Saint George Exists!
Happy feast of St. George.
George is my confirmation name, as well as Pope Francis's (Jorge Bergoglio's) patron saint.
Back when I worked at the USCCB, one of my colleagues, Fr. John — a priest from a diocese in the Great Plains of the United States — upon hearing the name of my confirmation saint, blurted out “imaginary!”
Naturally, this remark deeply offended me. (Or at least I responded like it did, anyway.) It's true, we don't know very much about St. George. He probably lived in Cappadocia. And he probably died a martyr in or around the year 303. Beyond that, the historical record is a little shaky.
That story about him killing a dragon? I'll concede it might be a teensy bit apocryphal, but I suspect there‘s at least a little bit of truth to it. Perhaps it all started when he accidentally stepped on a lizard. Late 3rd-century communications being what they were at the time, the tale likely spread by word of mouth. St. George certainly didn‘t have a substack back then. I'd imagine that by the time the story reached the finally reached the guy with the stylus and parchment, the details may have been stretched a little.
Anyway a few days after our exchange, Fr. John said he owed me an apology. Apparently he was presented with enough evidence (a single-line entry in the Roman Martyrology) to convince him that St. George existed.
Since then we've both moved on, but every year on April 23, St. George's feast day, we exchange emails and get caught up. And every year, he mentions that St. George exists.
WPI's Political Bias?
As I mentioned in my last post, one of the reasons I started this substack was because a lot of my thoughts on Twitter and in the WPI comments get swallowed by the internet, essentially lost to history. Often, when I write a long comment, the thought in the back of my mind is “I want to come back to this and flesh it out into an article” (usually doesn't happen). Other times, I'm making a point that's similar to something I‘ve written about three hundred times already.
My recent post on dissent from the Catholic “right,” explaining why I tend to be much harder on traditionalist dissent than progressive dissent, generated a lot of discussion. Many commenters appreciated it, but a lot of people came out of the woodwork to say that I'd “proved” my "left-wing bias.”
Anyone who knows me knows that‘s not true, but for some reason I decided to duke it out in the combox with the critics anyway.
During all this, one of our readers and occasional contributor Mark Hausam left a comment that I appreciated. I offered my own thoughts in response. Here's the exchange:
Mark:
I've been watching the back-and-forth in these comments and I wanted share briefly a bit of my own experience in the hopes that it might help encourage some understanding between different points of view.
I do get some of the concerns people have expressed here with regard some WPI articles being a bit "tending to the left" (for lack of a better phrase). I just read PuddleBoy's comments, and to some degree (emphasis important) resonated with some of what he said. I, too, am behind the core idea of WPI 100%, and was very excited to find the site a few years back. I think it's published some very helpful and valuable things. However, I, too, have found some of the more recent articles somewhat unnerving (such as articles challenging certain views of the historicity of Scripture, or seeming to emphasize a bit more than I think justified discontinuities between current and previous magisterial teaching and practice), while finding many others extremely helpful. I have been concerned from time to time that the criticism of conservative Catholics has been a bit harsher and less nuanced than I would like. I have been concerned about the appearance of a tendency to give the "left" too much of a pass.
On the other hand, I think the criticisms of WPI are too strong as well. The contributors have tried to be careful to stick with Church teaching. Even articles that seem to push the boundaries are careful to try to be faithful to the boundaries the Magisterium has put in place. (For example, it is true that there are a diversity of positions allowed in the Church on precisely how to understand certain historical passages of Scripture. There are positions that aren't my own but which aren't outside the clearly-established boundaries.) The recent article on encouraging the Church to consider positive ways to help same-sex-attracted individuals live out their unique callings in various forms of community and relationships without rejecting Church teaching was very helpful, and I think many other articles have been very insightful as well. And I get the challenge WPI has of walking the line between remaining grounded in its own raison d'être and allowing individual contributors to explore various areas of thought. WPI has made clear that the opinions of contributors are their own. Contributors, with their different views on some things, are united on the core principles for which WPI exists. I think that Mike Lewis's defense of why he evaluates "right" and "left" responses to Church teaching differently are plausible, make sense, and are in good faith, even if might take a slightly different view to some degree. So, while I sometimes find myself disagreeing with some things that are posted on the site in terms of content, tone, or whatever, I think that WPI is making a great contribution to defending the Church's Magisterium and trying to promote the pontifical mission of Pope Francis. I think that the areas of disagreement don't have to result in harshness and rupture. I think we can recognize and respect each other's positions and concerns without our differences needing to become barriers to good fellowship or recognition of the common mission we share to support Church teaching and further the mission of the Church in our own lives and in the societies in which we live.
There may be a lot more going on behind the scenes of some of the disagreements I've seen here that I am not aware of, so I don't even want to criticize anybody in particular for their responses here. I just want to encourage us all to be as charitable as we can to each other, try to see each other's points of view, acknowledge the plausibility of each other's thoughts and ideas (even if disagreeing on some points), and not let our disagreements turn into more conflict or animosity than they need to. (And I am primarily thinking here of those commenters who share the core ideals of WPI and want to support Pope Francis and Church teaching. Those who oppose the Magisterium, of course, need to be resisted, as is one of the purposes of WPI, although even here we can exercise charity and empathy as we engage the issues seriously and thoroughly.)
My response:
I appreciate your comment, Mark. Especially this point:
The contributors have tried to be careful to stick with Church teaching. Even articles that seem to push the boundaries are careful to try to be faithful to the boundaries the Magisterium has put in place. (For example, it is true that there are a diversity of positions allowed in the Church on precisely how to understand certain historical passages of Scripture. There are positions that aren't my own but which aren't outside the clearly-established boundaries.)
I think I heard somewhere a claim (possibly apocryphal) that the average homily has something like 3 heresies in it, due to imprecise speech if nothing else. We strive to do much, much better than that. I wouldn't doubt that there's may be a doctrinally erroneous statement somewhere on this site, but I can assure you that it wasn't intentional, and as I have said elsewhere, I'm happy to correct or re-word any inadvertent errors.
Regarding our "slant," there are many things on this site that I personally never would have written. Some things don't align with my spirituality, politics, or sensibilities. But if something is well-written and interesting, and it falls within the wider range of what is permissible by the Church and compatible with Pope Francis's vision, then I edit it and we post it. I'm not suppressing "conservative" contributions. The few I have rejected were either overtly political (I think one was titled "Donald Trump is the most pro-life president in history"), contained misinterpretations of magisterial teaching (one stated that since no one understands the word "inadmissible," we are free to disagree on the death penalty teaching), or have been very poorly written.
Yet I can't even begin to guess the number of articles we rejected on the topic of "Why a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate," or that have advocated for women's priesthood, or may have had a really strong, well-written argument but mentioned Trump negatively too many times. I was so relieved when the election was over. But this has continued.
To tell the truth, I don't know what the commenters who think we're too far to the left actually want to see from us.
This doesn't apply directly to you, Mark, but we have a piece we're publishing tomorrow on an important matter of Catholic social teaching. It's well-written, fact-based, and not polemical. But it also happens to be an issue where the Church and the GOP are at odds. And I hesitated. I got a stomach ache fretting over the fact that our conservative readers wouldn't like it. But if there's one thing I've learned from all these comments is that no matter how hard we try, we're never going to please them. I think the lesson in this is maybe to rely on my conscience and those I trust more, and not to worry about what anonymous commenters think.
Great post Mike - I have only a few comments to offer:
1. Re St George, fortunately the East saved his reputation and kept accounts of his heroic life that were not extant in Rome (indeed I have been told the account of St George’s obscure but miraculous life as it existed in Rome was placed on the forbidden book list in the late 6th century). As someone with English heritage, I give thanks to our eastern brothers and sisters in keeping the flame - however, it is fair to say George’s association with the Crusades compromises his contemporary appeal.
2. Re WPI’s ‘leftist’ bent - this is a tough one as we are clearly living in a political landscape where the supporters of both the Left and the Right (in both secular politics and ecclesial politics) is increasingly illiberal. I would posit WPI is seeking to hold a centre position of, for want of a better term, ‘liberalism’, as classically defined. As you know, I’m a long time traditional mass going Catholic who’s friends (sadly) are all Taylor Marshall / Vigano fans. I see the only path forward for me and WPI is to adopt your correspondent’s advice wherein he ‘want(s) to encourage us all to be as charitable as we can to each other, try to see each other's points of view, acknowledge the plausibility of each other's thoughts and ideas (even if disagreeing on some points), and not let our disagreements turn into more conflict or animosity than they need to.’ Amen