What?

As much as I respect Dr. Edward Peters, I find his personal reflections in reaction to Fr. Pavone's latest statement to be utterly off the mark. In fact, there were portions that had me shaking my head in disbelief. Clearly, this man--for all his good intentions--has very little concept of the complete tragedy and sickening evil that is abortion. He even claims the distress Fr. Pavone experiences daily over this grave evil is no different from the distress the average parent feels over raising children. Really? I suppose I could see the comparison--if your children are in danger of being hacked apart limb from limb by a doctor, with the consent of the government, for no other reason than that their mother doesn't want them.

Fr. Pavone wrote:

The images of their mangled bodies accompany me to sleep and greet me when I awake; the cries of their silent voices mingle in my ears with the voices of those who speak to me; their aggrieved rights come to the forefront of my mind when anyone’s “rights” are discussed.

And Dr. Peters' response?

Well, if that's true, Father, then you need some time off. I mean it. If the last thoughts through your mind each night are not ones of gratitude that the Lord gave you another day on this earth, but only mangled bodies, and if the first thing you think of each morning is not His assured triumph over every evil, but more mangled bodies, then, you need some time off.

For heaven's sake. I am at a loss.

Change the scenario. Let's say a 1940s priest ministering to Jews at Auschwitz expressed the same thoughts as Fr. Pavone. Would Dr. Peters dare to respond so glibly, so patronizingly to such horrors?

And yet abortion is a far graver evil than what took place at Auschwitz.

There are souls who are called in a special way to fight this great injustice, courageous souls who have taken bullet after bullet, slander, opposition for these most innocent victims, and who are willing to die for them. And yet some canon lawyer decides to weigh in, whose own personal contribution to fighting this war is not publicly known, and offer off-base commentary that does nothing to help the situation.

At one point, the canon lawyer counsels, "Okay, fine, let’s do set aside the righteous rhetoric."

Yes, Dr. Peters, let's do.

On a related note:Dr. Peter Kreeft responds to the withdrawal of some Canadian bishops from a pro-life event when they could not guarantee that graphic images of abortion would not be shown.

"What is wrong with exposing people to the truth?" Kreeft proposed. "Suppose you were allowed to show the horrors in Auschwitz to the average German citizen. It might have toppled Hitler earlier. If something horrible is happening, covering it up is more horrible."

Kreeft said that the images are "probably going to be illegal. You'll probably be thrown in jail."

He then recounted a story about a pro-life activist who picketed with a graphic image as President Bill Clinton entered the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, and was arrested despite being well outside the 10-foot limit.

"None of the TV cameras filmed that incident. Well, if a hundred people did that, the TV cameras would have to film it," he said. "If a hundred bishops marched with those pictures and got thrown in jail, the newspapers would have to headline '100 bishops thrown in jail'."

"That would be wonderful," he continued. "Not because I hate bishops, because I love them."