Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Denouncing Is Easy. Governing Is Hard. Now Show Me Results!

Denouncing Is Easy. Governing Is Hard. Now Show Me Results!

Last updated on: July 20, 2026 at 9:29 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

Denouncing Is Easy. Governing Is Hard. Now Show Me Results! 2026-07-20T21:29:52-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image created by author using AI.

In a recent article, Patheos writer Henry Karlson denounced what he calls “the theology of the rich.” According to Karlson, this theology is a heresy because it oppresses the poor and makes escape from poverty increasingly difficult. He laments that many Christians—or at least those who claim the name—have embraced this way of thinking. In his view, they seek to hide the poor in prisons and homeless shelters, assume they are lazy and deserve their circumstances, and allow the wealthy to continue exploiting them. By contrast, Karlson argues that God is the God of the poor and that Christianity has no place for “the theology of the rich.”

In concluding his admonition, Karlson writes:

They must reject any attempt to denigrate the poor by making it harder for them to even survive. They must seek to lay to waste the structures of sin, replacing them with a more just and benevolent system, a system which should seek the common good and not the good of a select few.

Every Christian should denounce injustice. That part—like writing an essay—is easy. The harder task is governing a fallen world, where every policy involves tradeoffs and unintended consequences. If we accuse others of supporting “systemic injustice,” we should also demonstrate that our own preferred policies produce better results. Compassion deserves our admiration. Results deserve our confidence.

It is easy to denounce “structures of sin” and envision “a more just and benevolent system.” Producing actual results, however, is an entirely different challenge.

The Church Calls Us to Love the Poor

Let’s begin with some common ground. Every person, including the poor, possesses inherent dignity. Christians also have an obligation to care for the poor and to reject indifference and cruelty. The debate is not whether Christians should care for the poor, but how that care ought to be expressed and implemented.

Karlson, who identifies as a progressive, frequently denounces what he calls “systemic injustice,” yet he devotes remarkably little space to explaining what concrete alternatives should replace the policies he criticizes.

Notice the pattern. The article identifies the villains: the rich, capitalism, conservatives, property owners, police, and those who support stricter law enforcement. Fair enough. Now what? Once we have identified the villains, what, specifically, should we do?

Criticism is necessary, but criticism alone does not govern a city.

The Question Progressive Rarely Answer

Again, identifying injustice is relatively easy. Governing with prudence requires far more effort. Consider a few real-world examples.

Cities such as Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles—all governed primarily by progressive leadership for many years—continue to struggle with large homeless encampments, widespread drug addiction, untreated mental illness, discarded needles, public defecation, violence, business flight, and unsafe public spaces. Despite the enormous sums these cities have devoted to programs and services, many of these problems persist or have worsened.

So, what should be done?

Not slogans.

Not generalized appeals to compassion.

Concrete policy.

If criminal penalties are rejected, what should replace them? If involuntary commitment is rejected, how should society care for those who cannot care for themselves? And If encampments cannot be removed, what is the long-term solution?

These are not rhetorical distractions. They are the central questions any serious public policy must answer.

The Forgotten Victims

What about those often absent from discussions of “systems of injustice”? What about families with children, elderly residents, disabled pedestrians, small business owners, workers, public transit users, and even other homeless individuals who become victims within encampments? Catholic social teaching concerns all persons.

Does their dignity matter as well?

Let’s also speak honestly about something: mental illness cannot be solved by leaving people on the sidewalks. Certainly, many psychiatric institutions of the past deserved criticism, and deinstitutionalization corrected genuine abuses. However, the promised network of community-based mental health care often failed to materialize. As a result, many people with severe mental illness cycle through homelessness, emergency rooms, jails, addiction, and back onto the streets.

If someone suffers from schizophrenia, repeatedly overdoses, and cannot care for himself or herself, should society simply leave that person alone? Is refusing intervention always the compassionate response?

Catholic Social Teaching Is Broader Than One Principle

Catholic social teaching holds several principles together: human dignity, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, prudence, and justice. The common good, in particular, includes public order, public safety, healthy neighborhoods, the protection of families, and care for the vulnerable. A genuinely Catholic response must consider all of these principles simultaneously.

We also must not overlook the virtue of prudence. Prudence requires us to ask difficult questions:

Will this policy work?
What are its consequences?
What unintended harms might it create?
Who will bear those costs?

Good intentions cannot substitute for wisdom. Christian charity without prudence becomes sentimentality without direction.

The Burden of Proof

If someone argues that those who disagree with his assessment of what constitutes “systemic injustice” are supporting injustice themselves, then he bears a serious responsibility. Karlson, and those who share his perspective, ought to answer some pointed questions.

For example, how will homelessness actually decrease? How will addiction decline? How should society treat severe mental illness? When neighbors report feeling unsafe, how will their concerns be addressed? What about businesses? If business owners feel threatened by rampant homelessness, open drug use, and crime, should their concerns fall on deaf ears? Finally, when, if ever, is involuntary treatment justified?

These are not peripheral questions. They lie at the heart of any serious proposal to replace the policies currently in place.

Compassion Must Be Measured by Results

Whether we like it or not, we must judge public policy by its results. If homelessness increases after decades of progressive governance, shouldn’t those policies be reconsidered? What about overdose deaths? Shouldn’t we ask whether current approaches are failing? If cities become less safe, does compassion require us to ignore that reality?

At what point does refusing to change course become ideology rather than prudence?

Every political movement faces incentives that can make solving problems more difficult. If homelessness is continually presented as evidence of systemic injustice requiring ever-expanding public programs, what incentives exist to acknowledge when those programs fail? Is there sufficient political reward for declaring success, reducing bureaucracy, or admitting that a different approach may better serve both the homeless and the wider community?

We should judge leaders—even progressive ones—by the effectiveness of their policies, not merely by the compassion of their rhetoric.

Final Thoughts… More Than Moral Outrage

I offer Karlson, and those who think like him, a challenge. Two truths can exist at the same time: first, Christians should oppose injustice wherever it exists. Second, Christian moral reasoning does not end with identifying villains. It must also answer the harder questions. How do we protect both the vulnerable and the common good? How do we restore people suffering from addiction and mental illness? And how do we balance mercy with responsibility?

It is easy to denounce “the rich” or imply that those who reject progressive policies support systemic injustice. It is much harder to demonstrate that one’s own proposals actually heal the poor, restore the broken, protect neighborhoods, and promote the common good. Christian charity demands compassion. Christian prudence demands results. If we are serious about loving the poor, we should judge our policies not by the sincerity of our intentions, but by whether they genuinely improve the lives of those they are meant to serve.