In his recent op-ed piece on the supposed nefarious influence of Catholic natural law on the good of the American public (“Will influence of Catholic ‘natural law’ make America medieval?” Jan. 18), Peter H. Schwartz regrettably errs on several significant counts. While it is true that the natural law is indeed a foundational truth underlying Catholic moral teaching, it is an egregious falsehood to claim that it constitutes the underpinning of a vicious “assault upon Enlightenment liberalism,” as Schwartz asserts.
Natural law recognizes the fundamental dignity of every person and demands that they be treated with compassion and justice. While the law consists of certain principles and truths that some find challenging and disagree with, those truths in no way sanction behavior that is of the “censorious, hating kind,” as Schwartz claims.
Nor is it the case that the Catholic Church calls for the application of the law univocally and without nuance. Indeed, the Catholic Catechism states: “Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds all among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.”
The Catholic Church embodies a diversity of public voices that include the likes of Popes Benedict and Francis, Cardinals Francis George, Robert McElroy and Sean O’Malley, professor Helen Alvaré and Sister Helen Prejean, to name but a few. In Chicago, it carries the Christ-centered mission of Catholic Charities, Misericordia, Mercy Home for Boys and Girls and more than 200 parishes throughout the Archdiocese.
It would be naïve to deny that much harm has, and can, be done by professed Catholics in the supposed name of natural law. But the strongest and most decisive critic of would-be Christians is authentic Christianity itself. To suggest that hateful, immoral behavior is being driven by a cabal of the Catholic Church wielding the axe of natural law is to engage in the very hate- and fearmongering that Schwartz seems to eschew.
Wrong behavior is wrong behavior, whether perpetrated by “Enlightenment liberalism,” “Catholic traditionalism” or any other faction. What is true and good and just must always oppose it, and that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Catholic Church as much as anyone.
— Father John Kartje, rector, Mundelein Seminary
The laws that really matter
Op-ed writer Peter H. Schwartz was roundly pilloried in letters to the editor (Jan. 23) for his opinions about some of the medieval notions of the Catholic tradition. It is not unexpected that the wagons would encircle the Catholic Church and provide a spirited defense, as reflected in many of the letters. The issue here is not to impugn the individual Catholics who are decent people and who contribute to a more just society. The issue is with the so-called immutability and “truth” of Catholic doctrine about “natural law.” If one believes it is of divine origin, then no debate is possible when critical thinking is preempted by unwavering and unquestioning faith.
The notion of “natural law” as a guidepost for Catholics is nebulous. The only laws that really matter are the ones arrived at as our civilization evolved toward the principles of equality, morality and a fair society. These are not exclusively Catholic or Christian ideas but are fundamentally Judaic.
If it is the case that many supporters of Donald Trump are Catholics, then there is a cognitive disconnect by one letter writer who said that “Catholic faith supports our modern claims to political freedom.” The disconnect is that many Catholics support Trump, who, to put it mildly, is the antithesis of a peace-and-love humanitarian.
— Ronald Kallen, Highland Park
Seceding from the state
The talk of Illinois counties separating from our state is not new. In 1861, “Little Egypt,” the southern part of Illinois represented by loyal Union Democratic Congressman and Stephen Douglas supporter John Logan, looked at separating from the state because of political and cultural differences. Sound familiar?
My wife and I love our state and have taken many a car trip enjoying it. Those talking of a move now can come on up and visit us. Would love to talk and learn.
— Bill Termini, Chicago
Majority rule as tyranny?
Regarding moving the Illinois-Indiana border, majority rule is the opposite of tyranny, as Collin Moseley, director of the Illinois Freedom Caucus, must have learned before graduating from the University of Illinois. Democrats facing Republican legislatures from Tennessee to Texas are quite familiar with this.
But in any case, it is not surprising that both the definition and the practice of democracy are apparently too liberal for Republicans these days, who besides ignoring the Constitution have collectively become the whiners’ party.
— Dan Witte, Forest Park
True investment in artists
Recent discussions around “Team Culture” and revitalizing downtown Chicago through arts programming recall the city’s long history of using culture for economic development. From the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition to Expo Chicago (now owned by entertainment giant Frieze), Chicago has sought to capitalize on the arts for investment and tourism. Yet, this approach often prioritizes commercial outcomes over sustainable artistic ecosystems.
As executive director of Bridge, a publishing and programming nonprofit organization, I have firsthand experience with this. In the early 2000s, we staged floating exhibitions on Lake Michigan, lobbied for protections for artist-run spaces and created Chicago’s first “L” train art event, the Fashion Train at Nova Art Fair (2005). Bridge helped shift focus away from Chicago’s limited art market to explore new international opportunities, particularly Art Basel Miami Beach. While widely celebrated at the time, these market-centric efforts had limited sustainability.
Many of today’s proposed cultural interventions echo these past experiments, while still lacking long-term artist investment required to spark substantial long-term change.
Take for example New York’s Creatives Rebuild New York, a $125 million initiative providing $65,000 annual salaries to 2,700 artists. By comparison, Chicago continues to frame artists as just tools for economic activation within gimmicky schemes rather than as the essential cultural builders they are.
Developers often promote the myth that artists lead economic growth, yet history shows that artists — like galleries — move in search of affordable spaces. Without sustainable investment, revitalization efforts remain short-term spectacles.
Chicago also lags behind New York’s international art market and Los Angeles’ industrialized entertainment sector. While Wall Street wealth and Hollywood incentives fuel cultural economies elsewhere, Chicago continues to underfund creative infrastructure. As we shift toward a creative economy, failing to invest will sideline Chicago globally and exclude us from a new potential boom industry.
Post-COVID-19 funding disparities highlight further issues. Museums, theaters and performing arts received the bulk of funding, while literary and similarly less spectacle-oriented arts remain significantly underfunded. We must rethink our priorities. Much of this investment is driven by tourism economics, not artistic sustainability, leading to a cycle of short-lived commercial renewals that predictably fizzle out.
If Chicago wants actual revitalization, it must prioritize greater direct investment to artists. Research across the creative industry sector proves that direct financial support fosters economic stability and innovation. Without this shift, Chicago’s cultural strategies will remain temporary, unsustainable and ineffective.
— Michael Workman, development coordinator, Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
