Recently there's been a spate of articles, by Patrick J. Deneen, Rod Dreher and Bonchamps of The American Catholic, all of whom argue from a single premiss: The struggle for the soul of American Catholics is no longer between "liberals" and "conservatives" as the MSM defines these camps (I prefer the terms "progressive" and "orthodox"), but rather between different strains of conservative Catholics. Claims Deneen:
The real action does not involve liberal "Catholics" at all. Liberal Catholicism, while well-represented in elite circles of the Democratic Party, qua Catholicism is finished. Liberal Catholicism has no future—like liberal Protestantism, it is fated to become liberalism simpliciter within a generation. The children of liberal Catholics will either want their liberalism unvarnished by incense and holy water, or they will rebel and ask if there’s something more challenging, disobeying their parents by “reverting” to Catholicism. While "liberal" Catholicism will appear to be a force because it will continue to have political representation, as a "project" and a theology, like liberal Protestantism it is doomed to oblivion.
Someone needs to tell liberal Catholics that. Angela Bonavoglia, feminist columnist and useful idiot for HuffPo, is also the author of Good Catholic Girls: How Women Are Leading the Fight to Change the Church, and is still very much under the impression that the fight isn't doomed. Same with Kate Childs Graham, a gay feminist whose rationale for calling herself a "pro-choice Catholic" is as narcissistic and intellectually dishonest today as it was when first published by the National Catholic Fishwrap five years ago. Neither Bonavoglia nor Graham are "baby-boomers"; they're as much "Generation X" as I am (perhaps more, as I was born close to the cusp between the two cohorts). And lest you think I'm picking on feminists, let me refer you back to Young Catholics for Choice, who don't just support abortion upon request but rather a whole host of positions that run counter to Catholic moral dogma. YCFC is by no means populated by aging hippies, but rather is run by and for twenty- and thirty-somethings.
This is not to say that Deneen's postulate — "liberal Catholicism" will eventually become irreligious progressivism — is incorrect. No, the error is in deciding that, because liberal Catholicism is doomed, it's no longer a valid source of concern.
In some orthodox Catholic circles, it's common to speak of "the biological solution". It's established that social conservatives tend to have more children than do political liberals. It's easy to look at this fact and get sidetracked into a discussion about comparative education, IQs and income levels. The point, however, is that by advocating, supporting and living according to an ideology that consciously and deliberately depresses birth rates, progressives commit themselves to a declining presence in society — that is, if Darwin is anything to shout about. Put another way, progressives are slowly contracepting, aborting and sodomizing themselves out of the gene pool, or at least out of dominating it. (And liberals are supposed to be both more intelligent and better educated?)