The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
To be pro life is to be nonviolent
by John Dear SJ on Jun. 09, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionLast week, one dedicated Christian killed another during church services in Wichita, Kansas. Both men thought they were doing God’s will. One -- the zealous anti-abortion activist, Scott Roeder, believed in “justifiable homicide” to bring to a halt the activities of the other -- the abortion doctor, George Tiller. I grieve for both of them, for everyone in that scene, for all of us. Both were far from the nonviolent Jesus, but so are we all. This sad event confirms what many of us have been saying for years. We all need to repent of our violence and discover Jesus’ way of nonviolence.
There is a reason for this madness. For seventeen hundred years we have rejected the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ truth about nonviolence (“Put down your sword. Love one another. Love your enemies. Be as compassionate as God”). In the fourth century, we made a ruinous accommodation, and started down the path toward the so-called Just War theory -- and Christians have been killing Christians ever since. Popes, bishops, priests and ministers have blessed mass murder, and still do so, and assume they are doing God’s will.
The Just War theory opens Pandora’s Box. It allows for a time when it is permissible to declare war for God’s sake. With each condition we move farther away from the Sermon on the Mount. As we have assumed war is justifiable, so we have come up with other occasions when killing is justified. We execute people, build nuclear weapons, and support jingoistic militarism, and all the while believe we are ushering in God’s reign.
The German bishops who served Hitler are but one extreme example of this blasphemous rejection of Gospel nonviolence. The American bishops and priests who avow U.S. war plans and defend nuclear weapons show a similar anti-gospel ethic of justifiable killing. Dr Tiller, I submit, held a similar anti-gospel ethic. And so did Roeder, his killer.
On April 19, Kansas City’s Bishop Finn addressed a group which claims the name “Pro Life,” saying, “We are at war.” His remarks, peppered with militaristic imagery, failed to demonstrate the sweeping love of the nonviolent Jesus. He spoke only of the unborn, of “pro life” issues, but showed no concern for those targeted by our bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. He expressed no concern for the billions of people who have no homes, food, healthcare, education, jobs or dignity. He shed no tears for those who die from poverty due to our first world greed. He does not concern himself with nuclear weapons or global warming -- which, even from his standpoint, will harm the unborn.
As a priest and a human being, I too am against abortion. But as a follower of the nonviolent Jesus, I prefer Cardinal Bernardin’s “Consistent Ethic of Life.” One cannot pick and choose contradictory issues. Are you “Pro Life,” “for life,” “for the God of Life?” Then stand against every war, handgun, weapon, greedy corporation, and execution. Stand against poverty and starvation and disease and extinctions and racism and sexism and environmental destruction. As well as abortion.
But that’s only the beginning. You have to look deep within at the roots of your own violence. Then allow the Holy Spirit to disarm you and transform you into a channel of universal nonviolent love. From this process, the good fruit of peace flows. You begin to uphold a vision of nonviolence for all humanity, all creatures, and all creation. You experience a God of nonviolence “who makes the sun shine on the good and the bad and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” Few nurture such universal, nonviolent, love, and that is precisely our problem.
Bishop Finn’s tired talk of “the church militant,” of “warriors in a spiritual battle,” played into the hands of our militaristic culture. The bishop’s language breeds violence. His fractious call to arms encourages the violence within the movement which calls itself “Pro Life.” It stirs the violence latent in all of us. Can’t we face hard issues with the language of unconditional love, in a spirit of compassion, with the creativity of genuine, common ground nonviolence?
In response to Dr. Tiller’s assassination, most of the major “Pro life” organizations around the country denounced it. Most insisted that their “pro life” group or movement is nonviolent. I doubt it. Despite these claims, I am still searching for a group which adopts that name “Pro Life” and is truly committed to nonviolence.
A “Pro Life” group committed to nonviolence would never use hateful language. If they were nonviolent, they would understand the connection between all of life and so speak out with similar passion against war, poverty, handguns, nuclear weapons and catastrophic climate change. Such a group would advocate the nonviolence of Jesus and pay closer attention to his teachings of love, compassion and peace. A nonviolent, pro-life group would try to be as gentle, unarmed, vulnerable, and non-threatening as a new born babe, as lambs sent into the culture of wolves. Such a radical commitment to life would never find a home with political parties and leaders who supported the bombing of children, rewarded billionaires, tortured prisoners and lied.
Alas, despite claims that they are “nonviolent,” I do not see much evidence that the movement which uses the name “Pro Life” understands what nonviolence really means. Until they show concern for the taking of any life, until they oppose the culture of war and the nuclear threat and poverty and executions and environmental destruction, to my mind they remain unworthy of the label “Pro Life.” Their commitment to the unborn will continue to lack credibility.
To be fair, such nonviolence is also rare in the so called “peace” movement. We’re all in some measure addicted to violence. We, all of us, are neophytes when it comes to nonviolence. I’m disappointed that so few demonstrate any sincere interest in the study and practice Gospel nonviolence.
I think the time has come for a serious re-examination of the “Pro Life” movement as it currently exists in the U.S. It is filled with a spirit of violence, which will only continue to breed hatred. If an extremist for peace had killed an official in the Bush Administration, I would have insisted that we stop all peace movement activities.
This is what Gandhi said in the early 1920s, after some of his movement activists beat five British soldiers to death. He called off the whole national civil disobedience program, went on a fast of repentance and resigned from the movement. He insisted, from his daily reading of the Sermon on the Mount, that there is no cause, however noble, for which we support the taking of a single human life.
In that spirit, I propose that the so called “Pro Life” movement stop all its activities, perhaps for several years, and that the U.S. bishops take the lead. What we need is a thoughtful examination of our addiction to violence, and a new systematic study of Gospel nonviolence. Every parish in the United States -- and the world -- should become a training camp in Gospel nonviolence.
We have to help one another uproot and renounce whichever form of violence holds us captive. The task is to deepen our awareness about our complicity with violence and learn how to become genuinely nonviolent as individuals, as a church, as a nation and as a world.
Some months ago in Santa Fe, I joined friends in a day of lobbying against the death penalty at the Capitol building. A Franciscan priest in brown robes was with another church group, lobbying against abortion and gay marriage. He confronted me with a hard word or two. “You should stop all of this anti-death penalty, anti-war and anti-nuclear work,” he said adamantly. “None of that matters.” I was astonished and saddened. How far we have drifted from the nonviolent Jesus, I thought.
Then last month, I met another Franciscan priest, this one sporting Army fatigues and a cross around his neck. He was an Army chaplain who told me fervently how he blesses the soldiers as they embark for war, and how hard it is it to counsel them when they return home suicidal -- or in coffins to be buried. He too claimed to be a “true pro lifer.” Once again, I found myself full of compassion and sadness at our predicament.
Jesus, a victim of the death penalty himself, could see all of this on the horizon. His message of nonviolence was consistently rejected during his public life. Yet he stubbornly forgave and loved and tried to liberate, both oppressors and oppressed, from the shackles of violence. He taught nonviolence and enacted it to the bitter end, and it cost him his life, but with his last breath he practiced what he preached, saying “Put down the sword,” and “Forgive them.”
I write as one who has struggled for 29 years to teach and practice an authentic nonviolence in my own culture, church, and time. It always seems like one step forward, two steps back. Currently I’m facing a possible six-month prison sentence for kneeling in prayer on Holy Thursday on Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, in protest against our drone weapons systems which are killing civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This past weekend I joined twenty five Pax Christi New Mexico friends in a careful reading of the Sermon on the Mount. From Friday night through Sunday morning, we studied it line by line, word for word. We were trying to hear exactly what Jesus was saying, to figure out the meaning of the Beatitudes and the commandment to love our enemies, and to come up with ways to put his words into action in our own lives. It was difficult, intense, exciting and meaningful.
My hope and prayer is that all of us -- “Pro-lifers” and “peaceniks,” “liberals” and “conservatives,” “left and right,” -- can become Sermon on the Mount people and learn the Gospel truth that killing is never justified, that abortion and murder and war and nuclear weapons and violence of all kinds are wrong, that all of us are summoned to an entirely new way of life, a life founded on the wisdom of Jesus’ nonviolence.
* * * * * *
John Dear will lead a weekend workshop on the Sermon on the Mount at Loyola University in Chicago on June 26-27. To register, contact, www.asrenewal.org, or email, aluther@luc.edu. St. Anthony Messenger’s Press has just published John Dear On Peace, by Patricia Normile. John’s two new books are A Persistent Peace (Loyola Press) and Put Down Your Sword, (Eerdmans). For information on his books and speaking schedule, see: www.johndear.org
* * * * * *
A Message from John Dear about his NCR Columns
Dear Friends,
Thank you very much for reading and supporting my weekly column. I’ve been writing these reflections every week for three years now, and am blessed to share my reflections, journeys, concerns and hopes.
I write now to ask your help with these writing projects. Each week about 2,500 people read these columns. NCR and I would like to reach a regular audience of 5,000 people by the end of the year. Would you please send an email to ten friends and ask them to sign up and receive my weekly column for free when it is published every Tuesday morning at NCRonline.org. Any other outreach you can give to promote this column would be greatly appreciated. Here's a page direct link to the e-mail sign up.
Thanks, too, for sharing your responses to my reflections. And thank you for all you do for justice, disarmament and peace, for teaching and practicing Gospel nonviolence.
God bless you,
Fr. John Dear, S.J.
"Idolatry is committed, not
"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice."
- G. K. Chesterton
your point, Pete, being your
your point, Pete, being your personal penchant for alcohol, war, corporate monopolies and a popular pulp writer of one hundred years ago?
Fortunately we still have left to us one priest prophetic, courageous, incorruptible, in the Reverend Father John Dear, SJ.
"a popular pulp writer of one
"a popular pulp writer of one hundred years ago"
yeah, kinda like augustine was just an ex-ladies man who argued with a lot of people centuries ago.
or how thomas aquinas was just a wordy writer of hard to read books that once swung a hot poker at a prostitute.
see? trying to attack people by ignoring their work and attempting to portray them as a simpleton is easy!
well, whatever you do, don't read anything he wrote, i doubt you will understand it.
Dear Pete, Thank you so very
Dear Pete,
Thank you so very much for this correction and I ask you for further information, for you see I did not realize that old convert GK had now been elevated to the status of Doctor of the Church, like the Saints Augustine and Aquinas whom you mention.
When is his Feast day? Such glorious news comes rather slowly out here in this desert.
I realize, my dear Peter, most painfully that I have severely limited linguistic abilities, a limitation against which I strive very hard, and yet, dear Peter, must you mock me in this way with your closing phrase: "i doubt you will understand it?" Was this really necessary to your rhetorical point?
I have in fact read quite a bit of GK and found him a rather dull writer of pulp fiction with the intermittent aphorism of Wildean aspirations but lacking the brilliance of Oscar. Here you elevate him among the Doctors of the Church, making him out to be reading more dense than Father Rahner or the great son of Aquinas, the Reverend Father Schillebeeckx.
What was his formal theological preparation? Where his professorship in theology?
just wondering
your dullest servant
frere charles
hmmm, well either all you
hmmm, well either all you read were his 'father brown' series, or you really don't understand him.
while i wouldn't necessarily call him a doctor of the church, his writings are some of the most profound dealing with the difficulties the western world faced in his time, and still apply today. his work "the everlasting man" was key in converting C. S. Lewis from atheism. he debated the heretics of his time in all stripes, from fanatics to those who would turn people into mere mechanics of production. he was a writer whose true joy of catholicism shone in all his works.
as for his feast day, he doesn't have one yet. however, you may be surprised by the fact that there is a growing movement to have him cannonized. that may or may not happen, and it will be a long process of decernment.
his writing is dense? hardly. there is a major difference between him and aquinas and augustine, for example, even though all three shared the same faith. the writings of the last two are those of direct teachers. they preach(ed) in their writtings and in their arguments. chesterton, writing much later as a journalist, knew that direct preaching to the modern man is often met with one of the few effective defenses man has against the gospel of christ: boredom.
to get around this, he doesn't preach directly. he sneaks the word of god into everything, like a christian spy sneaking into a pagan land. he combines the teachings of the church, the church fathers, history and common sense into works that are masterfull.
there is an old arab saying: 'before you fire the arrow of truth, dip it in honey.' chesterton did that VERY well.
btw, practically ALL of his works are readable online for FREE. the gutenburg website has many of them.
"Where his professorship in theology?"
- ah, is that whats required to be considered a valid teacher? the couple of letters after the person's name? thats strange, i dont recall jesus, st paul or many of the early church fathers be a professor, having a doctorate in theology, etc.
i am not mocking your linguisitc skills. i am simply pointing out that you will probably not understand him. much like blatchford didn't.
Dearest Peter, First, my dear
Dearest Peter,
First, my dear one, you put GK in the same league as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine and now with (lower case) "jesus, st paul or many of the early church fathers?" My dear Pete . . .
I and my house will stick with reading the Reverend Father John Dear SJ, who actually has a formal education in systematic Roman Catholic theology, and the Gospels and documents of the Holy Mother Church and her theologians, while you engage in your "long process of decernment" within the "growing movement to have him cannonized." Please, read the excellent theological books of Father John, and come to know true honey for today's bitter journey.
Hopefully I may even discover somehow, proud mule that I am, to bring love, mercy, forgiveness, peace and hope to life, here and now, within the excellent Faith community who holds me close in Mexico, and even here on the ruthless internet.
please pray for me Pete
your poorest servant
frere charles
Father John may indeed have a
Father John may indeed have a formal eduacation in systematic theology, but he clearly does not understand Mother Church's teaching. The Just War teaching has been with us and forms an important part of the Church's social teaching. Further, Father's trite dismissal of the traditional understanding of the "Church Militant" proves his own lack of an understanding of his own tradition.
Whether Father Dear and his followers accept it or not, we are at war. Saint Paul speaks of that clearly in his epistles when he describes us as "putting on the armor of God". He describes the weapons we must use in fighting that spiritual war. Christ Himself, in the Gospel of Luke, warns His followers that they will soon need to sell their cloaks and go and buy swords. He says that He has come to set brother against brother, father against son, mother against daughter. Why? Because He knew that there would be those who would attempt to seduce and lead His sheep astray. He knew that the Devil is fighting nonstop for our souls. Christ and Saint Paul warn us that we must be willing to fight as well. This is the meaning of "Church Militant", in case Father Dear never learned that.
Father Dear again attempts to make some kind of moral equivalence between abortion and war. There is no equivalence. War is sometimes necessary (World War II, for example). Abortion is always morally wrong. War can justly be waged to defend the innocent (even if, sadly and regrettably, innocents sometimes suffer). Abortion is never justified. It is always, in every circumstance, the murder of the most innocent of life; murder committed by the very person, the mother, charged with bringing that life into the world. It is perversion and evil in the most extreme and horrific form.
I do agree, however, that there is a serious disconnect when someone who claims to be pro-life murders someone. Now, Dr. Tiller can not, in any way, be considered innocent. Indeed, he was guilty of the murder of 60,000 unborn children. He is one of the most efficient and horrific mass murderers in American history. His name should go down in infamy along with Jim Jones and Charles Manson (though his crimes are an order of magnitude worse than theirs). I am ashamed to be a member of the same species as someone like him. However, he did not deserve to die. He deserved to spend the rest of his miserable life in a prison cell or doing the most miserable and hardest possible labor imaginable, in the hopes, perhaps forlorn, that he might repent his crimes and sins. His murder is regrettable, and it does harm to the pro-life by exposing the movement to charges of hypocrisy.
However, all that being said, I do find reason to rejoice that his clinic is closed and that no more unborn children will be murdered by this man. His murder was evil, but God, in His infinite mercy and providence, has already brought much good out of that evil, namely the closing of Tiller's clinic. His death, while tragic, definitely saved lives. For that good, which He has brought out of an evil, I rejoice and praise God.
Finally, as to Father Dear's general, and tired, repetition of his nonviolent theme, I respond with a quote from the great Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, a quote, the truth of which, Father Dear might consider pondering seriously:
"The pacifist thinks that the alternative to war is peace; it is not. Sometimes the alternative is oppression. Sometimes certain God-given rights and liberties can be preserved only by resistance to that which would destroy them. And to defend certain basic God-given rights and liberties is not immoral but righteous,"
--"A Declaration Of Dependance", [1941].
Are we indeed "at war"? At
Are we indeed "at war"? At war with what? With a tactic? If you wish to see evil in its most horrific form, look at the drones currently murdering thousands of innocent Pakistanis. Then come and tell me how utterly evil abortion is. You want to see a mass murderer - take a look at George W. Bush. There you will see a man who murdered 1.2 million people on the basis of lies for political gain. But I am not ashamed to be a member of the same species as him, because my species is a follower of Jesus Christ, who deplored violence in all its forms, whether against life in the womb or outside it. Indeed, certain God-given rights are righteous and must be fought for with all the weapons of peace, even to dying on the Cross.
"Are we indeed "at war"? At
"Are we indeed "at war"? At war with what?"
why don't you read the epistle of st. paul that clint is talking about and you'll see.
This world is a savage
This world is a savage garden. That's how God made it. I can't be a sheep. I'm sorry, Fr. Dear. I admire you and I respect your wisdom, your passion, and your dedication, but you are banging your head against a wall. I have tried to become nonviolent. I, quite simply, am not, because the world is not. My nature is not. We are not. Nonviolence is a Utopian dream. Maybe Jesus and Gandhi could pull it off, but I can't and I'm sick of trying.
God bless you.
MJCIV
Yes, this is a violent world
Yes, this is a violent world we live in. Study nature, and you’ll see violence is not limited just too fallen man. Violence and death was part of this world long before God created man.
The Jewish people were mostly unarmed, non violent people at the time of WWII. They would have been totally annihilated if it weren’t for the violent actions of the Allied power that put an end to the Nazi party that was hunting them down and killing them. Now the Jewish people teach there young “never again like sheep to the slaughter”.
I myself am a non violent person. However, I keep a 45 in the off chance the situation calls for me to act with violence.
Dear MJ and Don, Nonviolence
Dear MJ and Don,
Nonviolence therefore requires a courage few are capable of, a Faith beyond measure, a Loving charity the fruit of our Faith, a Merciful Forgiveness which comes through great prayer, humility, meekness and all hand in hand toward the Reign of God.
Those who fall by the wayside stumble over their coward guns and such. There is no holy handgun.
Peter, put up they sword.
Read the works of the Reverend Father John Dear, and grow strong in Faith, and courageous in Love. Walk the narrow, frightening and old rugged path to our God of Peace, of Mercy, of Love.
just a thought
your poorest servant
frere charles
"Nonviolence therefore
"Nonviolence therefore requires a courage few are capable of, a Faith beyond measure, a Loving charity the fruit of our Faith, a Merciful Forgiveness which comes through great prayer, humility, meekness and all hand in hand toward the Reign of God."
well, it's good to know that joan of arc was lacking the faith, meekness and charity to pull it off. likewise the 800 martyrs of otranto and countless others.
charles, you seem like a consistent guy. i can be assurred, therefore, that should you ever awaken in the night and see some PCP junkie breaking into your hermitage, that you will not, under any circumstances, call the police. why? because the police, no matter how much they hate to do so, WILL use deadly force to protect you if neccessary. and were you to call them, you would simply be exposing yourself as a hypocrite who, while personally being against violence, doesn't have a problem summoning others to do it on his behalf.
the rest of us have families we are responsible for. while i am sure you are faithful enough to lay down your life rather than to lift a finger in violence, having my wife possibly assaulted in a defiling manner and both of us murdered is not something i think i can just sit down and allow to happen.
maybe my faith just isn't as strong as yours?
Dear Pete, Or because we only
Dear Pete,
Or because we only have a daytime police force way out here in the desert! (except for the Border Patrol boys) And even then, would they protect me? how? and from what?
I guess I would just have to see whether I still had any coffee I could burn for the homebreaker, that being the strongest stimulant in the place.
Anyway, I wonder whether that old wall phone is still working, anymore . . .
Naw, guess I wouldn't call them. Couldn't.
Break in? Why not just open the door? It's open.
Maybe your fantasies are stronger than mine. A character such as you describe would have very thin pickings way out here in the desert. Not even a wife to defile . . .
Just a few coyotes and a whole lot of road runners.
Hey, Pete, by the way, and speaking of that, and this is really not funny at all, really, but do you remember the greatest novelist of all time (better than Katzanzakis?) Mr. James Joyce's paraphrase of that Gospel line: Greater love hath no man than this . . .
Sure, anyone's welcome to stop by. No cops called. I'll even try to find that old jar of instant coffee . . .
I just wish my old Abbott Primate Archbishop Weakland could pay a Canonical Visit! I guess I would even dust off that old espresso maker for him, the one somewhere under, over, back in that high shelf, I think . . .
Hey, Pete, are we the only ones writing here? How embarrasing! Thanks for being there!
your poorest srevant,
frere charles
charles i think youre missing
charles
i think youre missing the point.
yes you live in a hermitege. do you have to worry about this? probably not, unless there happens to be a couple of teenagers in your area that go on a thrill murder spree of rural families like happened in new mexico a while back.
and that seems to be the point youre making: you seem to be saying 'the situation would never happen to me, so it doesn't apply to the topic at all.' but you see, some of us DO have wives. some of us DO have children. some of us cant live in a hermitage in the desert. some of us have people we are responsible for. and that is why the church teaches as she does on justifiable defense (a VERY narrow, VERY specifically defined situation. it is not a blessing to go willy nilly killing people like father john dear SEEMS to be implying.)
we are fortunate to live (at least i do) in the united states where on average crime is VERY low. but such terrible things do happen. you will not find me standing off to the side singing a psalm and allowing evildoers to have their way with my family. to do so would be grave evil itself.
i tell you what, if you want to preach this gospel of non violence, you should go to the next women's rape survivor support meeting in whatever town is closest to you. be sure to teach them that they should never resist those type of men, not even with pepperspray, they should embrace what happens to them in the spirit of non-violence. perhaps you could convince father john dear to try it too. doing this might get you a little bit of understanding on this subject.
i'm glad you accept the writings of st. thomas. perhaps you would be interested in this bit of his work.
father john dear is also very wrong in his statement that the 'just war theory opens pandora's box'. that is totally absurd. that is like saying that the church agreeing that sexual relations between a husband and his wife are good and rightous is simply opening up pandora's box to sexual perversions.
there are clearly defined sets of right and wrong in both cases. when the defined borders are cross, both become sinful. the church, throughout its entire 2000 year history teaches it clearly. it takes a lot of sophistry to try to make the issue clouded.
Dear Pete that wild boar you
Dear Pete
that wild boar you killed to feed your family -
was there no other food available?
did that wild boar have family?
just wondering
your poorest servant
frere charles
by the way, I am writing from an internet outlet in Mexico, so I guess that I am further safe from rampaging New Mexican teens. All the ones I have met in our corner of New Mexico seem to have other things, like finding employment, on their minds, but my door is always open to them and they know they can count on me. It's the rampaging retired people from the northern states who worry me, a lot! From them, the elderly English-only crowd, I have in fact received death threats, but just laugh them off . . .for now! These folk apparently feel it's just so okay to murder a doctor in Church! That's why I ran to be safe and secure here in Mexico for a moment, among good friends in the community.
Dude. Read what the USCCB said about the just war camouflage; read what Pope John Paul II said, in declaring the state of modern warfare so indiscriminate as to find no possible just and moral application of the just war folly. While the Vatican condemns, for instance, cluster bombs, the USA remains with a few other select producers and users (Russia, Israel) of these indiscriminate and disproportional (two terms with which you may be familiar from that whole just war tissue of lies) weapons of mass murder just so all about cluster bombs. Write our fine, new, sane and moral President about it please. BE pro-Life!
Read the last third of Sacramentum caritatis. "doing this might get you a little bit of understanding on this subject." Also read a Philosophy 101 textbook on fallacious argumentation, please.
Gosh, I cannot even wander around our beautiful White Sands National Park without wondering whether cluster bomblets tested a generation ago at the missile range nearby still lie in wait beneath the white sands. Signs all over the place order you to watch where you step, and not to pick up any odd looking tin cans.
Well, MJIV, you could well be
Well, MJIV, you could well be right. Perhaps the life of witness Jesus called his disciples to, or as he put, the "taking up our crosses and following" him, is simply not something that most people are capable of even with the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps there are situations when the non-violence he espoused is simply not ethically responsible. That certainly was what most of the people of his own nation, who understood what he stood for, thought. Unfortunately, most of us who call ourselves "Christians," are not so honest as the Judeans of Jesus day or for that matter the Jews and non-believers of our day.
They say that the manner in which Jesus taught us to struggle against evil is utopian. They say that the Way of Jesus is not capable of really overcoming evil. Therefore Jesus is not the Messiah. We who call ourselves "Christians," however, insist that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, that he is the very Word of God incarnate. But then we are also quick to insist that the Way he called upon us to live is simply not realisitic or feasible. Is such hypocracy necessary? Why can we not admit that those who rejected the Way of Jesus in his day and those who refuse to call him the "Christ" in our day are right and be done with our self-deceiving duplicity.
Another very good article,
Another very good article, Father John,
I agree with you on the greater majority of the points, but I would like to offer a view on abortion that will not square with pro life issues. It is still however a lesser of some evils.
As a Catholic in the seminary I was told that God gave us each and everyone of us a free will. We have free will for one purpose, to make a choice.
Now it is unfortunate that we don't live in an ideal world where all of life is reverenced. I am against abortion, but if a woman is raped or a young girl finds herself as sole parent of a child that she did not want, it is not honest to state that the child is a gift from God and that everything will be alright.
Look at the world today. How many children are born into poverty that can not get out of poverty and may be strapped with taking care of a child that God doesn't seem to have been able to provide for.
God does not see a need to know what will happen to all creatures. If the government is going to prosecute doctors and parents who chose abortion, then where was the money to make certain that the child would be taken care of for its life.
If we were all pro life, we would be taking care of all of God's creatures. We would not have a caste system where 1% of the population owns 80% of the world's resources, and the other 99% have to work as slaves, not able to plan for retirement making war the only profitable business.
I became a conscientious objector after I left the seminary, because being 36 on the first lottery I realized that I probably would have been drafted. I did wait a year for alternate service, an under paying, but necessary, job to fulfill my military alternative.
As Father John pointed out, Christianity, everything that came off of the "root" of Roman Catholicism, has incorporated the notion of just war principles for approximately 1700 years. As the late Richard P. McSorley, S.J. said in his book a New Testament Basis for Peacemaking that the same set of rules can be applied to a "Just Adultery theory".
A person who has no foreseeable way to make a decent living for a child that he or she is should not be judged as being a mass murderer. Consider the number of people who die annually for the lack of affordable health insurance.
Fr. John spoke of the killing of unborn children. In war many of the victims are carrying new life, and every woman killed, even if not carrying life is carrying the potential of life.
Jesus was, in fact, a victim of capital punishment. Why don't all Christians use that fact to denounce capital punishment? Is it because the death of Jesus has been disguised as a pagan form of sacrifice? Did Jesus' being tortured and brutally executed please God enough to say that God would not hold any of our heinous sins against us? Christians seem no more converted to the teachings of Jesus as any other religion or non religion since they don't want to listen to Jesus' teachings.
I'll get off my soap box now. May the peace and Joy of a man who died to show us that he was serious about his teachings be with you.
Peace!
I just got back from the Pax
I just got back from the Pax Christi retreat on the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5,6 & 7,. If you haven't read it lately, (and really, who has?) read it today, if you dare. And if you can get to Fr. John's retreat, prepare to become enkindled...
hey, me too! and read this
hey, me too!
and read this article!
Father John too . . .
Good reading! Good guide!
As usual Father John Dear has
As usual Father John Dear has an answer for our path to a world of peace.
In recent weeks your column
In recent weeks your column has been appearing slightly garbled with words missing from the ends of the line, etc. Has there been a technical change that accounts for this or is it a problem at my end? I won't be forwarding your columns again until the technical problems are resolved.
What a phony, I have to
What a phony, I have to believe a Jesuit Priest is too smart to have written this seriously. Are we not "allowed" to speak out against abortion without unless we mention Fr. Dear's concerns as well?
Who are these "American bishops and priests who avow U.S. war plans and defend nuclear weapons show a similar anti-gospel ethic of justifiable killing"?
Dear Anonymous, My, but how
Dear Anonymous,
My, but how frequently you seem to post here!
Please pardon my limited linguistic skills, but I cannot seem to derive a sense from your first paragraph, so isomorphic to reality. I shall resolve to study it further.
Nevertheless, you pose an interesting question in your second paragraph: 'Who are these "American bishops and priests who avow U.S. war plans and defend nuclear weapons show a similar anti-gospel ethic of justifiable killing"?'
I recall reading quite recently in these blessed NCR pages of Bishop Morlino, who among several other very disconcerting phenomena refuses to see anything wrong in the School of the Americas, of which he is chaplain and spiritual advisor, nor in the subsequent careers of its graduates. This is only one example among thousands. One might also find answer to this question in reviewing the critical writings around the release of the USCCB's heroic letter entitled The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, including by George Weigel. There was an "alternative" document issued at the time, for instance, etc.
I recall the great and courageous Bishop Daniel O'Reilly when called to bless a Trident submarine built within his diocese responding that he would come and preach a powerful sermon against it. He was quickly disinvited, and quickly moved to a crumbling diocese out of state. Other bishops were located.
Such imperially compliant bishops are a dime a dozen, and your question appears disingenuous, but that may be due to my limited linguistic abilities. Let us thank Almighty God for the prophetic presence of Bishop Gumbleton upon these NCR pages.
just wondering
your poorest servant
frere charles
I am thinking that the word
I am thinking that the word PHONEY - isn't exactly what you meant. But, what exactly you meant - I don't know. Just wondering what the anger is all about.
Isn't it something how
Isn't it something how everyone has a different point of view? And no matter how different or how they connect their beliefs (with religion or God or Jesus---) the one thing they all have in common - is that they all think they are right.
I guess that is the sort of judgement thing that people do. I love you. God be with you.
Thank you again Father
Thank you again Father John!
I've had your sentiments for many years now. I still struggle not to get angry and upset when people do not share my views. But most of all I feel frustrated that the majority in our Catholic Church are spiritualistic on one side,and hung up with sexual sins on the other. I feel we need a leader to take up our non-violent Gospel movement, together with our fight against poverty, both inside the Church and out of its walls as well. I adhere to your call for a systematic study of Gospel nonviolence, especially in our country, in our dioceses and parishes.Is there hope for this possibility in the Church or shall we continue being voices in the wilderness?
There is a completely
There is a completely non-violent, "pro-life" organization based upon The Sermon on the Mount: it is called The People of God, and it is not to be confused with the Constantinian institution called the Catholic Church, although it is not completely separated from it either.
The path of non-violence is not an easy one. Where did his complete non-violence get Jesus, except nailed to a cross? And what if Jesus had not risen on the third day? What if he were a mere mortal? Would his non-violent philosophy still be viable? These are question which I believe we must all ask ourselves in the depth of our souls.
You make very good points,
You make very good points, but I think you could have been fairer in your analysis. You fault pro-life groups for not being "non-violent" and for allying themselves with a "party that is for war." You make the point very well for the protection of all life. However, you failed to fault groups like Pax Christi etc for allying themselves with a party that supports abortion and for not working to protect unborn human life. Both groups need protection, as we seem to have many different "advocacy groups." So I think we are left with this logical conclusion. First, and what I believe, is that groups focused on abortion or on anti-war truly believe "both sides" but focus on one area while other groups focus on others (Like different charisms). Or, they truly are one issue groups. In either case, it is dishonest to fault pro-life groups and praise anti-war groups when basically they are doing the same thing.
Dear Anonymous, Please
Dear Anonymous,
Please forgive me for not understanding,and I beg your patience in explaining this to me. You write: "However, you failed to fault groups like Pax Christi etc for allying themselves with a party that supports abortion and for not working to protect unborn human life."
I wonder whether you could please document your sources for this assertion, in particular when the Reverend Father John Dear specfically addresses these points in referring to PAX CHRISTI in his closing paragraphs, which I here reproduce for your convenience, as I believe it may demonstrate that PAX CHRISTI indeed works to protect ALL human life, and is politically unaligned. Father John Dear writes:
"This past weekend I joined twenty five Pax Christi New Mexico friends in a careful reading of the Sermon on the Mount. From Friday night through Sunday morning, we studied it line by line, word for word. We were trying to hear exactly what Jesus was saying, to figure out the meaning of the Beatitudes and the commandment to love our enemies, and to come up with ways to put his words into action in our own lives. It was difficult, intense, exciting and meaningful."
"My hope and prayer is that all of us -- “Pro-lifers” and “peaceniks,” “liberals” and “conservatives,” “left and right,” -- can become Sermon on the Mount people and learn the Gospel truth that killing is never justified, that abortion and murder and war and nuclear weapons and violence of all kinds are wrong, that all of us are summoned to an entirely new way of life, a life founded on the wisdom of Jesus’ nonviolence."
Therefore, Anonymous, let us please pray togeher as carefully the Sermon on the Mount and discern what actions the Holy Spirit demands today in our lives, for Peace, for Nonviolence, to protect human life at every stage and place.
Thank you
Peace
your poorest servant
frere charles
John, thank you for
John, thank you for continuing to stand up for gospel nonviolence. It occurs to me that the logic Roeder used in killing Dr. Killer is the same as the logic the U.S. government uses in waging wars.
For many reasons, the
For many reasons, the Reverend Father John Dear SJ stands clearly among the finest in our Church today, for whom we are very grateful as he opens the Gospels to us, and the way we each must walk, together, as we all, each and every one, get there together.
May we pray now and ever God hold Father John Dear in merciful Love and Peace with the strength and wisdom, a gift of the Holy Spirit, to continue to teach us courageously, to walk with us strongly, and freely.
Please tell all of your friends and family and parish to get on Father John's e-mail advisory, as noted above in the penultimate paragraph. For once let us unconditionally take care of our own, of those we love, while we can.
in union of prayer
your poorest servant
frere charles
Dear Father, If you would
Dear Father,
If you would like to see a genuine pro-life movement may I offer Birthright for your consideration? We are a non-judgemental, non-political, non-denominational group who try to help young women carry their babies to term.
Another thought for your consideration: If 40 years ago, our bishops and priests had been pro-life in their actions, sermons and supports, there would be no Roe v Wade to contend with today. But, and I speak from personal experience, the support to help prevent legalized abortion was almost never, there. Not even meeting rooms in church halls were available to the laity.
So instead of complaining about pro-lifers, look to your own order and fellow churchmen and ask where were they when the whole life conflict started?
In Christ,
Mrs. James McKenna
Dear Mrs. James McKenna, I am
Dear Mrs. James McKenna,
I am trying to recall the specific rhetoric of forty years ago, which would be 1969, no, during the Civil Rights, Farmworkers and Vietnam era, no?
I do recall witnessing a very strong and Catholic anti-abortion movement in early 1973 including public lawyerly debates pressing the same points we hear now: when does life begin, including my attending such debates in "meeting rooms in church halls" as you write. I also recall the agony of those who had lost loved ones to illegal and amateur abortions pre-Roe. I also remember young women in our Catholic Church who had passed that horrible and involuntary route about that time then wondering with a Jesuit priest at their continued status in the Church, as they sought religious life in 1974. The very conservative yet wise, compassionate and merciful priest counseled that they had been automatically excommunicated by that act, but encouraged their vocation in any case. It was an exceedingly hard time for all.
I remember tearfully now at your prompting these events from some 35 to 40 years ago, as I at your urging "look to your own order and fellow churchmen and ask where were they when the whole life conflict started."
Please pardon my severe lack of linguistic skills, but perhaps I could comprehend this more fully if you would further specify for me "when the whole life conflict started."
just wondering
your poorest servant
frere charles
funny, why doesn't our jesuit
funny, why doesn't our jesuit brother mention one thing about the violence done to the children in the abortion clinics.
has he stood, as have I, outside a clinic or on a sidewalk with a respect life sisgn and feel, hear the violence coming from the beloved "pro-choice" brothers and sisters.
How about calling for the so-called pro=choice movement to halt all activites for at least several years.
Wonder what kind of non-violent reaction we'd get.......
just visit: daily kos or huffington post for a sample.
St. Ignatius, pray for us
Father Jim T. asks
Father Jim T. asks rhetorically: "funny, why doesn't our jesuit brother mention one thing about the violence done to the children in the abortion clinics."
My reading of the article reveals it seems to address this very topic repeatedly and insightfully, and at great length. Did Father Jim T. read the same article?
Or does his rhetorical question indicate not that the article has nothing about this violence, but that it lacks "one thing" which he then goes on to explain? Is Father Jim T. in fact inviting the Reverend Father John Dear to stand next to him holding a sign? Will Father Jim T. then sit with Father John Dear singing hymns inside our military bases? Father John Dear might perhaps then share in private conversation with Father Jim T. (as he does not wear this on his sleeve) the violence he has personally received, as Father Jim T. may experience it first hand.
Let us read the article carefuly together in order to answer your pressing question. Indubitably my misunderstanding derives from my criminal lack of linguistic skills, for which I beg your forgiveness.
your poorest servant
frere charles
Just as a response to this.
Just as a response to this. John Dear has protested and risked arrest outside of abortion clinics. Just wanted to clear that up.
I occasionally read and
I occasionally read and generally appreciate your columns very much. With that in mind, may I make several comments on your recent article about Dr. Tiller’s murder?
First, to stand against abortion in the face of the reality of violence against women is naïve, but understandable from a white male in the western world. It is indeed difficult to sympathize with one whose experience is so unlike our own.
Second, to take a stand against abortion prior to dealing with violence against women is too easy, does nothing to resolve the root cause, and is destructive - placing the blame and all the consequences on the victim. This is superficial in the context of the societal attitude toward women and the wink-and-nod attitude about violence against women and girls. This also is true of spousal rape. And this also is true in the face of the reality of incestuous rape that happens everyday in millions of homes in this country and around the world.
(And may I say that this is a particularly difficult attitude to accept from churches that still treats women as second class citizens. It is a well accepted fact in this modern world that separate is never equal, or else it would not be separate.)
Anyone who claims to be against the violence of abortion without addressing the violence of rape and second class citizenship has only addressed half the issue.
Third, I think we can readily agree that the world in which we live is an imperfect and broken world. Sometimes there is no good answer to the dilemmas that we face, only slightly better or slightly worse options. Dietrich Bonhoeffer could speak to this.
Therefore, to stand against abortion in the face of a real and present threat to the life or health of a woman is to stand in judgment in a way that only God can stand. Since I assume you will never have to make a decision about abortion, I wonder if you might not pray for compassion instead of judgment toward those who feel it is their only option. And might we not pray that these women realize that God is compassionate toward them. To stand in judgment of those who have to agonize over such a decision is probably not what Jesus meant with his mandate to love God, love one another and judge not.
Fourth, I think it is superficial to advocate for adoption as an option when, to the best of my knowledge, the anti-abortion movement makes no effort to support adoption. And when the church sets up orphanages, as though that is a good option, it seems an invitation to abuse.
So, I argue, the real motivation in a stand against abortion seems to be hidden. Perhaps the real issue that needs to be addressed is the need to keep women subservient and under control?
Well, if people really worked
Well, if people really worked at being non-violent according to the teachings of Jesus, they would have precious little time to spend aggravating one another over abortions people they don't know are presumed to be having.
But would we be really happy if we were genuinely non-violent? It seems that aggravation and anger are what gives people the energy to get through their day. People who wish to live peaceably really need to be quite stubborn in the face of the many who cannot abide contentment in others.
I commend this very
I commend this very insightful article on non-violence and pray that more will hear the message. I should point out there are many Franciscans on the same page. Louis Vitale, OFM stands out as an excellent advocate of non-violence. It is through his example and the course I took from him at the Franciscan School of Theology that I am so committed to non-violence. I include in my classes on social justice for the MPA program here at Southern Arkansas University. Thanks for your powerful discipleship.
As an Irishman who has lived
As an Irishman who has lived in Ireland during the so called ''troubles'' in the North, I watched at close range the senseless barbaric violence and tit for tat wanton murder from all the many sides of our multi dimensional rubric cube of destruction;please God it is finished forever.
I deplore the use of violence to acheive any aim ,no matter how worthy it may appear to be.So I agree with what you have to say however please tell me why can the great and worthy people who prioritise social justice outside the womb,global peace for most if not all of the human race and non-violent conflict resolution not also take on board in a proportional manner the wanton destruction of one out of four unborn babies happening under our very noses ?
Why spend your time knocking those of us who make the protection of the most innocent life our number one priority among many priorities ?
While I prioritise my pro-life activities and my support for vuneralble women;I also build schools in Nigeria and campaign to end child trafficing and the sex trade involving kidnapped women all the while trying to run a business and live a normal life.
During the Civil Rights campaign in the 1960's in the USA would you have chided the Civil Rights leaders for prioritising Civil Rights for African Americans while maybe not spending too much time protesting the Vietnam War, the Nigerian Civil War,the Biafran famine or the Government sponsored violence and discrimination against the minority in Northern Ireland.
Would you have chided Nelson Mandela for prioritising the freedom struggle of his own people while ignoring the Campaign for nuclear disarmament or the Cambodian genocide!
Why constantly spin the same tired worn tune and repeatedly criticise the leaders of the pro-life movement ? And if it is a case of semantics let us call this movement the Campaign for the Fundemental Right to Life for the Unborn Child...without this we have nothing! All other Rights are meaningless and arbitrary designations.
I challenge you as a man ,as a priest working full time on Peace with no business to distract you unlike myself to find time in the midst of all the worthy Peace promoting and violence diminishing priorities to find time to try and save just one unborn baby this year by your own direct action!IE Prayer in the vicinity of an Abortion clinic.
And I challenge you to add the Civil Rights of the Unborn Child to your list of priorities to promote peace this year...promote peace in the womb.
God bless
ray
Mullingar
Ireland
since you're not american,
since you're not american, ill lay it out for you:
back during our last election we saw the whole "how dare you try to push the pro-life cause unless you devote all your spare money to the homeless/adopt as many babies from an orphanage as your house will hold/push feverishly for unlimited free medical benefits for unwed mothers/etc.."
these weren't really arguments. they were mainly attempts to get pro lifers to shut up about obamas support for abortion rights (which he voiced in his speech to planned parenthood). in short, they were an attempt shout down the pro life movement since their arguments on the rights of the unborn couldnt be answered with pc speek.
you will see this tactic repeated often here (probably in this very topic in a short while).
i think this way of trying to shout down the other side of a moral debate got a lot of use initially during the start of the iraq war. opponents of the war would say that, basically, you couldn't be a supporter of the war unless you enlisted in the army and signed up for infantry duty. supporters of the war would tell protestors: 'yeah? well, if you're against the war, you should go to iraq and be a human shield!' sadly, that's what passed as 'arguments' then a lot of the time.
eventually, i imagine this will also get applied to euthenasia as well, which several states, i believe, have already legalized. i can see the 'arguments' now: 'how dare you speak out against someones right to die! you have no right to call yourself pro-life unless you adopt an elderly person and fund all their care/can somehow take away all their pain/donate all your money to shelters for people without medical insurance/etc.'
Dear Pete the meek, Kindly
Dear Pete the meek,
Kindly forgive my lack of linguistic abilities, and patiently please source that most unusual citation in your second paragraph, which rings no bell with me.
I also cannot locate the citation you include in your closing paragraph, despite a google search.
The rest I find has a rather polemical tone which I am certain was not your intent, dear Peter. Forgive me, please, in peace and nonviolence.
Sincerely yours,
frere charles
if youre searching google
if youre searching google verbatim for what i said, i doubt youll find it. for two main reasons. 1, put like i did, it is utterly absurd on its face, and so people using this 'argument' usually phrase it better. yet it is the essence of the argument that many use. 2, most of the time i encounter it is in direct conversation. this comes on MANY topics, btw. when i was visiting a relative in phoenix, i spoke briefly with a guy on the plane who brought up the iraq war. when i mentioned that i was against starting the war, he retorted: 'oh really? and did you protest for the people we killed in somalia and our attack serbia?' there was more to the conversation, but the implication, of course, was that unless i activly did both, and more, i really couldn't say i was against the iraq war on principle. heaven help us, ive even heard a version of this 'argument' dealing with health food too.
come to think of it, i think the argument he used with the war may also have been in an ann coulter article somebody sent me once, though i find her screeds far too snarky to try to dig through and find.
regarding the last paragraph, the important thing to notice is "i can see the 'arguments' now". when someone says this, they don't usually mean that they can literally 'see', with their eyes', what they are about to describe. this phrase is used, like i use it here, to detail a possible future event or scene. in the closing paragraph, i am simply extrapolating the basic argument i hear often to a different topic. in this case, euthenasia.
as for it being polemical, i assume you are taling about when i referenced the election? well, i say it because thats what i experienced a lot of. they either tried to use this arguemnt or accussed me of being a repub hack, which is strange. i guess if you question anyone's position on an issue, that automatically makes you a flunky of their opposition party? happens a lot i notice. when i mention i was against the iraq war, i get called a demo or a 'libtard' on other forums.
Dear Pete, Thank you and how
Dear Pete,
Thank you and how pleasant to hear from you again so quickly, and with such a thorough explanation of things I should have understood.
This line of course does get my goat: "i really couldn't say i was against the iraq war on principle. heaven help us, ive even heard a version of this 'argument' dealing with health food too."
When it comes to health food, please, don't go there. I was called into the city a few hundred miles from the border hermitage this week, and wow, nothing to eat but cheese and carbs (please, no meat by-products, thank you very much!). How wonderful to get back home and water the desert garden and munch snap beans and radishes while watering, and picking basil and lavander and rosemary and cherry tomatoes too.
So when you argue about health food, well, please, don't go there!
We are mostly water, and should eat like it. We are not cheese. We are what we eat. Let us be celery. Let us be lettuce.
I wonder when you pray over the whole Iraqi thing (The US MArines should be out by the spring, except for a few "advisors" but we heard that in the early Sixties, remember? . . .) I wonder whether you have read the excellent book of the most alarming title by the Reverend Father Andrew Greeley about our war in Iraq.
Or everything written by the great and reverend Father John Dear SJ?
OR the Sermon on the MOunt mentioned in this article? Good reading . . .
Thanks Pete!
your poorest srevant
frere charles
well charles, im for
well charles, im for everything in moderation... including moderation. :-P
celery and tomatoes are good. and so is meat. especailly meat that you find and get yourself. my wife and i enjoy fantastic ham steaks from the wild boar i fought and speared on my last hunting trip.
my view on the iraq war, VERY roughly summed up, is this. it was a bad idea at the start. unfortunatly, we are there now, and we have totally removed those people's entire social order and started implementing a new one. obama is right on one thing, jerking everyone out instantly would create a perfect storm of genocide and premanent civil war. all of that would be on OUR heads. we should fix what has to be fixed, make sure the iraqis can take care of themselves, then leave and come home.
yes, yes, i know, lots of particulars would still have to be hashed out, but that's the long and short of it.
Dear brother Pete, Let us not
Dear brother Pete,
Let us not become boar.
Let us become the incarnate Body of Christ, in the Communion of Saints, as we participate in the Eucharist this Sunday, every day we can. And let us be that Presence of Peace in our world, now, and here, not anger, not war, not killing, but peace, and Hope and Life.
Let us feed even the boar.
Not kill it and grill it but let it live.
just a thought
your poorest servant
frere charles
Dear Ray, You write: "Why
Dear Ray,
You write: "Why spend your time knocking those of us who make the protection of the most innocent life our number one priority among many priorities ?"
Are not children who come to full term and are born also "most innocent" and deserving of protection, including within our Roman Catholic boarding schools, orphanages and work houses? What did Jesus say about those who would lead these children astray?
Do you find a gentle "knocking" here in the prophetic words of the Reverend Father John Dear, or is this a general rhetorical statement? Perhaps it is Jesus who spends time knocking at our door, calling us to ever greater commitment and compassion, and the consistent expansion of our protection of life from womb to natural tomb as we travel this narrow and pilgrim path to the Reign of God, our only priority, one we only achieve all together.
just wondering
your poorest servant
frere charles
dear Frere Charles,you
dear Frere Charles,you write
''Are not children who come to full term and are born also "most innocent" and deserving of protection...''
I say...Of course I whole heartedly agree and I put my money and my time where my mouth is with work in the developing world. However ''children who come to full term and are born '' have and are entitled to full human rights under the law in most of the world; at least in the developed ''first ''world.Child labour and the child sex slave industry esspecially in many parts of Asia needs to be tackled. However the child in the womb enjoys no rights whatsoever in most of the world and the pressure in being piled on by the UN,Amnesty etc etc to deny the child in the womb any recognition whatsoever.I'm proud to say that my country; Ireland along with Malta and to a slightly lesser extent Poland are some of the very very few countries which legally recognise the Fundamental Right to Life of the child in the womb.
The sheer scale of the destruction of Human Life involved in the abortion industry relegates all other direct violence to a distant second place.
Work out the equation of destruction of Human life arond the globe for 2008.
Say 100,000 innocent civilians and maybe 100,000 combatants and 100,000 murders and 200,000 people tortured and so on......the number of abortions will reach the many many millions.
I for one have never once
I for one have never once considered the Pro-Life Movement as advocated by Catholics at Priests for Life to be anything other than non violent. Admittedly, the truth associated with the facts of the Abortion procedure are by definition very violent. It would be a mistake to interpret the exposition of the facts of the Abortion procedure to the light of day as being a violent act. Its like blaming the newspaper for reporting the circumstances of a violent rape in order to put local residents on guard against a predator in the neighborhood.
Rejoice in Corpus Christi! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Dear Snowdrop, How very good
Dear Snowdrop,
How very good tro see that you are well and ever rejoicing!
Let us please take this day as our lectio divina a meditation of this passaage from the REverend Father John Dear printed above:
"As a priest and a human being, I too am against abortion. But as a follower of the nonviolent Jesus, I prefer Cardinal Bernardin’s “Consistent Ethic of Life.” One cannot pick and choose contradictory issues. Are you “Pro Life,” “for life,” “for the God of Life?” Then stand against every war, handgun, weapon, greedy corporation, and execution. Stand against poverty and starvation and disease and extinctions and racism and sexism and environmental destruction. As well as abortion."
And let us rejoice that we have now even today such wonderful and centered priests as the Reverend Father John Dear!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!!
your poorest servant
frere charles
I am thoroughly amazed that
I am thoroughly amazed that someone who claims to be "pro-life" and wears the mantle of priest would suggest that the pro-life movement "stop all its activities, perhaps for several years, and that the U.S. bishops take the lead."
You obviously have no idea what we in the pro-life movement do on an every day basis to help women and to offer hope for mothers and their unborn babies.
You obviously do not know nor do you really care about the constant violence against women and children every day in the abortion mills throughout the country.
You obviously have not buried a woman who died from a legal abortion or cried with women who can never have children because of botched abortions.
You obviously have not heard the horror stories of women who were sexually assaulted by abortionists on the procedure room table only to be dismissed as medical boards as unbelievable, and then only years later to be vindicated when the perpetrator was brought to justice.
You obviously have not witnessed the life changing event that occurs when a woman decides not to have the abortion and then finds the love of Christ in the sidewalk counselor who encouraged her to choose life.
You obviously do not care about the one million plus babies that will die this year and the need for everyone to stand up and demand that we stop the violence now.
But it is clear that you and many of those who post to this site are more judgmental than the Pharisees in criticizing the efforts made by those in the pro-life movement to end the killing.
You seem to delight in the holier than thou position embraced by many who see their efforts to oppose the death penalty who will work exclusively for that noble endeavor but castigate those who would focus their attention on saving the lives of babies executed in abortion mills.
Many of your fellow sympathizers seem to think that they will not be asked by Our Dear Lord what they did to "rescue those being unjustly lead away to death. And remember in order to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, we should protect and insure their right to be born.
Normally I do not waste my time commenting on such articles. You probably have already judged me and have no interest in actually thinking about what I said. But our a deep respect for the countless many who every day are sacrificing their time, talent and treasure to help pregnant mothers and their unborn children, I cannot allow you to claim that the mentally-unstable anti-government, morally-confused individual is somehow a "dedicated" Christian or that someone who has murdered over 60,000 babies and butchered hundreds of women could be considered one as well.
You insult the name of Christian and it was obviously done with the intent to slander. That calumny cannot pass without response.
Perhaps we in the pro-life movement have not been as successful as we should be. I will agree that since abortion is still legal after 36 years, we have not succeeded. But imperfect as we all may be, we care about these mothers and their babies. And when one of them chooses life because we were there, that is an event that reaches into eternity. We honor our Creator by honoring His creation. We cry out Abba and pray He will give us the strength to offer His love to a loves-starved world.
My dear brother John
My dear brother John Jakubczyk,
I had to dig deep within this excellent and stirring article to find your comment's citation. Here is its context, which perhaps you did not fully capture, as I for my limited linguistic abilities fail to capture fully:
"I think the time has come for a serious re-examination of the “Pro Life” movement as it currently exists in the U.S. It is filled with a spirit of violence, which will only continue to breed hatred. If an extremist for peace had killed an official in the Bush Administration, I would have insisted that we stop all peace movement activities."
"This is what Gandhi said in the early 1920s, after some of his movement activists beat five British soldiers to death. He called off the whole national civil disobedience program, went on a fast of repentance and resigned from the movement. He insisted, from his daily reading of the Sermon on the Mount, that there is no cause, however noble, for which we support the taking of a single human life."
"In that spirit, I propose that the so called “Pro Life” movement stop all its activities, perhaps for several years, and that the U.S. bishops take the lead. What we need is a thoughtful examination of our addiction to violence, and a new systematic study of Gospel nonviolence. Every parish in the United States -- and the world -- should become a training camp in Gospel nonviolence."
"We have to help one another uproot and renounce whichever form of violence holds us captive. The task is to deepen our awareness about our complicity with violence and learn how to become genuinely nonviolent as individuals, as a church, as a nation and as a world."
The Reverend Father John Dear SJ therefore calls us prophetically back to our Catholic and comprehensive roots of Faith, in integral loving compassion, and in the dark light of the recent murder within a Church by one who claimed the "pro-life" mantle, an event so contradictory and confusing and so disconnected from our Faith and our Pro-life principles, that it must give us pause, the very pause for reflection urged properly here by the Reverend Father John Dear SJ.
Or have we all just gone completely mad, killing in the name of Life?
The anger and passion in your words here indicate we may all benefit from catching our breathe a moment, and catching the Holy Spirit of Love.
For to accuse the Reverend Father John Dear SJ with your long litany of "You obviously . . ." culminating with what to you alone is obvious: "You insult the name of Christian and it was obviously done with the intent to slander. That calumny cannot pass without response." well, I find this a slander and calumny against my beloved and very Reverend Father John SJ, which cannot pass without response, as Father John does not preach "with the intent to slander" but with the intent to edify us in our Faith in Jesus Christ.
Forgive me please therefore my brother, as I mean you no disrespect, but I beg you to pray together with me, and with the Reverend Father John Dear SJ for integral life, as you yourself write: "We honor our Creator by honoring His creation. We cry out Abba and pray He will give us the strength to offer His love to a loves-starved world."
Amen.
your poorest servant
frere charles
After reading the comments, I
After reading the comments, I think that perhaps many of us are dealing with different versions of what "nonviolence" means. It certainly isn't "do-nothing-while-others-do-bad-to-you-or-ones-you-love".
There are two versions or aspects, I believe. One is applied to movements, or communities of people, who are actively resisting a specific evil through disciplined methods that do not intend to hurt or kill those committing the evil. The general idea is that the resisters have the moral high ground, and by enduring suffering publicly and in truth, the consciences' of both the "enemy" and the larger world audience will not allow the killing to continue.
The other aspect of nonviolence would be applied to individuals, and while the same elements are true, here it is a process focusing on one's way of life. For example, one examines and lifts up one's own tendency to dominate and crush a weaker person through verbal sparring and then takes steps to correct the situation.
In neither case does one accept or justify the other's violence. Actually, it is probably true that the personal aspect makes the movement possible, while the movement makes the personal intent real.
In any case, regarding the idea of the Consistent Ethic of Life and one's actions, I think we could acheive so much more if we could agree on the sanctity of all life, and then accept that individuals will be drawn to a specific area. (There's a great quote about our vocation being where the world's deep hunger and our deep gladness meet.) However, be arguing amongst ourselves "which is the greater" cause, especially to the exclusion of other causes, we are wasting energy and dissipating our focus.
Is our goal to eliminate needless suffering in the pursuit of life and truth? If so, to follow Jesus' way, perhaps we need to ground ourself in prayer and endure some suffering ourselves in order to bring the Resurrection hope to bear.
There are most likely other ways too.
This is just an illustration
This is just an illustration of how ludacris this article is. . . .
I'm going to go out to buy a gun and murder the butcher at the meat counter of my local super-market. For years now, the angry rhetoric of the militant vegan movement has finally gotten to me. I listen when they tell me that "meat is murder!" and that "we are at war over animal rights!" and if meat really is murder, then why shouldn't I take the law into my own hands and murder a butcher to stop the continued killing?
Despite the fact that the militant and hateful vegan movement never actually told me to go out and kill the butcher, they certainly didn't stress non-violent ways to stopping the killing either.
The only thing that might stop me from perpetrating this murder would be if I could only find a vegan group that had done a thoughtful examination of their addiction to violence, and had stopped all their activities, perhaps for several years, so that it could have become a training camp for non-violent vegan activities. Alas, there is not vegan group out there which stresses non-violence enough, so I might as well shoot the butcher.
. . . .total non-sense. I won't let Dr. Tiller's murder be an excuse for people to tell me and other Catholics that we need to shut up and say nothing as babies are legally killed in this country. Yes, killed. . . .I said killed, because that is the sad factual description of what is happening.
If anyone is interested in the role of the Catholic voice in the public square, please read "Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life" by the Arch Bishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput.
Reading some of the responses
Reading some of the responses to this wonderful article by John Dear only serves to highlight, at least for me, the apparent lack of understanding or, perhaps, the adamant refusal to accept the truth of a life led in keeping with the principles of "nonviolent resistance to evil"....yes, fellow "Christians" , the key word is "resistance".....resistance without seriously injuring or killing anyone. If you think this is not possible, get a copy of the documentary "The Conscientious Objector"- the story of World War II Congressional Medal of Honor recepient Desmond Doss, who saved the lives of 75 comrades on Okinawa, including those who scorned and threatened him previously. He even ministered to Japanese wounded, but had to stop when threatened with death by his own people. For me, it reinforced what it means to be a Christian in the true sense of the word, and not simply a cafeteria, agnostic Christian, which is the prevalent situation amongst laity and, I dare say, hierarchy. If we truly believe, nay - KNOW that Jesus is the Son of God, why are we afraid to do as He commanded all His followers that they should do - as He had done? Many of the above responses could just as well have been written by non-Christians. "Just War" was brought up...but there wasn't a single mention of what the criteria for a "just war", as espoused by Augustine and Ambrose before him, are. It might interest folks to know that the strict criteria required for a "just war", as defined by Augustine, have historically NEVER been met. Period. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I must say, though, that many of these responses don't surprise me...1700 years of Constantinian Christianity, whereby the "church" made an accomodation with the Master of the "kingdoms of this world" (in order to obtain wealth, property and power) - he who "was a murderer from the beginning" - has taken its toll...and Jesus weeps....
Pace e bene,
Jan
Post new comment