Having it Both Ways

As I mentioned in a previous blog post, before the Kennedy fiasco broke, Salt + Light was very supportive of Campaign Life’s pro-life initiatives:

Campaign Life is involved in many pro-life events each year – events which the young lady featured in Salt+Light’s blog post may consider “radical” or “hostile”.  Let’s take just two as an example.  The first is the annual March for Life in Ottawa, a peaceful occasion for Canada’s pro-life movement to gather publicly and call for a change in this nation’s abortion laws and be witnesses to a Culture of Life.  The second event is 40 Days for Life which involves a peaceful vigil outside of the nation’s abortion mills.  (In Ottawa, many babies have been saved by our presence there.  The next campaign starts in less than two weeks on Sept. 23). Now while these events are not exhaustive of every event or function that the pro-life community participates in, it certainly represents the tone, theme, and modus operandii of our activities. Therefore, if this young woman has a problem with us, she has a problem with these events. And if she has a problem with these events, then her view of  “radical” and “hostile” needs to be gently corrected.

But if we are hostile and radical, then what does that make Salt+Light? 

See this picture just to the left here?  That’s the gang of Salt + Light posing on Parliament Hill earlier this year at the same March for Life mentioned above, which was organized by that radical group over at Campaign Life.  See Father Rosica, there, second from the right with the big smile on his face?  He looks to be having a really good time, no? You can even read about their rather buoyant coverage about the event here and here.  And, of course, making a little cash off of the event never hurt either – to help Salt+Light’s operations of course. Of course. 

And then there is 40 Days for Life.  That’s a little bit more radical than the March for Life.  It’s also a more dangerous place to be, a place where hostility is all around us.  I doubt very much whether the young woman in the article would approve of such measures, even though our vigilers have shown supernatural restraint to provocation and the loving hand of Christ to save lives.  And Salt+Light? What do they think of this event? 

Well, actually, they are quite open to it.  One of their writers said this about it on a blog entry, “The 40 Days for Life is the most successful pro-life campaign in the last 40 years.”   During our last campaign during Lent, they even interviewed the 40 Days for Life Toronto Campaign co-ordinator on FOCUS, Salt+Light’s Catholic current affairs program. 

But how could this be if the organizers are so “hostile and hateful”?  (Source)

So now Fr. Rosica and Salt+Light has come out and endorsed the 40 Days for Life Campaign and the LifeChain. (By the way, the Ottawa Campaign will be kicking off at Parliament Hill this Tuesday.  Tonight there will be Vespers at St. Pat’s Basilica).  That’s wonderful.  Really, that’s a great thing. I hope they continue to do more of that kind of media exposure for the pro-life community.  It’s the kind of pro-life work that gets dirt under their fingernails, and that involves, in many cases, taking on abuse and scorn from a culture which values death over life.  I see on the blog entry that he even has this poster advertising the event:


Notice the sponsor?  That’s the sponsor (Campaign Life) whose supporters (LifeSite is a division of Campaign Life) he’s been going around trashing in the media during his Marshmallow Lecture Tour. Why, for instance, would Fr. Rosica want to be associated with a group of yahoos who have, in his words, “set themselves above the Church“?

“It’s a mixture of the LifeSite crowd, LifeSite subscribers combined with EWTN viewers who have now set themselves above the church,” said Rosica.” (Source)

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t set myself above the Church, but then again setting oneself up against Fr. Rosica is not the same as setting oneself up against the Church. If Fr. Rosica wants to continue to trash the pro-life movement, then the least he can do is hold to a consistent position. One day he is trying to distance himself from us while the next day he is promoting our events. Well, which is it? Are we doing the Devil’s work or are we on the side of the angels? The answer, of course, for Fr. Rosica, is both. It’s the same rationale, you see, that allows him to permit pro-abortion politicians to receive the Eucharist. 

Abortion is the sacrament of the Devil. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of God. 

In Fr. Rosica’s world, it’s always good to know that we can have it both ways:  we can partake of the Eucharist and sponsor or promote abortion at the same time.

 

6 thoughts on “Having it Both Ways

  1. It sounds to me like maybe Fr. Rosica might have been rattled by some threatening phone calls, and made some comments out of anger or fear.

    Someone mentioned that Fr. Rosica went really easy on a pro-abort politician he interviewed. I don’t watch that channel often, but it reminded me of one interview I saw: Fr. Rosica interviewed Bishop Fellay of the SSPX. He also went very easy on Bishop Fellay, who certainly is no friend of the liberals. Perhaps its just his style to interview people and let people hear what they say and judge for themselves.

    If this priest supports March for Life and 40 Days for Life, I think we should forgive the things he said. He’s on our side!

  2. He may have been rattled by some angry people. Maybe they weren’t even pro-life. Maybe they were pro-abort, just trying to rattle his chain. That doesn’t give him the right to do what he did and smear LSN and EWTN and their readers/viewers. Someone in his position must be much more discerning and prudent.

    As for the Dalton McGuinty interview, that was disturbing. However, that’s just a side show. It’s not the feature presentation here, Neil.

    He may very well support the March for Life and 40 Days, but only after slamming the groups that host them.

    Besides, although all these things are somewhat aggravating, the bottom line is that he had no real problem with the Kennedy funeral – the public scandal or the reception of the Eucharist by pro-abort politicians.

    That’s the problem, Neil.

  3. I simply don’t understand liberals and moderates.

    I’m just really happy to find out that Fr. Rosica supports the March for Life and 40 Days for Life! From what I’ve seen so far, I would have thought he didn’t.

    I would love to hear the other side explain in logical terms how their methods (working with those groups in latin america, being “polite” to pro-abort politicians, etc.) are supposed to work to the benefit of the pro-life cause… doesn’t make much sense to me, but then, I’m not a very diplomatic person, so maybe I just don’t get it. I have no idea.

  4. I came to the realization long ago, Neil, that if you see something that is clearly wrong and yet you are confused by contradictory messages, there is usually some game at play by the one sending out double messages.

    Usually it involves some sort of self-promotion.

  5. What was quite disconcerting about Fr Rosica’s blog regarding the Kennedy funeral and pro-lifers is that near the end he speaks of Ted meeting up with his family in heaven. While one hopes that may be so, implying we are all heavenbound occurs all too frequently in funeral homilies. It is seriously problematic and erroneous, and sends out the general message to the funeral congregation that we are all going to heaven. Please God that would be so – but Catholic teaching and Sacred Scripture suggest there will be a culling of the herd. If we are all going to heaven, why do we need to receive the sacraments – or, for that matter, be good?

    I believe Fr R proferred false teaching in that blog statement, revealing much more than his pique with pro-lifers who were upset with the Kennedy funeral scandal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
4 ⁄ 2 =