In the Jan. 18 op-ed “Will influence of Catholic “natural law” make America medieval,” author Peter H. Schwartz attempts to correlate Catholic dogmatic beliefs to the rise in what he discerns to be radical conservative political beliefs that he believes to be reactionary. His idea that Catholic “natural law,” which is pro-life and pro-family and supports the dignity of all persons as core beliefs, is an outdated religious exercise, is ignorant of the true beginnings of those beliefs. He states that these ideological beliefs date back 800 years, and as such he implies that they can no longer be relevant to the culture and secularism that are such a part of the modern world. He fails to understand the basic premise of natural law, and that is that natural law has been revealed to man by God, and as such it is immutable and always relevant to society. I find it hard to believe that any rational person would find this ideology reactionary. — John Favale, Lake Bluff Retrograde understanding Seventy-five years ago, Paul Blanshard was a writer for The Nation magazine who compiled a series of articles he had written into a book, “American Freedom and Catholic Power.” That book was one of the most remarkable anti-Catholic documents in U.S. history. Blanshard’s book was the thing that came to my mind first when I read Peter H. Schwartz’s essay in the Tribune. He has done for 2025 what Blanshard did in 1949. Blanshard shared Schwartz’s skepticism about the Roman Catholic Church, warning against a “medieval” institution attempting to impose its premodern worldview on all Americans through Catholic power at the ballot box. Some of what Blanshard wrote indeed had some basis in truth — in 1949. Much has happened since then, not least the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II ended in 1965, and a struggle has been underway inside the Catholic Church ever since. Schwartz appears to be unaware of it. That struggle concerns the church’s relationship to the modern world, and that struggle is visible in the way that Schwartz’s subject — Catholics such as JD Vance who share a pre-Vatican II understanding — resist Pope Francis today. Schwartz can be forgiven for mistaking Vance’s views for Catholicism. Those views have been ascendant among Catholics in the United States for the last 40 years as part of the political movement that brought Donald Trump to power. But they do not represent Catholicism or the current theology of the church. They certainly don’t reflect the pope’s own views. Schwartz might read the Jesuit theologian, John Courtney Murray. Murray gave theological grounding to how the church embraced religious freedom for non-Catholics at Vatican II. Murray found that the same natural law claimed by the church also informs the political freedoms we enjoy since the Enlightenment. Murray’s basic intuition — Catholic faith supports our modern claims to political freedom — helped Catholics embrace American-style freedoms during and after the Cold War. The history of the United States and the world would be different without those theological developments. Vance reflects a retrograde understanding of Catholic theology, one that was superseded 60 years ago. So does Schwartz’s essay. Ironically, both reinforce one another. Each and together, they stifle the reality of a church that is open to the world and offers vital ministries to help vulnerable people every day. Vance and Schwartz hide that church in a “closet.” Let it out. — Steven P. Millies, professor of public theology and director, The Bernardin Center, Chicago An insult to all Catholics As a lifetime practicing Chicago Catholic, I was most offended by Peter H. Schwartz’s op-ed and especially by the prominent placement of it. The op-ed is a bigoted anti-Catholic diatribe that is an insult to all of us Catholics who have tried to make our church a source of hope and healing in a nation whose increasing lack of adherence to any idea of “natural law” and ideals has left so many people floundering without any sense of mission or ambition or self-worth. Did it ever occur to Schwartz that so many Catholics becoming judges and elected officials may be due to the fact that these people benefited from Catholic education, which taught us all to think and not just parrot what people told us? In my Catholic college, a required course was logic. Is that a required course for anyone now? Probably not for Schwartz. — Suzanne Wogan, Mundelein The upholding of dignity There are others more well qualified than I to respond, but Peter H. Schwarz seems to omit the greater commandment to love God and neighbor, which faithful Catholics also adhere to. Natural law, or tao, is the outcome of that love, not the cause. Pope Benedict XVI informed us: “Dialog first comes into being where there is not only speech but also listening. … (People) are capable of reciprocal comprehension because, far from being wholly separate islands of being, they communicate in the same truth. … Dialog without this interior obedient listening to the truth would be nothing more than a discussion among the deaf.” Notwithstanding whatever failings there have been among organizations or individuals, in history or presently, there is nothing medieval about upholding the dignity of the human person in communion with others. — Michael Kinkley, Wheaton Universal moral principles Peter H. Schwartz’s opinion piece relies on outdated anti-Catholic stereotypes instead of engaging with the theological or philosophical merits of natural law or the teachings of the church. His criticisms target not the moral theory itself but rather conservative Roman Catholics practicing their faith publicly. Schwartz’s reference to a “looming jackboot upon the neck of the nation” echoes the nativist rhetoric once used by groups like the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate and exclude Catholic citizens from participating fully in American society. While one might hope such attitudes are a relic of the past, Schwartz’s language suggests otherwise. Catholic natural law, as articulated by figures such as St. Thomas Aquinas, is a philosophical and theological framework centered on universal moral principles accessible through reason. It aims to guide individuals and societies toward human flourishing and justice. Catholic teachings on issues such as sexuality and family are not rooted in control but in a vision of human dignity and the flourishing of individuals and communities. They reflect the belief that truth and love, rather than relativism, provide a solid foundation for society. — Patrick Waters, Park Ridge Schwartz’s assumption Peter H. Schwartz is seriously misinformed on natural law as understood within the Catholic Church and its application to everyday affairs, as well as being afflicted with partisan rancor. A Google search of natural law, however limited, gives a better understanding. Schwartz assumes that the political people he names are influenced by natural law. Has Schwartz considered that Joe Biden, who identifies as Catholic, is presumably also influenced by natural law? Assuming that all these people are grounded in natural law, how is it that Biden and those named in Schwartz’s op-ed have come to such different political persuasions? I am surprised that the Tribune opinion team gave space to Schwartz’s opinion piece. Vox rejected his article because he is misinformed and driven by partisan bias, and the Tribune should have done the same. Printing his opinion piece is akin to the misinformation that good journalists rightly seek to counter. The Tribune is better than that. To have integrity, the Tribune opinion team should seek an opinion piece that accurately informs readers of natural law as understood within the Catholic Church and how that applies to everyday affairs. — Donald Gimbel, Elmhurst Lack of reason, research I was disappointed to read the superficial op-ed that Peter H. Schwartz wrote about natural law in Donald Trump’s second administration. It consists of slams against boogeymen — Catholics in media or politics. Reason and research were absent. — Susan Kelly, Northbrook A voice for progressives Peter H. Schwartz’s brilliant op-ed on the expansive influence on government by the traditional (and very right-wing) Catholic Church was right on target. There are, however, many churchgoing Catholics like my wife and me whose beliefs are a long way form those in our pulpits, either at our local church or in Rome. We are pro-choice, embrace rather than condemn our gay family members and friends, and long for the day when women can ascend to those pulpits as ordained priests. And we are way past exhausted with male celibacy, which has only paid a dividend of sexual abuse by denying an entirely natural need. What we lack is a voice, which the institutional church would be only too happy to squelch. — Tom Wogan Sr., Palos Heights Leftist political diatribe I am astounded and saddened by Peter H. Schwartz’s opinion on Catholic, and by extension, Christian, beliefs and traditions. He has insulted and denigrated Christians who make up 67% of Americans. Catholic/Christian ideals include respect for the family, respect for the individual (no matter what their gender, race or social status), respect for all life, and a dedication to helping others and aspiring to love and peace: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” His leftist political diatribe is exactly what drove the success of Republicans in the last election. Natural law is not a return to medieval thought, but rather the enlightenment principles that infuse our Constitution. Fortunately for Schwartz, good Catholics will turn the other cheek and pray for his intellectual redemption. — Marilyn O’Shaughnessy, Palos Park Foundation for 3 religions Peter H. Schwartz is wrong. Catholic tradition does not date back 800 years; it dates back much further to the time of Moses and the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments form the foundation for three of the major religions in the world today: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. The world would be a much better place if all of us followed the Ten Commandments and traditions of these religions, including Catholicism. — Edward Whalen, Chicago Catholicism not the issue Peter H. Schwartz’s opinion piece sends a warning all right, but not about “traditionalist Catholic influences.” It’s a warning of the dangers of conflating the views of far-right conservative extremists with the Catholic faith writ large. Yes, we should all be concerned about the people Donald Trump has chosen for his administration. JD Vance, Sean Cooksey, Karoline Leavitt and many, many others pose serious threats to our freedoms. But they weren’t chosen because they are Catholic. They were chosen because they pledge fealty to Trump. These people are poster children for self-promotion. They are largely acting in stark violation of basic Catholic tenets. Schwartz needs to read Neil Salzman’s front-page article in Sunday’s Tribune (“Their fight isn’t over”) about the Sisters of Mercy who have devoted their lives to fighting for immigrant rights to understand what Catholic principles are all about. Catholicism is not the problem. The problem comes from denouncing an entire set of values based upon the acts of a few, albeit powerful, group of actors. It’s the anti-Catholic sentiment of the mid- to late 19th century that will, in Schwartz’s words, “Make America Medieval Again.” — Barbra Butler, Downers Grove Singling out Catholics After reading Peter H. Schwartz’s op-ed, I was actually stunned. I could not believe that the Tribune opinion team would allow such a demeaning opinion piece to be published. If you replaced the word Catholic and its ethos with say Jewish or Muslim or Baptist or atheist  and their ethos along with a criticism, I find it hard to believe it would be published because of the insult to that group. And to imply that these officials were selected because they are Catholic is also absurd. Many of the people doing the selecting or electing are not Catholic. They are choosing based on what they hope these people can accomplish. Why are Catholics and their beliefs held up for ridicule, but not other groups? Maybe someone on the Tribune opinion team can explain that to my and other Catholics’ satisfaction. But I doubt it because I believe it is old-fashioned prejudice. — Anton R. Iberle, Evergreen Park, Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].