PRO-LIFE MEANS PRO-SOCIAL JUSTICE by Fr. James Martin, SJ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
That has not been my experience.

What other candidate has been identified as “the prolife candidate” but didn’t endorse programs which help women, children, immigrants, refugees, the disabled and also whose life is a “walking-anecdote for the various cultural ideologies and trajectories that the pro-life movement opposes”? (quoting a CAFs poster, Mary Gail)
Click to expand...
I hear accusations all the time that republicans don’t care about these things? Predominantly during Obama’s time too. I’m sure Bush was accused.
 
TCEL said:
I hear accusations all the time that republicans don’t care about these things?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. 'Tis true that this is an accusation that has been in the fore for quite a few years.
 
PRmerger said:
Fair enough. 'Tis true that this is an accusation that has been in the fore for quite a few years.
Click to expand...
Part of this is due to the awful division over abortion in the political parties. I’m sure the devil is laughing all the way home.
 
TCEL said:
No, I absolutely agree. I think some of this cross-fire over this debate might be due to the transitioning of generations. It’s just frustrating to see so many good prolifers maligned over these things when they do so much good work. It makes me suspicious that people are simply unaware or have an agenda.
Click to expand...
You sound very much like the first link shared in this thread. I’d encourage you to read the others included there, as well.
 
TCEL said:
I don’t think you’ve quite got me pegged, to be honest.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry. :o

When I hear people speaking of ulterior motives in terms of this issue, or an agenda, it makes me think of that first link.
 
While I like what Fr. Martin (and many others) is that they tie take the pro-life movement from the pro-birth movement and apply the same respect and dignity of human life to all.

What I do not like is semantics. Part of me wish we would ditch the term “pro-life.” “Anti-abortion” is simpler and more accurate. I know “anti-” anything sounds negative, but I would take accuracy over niceness. Likewise, “pro-choice” is wishy-washy. No one is pro-choice when it comes to slavery or rape. These people are pro-abortion, promoting it through allowing a legal choice for abortion. Their hypocrisy resonates in that they cannot even bear the label “abortion”.

The worst of the worst though was seen in a recent article by some disgruntled feminist after the election, calling Trump “anti-choice”. That was so Newspeak.
 
NM505StKate said:
Then that isn’t pro life. What it is the fifth commandment “Thou shalt not kill”
Click to expand...
Talking point for you? Look up church teaching and see if you can hear the truth, beauty and wisdom in it. Church teaching is my guidepost. Cherry picking a portion of our faith and twisting it o support a specific ideology helps no one. Thou shalt not kill is an entire section in the CCC.
 
pnewton said:
While I like what Fr. Martin (and many others) is that they tie take the pro-life movement from the pro-birth movement and apply the same respect and dignity of human life to all.

What I do not like is semantics. Part of me wish we would ditch the term “pro-life.” “Anti-abortion” is simpler and more accurate. I know “anti-” anything sounds negative, but I would take accuracy over niceness. Likewise, “pro-choice” is wishy-washy. No one is pro-choice when it comes to slavery or rape. These people are pro-abortion, promoting it through allowing a legal choice for abortion. Their hypocrisy resonates in that they cannot even bear the label “abortion”.

The worst of the worst though was seen in a recent article by some disgruntled feminist after the election, calling Trump “anti-choice”. That was so Newspeak.
Click to expand...
Christian morality is sourced in “the good”, and points us to the good, exhorts us to it. It is proper to speak about this initiative as pro-life

With respect to Fr Martin, there are some things conflated here.
There are very clear issues.
One is the protection and promotion of the existence of human life and it’s flourishing.
Another is how that is to be accomplished in a practical and prudential way.

What is being promoted is a particular political solution and point of view. People of good faith can disagree on the best means to promote human flourishing.
People of good faith cannot disagree on whether human life is worth protecting.

Some things are one of many options, some things are simply** not optional**.
If you can’t stand up for the birth of human beings, your social justice is devoid of meaning.
 
gracepoole said:
Oh, sorry. :o

When I hear people speaking of ulterior motives in terms of this issue, or an agenda, it makes me think of that first link.
Click to expand...
No, its okay. It’s the Internet. 🙂

What I’m trying to say is that a lot of this turns into, in my experience, an unnecessary semantics game. If I’m ever trying to convince my in-laws or someone else why liberals sometimes have a good point, I’m not going to start it out by saying, “You aren’t pro-life unless…” It starts to muddle the conversation and derail it.

I’ve also been on the receiving end where people do try to insinuate that pro-lifers only care about the unborn, which in my experience, is mostly untrue. A lot of people with prolife sentiments do indeed work on a lot of the other corporal works of mercy.
 
This is like the difference between:
  1. A person is being stabbed on the sidewalk. This is a pressing and immediate issue.
    One person might walk by,
    the second might stop and intervene
    Another might yell for the assailant to stop, or exhort the victim to fight harder.
    Only one is a practical solution.
  2. A person is asking for food on the sidewalk.
    One person might walk by,
    another might give cash,
    another might give his lunch,
    another might take the person to the soup kitchen.
    There are several good ways to address the need.
While both situations cry out for the protection of life, the issues are distinct in their immediacy and gravity, and in the solutions that are called for.
 
PRmerger said:
Sure. In fact, the NT explicitly says to OBEY YOUR LEADERS.

It’s just not blind obedience.
Click to expand...
Dont you find that a little bit suspicious…a book like the bible benefiting a secular authority to the degree it does?

When Jesus walked the earth, the authority at the time hated him, they hated his followers, they hated what he was preaching, why would the word be interpreted in such a way as to benefit them so much? I tend to think it would actually be the opposite.
 
mikekle said:
Dont you find that a little bit suspicious…a book like the bible benefiting a secular authority to the degree it does?

When Jesus walked the earth, the authority at the time hated him, they hated his followers, they hated what he was preaching, why would the word be interpreted in such a way as to benefit them so much? I tend to think it would actually be the opposite.
Click to expand...
How does that bible passage benefit secular authorities???

It just says: give what each is due. 🤷 Know what is valuable in life, where it comes from, and where it should return.

To secular authorities is due our money, which in the end is absolutely nothing.
To God is due everything which has any enduring meaning. (obedience is part of that everything)
 
PRmerger said:
Huh? The Pharisees were secular authorities?

What the what???
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding they had a great deal of what we would now think of as secular authority. Obviously they had their own soldiers/police. They had authority to scourge Jesus, though Rome did not allow them authority to condemn anyone to death.

Rome generally allowed a great deal of local autonomy in the empire. But Roman law pre-empted local law and authority whenever there was conflict between the two, and certain things were reserved to Rome alone, like the power to make war.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It’s my understanding they had a great deal of what we would now think of as secular authority. Obviously they had their own soldiers/police. They had authority to scourge Jesus, though Rome did not allow them authority to condemn anyone to death.

Rome generally allowed a great deal of local autonomy in the empire. But Roman law pre-empted local law and authority whenever there was conflict between the two, and certain things were reserved to Rome alone, like the power to make war.
Click to expand...
I’m sure that Jesus meant it in the sense of religious authority. What the Pharisees taught should be obeyed.
 
TCEL said:
You make it sound like the pro-life movement doesn’t have any kind of counseling initiatives?
Click to expand...
Did I say they didn’t? I’ve used those resources in helping women in horrendous situations. But not all of them (in some cases, most of them) couldn’t deliver. Don’t live in a cloud. Many women face terrible situations and “pro-life” resources can’t or won’t answer them other than “prayer” and “adoption.” It’s not that simple. Walk in their shoes. There are no alternatives, including from “pro-life counseling.” Throwing adoption or a bunch of diapers in their face doesn’t help them to find abortion alternatives. Been there, don’t that, doesn’t work.
 
Culurecatholic said:
Did I say they didn’t? I’ve used those resources in helping women in horrendous situations. But not all of them (in some cases, most of them) couldn’t deliver. Don’t live in a cloud. Many women face terrible situations and “pro-life” resources can’t or won’t answer them other than “prayer” and “adoption.” It’s not that simple. Walk in their shoes. There are no alternatives, including from “pro-life counseling.” Throwing adoption or a bunch of diapers in their face doesn’t help them to find abortion alternatives. Been there, don’t that, doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
Whatever resources are provided by prolife organizations (and there are many that aren’t just throwing adoption or a bunch of diapers in their face), the option cannot be: kill your baby to get rid of your problem.
 
Culurecatholic said:
Did I say they didn’t? I’ve used those resources in helping women in horrendous situations. But not all of them (in some cases, most of them) couldn’t deliver. Don’t live in a cloud. Many women face terrible situations and “pro-life” resources can’t or won’t answer them other than “prayer” and “adoption.” It’s not that simple. Walk in their shoes. There are no alternatives, including from “pro-life counseling.” Throwing adoption or a bunch of diapers in their face doesn’t help them to find abortion alternatives. Been there, don’t that, doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
If I were walking in their shoes, personally, I would be thrilled that adoption is an alternative. It’s a very good one. Are you stigmatizing adoption?

I had a woman once tell me that during her crisis pregnancy, she didn’t consider adoption purely due to selfishness. (She kept the baby. She was telling me this some time after the fact.) I pressed her about this, and she said it really did boil down to selfishness. She didn’t want to carry a baby that long just to give it up to someone else, and would rather abort it than give it to someone else. She ended up being a fine mother, and converting to Catholocism.

When we suggested adoption to another woman, the grandmother of the child, you know what she said? “No one wants a black baby.” Oh, the irony. I would have adopted the baby on the spot.

There are such things as lame excuses and free-will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top