>I was relieved at first because you seem to indicate that you did
>care about "other issues." But then you imply that your only
>concern about "economic issues" is with regard to your own family!
>. . . framing social justice issues in selfish rather than moral terms.

Tim, we've barely met, so I'd ask you kindly not to read too much into that sentence, and to refrain from drawing such a character assumption about "my selfishness" based on your interpretation of my reference to "paying the bills."

How about a much more likely interpretation of that sentence, and actually intended: I (and I assume my co-editors) are not blogging from comfortable mansions in the Hamptons, and the specific focus of our blog on "the life issues" does not imply a lack of concern for the basic issues of economic welfare. (No need to read into it any more than that).

Michael Novak would certainly agree with the Holy Father (and encyclicals of previous popes) on the importance of attending to the material needs of the poor -- suffice to say that after reading his books, it's apparent that Novak has different ideas based on his experience about how those needs are met, and on the best means to combat society's ills.

Tim: >What I want to make absolutely clear is that there are implications,
>and any Catholic who neglects or denies them when evaluating
>politicians is undoubtedly in remiss.

I'll agree with you on this. While Catholics in the Public Square has a specific focus, our posts on any Catholic politician should not be construed as comprehensive 'evaluation' of a politician or the broad range of his policy decisions.

I'll end with a quotation from Cardinal Chaput (The King's Good Servant), who I quoted in my original article, and whose stance is one I'm hoping we can both agree upon:

The big picture depends on the small picture. No amount of good policy on immigration, or unemployment, or education, or housing, compensates for bad policy when it comes to deliberately killing the innocent -- beginning with the unborn. The right to life comes first. That's the priority. It's the foundation of every other right. Without it, every other right is built on sand.

Of course, if the right to life is the only issue Catholics focus on, that doesn't work either. In Genesis 9:5, God says, "From man, in regard to his fellow man, I will demand an accounting." James 2:15-17 says:

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. . . . Catholics have the right and the obligation to demand that their public officials -- and their public policies -- should protect marriage and encourage family life; help the poor and homeless; promote economic justice both at home and abroad; and support the sick, the elderly, and children seeking a decent education. It's not enough to say, "Well, these are matters for private charity." Private charities in this country are already overwhelmed by the demand. For Catholics, it's completely proper for government to be involved in a serious way in solving these problems -- as long as the so-called solutions don't promote or allow killing the unborn and the weak.

Catholics in the Public Square | Against The Grain