Customise Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorised as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyse the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customised advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyse the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

In defense of George Weigel

Dr. Raymond Bahr’s criticism (CR Letters, July 15) of a George Weigel column (CR July 1) was based in large measure upon a misreading of his position.

Weigel did not, as Bahr maintains, reference “mistakes of Vatican II,” but rather an erroneous interpretation of the Council that is often used to justify dissent by those who stubbornly self-identify as “Catholic.”

Dr. Bahr is correct – one will find Christ in service to the poor, but since Jesus defined the mission as “baptizing and teaching all (not some, but all) that I have commanded,” a truncated version of Catholicism (or “Catholic Lite” as Weigel calls it) can hardly be considered authentic.

If that view is divisive, as Bahr so labels it, I would suggest that his argument isn’t so much with Weigel, but with the Lord who also said, “One is either with me or against me.”

Catholic Review

The Catholic Review is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

En español »