Letters to the Editor: July-August 2025

One Disingenuous Argument After Another

John C. Médaille, in “Defending Dives, Defunding Lazarus” (May), launched a thinly veiled attack on J.D. Vance for his remarks about the ordo amoris suggesting that “the Christian tradition has a consistent teaching that we are to love those near us with a greater fervor than those far away.” From my perspective, Vance was defending the principle of subsidiary, which has long been a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Médaille engages in one disingenuous argument after another in his attempt to paint Vance and his supporters as villains by comparing them to Dives, the rich man in the Bible who has no sympathy for the beggar in front of him while feeding scraps to the dogs. That story is totally irrelevant to the point Vance was making.

Médaille cites the Trump administration’s ending of a number of grants to leftist organizations funded by the Biden administration via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Only Médaille doesn’t mention those abuses of taxpayer dollars. Instead, he falsely claims the cuts were for “food meant for the poor in foreign counties.” That is not what was cut. Those programs for the needy were simply transferred to the U.S. State Department, away from a totally compromised leadership at USAID that was funding leftist activism.

Médaille then asserts that Pope Francis was “not calling for ‘open borders,’” just “human dignity.” Surely, a good Catholic can respect human dignity without falling into the trap of favoring open borders. Robert Cardinal Sarah was one leading Catholic voice warning of the dangers of open borders. Clearly, Francis was a proponent of “open borders.”

I could go on and on about Médaille’s false arguments, even his invoking the words of G.K. Chesterton to try to make his case. Yet Chesterton was a great believer in the principle of subsidiarity, as he often expressed in his writings. Vance’s views are far closer to Chesterton’s than Médaille acknowledges.

Suffice it to say that Médaille’s article would be better suited for the likes of the National Catholic Reporter than the pages of the NOR.

Tom Pauken

Dallas, Texas

John C. Médaille’s article was more of a screed against the Trump administration than a worthy analysis of the ordo amoris. In place of an exhaustive response to Dr. Médaille’s rant, I offer only a few comments.

Separation of church and state is a fantasy in the United States. Here we have a secular religion — “wokeness,” for lack of a better term — that is not separate from the secular state but works with it to maintain the power of the elites. Until the American state acts in subordination to Christ the King, we will continue to have the mess we have.

Médaille applauds Pope Francis for speaking up about the ordo amoris. But where was the Pope when the tyranny of COVID-19 restrictions was being inflicted on Catholics, when our churches were closed and our consciences violated?

Everyone loves to bring up the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But it’s about a guy who receives help while lying by a road after being beaten up. It’s not about criminals and murderers illegally entering a country to cause mayhem on the innocent citizens of that country.

I agree with Médaille regarding North American Free Trade Agreement. It has been and continues to be a disaster. But the problem is greed. Unbridled capitalism, as several popes have noted, is simply the opposite side of the coin of communism. Hilaire Belloc has written ably on this topic.

Let me close with the often-overlooked teaching on immigration in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens” (no. 2241). That’s what my parents did when they legally immigrated to the United States after living for ten years in Venezuela, to which they had fled from Europe after World War II. When will someone lecture immigrants about this inconvenient truth rather than berating the law-abiding citizens of this country?

Eugene Kania

Wheaton, Illinois

John C. Médaille advises readers that a good Catholic should not have voted for Trump. Am I to assume that I should have voted for Kamala Harris, the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history?

Médaille further states that it’s the role of bishops to “speak truth to power.” On November 17, 2021, the U.S. bishops voted on a motion to bar President Joe Biden from the Eucharist due to his pro-abortion stance. In a unique display of speaking truth to power, they voted 222-8 to give him a pass, and then they gave themselves a round of applause for doing so.

Dan Mobley

Flower Mound, Texas

If John C. Médaille’s article was intended as a commentary on American public policy concerning immigration, it missed the mark. Is our government wrong to secure the border? Are Catholics to be faulted for questioning Pope Francis’s public rebukes of efforts to do so? Am I cynical to believe the Biden administration was not motivated by concern for the poor when it deliberately opened our borders and was merely propping up its voter base? If our country is being stingy in allowing refugees and the poor into our country, is an open border a good solution? Should our bishops have pointed out the human cost of unregulated borders, such as sexual exploitation, rather than appearing to support the policy?

I would welcome a debate about increasing legal immigration and might even support the policy, but I find disingenuous Médaille’s shaming of those who have had enough of the nonsense.

Alberto Mora

Boonton, New Jersey

My wife and I decided to give the NOR a second chance by again subscribing. But if such screeds as John C. Médaille’s “Defending Dives, Defunding Lazarus” are allowed in the future, we will, once again, regret our subscription. We had thought the NOR had, over time, become firmly orthodox in its proper understanding and comprehension of Roman Catholicism.

The very questionable rebuttal by John M. Grondelski, “The Right Ordering of Love in the Political Sphere” (May), was tepid and halfhearted at best. Meanwhile, Médaille’s pseudotheological version of the morally vile liberalism founded within Wilsonian internationalism contained covert elements of Pelagianism, Gnosticism, and Immanentism. The wonder was that it was not meant as a cold parody but given as earnest stuff by a master of misperceptions. It is an adscititious species of rectitude not seen since Antony claimed he came only to bury Caesar and not to praise him. Quoting “Pope” Francis as a great moral authority is highly dubious at best, since he insisted, publicly, that he was not someone to make any judgments.

J.D. Vance, however, was not being a great Catholic theologian; he only insisted on the old maxim that charity begins at home, which to meanly disparage it, is the same as vilely denouncing mom and apple pie. Use of the ordo caritatis is actually epistemologically much better than citations about love, since the latter has been reductionistically overused. Charity is, thus, more expansive as a broader term than mere love, which is, in fact, only one part of all genuine charity. In any event, miscategorizing Trump or Vance as nationalistic warmongers ever intent on hemispheric imperialism is incredibly bizarre. And pointedly invoking USAID, a demonstrably hyper-corrupt agency, as indicative of a supremely noble moral cause worth defending is both ludicrous and mendacious beyond degree.

Catholic solidarity and subsidiarity were not, therefore, grievously offended by Vance, for the odd Wilsonian mission of globalism is hardly Lazarus and Dives and was not, moreover, being defended as such by the Trump administration.

Joseph Andrew Settanni

Peabody, Kansas

JOHN C. MÉDAILLE REPLIES:

Let me start by thanking those who, on reading my article, were moved to write letters; I now know that at least five people actually read it. But I am disappointed by some of the language they used — language that seems to arise more from ideology and partisan politics than from the Gospel or the teachings of the Catholic Church.

One respondent used the term “leftist,” and another, sadly, resorted to language that accuses immigrants of being “criminals and murderers” bent on causing “mayhem” on “innocent citizens.” Of course, the facts are otherwise, as immigrants have a lower crime rate than native Americans. The same person brought up, for some reason, his dissatisfaction with COVID-19 restrictions. Interesting, but I’m not quite sure how it relates to the question of the ordo caritatis. He also brought up the errors of capitalism, and as a lifelong anti-capitalist, I appreciated that, at least. But what bearing it has on this question, I cannot say, and the writer didn’t tell me; even capitalists are under the obligations of charity. And indeed, many of the migrants are here precisely because of the devastation capitalism has brought to their countries. In any case, it seems to me that the language was more about ideology and partisan politics than about Catholic teaching.

Another writer did get into the “theology” and accused me of being a “master of misconceptions” pushing Pelagianism (along with Gnosticism, Immanentism, and “Wilsonian internationalism”). Well, that’s a lot of -isms, but if “Pelagianism” means “doing stuff,” and further, that our very salvation depends on the stuff we do, then the first “Pelagian” would be the one who said, “Not everyone who cries ‘Lord, Lord’ will be saved, but only him who does the will of my Father” (Mt. 7:21; italics added). Indeed, this same “Pelagian” gives us a new definition of family, one based not on blood and kinship but on action: “‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’” (Mt. 12:47-50; italics added). And He gave us a verbatim transcript of the Last Judgment, which turns out to be a “pass/fail” exam with but one question: What did you do for these, the least of my brothers? I suspect that “I sent him to a concentration camp in a foreign country” will not be an acceptable answer.

The most interesting debates are not between “right” and “wrong” but between conflicting rights. Every human being has the natural right to emigrate; every human community has the right to control immigration. These rights often come into conflict. How they are resolved cannot be given in advance; they will always be prudential and dependent on the particular circumstances in this or that particular case. But this much is clear: any answer must conform to the Law of Love and cannot be expressed in the language of hate or vilification. And this love cannot be an excuse to marginalize some persons or groups. As Pope Francis (or as one writer wrote it, “Pope” Francis) put it in his rebuke of J.D. Vance, “Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups.” That is, the ordo caritatis is not essential to love; love in itself extends equally to all, whether close to us or remote. The “ordering” is an accidental feature, arising from the fact that we are creatures in time and space and limited in what we can do. The ordo itself does not prioritize our loves but our actions, which can only be local.

No matter how the issues are resolved in any particular case, this much, too, is clear: the ordo caritatis cannot be used as Vance used it, that is, to justify the rivalrous nationalism of “America First.” This rivalrous nationalism, far from being connected to love, is the cause of each and every war in human history. Every. Single. One. There are no exceptions. Prosperity, to be stable, must be shared. When wealth is hoarded, it becomes unstable. As Pope Francis (or “Pope” Francis, if you prefer) put it, “Worrying about personal, community or national identity, apart from these considerations, easily introduces an ideological criterion that distorts social life and imposes the will of the strongest as the criterion of truth.”

Clearly, the “ideological criteria” seem to be winning in this debate, at least for now. But every answer must conform to the Law of Love, must conform to the answer given to the man who asked the question, “And who is my neighbor?” It was the most religious people, the priest and the Levite, who ignored the dying man, fearing ritual contamination, and only the Samaritan, a hated foreigner, who acted like Christ. Any answer that sides with the priest vilifies the Samaritan. But as Christians, we side with the Samaritan. Always.

Enemies of Normativity

Regarding Alexander Riley’s examination of the full radical implications of “queerness”: He is correct to criticize people who believe a sharp line can be drawn between same-sex marriage and the queer and trans parts of the LGBTQ+ movement (“The Hedonistic Death Drive of ‘Queerness,’” May). Certainly in academia, when queer theory developed in the late 1980s/early 1990s, queerness incorporated all the letters in the term. Homosexuality was a queering of heterosexual desire. It was only when same-sex marriage achieved mainstream status that a division could be drawn. For many, this was a triumph for gays and lesbians, but the first theorists were ambivalent about their sexuality losing its queer character. They saw themselves as figures of critical questioning, as rogue challenges to bourgeois life. “Do we really want to go ‘normal’ and join the rest of the middle-class crowd?” they asked. One figure, a professor of English who taught queer studies at Rutgers University, wrote a book titled The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (1999). For the most committed among them, “queering” was and is a way of life that never stops. “Normativity” will always be the enemy.

Liberals and many conservatives wish to see same-sex marriage as the “de-queering” of homosexual desire. Might it not be, however, a victory for queerness in that the critique did take normativity away from heterosexuality, that it did, indeed, “queer” heterosexuality into giving up its exclusive claim to legitimacy?

Mark Bauerlein

Washington, D.C.

Alexander Riley seems to contradict himself when he claims that President Trump was re-elected “in significant measure by a broad reaction against the perceived extremism of woke cultural politics, especially on matters related to gender and sexuality.” He then goes on to lament that too many conservatives and Republicans have accepted the woke agenda on sexual matters.

The majority of Americans have been systematically indoctrinated since the late 1980s to accept the LGBT agenda for fear of being called bigots, being “canceled,” or being the target of violence. It is going to take a lot to change this mindset, especially after Anthony Kennedy, former associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, authored the majority ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which made acceptance of same-sex marriage the law of the land. So, anyone who is against same-sex marriage is, in essence, defying the law.

Rosalyn Becker

Fort Myers, Florida

ALEXANDER RILEY REPLIES:

I thank Mark Bauerlein and Rosalyn Becker for so carefully attending to my article on the death drive in queerness.

Mr. Bauerlein rightly points to the furious disdain for normalcy in academic LGBTQ thought. Every homosexual knows full well that his orientation to sex is abnormal, in the straightforward statistical sense of “deviating from what is generally the case.” Atypical, that is, or unusual. Acceptance of that statistical fact on a particular question does not necessarily imply acceptance of the moral definition of normal that is often, but not always, connected to the statistical. It is clear, though, that the very core of LGBTQ activist thinking at least implicitly accepts a connection of the two definitions of abnormal here (perhaps owing to the obvious seriousness of the topic), sees their abnormal status as intolerable both statistically and morally, and proceeds accordingly in terms of cultural politics: If we cannot be inside the statistical and moral norm, the norm itself must be destroyed by forcibly altering its parameters to include us, and even to elevate us to a position of privilege within the norm. On the moral level, this means, for example, Obergefell. On the statistical level, it can be seen in the constant effort by activists to elevate the percentage of LGBTQ individuals in society, through whatever means are required.

Mrs. Becker points to two facts that might seem contradictory but are capable of co-existing. Significant numbers of conservatives have, as she insinuates, been convinced by the advocacy of the past several decades that homosexuality can be made normatively unproblematic if we just transform the institution of marriage. This type of conservative is overrepresented among cultural elites — they are often public figures such as those I mention in my article — but they can be found elsewhere, too, as is evident in the statistics I cited. Indeed, President Trump himself has publicly indicated his assent to the Obergefell decision. At the same time, though, he campaigned solidly against other elements of the LGBTQ worldview, most notably, the advance of the trans movement in recent years.

There is a large contingent of conservatives who have not given up on a traditional understanding of sex and gender, many of whom have in recent years been outspoken on social media about their concern over the progressive Left’s continuing creep in the direction of cultural radicalism. There is good evidence that many of them supported Trump for just this reason, even given his tepid support for other aspects of their cultural politics. Better a qualified ally than an unqualified enemy.

Yooper Saint?

I greatly appreciated Thomas Basil’s article “In the Footsteps of the Snowshoe Priest” (May). I became acquainted with Bishop Frederic Baraga while attending Michigan Technological University, located in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Last summer, my wife and I took a trip to Minnesota’s north shore to celebrate our tenth anniversary, and we stopped to say a prayer at Fr. Baraga’s Cross, located just off Highway 61. It was pleasant to see a picture of that cross in the NOR (p. 25) and to read more about this good and holy man. May God grant that he be raised to the altar.

Eric Jackson

South Saint Paul, Minnesota

THOMAS BASIL REPLIES:

You mention how Bishop Baraga’s roadside cross near Schroder, Minnesota, proved meaningful to you and your wife. Indeed, Baraga’s oversized statue near L’Anse, Michigan, is how I first learned of him. This suggests to me the importance of Catholic imagery being conspicuously visible wherever feasible. The seeds sown may be more than we’d ever guess.

More to Be Said

In his review of Joel S. Peters’s Sola Scriptura Doesn’t Work: 25 Practical Reasons to Reject the Doctrine of ‘Bible Alone’ (May), Trent Beattie writes, “History establishes that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and, 1,500 years later, Martin Luther started the Lutheran Church. What more needs to be said?” A couple things, actually. Or — more accurately — a couple hard realities to which I’d point my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. The first reality that needs to be faced is the Church in the Eastern Hemisphere, otherwise known as Eastern Orthodoxy. The second is found within the confines of the Western Hemisphere. Specifically, I must ask: Which Catholic Church, Roman or Anglo?

John Harutunian

Newton, Massachusetts

TRENT BEATTIE REPLIES:

It should be remembered that not every Christian in the East is so-called Orthodox. Several oriental rites (Antiochene, Armenian, Byzantine, etc.) recognize the primacy of the See of Rome, as does Roman Catholic Poland (located in the East, albeit north of what most people consider “the East”).

Regardless of geography, there is an obvious need for a final authority in any organization (how else would disputes ever be resolved?), and this need also requires a specific person (who, in this case, has a specific location). As can be seen in the writings of the Church Fathers, Christians have always recognized the primacy of the See of Rome. This and related issues are explored in books such as Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words by Rod Bennett (Ignatius, 2002), The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue (Ignatius, 2008), and Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East by Michael Lofton (Catholic Answers, 2023).

The Roman Catholic or “Anglo Catholic” question is even easier to answer. King Henry VIII never was the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church in England; Supreme Victim of Vice seems to be a more fitting title. So many historic aberrations speak to this, including his dismissal of several wives, sacking and suppression of Catholic monasteries, desecration and outright theft of entire Catholic church buildings, and persecution and execution of faithful Catholics. Supremacy and Survival: How Catholics Endured the English Reformation by Stephanie A. Mann (Scepter, 2007) describes these and subsequent events, as do Faith of Our Fathers: A History of True England by Joseph Pearce (Ignatius, 2022) and The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580 by Eamon Duffy (1992). Canterbury Cathedral had been a Catholic structure for centuries before Henry VIII destroyed its shrine (including relics) of St. Thomas Becket. And when the highly volatile 16th-century king figuratively lost his head, St. Thomas More literally lost his — while saving his soul.

In His Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John, Our Lord says, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (14:15). Thomas More and other English martyrs did; Henry VIII did not. Later, Our Lord prays “that all may be one” (Jn. 17:20), and it is clear from reading the Petrine Discourse (specifically Mt. 16:17-19) where that unity is to be found. Jesus Christ founded one Church and one Church only: the Catholic Church, which has been based in Rome for 2,000 years.

What Phenomenon Enables Life?

I consider myself agnostic. No one has been able to convince me that an afterlife is possible. However, I sometimes wonder why life exists. Could a random universe give rise to life? When certain physical conditions are suitable, life emerges.

Considering the complexities involved, random chance alone seems inadequate to explain the existence of life. Something seems to be driving the phenomenon that enables such existence.

Our genes strive to be passed on, supporting the evolutionary process. Our biology follows a trajectory — a slow, intentional journey that is painstakingly meticulous. Whatever motivates this appears deliberate.

We appear to be highly evolved “matter,” conscious and capable of reflecting on our experiences. We communicate with one another and pass knowledge to future generations. If we could quantify all matter in the universe, the portion that constitutes life would be infinitesimally small. Life capable of self-reflection represents an even tinier fraction.

We are extraordinarily fortunate to be alive. Whatever enables this is a rarity like no other. Perhaps questioning why life exists isn’t the best approach. Instead, how can we savor every moment?

Scott Thompson

Bloomington, Indiana

THE EDITOR REPLIES:

You are asking the right questions, and you are reading the right publication with which to work through to the right answers.

You say — correctly and wisely — that whatever “motivates” the trajectory of human biology appears to be “deliberate.” A “random” universe certainly couldn’t do so, for random suggests a lack of design or pattern, whereas deliberate suggests a plan, a purpose; the two concepts are essentially contradictory. Neither could “evolution,” because for the evolutionary process to function there must be a first form from which other, later forms evolve. Evolution can only produce variations; it gives rise to nothing. Evolution can sustain life, but it cannot activate life. So, whence came the first form of what we recognize as life?

Yes, we are extremely fortunate to have been given the gift of life. A gift, however, presumes a giver. Who is that “rarity” of whom you speak who “enables” human life — whom we might otherwise call the Giver of Life?

Imagine a secret admirer gave you a gift. Would you be satisfied merely to receive the gift? No, you would want to know who gave you the gift and why. You would likely become desperate to know those things. The gift itself would become secondary to knowing the identity and motive of the giver.

The gift of life is likewise meaningful only insofar as we know the Giver of Life. And our “savoring” of every moment of life can only be sweeter for understanding why we were given this gift, if indeed it was given to us deliberately. In that contemplation lies the answer to whether there is yet more life after this life.

I refer you to Edmund B. Miller’s article in this issue titled “Three Critical Moments in the History of the Cosmos,” which grapples with these very questions and arrives, tentatively, at an answer.

For Your Guests

I encourage subscribers to order a second subscription to the NOR to keep as guest issues, so that we can keep our own highlighted pages to ourselves as we introduce others to conversations raised by articles in the NOR.

Maureen Sumner Ellis

Bridgeton, Missouri

THE EDITOR REPLIES:

What a great idea! To support this inspiration, from now through the close of 2025, we offer one-year “guest subscriptions” to current subscribers at the discounted rate of $19. To order, send a check or money order to NOR, Guest Subscriptions, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706, or phone 510-526-5374 to pay by credit card. Onward!