What’s so eloquent? He basically pushes more “social justice” at the expense of solid doctrine. That the average Catholic “never” hears sermons on the perversion of marriage is hardly something to boast about, and is partly why so many states are in the mess they’re in with regard to the subject. This is the kind of stuff that makes the struggling pew-sitter incredibly frustrated. Is it true naiveté or deliberate obtuseness?
"Now, the Church’s positions are very clear and very consistent. For us, life is at the very center of our social teachings. Life is precious. It is a mystery. It must be nurtured, protected, the transmission of life is sacred. And our defense of human life is a great service to society. When the state begins to decide who is worthy of living and who isn’t, all human rights are put in jeopardy, but the voice of the church is very clear. And we’re not just saying that life is precious in the womb but life is precious when someone has Alzheimer’s when someone has AIDS when someone is poor when someone has mental illness. Their humanity is not diminished – and they have a claim on our love and on our services. So the church’s position is a very consistent one. It is a consistent life ethic. I don’t think that we are obsessed, however, when the New York Times is writing 20 articles a week about these things and make reference to the Church in half of those articles, it gives the impression. But I think in the parishes, these things are talks, in a routine way, in CCD classes, along with the rest of the Catholic doctrine but all of our teachings fit together. They’re part of a whole. There’s a consistency in our life ethic."
Perhaps I should have clarified the portion to which I referred.