Saturday, July 16, 2022

Modern Christianity and Roe in a nutshell: A final reflection

When  I compare the reaction to the Roe decision, I notice something.  Among those modernist Christians who have swung to the Left, there is an almost dearth of celebrations over the abolition of Roe and how it might save even one unborn life.  On the other hand, the reaction by so many traditional pro-life believers, is prayers, rejoicing, and celebrating that even one baby might be saved, or one life kept from the hellpit of our modern debauchery and decadence. In thinking on that, I have come to a sad conclusion. 

Traditional pro-life Christians try to find things like this to celebrate:

While new, modernist, post-historical Christians spend their time defending this:

I'd say that's about right.  Nothing.  Nothing I have seen in the many reactions to the Roe decision suggests there is any error in this observation.

I was given a link to this piece.  It's a somewhat whimsical comparison to the destruction of the Death Star and the end to Roe.  We know ending Roe doesn't end everything.  Nor did destroying the Death Star for that matter.  But for anyone who cares about All Life, there should at least be some happiness over even one baby not aborted.  Somehow, some woman - or birthing person - might not get an abortion.  And isn't even one baby saved worth rejoicing over? 

Apparently not.  Since almost everyone who has cozied up to the modern Left found anything to say other than a simple praise over the decision.  Except for Deacon Gredyanus, who did celebrate the decision before echoing pro-choice talking points about the problematic ramifications of the decision.  Otherwise, not a single Christian I know who has aligned with the Left said anything positive about the SCOTUS decision in a clear and explicit way.  

Not one bothered to at least say if it helps save one baby, that's a good thing.  They either posted vague, strange, ramblings (my old classmates Greg Thornbury and Russ Moore), or shifted the posts and regurgitated old pro-abortion talking points about sexist men or pro-lifers not carrying about babies.  That was all.  Even Pope Francis's response was watered down and restrained.  Not a single praise over the possibility that even one baby might be saved.  Not from Mark Shea.  Not from Sean Dailey.  Not from our very Catholic president.  Not from Dawn Eden.  Not from Simcha Fisher.  Nobody I know who swings left of center had a modicum of praise for what unborn life might be saved.  That, to me, screams volumes. 

So point and match goes to the pro-lifers.  Most I know aren't fooled over what is ahead.  They know the fight is only beginning.  They also make sure the world knows we always have been about helping the moms and the babies. Sometimes they have done this to such an extreme they echo the objection from pro-choicers.  But on the whole, they prayed, rejoiced, and took the attitude that if even one baby is saved, or this gives someone second thoughts about indulging in our modern AIDS era sex and drugs culture, then it's a big win.  

Goats.  Sheep.  It's about more than just giving a drink to someone who is thirsty.  And unless Pope Francis's little asides about there probably not being a Hell are true, I'd say the broad and narrow gates are being defined as sharply as they ever have been in the 2000 year history of the Faith. 

Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Matthew 12.33


  1. (Tom New Poster)
    With Dobbs, we have sprinkled holy water on the congregation, and all the vampires are screaming.
    Yet could some of it be a social thing? Upper-class Anglicans converting to Catholicism in 19th-20th century Britain were often sneered at for "attending services with the servants". Could it be that some of what these "new" pro-lifers hate about the "old" pro-lifers are political allies they detest: the gun-owners, CRT critics, opponents of the welfare state, Republicans and conservatives in general? Their support for what resulted in Dobbs was arguably indispensable.
    Anne Roche Muggeridge in a book about Vatican II spoke of the "liberal orthodox": 1960s Catholics who were devout and orthodox on doctrinal and moral issues (including Humanae Vitae), but liberal on social issues like civil rights, welfare and the expanding government role in society. Where did they go? Or was the combination of principles they espoused unworkable?

    1. Suggest perhaps that the 'combination of principles' may not have been logically compatible nor precluded in practice by common patterns of social relations and human behavior. It may, however, been rendered an unstable combination given the psychodynamics of people who arrived at that point. See Russell Moore, who was associated with the Fellowship of St. James (Touchstone) as recently as 10 years ago.

    2. There could be something to that. Though many 'new prolife' seem to be people completely aligned to the modern Left - a movement very, very pro-abortion. Therefore they have to twist and turn and deny and accuse in order to justify their alliance to something that, at least on paper, they must fundamentally reject.

      In a bit of irony, many of those became 'new prolife' by rejecting the idea that abortion is the only issue that matters (which I never heard people actually say, but let's run with it). I say ironic because most 'new prolife' types appear to work to reconcile their alliance with a very pro-abortion movement ... and then speak nothing more to anything else that movement advocates: suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, sex changing youth, sexed up children, our porn and drugs culture, open antagonism to religious liberty, and on and on. In other words, they made it only about saying it's not only about abortion, when the only thing they work to justify is their ally's abortion stance while ignoring anything else. Which I would say is making it all about abortion.

  2. What did Greydanus say, Dave? I don't follow him on Twitter.

    1. He said it was the correct decision because Roe was obviously wrong and so gave it a clear thumbs up. Then he went on to trash Dobbs by repeating many of the charges from its failings as a legal decision to the potential slippery slopes - essentially what pro-abortion activists were trying to say about it. But at least he did come out and praise it. Of all who cozy to the left, I think he was the only one I know of who made it clear he was glad Roe was ended. Even if he joined with those saying the decision itself was full of problems.

  3. Hi, David! Your blog came across my path again recently and I couldn’t resist checking in. (You can thank Tito Edwards for that!)
    First of all, I’m glad to see your wife seems to be doing well after her health scare last year! And congratulations on the engagement and business venture of your son and his fiancĂ© ❤️

    1. Hello there! Long time no see. Yes, it is something I've witnessed over the years: the number of those walking away from the faith and officially apostatizing (verbally severing their ties with God and denouncing the Gospel and God's existence) is growing. I don't think it's a left or right thing. Though I notice those who cling more to modern progressive ideals tend to be jumping ship a little more often. Skojec shows, however, that is not some exclusive left/right trait. In his case, you can't help but wonder if he had lost faith ages ago, and simply denied it by wrapping it up in a holy cause. The minute - the second - a priest did something he didn't like, that was it. First he bailed from his own movement, then out the door he went. Like that kid who committed suicide decades ago because he said Dungeons and Dragons made him do it. Chances are, if you commit suicide because of something that happens to your D&D character, you were 9/10 there already.

      As for Simcha, she has always been a tough nut to crack. A little like Deacon Greydanus (less like Dawn Eden nowadays) she presents herself as a daughter of the historical faith, yet it isn't tough to see where her sympathies lie. And though I said neither side has a monopoly on those abandoning the Gospel once and for all, I do see it a little more often left of center. After all, the modern political left is predicated on the idea that the Christian Gospel is no truer than Harry Potter. All ideals and activism arise from that. Trying to align with that and keep one foot in that old time religion appears to be more difficult that many would have thought.

    2. I think you are absolutely right on both points. I do think the internet, and social media in particular, has been damaging to humanity overall. And damaging to many peoples' faith because of the immediateness of it. There are only a handful of "professional" Catholics who I can feel they have a solid and grounded spiritual life, however strained and whatever tension they seem to hold it in, but it comes out in their writing. And since I, who have no public platform, have seen how my spiritual life has suffered due to time spent on the internet, especially social media - it's not terribly surprising to see those who draw their livelihood from their "brand" lose faith. Oversharing also seems to diminish something of the experience, I've found. That's why Skojec's perpetual naval grazing is so irritating to me actually. I do think he over thought and over shared himself out of faith. I'm about his age and does he not think we've all suffered something in our lives by the Church of our era? I guess if you make money off your angst then I guess that's the only advantage to holding onto it. Because it certainly doesn't seem to make one happy. I try not to share too much online of my personal faith experiences because I actually value my faith, as shaky as it feels sometimes, but it's too precious to expose in that way. And I definitely don't need to pimp it out for monetary gain!

      But I think that leads into your last paragraph point.
      "After all, the modern political left is predicated on the idea that the Christian Gospel is no truer than Harry Potter. All ideals and activism arise from that. Trying to align with that and keep one foot in that old time religion appears to be more difficult that many would have thought."

      Simcha Fisher has always taken the "opposite of the extreme" approach. Like, "Yes, we have 10 children, but we're NORMAL because we do xyz, not like those crazy Catholics over there." Currently she has been extolling her yoga journey, but it's okay because when they say some mantra during the stretches she says Catholic things. She took her elementary age daughter into a Spirit Halloween store because kid wanted to go into it. She did caveat she didn't think the place was great to go into, but she went anyway. I just keep thinking at some point though, if you don't do things differently - just little things, then your kids do get the idea that everything is pretty much okay. If how you see yourself is "normal" in regards to culture, then your kids will probably end up following the "normal" culture.

      Anyway, if making money off your professed religious faith, even when it damages your actual faith, then you should stop. Because what are you gaining really? Compared to what you are losing.


Let me know your thoughts