These stories have at times been pathways to healing and change. But they’re difficult stories. And I’m still processing how they came to be. A few thoughts…

Catholic ministries often rely on religiously motivated young adults to do the work. Because they are often young, naive, and trusting of religious authorities, young missionaries don’t question what they are told, which can have severe spiritual, psychological, and even legal consequences:

Because of their naïveté, these young missionaries will often agree to extreme working conditions with minimal support. And they spend years, and even decades, processing what they went through:

Many attribute their ongoing mental health struggles to their time in these ministries. For many, these forums for discussion were the first time that they could express these struggles and realize they were not alone:

Young missionaries, barely adults themselves, were put in positions to have extreme influence over very vulnerable young people. They were poorly equipped to handle many issues, and frequently exacerbated harms experienced by the young people they were “serving”:

Women experienced constant sexual shaming. And they were groomed to blame themselves if they suffered sexual assault or other violence:

Many were underpaid or experienced other unjust employment practices. One woman even shared her story of wage theft by the ministry Blessed is She while she was battling cancer. (You can watch my discussion with Lindsay Shaw on the Mezzo podcast.)

I’ve heard story after story of women suffering sexual harassment and violence in Catholic ministries:

Black and brown missionaries, employees, and others experienced particular challenges and issues. Like many institutions, these ministries tried to hide their lack of diversity through tokenization and other tactics:

Time and again, black Catholics struggled with belonging in these ministries. And when they tried to address issues, they were minimized by white leadership in these ministries:

Harmful conditions were perpetuated by pressures to keep them secret:

Too many expressed continued fears about coming forward:

But some ministries used my open stories to reach out and offer support in their own ways. While there are many issues with Catholic ministries, some within them want to drive change:

Others hoped to use these stories so they could better serve in these ministries. They saw the stories as a valuable resource for their service in and for the Church:

And, as hard as these stories were to share and to read, they offered relief. I received so much gratitude from former missionaries and employees who, sometimes for the first time, felt they were not alone. That relief is reason enough to share.

I’ve decided to open up these discussions again, starting with the ministry Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS). You might be shocked at some of what I’ve uncovered. You can follow along over at my Instagram account, and I’ll likely share some of those stories here as well.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Rather than debating DEI, merit, or politics in the abstract, I wanted to explain what these conversations have looked like in my own life. As a gay Catholic and lawyer, I've experienced both opportunities that were closed to me because of my identity and opportunities that were opened through diversity initiatives. In this episode, I discuss losing a Vatican internship despite being the top candidate, why a corporate diversity externship changed the trajectory of my career, how discrimination has shaped my life, and why I believe these conversations are far more complicated than today's popular political commentary suggests.

Whether you agree with me or not, my hope is that this conversation encourages greater empathy and a deeper understanding of the people on the other side of our political disagreements.

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

And now one of us has cancer. Ben shared his diagnosis with the quad squad a couple of months ago. It was bad. But he found out last week that it’s much worse than they thought. It’s horrible. We haven’t even hit our late thirties. It’s been a lot to process. It’s not fair. The best his employer can offer is unpaid leave. So he’s fighting for his life with only savings to live on. Ben doesn’t deserve this. But who does?

If you’re a praying person, Ben and his family have asked for the intercession of Blessed Chiara Badano and Venerable Fulton Sheen. We spent many of our most formative years together, and Ben helped to shape who I am. I’m sure that he’s shaped some of what I’ve written here for all of you. So I’d personally also appreciate it if you’d consider donating to the gofundme in support of him.

Largely because of this experience, I’ve decided to adjust my podcast schedule and today am sharing with you my discussion with Simon Fung. Simon is also a friend, as well as the creator of the acclaimed (and #1 ranking) Dear Alana podcast. In the podcast, Simon explored the life and death of Alana Chen, a young Catholic who died after having suffered through conversion therapy and toxic messages in the Church. It’s a story of grief, but also of hope for the future. Simon hopes that Alana’s story can help the Church learn and grow, and support others who may be suffering like Alana.

In this episode of Mezzo, Simon and I discuss grief, creativity, Catholicism, deconstruction, conversion therapy, life, death, building bridges across divides, and much more. I reflect on spending the night with a close friend while her father died and how this has changed me. I loved this conversation because it also gives you a look into the sorts of conversations that can happen when friends care deeply about these questions. This episode was a peek into the sorts of conversations that we have all the time.

Actually, this is a peek into the sorts of conversations I’ve been having with my closest friends for most of my life. Before there was Chris and Simon, there was Chris, Kevin, Elliott, and Ben (and the other Chris). I’ve been very lucky my whole life to have reflective funny nerds among my friends. I have a lot of grief over this time of suffering. But also so much gratitude.

Watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

It began when I wrote about how the Catholic ministry for individuals with “same-sex attraction” was misrepresenting its relationship to conversion therapy and to a credibly accused child sexual abuser who once led the ministry. Courage engaged a specialized law firm to threaten me with legal action over my use of the Courage logo as the thumbnail for the post. I responded with a letter stating that I disagreed with them legally, that I was following the call of Pope Leo XIV to not let abuses be swept “under the carpet,” and that, as a gesture of good faith, I would be willing to move the logo into the body of the post with a caption clarifying why I was using it.

A couple of weeks ago, Courage’s attorney sent me a second letter. He demanded that I remove the ministry’s logo from any of my essays or articles about the ministry. Fortunately, Substack has a program where writers facing “unreasonable legal pressure” can get funding for legal counsel, and I was quickly accepted into the program.

In the meantime, various individuals shared with me their experiences with Courage. One person shared that, a year ago, a Courage chaplain was arrested for child sexual abuse, and in April of this year he pleaded guilty. As in prior cases, rather than disclosing that information, Courage quietly removed the chaplain from their website, despite the fact that he had regularly been representing Courage at events and on the radio, and allegedly even had taped an EWTN interview promoting the ministry. And so I found myself in the ironic and horrible position of Courage threatening me because of an article I wrote about their misrepresentations of a child sexual abuser, and that threat resulting in uncovering yet another child sexual abuser among the ministry’s leadership this year.

Rather than focusing on the issue of their repeated misrepresentations of child sexual abusers, Courage has chosen to focus on the issue of my using their logo in a Substack post. They even engaged an expensive attorney to threaten me over it. This gives an unfortunate look into the priorities of the ministry and a sense of how they would handle individuals raising issues concerning it.

I’ve copied below my attorney’s response. In short, my attorney says that Courage doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, and that if they think they have legal support for their arguments, then they should cite that support (which they failed to do in their prior two letters).

This is not the original draft of my attorney’s response. In a prior version, my counsel had taken a harsher tone, at one point summarizing the arguments of Courage’s attorney and then following that summary with a paragraph consisting of a single sentence: “Preposterous.” But I shared with Mr. Wolfe of RWH Law that, while I thought the letter’s tone and content were fair and reasonable, what I hoped to express was more disappointment with the tactics of the ministry and their counsel, rather than outrage at their behavior. My goal isn’t to demolish them with legal arguments, but to raise awareness of continued issues of abuse in the Church and how we can do better in the future. I’m grateful to my counsel for taking the time to understand my aims and values as a Catholic here and crafting his response accordingly.

Here is that response:

Re: Second Demand By Courage International, Inc., your ref. 1857-M0001

Dear Mr. Kinney:

I represent Christopher Damian, with whom you have been corresponding regarding the demands of Courage International, Inc. (“Courage”), dated June 4th and August 3rd. Your client has taken exception to Mr. Damian’s use of a Courage trademark in his newsletter commentary and demanded that Mr. Damian “remov[e] the Courage Mark . . . from all [his] publications.” This demand is unsupported by law and — worse — has the appearance of arising from Courage’s discomfort with Mr. Damian’s public criticism. While Mr. Damian continues to hope that this dispute can be resolved amicably, he will not be coerced into forfeiting his First Amendment rights.

I have noted that in neither of your letters do you cite to any authority. Not at any point or for any claim — and certainly not for the extraordinary proposition that any “unauthorized use” of the Courage Mark is not “legally permissible.” To the contrary, regarding my client’s astute and accurate observation that the absence of any possibility of consumer confusion bears heavily on the legality of his published works, the totality of Courage’s argument on the merits was that it “disagreed.”

Needless to say, Courage’s bare assertion of disagreement is not persuasive.

“Trademark owners have no right in gross.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications, 28 F.3d 769, 777 (8th Cir. 1994). “[T]he sine qua non of trademark infringement is consumer confusion.” Network Automation Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts Inc., 638 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2011), cf., Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications, 28 F.3d 769, 777 (8th Cir. 1994) (“[A] trademark infringement action requires a likelihood of confusion”). The Lanham Act does not make this crucial feature of the law obscure; it incorporates confusion at the heart of its statutory tests for infringement. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a)(1). But perhaps your client’s disagreement is not about this foundational feature of trademark law, but rather about the potential for Mr. Damian’s publications to somehow cause confusion despite their expressly critical posture and prominent disclaimers. To the extent this is the case, then Mr. Damian respectfully requests details as to which features of his publications continue to give your client bona fide trademark concerns. Mere disagreement is neither helpful nor actionable.

Meanwhile, please recognize that Mr. Damian has a substantial First Amendment interest in providing commentary on your client and its activities, an interest which includes accurately identifying your client through reference to its marks. Yes, trademark interests can prevail over the First Amendment when a trademark is used without permission as a means of source identification. Jack Daniel’s Props. v. VIP Prods., 599 U.S. 140, 154 (2023). But you have not alleged, and cannot reasonably allege, that Mr. Damian’s use of Courage’s mark in an editorial context in a critical article is use “as a mark.” For such editorial, expressive uses, First Amendment considerations bear very heavily indeed. See, e.g., Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2nd Cir. 1989); cf., Jack Daniel’s, 599 U.S. at 153 (“[actionable] confusion is most likely to arise when someone uses another’s trademark as a trademark—meaning, again, as a source identifier.”).

Finally, please note that — contrary to the characterization of your most recent letter — Mr. Damian has not at any stage “admitted” to an “inappropriate use of a Courage Mark.” To the contrary, Mr. Damian could not have been clearer when he wrote in his letter of June 11th that, “I believe my use . . . is legally permissible.” Is it possible that you are attempting to characterize the proactive steps Mr. Damian has taken to avoid further dispute as an admission? My client is comfortable knowing that going above and beyond to minimize the possibility of consumer confusion following receipt of your initial demand reflects his good faith in this matter and nothing else.

If Courage has bona fide, legally substantiated concerns, it is invited to provide them. The letters received to date fall short of this standard. Addressed as these have been to a publication that has been highly and publicly critical of your client, it is hard to conclude that they are anything other than intimidation meant to discourage Mr. Damian from exercising his First Amendment rights. If so, it is not working.

Separately, Mr. Damian wishes to reiterate that he bears no ill will toward Courage, good faith criticisms and differences notwithstanding. He sincerely hopes that he and Courage may enjoy a friendlier and more productive relationship in the future, anchored in shared faith.

Sincerely,

Michael Wolfe

RWH Law Inc.

A part of me thinks that this whole ordeal has been a complete waste of time. And yet I’m glad that I didn’t cave and just comply with Courage’s threats here. I raised these issues and wrote about them, which led to uncovering another child abuser among its leadership and a series of reflections on how Church leaders can make use of legal counsel in a way that is more compatible with Christian faith and the calling of the Church. While this work is small and the impact may not be great, I’m incredibly proud to be able to engage in it with you all. I’ve learned a lot through this experience, and I’m grateful to have the opportunity to share some of that with you.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

In the latest Mezzo episode, I examine Bishop Robert Barron's response to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and use it as a starting point to explore more than a century of Catholic social teaching. What does Barron get right? And what does he get wrong? Looking at Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Laborem Exercens, Centesimus Annus, and the writings of Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, I explore how the Church's understanding of capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, collectivism, private property, and the common good has developed over time.

Rather than asking whether Catholics must embrace capitalism or socialism, I explore the principles that have remained constant throughout Catholic tradition: the dignity of work, the rights of workers, the universal destination of goods, private property, solidarity, subsidiarity, and the preferential option for the poor.

If you've ever wondered what Catholic social teaching actually says—and whether modern political labels fit the Church's tradition—this episode is for you. You can also read the text of this discussion below!

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Below is the full text from this video, with some edits…

What’s the relationship between Catholicism and socialism today? Many are familiar with Catholic critiques of socialism, especially in the mid to late twentieth century. But do these critiques hold up? To what extent is the “socialism” often addressed today consistent with the socialism discussed in papal encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno? To get a look into where Catholic leaders often get this wrong and why, we can examine a tweet from none other than Bishop Robert Barron.

In January, Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as the mayor of New York City. In his inaugural address, he shared his intention to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” Bishop Robert Barron, bishop of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester and a member of the Trump administration’s Religious Liberty Commission, was quick to criticize the mayor.

Mamdani and Barron

On Twitter, Barron quoted Mamdani’s praise of collectivism and said, “Collectivism in its various forms is responsible for the deaths of at least one hundred million people in the last century. Socialist and Communist forms of government around the world today–Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc.--are disastrous. Catholic social teaching has consistently condemned socialism and embraced the market economy, which people like Mayor Mamdani caricature as ‘rugged individualism.’... For God’s sake, spare me the ‘warmth of collectivism.’”

Now, I don’t think Barron is being entirely unfair when he says that Mamdani caricatures the market economy. But funny enough, Barron seems to do the same, both when it comes to collectivism and when it comes to Catholic teaching. He offers a good occasion for Catholics to think about the problems with various political and economic systems and how they might inform what we are doing today.

Socialism vs collectivism

To start, it might be good to distinguish between socialism and collectivism, which can shed some light on how the Church has critiqued socialism. Interestingly, Barron quotes what Mandami has to say about collectivism and then moves into a critique of socialism. But these two things are not the same. That’s why we have two different words for them.

What I’ll give here is just a very high level overview of some economic systems and principles, including collectivism and socialism. Because this is high level, I run the risk of giving a it of a caricature myself. So I’ll say at the outset that there’s much more nuance than I’ll be able to give right now, and I’d encourage you to continue digging in and learning in this space. I’ll also acknowledge that I’m going to frame collectivism as a principle and socialism as a system, which is not how everyone would distinguish the two. But this acknowledgement lends further support to how these ideas should be discussed with openness, nuance, and clarity as far as possible.

At a high level, collectivism can be framed in a number of ways. In general, collectivism gives special attention to and prioritizes communities of people, rather than the individual. Collectivism could focus on groups such as a state, a nation, a race, a religion, or a social class. Collectivism is often contrasted with individualism.

In the modern West, collectivism is often associated with the ideas of Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx. So collectivism can be seen as a principle, which then finds instantiation and interpretation in various economic systems. These include, but are not limited to, socialism, communism, and fascism.

Contrary to how it’s often discussed, collectivism is not absolute. So collectivism does not necessarily mean that the individual is always and every way subordinate to the state, where no private property is permitted. For example, socialism tends to hold that the government should own and administer the means of production and distribution, while social democracy holds that state regulation should be administered by and in ways democratically decided through elected governments, aimed at fairly distributing income while enabling economic growth. So socialism often takes collectivism as more of an absolute ideal, while social democracy leverages collectivism as more of a principle of prioritization within the context of democracy.

To further complicate matters, there are also social democrats and democratic socialists. Social democracy tends to hold that capitalism can be pursued positively through regulations and welfare programs within it that pursue equality and justice for society. So one could see social democrats and pro-capitalists that believe we need to humanize the system through regulation and welfare programs. By contrast, democratic socialism tends to hold that capital and the means of production must ultimately be socially owned and democratically controlled by the working class, because capitalism ultimately cannot be redeemed as an economic system consistent with the public good and human dignity. Mamdani identifies as a democratic socialist.

Interestingly, in 2006 Pope Benedict XVI said that “in many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social teaching.” But why? And why does Benedict’s position seem to be so drastically different from Barron’s? To help make sense of this, let’s take a look at Catholic social teaching.

CST on what about socialism is bad

In 1891, Pope Leo XIII published what is considered the first social encyclical, Rerum Novarum. The encyclical focuses on issues of capital and labor in the modern world, emphasizing the rights of the working class, including the right to form unions, and rejecting both emerging forms of socialism and unbridled capitalism.

It seeks remedy for “the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class” who are subjected to “the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition.” It criticizes the abandonment of religion by public institutions and the law in many countries, as well as the concentration of hiring and trade in the hands of a “small number of very rich men” in a way that is “little better than that of slavery itself.”

Pope Leo says that socialism has sought to remedy this by seeking the elimination of private property. But, he argues, “The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property.” He also criticizes socialism for its option to “intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household… setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision” over children. In contrast, he affirms the Aquinas’s position that a child should be “under the power and the charge of its parents” until it “attains the use of free will.”

Leo also criticizes socialism for its tendency to do away with social classes and hardships in life, saying that it’s natural for people to suffer and to “differ in capacity skill, health, [and] strength” that would lead to social classes. Leo argues that “capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital,” which should help lead to social cohesion. But he notes that this requires that both workers and employers have duties that they must respect. For example, he says that “justice… demands that the interests of the working classes should be carefully watched over by the administration [of the state], so that they who contribute so largely to the advantage of the community may themselves share in the benefits which they create-that being housed, clothed, and bodily fit, they may find their life less hard and more endurable.”

Pope Pius XI picked up these critiques of the tenets of Socialism in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. He emphasized the right to private property and pointed out how socialist prohibitions against private property did “extreme harm” to the working class. He criticized the view that all products, profits, and the means of production ought to “belong by very right to the workers.”

He identifies two strains of socialism, Communism and a more moderate form. Communism, he argues, grounds in “unrelenting class warfare” and seeks “absolute extermination of private ownership,” by any means, even violence.

The more moderate form, he says, “professes the rejection of violence” and presents more moderate views on class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. He writes that this “Socialism inclines toward and in a certain measure approaches the truths which Christian tradition has always held sacred; for it cannot be denied that its demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.” He says that the just demands and desires of this socialism “have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism.”

But he argues that where this more moderate Socialism goes wrong is that they continue to ground in class struggle and the abolition of ownership. He says that this movement, “if it remains truly Socialism… cannot be grounded with the teachings of the Catholic Church” because of its concept of society.” This is because of its indifference to the supernatural ends of man, and the subordination of material to higher goods. This, he argues, makes Socialism “irreconcilable with true Christianity.”

But note here that Pius doesn’t oppose the idea, or even the practice, of class struggle in its entirety. He picks up the idea made so prominent by Marx and gives it a positive place. He writes:

“if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice, and if this is not that blessed social peace which we all seek, it can and ought to be the point of departure from which to move forward to the mutual cooperation.”

A continued shift can be seen in the writings of John Paul II. In 1981 in Laborem Exercens he acknowledged “the real conflict between labour and capital,” which he says transformed into “a systematic class struggle” between “liberalism, understood as the ideology of capitalism, and Marxism, understood as the ideology of scientific socialism and communism.”

In the encyclical, he lays out two dimensions and three spheres of values to consider. There is an objective dimension of work, wherein man engages in activity upon an external object as part of his call to exercise “dominion” over the earth. And there is a subjective dimension, which takes precedence over the objective, which is the concrete reality of the specific worker which conditions “the ethical nature of work.”

When it comes to work, the first sphere of values concerns the personal dimension of human work. The second concerns how “work constitutes a foundation for the formation of family life,” which John Paul says “constitutes one of the most important terms of reference for shaping the social and ethical order of human work.” And the third sphere of values concerns the greater “society to which man belongs on the basis of particular cultural and historical links.” Together, John Paul says:

“These three spheres are always important for human work in its subjective dimension. And this dimension, that is to say, the concrete reality of the worker, takes precedence over the objective dimension.”

Considering all this, John Paul positively speaks of experts in the Church who have put forward “proposals for joint ownership of the means of work.” He does not insist on one approach but says that “it is clear that recognition of the proper position of labour and the worker in the production process demands various adaptations in the sphere of the right to ownership of the means of production.” He insists that “the position of ‘rigid’ capitalism must undergo continual revision, in order to be reformed from the point of view of human rights,” but he also says that “these many deeply desired reforms cannot be achieved by an a priori elimination of private ownership of the means of production.”

He worries that this sudden elimination and shift in authority may not necessarily lead to a respect for human dignity.

He writes:

“Thus, merely converting the means of production into State property in the collectivist system is by no means equivalent to “socializing” that property. We can speak of socializing only when the subject character of society is ensured, that is to say, when on the basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a part-owner of the great workbench at which he is working with every one else. A way towards that goal could be found by associating labour with the ownership of capital, as far as possible, and by producing a wide range of intermediate bodies with economic, social and cultural purposes; they would be bodies enjoying real autonomy with regard to the public powers, pursuing their specific aims in honest collaboration with each other and in subordination to the demands of the common good, and they would be living communities both in form and in substance, in the sense that the members of each body would be looked upon and treated as persons and encouraged to take an active part in the life of the body.”

John Paul II does not align the Church cleanly with either collectivism or capitalism. While adopting, and even promoting, many ideas associated with collectivism, socialism, and similar movements, he also condemns pure forms of capitalism.

He writes:

“[The Church’s affirmation of private property] diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism and put into practice in various countries in the decades following the time of Leo XIII’s Encyclical. At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism practised by liberalism and by the political systems inspired by it. In the latter case, the difference consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood. Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.”

It’s important to note that John Paul and others popes in this tradition over time adopted into the Church’s language the language of Marxism, in relying on terms and concepts such as labor, “social leader,” “alienation,” “transformation of nature,” “proletarianization,” and “class struggle.”

Ten years later, in Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II again explored questions concerning socialism and capitalism. He offers a review of the development of Catholic social teaching from the time of Rerum Novarum and its critique of socialism and liberalism, which would come to be associated with capitalism over time. He reaffirms Leo XIII’s affirmation of the right to private property, in contrast to the socialist movements he critiques. John Paul sees Leo as “defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of private property”, and he identifies a State system which does away with individual possessions as “Real Socialism.”

At the same time, while John Paul does not see a “special section” devoted to liberalism in Rerum Novarum, he emphasizes how the State cannot favor the rich and prosperous or neglect the rest of society. “When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration,” especially since “the richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State.”

John Paul gives clarity on what exactly is problematic in the various forms of socialism he and his predecessors criticize. The ideology draws from an “atheistic source” and “considers the individual person simply as an element” where reference is lost to his free choice and “the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism.”

At the same time John Paul says, “it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called ‘Real Socialism’ leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization.” He insists upon the necessity of breaking “down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development.” He argues that stronger nations must offer weaker nations opportunities.

John Paul says capitalism can be the model that ought to be proposed for developing nations, depending on how you understand the concept. He says that “if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.” But, he writes, “if by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy’, ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy’.”

Capitalism ought to be strongly regulated, partly to ensure that the universal destination of material goods is respected. He writes that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone.”

This principle can be seen at work in paragraph 2446 of the Catechism, first promulgated by John Paul II in 1992, a year after Centesimus Annus. Paragraph 2446 quotes St. John Chrysostom: “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them… The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.” That is, the Church teaches that when the wealthy do not give to the poor, they are committing theft. The Church teaches that this is not a matter of charity, but of justice.

What I want to emphasize at this point is how John Paul II places more emphasis on principled and practical distinctions than he does on the terminology itself. When one asks whether capitalism is acceptable, he responds not by saying yes or no, but by asking, “What do you mean by that?” These are all developing concepts and ideas, changing through history. And the Church draws from Her tradition to respond to the times. This helps to explain the Church’s evolving relationship to both capitalism and socialism.

Pope Benedict XVI further developed this tradition in distinguishing various movements. In his essay, Europe and Its Discontents, he discusses various models for the relationship between Church and state, including the model of socialism which he splits into two branches.

He writes that democratic socialism served as a “welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions” prevalent as it emerged, becoming the political party of Catholics in England and Germany. Benedict wrote,

“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”

He contrasted this with “the totalitarian model” which “was associated with a rigidly materialistic, atheistic philosophy of history,” drawing the world through various phases until it surpassed religion and sought a “collective happiness… guaranteed by the workings of material conditions.”

What Benedict critiqued specifically in the failed Communist regimes over the prior century was their overly firm commitment to fallacious ideologies. He wrote, “The Communist systems collapsed under the weight of their own fallacious economic dogmatism.” He noted that the “greatest catastrophe encountered by such systems was not economic” but was their “contempt for human rights and their subordination of morals to the demands of the system and the promise of a future.”

But he saw the moral failures still alive in his time, and he saw three elements of a Christian response for Europe. First was “the unconditionality with which human rights and human dignity should be presented as values that take precedence over any state jurisdiction,” where human rights transcend citizenship status and the dictates of rules. Second is the centrality of the family in monogamous marriage between man and woman. And third is a respect for the sacred and religion, where multicultural respect must include a respect for Christianity.

This brings us to the papacy of Pope Francis, who did not say too much about these systems, but who offered a development consistent with his predecessors.

In 2013, Pope Francis was asked about being described as a Marxist and responded, “The ideology of Marxism is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” He reiterated his criticisms of “trickle-down” economics, saying that this does not come from being a Marxist but from the social doctrine of the Church.

Nonetheless, he joined his predecessors in exploring positive things that could be gained from a dialogue with the ideas of Marxism. In a 2016 interview, Francis was asked whether his yearning “for a society where equality dominates” had him thinking of “a Marxist type of society.” In response, he said:

“It has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians. Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalized have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas, but the people, the poor, whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not. It is they who must help to achieve equality and freedom.”

And in 2024, Pope Francis called for greater dialogue between Marxists and Christians. At a reception with the Marxist-Christian dialogue group Dialop, he said, “Do not allow finance and the market to dictate the law.” Interestingly, we can see this cutting both ways, as a critique of various forms of Marxism as well as various forms of capitalism.

Development

Returning to the question of social and economic systems, what we see over time in the Church is an evolving relationship between Catholicism, capitalism, socialism, and other systems, structures, and ideas. The Church has outlined key principles which can be used to evaluate whether various systems and ideologies comport with the good and human dignity. The failures of socialism were specific to certain forms, and as socialism has evolved over time, so has the Church’s relationship to it. Though there has not been a wholesale affirmation of one form of socialism, as we moved into the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we saw positions from which to consider and critique various forms of socialism, and ways to even affirm positive aspects of them.

Often, when we look at Catholic teaching on society and economics, we see paired concepts that operate in a dynamic tension, such as the concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity. The Church’s consideration of collectivism and individualism, liberalism and Marxism, capitalism and socialism, has helped develop this over time.

So let’s return to Bishop Barron’s tweet. In it, he appears to do to Mamdani what so many have done to Francis: conflating concerns with ideological theories. Just as many called Francis’s concern for the poor and critique of capitalism an expression of Marxism, Barron equates Mamdani’s praise of collectivism with a praise of socialism.

And he actually misses the kind of socialist that Mamdani is. He is not a socialist and communist in the vein of Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, which Barron focuses on. Rather, Mamdani is a democratic socialist more in the vein of countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. So Barron accuses Mamdani of caricaturing individualism, while Barron in the same breath caricatures collectivism.

None of this is to argue that the Church insists upon either capitalism or socialism as ideal systems. Rather, the Church has grave critiques of both, especially when presented in absolute forms. It’s fair to say that the Church had spoken more forcefully against socialism through the mid- to late twentieth century. But the Church’s focus has developed over time, just as the instantiation of these systems and ideologies have developed over time. What has not changed, however, is the Church’s belief in the value of private property, the justice in common use, the dignity of work, the rights of the worker, and the preferential option for the poor.

Barron seems to miss this when he acts as a cardboard cutout of rightwing partisan politics. But we don’t have to.

In some ways, Fr. Mendez was positioned to be a rising star among Courage leadership. One individual reached out to me as a result of my writings on these issues and shared with some frustration:

“The Diocese of Boise’s only Courage/EnCourage chapter lasted just ONE YEAR before their chaplain (Fr. Roberto Mendez) was arrested to face life in prison for the abuse of a high school student he met on Grindr. Fr. Mendez (who has since been sentenced to 15 years) was actually invited to EWTN for an interview (taped but never aired) about his work with Courage, gave interviews with Spanish-language Catholic radio in which he spent a lot of time gassing up & promoting Courage, posted weekly advertisements for Courage meetings on his public social media, represented Courage at regional conferences and in an official capacity, associated his name with Courage (logo and all!) at every opportunity, etc (…and the whole time, apparently, he was using Grindr…). If Courage leadership were not asleep on the job, they would have issued a PUBLIC apology for the behavior of someone who represented them PUBLICLY but instead they have their lawyer harassing a substack guy 😔

It’s been impossible for me to reconcile my own (broadly okay) experience of Courage with…literally everything else Courage is and does. I can’t wrap my head around it.”

Courage appears to be aware of the issues related to Fr. Mendez. In July of last year, Mendez was listed as the Courage chaplain for the Diocese of Boise. Since then, Courage has updated the listing and replaced Mendez with Deacon Gene Fadness. But they have yet to publicly acknowledge the child sexual abuse conviction of the ministry’s chaplain or the issues surrounding it. I’ll discuss the impact of Courage’s silence, but first let’s examine one potential reason for this silence: the clericalism inherent in Courage’s governance structure. Governance solely by clerics encourages a primary focus on clerical perspectives and concerns, which should raise a concern for a ministry that is allegedly focused primarily on support of the laity.

Courage’s leadership structure

Deacon Fadness’s leadership of the Boise chapter after Mendez’s arrest is a violation of Courage’s Statutes. Those Statutes require that a chaplain be a Catholic priest. The Courage Handbook states that “it is only by way of exception that a chapter is entrusted for a long period to someone who is not a priest,” although the Statutes themselves do not allow for such an exception. Organizationally, Statutes are expected to govern over handbooks. (FYI to Courage, you may want to make an update there…)

One interesting feature of Courage’s governance model is its distinct clericalism, which limits both access to and influence from qualified lay persons. Lay persons and women can’t even join Courage as official “members.” Article 16 of the Courage Statutes states that membership is limited to specific roles, all of which can only be held by priests:

16.1. Only the following are members of Courage International:

• 16.1.1. each diocesan bishop member of the Episcopal Board;

• 16.1.2. each priest member of the Board of Directors;

• 16.1.3. the Executive Director;

• 16.1.4. an Associate Director;

• 16.1.5. Chaplains of the Association, including National and Regional Coordinators.

Lay persons are generally excluded from membership and voting governance for the ministry. While lay persons may join the Board of Directors for Courage, the Statutes state: “Only those members of the Board of Directors who are priests shall have the right to vote on all matters coming before the Board of Directors.” Again, this means that all laity and also all women are excluded from membership and decision-making at the organizational level.

Largely because of the clergy abuse crisis, Church leaders have been increasingly attentive to the ways in which clerical leadership structures can (inadvertently) protect structures of abuse and hinder the full flourishing of the Church. Lay persons and women bring unique perspectives and dispositions that can help address the blind spots and tendencies that generally exist among the clergy. Increased women’s leadership can also help increase both engagement by and support for women. Like tends to attract like. While Courage involvement even among laity is overrepresented by men (as others have shared with me), other LGBTQ+/SSA ministries like the women-founded Eden Invitation have better gender and other diversity. Time and again, I have heard stories of young Catholics who attended Courage meetings and found that they were largely represented by middle-aged and older men who had deep insecurities about sexual addiction. (This is consistent with the recent Synod Study Group 9 report.) I do think that such men should have ministerial support. But we shouldn’t pretend that Courage is a good ministry for all who are “struggling with same-sex attraction” when… it’s not.

Knowing what we know now about the prevalence of and structures that might support abuse in the Church, and how the laity can inject perspectives into these issues that clergy tend to lack, the structures of Courage should be a cause for concern. And they can also explain why we’re seeing some of the issues that recur with Courage. In recent years, Courage has downplayed and even misrepresented its relationship to abuser-priests. This isn’t new. And one can see the roots of this in the ministry’s founder Fr. John Harvey, who had argued forcefully and publicly for the “rehabilitation” of priests who had sexually abused children. Indeed, Harvey called the decision to “shelve” priests accused of child abuse “a new form of neglect.” Undoubtedly, parents and perhaps especially mothers would have a very different perspective when it comes to adults who abuse children. The clerical culture upon which Courage was founded might help explain why this year the ministry quietly removed Fr. Mendez from its website and never publicly acknowledged the Courage chaplain’s conviction for sexual violence against a child.

Courage is lagging behind broader changes in the Church. In response to the clergy abuse crisis and subsequent reports detailing what led to it, the Church at Her highest levels has expanded lay authority. In 2019, Vos Estis Lux Mundi enabled lay experts to participate on review boards and in bishop investigations. Praedicate Evangelium in 2022 went further by enabling laypersons to lead Vatican dicasteries. In 2023, laypersons for the first time were granted full voting membership in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. These changes represent a renewed understanding that lay persons have a distinct perspective in the life of the Church and that the Church needs more than just their consultative support; rather, a robust response to abusive structures that have been allowed to develop in the Church involves an increase in lay authority and decision-making.

Subscribe now

The risks of secrecy

Courage meetings facilitated by its chaplains operate under expectations of secrecy. According to the Courage handbook, all meeting details are to be kept confidential and members should keep all meeting discussions confidential. This confidentiality helps to facilitate certain forms of vulnerability. On the other hand, it increases opportunities for undue influence by the priest in a position of secretive authority over individuals who can be extremely vulnerable. Fr. Mendez is not the only Courage leader with allegations of child sexual abuse. Others include Fr. Donald Timone (who also once led Courage) and Fr. Michael Lawrence who served as a Courage chaplain.

My point here is not to argue that the structures of Courage are intended to enable abusers, but that these clerical structures could easily be taken advantage of by abusers. This is precisely what we have seen in dioceses that have faced abuse crises. Many associate the clergy abuse crisis with lack of transparency. And just as Fr. Anthony Anatrella (who helped draft the 2005 Vatican directive against admitting homosexual men into seminary) used his private conversion therapy sessions to abuse seminarians that Catholic dioceses provided to him, a sexual predator could easily use the structure of Courage meetings to identify vulnerable men susceptible to abuse. Confidentiality and privacy are certainly valuable in these spaces, but we need to attend to the risks with which they come.

And here, women and mothers can provide important perspectives, as was highlighted in my recent interview with Katherine Mitchell. Mitchell shared that she will only allow her young sons to engage in the sacrament of Confession where confessionals are designed to allow physical visibility for parents, typically through transparent walls or doors where the children can be visible to parents. This allows for confidentiality but also peace of mind for parents concerned about the frequency with which abuser-priests have taken advantage of vulnerable persons in the confessional. Parents have an attentiveness to the safety of children that priests simply don’t access because they don’t possess the same kind of intimacy or responsibility that a parent has for a child. And bringing in the perspectives of parents even in confessional design can help facilitate a safer Church for all. To be one Body, we should be attentive to the complementary relationship between the laity and the clergy, where neglecting one is to the detriment of all.

Quick visibility into and public responses to credible allegations of abuse can also help deter predator priests, by increasing awareness that these predators do get identified and that the ministry will address predation. In addition, acknowledgment of predation can also create a context in which other victims can come forward, knowing that this is being addressed and that they are not alone. Secrecy regarding credible abuse allegations can leave other victims trapped in the belief that they are and will be alone. It can no longer be enough for us to give formal permission for victim-survivors to come forward. We should celebrate them when they do, and talk about what they suffered and how our words, actions, and ecclesial structures may have contributed to their suffering. We need to learn not just from malicious behavior, but also from unintended harms to which we may have contributed.

Courage for the future

But even with these concerns, as I’ve said time and again, Courage can change. Courage has already changed a lot in the last decade. In the past, Courage had generally not permitted its members to use their own names when writing publicly about their experiences. This expectation was abandoned when the blog Spiritual Friendship began, with writers attached to real identities. And certainly Courage would never openly publish many of the perspectives that were insisted upon by its founder.

As annoying as it may be when Courage engages in behavior such as its present legal threats against my writing, raising these issues and concerns and bringing forward new models of ministry and engagement does change the ministry. Courage International is changing, often despite itself. As I’ve shared before, their legal action against me here has provided an occasion to write about these issues and also for others to make me aware of scandals that the ministry has not disclosed, such as the conviction of Fr. Mendez. And that gives me a bit of courage and also some hope, both for Courage and for the broader Church.

As far as the legal action that Courage International has taken against me, more to come on that soon. I was able to get legal representation through the Substack Defender program, which funds legal representation for writers facing “spurious legal threats to silence reporting and opinions.” I was able to get access to the program because of my paying subscribers. And so I’d like to thank my paying subscribers for allowing me access to this program that helps me to continue writing with clarity and confidence on these issues. If you are not already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber today! You can also donate to support my podcast work here. But whether or not you do, please know that I very much appreciate your continued readership and support.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

I replied directly to their attorney, highlighting Pope Leo’s recent praise of journalists who do not let issues of abuse be swept under the carpet. While stating that I believed my use of the logo was legally permissible, I shared that I had no desire to get into a legal dispute with the ministry. And so I moved the logo into the body of the post, with a caption stating that I had been threatened with legal action and was including the logo in the post to clarify what image was in dispute.

The role of legal counsel

I intentionally framed my response not to be primarily legal, but primarily vocational. As one commentator amenable to my position shared, lawyers and their cease and desist letters, even when representing ministries of the Church, don’t care much about your stated moral or theological opinions “or what pope whoever said.” I think this is right. And this is a significant problem for the Church.

As I noted in my prior post on this matter, the amoral framework with which legal professionals often approach services for the Church poses significant risks both for these professionals and also for their clients. During the clergy abuse crisis, the failure of Church lawyers to seriously engage with the moral matters at hand contributed to a situation where (1) Church leaders handed over moral considerations to their amoral representatives who then compounded the abuse suffered by victims, and (2) this ultimately led to deeper damage for the Church as a whole through actions that contributed both to reputational devastation and also diocesan bankruptcy after diocesan bankruptcy.

In reviewing all this, the Church’s National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People concluded that Church leaders failed through an over-reliance on legal counsel in dealing with a problem which “at its heart [was] a problem of faith and morality.” In reality, all problems faced by the Church are at their heart problems of faith and morality. And when Church leaders handed over deliberation to their attorneys, they put the Church in a position of acting as an amoral power broker. We have not sufficiently grappled with the question of the role of legal representation in the Church. Partly because of this, even in the last year legal counsel for the U.S. bishops made arguments contrary to Catholic teaching before the U.S. Supreme Court.

My initial response to Courage was written partly as an objection to a view of the legal professional as an amoral, areligious maximizer of secular legal rights. To be fair, some in the legal profession are attentive to these questions and issues. Robert Vischer, now president of the University of St. Thomas, is among these. And at one point I was even contacted by an attorney who had represented the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, asking to unpack some of the concerns I had raised about all this in my review of the Church’s brief in the Bostock case. I write about all of this because raising these concerns does make a difference.

Almost a month after my response, I received a second letter from Courage’s attorney, again demanding that I remove the logo from that post and any others in which it may be included. Counsel for Courage said that I appeared to be misunderstanding the law.

At the outset, one could reasonably suspect that Courage’s counsel was being either incompetent as a reader or incompetent as a manipulator. Somehow counsel had read my statement that “I believe that my use of the thumbnail is legally permissible,” and took away from that, “we appreciate your willingness to admit your inappropriate use of a Courage Mark.” I am not an experienced IP attorney. But I’m also not an idiot. And I have a sensitivity to being pushed around by power and bad arguments, especially by leaders of the Church and their representatives.

Compliance with an unjust demand can be a good choice

But not every “battle” is worth fighting. And there’s merit in just letting some conflicts go so you can focus on other priorities in your life.

Undoubtedly, it would be good for me to “stand my ground” and assert my legal rights, to push back on what I believe is an unjust attempt to intimidate someone writing about issues in the ministry. Courage is making use of its access to high-cost legal resources to engage in intimidation, in a way similar to what many abuse victims have unfortunately experienced in the Church.

I’m actually grateful for many aspects of this experience. This incident gives me a little personal view into what many victims of abuse and injustice in the Church have experienced, giving up on legal battles because Church leaders and their attorneys financially and emotionally drain them. I’m grateful to experience a small version of that so that I can expand my own empathy with them.

Many have observed all this and encouraged me to go full throttle in fighting back. But, as I’ve learned from working with victims of various forms of abuse, victims of injustice in the Church shouldn’t be obligated to come forward and fight against Church leaders to address those injustices. In the world following #MeToo, many victims of abuse feel guilt and shame when they choose not to come forward with their stories and pursue justice against perpetrators. It can feel tempting to believe that victims have a responsibility to come forward. But they don’t.

So often, victims in these situations have had their autonomy taken from them. They did not choose the injustice which they suffered. And one way in which they can take back their autonomy can be making the choice how and whether to come forward. Victims suffered abuse because a care for their social, emotional, financial, spiritual, psychological, and other needs was not respected. One pathway for healing can be reclaiming this care for themselves, including a care for whether pursuing justice through legal action is something that they have the stamina (or even desire) for at this time.

If I choose to comply with Courage here, I hope I model for others the value of putting a container around those experiences (even if just for a time) to focus on other things in my life. There are many injustices in the world, and it is my responsibility to examine which injustices to work against at various moments. Obviously, much of what I do is to try to empower victim-survivors to come forward. But whether they come forward should be up to them. And “I just don’t want to” can be a sufficient reason not to. (I also believe that empowering victim-survivors to embrace this as a valid reason can help to dissipate the barriers to coming forward, resulting in more coming forward to address injustices.)

And, of course, it shouldn’t be on victims to come forward in addressing injustices. Rather, the primary responsibility should fall on those with privilege and power. We should be pressing on these injustices, in ways that help empower those who have been harmed.

Access to power

In this case, I weighed a number of factors in deciding whether to comply. Although I believe Courage is in the wrong, I also know that various areas of the law can be quite nuanced. The successful assertion of legal rights can often hinge on nuanced procedural matters. And so I have been very hesitant to take an aggressive legal stance against a literal intellectual property law firm, even one that issues letters with typos and misrepresentations of my statements. Hiring legal counsel to represent and defend me here would be a financial burden that I’d have to weigh. Somehow Courage has the resources to easily engage expensive legal counsel over a Substack post’s single use of the ministry’s logo. I don’t.

However, a number of institutions are also concerned about these imbalances of power and how they silence voices seeking to address injustice and other harms. In 2020, Substack launched the “Substack Defender Program” because of this. Substack Defender is a legal support program helping to protect writers from the “ability of the wealthy and powerful to use spurious legal threats to silence reporting and opinions that challenge their interests.” Substack writers facing “unreasonable legal pressure” can apply for the program and, if they are accepted, receive access to qualified attorneys in this space and funding for legal representation.

I applied for this program, was quickly accepted, and was able to meet with an IP attorney who talked me through the issues and gave me peace of mind. He reviewed the cease and desist letter from Courage’s counsel and told me he had seen a lot of trademark demands and that “this has the distinction of being... maybe the weakest one I've ever seen.”

Subscribe now

My attorney did say, however, that being legally in the right doesn’t mean you’re without risk. Aggressive attorneys can deploy a range of tactics to intimidate and drain their opponents. But if I had the resources to defend myself, my legal position would be incredibly strong.

Speaking with him both gave me peace of mind and also made me angry. How frequently do leaders in the Church continue to do this, engaging legal counsel to intimidate victims and their advocates with spurious claims that would be burdensome to counter? To what extent are Church leaders prioritizing ideological branding over evangelical mission?

Catholic jewelers

I don’t want to suggest that these issues are all black-and-white. They are complex. But increasingly, Catholics are scrutinizing the ways in which IP enforcement in religious spaces can be pursuits of power rather than evangelical mission. Just last week, Steven Millies in Religion News Service reported on trademark demands by Catholic Vote against the organization Catholics Vote Common Good. Millies highlighted a complex and ecclesially questionable relationship between political power and trademark protections.

I also think back to when wanted to promote Catholic teaching by leading a group that would share daily Catechism passages with commentary, and I eventually shut down the project after running into legal roadblocks with the USCCB. Other similar lay initiatives had been shut down by the USCCB, and appear to only be permitted for clergy. This suggests to the broader Church that the laity has neither the responsibility nor the right to promote the full range of Catholic teaching, as written. I gave up on that, because the USCCB told me to.

Trademark enforcement is common for commercial organizations that want to ensure that others are not financially profiting from their brand. Brand protection and protection from counterfeiting are two important and valid reasons for trademark protections.

But even for-profit Catholic organizations are not exempt from broader ecclesial questions in this space, as was highlighted by controversy over trademarks by the retailer The Little Catholic. The business had trademarked phrases such as “Holy Family Hearts” and “Mystical Rose” for jewelry and t-shirts, and had started including the trademark symbol alongside posts about these products. Last year, The Little Catholic offered reasoning behind its sought legal protections, highlighting a desire to protect original designs and phrases rather than pre-existing devotions and designs.

In reporting on the matter, commentary by other Catholic retailers was generally critical of the choice to trademark phrases such as “Holy Family Hearts.” The National Catholic Register and U.S. Catholic included commentary from illustrator Fabiola Garza, fine artist Elizabeth Zelasko, Jana Zuniga of January Jane Shop, Shannon Wendt of Chews Life, and Katerina Deem of Little Way Design Co, who highlighted how this space is nuanced while critiquing “competitive” and over-broad attempts at Catholic IP ownership and enforcement. Wendt shared that she had never before heard of a Catholic creator attempting to trademark a Catholic phrase beyond their brand name, and that she always personally reaches out if she notices unauthorized use of her company name before involving a lawyer.

Here, The Little Catholic did not seek to trademark a general devotion such as “Holy Family,” but a more specific phrase (“Holy Family Hearts”) when used with certain products and designs. This was to ensure that others did not financially profit from her original creations. This makes sense. But it also raises concerns. In this religious context, trademarking new or original devotional phrases or images could result in discouraging them from becoming general devotions, since works associated with them would be limited in who could create and distribute them. The issues here highlight the complexity both when it comes to “owning” religiously affiliated “intellectual property” and also when it comes to IP enforcement from Catholic institutions, whether ministries or for-profit businesses. In “protecting” Catholic IP, we can discourage devotion and encourage antagonistic relationships within the Church. Of course, U.S. trademark law contributes to some of these challenges, in frequently requiring IP owners to enforce their ownership for such ownership to continue.

Again, even legally valid creative work can depend on financial access to legal resources and the personal capacity to pursue them. Deem of Little Way Design Co. told U.S. Catholic that she believes she would prevail in a legal objection to some of The Little Catholic’s trademarks, but that “she believes doing so is more trouble than it is worth. Even so, she does find the trademarks ‘problematic’ but says she gives Huerta [of The Little Catholic] ‘the benefit of the doubt.’”

That last remark highlights some of the issues, both in these Catholic retailer controversies and also in my own dispute with Courage here. Do we relate to one another primarily as legal entities with ownership rights, or as members of one universal Catholic Church with a shared evangelical mission? Both roles are valid and important. But we should be attentive to the ways in which one might circumscribe the other and what happens when we lose this attentiveness.

In any event, the Courage controversy is markedly different from these Catholic retailer disputes. Contrary to The Little Catholic, in my counsel’s view, Courage here seems to be leveraging counsel to make legally bogus claims as a method of intimidation. Courage is not selling jewelry for which it wants to protect original designs. Rather, I believe that the ministry is selling an overprotective image that doesn’t want to seriously grapple with the reality of abuses and other harms within and around it. This isn’t new for Courage. And Catholics deserve to know that.

Share

So what can we learn here?

A few lessons can be gleaned from all this. First, we should always remember that there is an ecclesial dimension to legal disputes by and within the Church. We do not exist primarily as legal entities asserting rights with and against one another. Rather, we exist as members of the Body of Christ navigating a complex world. We should struggle to keep this front of mind as we navigate disputes such as these.

Second, when we engage legal professionals, they are always acting on our behalf. If legal professionals engage in tactics that harm victims or shove abuses under the carpet or emotionally and spiritually drain those acting in good faith, they are engaging in these actions on our behalf. When a litigation attorney attacks an abuse victim on the stand in the courtroom on behalf of a diocese, it is the diocese that is attacking the abuse victim on the stand. When legal counsel for the USCCB misrepresents what the Church has to say about religious liberty to the Supreme Court, it is the USCCB that is misrepresenting what the Church has to say about religious liberty to the Supreme Court, and to the world. When counsel for Courage sends legally empty but rhetorically intimidating letters to independent writers, it is Courage that is engaging in this legally empty and rhetorically intimidating action. We cannot separate ourselves from the tactics of our legal counsel. They are engaged by us and for us. Attempts to separate ourselves from the actions of our legal representatives have not served us well in the past. We need to do better.

Third, Catholic devotion and creativity are hindered, and antagonism within the Church is promoted, when we circumscribe religious messages within United States intellectual property law. Legal protections in these spaces are often valid and valuable. But such protections and their enforcement should be circumscribed within the evangelical mission of the Church, rather than the other way around. Over-reliance on and over-deference to legal counsel drives a distorted relationship to creativity and devotion.

Fourth, not every battle has to be fought. And the decision of a victim-survivor of abuse or professional intimidation to “let it go” (even if just for now) does not have to be a failure. Rather, it can be a reclaiming of autonomy and power over one’s stories and experiences.

Fifth, Catholics should not just take Catholic leaders, including ministry leaders, at their word. They have demonstrated in these cases a willingness to misrepresent both the law and Catholic teaching in the pursuit of intimidating those raising concerns, or in attempts to maximize legal and political power. As Pope Leo said in Magnifica Humanitas, the Church benefits from writers who see these issues and insist on talking about them.

Finally, all things can be transformed into an opportunity for learning and for gratitude. As annoying as this interaction with Courage has been, it’s also been a great opportunity for reflection. I really am grateful for the chance to learn more about this space and to develop my empathy for what so many others have faced at the hands of the Church. I don’t know how God will use all this in the future, but I have a lot of hope for what can be achieved if one holds onto hope in the midst of such experiences.

More to come

Anyway, my attorney is working on a response to Courage. More to come on that soon…

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I responded by removing the logo from the thumbnail and instead including the logo within the body of the post with the caption:

“Since this post went live, Courage engaged an IP law firm to send me a cease and desist letter, demanding that I remove the logo, partly so that readers will not think this Substack is associated with or approved by Courage. Therefore, I would like to clarify that this Substack is not associated with or approved by Courage. And this logo is being used partly to identify what organization is being discussed, as there are other organizations using the name ‘Courage International’ which have not been led by alleged child sexual abusers. The logo is also included here so that you are aware of what image is at issue in this dispute.”

In my response to Courage’s attorney, I highlighted Pope Leo XIV’s recent encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, in which the pope praises journalists for responding to abuses within the Church by “helping us not to sweep it under the carpet, and for the voice you have given to the victims of abuse.” My post raised issues of abuse and harmful practices happening through and around the ministry.

I had hoped that Courage might read my post in the light of Pope Leo’s calling. Instead, its leadership engaged a specialized law firm to legally threaten me over use of their logo on Substack. My response to Courage’s attorney highlighted my disappointment and also my hope for better from the ministry.

I had thought that would be the end of it. But it wasn’t. I got the follow-up from Courage’s attorney yesterday.

I was a bit confused by portions of it. For example, Courage’s attorney stated: “we appreciate your willingness to admit to your inappropriate use of a Courage Mark.” Actually, I said the opposite in my letter to counsel, having written: “I believe that my use of the thumbnail is legally permissible.”

Subscribe now

Nonetheless, none of this is terribly surprising to me. Courage exists within a clerical culture, where clerical leadership perhaps hears what they want to hear, and where they take greater issue with an unflattering use of their logo than they do with their leadership’s misrepresentations about child sexual abusers.

We can and should do better. We should hold our leaders to a higher standard. I want to be part of that.

And when I say that we can do better, I am including Courage leadership in this. I’m raising these issues, not because I believe that Courage leadership is evil or malicious or abusive (obviously with the exception of its leader who was credibly accused of literal child sexual abuse), but because I believe that they too can be better. We are all one body in the Church. We need one another. These issues harm Courage leadership, just as they harm the rest of us, because they encourage Courage leadership to be less than they can be. I believe that highlighting these issues and calling for better leadership can help Courage and its leadership… if they want the help.

As I review all this now, in this moment, my primary feeling is gratitude: I’m grateful for this opportunity to highlight these issues and to invite the Church to reflect on how far we have to go in growing from the clergy abuse crisis and other scandals in our community.

I’m also grateful to have just a little taste of what so many victims in the Church have had to deal with. Catholic dioceses and ministries have a wealth of resources available to them, including resources to be able to engage specialized law firms to threaten lay persons over a single use of a logo on a Substack post. Unlike the clerical leadership of Courage, my own legal defense is not funded by donors or by ideologically aligned partners at boutique law firms. Rather, I fund my own defense (which at this time is really just me scraping together my own limited knowledge of IP law). But whatever anxiety I may feel about this situation, clergy abuse survivors over the years have faced far more anxiety with far less privilege. And this is an opportunity for me to reflect on that reality and the need for greater support for various types of victims to our clerical culture.

I may choose to comply with the request of Courage’s counsel, not because I believe they are legally in the right, but because my resources are far more limited than Courage, and I have to choose whether I’d want to fund a defense involving counsel of my own. Undoubtedly, counsel for Courage knows this, just as legal counsel attacking victims of abuse in the Church have known over the decades. If victims of abuses in the Church have caved to the tactics of attorneys engaged by Church leaders, it’s often not because those attorneys are legally in the right, but because those leaders have the resources to emotionally and financially drain victims.

As an attorney, I really want to emphasize this: legal rights often fail for the marginalized, because they lack the resources to assert them. And many structures within the Church both rely on and encourage this reality.

I’m deeply indebted to legal professionals like Robert Vischer (my own law school dean and now president of the University of St. Thomas) who have helped me to reflect on the role that the legal profession has played in the clergy abuse crisis. In his essay Legal Advice as Moral Perspective, Vischer highlights how lawyers have helped propel crises from the Church’s abuse crisis to the scandals of Enron and the justifications of torture. That is, lawyers have harmed communities by failing to engage with moral perspectives and considering a range of ends for their clients. In the cases highlighted by Vischer, this failure in the end also harmed their own clients.

Similarly, this back and forth with Courage’s counsel has largely served to increase visibility of the issues I had hoped to raise. Whatever anxiety and additional work I have endured because of these legal threats, they have served to help ensure people are aware of Courage’s misrepresentations. Prior to the cease and desist letter, my posts on these issues only had a few thousand views. Following that letter from Courage’s counsel and my follow-ups to it, views now number in the tens of thousands, and I have been asked to advise on these issues for a number of leaders within the Church.

I haven’t yet decided on my response to counsel for Courage. I may choose to comply. Or I may not. But in any event, I’m grateful for the opportunity to continue to raise awareness of these issues, and I’m also very grateful for your continued readership and support.

Share

If you want to learn more about issues related to Courage, a few posts and podcast episodes…

• Is the Catholic approach to homosexuality a pyramid scheme?

• Podcast interview: bizarre things my conversion therapist told me to do

• Getting to the root of conversion therapy

• Podcast: the Catholic Church’s “ex-gay” pyramid scheme exposed

• An ex-gay encyclopedia for Catholics

• Is Courage International good or bad?

• A priest’s seduction

• Catholic promotion of conversion therapy: the list

• Weigel, Courage, and McCarrick: let’s get real

• My response to Courage International’s cease and desist letter

• Freud and Courage International

• The Catholic Church is changing, the ministry Courage is lying, and what else is new?

I’d also recommend some of what Ron Belgau has written on Courage over the years:

• Cardinal Dolan, Courage Leadership, and the Sexual Abuse Scandal

• A note on Courage and language

• Spiritual Friendship and Courage: On the Need for Variety in Ministry

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

We talk about what actually happens inside a sexual assault crisis center, why juries and even other women often struggle to believe survivors, and how politics and power shape which stories are taken seriously. Katherine shares candidly about being a survivor herself, raising two young boys with consent and safety in mind, saying “no” to things like sleepovers and certain church events, and learning to set boundaries that protect connection instead of shutting it down.

We also explore burnout, how therapists know when they’re not okay, the limits of what therapy (or faith) can promise, and why religious communities so often hurt instead of help. Underneath all of it is a quiet invitation: your trauma wasn’t your fault, and you deserve support in the work of healing.

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

1. Rock Music

Rock Music was the first released single from the album Music, Fashion, Film. Charli declares in it, “I think the dance floor is dead.” While she had immense success with the Brat album, Charli told Vogue, “If I’d made another album that felt more dance-leaning, it would have felt really hard, really sad.” She just couldn’t do it. Something had to change.

People don’t realize the toll that Brat and its tour took on Charli, emotionally, creatively, and physically. She suffered nerve damage in her neck from her dancing on the tour, which she notes in the song.

But all that fans experienced on the tour was exhilaration. This is precisely how many of us have performed Christianity intensely, in a way that others experienced as exciting devotion but which left us damaged and in need of something else for our spirits to survive.

So now we’re making Rock Music...

2. SS26

SS26 offers a cheeky response to many of our modern insecurities and searches for meaning. The world feels like it’s ending, and “nothing’s gonna save us, not music, fashion or film.” We search for meaning in things that fail to fully satisfy.

And we tend to be self-deluded when we’re trying to navigate black-and-white spaces while being flawed people. You see this in the strikingly self-aware deludedness of the song: “But I didn’t do it, even if I did / Wrote a really good notes app apology.” It’s an homage to the silly excuses we make while we’re figuring ourselves out.

Charli gives us space for our self-delusions, something that can be really freeing with deconstruction. We can voice them honestly, and even with a wink (more on this with track 8, Wink Wink). There’s something freeing about this. It isn’t just nihilism, as we’ll get in the final track of the album.

3. Card Declined

Card Declined can feel all over the place. But so does trying to find your identity as you’re deconstructing.

In the song, Charli goes shopping for a new self, but her card keeps getting declined. “Let’s go shopping, I’ll buy a handbag / I’ll buy some shoes, I’ll buy a smile / I’ll buy some jewelry, a personality / A whole backstory, card declined.”

Brat was seen as materialistic and self-indulgent. As she leaves her Brat era, Charli spends Card Declined seeking identity in other indulgences and materialism. But it keeps failing.

As we deconstruct, we can similarly find ourselves window shopping for new identities that we purchase off the shelf. And those identities may look different from our old selves on the surface but are actually quite similar. We find ourselves falling back on comforting black and white thinking, dogmatism, or similar ways of being because they feel familiar. But they don’t give us what we really want.

And so “part 2” (the end of the track) goes beyond all that materialism, to land on human connection...

4. Camera

Camera gives spaces for layered selves that are multi-dimensional, with hopes and dangers, both good and bad in each. She’s insecure about chasing certain selves, like being “a girl on the screen.” But she also feels something alive when she’s on camera. “All I know is how it makes me feel.”

She chases after a feeling of being alive. It’s the only way to feel certain things, but it can have a dark side as well. “I feel different on the mark / Something new and undiscovered / And something kind of violent / Daring to fail and being ugly / I’m inspired and alive.”

The song resists simple answers or easy resolution to these questions, and instead chooses to just be in them for 2 minutes and 31 seconds. And in that space she is able to create art. Rather than the black-and-white, goodness vs evilness in fundamentalism, Charli helps us see the complexity of the things that make us feel. Which is life.

What could we create if we gave ourselves space to be brutally honest, to acknowledge the great things we pursue and the value of being honest about the costs?

5. 2007

2007 is the year before Charli started posting her songs on MySpace, before she began her public life as an artist. This song can feel like a nostalgic recall of a time making art for oneself. “I can take you to heaven like it’s 2007 / Pop star in my bedroom like it’s 2007-7.”

The bridge to 2007 can feel like a calling to the younger self, with all the freedom and also all the hope for the future: “You’re the way I wanna feel.”

We too can call back to our younger selves, before we put on all the trappings of life that we’ve performed for others, and which we are now deconstructing in search of a greater freedom and honesty.

Subscribe now

6. I’m Afraid

I’m Afraid is Charli’s most overtly vulnerable song in the album, reflecting largely on coming into adulthood and marriage while being insecure about who you are.

“Happiness came in a box,” presumably the box holding her engagement ring. But can she give herself over to happiness? “I’m a wife, I’m a kid / I’m destroyed, I’m a bitch.” She asks, “What if I ruin it?”

The song is deeply painful, but moments of growth break through. “I replicate the things I learnt, I don’t blame him though.” Presumably, the internalized toxicity she carries is something she learned from others, who blamed the toxicity on her. But she departs from those models by not blaming like they do.

When we bring insecurities to light, we might discover that we’ve changed. And maybe we can be worthy of more than we thought...

7. Yeah

In “Yeah,” Charli repeats over and over again: “I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna / I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna.”

For those of us who came from communities where we were taught to disregard our own desires and to let people trample all over our boundaries, this repeated line can become a sort of deconstruction mantra.

And after you’ve learned to resist what you don’t actually want, you can reach a point where you find yourself saying, “Wait, now I wanna feel it.” That’s when the music is cranked up.

And then you look at others and can see, often before they can, “You don’t wanna, you don’t wanna / You don’t wanna, you don’t wanna.” You hope they can learn it too.

8. Wink Wink

Wink Wink is the cheekiest song on the album. She proclaims in the chorus: “Here’s the truth, and I gotta be honest / I’m not a bad girl anymore, I promise.” But she eventually ends the chorus with: “wink wink wink wink.” Cheeky.

So she’s changed. But she also hasn’t. And she’s not afraid to play with you when it comes to that.

We can also give ourselves permission to “grow up” but also not, to be a “good girl” but also to have our “wink wink” moments.

“My point is I think people can change.” But we don’t have to change in every way and forever. And we can be ok with that. We can hold all that.

Share

9. Persona

At first listen, you might assume that Charli is offering a biting critique of a deeply insecure friend in Persona. She includes one of my favorite lines from the album: “Don’t f****** choke on your ego when you see me coming.” I want to tell that to one of my exes. Although he probably (fairly) would like to say the same thing to me…

But upon further listening, you wonder whether she’s singing about herself, and seeking empathy amidst the biting critique: “I know you’re performing, I know that you’re hurting.”

This is something we often need on our deconstruction journeys, amidst all the hurt. Often we want to turn anger outwards. But we risk missing the insecurities it reveals within.

Where we want to land in relating to both others and ourselves is where she ends the song: “I know you see me when I see you.”

10. Magic Metal Montana

A love song to her best friend.

As I was learning about friendship in Christian communities growing up, I thought the deepest friendships were grounded in similarities. This at times could lead to a resistance to boundaries and an encouragement of codependence.

But Charli writes a love song for a love of difference: “You don’t drink, so I’ll drink for two” and, “You speak my language, but we're different.”

She also pushes against the silly Christian idea that men and women can’t be friends. In this album, her most insecure song is about her husband. While the love song is about her friend.

And I love that.

11. No One Lasts Forever

A reflection on art and death featuring film director David Cronenberg.

Charli opens by mentioning her confidence, her fame, her success. But she transitions from the parties to sitting on the floor talking philosophy, where she knows “deep down that it’s here and now / ‘Cause nothing’s gonna last forever.”

In the midst of the highs and the lows, she finds a peace and freedom in mortality. And Cronenberg does the same in his voiceover, reflecting on how every artist eventually dies, as does their ability to experience art. But he says, “These are true things and thank goodness for them.”

We, too, can find a freedom in accepting our mortal limitations and creating in the midst of them...

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

But over the past year, I did watch my community in Minneapolis experience fear, grief, and incredible acts of courage. In this episode of Mezzo, I share my own experiences living through the recent ICE operations in the Twin Cities, how they affected my friends, my faith, and my understanding of what it means to love our neighbors.

This isn't simply a discussion about politics. It's a reflection on Christian hope, peaceful resistance, constitutional rights, and the responsibility we have to care for one another during moments of crisis. I talk about community solidarity, fear, forgiveness, and why I believe hope is something we practice—even when it feels impossible.

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I am among those U.S. adults who does not consider himself “proud to be an American” today. But I do feel great pride in the best of American ideals. And I want to share some of those ideals in my latest podcast episode, out now.

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

We also examine the 2019 Vatican document Male and Female He Created Them, discuss how transgender people commonly describe their identities, and compare today's debates about gender to the ways Christians once misunderstood and misrepresented gay people. Whether you agree or not, I hope this conversation encourages a deeper, more honest engagement with both Catholic tradition and the lived experiences of transgender people.

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Podcast

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

We walk through the 2005 Vatican instructions; the difference between actions, habits, and desires; and why canon law cares far more about chastity and double lives than about labels like “gay” or “homosexual.” We also talk about Pope Francis, the Italian bishops’ recent proposals, and how pathological frameworks around sexuality have fueled both confusion and abuse. If you care about vocations, gay Catholics, canon law, or just understanding what the Church really teaches beyond the hot takes, this one’s for you.

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I have included my response to their letter below…

Dear Mr. Kinney,

Thank you very much for your letter and for raising Courage’s concerns. I was surprised to see it, especially in light of what Pope Leo XIV recently wrote in his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas:

“Christian communities, too, are called to commit themselves to transparency in communication and to the honest pursuit of facts. Sadly, this has not always been the case… [S]ome journalists, driven by a passion for truth, have played a crucial role in bringing injustices and abuses to light. To them, I wish to repeat the words that Pope Francis used in speaking to journalists: ‘I also thank you for what you tell us about what goes wrong in the Church, for helping us not to sweep it under the carpet, and for the voice you have given to the victims of abuse.’”

The piece with which you take issue highlights ways in which Courage has misrepresented its relationships to conversion therapy and to an alleged child sexual abuser that once led the ministry. I see it as a response to that call of Pope Francis and now Pope Leo XIV. But I can certainly understand why Courage would not like to be associated with that post. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that individuals would take the use of the organization’s logo in a thumbnail for that post to indicate affiliation with or approval by Courage.

I believe that my use of the thumbnail is legally permissible. As you certainly know, a trademark may be used without authorization of the owner if it is considered “fair use.” While I do not specialize in this area of the law and do not possess Courage’s resources to be able to engage IP counsel here, it is my understanding that even an organization’s trademark may be used with a piece offering commentary on the organization, if it is helpful to identify which organization is being discussed. You may be aware that there are a number of organizations using the name “Courage International,” in whole or in part (such as “People’s Courage International” and the non-governmental association named “Courage International”). To my knowledge, none of those organizations has had alleged child abusers leading them, and so use of the Courage trademark is clarifying and helpful to those organizations which have not experienced such scandals.

Nonetheless, I have no desire to get into a legal dispute with the ministry. Therefore, I have removed the Courage logo from the thumbnail accompanying that Substack post and instead included the logo within the body of the post, with the following caption:

“Since this post went live, Courage engaged an IP law firm to send me a cease and desist letter, demanding that I remove the logo from its thumbnail, partly so that readers will not think this Substack is associated with or approved by Courage. Therefore, I would like to clarify that this Substack is not associated with or approved by Courage. This logo is being used partly to identify what organization is being discussed, as there are other organizations using the name ‘Courage International’ which have not been led by alleged child sexual abusers. The logo is also included here so that you are aware of what image is at issue in this dispute.”

I am happy to include a similar caption with any future use of the Courage logo, if that would be helpful for your client.

You also wrote, “while your publications may express a contrary view of Courage and/or its mission, we trust that your publications are truthful and accurate.” Especially when writing on issues such as clergy abuse or institutional problems within the Church, it is very important to me that my factual claims be accurate. I had written that piece specifically because Courage’s claims were inaccurate and I wanted to shed light on what Courage unfortunately seemed to be sweeping under the carpet. Wherever possible, I link to or reference specific sources for my claims. As both Courage and I engage in the pursuit of truth, I welcome any corrections regarding my factual claims about the ministry, although I do not believe you will find any on this matter.

I hope that this allays your concerns and provides the necessary clarifications. I also hope that one day your client may see my work in this area as a support for its ministry and an attempt (even if an imperfect one) to respond to a vocational calling. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Chris Damian

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!

More on Pride Month:

Most of us are unprepared for the profound questions the digital age is forcing us to ask about humanity, justice, and the future. Which is partly why Pope Leo XIV has recently published Magnifica Humanitas, his encyclical on safeguarding humanity in the age of AI. He moves us to ask: What if AI isn't the enemy, but a mirror revealing our deepest moral choices?

In the latest Mezzo episode, I read through the encyclical, to pull out key themes and ideas. We unpack a vision that challenges how we think about technology, community, and human dignity in a rapidly evolving world. We explore how the Church’s social tradition—from Rerum Novarum to Laudato Si—offers crucial insights into navigating the AI revolution.

watch on YouTube

listen on Spotify

listen on Apple Music

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

If you’d like to support my work in these spaces, consider a paid subscription to this Substack. I’ve also recently completed my latest filming session, and if you’d like to help cover the cost of my most recent filming travel, you can donate here! Also don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel, like the video, leave a comment, and share with your friends!