|
August 2000
Letters
No right of defence?
I am surprised that, over these many months, there have been no reactions from your readers on the radically divergent views expressed by John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe and by Joan Andrews Bell regarding violence against abortionists. This silence of your readers is particularly astounding since your reporting of these views occupied almost two pages of your February issue. My conclusion is that your readers are either too confused or too afraid to react to these radically divergent views of prominent pro-lifers.
Anyone who, like John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, rejects even the possibility that the use of force can ever be morally justified to defend the lives of preborn children should honestly ask himself the following questions. In a situation where the use of force is the only way to prevent my born children from being murdered, would I have recourse to it? Or, with the broken heart of total non-violence, would I let the attacker step over me to murder my screaming children, one by one, in front of my eyes? In answer to the children's cries, "Daddy, save us," it does not help to answer, "I am appealing to the attacker's conscience with the broken heart of total non-violence so that he will gradually reform his ways."
The point in raising these queries is not to compare the moral justification of using force to defend the lives of born children and of preborn children - especially in a society where abortion is "legalized," the conditions to justify using force against it are very difficult to fulfill. The only point is that, if the person in question does not rule out force to defend his born children and yet denies the right even in principle to use force to defend the preborn, that person should ask himself, "Why?" Is this discrepancy not due to an attitude, at least on the subconscious level, that the preborn are not quite human and, hence, are not as deserving of defence as those who are born?
As regards, Joan Andrews Bell's statement (as reported), it drew no distinctions. Accordingly, her position, too, was an extreme position, totally opposed to the one of John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, and she also compromised the truth.
I have written an article in which I show why the positions, both of John Cavanaugh O'Keefe and of Joan Andrews Bell, are untenable. In the article, I show why one must affirm the right to defend the lives of the preborn. I also show that, particularly in this case of the preborn, the right of defense must be qualified with many distinctions and restrictions. However, no matter how accurately one expresses the truth, misrepresentation is always possible, particularly on such a complex and emotionally-charged issue - and especially if someone is motivated to misinterpret. Given the danger of harm done by misrepresentation, for now I am requesting that only this letter be printed. However, I do hope that some day a forum will be found to spell out, more in detail, the truth regarding the important matter of the right to defend the preborn.
Fr. Lawrence Abello, S.J.
Calcutta, India
Supports death penalty
Thank you for publishing Mrs. Racco's and Mr. Fohr's letters in the July issue of The Interim. It is good to get the points of view of other pro-lifers from back grounds and perspectives different from one's self. I must say however, I disagree with their assessment that to be pro-life you have to support gun control legislation and be opposed to the death penalty for convicted murderers.
Here in the West you will have to toss 90 per cent of the rural right-to-life movement out of your ranks if supporting Bill C-68 is going to be a requirement for being pro-life. We almost unanimously see the gun control
legislation as a waste of taxpayers money. It's an intrusion into law-abiding gun owners lives by big socialist government and something that will be more effective in penalizing duck hunters and farmers, rather than criminals.
As for the death penalty, I support Stockwell Day's decision to allow a free vote on whether or not Canadians want to put their convicted murderers to death. If Joseph Fredericks, Melvin Stanton and Clifford Olson were put to death promptly after receiving due process, untold amounts of suffering and death would have been averted. Is it pro-life to allow Fredericks, a convicted child killer, to live so that he can rape and murder more boys, 30 years later? Melvin Stanton murdered an elderly couple shortly after serving more than twenty years for the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl.
Good ol' Clifford will probably never see the light of day again but proves that even in prison unrepentant murderers can inflict pain and be dangerous. He's an ingenious fellow, as he has managed to get the names and addresses of some of his victims' families and to write them about the pleasure he derived from sodomizing and murdering their children.
While the Bible consistently condemns the shedding of innocent blood, it nowhere condemns the shedding of guilty blood. In fact God Himself told Noah when he established His covenant with him that, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God created man" (Gen. 9:6). With the exception of Pope John Paul II, most of the popes throughout church history supported capital punishment. Are they and most of the Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II not pro-life?
As an activist who has fought hard for the rights of the innocent preborn, elderly, and disabled, I affirm the life ethic that the innocent have a God-given right to live their lives to the fullest. As for violent men and women who choose to prey on the vulnerable and shed innocent blood, I say with no reservation at all, after a finding of guilt let them be put to death. I want no part of a pseudo pro-life movement that equates the value of a convicted murderer with that of an innocent preborn child. This type of thinking mitigates justice and ignores the suffering and potential risk that the murderer will pose to past and future innocent victims.
Bill Whatcott
Regina
Social Justice
Regarding Ted Gerk's confusion (June Interim) about Bishop Henry's concern that pro-life people (for the most part) are not concerned with other social justice issues, perhaps a statement by Archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil would help. He stated: "When I worked for the homeless, fed the hungry, and clothed the naked, they called me a saint; when I asked why so many were homeless, hungry, and naked, they called me a Communist." Charity and social justice are not the same, although both are necessary for the Christian. Mr. Gerk's charitable work consists of cleaning up the mess that unjust governments create by their un-Christian disregard for the common good of the people. We will answer before God if we blindly support such governments. It is my sense that our charitable works of mercy will do very little to save us if we insist on being blind (Jn 9:39-41). The prophet Micah calls us to love, mercy, and humility, but to work for social justice as well.
Miriam White
Regina
Sherlock's boss
Endless applause to Chuck Roche, president of Tillsonburg Right to Life, for his letter about the World March (The Interim, July 200). The distinctly Pauline charm of Mr. Roche's letter inspires fortitude against the spectacle of a bishop who publicly distances himself from the pro-life movement. So Bishop Sherlock doesn't like us! Never mind. His boss does. (See, for example, Evangelium vitae.) To borrow a phrase from Mr. Roche, personally I rejoice that I have a small place to call my own in the "ghetto" of pro-life work. I hope Bishop Sherlock knows he is always welcome to join us. The fatted calf is in the fridge, waiting.
Lise Anglin
Toronto
Pro-life healthcare
With interest I read Carl Scharfe's article, "The answer: Pro-life healthcare," in the July issue of The Interim. The article reminds me of a solution a healthcare insurance company in the Netherlands offers, a pro-life health insurance package. Unfortunately, Canada's medical health network doesn't work the way it does in the Netherlands. However, if the Canadian Alliance should become a reality, anti-abortion health insurance may become a real choice in the near future. We have, without our consent, funded the anti-life agenda for too many decades already. It would be great to financially practise real informed consent. You and I pay premiums to fund crisis pregnancy- and post-abortion counselling, life promoting bio-technology, and hospice care, to name a few. Opponents continue to pay for their priorities. They continue to have their choice, we finally have ours. It's as clear as politics and morality can get. Now let's start recruiting and see which side has the longest, healthiest, breath.
Marya van Beelen
Smithers, B.C.
Andrew inspires
What an inspiration Andrew Fournier is, as he treks across Canada for LIFE! I had the opportunity to meet Andrew when he joined pro-lifers in Ottawa for the March for Life 2000. He graciously accepted our invitation to speak at Halton Pro-Life's Annual Dinner, along with Campaign Life Coalition national president Jim Hughes and Campaign Life Coalition Youth director Tanya Granic.
Those in attendance at the dinner were treated to three very talented speakers. Andrew was the real surprise, though, because up until that night, he was a "man of few words" on the speaker's circuit. Not so, at our dinner. He delighted us with his wit and charm as he very articulately delivered the stories and the message of hope that the Pilgrimage for Life embodies.
While Andrew remained in Toronto recuperating from injuries, he again graciously and eagerly accepted an invitation at the last minute to speak to a group of diocesan youth leaders and many youth people in Guelph. Once again, his audience was treated to his animated stories of the dogs in Quebec, the bear in the forest and the close call with a transport truck, along with the truly inspiring story of how Andrew came to the decision to be a Pilgrim for Life.
I am blessed to have had the opportunity to spend time with Andrew. I have been personally inspired to do more for the cause of life as a result of his dedication and determination to make a difference. He has endured much suffering - the blisters, the loneliness, the spiritual attacks - and yet he continues.
My daily prayer for Andrew is that he be strengthened by the knowledge of the support of many (indeed, all pro-lifers) and that he will be able to complete the Pilgrimage - because that is what Andrew wants. But, whether Andrew does finish or not, he is a hero in my eyes already. He has responded to the call. He is doing his part. Let's continue to do our part - and more!
Joanne Matters
President, Halton Pro-Life
Burlington, Ont.
|
