A Catholic pro-choice politician is interviewed, and trying to prop up his Catholic bona fides, mentions that he's been asked to join the Kinghts of Malta, a lay Catholic organization (that I honestly don't recall hearing about).
How should we react?
Well,this provides a great opportunity to add some fuel to our dislike of the bishops (who as far as I can tell have absolutely nothing to do with admission to the knights) and generally lament the fate of poor, orthodox Catholics.
First of all, the only evidence of McAuliffe's admission is his boast on the Hewitt interview. That's it. So, these complainers claim that McAuliffe has no moral qualms about slicing babies in half (or whatever graphic language they want to use to cow those who might think they're overreacting) but would never lie or embellish the truth in order to build himself up. But as we heard last Sunday, "love hopes all things, believes all things," so I suppose the same is true for the desire for righteous indignation.
Second, as mentioned, this is a lay organization. From their website, the only in put any ordained religious has in the process is a letter of recommendation from the pastor. So if this organization is about to honor someone like McAuliffe, shouldn't it be an occasion for us, the laity to engage is a long, hard, look in the mirror rather than another stream of insults hurled at "the bishops."
This is what ticks me off about the discourse on the Catholic blogs. On the one hand, outrage is ginned up over 3,500 babies being killed every day. Then we are asked to focus that outrage on bullshit issues like the possibilty that a Catholic lay organization might honor a poltician we don't like.
And how many babies will this save?
Yes, yes, I know about "giving scandal." I know about leading souls astray. Bullshit. Do you think anyone heard that interview and thought, "Well, I thought partial birth abortion was a terrible evil, but if Terry McAuliffe is going to be a Knight of Malta, then maybe I was mistaken?" Um, no.
But if someone opposed the Iraq war, and they spent most of their energy on say, preventing SMU from accepting the Bush Presidential Library, would you conclude that that person was really serious about opposing the war, or borrowing outrage from that for a personal vendetta.
So how do you think bullshit like this looks to an outside observer who doesn't like abortion, but is a little spooked out by the media's portrayal of the pro-life movement?
This stuff is worse than a waste of energy. It damages the cause of ending abortion. It leads people to think that we are motivated by hatred of our political opponenets rather than love of the unborn.
And it's not going to save one unborn baby. And it's not going to save one soul.
But it'll make us feel better about ourselves as noble warriors trudging forward without the support (nay, with the active opposition) of Church leadership.
Hope we enjoy it.