My Reaction to the Shooting of Jim Pouillon

It has already been confirmed that Jim Pouillon was shot to death for his pro-life views.

Jim Pouillon was a pro-lifer advocate that would stand outside of abortion mills hoping in turning away women from killing their unborn children.  He wore leg braces, was dependent on an oxygen tank, and was a “wonderful, Christian, peaceful man.” as described by close friend Cal Zastrow.

Jim Pouillon was also a Catholic and was remembered by his parish priest, Father John Fain of Saint Paul Church in Owosso, Michigan as “a good Christian and a faithful Catholic.

For self-disclosure I am very active in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston in the pro-life movement.  One of the many activities that I participate in is peaceful prayer in front of Planned Parenthood.  So when I heard of the shooting I was deeply shocked at the news.

Even more shocking was the reaction in the secular world, particularly from the political extreme left as this example displays from the notorious Huffington Post:

“…with the way the fake news pundits will run with this one, we might as well get a good laugh out of it now.”

Though what was most disturbing at all was what emanated from various dissident Catholics and blogs when they began smearing the pro-life movement immediately after the attack by claiming that many pro-lifers are violent.

What can we do?

Pray for them.

Follow Jim Pouillon’s example of peaceful protest and prayer.  As our Lord and Savior told us, close the door behind us and pray in private.

Ora pro nobis.

15 Responses to My Reaction to the Shooting of Jim Pouillon

  • Jay Anderson says:

    Joe, you’re exactly right. Absolutely no respect for those Catholics who have nothing but evil to say about the pro-life movement while they, themselves, try to pass off support for legalized abortion as merely “incidental” to the overall greater good of a particular policy agenda.

    Henry, with all due respect, I have a hard time believing that your co-blogger’s recent criticism of the pro-life movement is out of “love” for the movement; rather, on the basis of his track record, I’d say his attack on pro-lifers is the purely politcal “not my tribe” stuff we’ve come to expect from him.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Henry,

    It certainly doesn’t have to be hate, but it can certainly take that form.

    I don’t see these criticisms ever being made in a spirit of charity, in a spirit of recognition of the basic good that the pro-life movement does in spite of its flaws.

    I don’t see half or even a quarter of the angry effort expended upon the flaws of the pro-life movement ever directed at the actual practice of abortion.

    Love does not exclude, and often demands, criticism. But it also requires, well, love.

  • Joe

    “I don’t see these criticisms being made in the spirit of charity.” Why not? Is it because you don’t want to do so? The problem is that people are so self-centered today, they can’t handle criticism? Seriously, when the point is to show “self-contradiction of the movement with its proclaimed motive” by someone who says “I support the motive,” it clearly is an issue of charity. Only those who are unwilling for self-examination and confession will find this problematic.

  • Secondly, “angry effort”– is it angry? Again, the hermeneutic used to reject the criticism is indicative of the problem. “Oh they are just angry.”

    Thirdly, perhaps the reason why the focus is with the pro-life movement is again because it is people who are pro-life who want the movement to be such? As Jesus said, until you correct yourself, don’t go correcting others. Perhaps this will help explain why that is a focus for some, without it being “hate” or “anger.”

  • Tito Edwards says:

    Henry,

    Be very careful how you insult people’s intelligence.

    Your hate of the pro-life movement is tolerated so as to be an example of what to look for when faced with evil.

    So watch it with your uncharitable comments.

  • paul zummo says:

    The problem is that people are so self-centered today, they can’t handle criticism?

    Only those who are unwilling for self-examination and confession will find this problematic.

    Again, the hermeneutic used to reject the criticism is indicative of the problem. “Oh they are just angry.”

    It’s utterly amazing how much of what Henry spews could apply in spades to himself, espcially the last point. I mean, didn’t we just have an entire pair of threads dedicated to the proposition that certain pro-lifers are motivated by anger? So what happens when confronted with an argument that his co-blogger might be motivated by anger? He scowls back at the accuser in a manner that indicates that he just might be “so self-centered” that he “can’t handle criticism?” Maybe it’s time for some of that self-examination and confession.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    “Why not? Is it because you don’t want to do so?”

    Of course, Henry. You got me. You exposed my secret, hidden motives. Congratulations.

    Could it be because I simply do not see it? Is that a possibility?

    “The problem is that people are so self-centered today, they can’t handle criticism”

    That can be a problem, yes. But there is criticism, and there is attack. How do you think one Christian pro-life advocate ought to criticize another? What would be your rules of engagement? I’m sure if you were to list them, we would agree.

    In practice, however, some people default to more anger towards the tactics of the pro-life movement than abortion itself, as if abortion really were just some “issue” on which one has no possible justification for becoming passionate about.

    “when the point is to show “self-contradiction of the movement with its proclaimed motive”

    Yes, I am familiar with the type of criticism that is intended to “show” – that is, to hold up for ridicule and reinforce what the critics already believe (all sides are guilty of this). How about the type of criticism that is intended to actually achieve something?

    “Oh they are just angry.”

    Uncharitable would be another word. Though I don’t suppose you or your friends have ever used the word “angry” to describe pro-lifers.

    For my part, I believe anger is a perfectly legitimate and valid thing to feel – over abortion. Certainly not over graphic signs which remind us that abortion is not a nice, clean, spotless procedure.

    That said, I do not take “anger” as a sign of irrationality, stupidity, or invalidity – I question why it is directed at one thing instead of another. So it isn’t that you are “just angry” – it is that some people appear to be angry over the WRONG THING.

    “As Jesus said, until you correct yourself, don’t go correcting others.”

    Sound advice.

  • Tito,

    I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Henry hates the pro-life movement — it’s more that Henry thinks that the pro-life movement should be exactly like him, and he considers it untrue to itself to the extent that it’s not like him.

    Since it’s not much like him, this leaves him disliking most of it.

    But I’m sure that he does honestly believe himself to be strongly pro-life — even if his actions may at times seem to us to be in contradiction to that.

  • TomSVDP says:

    “As Jesus said, until you correct yourself, don’t go correcting others. Perhaps this will help explain why that is a focus for some, without it being “hate” or “anger.””

    Actually, Henry’s point is valid to the extent that yes, I have believed, who am I to correct others, if I am a Sinner.

    Yet, at the same time and not to correct any other posters here, this is why we have the Holy See, this is why we follow the Traditions of the Church along with Scripture but it is not Sola Scriptura. The Right to life has been important enough for the Holy Father to address with regards to heads of state as we knew so with Obama. Rome says it! And that’s all I need to know.

    I may not be saying this in the best way possible but I think everyone can understand the gist of it.

    And I’ll keep this short, above Joe uses the correct words in saying “One pro life Christian advocate” and this is correct, as many Christians, Jews are pro life. I believe it is against the tenants of Buddhism and other faiths as well.

    Those acting rashly are real needles in a haystack.

  • TomSVDP says:

    That pelicanproject.org website is a nice site, I compliment you.

    This is another thing, let’s not be violent but know the enemy well.

    This is no big deal but one night I was reading on the web from some pro-abortion agency something about “Remember to avoid the crisis pregnancy centers, they are often run by Christians”: words to this effect, maybe not as harsh but still awful. Just like some of the stories one can hear about abortion mill workers getting commissions if they are able to sell a business. Know how bad these people can be as well!!

    Visit like http://www.blackgenocide.org or the more radical site blackgenocide.com . I do know of other Christians say from visiting http://www.prolifeamerica.com/ forums (one guy in there is like close to the real radicals of the Pro Life movement but it is mostly talk) and some Christians have that attitude of extending out the olive branch and how awful at times, pro-lifers can be. I’ve certainly seen those kinds of positions before.

  • TomSVDP says:

    You people all! Get so involved in a conversation but reading the quote from the Huffington Post and I do not know the whole context nor will search for it, that is an outrage.

    It was an outrage about the story of the blogger there that confessed to stealing McCain Palin signs out of yards and he was a professor at a college but not from the area, he was from far away from Northfield (he was a Professor for Carlton or St. Olaf Lutheran Colleges, not sure) Minnesota where he did these deeds. I thought it was the worst.

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

Enter your email:

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