This laughable article from the National Catholic Reporter again goes after Catholic Answer’s voting guide and Karl Keating in particular.
I will admit that I do not lead a Catholic apologetics and evangelization organization, so I may lack some of Mr. Keating’s sophistication in these matters. But “chang[ing] the face of American politics” seems like a very strange goal for a Catholic apologetics and evangelization organization. I readily can understand a desire to win souls or to stop abortions by winning souls. I have a bit more trouble understanding why the things of Caesar — “the face of American politics” — occupy such expensive real estate in Mr. Keating’s world.
It is not a choice between stopping abortion and changing American politics to value all life. Political actions have to match personal efforts to advance the culture of life. Legalizing abortion created a greater demand for abortion and by government endorsement it made it easier for people to more blindly seek an abortion.
But perhaps the better answer is that we do not need him — or, to be more precise, his organization — at all because the universality of the church must admit to more than one political perspective. This is why even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has described “proportionate reasons” for supporting candidates who happen to be pro-choice. This also is why the church has inveighed against mixing politics with the faith since the earliest period of Christianity. We must not allow the view of our ultimate goal to become clouded by the temporal and obviously partisan cares of this world.
The universality of the church does not admit to more then one perspective on divorce and remarriage, abortion, ESCR, homosexual marriages etc. It is universal because truth is universal and applies to all equally. Cardinal Ratzinger must blanched every time someone used his words to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is one that is not Then also notice the "who happen" to be pro-choice. He betrays his earlier sentence about stopping abortion by using pro-abortion rhetoric.
At the start of the article he asks: "I have a question for Karl Keating: Why do we need you?"
A better question is for the National Catholic Reporter: Why do we need you? We don’t need a anti-Catechism that is more like a bizarro world version of Catholic theology. We also don’t need a paper that is just an outlet for dissident voices in the Church. We don’t need collarless priests preaching the gospel of modernism nor dour religious sisters bemoaning that they can’t be priests.
While Catholic apologetics will still be around long after Karl Keating or Catholic Answers have passed on, they have done extremely valuable work. I have heard and read about many people who thank Catholic Answers for helping them to either return to the Church or to convert to it. I have never heard or read of anybody that after reading the NCR decided to convert. They will only learn how the Church still has not conceded to modern times and allowed women priests and the wonders of homosexuality. NCR provides no joys of the truth of Catholicism, but only wishful thinking that one day the Church will see it as they do. The exception to prove the rule seems to be John Allen’s column Word from Rome.