How do we "suit up" for the game.

I read with interest the article by William McGurn that appeared in the WSJ on 19 May 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269063343832561.html.

Mr McGurn is right on target when he says " When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness". The question becomes how do we as thoughtful Catholics suit up?

I am convinced that the Priests for Life crowd or even my brother knights in the Knights of Columbus have grasped that you not only have to give a prohibition to abortion but to give pregnant women better options and that frankly, will take money. I would love to get Fr. Frank Pavone and Randall Terry in one room and say "OK.....let's say abortion gets prohibited like you want...then what? What are people in the pro life movement willing to give up so that women won't abort their babies. I want to know in dollars and cents how much they are willing to pay in terms of taxes for public services, health care, education and reliable day care to ensure that those babies who are not aborted will grow to their full potential.

I hear scant little from the pro life quarter on these issues. They are quite ready to say no to abortions but what are they going to do about it when abortion is no longer legal.

These sentiments are not only applicable to the pro life crowd but to institutions like Notre Dame. They are absolutely tone deaf on this issue. They talk a good game about honoring church teaching but what do the DO about it. Are they really willing to have an open dialog about abortion or devote resources to this cause?

Sometimes, it seems that the Catholic centers of higher education want it both ways. They want to seem as progressive and acceptable to the great population but still want a veneer of Catholicity.

Separation of Church and State - When Its Convenient

I saw this article in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 8 2007 and thought it was an extremely interesting piece.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010184

It's a sad commentary when the very same action can be lauded in one case and decried in another based soley on what is politically expedient.

There will always be people who malign the church because of its attempts to be faithful to the message of the gospel and not to the message of one political party or another. Maybe its a sign of the church's vitality that it can manage to "anger" both the politicians and the pundits on the left and the right.

Just some food for thought and grist for the mill