This is speculation, but this is how I read the situation:
For over seven years, Bp. Barron and WoF have catered increasingly to right-wing audiences, with +Barron appearing with commentators Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen, recently Tucker Carlson, in addition to platforming and appearing alongside accused celebrity sex abusers Shia LaBouef and Russel Brand (importantly, *after* allegations were made public), in addition to having an in-house scandal regarding former MTV trainer and then WoF employee Joey Gloor.
What these associations indicate to me is an attraction to a particular kind of fame, a particular kind of masculinity or notions of masculinity, and a theology that bears at least a family resemblance to American rightwing ideology. These are the ingredients he uses to build his audience and his brand, which appeals to conservative or right-leaning American men.
Thus, if that audience thinks that the ideas of Catholic Social Teaching are perhaps just a little too left-leaning for their taste, then sentences like this one:
"What is social justice? Nobody really knows, but it sounds full of cachet."
function both to reassure the audience of WoF that they're still at the right place, and probably elicit a knowing chuckle. Of your solutions, I'd wager that WoF is somewhere in position 2 or 3; the cease and desist to Commonweal in 2024 indicates that WoF and Bp Barron are uncomfortable with association with the Trump administration, though recent appointments to gov't committees may indicate some softening there.
FWIW, that Word on Fire Catholic Social Teaching Collection was published five years ago. Which is recent enough to be significant (anything after, say, 2015 is significant), but still old enough to leave open the questions at the end of my piece.
Ohhhhh it's all sooooo confuuuuuusing --- like what even iiiisss social justice and what even iiiissss racism and can't we just get back to talking about abortion . . .
Nothing is more fatal to the pro-life cause than a) focusing solely on the killing of the unborn and b) ignoring, excusing, and/or ultimately championing attacks on the lives and dignity of born human beings, which is where we are now.
Well I shall have to reflect on your assertion about the damage to the cause of the unborn, but it seems to me to be a given that being born is a first cause and a requirement if one is to have a life and and an opportunity to have one’s dignity recognized. There are millions who were willfully denied that opportunity.
I don’t know if the same is true in other states, but speaking for my own state:
In last year’s election, there was an abortion question. From the wording of the question alone, I knew the morally correct (pro-life) way to vote.
But in my sample ballot, which had arguments for and against (and rebuttals to the same), the argument for the pro-life vote (and the rebuttal to the opposing argument) never once mentioned the right to life of unborn babies or anyone else. In fact, from what I remember, it amounted to “the abortion laws our state currently has are sufficient—changing them is unnecessary and could lead to bad consequences.” It was using pro-choice language to argue for a pro-life position.
Is it any wonder the pro-abortion side won in the end?
I haven’t seen any need to dissociate myself entirely from Word on Fire, but I’ve had some concerns of my own, and it’s a relief to see that I’m not alone.
I keep wanting to say more in these comments, but I’m vulnerable to two problems: 1) repeating someone else’s words and making them my own; 2) coming to my own conclusions and putting too much stock in them as a result. Just because a conclusion wasn’t taught to me directly by any earthly authority doesn’t mean it came straight from God—I’ve learned that the hard way in the past.
All I’ll say regarding my own thoughts on the matter is that, increasingly, I’m becoming interested in learning the history behind what appears to me to be a cleaving of the Gospel by the left and the right, and a pitting of the two halves against each other. When I read about the Bible mentioning four sins that cry out to God for justice, I thought: “The left would agree with only two of these, and the right would agree with only the other two.”
FWIW, Michael, I started to write a preamble about how much I have admired Bishop Barron and my substantial debt to his work. I use his materials as an educator, and I have no plans to stop doing so. At the same time, the concerns are piling up. I may finish that piece one of these days. Yes, I will keep you in my prayers!
I’ve admired Bishop Barron too. I remember the first time I read Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, and feeling as though I had NOT been reading a book, but communing with Our Lord, the Angelic Doctor, and the (then-)priest. Nothing will ever take that away from me.
Thanks. That was my biggest concern. I wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to use the word or not (if not, I apologize), but “heck” doesn’t seem to really work in the same way. Then, might as well just say “What are you talking about?”
Thanks, Deacon. Usually I don’t like to use that kind of language—only when it would be appropriate, but I often mis-gauge when that is, and better safe than sorry. But I’ve learned I can err too much in that direction too, and be too afraid to take risks.
Goes to show that someone being a professor doesn't say anything inherent about their comprehension skills or ability to present things fairly. Thank you for this thorough critique.
My favorite part is the implied assumption that any time the Church suggests policy they will make the front page of the NYT. Could it be that. . . just possibly . . . the American Left most aligns with CST and not the other way around?
Watch out, you have a “Benedict XIV” in there! Not that there wasn’t a 14th Benedict but I think from context you mean XVI. This is going to take watching for all of us now that we have a pope ending in XIV!
I actually had two of them! Thanks, I’ve also been typing Leo XVI, who doesn’t exist! It is a little unfair, having trained my fingers for two decades to type XVI, to suddenly place this new demand upon them!
Like me? Tell me what address I should use, and I’ll do it. The trouble with me is that I don’t have the depth of knowledge to participate in the discussion.
I think it’s number 1, Barron is definitely looking for a big tent approach, in the Tucker Carlson interview, he even explained the universal destination of goods concept to Tucker. Barron is definitely making a appeal at evangelization to the right, which is good in my opinion
But should the tent be big enough to include this article’s attack on social justice and Catholic social teaching in papal encyclicals, Tony? Or is that too big?
Its a good point, and mistakes will be made, its interesting listening to the Barron interview with Tucker, because you can tell he was formed by a certain time in the Church, and liked a lot of it, but has noticed, I think correctly that a lot of the interest in Catholiscm is coming from conservatives right now, I have noticed it big time, and Barron knows that someone needs to be there to minister to those people
Which is fine! It’s important, though, I think, to bear in mind the wisdom of G.K. Chesterton: “We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.” Progressive “social gospel” Christians need to hear about sin and salvation, and conservative “smells and bells” Christians need to hear about social justice. If we don’t do this, then we’re only catering to a clientele and giving people what their itching ears want to hear.
I totally agree with that, I’ve tried myself to not have such a knee jerk reaction when I hear “social justice” and think, oh great, this is just some left wing nonsense, it’s led me to some really good work in the Church that I used to just dismiss
There's a pretty good reason to explain why the line about policy proposals is there. For decades this has been the position of the American episcopate, or at least how that has been received by people. And this is because of the rules about tax exempt status from the IRS. I realize this is not a one-to-one reason. However, I don't know how many times I have heard, from the pulpit, that the church is not in the business of specific policy proposals, but in the business of moralizing, not in the business of advocating for specific political candidates but for vague generalities every 4 years.
I'm aware that the USCCB has its own parallel reputation, and does its own work and policy recommendations, etc etc. But you'll also find in magisterial documents a hesitancy among even popes to speak outside of the specific competency of faith and morals. I was just looking at an 18th-c. document against usury for my own purposes and it had a similar qualifier.
But I think the real reason comes down to this is what has been preached from every pulpit for decades. Priests are not qualified to preach, generally speaking. That is its own problem.
Thanks for your comment, D. Actually, the U.S. episcopate takes many specific positions on political, economic, and social issues, and every four years it releases a new edition of its voter guide, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
Among specific positions: The USCCB opposes the death penalty; supports the right of workers to form unions; recommends improved safety net measures, including increased child tax credits and Earned Income Tax Credit; supports strong food security programs including SNAP and WIC, affirms affordable and accessible health care as a fundamental human right and advocates strengthening Medicare and Medicaid; supports comprehensive immigration law reform including “a broad and fair legalization program with a path to citizenship”; opposes detention of migrants for deterrence or punishment; supports “reasonable restrictions on access to assault weapons and handguns” (specifically recommending universal background checks and outlawing high-cap magazines, among other measures); advocates that the US take the lead in addressing a) global climate change in ways that address the impacts on poor and developing nations and b) global poverty through increased development aid for the poorest countries, more equitable trade policies, and continuing efforts to relieve the crushing burdens of debt and disease.
None of this is a tax exception issue. U.S. tax law allows religious and other tax-exempt organizations to take political views, as long as they avoid endorsing parties or candidates. More importantly, Catholic social teaching requires the Church to take some political stances. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting Vatican II, teaches that it is “part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it’” (CCC 2246, quoting Gaudium et Spes 76).
You’re right, you did—sorry about that! I was responding to “the position of the American episcopate, or at least how that has been received by people,” and I didn’t register your second paragraph. Still, a useful exercise for other readers who may not realize the extent of political stances taken by the Church.
Thanks for writing. It’s worth noting that the bishops also had policy recommendations against the Obama administration’s deportation raids. Thus, labeling the bishops’ very consistent approach to immigration policy during the Trump administration as “serving partisan interests” is clearly a reflection of partisan bias.
This is speculation, but this is how I read the situation:
For over seven years, Bp. Barron and WoF have catered increasingly to right-wing audiences, with +Barron appearing with commentators Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen, recently Tucker Carlson, in addition to platforming and appearing alongside accused celebrity sex abusers Shia LaBouef and Russel Brand (importantly, *after* allegations were made public), in addition to having an in-house scandal regarding former MTV trainer and then WoF employee Joey Gloor.
What these associations indicate to me is an attraction to a particular kind of fame, a particular kind of masculinity or notions of masculinity, and a theology that bears at least a family resemblance to American rightwing ideology. These are the ingredients he uses to build his audience and his brand, which appeals to conservative or right-leaning American men.
Thus, if that audience thinks that the ideas of Catholic Social Teaching are perhaps just a little too left-leaning for their taste, then sentences like this one:
"What is social justice? Nobody really knows, but it sounds full of cachet."
function both to reassure the audience of WoF that they're still at the right place, and probably elicit a knowing chuckle. Of your solutions, I'd wager that WoF is somewhere in position 2 or 3; the cease and desist to Commonweal in 2024 indicates that WoF and Bp Barron are uncomfortable with association with the Trump administration, though recent appointments to gov't committees may indicate some softening there.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Jacob. Unfortunately, I find your analysis plausible.
Didn’t they just publish a compendium of CST?
Do you mean the 2004 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church referred to in this piece, Eric? Or something more recent?
This:
https://bookstore.wordonfire.org/products/catholic-social-teaching-collection
Ah, thank you, Eric! I wish I had known about this earlier. I will add it to the piece!
FWIW, that Word on Fire Catholic Social Teaching Collection was published five years ago. Which is recent enough to be significant (anything after, say, 2015 is significant), but still old enough to leave open the questions at the end of my piece.
Thank you for this, Deacon. I’m glad someone is trying to hold WOF accountable.
Thank you, Bret! It’s good to know other people feel the same way!
Ohhhhh it's all sooooo confuuuuuusing --- like what even iiiisss social justice and what even iiiissss racism and can't we just get back to talking about abortion . . .
I wish this satirical hyperbole were a little further from the mark, Suzanne
Is there any justice higher than attempting to prevent the murder of as many embodied souls as possible?
Nothing is more fatal to the pro-life cause than a) focusing solely on the killing of the unborn and b) ignoring, excusing, and/or ultimately championing attacks on the lives and dignity of born human beings, which is where we are now.
https://greydanus.substack.com/p/reflections-on-voting-as-a-pro-life
https://greydanus.substack.com/p/immigration-deportation-and-catholic
Well I shall have to reflect on your assertion about the damage to the cause of the unborn, but it seems to me to be a given that being born is a first cause and a requirement if one is to have a life and and an opportunity to have one’s dignity recognized. There are millions who were willfully denied that opportunity.
I agree, W. But read my first link above, especially.
I don’t know if the same is true in other states, but speaking for my own state:
In last year’s election, there was an abortion question. From the wording of the question alone, I knew the morally correct (pro-life) way to vote.
But in my sample ballot, which had arguments for and against (and rebuttals to the same), the argument for the pro-life vote (and the rebuttal to the opposing argument) never once mentioned the right to life of unborn babies or anyone else. In fact, from what I remember, it amounted to “the abortion laws our state currently has are sufficient—changing them is unnecessary and could lead to bad consequences.” It was using pro-choice language to argue for a pro-life position.
Is it any wonder the pro-abortion side won in the end?
Thank you for this article, Deacon.
I haven’t seen any need to dissociate myself entirely from Word on Fire, but I’ve had some concerns of my own, and it’s a relief to see that I’m not alone.
I keep wanting to say more in these comments, but I’m vulnerable to two problems: 1) repeating someone else’s words and making them my own; 2) coming to my own conclusions and putting too much stock in them as a result. Just because a conclusion wasn’t taught to me directly by any earthly authority doesn’t mean it came straight from God—I’ve learned that the hard way in the past.
All I’ll say regarding my own thoughts on the matter is that, increasingly, I’m becoming interested in learning the history behind what appears to me to be a cleaving of the Gospel by the left and the right, and a pitting of the two halves against each other. When I read about the Bible mentioning four sins that cry out to God for justice, I thought: “The left would agree with only two of these, and the right would agree with only the other two.”
God bless you, and please keep praying for me.
FWIW, Michael, I started to write a preamble about how much I have admired Bishop Barron and my substantial debt to his work. I use his materials as an educator, and I have no plans to stop doing so. At the same time, the concerns are piling up. I may finish that piece one of these days. Yes, I will keep you in my prayers!
I’ve admired Bishop Barron too. I remember the first time I read Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, and feeling as though I had NOT been reading a book, but communing with Our Lord, the Angelic Doctor, and the (then-)priest. Nothing will ever take that away from me.
Bishop Barron is an enormously gifted man who has unquestionably done great work. For years I called him one of my heroes. I wish I still could.
Please forgive me if this crosses the line only once and not twice, but it occurs to me that we need an update to an old joke:
“What religion are you?”
True believer: “I’m Catholic.”
“Yes, but are you a liberal Catholic, or a conservative Catholic?”
True believer: “…What the hell are you talking about?”
I kid you not, I had almost the exact same thought about 5 seconds before I read your comment! Good joke, except I wouldn't have used the word "hell."
Thanks. That was my biggest concern. I wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to use the word or not (if not, I apologize), but “heck” doesn’t seem to really work in the same way. Then, might as well just say “What are you talking about?”
I wouldn’t worry about it!
Thanks, Deacon. Usually I don’t like to use that kind of language—only when it would be appropriate, but I often mis-gauge when that is, and better safe than sorry. But I’ve learned I can err too much in that direction too, and be too afraid to take risks.
Goes to show that someone being a professor doesn't say anything inherent about their comprehension skills or ability to present things fairly. Thank you for this thorough critique.
You’re welcome, Theo. Unfortunately you are correct. Thanks for your comment.
My favorite part is the implied assumption that any time the Church suggests policy they will make the front page of the NYT. Could it be that. . . just possibly . . . the American Left most aligns with CST and not the other way around?
Watch out, you have a “Benedict XIV” in there! Not that there wasn’t a 14th Benedict but I think from context you mean XVI. This is going to take watching for all of us now that we have a pope ending in XIV!
I actually had two of them! Thanks, I’ve also been typing Leo XVI, who doesn’t exist! It is a little unfair, having trained my fingers for two decades to type XVI, to suddenly place this new demand upon them!
Wow! Perhaps you should send this to Bishop Barron!
I’m not going to do that, but I wouldn’t object to someone else sending it to him!
Like me? Tell me what address I should use, and I’ll do it. The trouble with me is that I don’t have the depth of knowledge to participate in the discussion.
I think it’s number 1, Barron is definitely looking for a big tent approach, in the Tucker Carlson interview, he even explained the universal destination of goods concept to Tucker. Barron is definitely making a appeal at evangelization to the right, which is good in my opinion
But should the tent be big enough to include this article’s attack on social justice and Catholic social teaching in papal encyclicals, Tony? Or is that too big?
Its a good point, and mistakes will be made, its interesting listening to the Barron interview with Tucker, because you can tell he was formed by a certain time in the Church, and liked a lot of it, but has noticed, I think correctly that a lot of the interest in Catholiscm is coming from conservatives right now, I have noticed it big time, and Barron knows that someone needs to be there to minister to those people
Which is fine! It’s important, though, I think, to bear in mind the wisdom of G.K. Chesterton: “We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.” Progressive “social gospel” Christians need to hear about sin and salvation, and conservative “smells and bells” Christians need to hear about social justice. If we don’t do this, then we’re only catering to a clientele and giving people what their itching ears want to hear.
I totally agree with that, I’ve tried myself to not have such a knee jerk reaction when I hear “social justice” and think, oh great, this is just some left wing nonsense, it’s led me to some really good work in the Church that I used to just dismiss
There's a pretty good reason to explain why the line about policy proposals is there. For decades this has been the position of the American episcopate, or at least how that has been received by people. And this is because of the rules about tax exempt status from the IRS. I realize this is not a one-to-one reason. However, I don't know how many times I have heard, from the pulpit, that the church is not in the business of specific policy proposals, but in the business of moralizing, not in the business of advocating for specific political candidates but for vague generalities every 4 years.
I'm aware that the USCCB has its own parallel reputation, and does its own work and policy recommendations, etc etc. But you'll also find in magisterial documents a hesitancy among even popes to speak outside of the specific competency of faith and morals. I was just looking at an 18th-c. document against usury for my own purposes and it had a similar qualifier.
But I think the real reason comes down to this is what has been preached from every pulpit for decades. Priests are not qualified to preach, generally speaking. That is its own problem.
Thanks for your comment, D. Actually, the U.S. episcopate takes many specific positions on political, economic, and social issues, and every four years it releases a new edition of its voter guide, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
Among specific positions: The USCCB opposes the death penalty; supports the right of workers to form unions; recommends improved safety net measures, including increased child tax credits and Earned Income Tax Credit; supports strong food security programs including SNAP and WIC, affirms affordable and accessible health care as a fundamental human right and advocates strengthening Medicare and Medicaid; supports comprehensive immigration law reform including “a broad and fair legalization program with a path to citizenship”; opposes detention of migrants for deterrence or punishment; supports “reasonable restrictions on access to assault weapons and handguns” (specifically recommending universal background checks and outlawing high-cap magazines, among other measures); advocates that the US take the lead in addressing a) global climate change in ways that address the impacts on poor and developing nations and b) global poverty through increased development aid for the poorest countries, more equitable trade policies, and continuing efforts to relieve the crushing burdens of debt and disease.
None of this is a tax exception issue. U.S. tax law allows religious and other tax-exempt organizations to take political views, as long as they avoid endorsing parties or candidates. More importantly, Catholic social teaching requires the Church to take some political stances. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting Vatican II, teaches that it is “part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it’” (CCC 2246, quoting Gaudium et Spes 76).
I allowed for all of that in my initial comment, for what it's worth.
You’re right, you did—sorry about that! I was responding to “the position of the American episcopate, or at least how that has been received by people,” and I didn’t register your second paragraph. Still, a useful exercise for other readers who may not realize the extent of political stances taken by the Church.
… Cause it’s Word on Fire?…
Thanks for writing. It’s worth noting that the bishops also had policy recommendations against the Obama administration’s deportation raids. Thus, labeling the bishops’ very consistent approach to immigration policy during the Trump administration as “serving partisan interests” is clearly a reflection of partisan bias.