Pro-Life Protester Shot and Killed

In Michigan, a man is in custody after shooting and killing well known local abortion protester:

Owosso police chief Michael Compeau said Jim Pouillon, 63, was outside the school Friday morning with a sign when a man drove by and shot him. No one else was injured.

Michigan State Police have taken a suspect into custody, the Flint Journal reported.

The school was placed on immediate lockdown, though no students were hurt or involved in the shooting, Ossowo Hish School officials told the paper.

When authorities were responding to the first shooting, officials received a report that another man had been shot and killed at a gravel pit business in Owosso. Shiawassee County Sheriff George Braidwood said Mike Fuoss was found dead in his office.

Perhaps I’m cynical, but I doubt that there will be nationwide hand-wringing over whether pro-choice rhetoric has been too violent, and is thus at fault for the killing. Satisfying as that might be for those of us who are frustrated at being accused of being violent simply for opposing the idea that killing the unborn is a constitutional and moral right, it is probably as it should be since, as I’ve said when the shoe is on the other foot, broad political movements cannot be held responsible for the actions of lone crazies who happen to do something vaguely related to their aims.

Further details on the murdered pro-life activist from LifeNews. May God welcome the dead into the eternal kingdom.

70 Responses to Pro-Life Protester Shot and Killed

  • As I wrote elsewhere: As with all murder, this is an evil act. Is the fact that he (who was he?) against abortion an accident or part of the reason for his death? We will soon find out. As with the murderer of Tiller, pray for the man/woman who did this. It’s evil, and needs to be denounced!

    I will also add: many pro-choicers are indeed violent. Those who accept abortion clearly believe in the utility of violence.

  • Meanwhile, Vox Nova is providing yet another opportunity for the Righteous Catholic Left to gasp and groan about Violent Pro-Lifers. (I believe it’s right near the one about the wickedness of interrupting the President with an uncivil comment.)

  • Ron

    If you deny the fact that many who call themselves pro-life tend to accept the culture of violence, the problem is yours. The reality is that many will claim “I’m pro life” and actively engage the violence of the age and use such violence and think nothing of such violence. It’s sad, but true.

    On the other hand, to point out that many pro-lifes are violent is not to deny many who are pro-choice are violent; indeed, they are. But those who are pro-life shouldn’t be violent and shouldn’t accept the gospel of violence, those who are pro-choice, on the other hand, are at least being more consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent.

  • Henry,
    If you think that “many” who call themselves pro-life “tend” (what’s that a weasel word?) to accept the culture of violence (whatever that is), the problem is yours. If you think that one must be a pacifist (in the strict and proper sense) in order to be consistently pro-life, then that is your idiosyncratic view.

  • Henry Karlson:

    Your reasoning here would appear to be somewhat sound; however, is it really accurate to say “many” who are Pro-Life actually endorse violent methods as you yourself here seem to have generally supposed?

    This seems to present an entirely wrong impression (and, thereby, almost appears to be right on the periphery of calumny) that most Pro-Lifers are murderous thugs who happen hypocritically to contradict that very Pro-Life ethic to which they supposedly subscribe, to the extent of even murdering life itself.

    To be fair, I personally much prefer saying that a certain of the Pro-Life group mistakenly tend to that sort of violence; however, not “many”.

  • Crud, it would appear that while I was composing my own response concerning same, Mike Petrik beat me to it!

  • Given that he was deliberately gunned down while protesting, it’s a bit of a stretch to think that he wasn’t in some way targetted because of his pro-life advocacy. In much the same way that it seemed a stretch to speculate that Tiller’s murder was unrelated to his chosen profession.

    Speaking of which:

    Anyone care to bet that the President will issue a statement indicating that he is “shocked” and “outraged” by this? That he’ll direct U.S. Marshalls to protect pro-life protesters?

    I’m thinking “no” on both.

  • Henry:

    I do agree with you that violent pro-choicers are at least more consistent with their position than a violent pro-lifer would be.

  • I’ll take your bet Dale, but you have to give me a 1,000,000 to 1 payoff – I am willing to risk a dollar in the lottery-approaching-probability that the O would do so.

  • Dale

    Given there appears to be a possible second murder involving the same murderer, it could be other things and he/she only knew where the victim would be. But it is also possible it is a murderous abortion supporter, since they do exist too, and should always be rejected just as much as any other murderer.

    e. the issue is that many pro-lifers (people who call themselves such, within the movement) tend to be only anti-abortion, but other forms of violence (from wars to guns to the death penalty etc) are not out of bounds by them. It is good to work with people who have a common agreement against abortion, but it is possible that agreement is not based upon life (as Steve Taylor famously pointed out).

  • Have we forgotten what an excessively violent book the Bible is?

    I am not suggesting that murdering an defenseless man in cold blood – mass murderer of innocent children though he may be – is a morally justifiable act. There is a civil and moral law to which we are beholden, and everyone deserves due process.

    But where comes this endless hand-wringing about “violence” in and of itself? The Church opposes senseless warfare, acts of vengeance, and the use of capital punishment where it is not necessary to use it; nowhere I am aware of the teaching that insists upon total pacifism at all times. Sometimes even “violence” is acceptable and necessary.

    These two murderers are not morally equivalent, and it sickens me that this man will be compared to George Tiller.

    Jim Pouillon died in defense of innocent human life. Even if it turns out his killer was not politically motivated, clearly he believed that Pouillon’s protesting offered the best opportunity to gun him down. For his, we rightfully laud Pouillon as a hero and martyr.

    George Tiller was a butcher of innocent children, and the circumstances of his death should never, ever, distort that reality. Because we are beholden to a higher moral law, and to the civil law, it is wrong to murder even a manifestly evil man. But there is absolutely no comparison between the two.

    Frankly I am sick to death about the complaints of violence on the pro-life side. 99.99% of the violence in this dispute comes from the pro-abortion side, because, I hope we have not forgotten, every abortion is an act of violence. One or two pro-lifers who break the law and impose their own justice (and I do believe the sentence is just, only it is not theirs to meet out) is not grounds for a hysterical attack on the pro-life movement, does not necessitate an “evaluation” of pro-life political tactics and philosophy.

    The pro-life movement it its very, absolute worse is still 100 times more righteous and good than the pro-abort movement at its very best (whatever that may look like). And this in the end is why I can no longer contribute to sites like Vox Nova, for my differences with the socio-economic order of the United States are no longer greater than my disgust with abortion on demand and the people who defend it.

  • Henry,

    You are smearing the pro-life movement and most of their adherents.

    I am deeply involved in the pro-life movement and your false statements are nothing but lies. There are many Christians from various denominations that are involved and not once have I witnessed nor seen them advocate, talk about, nor exhibit anything that you claim.

    I pray in front of abortion clinics, am a member of a board on one pro-life group, and I actively promote the pro-life cause through various media outlets and other Catholic groups. Again, not once have I witnessed what you have described.

    If you continue to spout such nonsense you will be banned permanently from all activities here on the American Catholic.

    You’ve been duly warned.

  • Excellent points Joe. May we never forget.

  • Tito,

    When you have people who oppose abortion but are so into unjust wars (Iraq), showing a kind of gloating over the death of Muslims, then the violent nature of those people has been exposed. When you have people like Judie Brown posting pro-torture comments, then something is wrong with the movement. Delete and ban if you wish, but all you do is help the movement further diminish its value; if the Church itself is constantly in need of reform, what about non-ecclesial movements? Think this through

  • Joe

    Have we not forgotten that it was the zealots who wanted violence, and Jesus said no? Have we not forgotten that the Torah was given in a different time, different place, different part of salvation history, while Jesus himself came and said he was providing a new law — to love one another, even our enemies? Did you forget that the Church herself deplores this violence and says all life is sacred? Did you forget many cold blooded murderers converted and became men of peace and saints?

  • Two people were killed. The other was not protesting. They could’ve been random killings. Better to be cautious in attributing motive than take the chance of getting egg on your face.

  • Henry,

    You’re being nothing but tribal.

    You’re letting your extremist liberal views trump your Catholic views.

    You’re conflating Republicans and conservatives with Catholicism. Which is in direct contradiction with your extreme liberal views, democratic tendencies, and anti-catholic sentiments.

  • Henry,

    I’ve not forgotten any of those things. But add them all up and you still would not have ruled out all possible violence – hence neither does the Church.

    I condemn cold-blooded murder, yes, absolutely – even of an evil man such as George Tiller. But that does not mean that I must condemn all violence, and go hunting for a mythical “culture of violence” which would link legitimate self-defense to morally forbidden types of violence.

    To answer your specific questions:

    “Have we not forgotten that it was the zealots who wanted violence, and Jesus said no?”

    Why did Jesus tell the Apostles to acquire swords? (Luke 22:35-38)

    And why did he make a whip and use it to drive money changers out of the temple? Would you want to be hit with a whip?

    “Have we not forgotten that the Torah was given in a different time, different place, different part of salvation history, while Jesus himself came and said he was providing a new law — to love one another, even our enemies?”

    Yes it was a different time – but if “violence” as such were this categorical evil, to be unconditionally condemned at all times as you appear to make it, why would God employ it so liberally, and command his chosen people to do likewise?

    “Did you forget that the Church herself deplores this violence and says all life is sacred?”

    The key word being “this” – not “all”. The sacredness of life does not mean that it can never be taken under any circumstances.

    “Did you forget many cold blooded murderers converted and became men of peace and saints?”

    Did you forget that even guns have a patron saint?
    http://www.gunsaint.com/stagnaro.asp

  • I’ve said nothing about Republicans. Who is it that is being tribal? You project too much, Tito.

    I’m pro-life. In the full sense of the word. The Gospel of Life. Violence is to be rejected, and when we discern those within the movement to be violent, reform is necessary.

    And Joe, even prostitutes have patron saints. Do you want to make that as suggesting prostitution is good? [Personal attack on Joe Hargrave deleted here]

  • Oh, for God’s sake, Henry is the *least* liberal person I know, his political sympathies lean monarchist. Tito — people like you and Donald are pure, undistilled, liberals. The last gasp of Enlightenment-era radical individualism is kept alive and kicking by the modern American right. We can debate some otehr time whether this is good or bad, but stop hiding from it.

  • my differences with the socio-economic order of the United States are no longer greater than my disgust with abortion on demand and the people who defend it.

    Joe, I’m with you. What issue is greater than the protection of the unborn? When we watch, for example, the work of activists like Lila Rose, how can we not shudder at the cold, calculated violence enshrined in our laws?

  • Henry K.,

    the FACT is that the pro-life movement from end to end has been the most peaceful mass movement in the history of activism.

    I think your moral theology is confused, you’re suggesting violence in and of itself is immoral. That’s completely in error (how could God himself act immorally??), it is only violence contrary to justice which is immoral. You’re accusing people of being anti-life because they dissagree with your PERSONAL PRUDENTIAL opinion on the justness of particular acts, where the Church has not deemed to judge definitively, and even acts the Church has apparently determined are fundamentally good (owning and using firearms for legitimate defense).

  • Joe: “I am sick to death about the complaints of violence on the pro-life side. 99.99% of the violence in this dispute comes from the pro-abortion side.”

    Even if that were true, it can never justify the 0.01 percent of violence on the other side. Nor can it eevr justify the kinds of violence frequently defended by the pro-life movement in America. For example: Judie Brown, Deal Hudson, Michael Novak, Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Sirico, Jimmy Akin etc, defending torture. George Weigel still to this day claiming that the Iraq war, and the horrendous death and carnage caused by it, are justified. Phyllis Schlafly and so many others praising the use of nuclear weapons in 1945. Pretty ever pro-life Catholic blogger I know opposing gun control. [straw man arguments… 32 million innocent children have been murdered from pro-abortionists and dissident Catholics that you and Henry Karlson]

    Abortion is an abominable crime in the eyes of God because it is a particularly egregrious form of violence, the wilful murder of an innocent. It is not a class onto itself that can be divorced from the broader culture of violence. And when pro-lifers defend violence, then sorry, I question how they can be pro-life in the first place.

    Getting back to Joe’s comment, he is getting very close to making a consequentialist argument. Sorry, but the defenders of abortion also make consequentialist arguments (women’s life improved etc). So do those who defend war, torture, nuclear weapons. It’s all a defense of evil (violence) that should not be acceptable to Catholics. You cannot do evil, especially when that evil entails violence, so that good may come of it.

  • Also, and I hate to be the fuddy-duddy that points this out, but…

    “for God’s sake”, Minion? It’s not the worst way to take God’s name in vain, but we don’t need to see it on a Catholic blog.

    For the record, I would appreciate anyone pointing it out to ME if I slip up one day. I do in speech all the time, though I’ve gotten much better at quickly catching it.

  • Henry,

    To press the point, would it actually be right for me to say that *many* Christians believe in “Once Saved, Always Saved” or that *many* Christians believe in the Rapture?

    I attempted to provide a more charitable critique of your statement to the extent of agreeing that there are *certain* misguided (kindly note the euphemism) people within the Pro-Life movement who wrongly resort to violence and, thereby, contradict that very “Pro-Life” ethic which such a movement as this is obviously dedicated to; however, it would be unjust (to the point of malicious calumny) to say that *many* in the movement happen to endorse violence.

  • Joe,

    you’re scaring me with to much agreement lately… heheh. I will have to say that St. Possenti is not the saint of handguns but is proposed to be the patron saint of handguners. An important note is that this saint used guns to defend human life, and act for which he had no need to repent (though clearly regretting that it became necessary).

    I’d like to see a reference that supports a claim that the Church has identified a patron saint for prostitutes, Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t seem to associate prostitutes with St. Nicholas as some have suggested.

    Morning’s Minion,

    you are a truly sad individual, why do you bother calling yourself pro-life when you work so hard to discredit that very position?

  • e.

    You ask, “To press the point, would it actually be right for me to say that *many* Christians believe in “Once Saved, Always Saved” or that *many* Christians believe in the Rapture?”

    The answer is: yes, many do.

  • Morning Minion said:

    “Abortion is an abominable crime in the eyes of God…”

    Morning Minion forgot to insert his characteristic Pro-Obama fine print:

    “* except when it happens to be endorsed by a Pro-abort Democratic candidate, then it can be deemed excusable.”

  • A point of order: I think it’s unfair to insert comments and criticisms into the comments of others. Criticism ought to be done in a separate comment.

    Henry is the *least* liberal person I know

    That doesn’t mean a whole lot; you could just need to get out more. :)

    Finally, I think the pro-life movement in its purest form is not violent. The pro-life movement has suffered a lot from its affiliation with the Republicans, as Republican views too often became tagged pro-life views, to the detriment of the pro-life movement and credibility. However, I think that this situation is getting progressively better. I think the younger generations are more authentically pro-life and I think we’re seeing more resistance to capital punishment and torture and war then before.

    While the pro-life movement is in need of reform, it is no particularly greater need of reform then its counterparts on the other side of the aisle, who are often pre-disposed towards more lax attitudes on abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues which also include violence.

  • MM,

    “Even if that were true, it can never justify the 0.01 percent of violence on the other side.”

    No one says that it justifies it. Did you not read what I said it does and does not justify? It doesn’t justify people such as yourself attacking the pro-life movement AS IF it were made up of people on the verge of exploding into irrational vigilante violence.

    And it certainly doesn’t justify any attempt to equivocate the two movements. It doesn’t justify the wasted time, effort, and human breath it takes to condemn a movement that is 99% good. Your words will never stop a 1% outlier that could happen in any movement for any reason. Condemn it and move on – stop looking for the “demon”.

    I don’t support the Iraq War and I don’t support the use of torture – but as you know, I do oppose the sort of ‘gun control’ that amounts to a ban on guns, and no single paragraph from a 1970-something USCCB perspectives document is going to be enough to get me to abandon a 2000 year tradition of recognizing the legitimacy of weapon ownership for self-defense.

    “And when pro-lifers defend violence, then sorry, I question how they can be pro-life in the first place.”

    Then question your Church, which still defense some kinds of violence, such as self-defense, as perfectly legitimate. And nothing conclusive has yet been said about just wars, and even if the future saw the end of just war theory, it wouldn’t apply retroactively.

    “Getting back to Joe’s comment, he is getting very close to making a consequentialist argument.”

    I have done no such thing, absolutely no such thing. Where have I done so? Please quote me.

    I have said repeatedly that killing an unarmed man in cold blood is wrong. I don’t believe there are circumstances or consequences that can justify it, that I know of anyway.

    What bothers me is the WAY you react to these particular killings, the degree to which you heap scorn and condemnation on a largely peaceful movement while directing very little of that rhetorical fire towards the true mass murderers. Yes, I understand the need to say something about the murder of a George Tiller – so did the vast majority of pro-life organizations. But you and your friends go one step further in the condemnation of pro-life vigilantism, and one step backwards in your condemnation of the greatest barbarism of our age.

    Your priorities are out of order, at least if we were to measure them by the tone of your rhetoric and the direction of your efforts alone.

  • Dissident Catholics? Oh, that’s funny. From what teaching do we dissent, I wonder? I don’t dissent from any Church teaching, but I dissent 110 percent from the depraved political strategy of the American right when it comes to abortion – the strategy that allows them to denounce abortion while embracing other forms of violence, the strategy that allows them to choose American liberalism over Catholic social teaching (would a belief in subsidiarity without solidarity, condemned roundly by the pope in the newest encylical, qualify for the “dissident” label, I wonder?), the strategy that involves insular demonization of the opponents in a way that actually sets back the pro-life cause and thereby harms the unborn. Yes, you are harming the unborn.

    Here is Fr. Tom Rosica:

    “Through vicious attacks launched on blogs, a new form of self-righteousness, condemnation and gnosticism reveals authors who behave as little children bullying one another around in schoolyards- casting stones, calling names, and wreaking havoc in the Church today! What such people fail to realize is that their messages are ultimately screamed into a vacuum. No one but their own loud crowd is really listening. We will never change laws and bring about conversion of minds and hearts with such behavior. We make the Church and our efforts for life look ridiculous and terribly anti-Christian. Sowing seeds of hatred and division are not the work of those who wish to build a culture of life.”

    Here is John Allen:

    “One bit of gallows humor in Catholic circles is that sometimes the worst enemies of the pro-life movement are pro-lifers themselves. The point is that a handful of activists occasionally come off as so shrill, so angry and judgmental , that fair-minded people simply tune out the pro-life message.”

  • “you’re scaring me with to much agreement lately… heheh.”

    Matt,

    I’m always grateful for opportunities to agree with a person I typically disagree with.

  • I’d rather we exercised more restraint on the editing and inserting criticisms into the comments also – preferably prior to the parousia. It’s distracting and unnecessary imo.

  • Henry,

    Many Protestants do, yes, but if Catholics make up a considerable portion of the world’s Christian population; I wouldn’t be so inclined to use the word “many”.

    To me, it would be like saying that many Catholics are actually sedevacantist.

    Although, I can see the obvious flaw since Protestant culture dominates American culture.

    Nevertheless, to say that many in the Pro-Life movement actually endorse violence would not only misrepresent the Pro-Life movement itself but also damages the many who genuinely live up to its Cause and admirably promote it.

  • I second John Henry. Please stop the editing. It isn’t necessary. If a comment must be made, how about at the end. Or how about in response?

  • John Henry and Joe,

    Maybe you two need to read your emails first before jumping to conclusions.

  • Where did the Minion comment go? It was heated but I don’t think it qualified as a smear or lie.

    I think all editing should involve only inserting emoticons so that we get a truer understanding of the commenters’ feelings.;)

    On another note, I think American Catholic and Vox Nova should trade Tito for Iafrate for a period of time, like a week or month. It’s been a while since the 4th of July, and New Year’s is a way’s off, and I miss fireworks.

  • Folks,

    I can appreciate spirited discussion as much as the next fellow, but two points:

    1) As the owner of the thread, allow me to repeat with authority what Michael Denton said below: I do not want anyone using their editorial privileges to insert fisking brackets into other people’s comments. (Not looking for an apology or anything just don’t do it again.)

    2) I’d like to remind our progressive friends on the thread to keep a sense of perspective. You may picture political opposition to abortion and support for torture to be intimately connected because you despise conservatives, but recall that not a single conservative contributor here supports torture. Similarly, if you want people to respect that fact that you accept Church teaching on issues like abortion and same sex marriage — keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of advocates for your favorite causes (such as universal health care, greater safety net programs, living wage, etc.) in the political arena are vocal supporters of abortion, same sex marriage, and in many cases militant secularists as well. Tar not if you don’t want to be tarred.

  • Oh, the minion comment disappeared b/c it was being edited…I guess. Weird WordPress…or maybe I’m just blind…

  • Quite frankly (although I might regret agreeing with a sworn nemesis who happens to think likewise), the editting is not only distracting but also childish.

    You’re better than this, Taco Man!

  • MM,
    MM,
    i>Dissident Catholics? Oh, that’s funny. From what teaching do we dissent, I wonder?

    the very fact that you questioned Joe’s assertion that %99.99 of violence is perpetrated by the pro-abortion side of the argument belies that, while you may oppose abortion, you don’t see each abortion as the cold-blooded violent murder which the Church informed by modern embryology has made clear that it is. All of the people killed in all the violent acts that the pro-life movement defends as justified which are even questionable, do not add up to .01% of those murdered by the pro-abortionists.

    fair-minded people simply tune out the pro-life message

    fair-minded people ARE pro-lifers, they don’t stand outside and criticize them.

  • unfortunately for you you don’t write for American Catholic

    Woah! just kidding. Trying to lighten the mood. *backing away slowly now*

  • MM,

    Considering that abortion claims a million and half innocent lives in America alone each year, and shatters countless more emotionally and psychologically, I would say we are quite fortunate to have a pro-life movement that is restrained as it is.

    To get THIS angry over the pro-life movements tactics – and I’m not saying every group is beyond criticism – is, to me, to trivialize the greatness and vastness of the crime of abortion. It makes the actual murder of children itself seem like some secondary concern, entirely subordinate to the political image we project.

    Babies are being murdered. Children are being butchered. Infants are being sliced, diced and burned. Murdered, butchered, sliced, burned. We must constantly be reminded of these things. When we keep these things in mind the sometimes faulty tactics of individual pro-life groups are properly recognized as trivialities that we can address in good time, while the actual murder of children becomes the problem that we focus our efforts upon.

    When you pour such scorn and contempt on pro-lifers, you must be willing to forgive those who believe that you might not be one of them. I see no constructive criticism coming from you, no acknowledgement that the basic idea of these groups is good, but the tactics flawed, no helpful suggestions – just self-righteous anger and contempt, anything to make the other side see what a fair and rational fellow you are. These are people who believe that a woman’s vacation plans are just as valid a reason for abortion as rape. Do you really think they, and not your pro-life brothers, are more worthy of your efforts?

  • Michael D.,

    I like you, so don’t take it personally.

    Just doing my job and keeping the dissidents in place.

  • It’s a testament to the power of self-deception and cognitive bias that Morning’s Minion can post that Rosica comment without looking in the mirror first and realizing that it applies to just about everything he ever writes.

  • Tito:

    Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that you knew I was kidding, as it sounded like you might have taken it in a way I did not intend.

    As to everyone else:

    NYT has just published that it was in fact related to abortion (it being the murder of a man in Michigan that was the subject of the post): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/12slay.html?hp

    Prosecutors said the suspect, who is 33, singled out Mr. Pouillon because he disapproved of the victim’s protests in front of children at the school.

    “There was some displeasure with how open he was,” said Sara Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor for Shiawassee County. “He tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses.”

  • Editorial Note: There was a bit of editorial exuberance in some comments above on the part of some members of the staff which has been removed. However, I didn’t delete references to this fact in the comments, so my apologies for any references above that are now forever obscure.

    MM & Henry,

    How exactly is the pro-life movement discredited by being associated with a “gospel of violence” on the part of conservatives, while movements for just wages, universal health care and safety net programs are not discredited by being associated with the moral evils which remain popular on the left (abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, secularism, sexual libertinism, etc.)?

  • The Father Rosica quote is very relevant, and very applicable to the person that has posted it. (“Scorn and contempt” are not overly strong descriptive terms.)

    I have no problems making “alliances” with market liberals or evangelicals or Mormons or athiests or anyone else that also advocates peacefully for the cause of the unborn, seeking their protection through the force of law and cultural change. On those many other issues where there is disagreement, great – let us disagree.

    Might not some of those that decry “dualism” and “Calvinist” and “Americanist” and on and on take a similiar approach to the most pressing human rights issue of our time?

  • “I think American Catholic and Vox Nova should trade Tito for Iafrate for a period of time”.

    OK, I admit it, that’s pretty funny! Enjoy your weekend…

  • Darwin

    Because movements, such as on health care, do not necessarily presuppose the sanctity of all life; the inherent self-contradiction of anti-life beliefs while claiming that to be pro-life is what causes the harm. It is the same problem that the so-called peace movement in the 60s had — the violence within caused it to be anything but peaceful, as one of the most active workers for peace pointed out. When you undermine the principle which the movement is to be based upon, the movement is lost. Health care, etc, could be based upon many ideas, not necessarily life — though for Catholics, the sanctity and dignity of life should lead us to such reforms.

  • Henry Karlson:

    1. Why do are you so determined to paint Pro-Lifers with such a broad brush that would ultimately demonize the majority as being self-contradictory violent hypocrites?

    2. As far as “the inherent self-contradiction of anti-life beliefs while claiming to be pro-life” is concerned and that “though, for Catholics, the sanctity and dignity of life should lead us to such reforms”; what say you of the apparent contradiction in such persons like your friend, Morning Minion, who without question supported a vicious Pro-abort like Obama and with respect to your own previous Vox Nova comments that virtually endorsed his when it came to his defense of Obama?

    Physician, heal thyself (and thine own friend)!

  • e.

    Am I painting the peace movement with broad brushes by ultimately pointing out it was, and perhaps remains, a rather non-peaceful movement, contradicting its very aims?

    As someone who is engaged with peace and for life, it is important to keep the principle established, and reject those elements within (the self, the movement, etc) which contradict that essence. It’s a continual reform. The problem, again, is that the movement in the US (a political movement) is not exactly one and the same with the combination of pro-lifers. I am discussing the movement, and the disheartening facts I see within it.

    2. As the Church has said many times, supporting someone who supports X is not the same thing as supporting X, unless you support them because of their support for X.

  • Henry,

    Am I demonizing black people if I were to say that many blacks are bloody murderers?

    Am I demonizing Catholics if I were to say that many Catholics are anti-semitic?

    I suggest you review the Church’s teaching with regards to formal cooperation with evil.

  • e.

    I know quite well the issue of formal cooperation of evil; voting for someone despite a stand they hold is not formal cooperation.

  • That will be a relief to all those Germans who voted for Hitler because of his full employment program.

  • Michael D. and MM,

    Yes, that is funny.

    Though I’d like to know what would Michael I.’s reaction be as well ;)

  • That Vox Nova and some other statements above, I want to be careful who I prescribe it to, respectfully are absolutely ludicrous and without knowing these people’s positions in depth, may be very shameful as well.

    Let us not forget again, the John Brown Abolitionist of Kansas scenario, John Brown did horrible things to slave owners and the Confederate side. Was he reflective of the whole Abolitionist movement?? Would these paragons of virtue Vox Nova and others be labelling the anti-slavery movement with the same broadbrush because of the murderous raids of John Brown or even from the other side if one reverses rolls, Confederate renegades like Quantrell and his guerillas? The abortion industry commits horrendous violence every day.

    Again, that McCardle’s writings in the Atlantic were so spot on. Abortion was decided and one side was ripped off horribly.

    There are many pro lifers and there is a good number that do get all bent out of shape. I think I’ve mentioned it before, the PPH office here, well before they opened up one morning and no one was there, 7:30ish in the morning, this young man drove his truck up near the doorway, causing some damage and in the ensuing time before being taken away had the shakes and was saying “Auschwitz, Auschwitz…” etc. Yes, people get riled up, they do, how far do we go?? Can I walk by a PPH office and if a worker walks out of there at the same time, avoid saying something disparaging about the organization? Did I drive home during the week of Tiller’s murder, to see Pro-Lifers carrying big signs towards that same office, just outside around 6-7 pm one evening and see a police cruiser on its way there as well?

  • So the last name Henry sports is?? What? Sounds Scandinavian or what?? That is no reason to jump to conclusions but if you live in a Lutheran stronghold, you know, they can have watered down views. Something causing Henry to have some sort of milk toast accusatory position on this. I say that not in finding fault with Henry’s statements, as I’m sure there are many with Irish, Polish and Italian surnames who hedge on the issues as well. Still, it does make me wonder if I may say that.

  • It’s just typical dissident Catholic obfuscation.

    I doubt they even attend Sunday Mass, much less even properly catechized Catholics.

  • Tom,

    I don’t think someone’s name constitutes an argment.

    Tito,

    I share your frustration with people who call themselves pro-life showing up and immediately attacking the pro-life movement as the violent side of the debate — but wrong as that may be, jumping off into speculating over whether people go to mass or not is not appropriate.

  • DarwinCatholic: Okay, but I don’t see anyone named Kowalski or Rossi saying these kinds of things.

  • DC,

    I call them as I see them.

    If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

    Dissident Catholic all the way through and through with no regard to anyone except themselves.

    You can continue to think that Henry is a sincere Catholic, the rest of us know that he’s nothing more than a pawn of Satan.

  • Tito, Karlson is not a pawn of Satan. He is a blogger like us. At most that makes him a knight of verbosity. I am sort of holding out for a bishop of tedium for myself.

  • You can continue to think that Henry is a sincere Catholic, the rest of us know that he’s nothing more than a pawn of Satan.

    Following Don’s lead, I think maybe ‘rook of inapposite analogy’ would be more fitting for Henry, but, in any case, I do not doubt his sincerity as a Catholic.

  • rook of inapposite analogy

    Now that is made of awesome.

    Does this leave the slots of “king of belaborment” and “queen of digression” open?

  • Does this leave the slots of “king of belaborment” and “queen of digression” open?

    I’m sure we all (including Henry and MM) have some candidates in mind…

  • Of course, if we did a nautical edition, we could have “prawns of Neptune”.

  • I don’t even have a response. But that was good.

    Unfortunately, I think of ‘District 9′ when I hear ‘prawns’ now.

  • I do not doubt his sincerity as a Catholic.

    I highly doubt his sincerity since he has not exhibited anything remotely close to the virtue of charity.

    Not once.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .