Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Fall 2022 PDF
    • SUMMER 2022 ARTICLES
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

BLOG

0 Comment

Welcoming the Unplanned Burden

01 Oct 2019
David Poecking
pro-life challenges
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

A few months ago, I stood in the back of church greeting worshipers after Mass. One woman—let’s call her Michelle—was squinting as if she intended to confront me, so I invited her to disclose her mind. She burst out, “How come you won’t preach about the movie Unplanned? Unplanned will really change people’s minds! I’m so tired of weak priests who pretend to be Catholic but never get around to preaching about abortion.”

As you, the reader, might guess, I am about to criticize Michelle. But before you join me in denouncing Michelle’s foolishly negative judgment, let me confess that I’ve often imitated her. I, too, have indignantly remonstrated against those who failed to see the righteousness of my cause. I, too, have lamented the weak tea served up by those who should be forcefully pro-life. So why do we prolifers snipe thus at each other? When I examine my own conscience, I discover a blend of puritanism, competitiveness, and—most disturbingly—a true hardness of heart akin to being pro-choice.

Prolifers are not immune to the puritanical spirit that has long afflicted humanity: We want the easy thrill of self-righteousness that comes from being a little purer, a little better than those around us. In the Human Life Review’s magnificent symposium, “Whole Life versus Pro-life,”  I criticized the most puritanical version of “whole life”:

When whole-lifers stand aloof, however, distinguishing themselves as something outside or beyond the pro-life movement, they’re seeking more to defeat prolifers than to correct them . . . [P]osturing as whole-life is political treachery against prolifers. During the 2016 election cycle, Republican apologists embarrassed by candidate Donald Trump cleverly contrived an “anti-anti-Trump” stance, allowing them to align themselves with him without defending him. For whole-lifers to set themselves against prolifers is no better than to be anti-anti-abortion: It may sound clever, but it accomplishes no good.

And we prolifers can prosecute our internal disagreements in other destructive ways, such as Michelle’s denunciation of those who decline to promote Unplanned as “weak.” (Mind you, I’ve got nothing against the movie: I haven’t seen it, and for all I know it’s the best pro-life tool ever.) At the expense of the pro-life movement, we steal a moment’s gratification in the feeling that others have fallen short of our higher standards.

Beyond the Puritanism, there’s another competition: for glory, the credit due to those who play a greater role in winning a battle. In the United States, our legendary entrepreneurial vigor infects even our religions and moral philosophies, anywhere we want to be seen to be winners. I have written  earlier that too often we prolifers don’t want merely to persuade others to share our cause; we want also to be perceived as victorious in a moral competition. It is not enough then for us to promote the pro-life movement by various means. Instead, we demand others follow our own personal sortie, as Michelle demanded of me concerning the movie.

But in the darkest corner of my soul I discover also a hardness of heart for people like Michelle. She was unappreciative of my homilies, she was unpleasant about it, and she’ll likely continue to be plaintive about me. I am inclined to be as ungrateful for Michelle as Michelle is ungrateful for me. But despite Michelle’s provocation, my hardness of heart is my own responsibility. And it differs in substance neither from the hardness of heart found among prochoicers who do not welcome new life into the world, nor from the hardness of heart among those who do not prioritize the care of endangered infants and their mothers. If I cannot find a way to welcome women like Michelle, who in the end burden me only lightly, how then can I expect a distressed mother to welcome a child who will burden her much more heavily?

Cathleen Cleaver Ruse writes  for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Pope John Paul II has called the pro-life movement “one of the most positive aspects of American public life.” Yet we still struggle to create a society where there is no need for a pro-life movement, where there is room in the hearts of all people to welcome every member of the human family.

Some of that struggle endures because of these deficits in our integrity as prolifers: puritanism, competition, hardness of heart. Let us instead be grateful for each other as we would have all people be grateful for the gift of new life.

173 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
David Poecking

Fr. David Poecking is the regional vicar of the South Vicariate of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.

More by Father Poecking

 

 

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Minnesota passes one of nation’s most permissive abortion laws

01 Feb 2023

Hit and run violence after Roe: Can't we talk about the morality of abortion?

28 Jan 2023

Abortion activist attempts to expose crisis pregnancy centers—and fails

17 Jan 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.