Reducing Catholic polarization will almost certainly require reducing overall political polarization in the country, a difficult challenge. At the same time, the Church can and should try to convince more American Catholics to embrace Catholic ideals and support the countercultural approach of Catholic Social Teaching.A version of [Roman] Catholic Social Teaching more akin to a SJW version of liberalism/statism? A statist counterfeit of the common good is no replacement for the authentic common good and community, which requires that the right to association be respected.
Step one in confronting Catholic political polarization should be to unite against all forms of bigotry and those seeking to undermine our democratic system. We must not forget the lessons of the 1930’s and allow brutal ideologies to become mainstream among American Catholics. Essentially, this is about preventing a new political pole to emerge—one more toxic and antithetical to Christian values than the existing poles. A failure to arrest rising Alt-Catholicism would make Catholic polarization far worse—creating new obstacles to communion, jeopardizing souls, pulling the American Church away from the global Church, and badly damaging Christian witness. It is perhaps the gravest threat to Catholicism in the United States.
Actually, the gravest threat to Catholicism in the United States are SJW bishops and academics such as the author of this piece, who fail to realize that their advocacy is in opposition to the Natural Law.
One critical way to reduce enmity is for American Catholics who are publicly dissenting from Church teaching to be honest about their dissent. Catholics should not overstate their knowledge of Church teaching or their commitment to it. They should not distort it—intentionally or through neglect. And they should never downplay it or undermine it by making it seem optional by twisting concepts like intrinsic evil or the need for prudential reasoning. They should describe Church teaching in a way that is clear and fair, having examined it with the desire to fully understand and accept it. If ultimately, having looked at Church teaching in its best light, they feel that core Catholic principles and factual reality point to a different conclusion than what the Church teaches and they wish to discuss this publicly, they should be honest and clear about it and explain precisely why.
While the author postures as being fair in asking "dissenters" to explain their reasons, he is actually indulging in the worst of Latin positivism in assuming that the teaching of the Patriarchate of Rome is identical to Tradition. The burden of proof is on those who have "developed" Church teaching so that it sounds like liberalism to show that their teaching is grounded within Tradition or the Natural Law.