Truth hard to hear when war cries sound
Tragedy could create platform for joint action
A mudslide of rhetoric threatens to overwhelm the genuine tragedy of two lives lost last month to savage, senseless murder. The beating death of Matthew Shepard, a gay student in Wyoming, and the assassination of Dr. Barnett Slepian, an abortion provider in New York, have given activists in the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual rights movements claim to moral high ground. Many are loathe to squander the advantage.
Outspoken Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, a longtime advocate of gay rights in the church, says he was surprised when his offer to assist a gay and lesbian organization with a memorial service for Shepard was declined. Christianity killed Shepard, he was told.
On reflection, Spong agreed, citing statements from Pope John Paul II, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Anglican bishops and a wide variety of Christian voices opposing homosexual practice. "All Christians must live with the judgment of the homosexual community on the church because, painful as it is to realize, their charges are accurate," says Spong.
Just how does moral censure of certain activities provide license to kill? We are told that the power of words to influence the action of ideologues and followers underlies the current violence. Words are very important, but they lose meaning when stretched out of shape. One wag responding to Spong’s assertions wondered if Alcoholics Anonymous is responsible for the death of every alcoholic rolled outside a bar? This is not a profitable discussion.
Truth is often hard to hear, and it becomes even more difficult when war cries are sounding.
Paul Schratz, editor of The B.C. Catholic, certainly discovered that after his November 2 editorial hit the stands. In "Killing abortionists won’t bring an end to violence," Schratz included a short section that wrestled with the theological possibility that some good conceivably could come from the murder of an abortionist. Those two sentences put Schratz on the hotseat; articles appeared in the Vancouver papers and spread across the country when the Globe and Mail and National Post picked up the story.
The backlash was immediate and strong. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the dean of abortion rights in Canada, predictably labeled the editorial "disgusting" and accused it of "inciting murder and violence against doctors who provide abortions." Mario Cosillo, who runs an abortion clinic in Toronto, began orchestrating a demand for a criminal investigation of the editorial under Canada’s hate laws. Judy Hecht of the Pro-Choice Action Network said the editorial amounted to "a licence to kill."
Actually, it didn’t. It was left to Schratz’s boss, Archbishop Adam Exner, to try to deal with the media brouhaha. While acknowledging that the section wasn’t well-worded and as such was open to misinterpretation, Exner rightly pointed out that the weight of the editorial condemns violent activity. Indeed, seven times in the article Schratz makes the point that murdering abortionists is wrong, quoting two cardinals and the Catholic catechism in the process. To their credit, most of the news articles carried balanced comment. Several editorials tut-tutted Schratz for imprudence and poor timing, but affirmed the right of all to speak their minds on moral issues.
Time and place
Not bad advice for all concerned. Emotions are volatile in the aftermath of tragedy, and it’s more important at that time to show sorrow and sympathy than to carry on an argument.
Timing is important, and it would be helpful to realize that tragedy can lead to unity as well as to division. Wouldn’t this be a prime opportunity for pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-family groups to issue joint statements condemning vigilantism and violence?
Despite profound disagreement on particular issues, at this time the mainstream of each of these movements ought to be able to stand together against savagery.
Doug Koop
Editor
