At National Catholic Register , Pat Archbold has a thought-provoking (and, for some people, squirm-inducing) article on pro-life activism :
It should not surprise that I hold in low esteem a particular breed of man who, while claiming the name Catholic, supports openly and actively that wretched party of death. They fret over a folly, which they basely baptize as “social justice”, which inexplicably counsels the right of broadband internet access and condoms for the poor, while innocent life is extinguished by the millions at the cruel hands of the federally subsidized. In so doing, they weave for themselves a seamless garment as a shroud, befitting the whitewashed tombs they gaily inhabit.
Still, another breed of man occupies a rung on my ladder of loathing barely an amoeba’s head above the aforementioned—the armchair pro-life.
The armchair pro-life oppose abortion much in the same way that I oppose cannibalism in Papua New Guinea—in theory. Their active opposition to abortion, usually restricted to tut-tutting the occasional article on African-American abortion rates, underwhelms.
But the moral lethargy of the armchair pro-life does not raise my ire so, rather it’s my conclusion that their disdain for abortion barely eclipses their evident contempt for the activist pro-life.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
