Home     Index of Answers to Questions

Q. A local priest wrote an article in his parish's bulletin stating he does not “jump on the bandwagon” of the pro-life movement because pro-life parishes “are not welcoming, unfriendly (sic), and quite judgmental.” He states he is not pro-choice and knows of no priests who are not pro-life, yet sites an article by a Jesuit who came to the conclusion that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” This priest is a font of contradictions. My question is, what should be done about this?

A. N., in Christ,

            Great hearing from you! First of all, I would like it very much if you could share my e-mail with this poor man; poor either for ignorance of intellect, or for malice of will. Above all, I would love to point out to him his flagrant hypocrisy with the hope of obtaining his shame and humble conversion, for the edification of all who know him.

            What to do? Well, I have to admit, my first thought was, “Simple:

shoot him.” But I often have to go to confession for such sarcastic thoughts about my neighbor. We need to love even our enemy: a rule which applies here very well, for these subtle, misleading deceptions from the pastors of the Church bear every mark of subtle, Satanic lies.

            First of all, the dissenters of the Church often like to determine the terms of the debate. For example, at first immoral men coined the term "homosexual marriage," which is an expression that in itself makes no sense.

In homosexual unions there can be neither the unitive or procreative dimensions of marriage; if it's anything, marriage it's not. It is sodomy, and if practiced and not repented from, it will lead a soul to hell, not to the fruitful living of a sacrament.

            Dissenters resort continually to re-defining the terms of the debate. This is a common feature of what America today calls "liberal" in our political and social culture. They need to re-define reality, because reality stands against them. There is no substance or truth to their argument, so they resort to subterfuge, empty rhetoric, deception and confusion.

            The best manner to proceed can be discussed, therefore, from two points of view: the level of how to argument your point, and of what actions to do.

            At the point of view of argumentation, an analysis of his terminology is the necessary starting point:

- Pro-life. If he is not with it, logically speaking, he is anti-life. There is no other alternative: one is either for life or against it, there are only two options not three. (In logic this is referred to "tertium exclusum.)"

            The priest shows his hypocrisy in that he claims to be a follower of Christ, indeed raised to Holy Orders, at the service of the Gospel of Life; yet he does nothing to defend the most innocent and weakest victims whose lives are taken by the thousands each day. May God have mercy on this priest's soul.

- “Bandwagon.” This is a derogatory term commonly used to describe a cause or activity to which a person dedicates himself without sufficient reflection. The pro-life movement is full of people who have very well thought out convictions, with profound medical science, cultural history, moral philosophy and religious proofs behind them. Therefore he is in error: the pro-life movement is not a bandwagon.

            The priest shows his hypocrisy, in that he has jumped on the bandwagon of those who argue against the pro-life position and movement without seriously reflecting on his own, basic, logical contradictions, nor on the moral import of his condemnation, nor the ecclesial scandal of defending the murder of children.

- “Welcoming.” To welcome someone is to greet or salute them with kindness and cheer. Pro-life people welcome babies with warmth and cheer, and with so much kindness that they welcome babies into their homes unconditionally.

There is no one more welcoming and more perfectly hospitable than a pro-life person.

            He falls into hypocrisy, objectively speaking, because he greets pro-life people without kindness and with hostility. His very commentaries are outrageously, ridiculously unwelcoming. It's amazing he can't see that.

- “Unfriendly. Friendship is a degree of love, by which one promotes the good of another, and to do so with spontaneous will and feelings of affection; it can only exist among good men (qua species, not gender); it is something which is virtuous and proceeds from a virtuous character [cf. Cicero, De Amicitia]. Pro-life promote the most basic good of others, the one necessary for ALL other goods, namely, life. They love babies with extreme affection. They are good to the degree that they do not murder babies nor endorse or materially support those who do. And they demonstrate virtue by doing what is good (loving the lives of babies) and doing so habitually. No one is more friendly than a pro-lifer, by definition.

            This priest shows that he has no regard for not only "ONE" good of a human person (as if life were just "one" good), but that in thinking so, he has no interest in ANY of the goods of his neighbor, since no one can have any other good in this world if their life is taken away from them. He is a radically "unfriendly" man.

- Judgmental. This is a delightfully ambiguous term, and has many definitions. A judgment can be any assertion (affirmation or negation) by which one judges a predicate adequately goes with a given subject. It can be a pronouncement of a judge who occupies an office in civil society. It can be a discernment of good from evil. It can be a condemnation of neighbor.

Since being pro-life implies the judgment that certain deeds are evil, it can be considered "judgmental"; but since the equivocal term may also mean "condemning one's neighbor," the application of the term here obviously attempts to confuse the issue and paint pro-lifers as monsters who harbor only wicked thoughts towards others. (Plato would have slaughtered a priest for such a commentary in his "The Sophist.")

            This is the most egregious, outrageous, offensive accusation of his, worthy of the greatest contempt and ridicule by all men of right reason and sound heart. For he himself condemns no "deed," as the pro-life people condemn the deed of abortion, but he condemns the people themselves. In this case, he has condemnation, but not a discernment of good and evil, making a mockery of goodness in truth as abominable as the Anti-Christ is a mockery and contradiction of Christ himself.

            How to proceed? Follow the Gospels: don't let this half-hearted, priestly-office-abusing, intellectually-bankrupt man intimidate you into renouncing your pro-life position. Know the truth with your intellect, believe it with your faith, live for it and die for it in the flesh.

            Next, follow the Lord's teaching on fraternal correction (Mt 18:16-17). "But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

            Therefore:

            - Correct him face to face, better if you can get an answer in writing or recorded. If he's not ashamed of his position, he will give it to you in one of these two forms gladly. If he shows hardness of heart, no need to enter into heated debate. Just move on to the next step the Lord recommends.

            - The correct him with others present.

            - Then inform the hierarchy: first his own bishop, then the Apostolic Nuncio (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dxxus.html), then the Holy See.

            Our hope is that the Church will “treat him as... a pagan or tax collector,” excommunicating him publicly until he would reform his life, retract the scandal, and undo the damage done. In this day and age, however, few enjoy using excommunication, more for reasons of vanity and care of “how they might look.”

            If he might not be converted, go find a priest who loves God and serves the Church, not a priest who defends those who murder babies.

            I would enjoy hearing from the priest in question, if he should choose; I encourage you therefore to send him both your e-mail and my response.

            God bless you, and be strong in the Holy Spirit, with great faith in the Incarnation, Jesus Christ who lives and reigns forever.

In Christ, Fr. Paul Ward

[Note: On April 24th, my Ordinary asked me to remove the link to the bulletin article of this priest, the article to which I refer, so the reader will not find his article on my web site.]