St. Ignatius Loyola
The term “Woke” is often used to refer to “politically liberal or progressive especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme.” That is the definition I mean here. And the magazine I am referring to is the Jesuit magazine America. I am led to this assessment by a number of essays, three of which I will examine here.
1) “Trump’s ‘terrorizing’ plan to mass deport immigrants: ‘It would rip us apart’” The author is a “senior editor” at America Magazine. He begins by quoting Donald Trump’s promise to direct “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country” and notes that Trump “focused on stories of violent crimes committed by undocumented immigrants rather than the causes that drive migrants north and the contribution they make to American society.
The remainder of the editor’s over 1200-word essay consists almost entirely of statements of four people who categorically reject Trump’s plan. The editor, however, does not point out that the four “focus” entirely on favorable views of the undocumented immigrants. (The implication is that it is perfectly reasonable for them to focus on their rationale but dastardly for Trump to focus on his.) The four claim that “politicians can exploit and promote a politics of fear and instrumentalize immigration for their own personal benefit.” The results, they suggest, include “a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety among ordinary newcomers in our country “; dangerous and sometimes deadly “ripple effects”; the “terrorizing” of families; the “raiding” of workplaces; and the “demonization” and “exclusion of immigrants.”
One of the four says that Trump “taps into [citizens’ concern], fully knowing how the system works. So, it’s very disingenuous.” And what makes it especially hurtful is the fact that the illegal migrants “contribute to our society. They are full of faith. They want to be good citizens.” Moreover, they “provide labor” and “pay taxes.”
Another of the four, a representative of a Catholic agency, claims “some really bad things” happened when Trump was president, but the Catholic church returns to “the Gospel mission, to welcoming the stranger. Mass deportations or family separation go against our Catholic values. We don’t talk politics. We talk about our Gospel and our mission.”
We should not ignore the fact that the author of the essay constructed it. He chose the four contributors, selected and arranged their contributions. More importantly, he decided to omit counter viewpoints. The result is an essay “politically liberal or progressive especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme,” or in short, WOKE.
2) “‘Stop Donald Trump’ isn’t enough. The Democratic Party needs a deeper message to win the election.” The author is a production editor at America Magazine. The last two thirds of his essay consist of thoughtful suggestions of how the Democratic Party can improve its strategy for the 2024 election and improve their chances of defeating Donald Trump. There is nothing Woke in this section–just good, carefully reasoned ideas. However, the first third of the essay is a different matter. It includes these passages:
“Mr. Trump represents chaos at best, and an outright assault on democratic institutions at worst (a scenario made more plausible by the recent Supreme Court decision making it more difficult to prosecute a president for breaking the law).” COMMENT: The author does not support his assertion about chaos or outright assault, and that is irresponsible on its face. Trump was President. He has a record of action and inaction, most of which is available to the public. There was neither chaos nor assault in that record, either at home or around the world. In fact, the only disruption was caused by Democrats’ fruitless search for malfeasance, but that can hardly be blamed on Trump. And, notwithstanding the link to John Dean, the “plausibility” the author speaks of rests on the unwarranted assumption that prior innocence is likely to lead to future guilt.
“Either of these outcomes is alarming to someone who has economic stability, or who lives in a community that has seen less crime and more economic growth in recent decades. But there are Americans who have neither experience, and their support of Mr. Trump has made him a political force for almost a decade. . .” COMMENT: Was the intention here to disparage Trump and his supporters in one fell swoop? If so, it doesn’t work. Economic instability and increasing crime have tended to be found in Democrat-run cities and states, and voters who live there have not been Trump supporters (though a good number may become so).
“Too many people opposing Mr. Trump have adopted the us-vs.-them mentality of far-right political figures like Steve Bannon. But if the Republican Party is a threat to democratic and all civic institutions (and there is ample evidence that a second Trump administration would be such a threat), the answer is not to create a mirror image of Trumpism on the left.” COMMENT: The “ample evidence” cited is from The Guardian, which has been rated left-leaning, with mixed factual reporting and medium credibility. The Guardian, in turn, links to other sources such as Politico, more credible but also left-leaning. As for the “threat to democratic and all civic institutions,” it seems to refer mostly to hyperbolic ways of saying Trump promises to honor the Constitution, replace appointed officials who oppose his programs with those who support them, and enforce existing border laws. If the editor wanted to avoid the WOKE practice of being unreasonable or extreme, he would have noted that Trump’s four years in office produced not a single threat to the country or its institutions except disagreeing with progressives, which cannot reasonably be counted against him.
3) “The Last Supper’ Olympics controversy and the temptation of outrage” The author, an associate editor at America, reacted in this essay to the mockery of the “Last Supper at the 2024 Olympics.” His criticism was mainly of those Catholics and other Christians who took offense. The editor begins by being facetious: “I must have missed it live, but when I saw in my social media feed the supposed “Last Supper” display at the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics, I shrugged, had some vague thoughts about Frenchness and cringe attempts at being avant garde, but I kept scrolling and moved on with my evening. Turns out, I should have been outraged—so moved at the mocking of my religion that I should have posted about it, prayed and fasted in reparation for the blasphemy, and probably posted about that fasting for good measure.”
Then he spoke his mind: “The truth is, I just don’t care all that much about being insulted. I don’t think you should care that much. And I don’t think Jesus cares all that much, either! But I do care about how we respond. And I think this moment lays out the possibilities of, and problems with, the church’s approach to evangelization in the 21st century.” COMMENT: It seems, at very least, presumptuous to speak for Jesus, particularly when the implication is “Jesus agrees with me.”
” . . . Elon Musk, who posted on X the night of the opening ceremony: ‘Unless there is more bravery to stand up for what is fair and right, Christianity will perish.’ Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester commented on Musk’s post, saying: ‘My mentor Cardinal Francis George remarked that the Christian faith can be lost in a single generation, if Christians aren’t vigilant.’ I have become increasingly convinced that this defensive posture is a more effective recruitment message for populist politicians than it is for evangelization. Here’s the thing: In the United States and Europe, it’s true that the world is more secular. I grant that premise. But I don’t think we’ve developed an effective response to that situation. People are ready to be moved when they turn on the Olympics—feel-good stories abound! If you seek it out, you will find the church there, ready to offer the Good News. But there are loud voices drowning out all of that with outrage. Instead of inviting people in, I fear most people will come away from the Olympics viewing us as the church who cried persecution.” COMMENT: Unfortunately, the editor left out the Bishop’s next sentences: “However, it won’t be Christianity that will perish, but Western Civilization. You cannot separate a tree from its roots and have the tree survive.” This deeper point would have made the author’s dismissal of Barron more difficult. But that omission was not the author’s only mistake. His notion that objecting to mockery of a hallowed moment in Christian belief should be avoided because it will drown out feel-good stories is, in my view, a perfect example of WOKEISM.
That the examples of Wokeism discussed in this essay appeared in a Catholic Magazine and were written by editors is sad enough, but even sadder is the fact that the magazine and the Jesuit order that sponsors it were once highly regarded for their penetrating analysis of challenging issues. If they still merited that honor, their essays would have included facts and perspectives shamefully ignored by “progressive” venues.
Copyright © 2024 by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. All rights reserved.
