The Fear of Purpose

Many of us spend much of our lives searching for a purpose to the lives that we lead. For some, the purpose is found in the small things; walks by our favorite pond, the cat that always meows outside the window as dinner is prepared, the smell of coffee steeping as we step outside of the shower. For some, purpose must be found in temporal usefulness; the work we do Monday through Friday, volunteering to clean up around our communities, donating time to a local soup kitchen. For others, purpose is found outside of our daily lives; worshipping God, attending our local church, taking solace in the beauty of His creation. The purpose that we all find can be quite different from the purpose that the person sitting next to us has found, or it can be almost the same exact thing.

Within all of the different meanings that we use to get out of bed in the morning, is the prerequisite – the search for it. I will not burden the reader with a description of this search, as there are so many writers who have provided so many beautiful and moving depictions of it and I do not want to sully their works with a mediocre depiction of my own. No, it is not the search that I wish to talk about, but the abandonment of what the search has given.

Many people reading this will remember as a child or a young adult, or even into their full adulthood, being plagued with a fear that they will never know what the meaning of life; never know what their purpose should be. For most of us (although, I would argue that the number has decreased in these modern times full of distraction and noise), we find that meaning. It may be a slow percolation that leads to a gradual realization, or there may be a person or event that rocks meaning and purpose into our lives, a meaning and purpose that may be rather different than what was once expected.

The search may continue for many years, and the findings that it turns up may change over time, leading to a morphing of meaning; the birth of a child, the loss of a spouse, the ending of a relationship. In all of these is the distinct possibility that one may not like the meaning that their search has turned up, and this dislike may undoubtedly turn into a fear.

The young man who always seems like he goes wherever the wind blows finds that his meaningful moments are in the routinization of his daily life, in the things that repeat over and over. A young woman, intent on shedding the manacles of an oppressive society finds that her meaningful moments are when she provides love and care to those who cannot provide it to themselves. I speak of these because they are close to my heart, but the scenarios are manifold, far beyond my limited personal experience to delve into.

Many are faced with the finding that purpose is to be found in their lives in a manner different from what they had hoped, pointing them towards a different life than they had imagined living. For some, however, this difference between truth and hope resolves itself in fear and avoidance; seeking meaning and purpose in areas that they know are wrong. Fear of a purpose leading them to a life of challenge and outside of a life of comfort lends itself to a life of avoidance, a life of superficiality and emptiness.

Face the fear and welcome the challenges that your search has delivered unto you. Pick up your cross, embrace the purpose that the Lord has set out for you.

Discretion in the Criminal Justice System

Why Is Discretion So Pervasive?

            Within the criminal justice system, street level bureaucrats possess a high amount of discretion. Street level bureaucrats are defined as: public service workers who interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work (Lipskey, 1980). Discretion, for the purposes of its connotations with street level bureaucrats, can be conceptualized as the influence that these street level bureaucrats have over the “dispensation of benefits or the allocations of public sanctions” (Lipskey, 1980). While much of the discretion employed within the criminal justice system is at the hands of street level bureaucrats, which will be discussed below, it is certainly not the only area of the system in which one can witness its prolific use. It is prevalent within the courts, corrections, diversionary programs such as mental health organizations and jobs programs, the judiciary and beyond.

            There are many reasons behind the pervasiveness of discretion in the United States criminal justice system. Perhaps the easiest to understand and most apparent reason is the inherently diffuse nature of the criminal justice system. This is highlighted in the work of Prottas (1978). One way to conceptualize this diffuse nature is within the challenge of supervision. For individuals within the criminal justice system who are often outside of a traditional office, such as police or mental health case workers, supervision on a regular basis is next to impossible. Being autonomous in these situations and away from immediate access to supervision creates an inherent and often immediate need for discretion to be employed by these workers.

            Another reason that the American criminal justice system finds itself so pervaded with discretion is due to the contingent nature of the issues that those within the system often find themselves in. Again, we can look to Prottas (1978) for illumination here. He states that, due to the ‘boundary spanning’ jobs that street level bureaucrats within the criminal justice system hold, there are constantly shifting expectations, environments, and clientele that these individuals must interact with and manage. Contingencies, shifting expectations and changing environments are all challenging interactions that are often unable to be properly attended to if one was to rely completely on institutional mandates and official rules. In these situations, discretion often provides the best outcome both for the individuals on the receiving end of the discretion, as well as the individual dispensing it.

            Another reason that discretion finds itself so intractable within the American criminal justice system is due to the increasing interconnected nature of the American criminal justice system and mental health treatment; in many ways, jails have become the de-facto mental health system for many Americans (Johnson, 1984; Snow & Briar, 1990; Palermo et al., 1992). With the shift of jails into mental health providers, one of the (multitudinous) collateral consequences is the nature of policing in response to mentally ill individuals. Teplin (2000) discusses this, explicating on the discretionary role that police have in whether to hospitalize, arrest or otherwise deal with mentally ill individuals that they encounter. In this article, she discusses the decisions that the officers need to make, which often comes down to whether to focus on the protection of the safety and welfare of he public, and what she terms parens patriae, which is protection for disabled citizens, such as those who are mentally ill. With the ever-increasing conversations centered on homeless encampments in large cities, with mental illness and addiction being rampant in these areas, discretion becomes a necessity when officers are confronted with situations such as these. Certain situations, such as someone struggling on a -10-degree night or an actively psychotic individual ranting at a children’s park are hopefully going to require very different responses from the officers handling the situation, with discretion being a central factor. The discretion that an officer employs when confronted with a mentally ill individual is a perfect encapsulation of the boundary spanning that is discussed in Prottas (1978). Officers may often need to interact with mentally ill individuals as patients before they need to interact with them as clients in the sense of becoming involved in the criminal justice system – when encountering these situations, is it best to move these individuals into the care of a hospital, or a jail?

Should Discretionary Power Within the Criminal Justice System be Restricted?

            There is no single answer to this question, nor is there a correct one. Discretionary power within the criminal justice system can be a rather powerful force for good. This sentiment is put forth by Arthur Rosett (1972). To begin this piece, Rosett quotes:

If every policeman, every prosecutor, every court, and every post-sentence agency performed his or its responsibility in strict accordance with rules of law, precisely and narrowly laid down, the criminal law would be ordered but intolerable.

With this sentiment summed so nicely, one can use their own deductive powers to see the veracity of the statement. Should we punish all thefts the same? This is easy enough to see – simply look to Les Misérables (Hugo, 1908) for the titular example. Theft is an easy enough example for us to use; the classic example of a single mother, currently unemployed, stealing diapers and bread in order to care for her children is rather different than petty theft by a college student, from the same store (and even, perhaps, of the same items, given the pettiness), for no reason other than that they wanted to. Discretion here is paramount. Punishment for these two crimes, even though they are the same crime and centered on the same items and at the same store, must be of a different nature for the two criminals, given the circumstances of the crimes. If discretion here was restricted to the utmost possible level, these two individuals would receive the same punishment, although the outcomes of these same punishments would vary wildly. In this image, we see the perfect image of why discretion is necessary.

            At the same time, just as I alluded to above, there is no single, correct answer to this question. The titular example of why discretion is necessary would, to me at least, seem to be Jean Valjean, and his theft of a loaf of bread (Hugo, 1908). While I do not have quite as beautiful an image for the necessity of the restriction of discretion, many still abound. Here, let us look to Bowers (1983). In this piece, Bowers discusses ‘arbitrariness’ and how it expanded following a Supreme Court decision centered on capital punishment. In Bowers’ 1983 article, he provides a different picture of discretion. Depending on the individual that discretion affects, and the manner in which it affects them, discretion can seem less like discretion, and more like an arbitrary decision that is not rooted in anything but whim. Bowers goes on to discuss how some persons are sentenced to death while others, having committed essentially the same crime, are not, and that this difference stems from discretion that is likely influenced by ‘extralegal’ influences such as ‘race, class, and origin.’ When discretion is used in this manner, when people receive a sentence of death while another does not and that difference stems from something like race class or origin, this is readily apparent as unacceptable. While capital punishment is quite a step separate from punishments handed out for theft of a loaf of bread, that these two examples help to illuminate how discretion can be used in a way that improves society, as well as acts as a detriment.

            To answer the question, instead of continuing to dance around it, I believe that discretion needs to be restricted with discretion. I believe that restriction of discretion is necessary and would reduce the aforementioned perception of discretion bleeding into arbitrariness; I qualify this because there the restrictions that would improve the system would be conditional and limited. As discussed in the first section, when an officer is on the street, I cannot imagine a solution to a restriction of their discretion that would be even remotely cost effective, ethical, or practical. It would simply be impossible.

            In another context, say that of a courtroom, some of these issues preventing a curbing of discretion would be immediately pushed aside, as they are no longer a concern; specifically, cost effectiveness and practicality. By removing the diffuse nature of the street level criminal justice worker, the main barrier remaining to a reduction in discretion is that of ethicality. Reduction of discretion in these situations may sometimes be beneficial and may sometimes be negative. Again, we refer to our earlier example of a thief of bread and diapers. Should the court punish each individual equally? Or should situation be accounted for? Here, I believe discretion is still to be valued and employed. The discretion limit as to the reduction of inappropriate discretion comes for more serious crimes. For crimes such as rape, murder, sexual assault, arson and the like, I do not believe that discretion is appropriate. Punitiveness is not something that I believe in as a generality, but when something so heinous as rape is committed, the room for discretion flies out the window.

            To sum, I believe that discretion is a necessity in most areas of the criminal justice system: the street, the jails and prisons, the courtrooms and beyond. In many ways, discretion cannot be restricted due to the excessively diffuse nature of the criminal justice system in America, and even when it can be restricted, it very often should not be. Discretionary restriction is to be employed when a certain threshold has been crossed; there are limits to when individuals should be allowed discretion, to when situation and circumstance have any right to be considered.

            While I do truly believe that restriction of discretion in areas such as murder, rape, arson, and other violent crimes, I also want to take a moment to recognize how, in certain areas of the criminal justice system such as the courts, this may seem eerily akin to such policies as ‘three strikes.’ Instances like this, where discretion is wholly removed, generally end up causing far more harm than good, with public safety not being meaningfully improved. This is why I use the word restriction of discretion, not removal. Even in heinous cases, there needs to be perhaps not room for discretion and leniency, but at least the possibility that it could be used, if absolutely necessary. I recognize that all of this simply qualifies my statements, showing that there is always an exception to the rule. In the criminal justice system, where rules are so often touted, these exceptions are often of significant importance, and even if restricted, should never be wholly removed.


Bowers, W. J. (1983). The pervasiveness of arbitrariness and discrimination under post-Furman capital statutes. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 74, 1067.

Hugo, V., & Buffum, D. L. (1908). Les Misérables. New York, Henry Holt and Co.

Johnson, J. (1984). Removing the chronically mentally ill from jail. Washington, DC: National Coalition for Jail Reform.

Lipskey, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage.

Palermo, G. B., Gumz, E. J., & Liska, F. J. (1992). Mental illness and criminal behavior revisited. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 36(1), 53-61.

Prottas, J. (1978). The power of the street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 13(3), 285-312.

Rosett, A. (1972). Discretion, Severity and Legality in criminal justice. S. Cal. L. Rev., 46, 12.

Snow, William & Briar, Katharine. (1990). The convergence of the mentally disordered and the jail population. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 15.147162.10.1080/10509674.1990.9963957.

Teplin, L. A. (2000). Keeping the Peace: Police Discretion and Mentally Ill Persons. National institute of justice journal, 244, 8-15.


When I was a child,
the senselessness made sense.

It was there,
but time would wipe it away.

As the days and years moved by,
I knew that I would know.

But senselessness is eternal,
stretching from womb to grave.

Acts of Meaning,
gripped tightly against the tide.

Not the meaning I had hoped for,
but I must cherish what I have.


“As the Puritan have way to the Yankee, a secularized version of the Protestant (work) ethic emerged.” -Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism

Pro Life, Truly?

Today during mass, our priest talked about the shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, highlighting the meaning of pro life; that it extends from before the cradle to the lip of the grave.

One thing that Catholics seem to be quite good at is vocal opposition to abortion and, to an extent, supporting the women who need help during and following a pregnancy – I would like to voice my full support of this. While there are plenty of Catholic organizations and Catholic individuals giving their time and money to pursuing the pro-life cause in many ways other than just fighting the sin of abortion, it often gets drowned out by the cacophony surrounding this abortion issue. Today, however, I would like to talk a bit more about the pro life issue, and how it extends much further than just the unborn and the infant.

One thing that I have come to realize is that being a good Catholic and being a good American are not always in line. Here, regarding the second amendment, I am again unsure if they can be reconciled. As someone who has been (and is, at least for now) very pro 2A, this has been something that is becoming more and more obvious of presenting at the very least an internal struggle and perhaps even more than that. During the homily, one line that stuck with me was that, to paraphrase, the second amendment did not come down from Sinai. As an American, I am fully in support of the 2A, with no restrictions, with the belief that without it, this country will descend into tyranny. As a Catholic, I never believed that this was in contradiction with any of my beliefs. But today, after that homily? I think that there is, perhaps, more to think about.

I spoke earlier about the American sickness, which manifests, all too often, through the awful tragedy of a shooting. I also spoke about the importance of welcoming God back into our society if we hope to combat this sickness, and make a more equitable and welcoming society for all, particularly those on the margins. I do not have a prescription that can fix this issue, but what I can suggest is that those of us, who believe in the sanctity of life and also support the second amendment, to at least begin to think through this issue, and think about what welcoming God back into society looks like. Is a society that is Godly one that has a gun in every hand? Is a society that supports those on the margins and gives care to those who cannot care for themselves one that allows weapons of war to be purchased with nothing but a cursory glance? I do not know, but I do know that I need to think about those questions, instead of dogmatic support of gun rights.

The American Sickness

America is not well. This is not a controversial statement. People from all walks of life, all beliefs and political leanings and religious bent, when honest, are forced to admit that the United States of America is ill, in a deep and pervasive sense. Perhaps the only point of contention on this is whether the disease is terminal – can America be saved, or must we shed the carcass?

When diagnosing, the prevailing method of education is to assess the symptoms, and then develop the diagnosis based upon what one has seen. This is done for mental illness, physical illness and even in our day to day lives, when making judgements centered on the people which make up our interactions. When looking at America, the symptoms are numerous: school shootings, fentanyl deaths among a larger opioid crisis among an even larger overmedication crisis, a dishonest and divisive media, untenably high housing prices, a lingering pandemic, an increasing inability to purchase adequate amounts of food for many Americans, significant numbers of homeless children (not to mention the adults), pervasive police brutality, and a plethora of other symptoms; not that they are less concerning, but only that they might be missed when looking at all these that would be deadly on their own.

In the face of the Uvalde and Buffalo massacres, we are yet again faced with this form of tragedy but, perhaps even more damning, we are again faced with the apathy that follows, as we Americans have become almost inured to these rampages. This apathy is perhaps the most concerning of all the symptoms, as it is always the emotion that seems to flood all people, after the immediate reactions from whatever tragedy we are faced with fades in immediacy. In this blog, I have often spoken about impotent rage, and this apathy always seems to pervade after our rage is confronted by our impotence to change the situations that our country is continually faced with. Apathy is only replaced when we are directly affected – when we know someone who is wasting away with a needle in their arm, when a family member is on the verge of homelessness because of soaring rent, when it is our grandparent that we are not allowed to see as they die in a hospital because of uncaring pandemic restrictions. This lack of care, except when we are directly affected, speaks to another symptom of the American sickness – the disintegration of community.

While symptoms can lead a shrewd individual to an accurate diagnosis, they can also lead one astray. Perhaps even more often than leading one astray, they take too much of our attention, and it is the symptom that is treated. While this can have beneficial effects, as I am positive addressing any of these symptoms listed above would, they do not attend to the underlying disease, and thus, at best, put a band aid on a severed artery. At worst, we can delude ourselves into thinking that the situation was handled, while the disease continues to metastasize. Addressing symptomology can only start once the disease has been accurately identified and the symptoms are attacked in a systematic manner, where one is aware of how one affects the other, so that there is long term change, with an eye on the next decade or three, not just on the next fiscal year.

So what is this disease? In many ways, to my eyes, it is the death of religion and community. We, as Americans, prize individuality to the point of danger. We idolize ourselves and our stories over the stories and challenges of our communities, our families and our country. In this hyper individualism, we have also placed ourselves above God, believing that through human rationality, through science, through politics or sheer will, we can attend to the ills that have plagued our nation for so long, and only continue to get worse. This is not the case. We cannot succeed in curing the cancer at the heart of this country, until we recognize that it is a cancer of spiritual and religious rot.

This is not to say that we can simply ask God to fix our problems, and sit back and watch as this is done. Rather, we must recognize that all our efforts need to be in service to Him, and not to our own selfish and short sighted goals. Our actions can only be tuned to success and the betterment of humanity when they are in line with the Heavenly will. In this country, all too often do we forget that the Divine will is not simply our own.

Attending to this disease begins first with compassion for the people around us, for the neighbors that have political signs on their doors that we despise, for the person begging at the corner of the gas station, for the woman struggling with the decision to abort because she has no support and no one to help her. By realizing that we are the servants to the lowest among us, by giving ourselves to those who are most needy around us, and by having compassion even for those that we cannot find a single common piece of earth that we share other than our shared humanity – this is how we can begin to address the symptoms that threaten to

Bureaucratized Man

Our forebears, through violent action, have created a safe, bland and bureaucratic society in which modern man is unable to express his lower emotions, thus turning all that could be expressed healthily into nothing more than a repressed rage. Within this bureaucratic world that has been erected ostensibly to protect, there is no legitimate outlet to express the emotion of the now impotent rage.

The Necessity of the Transcendant

The Transcendental as Integral when Discussing Religion

In the last few decades, political science and sociology have expanded their discussion and study of religion rather significantly. There have been many fascinating topics discussed, such as the role of religion in nationalism, the role of religion in developing as a religious bloc, and a plethora of other fruitful veins of discussion.

However, there is one thing almost always seems to be lacking in these discussions – the role of the transcendental. When discussing religion, one of the key factors (particularly when looking outside the Durkheimian sense of the word) that permeates all religions is the role of the transcendent – that “force” “God” “deity” or “otherworldly” aspect that gives religion it’s unique power over human affairs. The role of religion in voting blocs and in the development of distinct flavors of nationalism are important topics, just as are the other goals in the study of religion. The argument that will be made here is that, when discussing these, to develop a full and meaningful picture of these topics, the role of the transcendental must be discussed.

First, it is necessary to develop a working definition of “transcendental” for the purposes of this paper. When used within this paper, the term transcendent will be referring to the inherent impossibility of human understanding that is incumbent when discussing faith – again, the transcendent is that piece of religion that is beyond human understanding or explanation. (It is not lost on this author how difficult it is to involve something that is, by definition, beyond human understanding in a scientific and concrete manner). Here, it is also important to delineate why the term “faith” is being used in a discussion of religion. While it is possible to have one without the other, in either direction, it is the opinion of this author that the strongest instantiation of each, and certainly the most (politically, socially, economically) impactful of each is when they are tied together. When religion lacks faith, it lacks the transcendent quality that lends the true power that it can have over the life of an individual, rendering the religion to be a ritual and not much more. When faith lacks religion, it lacks the power that the ritual can give it – the power that is necessary to give religion the ability to make measurable and meaningful impacts in the more secularized worlds/discussions of politics, society at large, economics and all the other ways that religions have inserted themselves into a nominally secular U.S. society.

Moving forward, it will first be discussed how, even though it is this author’s belief that the transcendent is a concept that can enrich our understanding of how religion plays an important societal role, it is not always necessary to include in the conversation. In some of the conversations where it is not included, even though it would be fruitful to add that dimension to the conversation, it is still possible (even likely) to have a useful discussion. That is to say, while the transcendent is something that can significantly enrich a conversation about the power and impact of religion on U.S. society/politics/etc., this author is not claiming that the inclusion of this concept is necessary to every conversation. I make it a point to highlight this fact, as I do not want readers to believe that I am making an end-all be-all argument about this topic; this is far from the truth.

To sum up the argument that I am making here; when discussing the role that religion has on modern day culture/politics/etc., the Transcendent should be the context in which these arguments are couched. Without this context, the points being made are reduced only to their component parts. By contextualizing these arguments within the religious contexts that they are necessarily incorporated within, the readers may begin to see a more accurate picture of what the effects being discussed truly are – one may begin to see a fuller picture of the why instead of the oft heavily emphasized what.

It should also be noted that, for the purposes of this article, we will be discussing mainly the concept of Christianity. The transcendent is just as foundational to other world religions, but it makes the conversation so much larger, and thus impossible to adequately discuss in this paper (which, ironically enough, may likely be the argument that many authors would offer for not including a conversation of the transcendent in their own writings on religion).

The Study of Religion and Politics with the Transcendental Removed

As touched on above, there are scenarios where incorporating the transcendent into an argument or a paper may not be as necessary as in others. One of the more prevalent areas of this is within the economics of religion (both the economics internal to religion and those that have external effects on society at large), particularly when we are to focus on the more temporal and materialistic things that religion can offer to its adherents.

When looking at the role that religion has had on democratization, such as in Woodberry (2012), there is a significant aspect of the article that is focused on how Protestant’s had a much larger effect on democratization as opposed to Catholics from 1950-1990. In this description, there are small allusions made to the differences in beliefs, such as the statement “distinct theologies and organizational forms lead to distinct outcomes” (p. 269), but no real discussion of what it is about the beliefs that may have been important in the different effects that adherents of these two branches of Christianity had on the development of democracy. There are important discussions of the institutional nature (or lack of that institutionalization) and how this may have had a role in the necessity to focus on democratic structures as opposed to more entrenched power structures, as well as points made about location, historical factors, and others. However, there are no conversations given to what separates the conversionary Protestants from Catholics, or other religious orders. While there are plenty of arguments to be made about the structural differences between Catholics and Protestants that may have had a significant role in the differences of democratization rates, that is not the purpose here. What is it about the religious beliefs of certain religious groups that give them a proclivity towards democratic proliferation? What was the theological, the transcendent reason behind the Catholic Church being so emphatic about the particular form of democracy (Pope Leo XIII, GRAVES DE COMMUNI RE, January 1901)? Was it simply an organizational idiosyncrasy that led these two different expressions of Christianity to profess such different forms of government, or can we more accurately trace these differences to the different understandings and interpretations of God and Jesus Christ? I do not have the answer, but I do have a strong suspicion that it is these reasons, more so than any organizational or cultural reason, that precipitated these differences in government preference.

Another important sociological argument regarding religion and politics that does not necessarily give much credence to the importance of the transcendent is the debate of Berger’s Sacred Canopies argument as opposed to the religions market argument. In the classic 1967 book by Berger (The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion), he makes the argument that religious diversity leads to a general decline in religious participation, while proponents of the religious market theory, such as Olson et al (2020) make the argument in the opposite direction. Here, in these mode modern discussions of why religious adherence has flourished in places like the USA in relative contrast to European countries, the argument of diverse religious markets, an argument resting upon economic theory, has found itself in a prominent place. Again, I think it is important to highlight that even without the addition of anything inherently transcendent, these arguments can still hold water on their own. Continuing this metaphor centered on water, while the argument can hold water, it is more like a boat that has two oars attached to it; it requires significant manpower, particularly in rough waters, but it can and will get to the destination. However, if the transcendent was brought into the conversation, it would be like adding an outboard motor – much more power, but also significantly more complex, and more prone to issues, particularly if one does not have the requisite knowledge to utilize it properly (or at all).

One last example that I would like to present as a counterpoint to my own argument is a chapter that does focus on the role of the transcendent. One of the main arguments that this chapter offers (Smidt et al, 2009) is “…the core of religion-the realm of the transcendent, supreme beings, and direct communications with the divine-is beyond the realm of social science…” (as cited in Wald and Smidt, 1993, p’s 31-32) and that “research can show how the beliefs, behaviors and organizations associated with religion shape individual political attitudes and behavior, as well as institutional structures and processes.” This argument, that the transcendent is beyond the scope of sociology, or political science, or even science in general, is one that I believe is deeply flawed. While the transcendent does not need to be a part of the conversation (as I have said multiple times and will invariably say many more), to give up on it and leave it to a different realm of scholarship altogether is, I believe, a woeful abdication of what could be a very fruitful area of scholarship. As Smidt et al stated, they believe that their goal is to “show how the beliefs, behaviors and organizations associated with religion shape individual political attitudes and behavior, as well as institutional structures and processes.” I believe that this aim can be bolstered significantly by including more than passing allusions to the role of the transcendent, and instead delve into this topic in a rigorous, methodological and (likely) qualitative manner.

The above articles, and the points that they make are presented to show that a conversation on religion and politics can absolutely be had without the inclusion of the transcendental. These papers do not necessarily focus on the transcendent, and while that is ostensibly acceptable, it would be odd for me to leave it at this, however, given the stated purpose of this paper. While there can be a conversation, it is much akin to talking about the game of football without ever addressing the role of the quarterback – it can certainly be done, but there is going to be quite a bit of missing context and meaning. I make the point later in this paper, about the need to reduce the generalizability of the research if the research is to be poignant and meaningful within its own sphere. This presents a bit of a catch-22, in that to have a more complete conversation about the role of religion we need to shrink the scope of applicability and audience, yet at the same time we need to increase the scope of knowledge. However, unlike a true catch-22, one can do both at the same time – the question does not lie in the possibility, but whether one believes that it is the right course of action in the first place.

All this is said to bring us to the argument that one cannot truly understand the role that religion plays externally within our world and society, without also understanding the role that it plays internally for believers. Let us take for example Iyer’s 2016 article on “The New Economics of Religion.” In this article, there is a discussion on the economics of charitable giving, and the goods that religious groups offer to their members. While the conversation here gives a useful picture of how religion affects many of the economic institutions in an area, such as financial institutions, social services and others, it does not touch on the reasons why an individual involved in a religious organization would be so involved in charitable giving; according to the Hoover institution, those who are religious are 25% more likely to give to a charitable organization than those who identify as solely secular (91% as compared to 66%, respectively). Again, there are many reasons as to why this might be the case, such as the organizational structure of the religion they are a part of encouraging donations or institutional norms that act as a social pressure to donate. What is rarely discussed in these academic fields of sociology and religion, however, is the faith systems, the imperatives that these individuals feel from a higher power to give, as the motive force behind their actions. This is not to say that these organizational and institutional impetus’ are not active or even powerful – it is to say, however, that their power would evaporate without the transcendental as the bedrock upon which they are built.

What the Transcendental Adds to the Conversation

As discussed above, there are a wide array of topics within the field of “religion and.” Whether this is the case of religion and politics, the sociology of religion, or the collection of smaller subfields in which religion has a presence, there are many examples of where the transcendent aspect of religion is perhaps not outright ignored, but certainly relegated to a place in the corner that has been deemed appropriately obscure. While it is not my opinion that discussing the role of the transcendent in all these conversations is necessary, I do certainly believe that it adds something important to the context and offers a more complete understanding of the topics.

In discussions on public policy and the role that religion and religious adherents can have in the shaping of said policy, we often see these effects through the lens of the religious bloc – as we do in many other arenas. Rural and urban voters, low and high SES voters, cis and queer voters, and the multitude of other ‘blocs’ that we see politics and the public at large through. I argue that we cannot treat religion and religious participants in the same way (or even a similar way) that we treat secular groups and secular blocs. Whether one is to treat religion as something that one chooses or something that one is gifted with upon birth (although it is likely somewhere in between) does not matter in this context, as whichever one it is, it is fundamentally different than the cultural, racial, economic or other categories that people often get placed into when trying to anticipate and predict cultural trends and shifts. Religion, while generally a useful tool in these goals, should not be used in the same way, as using it in the same way as these other categories fails to address the complexity of religious motivations. This is not to say that religion and these other categorizations do not interact, for the surely do (and there is plenty of proof of it as well). It is to say that they cannot be treated the same, without pushing one’s understanding of a concept into inaccuracy.

A good adjacent example of how ideas can be missing from this conversation is in Wilcox et al’s (2008) discussion on the importance of moving away from an atomized and individualistic interpretation of religion, instead seeing it as a communal activity. I believe that, while this is a useful beginning, the argument needs to be taken further: religion is a communal activity and should be understood as such, but the community goes beyond that of human relationships – it is a relationship with the transcendent. Only by discussing this relationship with the transcendent can authors begin to give a full account of the relationship between religion and the “and’s” mentioned above.

By including this understanding of God and the transcendent in our discussions of the impact and role religion, we can see just how much more is involved in the precipitation of actions taken that extend beyond simple geographical culture, society and religious institutionalization and organization.

Moving Forward

It is impossible to be an expert on too wide an array of topics – it is difficult enough to be an expert of one. However, I would like to challenge the idea that we should be experts on the topics that we write about, instead of just being passionate. We are all aware of the saying “a jack of all trades is a master of none.” What we tend to forget is the second half of this saying. “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.” Instead of focusing so stringently on one aspect of the role of religion within our society, it is better to take the jack of all trades route – the understanding that is gained by passable knowledge of a wider array of reasons why religion has such a massive effect on our society (and has not declined as predicted by many writers) is far more useful, and preferable, than a laser focused perception of one of the avenues of the effect of religion.

There is a wide array of methods that could be taken to address the importance of the transcendent in the study of religion. One effective measure would be to reduce the generalizability of each individual study instead relying upon smaller and deeper conversations. To create a meaningful conversation of the transcendent, sacrifices must be made, as is the case with any shift in the scope of a study. To bring this back to the conversation on economics, there is undoubtedly an opportunity cost that is associated with a shift to a deeper understanding of the transcendent.

As a beginning, when writing about the role of religion, one should have at least a passable understanding of the religion that they are writing about. I do not believe that it is beneficial to dedicate all the associated time and energy that is necessary in creating a work of writing about the role of religion “and” without being able to at least speak to the religion itself, and what those who participate in that religion can be expected to believe. Again, this has an opportunity cost, and will take time to understand; a foundational knowledge about the religion gives credence to the rest of the writing centered around it, as well as gives justice (hopefully) to the adherents of the religion. To summarize the argument presented, the sociology and politics of religion is a fundamental and extremely important thing to understand, as the way that it affects our society is multifaceted and significant. To do justice, however, one should be able to speak to more than just the secular effects and role that religion plays, and be able to point to how the faith, the transcendent, frankly how the role of God acts as a fundamental bedrock beneath all the secular and societal effects of religion. Churches have a secular role to play, and often (for better or worse) have a very secular structure and secular understanding of the world that they are a part of, and I believe that these secular actions of the Church and the believers have pushed the discourse to be too secular itself. To truly understand and expand the knowledge that is present in how religion has shaped and will continue to shape politics, one must not just be familiar with the secular, but with the transcendent.


Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Anchor Books, 1967, (1990).

Brooks, A. C. (2003, October 1). Religious faith and charitable giving. Hoover Institution. Retrieved April 26, 2022, from,67%20percent%20to%2044%20percent).

Iyer, Sriya. 2016. The New Economics of Religion. Journal of Economic Literature, 54 (2): 395-441. DOI: 10.1257/jel.54.2.395

Leo XIII: Online Copy. Encyclical Letter. GRAVES DE COMMUNI RE, January 1901. Retrieved from

Olson, D. v. a., Marshall, J., Jung, J. H., & Voas, D. (2020). Sacred Canopies or Religious Markets? The Effect of County‐Level Religious Diversity on Later Changes in Religious Involvement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. doi:10.1111/jssr.12651

Wilcox, C., Wald, K. D., & Jelen, T. G. (2008). Religious Preferences and Social Science: A Second Look. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 874–879. doi:10.1017/s0022381608080821 Woodberry, R. D. (2012). The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy. American Political Science Review, 106(02), 244–274. doi:10.1017/s0003055412000093

A Catholic Response to Overturning Roe v. Wade

This evening, in an unprecedented leak, Politico broke the news, based on Justice Alito’s majority opinion, that the U.S. Supreme Court intends to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Here, I am not planning on making my thoughts known on the legality of such an action, how it will affect the American political landscape, or any other political question. Suffice it to say, as a Catholic (and one who was adopted to boot), I think that this is a wonderful, life affirming decision, and I am deeply grateful that we can take a step towards ending the murder of the unborn.

What I would like to talk about is how Catholics, and hopefully all Christians, can respond to this landmark decision (should it come to pass). To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, the mistake that both liberals and conservatives make in regards to Catholic perception is that liberals want pity without responsibility, and conservatives want responsibility without pity.

For many women, abortion is done out of desperation. This does not excuse the murder of the unborn, but desperation is not something that we should discount or mitigate. For many, particularly the poor and single, motherhood is terrifying. If you can barely take care of yourself, how can you take care of a child?

This is where Catholics must take an active role. If we are to ban abortion, as we should, we also need to support the mothers and children that are born – regardless of their situation. If a child is born out of wedlock, both the mother and child deserve care and love. There is no excuse, no matter the situation, that allows for the callous discarding of either mother or child.

If we are to encourage a truly caring and equitable society, as we should, moving to ban abortion is only the first and most basic step. It is also the easiest. The next steps that need to be taken need to come from a place of compassion, love and care for all living life, as hopefully support for pro-life legislation did as well. For women who are struggling to give care to their children (or any parent, for that matter), it is not the duty of a Catholic to judge how they ended up in this place of precariousness, or how the parental actions led them to need help. No. It is simply the duty of the Catholic, and of all Christians, to provide love, support and, crucially, material support.

For children that are born into desperate situations, or tenuous ones, or challenging ones, or good ones, or loving ones, or any situation at all – they deserve and are entitled to the support of the entire Christian community.

If this decision truly does get enacted, and this wonderful change does happen in our society, we, as Catholics, must remember that this is only the first step. Care for the downtrodden, the poor, the defenseless and all those on the margins of society. Now is not the time to celebrate victory – if victory has even truly been achieved. Now is the time to take the truly Christian approach and help those in need.