(continued)
Which, speaking of non-violence, leads to the fact that dismembering babies in the womb would seem to be the most violent and pernicious act of all - perpetrating death precisely because the victims are so vulnerable and without voice.
Ok, this may be true. But I’d like to hear why “innocent life” is more precious than the life of a sinner. Why don’t we get just as upset about all killing as this killing?
The beatitudes speak of the poor being blessed, these are the most poor and helpless that are being denied a “place at the table” from their very beginning.
Yes, but to be fair, it was not the teachings of the Church that prevented these from reaching the table. We wait until they sin so we have an excuse to exclude them?
If Rohr was taking his own words seriously, he should be seeing the connection between the Beatitudes and pro-life issues and declaring those connections clearly instead of masking modern libertarianism behind Gospel values.
Did Rohr ever say anything in support of abortion? I don’t recall him ever doing so. He just seems to be aligned with our current pope, in that we need to adjust our priorities.
As a former elected conservative pro-life Republican, first in the 1994 “Contract with America” takeover of congress, I have had the experience of discussing strategy with them. In my state, we have a “moderate” governor who publicly said he would sign a bill outlawing late term abortions. I even told my fellow conservatives to go ahead and include the “heath of the mother” along with “life of the mother” exceptions – because the governor publicly and convincingly said he would veto the bill without it. But my voice was squelched because it wasn’t Radical Enough – we have to be “non-negotiable” – well guess what the governor vetoed it and that was our last chance to even come that close. So yeah, maybe the clause would be abused by loose definitions of “mental health” for example, but it’s a starting point. You take what you get and go from there.
In politics, “non-negotiable” means you either have enough force to completely overrun the opposition, which is extremely rare and certainly not the case for Pro Life, or you don’t do anything. So their insistence on being Non-Negotiable failed to save babies, while if they had but added the one clause, then we could address potential abuses.
My personal opinion, knowing some of the personalities involved, is that the “moderate” Republican governor was actually pro-abort and didn’t want to limit abortions at all. But as a Republican he couldn’t say that in public although he was a member of a pro-choice faction of the Republicans. He knew very well he they would never call his bluff, so he got credit for having been willing to save babies, if only the “non-negotiable” people had just been a little more reasonable.
So no babies were saved, and the governor was able to point to the foolishness of pro-lifers and their non-negotiable demands to sign it without the clause. They gave him the bill, he vetoed it, and got to look “moderate” while stopping pro-lifers in their tracks. “Non-negotiable” makes for a great moral strategy, but not a political one.
Come to think of it, I can’t remember a time when Jesus said to deal with sin by petitioning the government authorities to stop others from sinning. Not saying we shouldn’t, but that was obviously not His “core teachings”.
Rohr just isn’t very convincing nor compelling precisely because he doesn’t compel anyone to change anything of what they are doing but would instead welcome thieves, murderers, rapists and tyrants (precisely as thieves, murderers, rapists and tyrants) under the name of “inclusion.”
The kind of “inclusion” Rohr calls for is the kind advocated by those in the City of Man and in the Roman Empire before its conversion to Christianity - the kind that tolerates anything and everything so long as it doesn’t interfere with the whims and pleasures of the ruling elite.
This is an interesting take on Rohr. You may find that if you look into it more, Rohr is calling more than anyone for people to change their hearts and look at things in a new way, not just the outward behavior.
To change their hearts, the way Jesus said. Posturing and being visibly angry and offended and outraged, may or may not ever see success in the political arena, but I challenge it builds our pride and self-righteousness as well.
Pope Francis got it right IMO, which makes it easier for me to be aligned with Rome.
