Recommended Read: Michael Sean Winters at National Catholic Reporter Gives a Roman Catholic Response to R.R. Reno Regarding COVID-19 and Sacrificing the Vulnerable to Preserve the Economy

In late May of 2020 R.R. Reno at First Things wrote a problematic post that showed his denial about the COVID-19 situation. At the National Catholic Reporter Micheal Sean Winters wrote a solid response to the libertarian Catholic writer. 

“Love of Christ does not distract us from interest in others, but rather invites us to responsibility for them, to the exclusion of no one….

Pope John Paul II

And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[a] you did it to me.

Matthew 25:40 NRSVCE

St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, Louisiana

This post is going to be brief. I do not have the time to explore and write about everything that I see related to the COVID-19 pandemic. But I saw something in the National Catholic Reporter that is a good response to R.R. Reno of First Things. First Things from my understanding is more of a libertarian Catholic blog. If I am wrong please correct me. R.R. Reno wrote a post at the end of April that was smack full of denial. The COVID-19 pandemic is not bad at all , and not different than the minor flu. He called for re-opening the economy and not letting the elderly or others stand in the way. The economy should be first in this time. Warren Throckmorton has been writing about the problems of R.R. Reno and wrote about the denial of R.R. Reno here. Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter wrote a response that is solid and worth reading. he rebukes Reno on his Catholic interpretation. You can read that in, “On COVID-19 and the economy, First Things gets the last things wrong.” 


One thought on “Recommended Read: Michael Sean Winters at National Catholic Reporter Gives a Roman Catholic Response to R.R. Reno Regarding COVID-19 and Sacrificing the Vulnerable to Preserve the Economy

  1. Winters’ response does not explain why Reno’s post is wrong. Reno’s post seems on point to me, though it does not go far enough: the anti-covid measures we have come up with may well end up killing more people in the long run than covid-19 does. We will never know the full cost of the lockdown, but part of that cost includes people whose cancer is not detected until it is too late to treat, people who die of diseases whose cures were not discovered in time because the crippled economy did not fund their research, and of course, suicides. The cost of the lockdown also includes the long term effects of the increase in child and spouse abuse. It may yet include the cost of war.

    Winters dismisses this greater long term cost in human life as “economic concerns”.

    The lockdown was appropriate when our best scientists told us that we were facing the possibility of over 2 million deaths. Now that we know that that prediction was the result of incompetence (I refer to the Imperial College computer model) and the reality is much less severe, the lockdown is not appropriate.

    Yes, we need to protect the at-risk among us. The lockdown does not accomplish that. Sensible policies can.

    Reno calls for relying on science, being open to changes in evidence as they appear, and insisting on the truth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.