Glendon is of course standing up for Catholic principles with her silence but I think it would be a BETTER option to actually speak as opposed to not speak and that her decison not to speak is based more on what she's comfortable doing politically than it has to do with making a statement of pro-life. Now that last part may indeed be conjecture on my part but I think that most people would really like to hear what she has to say--and to not say anything is a lot easier than to stand up there and disagree publicly with the leader of the free world in front of a whole lot of people.
I also wasn't suggesting that HER stand had anything to do with "calling people names" but in the argument to restrict President Obama from speaking there has indeed been a lot of name calling. Fortunately Glendon has taken the high road here and that is something many of us can learn from.
Additionally, I'd like to say that we need to do both--talk loudly and work for a change in grassroots ways like working with young mothers, which I do on occasion. But for many it's all about changing the law--which I'd like to do too...but even if we do, it merely changes the law from a federal to a state issue. An important step undoubtedly, but one that still needs us to counter what remains and to be used to doing that.
As I've repeatedly said on the blog--and Bishop Chaput says similar things--if we all really cared this wouldn't be an issue because we'd spend every last moment working to end it. But most people don't--some only yell at politicians to the point that they stop listening (which does us no good) and some only work in the grassroots.
Most, I might add--do nothing at all.
Gaurev, I think where we agree strongly is that we both think something needs to be done to end this terrible murder. How we go about that might look a bit different.
Simon's Cat strikes again!
4 hours ago