Being Against Abortion Does Not Make One Pro-Life

Being Against Abortion Does Not Make One Pro-Life January 10, 2008

There are many reasons why one could oppose abortion, and many of them have nothing to do with any respect for life. This highly controversial video by Steve Taylor represents quite well how the two are not necessarily connected. I think it also points out the violent undertone by many who are anti-abortion but who have not entirely accepted the Gospel of Life.

"A day after submitting this piece to Vox Nova, I learned that the Vatican published ..."

Maintaining Christian Community and Practice in ..."
"I agree with JoeGeorges that it depends, but here I think the traditional three-fold distinctions ..."

Hoarding
"Isn’t the best answer, “It depends”? If we’re speaking about hoarding the necessities of life ..."

Hoarding
"I don't think anyone would ever claim that we mainly or completely understand God. But ..."

Spontaneous Abortions and Moral Theology

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • The Lyrics

    I Blew Up The Clinic Real Good — by Steve Taylor

    I have the road in my blood
    I drive a custom van
    I play the tunes
    I’m the neighborhood ice cream man
    so don’t you mess this boy around

    The other day, when the clinic had its local debut
    some chicks were trying to picket
    the doctor threatened to sue

    Now I don’t care if it’s a baby or a tissue blob
    but if we run out of youngsters
    I’ll be out of a job, and so I
    I did my duty cleaning up the neighborhood
    I blew up the clinic real good

    Try and catch me, coppers
    you stinking badges better think again
    before you mess this boy around

    I’ve hung in Saigon just to see the special effects
    I’ve hung from gravity boots for my Napoleon complex

    It’s time to close
    ooh…there she blows
    history in the making
    you picked the fight
    I picked dynamite
    I blew up the clinic real good

    Preacher on a corner
    calling it a crime
    says, “The end don’t justify the means anytime”
    I stood up on my van
    I yelled, “Excuse me, sir.
    Ain’t nothing wrong with this country
    that a few plastic explosives won’t cure.”

    Read his comments on the song here: http://www.sockheaven.net/music/albums/ip1990/01.html

  • The Lyrics

    I Blew Up The Clinic Real Good — by Steve Taylor

    I have the road in my blood
    I drive a custom van
    I play the tunes
    I’m the neighborhood ice cream man
    so don’t you mess this boy around

    The other day, when the clinic had its local debut
    some chicks were trying to picket
    the doctor threatened to sue

    Now I don’t care if it’s a baby or a tissue blob
    but if we run out of youngsters
    I’ll be out of a job, and so I
    I did my duty cleaning up the neighborhood
    I blew up the clinic real good

    Try and catch me, coppers
    you stinking badges better think again
    before you mess this boy around

    I’ve hung in Saigon just to see the special effects
    I’ve hung from gravity boots for my Napoleon complex

    It’s time to close
    ooh…there she blows
    history in the making
    you picked the fight
    I picked dynamite
    I blew up the clinic real good

    Preacher on a corner
    calling it a crime
    says, “The end don’t justify the means anytime”
    I stood up on my van
    I yelled, “Excuse me, sir.
    Ain’t nothing wrong with this country
    that a few plastic explosives won’t cure.”

    Read his comments on the song here: http://www.sockheaven.net/music/albums/ip1990/01.html

  • I love Steve Taylor. He’s funny, incisive, brilliant. (He’s the reason the Newsboys made it big, BTW.) Now the buts:

    First, this song and video are rather old, and I can’t think of anything in the news recently that would precipitate this post. Second, we pro-lifers just aren’t all that violent. More clinics are blown up on Law & Order than have been in real life. (Of course, since most dimwits get their perception of reality from TV…) Third, if we were keeping score, what would the score be — 40,000,000 to a handful? It’s Planned Parenthood et al. who are violent: what could be more violent than killing an unborn baby? Fourth, the rage some of us feel is certainly understandable, if not perfectly ‘justified’, given the gravity and scope of the crime of abortion in this country and how the courts have hamstrung our abilities to effect any change through democratic-legislative means.

  • I love Steve Taylor. He’s funny, incisive, brilliant. (He’s the reason the Newsboys made it big, BTW.) Now the buts:

    First, this song and video are rather old, and I can’t think of anything in the news recently that would precipitate this post. Second, we pro-lifers just aren’t all that violent. More clinics are blown up on Law & Order than have been in real life. (Of course, since most dimwits get their perception of reality from TV…) Third, if we were keeping score, what would the score be — 40,000,000 to a handful? It’s Planned Parenthood et al. who are violent: what could be more violent than killing an unborn baby? Fourth, the rage some of us feel is certainly understandable, if not perfectly ‘justified’, given the gravity and scope of the crime of abortion in this country and how the courts have hamstrung our abilities to effect any change through democratic-legislative means.

  • The whole entire point is that many people who are “anti-abortion” think the ENDS justify the MEANS and use that to disregard the Gospel of Life in other areas. It’s not just about the clinics or abortion.

  • The whole entire point is that many people who are “anti-abortion” think the ENDS justify the MEANS and use that to disregard the Gospel of Life in other areas. It’s not just about the clinics or abortion.

  • I think you’d be better off writing posts about situations where real anti-abortion people are advocating “ends justify means” things which are contrary to the gospel of life.

    People may disagree with your analysis, but at least they’ll know what you’re talking about.

  • I think you’d be better off writing posts about situations where real anti-abortion people are advocating “ends justify means” things which are contrary to the gospel of life.

    People may disagree with your analysis, but at least they’ll know what you’re talking about.

  • Torture apologists routinely justify means, and many are anti-abortion.

  • Torture apologists routinely justify means, and many are anti-abortion.

  • Indeed, Todd.

    But at least in the Catholic blogsphere, the torture issue has been pretty widely discussed, and while there are certainly differences between people as regards to whether certain specific things constitute torture, it seems to be that it’s widely agreed that you can’t say “it is okay to do this objectively evil thing so long as it has good results” and be in keeping with Catholic moral teaching.

    So I don’t see how that can be at the root of this post.

    The best guess I have is that Henry is trying to make the point that you can’t argue that you’re voting for a candidate for pro-life reasons if that candidate has some problems in regards to at least some life issues. (Say, a candidate who’s in favor of banning abortion in all cases except rape and incest, or a candidate who’s against abortion but in favor of ESCR.)

    If that’s his point, it seems to me that depending on the context of the situation, someone might support a candidate who was not “100% pro life” on the theory that that candidate would achieve things that would create the most progress towards pro-life objectives.

    But if that is indeed the argument that Henry is making, he seems to be making it in a rather veiled fashion.

  • Indeed, Todd.

    But at least in the Catholic blogsphere, the torture issue has been pretty widely discussed, and while there are certainly differences between people as regards to whether certain specific things constitute torture, it seems to be that it’s widely agreed that you can’t say “it is okay to do this objectively evil thing so long as it has good results” and be in keeping with Catholic moral teaching.

    So I don’t see how that can be at the root of this post.

    The best guess I have is that Henry is trying to make the point that you can’t argue that you’re voting for a candidate for pro-life reasons if that candidate has some problems in regards to at least some life issues. (Say, a candidate who’s in favor of banning abortion in all cases except rape and incest, or a candidate who’s against abortion but in favor of ESCR.)

    If that’s his point, it seems to me that depending on the context of the situation, someone might support a candidate who was not “100% pro life” on the theory that that candidate would achieve things that would create the most progress towards pro-life objectives.

    But if that is indeed the argument that Henry is making, he seems to be making it in a rather veiled fashion.

  • I don’t think so, Henry. Few of us believe with regard to abortion that end justify (any and all) means. As far as being inconsistent re: torture and capital punishment, fine, but the video doesn’t really make that poiont.

  • I don’t think so, Henry. Few of us believe with regard to abortion that end justify (any and all) means. As far as being inconsistent re: torture and capital punishment, fine, but the video doesn’t really make that poiont.

  • Not quite, Darwin. The Catholic blogosphere had indeed had heated discussions of torture, with a line dividing those of us who accept Church teachings that it is always and everywhere evil, and those who do not. There is no such disagreement on abortion. None of us on Vox Nova, or on any other Catholic blog I’ve seen, have ever argued that abortion could be sometimes justified based on circumstances or that some kinds of killing the unborn do not really constitute ‘abortion’.

  • Not quite, Darwin. The Catholic blogosphere had indeed had heated discussions of torture, with a line dividing those of us who accept Church teachings that it is always and everywhere evil, and those who do not. There is no such disagreement on abortion. None of us on Vox Nova, or on any other Catholic blog I’ve seen, have ever argued that abortion could be sometimes justified based on circumstances or that some kinds of killing the unborn do not really constitute ‘abortion’.

  • Dan

    Let me give to scenarios and see where y’all come out.

    First, a guy has your kid captive and will kill him. You capture one of his accomplices. He will not give you any answers and there is no time to file a police report. Your kid will be dead in an hour. Do you torture the captive or let your child die?

    Next, you wife is pregnant. But then you find out she has cancer. The doctor tells you that without chemo she will die since the body doesn’t fight cancer while pregnant. The chemo will kill the baby though. Do you save your wife or the baby? Oh, by the way this does happen I know someone to whom it did.

  • Dan

    Let me give to scenarios and see where y’all come out.

    First, a guy has your kid captive and will kill him. You capture one of his accomplices. He will not give you any answers and there is no time to file a police report. Your kid will be dead in an hour. Do you torture the captive or let your child die?

    Next, you wife is pregnant. But then you find out she has cancer. The doctor tells you that without chemo she will die since the body doesn’t fight cancer while pregnant. The chemo will kill the baby though. Do you save your wife or the baby? Oh, by the way this does happen I know someone to whom it did.

  • While one point is that many people think “ends justify the means,” another point with this video/song is that just because someone is opposed to abortion it does not mean they are pro-life in any real sense; they could have other reasons for opposing abortion (such as the ice cream man finding his economic base dying off). This is a significant point often forgotten in the debate. “He’s against abortion” does not prove to me someone is pro-life. What are their positions on other life issues. If they are not consistent with the Gospel of Life, and they begin to use consequentialistic thinking to oppose other aspects of that Gospel, not only will I point out they are not pro-life, I would question why they are “anti-abortion.” Could it be for political gain (and why so many politicians will mouth off on abortion, for or against it, but do nothing in reality).

  • While one point is that many people think “ends justify the means,” another point with this video/song is that just because someone is opposed to abortion it does not mean they are pro-life in any real sense; they could have other reasons for opposing abortion (such as the ice cream man finding his economic base dying off). This is a significant point often forgotten in the debate. “He’s against abortion” does not prove to me someone is pro-life. What are their positions on other life issues. If they are not consistent with the Gospel of Life, and they begin to use consequentialistic thinking to oppose other aspects of that Gospel, not only will I point out they are not pro-life, I would question why they are “anti-abortion.” Could it be for political gain (and why so many politicians will mouth off on abortion, for or against it, but do nothing in reality).

  • M.Z. Forrest

    I love scenarios. In the first case, I beat him until he confesses, and if he doesn’t confess, I cut his testicles off and choke him with them. In the second case, I evalute the necessity of a hysterectomy. Most likely, I attempt to work out a schedule where labor can safely be induced so that chemo can commence.

  • M.Z. Forrest

    I love scenarios. In the first case, I beat him until he confesses, and if he doesn’t confess, I cut his testicles off and choke him with them. In the second case, I evalute the necessity of a hysterectomy. Most likely, I attempt to work out a schedule where labor can safely be induced so that chemo can commence.

  • MM,

    It’s entirely possible that you read whole segments of the Catholic blogsphere that I either don’t know about or don’t bother to read, but I’ve seen very, very few people disagree with the Church teaching that torture itself is always and everywhere evil.

    I have seen people disagree with your definitions of what specific actions might constitute torture, but that is different from disagreeing with the Church teaching that torture itself is always and everywhere evil.

  • MM,

    It’s entirely possible that you read whole segments of the Catholic blogsphere that I either don’t know about or don’t bother to read, but I’ve seen very, very few people disagree with the Church teaching that torture itself is always and everywhere evil.

    I have seen people disagree with your definitions of what specific actions might constitute torture, but that is different from disagreeing with the Church teaching that torture itself is always and everywhere evil.

  • I love Steve Taylor (and I Predict 1990 in particular; dated title, great album — thanks, Henry, for posting as I wasn’t aware there was a video), but I don’t think it really relates to the present campaign.

    I think one could say that McCain and others have an imperfect understanding of the sanctity of life. A significant portion of the pro-life movement today (including non-Catholic ‘pro-life’ candidates) would be sincerely opposed to abortion but hold less than satisfactory (from a Catholic perspective) stances on other life issues. I would suspect they also probably differ with orthodox Catholics on contraception.

    In this they would have a deficient understanding of the full scope of the sanctity of life — yet, I would consider them (however imperfectly) “pro-life” as opposed to indicting them of holding said positions only for political gain.

    I’d still like to see Fr. Pavone and Brownback clarify why they chose McCain over other candidates with perhaps better records on the “life issues”, but

  • I love Steve Taylor (and I Predict 1990 in particular; dated title, great album — thanks, Henry, for posting as I wasn’t aware there was a video), but I don’t think it really relates to the present campaign.

    I think one could say that McCain and others have an imperfect understanding of the sanctity of life. A significant portion of the pro-life movement today (including non-Catholic ‘pro-life’ candidates) would be sincerely opposed to abortion but hold less than satisfactory (from a Catholic perspective) stances on other life issues. I would suspect they also probably differ with orthodox Catholics on contraception.

    In this they would have a deficient understanding of the full scope of the sanctity of life — yet, I would consider them (however imperfectly) “pro-life” as opposed to indicting them of holding said positions only for political gain.

    I’d still like to see Fr. Pavone and Brownback clarify why they chose McCain over other candidates with perhaps better records on the “life issues”, but

  • Sorry, to finish:

    I’d still like to see Fr. Pavone and Brownback clarify why they chose McCain over other candidates with perhaps better records on the “life issues” — I disagree with the advertising of McCain as a somehow ideal pro-life candidate, but at the same time I understand how they would see him as the best option against a rabidly pro-death candidate like Obama or Hillary. (Obama has even supported positions that NARAL wouldn’t endorse, on refusing to assist infants that survive the abortion procedure).

  • Sorry, to finish:

    I’d still like to see Fr. Pavone and Brownback clarify why they chose McCain over other candidates with perhaps better records on the “life issues” — I disagree with the advertising of McCain as a somehow ideal pro-life candidate, but at the same time I understand how they would see him as the best option against a rabidly pro-death candidate like Obama or Hillary. (Obama has even supported positions that NARAL wouldn’t endorse, on refusing to assist infants that survive the abortion procedure).

  • Christopher

    The two issues the song raises are still important issues with this and all discussion on life issues. The first is the question as to why person x says they are anti-abortion; the song/video demonstrates one’s reasons do not have to deal with any concern for life. This is an important point because so many people treat “He/She is against abortion” as proof they are pro-life. And with all the people who claim to be against abortion, but do everything to encourage it in real political situations (including paying people who did abortions rewards for doing abortions), then one must question the rhetoric and see if it is just being said because it is “expected” to get votes.

    Second, and just as important — many of the same people who say they are pro-life because they are anti-abortion will be the same to justify all kinds of anti-life policies (from torture and other war crimes to taking away monetary support for those who actually give birth to babies because they don’t want to be forced to take care of someone else’s baby) will do so because they will find all kinds of ends which they think justifies their means. But of course, once they start thinking this, all abortionists will have to do is to create ends which they want, too…

    Third, I do think there is a considerable violent undercurrent in many of the pro-lifers, just as I see so many people who oppose Islam “because it is violent” want to go all out and nuke Muslims, just as many so many people who are in the peace movement have been quite violent and not too peaceful, so I see many in the pro-life movement, following societal expectations and its consequentialistic ethic, have indeed gone to think of violent means as to deal with the situation. Whether we want to admit it or not, there are violent protestors at abortion clinics, there are people who take the law in their own hands and blow up clinics or shoot doctors, and it is only an expression of a greater undercurrent than those lone people. Of course not all pro-lifers are like this, but the fact that many disassociate abortion from the rest of the Gospel of Life is part of the explanation and why the whole Gospel needs to be proclaimed.

  • Christopher

    The two issues the song raises are still important issues with this and all discussion on life issues. The first is the question as to why person x says they are anti-abortion; the song/video demonstrates one’s reasons do not have to deal with any concern for life. This is an important point because so many people treat “He/She is against abortion” as proof they are pro-life. And with all the people who claim to be against abortion, but do everything to encourage it in real political situations (including paying people who did abortions rewards for doing abortions), then one must question the rhetoric and see if it is just being said because it is “expected” to get votes.

    Second, and just as important — many of the same people who say they are pro-life because they are anti-abortion will be the same to justify all kinds of anti-life policies (from torture and other war crimes to taking away monetary support for those who actually give birth to babies because they don’t want to be forced to take care of someone else’s baby) will do so because they will find all kinds of ends which they think justifies their means. But of course, once they start thinking this, all abortionists will have to do is to create ends which they want, too…

    Third, I do think there is a considerable violent undercurrent in many of the pro-lifers, just as I see so many people who oppose Islam “because it is violent” want to go all out and nuke Muslims, just as many so many people who are in the peace movement have been quite violent and not too peaceful, so I see many in the pro-life movement, following societal expectations and its consequentialistic ethic, have indeed gone to think of violent means as to deal with the situation. Whether we want to admit it or not, there are violent protestors at abortion clinics, there are people who take the law in their own hands and blow up clinics or shoot doctors, and it is only an expression of a greater undercurrent than those lone people. Of course not all pro-lifers are like this, but the fact that many disassociate abortion from the rest of the Gospel of Life is part of the explanation and why the whole Gospel needs to be proclaimed.

  • Fourth, to finish, I think Steve’s own commentary on his song is relevant to this discussion. He’s right.

    When I was much younger, before I was a Catholic, I was into many evangelical Christian bands. There are still a few I like; Steve Taylor is one of them. There are a couple songs of his I disagree with (I Want to Be a Clone, for exampe) but even they show a creativity and satire which I appreciate.

  • Fourth, to finish, I think Steve’s own commentary on his song is relevant to this discussion. He’s right.

    When I was much younger, before I was a Catholic, I was into many evangelical Christian bands. There are still a few I like; Steve Taylor is one of them. There are a couple songs of his I disagree with (I Want to Be a Clone, for exampe) but even they show a creativity and satire which I appreciate.

  • I see many in the pro-life movement, following societal expectations and its consequentialistic ethic, have indeed gone to think of violent means as to deal with the situation.

    Q: How many of our voting populace want to actually nuke Mecca?
    Q: How many of those in the pro-life movement want to bomb abortion clinics?

    Sorry, but I can’t help but see this as something of a smear against the large body of Christians who are genuinely opposed to abortion (howbeit hold a less/imperfect understanding and awareness of the scope of the sanctity of life).

    Sorry, but I concur with Darwin: better off writing posts about situations where real anti-abortion people are advocating “ends justify means” things which are contrary to the gospel of life.

  • I see many in the pro-life movement, following societal expectations and its consequentialistic ethic, have indeed gone to think of violent means as to deal with the situation.

    Q: How many of our voting populace want to actually nuke Mecca?
    Q: How many of those in the pro-life movement want to bomb abortion clinics?

    Sorry, but I can’t help but see this as something of a smear against the large body of Christians who are genuinely opposed to abortion (howbeit hold a less/imperfect understanding and awareness of the scope of the sanctity of life).

    Sorry, but I concur with Darwin: better off writing posts about situations where real anti-abortion people are advocating “ends justify means” things which are contrary to the gospel of life.

  • I have one question whichno one will answer. What is the “authority” of the catholic catechism? For example, it slearly demeans marriage vis-a-vis virginity and celibacy. I have other questions but no one will answer them. I am Catholic, and a former teacher of philosophy.

  • I have one question whichno one will answer. What is the “authority” of the catholic catechism? For example, it slearly demeans marriage vis-a-vis virginity and celibacy. I have other questions but no one will answer them. I am Catholic, and a former teacher of philosophy.

  • M.Z. Forrest

    I’m sorry no one has ever answered that for you Mr. Haynes. The Cathechism has no authority. Particular statements in the Catechism do reflect teachings expounded upon in magesterial documents, and those teaching do enjoy their level of authority. I think the Catechism puts it best, it is a sure guide to Catholic teaching.

  • M.Z. Forrest

    I’m sorry no one has ever answered that for you Mr. Haynes. The Cathechism has no authority. Particular statements in the Catechism do reflect teachings expounded upon in magesterial documents, and those teaching do enjoy their level of authority. I think the Catechism puts it best, it is a sure guide to Catholic teaching.

  • Thank you!!!!. I say the catechism places virginity and celibacy above marriage. The cathechism makes it very clear that only the celibate can devote himself completely to God while this is not possible for marrieds because they have other responsibilities. Sheer logic tells me this places celibacy above the married state. I am using “The Essential Catholic Catechism” endored by Cardinal Schonborn.

  • Thank you!!!!. I say the catechism places virginity and celibacy above marriage. The cathechism makes it very clear that only the celibate can devote himself completely to God while this is not possible for marrieds because they have other responsibilities. Sheer logic tells me this places celibacy above the married state. I am using “The Essential Catholic Catechism” endored by Cardinal Schonborn.

  • John Haynes,

    Well, as someone who is married with kids, I can see the catachism’s point: I mean, having a wife and kid also makes it harder for me to devote myself fully to golf or to skeet or to car mechanics, so I can buy that it makes it more difficult for me to devote myself completely to God.

    However, on the flip side of that, those who are married have opportunities for love of others here on earth that those who are celibate do not necessarily, and so since Christ tells us that when we love one another, we love him, we have some strengths as well.

    Basically, though, it sounds like Schonborn’s catachism is just repeating some of St. Paul’s observations from the epistles. Paul could be a crusty old coot at times, but I’d hesitate to disagree with him.

  • John Haynes,

    Well, as someone who is married with kids, I can see the catachism’s point: I mean, having a wife and kid also makes it harder for me to devote myself fully to golf or to skeet or to car mechanics, so I can buy that it makes it more difficult for me to devote myself completely to God.

    However, on the flip side of that, those who are married have opportunities for love of others here on earth that those who are celibate do not necessarily, and so since Christ tells us that when we love one another, we love him, we have some strengths as well.

    Basically, though, it sounds like Schonborn’s catachism is just repeating some of St. Paul’s observations from the epistles. Paul could be a crusty old coot at times, but I’d hesitate to disagree with him.

  • Henry,

    It’s true that not all people who are against abortion have a fully formed understanding of the gospel of life.

    It’s true that not everyone who feels revulsion at any particular sin does so for the righ reasons, or has a full understanding of the virtues and vices involved.

    Indeed, in any given situation, on any given topic, it’s a good bet that most people think they know something about it don’t know as much as they think.

    However, unless one gets a rush out of sitting around looking down at the world, and failing to become involved in any particular attempt to improve the world, because no movements are made of untirely of pure people, it’s generally best to speak the truth as you know it, muddle through, and try to do the right thing.

    On a strictly experiential note (and keeping in mind that the plural of anecdote is not data) I’m a little surprised at your impression of the pro-life movement. Of the Catholics I’ve known who are involved in active pro-life work (as opposed to those like me who simply donate to pro-life organizations and vote pro-life), all of them are much more peaceful people than I — both in their ability to have abuse yelled at them by Planned Parenthood escorts without reacting, and in their opposition to war and capital punishment.

  • Henry,

    It’s true that not all people who are against abortion have a fully formed understanding of the gospel of life.

    It’s true that not everyone who feels revulsion at any particular sin does so for the righ reasons, or has a full understanding of the virtues and vices involved.

    Indeed, in any given situation, on any given topic, it’s a good bet that most people think they know something about it don’t know as much as they think.

    However, unless one gets a rush out of sitting around looking down at the world, and failing to become involved in any particular attempt to improve the world, because no movements are made of untirely of pure people, it’s generally best to speak the truth as you know it, muddle through, and try to do the right thing.

    On a strictly experiential note (and keeping in mind that the plural of anecdote is not data) I’m a little surprised at your impression of the pro-life movement. Of the Catholics I’ve known who are involved in active pro-life work (as opposed to those like me who simply donate to pro-life organizations and vote pro-life), all of them are much more peaceful people than I — both in their ability to have abuse yelled at them by Planned Parenthood escorts without reacting, and in their opposition to war and capital punishment.

  • Thank you for your response. However with the greatest humility may I disagree. As I sit in mass I cannot accept that the celibate priest, all things being equal, is my and the other married men’s superior in holliness. I do not accept I am his spiritual inferior. What if the priest spends 2 days a week playing golf and I spend free time helping my kids or others. Am I a second class member of the Church? Also the catechism state that all sexual thought and arousal before marriage is sinful. To me that is absurd. That a priest at his best is better than I at my best harks back to very old times. Incidentaly I just discovered this site; how does it work? Do I come here or go to the invidual responder? John Haynes

  • Thank you for your response. However with the greatest humility may I disagree. As I sit in mass I cannot accept that the celibate priest, all things being equal, is my and the other married men’s superior in holliness. I do not accept I am his spiritual inferior. What if the priest spends 2 days a week playing golf and I spend free time helping my kids or others. Am I a second class member of the Church? Also the catechism state that all sexual thought and arousal before marriage is sinful. To me that is absurd. That a priest at his best is better than I at my best harks back to very old times. Incidentaly I just discovered this site; how does it work? Do I come here or go to the invidual responder? John Haynes

  • John,

    Certainly, the fact that a priest or religious is celibate is not guarantee that he will achieve greater holiness. It’s just that clearing his decks of other responsibilities gives him the opportunity to spend more time on it.

    As for the site, this is a group blog run by a number of people (I am not one of them) and visited by many commenters. Some of us link to our blogs when we post.

    If the vocation/holiness/celibacy question is of great concern to you at the moment, I’d be willing to throw up a post on my blog to serve as a place of discussion. Or perhaps one of the hosts here would prefer to do so — though in general this blog focuses on politics and social teaching.

  • John,

    Certainly, the fact that a priest or religious is celibate is not guarantee that he will achieve greater holiness. It’s just that clearing his decks of other responsibilities gives him the opportunity to spend more time on it.

    As for the site, this is a group blog run by a number of people (I am not one of them) and visited by many commenters. Some of us link to our blogs when we post.

    If the vocation/holiness/celibacy question is of great concern to you at the moment, I’d be willing to throw up a post on my blog to serve as a place of discussion. Or perhaps one of the hosts here would prefer to do so — though in general this blog focuses on politics and social teaching.

  • You are most courteous. I have other questions about church teaching as well as science and religion. I helped with Stuermann”s “Logic and Faith” back in the 50’s 60’s. One of the best books on science and religion and their assumptions. Please advise what you think is best for me to proceede. I am not good on Pope ‘Polonius’ “in vertabin confusian.” John

  • You are most courteous. I have other questions about church teaching as well as science and religion. I helped with Stuermann”s “Logic and Faith” back in the 50’s 60’s. One of the best books on science and religion and their assumptions. Please advise what you think is best for me to proceede. I am not good on Pope ‘Polonius’ “in vertabin confusian.” John

  • John,

    Well, howsabout this: I’ll go ahead and throw up a post on the vocations question (by tomorrow morning — just click the link with my name to find the blog), and feel free to come by and ask further questions. If not, no pressure.

    VN Editors,

    Hope this doesn’t seem like readership stealing, but I didn’t see anyone else throwing a hat in the ring, and I wasn’t sure if this fit your editorial mandate anyway.

  • John,

    Well, howsabout this: I’ll go ahead and throw up a post on the vocations question (by tomorrow morning — just click the link with my name to find the blog), and feel free to come by and ask further questions. If not, no pressure.

    VN Editors,

    Hope this doesn’t seem like readership stealing, but I didn’t see anyone else throwing a hat in the ring, and I wasn’t sure if this fit your editorial mandate anyway.

  • That would be great!!!I thought I posted this before so I’ll try again. John M Haynes

  • That would be great!!!I thought I posted this before so I’ll try again. John M Haynes