Kathleen Reeves doesn't want to understand the Church

I was virtually introduced to the writing of Kathleen Reeves when someone forwarded me a post by her on RHReality Check (those folks behind the "common ground" forum I've been monitoring lately). Kathleen writes that "Jill Stanek Doesn't Want to Prevent Abortions."

That's a surprising claim to make, considering Stanek converted to the pro-life movement after holding an expiring child in her arms until the little baby died. The child, of course, was a "survivor" of a later term abortion.

My point is, it takes some serious nerve to claim a registered nurse, who has held dying babies in her arms, doesn't want to prevent abortions. Really, how dare Kathleen claim such a thing?

(So much for common ground.)

Kathleen, it's pretty clear, doesn't have arguments of her own when it comes to debating issues surrounding abortion and contraception. What we get, instead, are amateur conclusions like this:

But there’s something much more immediate and practical in [Stanek's] refusal to consider contraception a “lesser evil.” If she did, she would be admitting that she, and all religious fundamentalists, are wrong. She would be ceding ground to safe sex, to free condoms in bars, to Planned Parenthood! Let’s not forget that even Jill Stanek, with her superior knowledge of Satan’s works, is human. She has her pride to think of.

Let me get this straight: all religious "fundamentalists" think contraception and abortion are equal evils? Okay, that's an easy one: Kathleen is wrong about that claim. Moving on: even if contraception is a "lesser" evil, it *does not follow* that anything *less* than murder (such as contraception) should be promoted! In other words, just because something isn't the most evil thing in the world does not mean it should be accepted ... especially when it leads to worse evils.

Stanek, therefore, cedes absolutely no ground when she says in the same breath (my phrasing): don't abort children because it's taking an innocent life, and don't use contraception because it's immoral and in fact leads to a culture of death which will always require abortions to clean up its "mistakes." Does Kathleen truly believe America is critically lacking in access to contraception? Does she believe a culture that has already severed sex from new life will ever rule out destroying new life once it has been conceived through sex?

(Sadly, I'm betting Kathleen can't understand such a logical argument.)

Let's shift gears a bit - Kathleen claims that Jill Stanek doesn't want to prevent abortions (without, mind you, ever mentioning why Kathleen herself thinks abortions should be prevented ... is she ready to admit something is "wrong" about abortions? Whoops, there I go asking logical questions again!).

Well, here's a claim back at her: Kathleen doesn't want to understand the pro-life movement. In particular, when it comes to the question of contraception and abortion, she does not want to understand the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Instead, she makes a point of attacking the Church and the Church's teachings in almost every one of her posts on RH Reality Check. I found many such posts simply by looking at the first paragraph of her recent pieces.

(Remember my frequently-stated lament: anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.)

I'll take just a few lines from each one of these posts:

• "As in America, religious people are capable of forming political or social beliefs independently from clerical influence." (discussing the role of the Catholic Church in Spain)
• "Indeed, the Catholic hierarchy’s distance from the experiences of American Catholics is exacerbated by the Catholic Church’s specific version of patriarchy. How does it feel as a woman (or as a man) to have a celibate man tell you about sexuality?" ("Contraception and Catholics: Quiet Disobedience")
• "Tolerance, apparently, is Enemy Number 1, especially in places where the Catholic Church’s sphere of social and political influence is intact, but waning." ("Catholic Aid Organization's Subversive Support of Latin Americans")
  
• "Would [the leaders of the Church], in the spirit of pragmatism and compassion, allow at least a dialogue about contraception?" ("When the Catholic Church Was Pragmatic, Not Doctrinal")
  
• "The suggestion that American bishops should have a greater political presence is offensive to me as an American and as a Catholic. Many Americans have a complex, nuanced relationship with their faith, and Catholics, like non-Catholics, are capable of holding political views. Gaynor’s implication that political power lies in the Catholic hierarchy rather than in Catholics will only alienate the faithful. His is the type of attitude that’s threatening to make the Church extinct." ("The New Inquisition")
• "I wish that the Catholic Church was free of the constraints that so often impede governments—the messy and sad trade-offs of national and international politics. But it’s clear that we can’t count on the Pope to take a daring stand on this issue." ("With the Future of a Continent in His Hands, the Pope Fumbles")
• "... as we bicker about gay marriage in the United States and as many gay couples travel to the two states in which same-sex marriage is recognized, gay couples have been marrying in Spain for four years. The Catholic Church was ticked off at that, too." ("Catholic Crusaders No More")

... and that's just a start. 

It's hard to find common ground with someone who evidently despises the authentic teaching of the Church and doesn't even attempt to understand it or give it the benefit of the doubt. Can you imagine if RH Reality Check was attempting to reach common ground over territorial disputes in the Holy Land and employed virulent anti-semites (or ex-jews who despise the jewish tradition) to make its rhetorical and practical arguments?

There's a lesson to be learned here, I think, even though it requires me to paint with a broad brush: militant pro-aborts who call for "common ground" sound awfully similar to bad Catholics who call for doctrinal dissent. Oftentimes (again, painting with a broad brush here), they are the same individuals. 

I'm waiting for a common ground that doesn't compromise my principled, non-negotiable commitment to building a culture of life and defending the unborn, as taught by the Church and is evident through reason.