The “Professional Pro-Life” Pharisee
To start with, we must remember that, in theory, the Pharisees were often in the right, but in practices, in actualizing their theology, they became absolutists who demanded purity of anyone but themselves. If we were to place Jesus within the first century Jewish theological debates, he had more in common with the Pharisees than anyone else. Indeed, he would often recognize their authority and that much of what they said was true (as far as what they said went). Nonetheless, he also found how they tried to apply their ideals to their society to be what was in grave error. There were three problems he found with them: they tried to create demands which were impossible to follow, they didn’t seek to follow their own rules themselves, and yet they liked to give the appearance they followed their own rules so as to receive the praises of others. Thus, we find in the Gospels, Jesus saying:
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men (Matthew 23:2 – 6 RSV).
While theologically, they could be said to be orthodox, their practice could hardly be said to be following orthopraxis. They used the Law, meant to establish justice, as a means of abuse:
“‘But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Woe to you Pharisees! for you love the best seat in the synagogues and salutations in the market places. Woe to you! for you are like graves which are not seen, and men walk over them without knowing it’” (Luke 11:42-44 RSV).
While their desire for purity was honorable, and it produced many great insights, nonetheless, their focus was wrong; they were extremists, focusing on particular concerns, like the Law of Moses about the Sabbath, while ignoring the whole of the Law and its purpose. This lead them to create unrealistic absolutes; they used particular aspects of truth for the establishment of error. When questioned, they could and would point to the truth they have picked up on and use it to show they must be correct. Jesus, of course, was able to follow through with their application of the Law and show how absurd it was; God never intended such absolutes with his proclamation of the Law to Moses — it was meant to liberate, not enslave. “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27 RSV).
Jesus saw them as hypocrites, and understood that what motivated them was a desire for praise among men. In one way, one can say they were hurting. They needed the affirmation of others to make their lives feel worthwhile. We all do, and as far as that goes, there is no problem. But when they used their authority to abuse others, making demands of them that they do not themselves follow, all the well putting on a show of holiness, Jesus rightfully reacted. He said they got the praise they sought after, their reward has indeed been granted. “Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” (Matthew 6:2 RSV). But truly, they were dead; they had lost themselves to their absolutes and to their pursuit of worldly honors. Inside, the corruption ran deep; if people saw them for who they were and not as to what they appeared to be, one would have been disgusted:[1]
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity (Matthew 23:27 -8 RSV).
Sadly, we have something similar going on with the “professional” pro-life movement. There is, to be sure, some good going on, and much of what they say, as far as it goes, is right. They even have some interesting insights, like these profiles on GW Bush and Sarah Palin. Abortion and euthanasia are evils and must be rejected, and it is good to see how politicians deal with these evils. But there is more to being pro-life than just a denial of sin; it must be a positive, it must promote a life of virtue, for one to be pro all life and not just some life. The pro-life movement loses itself when it loses the fact that all life is holy and sacred, and all life needs to be given respect and encouraged by those who call themselves pro-life:.
Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity and life must necessarily be felt in the Church’s very heart; it cannot but affect her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God, and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the world and to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15).
Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenceless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.[2]
Instead, we have “professional” pro-lifers supportive of torture (like Judie Brown) or professional pro-lifers telling people that if they believe the issue other than abortion or euthanasia are life-issues, they are wicked (which is what Austin Ruse has said).
It is not right to disconnect abortion and euthanasia from the reason why they are wrong, away from the fact that all life deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. When such a disconnect happens, what we get is like what happened with the Pharisees of old: an incomplete truth being trumpeted above the fullness of truth, creating all kinds of burdens upon the helpless of society. Those facing the difficulties of homelessness, poverty, war, torture, and other such concerns which affect the dignity of the human person are tossed aside, so that the professional pro-lifer can appear to be holding on to the only important issue of the day — abortion. To them, nothing else matters. Of course, they can say how sorry they are to hear of such suffering; but then they turn their back on them and their needs, and tell them their problems do not matter as long as women are having abortions.
Pharisees of old focused on the sabbath; today’s Pharisees focus on abortion. Both impose demands on others which they don’t expect themselves to follow. Thus, while they tell us, “you can only vote for those who are against abortion, and those laws which work to eliminate abortion; you can’t compromise on abortion, it is non-negotiable,” they will tell us something different if a pro-choice Republican in Massachusetts can win a seat in congress. And they will also tell us that if one opposes universal health care on the grounds that it is “socialist,” you don’t have to worry about rejecting such health care provisions which come out of the senate that would otherwise improve the abortion situation in the United States. To them, rejecting socialism is actually a more fundamental concern than even abortion (though they will say right afterward that abortion is the only thing which matters). What do they do if people question them about this contradiction? Well, they just respond by saying “Don’t worry about me, I know what I’m doing; I’m a professional pro-lifer. I’ve got awards.” Indeed, they have the praise of men; they have their reward.
Now, for the rest of us, those who are concerned about life, all life, it is time to move on and look elsewhere for our guidance than the professional pro-life Pharisee.
Footnotes
[1] Let’s thank God we normally do not see ourselves as God sees us, because of course, we must recognize our own sin is just as deadly to us as the leaven of the Pharisees was to them, and we would also appear ugly and a horror to ourselves if our actual spiritual state was shown to us. We should not thank God we are not like the Pharisee; rather, we should humbly recognize how alike we are to them as well.
[2] Pope John Paul II, Gospel of Life. Vatican Translation. ¶3.
Comments are closed.
I hope I’m reading this correctly and charitably. It is your position that some in the pro-life movement are either incomplete or inconsistent in their application of Christian values. You then conclude essentially that they have flawed characters and we should “look elsewhere for guidance”.
You are certainly correct. In any movement there are narcissistic personalities who believe their particular narrow concern is of the utmost importance, and anyone not right at their coattails is evil. Such people are not fit for leadership because in the end they are serving themselves, not God or man. Good leadership is essentially service to others.
This could be a precautionary note for us all, as you note in your footnote. I think, however, that you paint with an overly broad brush, as the way you have expressed yourself. There are many good people in the “professional pro-life movement” who do not match your description of a pharisee. In describing the “professional prolife movement” as pharasaical, you paint them over with the same brush, which I’m sure was not your intent.
Doug
I think you got the point of this post. I was not trying to say all who are professionals in the movement are pharisees, just that we need to avoid the pharisees, who often have found a way to get high up in the “pro-life profession” setting. It is indeed something we need to be concerned with ourselves, always. And I was also trying to say, though there are problems with what comes out of these pharisees, not all they say is bad, nor all they do is bad either. We just need caution. And as always, even with ourselves. It’s difficult.
Henry:
Aren’t you being a bit too hard on the Pharisees by comparing them to the professional pro-lifer? After all, the Pharisees did what all human beings do naturally: They found ways to maintain their sense of self within the laws and expectations of the society within which they lived. They really did follow the Law as they understood it, probably not particularly aware how they’d interpreted to fit their own ego needs. Jesus’ commandment to love was radically “new” (John 13:34). For many of us, the full meaning of that commandment is still “new” enough and unfamiliar enough that we don’t live it fully.
I agree entirely with your assessment of the “professional pro-life” position and the darker motivations lurking in its shadow. But what I really need is to uncloak more of my own shadow as I try to find a way to live with integrity amongst, on the one hand, a “Pro-Life” movement which frequently denies needs and rights of the poor and the prisoner and, on the other hand, a “Pro-Choice” movement which often seems too ready to accept choices based on relativistic and individualistic “rational” awareness.
Henry,
I am not sure how the situation in Mass shows anything about people being Pharisees or hypocrites. Brown was much more “pro-Life” as to legislation and against repelking legilsation that have been hard fought for. I know you find some of this legilation not to be significant but others do.
It should also be recalled that Brown in a tough environment took a stand on the other Catholic Non Negotiable. That is marriage. Something that gets ignored
THe Pro-life movement is diverse. I am not sure why the Pro-life movement(call it anti abortion if you will) needs to be called out all alone for meeting a standard that no else is being held too. That gets to the interesting questions of who the Pharasiee really is.
I think common sense immigration reform is “pro-life” as you put it. However I don’t think it is necessary that they demand all people for that and who are fighting for it take a pro-life issue on abortion. Or that rights for immigrant groups must be talking about abortion, the war in Iraq, torture, etc etc
Do we demand that people fighting State execution and all their allies be anti abortion?
In the movement against Torture and what some view as “unjust war” where is the criticism that those Catholics and other allied themselves with many people that are actively opposing other tentent of the Church and social justice teaching? Something that has real consequences in elections
Should I demand that “pro-life” people that are involved in all these groups leave because they are not taking aggressive “pro-life stances” on all other issues.
THe job for the Right to Life movement is not to take numerous stands on other issues. Just like it is not Sister Prejeans job to be sending out numerous memos and emails talking about the Obama new Foreign Policy on abortion. She can if she wants. However I don’t see it as critical part of her anti State execution advocacy and I don’t consider her any less pro-life for it.
Many of the above issues you discuss are matters of prudential judgment and needed debate. I am not sure on with Health Care, the Homeless, the war against terror there is one Catholic or pro-life position since many of those issues are connected to a whole host of others.
THe issue in the background here is at the moment there is just one political party that really engages the ant abortion concerns. At the very least listens to them and in which pro-lifers can have some influence. That will not change until pro-life Democrats and progresives take their party back. As we see with the Tea Party movement and their actions in local and State parties it is easier than people think.
I think you have a valid point that the pro-life movement must be more diversed . That the person in the trenches need to link various issue as a whole in their thinking.
However until we see Dem laeding pro-lifers are able to repeal leadership and party rules that are hostile to them I am afraid we shall have a incomplete picture and thus the healthy debates that is needed between more GOP conservative pro-lifers and Democrat Liberal progressive leaning pro-lifers will not happen.
Your point is well taken, and so is doug’s.
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were Pharisees, as was Saint Paul. Those are just the ones I know of, so they could not have all been evil. Remember Caiaphas resorted to hastily calling a late-night meeting of the sanhedrin (which was illegal) in order to condemn Jesus.
I think another danger of calling all the Pharisees evil is that it risks us taking ourselves off the hook for doing evil and failing to do good.
There are many good people in the “professional pro-life movement” who do not match your description of a pharisee. In describing the “professional prolife movement” as pharasaical, you paint them over with the same brush…
There are many good people in the Pro-Life Movement as there were many good people in the Communist Movement. As to if a majority or minority of the leadership are good, I think that is an open question.
But a sufficient number of the leaders fit this description so as to dominate and control the Movement. Individuals may not fit this description, but the Movement as a whole does.
BOREDOM ALERT: I see similarities here with the debate within the Trotskyite Movement over the nature of the USSR. Trotsky and the majority held that the Soviet Union under Stalin was a degenerate workers state. Max Shachtman, head of the US Youth section of the Trotskyites, held that the USSR was no longer a workers state at all but a new form of social oppression termed “bureaucratic collectivism.” (decades later this theory was stolen without attribution by a Polish university professor detailed to an assignment in Rome).
After Trotsky’s assassination, Shachtman led his faction out of the Trotskyite Party to form his own movement that gradually moved towards democratic socialism.
The question for us today is “Is the Pro-Life Movement a degenerated movement for good or has it become a new political force for injustice? “ I would argue the latter.
I say this as someone who traditionally has upheld the wisdom of the pro-life movement maintaining a narrow focus on abortion issues. While on a philosophical basis a consistent pro-life witness is admirable, in the field of legislative advocacy, dedication to a particular goal and working with all willing partners towards that goal (even if they have in our judgment philosophical inconsistencies) is essential and necessary.
For me, it is not that the Pro-Life Movement has not taken on torture, war, or hunger as linked causes. It is that it has taken on issues such as opposition to campaign finance reform, opposition to insurance for 30 million Americans, opposition to lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens, silence towards the pro-abortion actions of private enterprise, as well as a political posture that compromises on abortion at every turn when it would bring a conflict with Big Business or the Republican Party.
Mr. Karlson:
If I understand your argument, one should not claim to be “pro-life” simply for opposing abortion and euthanasia. One must also oppose anything else you oppose in arguments that touch upon, or may touch upon, or can be said under certain circumstances to touch upon, matters concerning “all life” upon which you have determined a right and wrong position. If one does claim to be “pro-life” but disagrees with any your various “all life” positions, one is a hypocrite, a Pharisee, and a “professional”.
Wow. Where to begin? I assume by the way since this blog has a largely socialist bent, the term “professional” is considered an additional form of ad hominum disparagement around here, correct? Let’s suppose I put a terrorist in a head-lock and give him a really harsh noogie on the top of his head. Is that torture? If I also oppose abortion, would that make me a professional hypocrite pro-lifer? If it’s not true torture but merely mean and rotten, would I just a semi-pro? Can either one be a Pharisee? (By the way, if I give a terrorist a noogie but I don’t believe in an after-life, does that make me a Sadducee instead of a Pharisee? (Just a little 1st century Jewish theology joke, there.))
And if Mr. Ruse thinks it’s wicked to equate minimum wage disputes with abortion he has a fair point. Personally I would prefer to call such equations imbecilic, but then I’m more interested in judging people’s actions than in judging whatever it is I think might be in their hearts. Which brings us back to your Pharisees again. Jesus could well judge the motives that drove the Pharisees. Not to put too fine a point to it but, well, Jesus was God incarnate. You ain’t. Maybe you can’t really look into the hearts of “pros” like Judie and Austin. Maybe you’re not qualified to judge their motives. Perhaps you just disagree about some stuff other than abortion. Shameful post.
Regards,
Zabeli
THe job for the Right to Life movement is not to take numerous stands on other issues.
Correct. That is why it is wrong that the movement opposes lower drug prices for seniors, campaign finance reform, insuring 30 million Americans, and the election of pro-abortion Republicans (Brown) over pro-life Democrats (Lynch). Nor is it their job to remain silent when the anti-abortion agenda runs up against Big Business.
Many of the above issues you discuss are matters of prudential judgment and needed debate.
As would be many or most of the actions of the RTL Movement, including the Mexico City Policy, DC Home Rule, etc.
…until pro-life Democrats and progresives take their party back. …However until we see Dem laeding pro-lifers are able to repeal leadership and party rules that are hostile to them …
Until? Here we have the Democratic Leadership support a pro-life bill (the House Health Care bill) and the Republican Leadership oppose it with only one of their members (Cao) dare defy party leaders to support it.
No matter what Democrats do, those who use the Pro-Life Movement as a front for reaction will simply deny the truth. That is why the Pro-Life Movement needs to be abandoned.
Great post.
Eric
Thanks! I just saw your post on TAC, and I’m glad to see it posted; I hope it doesn’t cause too much grief. But the issue is of course one of central concern: how to make the movement itself follow the Gospel of Life. The problem is, as you have seen, too many assumptions which have nothing to do with the issue of life (GOP talking points) being pushed by some of the “professionals.” Of course, if it were the DNC talking points instead of life issues being promoted, I would also say that was bad.
I very strongly endorse what Kurt says. I stopped sending money to the NRLC in 1993, when they started sending me weekly mailers about health care. Surely, somebody could be both for health care and against abortion. I realized that the movement–as a movement–was not really about “life” but about Republican politics. The issue is not determining who is and who is not a Pharisee–a judgment beyond my capabilities–but about the fact that the movement is systemically Pharisaical; they have converted this issue into a “wedge” for the Republican Party. It frankly disgusts me. They take money from good people and turn it to evil purposes. And, they work to get their follwers as angry as possible not so much about life issues, but about a whole range of issues that either have nothing to do with life, or are connected in ways opposite to how the so-called pro-life movement plays them.
It seems that when someone disagrees with doctrine whether it is Roman Catholic or Lutheran, the person that disagrees want to label anyone that agrees with doctrine of the church (pro-life)a Pharisee.
Harry
Er, where did you get that from? I am quite strong with Catholic doctrine. Nothing I said was disputing doctrine, indeed, if you read my post, you would understand that.
The actual Pharisees were rebuked for straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.
Waterboarding is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
Health care inequality (for non-mothers, and non-children) is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
Hunger in the U.S. is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
Homelessness is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
The ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are gnats.
Abortion is the camel.
Capital punishment is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
Immigration reform is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
This is something that I have also recognized and it is consistent with certain modern theories of nonviolent practice. It is absolutely essential to recognize and separate one’s values and truth from how that truth is expressed. Everyone is motivated to serve-life, to meet their needs for integrity, honesty, spiritual communion, protection of life, etc., however, the strategies (the expression of) those beautiful, Divinely inspired and inherent human needs are more often than not tragic.
The next generation of pro-life leaders ‘get’ this:
http://nohiddenmagenta.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/pro-life-the-next-generation/
I don’t know if they get it, when you look at the March for Life and the major sentiment in favor of Brown as some sort of pro-life victory.
The candidate’s doctrinal purity is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
The candidate’s label is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
The candidate’s character is the gnat.
Abortion is the camel.
The actual Pharisees were rebuked for straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.
C.,
Yes, but I don’t think Jesus was saying that whatever isn’t a camel is a gnat, which seems to be what you are saying.
Henry…those are the old generation leaders that are being discussed in this post. I’m talking about the generation coming up. They see their anti-abortion views as connected logically with many other kinds of issues that transcend red/blue state polarization.
While you say “they see it is connected” which I hope they do (and it is good), nonetheless the GOP-ization of the system remains, even at the March for Life. The cheers for Scott Brown were there. People who criticized it were given dirty looks. That says way too much. But hopefully you are right that progress is being made.
Any given issue that can be characterized as dehumanization; abortion, torture, love of money over love of humanity, war (which is usually unjust if you’d only apply the just war test), a convenient negation of empathy and compassion are all on the table as equally valid and deserve equal attention. It’s impure to champion one over the other.
Straining the gnat and swallowing the camel is a symbiotic process of championing a tragic expression of Truth which ultimately negates that Truth. It’s an addiction to political strategies that are disconnected from empathy. It’s power and pride over love.
The cheers for Scott Brown were there.
Scott Brown reiterated his pro-choice position in an interview with Barbara Walters yesterday on ABC’s This Week:
BTW, Scott Brown did a great job yesterday in making it clear that he is passionate and committed to abortion rights, he just is against government spending including spending on indirect abortion services.
Anyway to those like “C” so insistent that the abortion issue is more important than health care, waterboarding, fair wages, etc. they need to talk to the Pro-Life Movement, that pushes the abortion issue to back seat to issues like electing Republicans, denying health care to 30 million, and supporting Big Business.
My apologies, I neglected to add the most common of dehumanizing behaviors; labeling others, to my previous post.
Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!
Gnats (and other “swarming creatures”) were unclean according to Jewish law, and so Jews strained liquids to make sure they were not swallowing unclean creatures. Camels were also unclean. While I haven’t studied this in depth, I don’t believe Jesus was ridiculing the practice of straining out gnats. Things were either unclean or they were not. So gnats could not be ignored as just “a little bit unclean” simply because they were small. Gnats were as unclean as camels. I don’t think one should conclude that Jesus was saying not to strain out gnats. He was saying obey the law in its entirety.
I don’t think the New Testament depiction of the Pharisees (or the Jews in general) is “fair and balanced,” although that doesn’t negate the points in Henry’s post.
One more Vox Nova post on the grotesqueries of the prolifers… The really are an unappetizing lot, aren’t they. And we progressive champions of the unborn are…where? We regularly berate prolife Catholics for not denouncing their leadership. I await the same intense critique of prochoice Catholics’ failure to hold prochoice orthodoxy to a similar standard.
Imagine that the term ‘prolife’ was reserved for commitment to a consistent ethic of life. Where would we find evidence of ‘prolife’ sensibilities? I’m not sure. Plenty of evidence of ‘anti-abortion’ sensibilities in most of Catholic blogdom, of course. And a clear ‘anti-anti-abortion’ consensus emerging hereabouts.
I long to find, but do not find, an embrace of the seamless garment in *all* of its manifestations anywhere on the web. Any suggestions?
Mike
What about the “pro-life leaders” who encouraged people to vote for a pro-choice candidate, and as has been pointed to in the discussions on Vox Nova,all the while there were pro-life candidates which they snubbed? The issue is to look to the problem of the movement and how it uses a name which is not what they are. It is not about those who are consistently pro-life. Don’t confuse the leaders or the professional movement with all that is pro-life.
Sure, we’d all like to see the pro-life movement expand outside the subject of abortion. We’d like to see them promote the principle of subsidiarity through the privatization of Social Security and the dismantling of the US Department of Education. They should call for the elimination of imprudent stewardship, by cutting the federal budget in half. They should stand up for the just war doctrine, and call for war with Iran. They could denounce the avarice which lies behind income redistribution, as well as the theft which constitutes that redistribution.
Everyone would like to see a seamless garment of peace, prosperity, and the criminalization of the Democratic Party, but shouldn’t we focus on abortion first?
Pinky
To be pro-life is more than about abortion. Anti-abortion is not the same thing as pro-life. But, and this is what you neglect, the “movement” has moved outside of the subject of abortion, and into “getting Kennedy’s seat with a pro-choice candidate,” and “rejecting health care.” That is what is said. If they stood only on abortion, and were consistent, it would be one thing. They are not. Which ties to this whole post.
Mike McG…, check out Pax Christi.
I am puzzled by the recent post at The American Catholic about the “diversity” of the “Pro-”Life Movement™ and how the PLM™ is not as monolithic, republican, warmongering, hateful, etc. as they are usually portrayed. The post cites groups like Feminists for Life, Democrats for Life, and a gay and lesbian pro-life group as if the mainstream PLM™ has ever been in solidarity with such groups. The leadership of the March for Life® for example has tried to systematically exclude such groups and even threatened a major Consistent Life Ethic organization and the gay and lesbian group with arrest if they showed up at The March®.
Michael I
I was taking Eric’s point in the piece as to say the pro-life movement should embrace the non mainstream pro-life people, and not to be a Republican only party; and that many people otherwise denigrated by the Republicans still are pro-life and should not be thrown out as they have been. Not that the movement is diverse, but that people who support life are.
Pinky,
Yes, maybe the Pro-Life Movement should focus on abortion rather than just being a stooge for the Republican Party.
An hour ago, I was looking at the President’s budget submission. I stumbled upon some restrictive language on abortion carried over from the Bush Administration. It had to do with abortion services and the Medicare Advantage Program — a Republican initiative that allows insurance companies to offer managed care policies to those on Medicare. The theory is that they can repackage Medicare services and deliver them at a savings while even adding on benefits. (the theory has not worked out very well) The savings come not through any administrative effeciencies they have over Medicare but in negotiating lower rates with groups of doctors rather than Medicare’s fee for service (gee, guess who stands in the way of Medicare doing that itself?).
The private sector Advantage companies are allowed to offer extra benefits beyond the mandated Medicare benefits to get Medicare enrollees to sign up. Gym membership are popular.
With the provision written by the Bush Administration, abortion can not be paid for by the government Medicare premiums nor can any private Medicare Advantage company be excluded from the program because they do not offer abortion services. Comapies can offer abortion services as one of the extra benefits they offer.
This language, written by the Bush Administration and what I have to believe was shared with the Pro-Life Movement seems much weaker than the Nelson Senate language.
Explantion, please. The Pro-Life Movement is starting to give ten cent ladies of the evening a bad name.
SEC. [211]210. None of the funds appropriated by this Act (including
funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used to carry out the
Medicare Advantage program if the Secretary of Health and Human
Services denies participation in such program to an otherwise eligible
entity (including a Provider Sponsored Organization) because the entity
informs the Secretary that it will not provide, pay for, provide coverage
of, or provide referrals for abortions: Provided, That the Secretary shall
make appropriate prospective adjustments to the capitation payment to
such an entity (based on an actuarially sound estimate of the expected
costs of providing the service to such entity’s enrollees): Provided further,
That nothing in this section shall be construed to change the Medicare
program’s coverage for such services and a Medicare Advantage organization
described in this section shall be responsible for informing enrollees
where to obtain information about all Medicare covered services.
http://www.bcbsm.com/ma/pdf/MA_PFFS_abortion.pdf
Henry:
“What about…” I deplore such tactics, though I wonder whether prolifers are so very different than movement operatives attempting to influence public policy on any one of a thousand issues. It’s a sordid business, politics.
So yes, I deplore many of the tactics of an anti-abortion movement that isn’t really prolife. And yet I wonder about balance here. Can a loathing for the prolife movement really be distinguished from a loathing for prolifers? What happens when an eager
critique of the ‘anti-abortion’ movement is unaccompanied by equivalent zeal for critiquing the ‘anti-anti-abortion’ movement? You know, for the movement that successfully marginalizes discourse challenging abortion rights orthodoxy?
It is one thing to critique the anti-abortion movement. It is another to pile on. I see little evidence that those who most often critique the ‘prolife’ movement here ‘get’ the sensibilities of those who feel called to that cause. Why so little understanding of the alienation they might feel from a zeitgeist so clearly against them? Where is our solidarity with them and our calling out of those who so relish displays of contempt against them?
It is not for no reason that they unwisely turn rightward. It is, at least in part, because many in the center are indifferent and many on the left are hostile to their sensibilities.
You say that this is not about those who are consistently pro-life. Who knows? That demographic is pretty depleted and disheartened. In binary America (and, sadly, binary American Catholicism) the pathetic impetus is to choose between life…and a move to the right…and justice…and a move to the left. It seems to me that VN has become more congenial to prochoice and anti-abortion voices, less congenial to anti-abortion voices.
Kurt and Henry, you miss my point. The pro-life movement should be *more* of a stooge for conservatism. If you really care about the poor, dismantle welfare and the public school system. Put your money where your mouth is. If the pro-life movement wants to have a consistent life ethic, it should oppose gay marriage and statehood for Palestine. Why do you guys assume that “culture of life” = “Democratic Party” + opposition to abortion? There isn’t a liberal policy, from the minimum wage to single-payer health care, that treats the human person with dignity.
There isn’t a liberal policy, from the minimum wage to single-payer health care, that treats the human person with dignity.
How conservative does this sound?
Dave, that’s from the Declaration on Procured Abortion, right? An incredible document. Very conservative. You quote from the one paragraph that isn’t screamingly Republican. And yet, it actually is Republican: true help for families, unwed mothers, and illegitimate children can only be effective at a local level (as our national programs demonstrate daily). The document emphasizes the moral responsibility of the individual, and the need for an anti-abortion political movement.
Yes, people getting a minimum wage is just so anti-human. It all makes sense to me. Pay them less, take away their schools; that should lead to economic nirvana. What could be more pro-life than that. And those single moms getting WIC milk? Make em get a job; that’ll strengthen their family life.
And for some mysterious reason, people don’t believe us when we say we’re “pro-life.” Imagine that.
true help for families, unwed mothers, and illegitimate children can only be effective at a local level (as our national programs demonstrate daily)
Pinky,
How local? Should each of the 50 states “pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux,” or should it be done on the county level, or by city, or perhaps neighborhood?
David or each individual person? Or each cell in a person’s body? That’s very local! The problem with so-called conservatives with subsidiarity is that they do not understand what it is about. It is about point of access, to make sure there is no unjust burden to such access. Therefore, health care — in its performance — should be local, so one can get the treatment that they need with ease. That is what subsidiarity is about. Access.
Henry,
I’m glad that you, likewise, found Eric’s post on the importance of non-conservative elements in the pro-life movement to be outstanding. (Though I am not sure why you think he would receive grief for it.) Of particular relevence, I think was Eric’s point (the more impressive coming from a pro-life Democrat in the difficult situation of working for a pro-life PAC in Texas, and thus constantly surrounded by those who assume that pro-life=GOP):
Truly, if we are to get anywhere in protecting the unborn and changing society’s attitudes towards it most vulnerable members, pro-lifers among both progressive and conservative camps (and others too unique to be classified in a camp) will have to be willing to put more energy into working together to protect the unborn than into excommunicating each other from the “true pro-life movement”.
Michael,
I’m not sure that one can state with simplicity that the mainstream pro-life movement is not “in solidarity” with the groups that Eric cites. I’m sure that in some cases people don’t get along well, but are lots of overlaps as well. For instance, Feminists For Life, which you cite, includes high profile members such as Sarah Palin and the wife of Chief Justice Roberts. Not exactly people that conservative pro-lifers despise.
If it’s true that the organizers of March For Life have been trying to exclude more left leaning anti-abortion groups, that’s absolutely unacceptable. Anyone willing to stand up for the rights of the unborn should be welcome.
Exactly, John. Minimum wage laws increase unemployment. If you want a person to know his worth, allow him get a job. Take the school system out of the public domain, and schools will halt their downward spiral. Allowing children to receive a quality education is entirely compatible with human dignity. Discontinuing federal WIC will allow local and private institutions to actually look after those single moms, rather than just giving them a check. I’m not saying it would be easy to do, or that the political will to do it will ever exist, but I am saying that if the creation of a culture of life is really our priority, we should be willing to sacrifice our most precious political platitudes.
So you see, the best thing is to give everyone the job of slave; no wages, but put to work. It’s a win-win!
Pinky, in the 150 years since that theory was batted around, there is not one single shred of empirical evidence to back it up, and what studies there are (admittedly very limited) flat contradict it. The mistake is treating labor as a “market commodity” with a market-clearing price. Labor (that is, human beings) is not a commodity, something manufactured for the market; the supply is not regulated by price. Further, wages are the major source of demand, and depressing wage rates, although it leads to short-term profits, leads to long- and medium-term ruin.
And WIC or no WIC, if an alternative was working, no one need go on WIC. You have WIC because these other institutions failed in their duty. The order of causality is wrong: these other institutions did not fail becuase of WIC, you have WIC because these other institutions failed.
You are right about abandoning the platitudes; but don’t your statements come under that heading?
John, you are factually wrong about the minimum wage. Studies are mixed, in part due to the consideration of meaningless minimum wage hikes ($3 to $4 when everyone earns $5). There are also issues of noncompliance, and of hours reductions.
If a person holds to a set of policies without thinking about them, they’re platitudes. Maybe the earlier commenters have thought out their policy recommendations (rightly or wrongly), but they strike me as the ideas a person would have if they haven’t thought through the issues. I apologize if that’s an unfair assessment.
Pinky, what is it that I am supposed to be wrong about? I am pretty sure that wages form the bulk of demand. Do you disagree? I am pretty sure that depressing wages depresses demand. Do you disagree? I am pretty sure that labor is not a commodity whose quantity is regulated by the price. Do you disagree? I am pretty sure that employers don’t hire labor because its cheap, but because they feel they can sell what the workers make at a profit, and that depressed wages make that less likely. Do you disagree?
So what is it you disagree with? Have you really thought about these things?
I thought your “it” in “evidence to back it up” was my claim that minimum wages reduce employment.
It was. Do you have such evidence? Do you have any credible theory to back this up? Other than the absurd theory that labor is just another market commodity.
The 1981 Minimum Wage Study Commission is a good place to start. Also, Gary Becker.
Pinky:
Let’s set aside for the moment the accuracy of your libertarian-sounding views which, rightly or wrongly, sound the themes often eminating from the ‘prolife’ movement. Instead of asking whether such *policies* work, let’s ask whether this *narrative* works.
My sense is that it doesn’t. Among Catholics steeped in our social justice heritage, this narrative is off-putting in the extreme. It provides cover for adoption of anti-anti-abortion rhetoric that is already very common among my fellow progressive Catholic and increasing common at VN.
Are you sure that striking this tone helps in the contest for ‘hearts and minds’? Are you sure that it doesn’t have the unintended consequence of driving away potential allies?
Mike
Do not misrepresent Vox Nova. We are pro-life; we are not “anti-anti-abortion.”
Pinky, I don’t deny there are a lot of people who support your claim; I merely report that I have waited a lifetime to see their evidence. Alas, I guess I will have to wait longer. You present none. Don’t feel badly about that; neither do they.
What you would expect to see if their theories held any water is high unemployment and low labor-force participation rates in high wage states, and low unemployment and the opposite, low unemployment and high labor-force participation rates in low-wage states. Yet what we actually see is the opposite, and we see it in every case, without exception. There is not one single example of Becker’s theories working. Not one. Unless you can come up with a single counter-example. Then there would be a total of one. But I doubt it. That’s okay; prove me wrong.
Also, you have not enlightened me as to where I went wrong. Do you disagree with any of the propositions I offered? You were quick to accuse others of “not thinking” about these issues; can you present us with any evidence that you have thought about them?
Henry:
How would I know that? I see constant disparagement of ‘prolife’ advocacy and none of ‘prochoice’ advocacy.
I read parenthetical support for the unborn, bitter scorn for those who advocate for them from some correspondents, and remarkable tolerance for this scorn from other contributors.
What I think really doesn’t matter. My question is whether those called to prolife advocacy would see their views represented at VN.
Mike
Once again, you misrepresent — this very thread has been about life. How would you know? If you read.
Are you sure that it doesn’t have the unintended consequence of driving away potential allies?
Mike McG,
What makes you think it is unintended??? Do you think that someone who maintains the Declaration on Procured Abortion is “screamingly Republican” except for one paragraph, which is also Republican but not screamingly so, is not trying to alienate everyone but Republicans (if not even some of them)?
Sad for me to see, evident in this thread, the superficial and ineffective alliance to political strategies. i believe it obscures, rather than clarifies the need to protect life. One always has the option to go deeper than to engage in a fight over terms and surface movement.
If you’re not in touch with life itself, meaning empathy and compassion as Christ practiced it, then any political effort will only serve itself. I thought Christ made a huge effort to throw off the tyranny of politics, governments, etc.
Pharisees of old focused on the sabbath; today’s Pharisees focus on abortion.
I think that just about every issue has its “Pharisees” today. Any time you get a large enough group of people, you’ll have purists and you’ll have oddballs.
Moreover, I think it’s reasonable to expect that there would be different reasons for holding a similar political position. So, some might want legal protections for unborn children because of a consistent ethic of life, and others might want the same protections because they want to discourage extramarital sex.
For a Catholic, yes, it’s absolutely inconsistent to seek restrictions on abortion while supporting torture or ignoring poverty. But Catholics are not the only seekers of protections for the unborn. We’re just the most visible single contingent.
It’s also legitimate to dispute the “pro-life” label, just as it’s legitimate to dispute the “pro-choice” label.
So, it seems to me that we should continue to pray for the conversion of souls – including our own – and to do our best to speak clearly and forcefully to those who do not have respect for all human life and dignity.
Mike –
I think you don’t see arguments here with pro-choice advocates because are are no pro-choice advocates here to contest matters with.
I don’t find bitter scorn here for those who advocate for the unborn. I do find objection to those who advocate for a host of right wing causes and candidates, using the pro-life movement as a tool in their efforts.
And with David, I don’t think much of what is done by Pro-Lifers in unintended.
I have always been stunned by the way the Pro-Life Movement treats progressives who would like to be part of their movement. It goes beyond disinterested to downright hostile, nasty, cruel and dehumanizing. It is very clear that honest progressives are not wanted in the Pro-Life Movement.
Having been so mistreated, it is not surprising that once eyes are opened, progressives have strong negative feelings about the Pro-Life Movement.
As a trade unionist, I spend a quarter of my time kissing the hind side of any member of our union who is a Republican or NRA member, doing all I can to ge them to volunteer to serve on the local union legislative committee. I bend over backwards for them.
I just don’t get why the pro-life movement is so hostile and dehumanizing to anti-abortion progressives.
Darwin – Although I disagree with you in that I don’t think “overlap” equals solidarity, I am happy to hear you say that gay and lesbian pro-lifers are a valuable part of The Pro-Life Movement. That’s, I guess, a start.
And yes, Darwin, it is true.
John, I don’t know what to say. You wanted evidence, I provided it. Read the Commission’s report. You can reject it if you want to, but you can’t fairly say that I haven’t presented any evidence.
Mike, I certainly intended to lay down the gauntlet. I’ve said repeatedly on this site that what the abortion debate needs is two political parties. The people on this site are the natural founders of a pro-life Democratic movement, but instead they keep tearing down pro-life Republicans. That’s definitely not the narrative that’s going to win the day.
The people on this site are the natural founders of a pro-life Democratic movement…
What a strange thing to say considering the fact that very few of us are Democrats.
Great post Henry!
I see constant disparagement of ‘prolife’ advocacy and none of ‘prochoice’ advocacy.
For the 100th time, the reason you do not see the latter here very much is because we take it for granted that the pro-choice position is wrong. We also don’t blog much about how we think incest is wrong. Do you find this, too, suspect?
Michael I:
I get your exasperation. Do you take my point?
For the first and last time: I find your explanation unpersuasive. But let’s stay with the grotesque analogy to see where it might lead us.
If there were a constant drumbeat of pro-incest discourse on this blog and it went unchallenged by contributors here: Yes, I’d find that suspect.
If there were a sustained trend to normalize pro-incest discourse in Catholic culture and it went unremarked upon here: Yes, I’d find that suspect. I once took prolife, seamless garment sensibilities for granted in progressive Catholic precints. Sadly I have found that assumption no longer warrented.
If there were a clear pattern of stereotyping and demonizing anti-incest advocates and those who engaged in this disparagement were not called out here: Yes, I’d find that suspect. And my finding this pattern suspect would *not* constitute endorsement of the tactics of anti-incest advocates. It would simply recognize that at some deep level I’m in solidarity with their goal of protecting the unborn.
Michael, in your post about Mary Daly I believe you made a similar distinction. You made the critical distinction between endorsing the positions she upheld and understanding the forces that shaped the positions adopted.
I asked above whether it is possible to convey a loathing for the ‘prolife’ movement without conveying a loathing of prolifers. I also asked whether they…the regular folks, now, not the leadership…would find themselves fairly depicted here. What do you think?
Correction: The final sentence of the third paragraph from the end in my comment of 8:06 am should read:
“It would simply recognize that at some deep level I’m in solidarity with their goal of protecting *those at risk for incest.*
Pinky, Showing that you know the name of a report is not evidence. Evidence would be something like “In Wyoming they raised the minimum wage and unemployment increased by x%.” Guess what? That evidence doesn’t exist. Universally, we find the relationships are exactly the opposite of what neoclassical theory predicts.
Lets for second imagine this fine country of ours would pass the kind of laws that the Professional Pro-Life Pharisees claim they sooo much desire – I would bet that quite a few of these lovely folks could not be bothered to embrace the consequences – give me a break -
give people more credit – there are deep seated reasons why we have the abortion related laws around here and in most industrialized countries – and yes there is no way back. Deal with it guys.
Pinky,
Thnak you. In dialogue we can sometimes find common ground.
I and others here have been critical of the National Right to Life Committee, the March for Life, ALL, HLI, and the rest of the Pro-Life Establishment. You have counseled us to move away from criticism of Pro-Life Republicans and towards building a pro-life Democratic movement. Your admission that the aforementioned groups are Republican helps bring some realism to this discussion.
I heard on a catholic radio program that there was a higher rate of abortion in the mid to late 1800′s than there is now. We all know that it was not legalized then. However, a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies occurred among women who were moving into the cities in the hope of creating a better life. These women were then the objects of sexual exploitation by predatory males. What is interesting is that abortions decreased because of compassionate programs that focused on helping women and providing some measure of safety.
The host of this program continually attempted to bring his guest back to validating political solutions as the answer to the abortion issue. The guest stated that political focus could be used as an educational device but not as a solution.
The relationship of the Pharisees to the law and the relationship of the pro-life movement to the law as a solution to human crises has been ineffective.
Once again, as Henry has written and others have written on this site, Love is the lens that we must use to view each and every human encounter.
It is very interesting that the 2nd reading in Sunday’s mass was 1Cor 13.
There really is no choice when we are directed by Love. We are wired to be attracted to love and reject was is not love. We must develop a movement that shows without doubt that we will welcome everyone into that Love which only desires what is best for healing the other’s suffering.
Right now there is no such united movement. The light is dim and dispersed. Those who are the loudest create a light caused by friction and it burns the innocent who need our help. The light created by friction comes from each side because each side is led by those who rise to power through their genetically inherited personal ability to dominate and influence others through pursuasion. This is mistakenly accepted as leadership.
However, the true leader is one who has the humility to understand that love is humbling and requires us to listen to those who are suffering and to understand that we must learn their language before we can help them. We must be patient and kind in our efforts to understand them. Their language is different from ours and the reality of their suffering is closer to the truth than the delusional beliefs that form our solutions.
Lets for second imagine this fine country of ours would pass the kind of laws that the Professional Pro-Life Pharisees claim they sooo much desire . . . .
If we accept the figures pro-lifers like to quote, a 100%-effective ban on abortion would increase the birth rate in the United States somewhere between 25% and 30% — an extra 1.2 million babies a year, two-thirds of them out of wedlock and therefore with a high likelihood of being poor, some with genetic defects. Medical care for the average pregnancy, delivery, and first year of pediatric care is roughly $16,500. That’s almost $20 billion, and that’s assuming there would be no low-birthweight babies or caesarian deliveries. Government help to meet all these costs would foster a culture of dependency, so the money would have to come from private charity.
You have counseled us to move away from criticism of Pro-Life Republicans and towards building a pro-life Democratic movement.
Kurt,
It is difficult to know how Pinky thinks this can be done, considering that the Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is “screamingly Republican.” If Catholic Social Teachings are all conservative Republican in nature, I don’t see how Catholic Democrats can have their own pro-life movement.
Dave, this conversation is a little tamer than the average give-and-take on the internet. I don’t understand your reaction. You don’t agree with me, so step up and defend your side of the argument.
Kurt, I don’t know if any of those organizations are Republican. I know that the Democratic Party didn’t field a pro-life Senate candidate in Massachusetts, a very Catholic and Democratic state. I know that the pro-life movement supported a somewhat better Republican candidate, and the response on VN was anger at the movement.
I know that Bart Stupak is the most prominent pro-life Democrat in the House. I know that he took a remarkable stand against abortion, and the response on VN was anger with the pro-life movement.
So I’m going out on a limb and saying that you guys consider the pro-life movement to be insufficiently progressive. A Pharisee would look down on the movement. The person who repented and set things aright would leave justified.
Pinky,
I consider the pro-life movement insufficiently committed to opposing abortion.
They curtail their pro-life witness when it runs up against Big Business or the Republican Party. They insist that oppostion to campaign finance reform is a pro-life issue. They celebrate the obstruction of the Pelosi-Stupak health care bill.
They accept certain bill language as “pro-life” when proposed by the Bush Administration and damn the same language as pro-abortion when proposed by Democrats.
They offer no support to a pro-life Democrat (Steve Lynch) when he was trying to line up support for a Massachusetts Senate run but went wild for a pro-abortion Republican in the same race (maybe it was his Cosmo spread that sent them wild).
While others here might think the pro-life movement should have a broader vision of pro-life to include work against unjust wars and capitial punishment, I don’t. I just expect them to work on abortion issues and not be a front for reactionary politics.
You don’t agree with me, so step up and defend your side of the argument.
Pinky,
I see no point in arguing that the Declaration on Procured Abortion is, or is not, Republican, or conservative. You see things through the filter of your political views, and I see them through the filter of mine. It would really amount to an argument about which is “better,” liberalism or conservatism. It would be a waste of time. As someone left of center, I see the Declaration as a document that has some things that I believe would appeal to conservatives (particularly the argument in favor of a legal ban on abortion) and some things that would appeal to liberals (particularly the paragraph I quoted). In my opinion, very few Catholics can accept the whole thing.
I do see Catholic Social Teaching as sometimes going beyond liberal. The Catholic concept of a just wage or a living wage would probably be rejected in the United States even by liberals, who are dedicated enough capitalists to feel that wages should be set by the market. Please do not argue that wages set by the market are by definition living wages, because it is clearly not true. The market does not guarantee a living wage.
But let’s stay with the grotesque analogy to see where it might lead us.
If there were a constant drumbeat of pro-incest discourse on this blog and it went unchallenged by contributors here: Yes, I’d find that suspect.
Presumably you think there is a “constant drumbeat” of pro-abortion discourse on this blog and that we do not challenge it. Not true.
If there were a sustained trend to normalize pro-incest discourse in Catholic culture and it went unremarked upon here: Yes, I’d find that suspect.
If you are claiming that we do not remark about the “normalization” of “pro-abortion discourse” in (american) Catholic culture, that is also false. While I doubt the extent of this “normalization,” of course there are pro-choice Catholics. Always have been. Of course “pro-choice” rhetoric is going to be alive and well even among Catholics so long as the ideology of capitalism thrives. I’ve consistently condemned both, and one as a concrete example of the other.
I once took prolife, seamless garment sensibilities for granted in progressive Catholic precints. Sadly I have found that assumption no longer warrented.
Whether “progressive” or “Christo-fascist,” pro-choice Catholics are wrong. We’ve always said so.
If there were a clear pattern of stereotyping and demonizing anti-incest advocates and those who engaged in this disparagement were not called out here: Yes, I’d find that suspect.
By and large we tend to use real life examples of the types of Pro-Lifers that we have a problem with. We have even had the pleasure of the presence of Mr. Austin Ruse here among us, showing us what he’s about. No, we’re not about stereotyping at all. We are quite concrete.
It would simply recognize that at some deep level I’m in solidarity with their goal of protecting the unborn.
Their goal of “protecting the unborn” is clearly suspect the more we analyze the political candidates and movements that The Pro-Life Movement endorses. They have had their chance to “protect the unborn.” They are failing. And they are failing because “protecting the unborn” is not their goal. The republican agenda is their goal, and abortion is merely a symbol, for many of them, of a larger set of stances in the culture wars. Abortion is actually a quite marginal concern of theirs.
I asked above whether it is possible to convey a loathing for the ‘prolife’ movement without conveying a loathing of prolifers. I also asked whether they…the regular folks, now, not the leadership…would find themselves fairly depicted here. What do you think?
I don’t think you can condemn a movement without condemning the views of the actual people in the movement. You see, movements are people. The “regular folks” you refer to, the pro-lifers in the pews, have a lot of the same views as the Pro-Life leadership. I don’t see much evidence of a disconnect. Do you?
Would they find themselves “fairly depicted”? I think they would find their views fairly depicted. For example, they would probably say, “Yes, Vox Nova is right when they describe my views as being anti-abortion and anti-health care, pro-life and pro-War on Terror, anti-’death panels’ and pro-death penalty.” This describes accurately the vast majority of pro-life Catholics, and you know this. But they would not think the way we talk about those views to be “fair” because no one likes to have hypocrisy pointed out.
Thank God our spirits, humanity, really our ultimate reality bears no real relationship to politics or labels. It’s a great way to get our minds and hearts off the ball though. I’m guessing that Satan loves it.
Wow, VN really delivers in the combox. Fascinating thoughts, all.
One thing we need to keep in mind, is that once you fathom the horror of abortion, that there are children being murdered just around the corner, right now, and that we could be sitting, standing, praying, shouting, pleading, holding a sign that says, “I’ll adopt your baby” or any other creative act of mercy, and that you could save a person from being butchered to death . . . simply by caring enough . . . it kind of changes your perspective on all this. Almost everyone I’ve met who has been involved in the pro-life movement (including my wife), have been sincere, honest, and loving. Many have saved the lives of children by their bold and loving deeds. Real lives are in the balance. We need to keep that context in mind as we examine the failings of the pro-life leadership.
Nate
The problem is the leadership often uses the good, caring people, similar to how Lenin did, and many other political activist groups do (on the left and the right). They get diverted and in doing that, encourage people to start working for political parties over life (which I think is important to remember). This is why I am not speaking against people in the movement (as a universal), recognizing that people who do the work often are not those so called leaders.
Almost everyone I’ve met who has been involved in the pro-life movement (including my wife), have been sincere, honest, and loving. Many have saved the lives of children by their bold and loving deeds. Real lives are in the balance. We need to keep that context in mind as we examine the failings of the pro-life leadership.
I agree with your first sentence, Nate, but despite being “since, honest, and loving,” most pro-lifers I know are also pro-war.
This is almost too funny! Of all the ideas for an article. Granted, wrting about “Pharisees” in our midst, sounds like at intersting topic, though I wonder why you didn’t at least put quotation marks around the word” Pharisee” when using it to describe pro-lifers, as opposed to when you used the word to describe, well…Pharisees!! You know the real kind, the scolding Jesus for doing good works on the sabbath kind, the kind we read about in the gospels. You did use quote marks in your title to describe pro lifers, so you know how to use them when you want to.
Anyway of all the places to find “Pharaseeism”, you started here??! Pro abortion zealots who wont accept compromise? Nope! Health care statists who are determined to ram a government takeover of our economy and who lie and cheat and buy votes to do it? Nope? How about Imam’s screaming vile anti-American anti-Western rhetoric from within houses of worship? Nope? Dedicated Pro Life workers?! Yes that’s tthe ticket!! What an idea, why hadn’t anyone thought of that one before?
I’d like to take you(author), your work(authors work), and this website (Vox Nova) seriously as a source of Catholic commentary. This rather silly article will complicate that task. But I promise to keep on trying. God bless. Have a wonderul day.
Chris
You miss the point. The point is they are compromising all the time. “Scott Brown: the pro-life candidate” for someone who was pro-choice and voted against pro-life legislation before? “GW Bush: the pro-life president” for someone who has bragged about his funding of ESCR. No, the point is that they say “don’t compromise” to some people while they constantly do so. And then look for rewards and admiration from the crowds.
Moreover, this is a Catholic website. It is talking to Catholics primarily, non-Catholics secondarily. That means there are many givens. It is like you were to say to St Paul after writing to the Corinthians, “Oh, so you focus on our sins, but look to those evil Romans, why didn’t you mention them in your letter?”
Henry, certainly a fair point that there is and has been compromise, and the Brown example is a valid case in point. But “Pharisee”? I would hope that a better way to make the point would have been found than with the example of those who so persecuted our Lord and His Church. And any who are involved in the political process will make tough choices and perhaps take less than they want at a given time.
But hey, it got my attention. It did make me read the article.
Chris
I explained the three concerns which Jesus had with the Pharisees and pointed out those three concerns are found with the “professionals.” I am not saying everyone who is pro-life is this way, indeed, I hope most are not. More importantly, I would certainly have no problem with someone whose professional focus was merely in the halting of abortion; that would be good. The problem is when they start focusing on other issues (let’s stop health care reform, it’s socialism) and tack on abortion as an excuse, then I find problems. They are not focusing on abortion but using abortion for other political objectives. I would recommend hitting the “abortion” tag on the side and you will see I’ve launched criticism on many, including President Obama, on abortion.
Chris,
I think the reasons the elements you mentioned have not been addressed is because they exist in such few numbers.
Pro-abortion zealots that won’t accept compromise? Almost every pro-choicer compromised and voted for the Pelosi-Stupak health care bill. (along with a single pro-life Republican).
Health care statists? Single payer never got off the ground. The most serious propsoal was to preserve private insurance and give folks in need some modest tax credits and vouchers to buy insurance from the private sector.
Dedicated pro-life workers? Sure, given that the evidence is that their dedication is to Big Business and the Republican Party as they negotiate with them over acceptable forms of the destruction of the unborn, as well as their dedication to opposing campaign finance reform and lower drug prices for seniors.