of groups \u201cChristianists are evil\u2026.\u201d instead of in terms of behavior (\u201cChristianists are wrong when they\u2026.\u201d)<\/p>\n Two: Toxic Catholics lose sight of their own sin even as they focus on the sins of others. Oh, yes, I\u2019m very conscious of this one. Because I\u2019ve been watching some of you liberal Catholics, on your blogs, your Facebook, and your Twitter. It\u2019s very telling when you condemn sin, and yet tolerate lies in your comboxes, and gossip, and objectify your opponents into jokes instead of addressing what you perceive as sin. If I saw prayer for your enemies, I\u2019d be fine. When I see jokes and slander, laughing at the difference of the other\u2013something\u2019s way <\/u>off.<\/p>\n And frankly? I recently saw a liberal Catholic blogger tell a blatant lie in one of his articles. A single lie, but it was unmistakably there and went uncorrected. Let me avoid opening the gossip floodgates by identifying the author; they know who they are. My point is that this author decided to resort to his own sin in the name of fighting his cause, and this really<\/em> misses the mark of what Jesus expects of us.<\/p>\n Three: Toxic Catholics become very, very selective in their reading of scripture, cherry-picking what works while ignoring what doesn\u2019t. Here\u2019s one: if call-out culture is so important, why does Jesus admonish us to approach sinners privately<\/em> before going public<\/a>? How many of you have taken your neighbor aside before rebuking him to the world? This very website recently had a very ugly public spat with one of its apologists, and frankly, I\u2019m sickened that two writers can\u2019t chat offline before showing their entire readership an ugly fight.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s another: I\u2019m seeing an increased resort to judgmentalism lately, applying the Parousia and the Last Judgement<\/a> to everything from immigration policy to student loan forgiveness. I generally disagree with this to the extent that Christ set parameters for charity, not specific public policy. Never mind the fact that you\u2019re turning Jesus into a terrifying monster, you\u2019re also assuming Christ\u2019s role as judge unto yourselves. Jesus warns, classically, not to engage in the judgment of souls ourselves<\/a>. \u201cStoning\u201d is reserved for the sinless<\/a>, and the only sinless one is Jesus himself. And yet, somehow, you\u2019ve taken it upon yourselves to decide who\u2019s going to hell\u2026because of an open-ended public policy debate on student loans?<\/p>\n Over and over, I see all of these things in my dealings with toxic, liberal, Catholics. You are nothing but your sins, and your sins are unforgiveable. And so, when a celebrity or politician\u2019s old tweets or yearbook photos are discovered, they must be cancelled no matter how distant the sin and how the individual behaves now. If you hate shootings but want to see the right of self-defense protected: no matter, you\u2019re a murderer. If you hate rape but want to see protections for the innocently accused protected: no matter, you support rape. If you hate bigotry but don\u2019t want to see religious rights protected while allowing differences to coexist in society: no matter, you are a bigot. There is no room for theoretical differences and Overton windows: there is only your side, and purity tests.<\/p>\n I\u2019m increasingly distancing myself from these kinds of Catholics because, frankly, I\u2019d spend my time wondering how long it will take before they snap and try to destroy me for the wrong opinion and failing a purity test. You love the song \u201cAll Are Welcome,\u201d but\u2026are we really? Knowing that we may not see eye-to-eye on all issues, do you really want me before the same tabernacle as you? Somehow, I don\u2019t think so. Not in the way you express yourself. Not in the way I see you talking about me, or others.<\/p>\n I brought up my cynicism about \u201cThe 1619 Project\u201d and my own view that America is designed to be corrective because it\u2019s partially my own view of what Christ wants for me. I\u2019m flawed. I\u2019m aware of this (although I suspect how you see me as flawed is not how I<\/em> see me as flawed). But the difference between Toxic Liberal Catholics and Jesus Christ is that the former wants to see me shut down and doesn\u2019t care what happens next. Jesus? He constantly calls for improvement. He\u2019s concerned with the past to the extent he wants it changed. He\u2019s concerned with the future with respect to where he wants to see it go.<\/p>\n You can point to the Parousia all you want as to where you think I and any other \u201cbad\u201d Catholic is headed. But I never see you looking to the parables of healing and forgiveness as a precursor to that. Not once, of late, do I see you looking at the \u201cother\u201d as the Lost Sheep<\/a>, who Jesus seeks to bring back to the flock rather than condemn as a stray. Or the Prodigal Son<\/a>, who Jesus welcomes with open arms and doesn\u2019t dwell on the failures. Always, always, always<\/em>, Jesus sees value in every human being, no matter how lost.<\/p>\n You? I never hear it. I\u2019m like that kid who inspired Life Teen: if I\u2019m leaving, it\u2019s because I don\u2019t feel loved, and you act like you don\u2019t want me here.<\/p>\n Let me close with a challenge to you in the liberal Catholic community. The next time you have a discussion, or a Facebook post, or a blog article about the hated other\u2014the conservatives, the Republicans, the men, the white people, or even an individual with whom you disagree\u2014do this.<\/p>\n Stop. Don\u2019t publish it yet or speak your mind.<\/p>\n Take what you\u2019re about to say or have written. Remove their name or category and replace it with \u201cmy brother,\u201d or \u201cmy sister,\u201d or \u201cmy brothers\/sisters\u201d as appropriate. Want to make this harder? Write \u201cmy brother\/sister in Christ with whom I am divided.\u201d Get rid of the label. Write or say that<\/u>.<\/p>\n Does your piece still read or sound the same way? Do you still want to speak or say what you\u2019ve readied?<\/p>\n I\u2019ve said my piece. God love you, but please keep your distance until you can love me too.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Image: \u00a0V0050236 A fist-fight between Lord Brougham and Lord Melbourne as Pea<\/span> Readers, as much as this blog has been a bit neglected lately (coming up soon: \u201chow I moved my parents to an assisted living community and lived to tell about it\u201d), I still have opinions and I still have conversations, and I still bemoan in other forums the divisiveness around us, and, yes, after I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[31,622],"class_list":["post-15300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-anger","tag-outrage-industry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nCredit: Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images<\/span>
\nimages@wellcome.ac.uk<\/span>
\nhttp:\/\/wellcomeimages.org<\/span>
\nA fist-fight between Lord Brougham and Lord Melbourne as Peachum and Lockit. Coloured lithograph by H.B. (John Doyle), 1837.<\/span>
\n1837 By: John DoylePublished: 22 October 1836<\/span>
\nCopyrighted work available under Creative Commons Attribution only licence CC BY 4.0 http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"