Richard Rohr, OFM, is a Franciscan Friar, a prolific author, and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation<\/a> (CAC), a CLN member group<\/a>. One major point made by CAC is that if we take action on nonviolence\u00a0 without contemplation, there\u2019s a danger we\u2019ll bring in ego-centered thoughts and unconstructive anger – which could end up doing more harm than good.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Richard has also been for many years an endorser of our Consistent Life Mission Statement<\/a>. As he put it:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n If we do not have a seamless garment of justice that applies to all of our relationships and all of society, we will not be taken seriously on any individual hot-button issue.\u00a0 If we do not seek and pursue justice across the board<\/em>, then any concerns for or against issues of abortion, homosexuality, immigration, women\u2019s rights, prison reform, opposition to war, etc., should and will be seen as a small rag that has been torn from any clean or consistent cloth of thinking.\u00a0 It is seen as mere self-interest or angry moralizing.<\/p>\r\n I went to a CAC conference, \u201cThe Universal Christ,\u201d on March 28-31, 2019. I expected there would be, as is normal with 2,300 attenders, a variety of opinions on the consistent life ethic, including people who\u2019d never heard of it. Richard Rohr expounded on the contemplation aspect. Most of the comment on action and specific issues of inclusion came from the Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis<\/a>, and she did an excellent job. Except for just a few deadly minutes.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In her first talk, she selected five areas of concern where people are being badly mistreated, and the first concerns that she mentioned I share.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Suddenly, she made a remark about how maybe government ought to more vigorously regulate Viagra and vasectomies \u2013 and said we knew where she was going with this.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Oh, yes. I knew. Her point was that if there are abortion regulations for women, then shouldn\u2019t we also regulate medicine specific to men?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n I\u2019ve heard this astonishing non-sequitur many times. I\u2019ve seen speakers think it was clever. Yet it completely ignores the actual point in contention. Given how thoughtful and well-reasoned the presentation had been up to this point, this sudden turn to sarcasm was by itself jarring to me.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n She quoted Jim Wallis of Sojourners<\/em> as saying he thought Trump was so bad that Christians couldn\u2019t justify voting for him even for the sake of a set of issues he listed, one of which was abortion. This left a one-sided impression of what Jim thinks.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Jim is another endorser of our Mission Statement<\/a>, and Sojourners is a member group.<\/a> And Jim has indeed been quite exercised about Trump, as has Richard Rohr, along with several others of our endorsers (and me). But he also said, in a piece called Politically Homeless<\/a>:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Moral issues of intrinsic concern to the faith community are often disregarded or disrespected by Democratic Party orthodoxy, which often takes extreme or overly strident views on issues like abortion. Many of us in the faith community regard abortion as a moral issue and part of a consistent ethic of life and seamless garment of concern for the many threats to human life and dignity. . . we find the Democrats even reluctant to make a commitment to reducing abortion by supporting women with health care, nutrition, and social services. Many in Democratic leadership don\u2019t seem to want to talk about or even being willing to use the word \u201creduction\u201d as a positive term in relation to abortion. . . . While a younger generation in the faith community is indeed more welcoming of LGBTQ people than their parents have been, they are not so welcoming of abortion as the Democratic elites seem to be, and the Democratic Party needs to figure that out.<\/p>\r\n Jacqui went on with the normal over-simplified rhetoric about how government shouldn\u2019t have control over women\u2019s bodies. As is customary, she was totally oblivious to what that assertion means: \u00a0women who\u2019ve felt traumatized by their abortions should be denied the right to petition their legislatures for a redress of their grievances. Their voices are discounted and excluded. \u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n But then came the assertion that set my heart to pounding and put tears in my eyes: she said while she\u2019d never had an abortion herself, if she had ever gotten pregnant and been told there was a disability, she\u2019d want to talk to her pastor about it and didn\u2019t want government interfering.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Dropped into the middle of a presentation stressing the importance of being inclusive of everybody, she expressed intense bigotry against people with disabilities. I\u2019d say one can\u2019t get much more bigoted than proclaiming it\u2019s acceptable to chop a child into pieces just because she has an unspecified disability. And this was her only mention of people with disabilities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Oh, but it\u2019s worse. When she said this, she got applause from the crowd.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n I was suddenly struck with this fear: Trump may win re-election because so many anti-Trump people are deliberately making themselves unattractive to tender-hearted people who are grieved over massive violence to millions of babies.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In a speech on inclusiveness, she had also deliberately excluded, by not even acknowledging that they exist, an entire category of human beings: unborn children. This is a category that every human being ever born has once fit into.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n I fear greatly that the practical effect of this kind of inconsistency, shared by many in the crowd and in the country, will benefit Trump. I think a good case could be made<\/a> that Trump would never have won the first election without it.<\/p>\r\n There were no literature tables, no leafleting allowed (I put a handful of our leaflets on one table where others had put theirs), and in the one short Q & A I was never able to get to the microphone in that huge crowd. I did have lengthy conversations with a staff person, who was sympathetic but couldn\u2019t offer me any method of redress beyond one-on-one conversations, and he accepted the two books I offered to donate for CAC\u2019s staff library. \u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In Jacqui\u2019s second session, she apologized if she had offended anybody. This at least had the advantage of communicating lack of unanimity.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n But she wanted to clarify her position. Her position was stated more humbly this time. But the apology was thereby turned into an opportunity to have yet more stage time for a \u201cpro-choice\u201d position. Unchallenged.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Genetic testing was mentioned, but the bulk was the normal argument about how women need a choice.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The case I\u2019d make (if I had a chance) is that this assertion actually helps patriarchy, by implying the absurd idea that only women who freely choose abortions are having them. It lets off the hook men who are pressuring, threatening, dictating, or withdrawing support. It helps them to do so self-righteously. \u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n I think the crowd was full of people who hadn\u2019t thought about that point, and would benefit greatly from having it brought to their attention. Instead, we had a bandwagon.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n This leads to another observation: the stark contrast between her abortion comments and the rest of what she said. She was normally speaking her own words, well thought out and innovative. Not words you\u2019d expect from just anybody, but what she herself says. Yet on abortion, she was using other people\u2019s words. I know because I\u2019ve heard them. Over and over. For decades. With such oversimplification, she struck me as stepping out of character. \u00a0<\/p>\r\n Without contemplation \u2013 either individual reflection or group discussion – there\u2019s a danger of ego-centered thoughts and unconstructive anger.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Is it ego-centered to declare the right not to give birth to a child with disabilities? What does this do to inclusiveness for born children and adults with disabilities? What does it say to the millions of people worldwide who regard being female as a disability<\/a>?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Is it unconstructive anger to demand that tender-hearted people vote differently, scolding them for regarding their concern as most important, when one hasn\u2019t spent time to understand where their angst is coming from?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Of course, I also fall prey to the ego-and-anger problem \u2013 I think we all do. But CAC is right to point out the dangers are very real.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n I\u2019m also not implying that the Democrats would be OK if only their abortion position changed. After all, Obama presided over modernizing nuclear weapons and civilian-killing drones. But Trump is on people\u2019s minds now as a major threat to peace, justice, and inclusion. \u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n One word I\u2019d use for a small bit of something toxic in a large positive set of justice proposals is poison. For so long, the abortion issue has been poison in the midst of peace advocacy. I think this incident is yet another illustration of this. \u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n ===========================================================<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Editor\u2019s Note: Dr. Lewis was sent a pre-publication copy of this post and asked if she wished to offer thoughts. Here is her response in full: <\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u201cRachel, it seems you disagree with me. I am pro-life and pro-choice and here is my talk:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CenterforActionandContemplation\/videos\/427055894770821\/<\/a>.\u00a0 Thank you.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n by Rachel MacNair Ego and Anger Richard Rohr, OFM, is a Franciscan Friar, a prolific author, and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC), a CLN member group. One major point made by CAC is that if we take action on nonviolence\u00a0 without contemplation, there\u2019s a danger we\u2019ll bring in ego-centered thoughts and… <\/p>\n\r\n
Daily Meditation<\/em>, November 19, 2010<\/cite><\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/1-blog-Rohr.jpg\")
Rachel at the CAC conference with a cardboard cut-out of Richard Rohr
The \u201cAction\u201d Part<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/1-blog-Lewis-1.jpg\")
\r\n\r\n
Sojourners<\/em>, January 4, 2018<\/cite><\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/1-blog-disabilities.jpg\")
<\/figure>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Apology <\/strong><\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Without Contemplation<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Dr. Lewis Responds<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/1-blog-Lewis-2-1.jpg\")
<\/figure>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"