Mark Shea has a great little post on "asking questions." His post is, of course, closely related to the Church's teaching about the supremacy of conscience in making moral decisions. Namely, the conscience is the ultimate thing which we must obey, but that conscience must be informed--indeed, it must go through formation in general. That does, of course, involve asking questions, but all to often the questions are not exactly innocent:

"And yet the mildly perceptive reader can't help but notice that such a line of questioning has a certain goal in mind, a certain point that is being made, a certain, 'ow you say?, agenda?

Likewise, questions which, when piled up, tend always to be frog-marching us in the direction of 'How close can I get to committing grave evil?' while studiously ignoring 'How can I avoid the near occasion of sin?' also accumulate and form a rather obvious mosaic."

The same is all-too-often true about people who hide behind their consciences as reason for condoning--indeed, participating in--matters of grave evil. For example, there may really exist some Catholics who really do deep down in their conscience believe that abortion is not murder and that it is thus morally permissible. Some of them may even join groups such as Catholics for Choice, but they would be in the minority in any such group.

After all, if conscience is supreme--Catholics for Choice claim that it is--then why oppose conscience protection clauses for health care works? I suppose that their consciences don't actually count. Why do so many people who claim to be pro-"choice" spend so much time and energy fighting off those who work so hard to provide alternatives to abortion? I'm talking about crisis pregnancy centers on the one hand, prayerful picketers and peaceful sidewalk counselors on another, and even such volunteer programs as Project Gabriel--an assistance program for women who face a crisis pregnancy and yet want to keep their child--on yet another hand (I seem to have run out of hands here). Why is there so much opposition to informed consent and to sonograms--including opposition to voluntary sonogram-viewing? And to parental notification laws? And why must abortion be federally funded? Apparently the consciences of those who oppose abortion don't count here, either.

Why, for that matter, is there so often outrage that these questions are asked? Because they do not fit into the agenda. That Thomas Aquinas believed in ensoulment after 40 days can be used to support abortion (oddly enough, Aquinas was opposed to abortion at all stages, including before ensoulment). That the pro-abortion folks at Catholics for Choice have embraced a philosophy of "freedom of conscience for me but not for thee" with regards to health care workers who oppose abortion can only be used to show the hypocrisy of the folks running Catholics for Choice; these same folks purport to stand for the right to exercise one's conscience, after all.

Of course, the people asking the kinds of not-so-innocent questions repeated by Shea generally have guilty consciences already. If this seems like an unfair charge to level, then I suggest the following. Go to any college campus, or park, or public sidewalk. Silently stand where you are visible but not impeding anyone, and hold the most bland and gentle pro-life sign that you can. It can read "Choose life," or "I'm pro-life," or 'Abortion is mean." Count how many people walk up to you, heckle and harass you, and count how vitriolic some of these people are. Try the same with anything else you like--save possible "protect marriage"--and you will not draw anywhere so near so hostile a reaction from a number of those who purport to be pro-"choice." Economics, politics, gun laws, even sports--none of these will draw the same kind of reaction as abortion.

Why is that? Because choosing the wrong tax system or gubernatorial candidate--even rooting for the wrong sports team--does not wound the conscience in quite the same way as publicly supporting the most barbaric form of murder: abortion.