In Touchstone, Austin Ruse contemplates the mysteries of John Allen

Allen has achieved something remarkable, though, and that is genuine dialogue among sometimes competing voices in the church. He has written often about the lamentable factions among the faithful, each with its own publications, conferences, sympathetic bishops, and so on. His observation is that these groups tend not to talk to each other, but to shout past each other.

But Allen has built a space where progressives and conservatives do speak directly to each other, at least through him. And he has achieved this by being remarkably fair to the side with which his sympathies do not lie—that is, to conservatives, who have grown to trust him. All the while the progressives may grumble, but they figure Allen is still one of them, and they are probably right.

A good, fair piece. I think Ruse also gets something else right, something I’ve been trying to articulate in this space of late, in re Catholic abortion rights supporting politicians:

Allen attempted to improve the progressive argument through a carefully crafted hypothetical question he repeatedly asked priests, theologians, and bishops: If a Catholic politician agreed with church teaching on abortion, backed up that belief with personal efforts to promote childbirth over abortion, but voted against measures to criminalize abortion out of a sincere belief that such measures would force abortion underground or cause even more abortions, would this position be acceptable within Catholic moral principles?

The problems with this hypothetical question are numerous, but perhaps the most obvious is that it was asked during discussions of a candidate who did not remotely resemble the hypothetical candidate described. Neither did the platform of his political party. The question was irrelevant to the matters at hand, but it speaks volumes about the progressive project to make pro-choice politicians morally acceptable.