text: I wonder if Feinstein's use of "dogma" was actually strategic. I imagine she's aware that, for many, it's an oppressive-sounding words that elicits an involuntarily negative response. It definitely sounds less positive (and less liberal) than "social doctrine" or "moral teaching" or a host of other terms she could've used that would've been more accurate.
  
  If all this leads to a serious discussion about what it means to practice one's faith in the public arena, I'd be all for it. Bring it on. I'd love for the door to be opened to a robust discussion about whether one can be a conscientious, pro-life Catholic and still be opposed to legislative and judicial restraints on personal choice. For the record, I believe one can.
  
  But I don't think that's what Feinstein was doing. I think this was an intentional shot across the bow of Catholicism. And she deserves to be called on it.