Do Graphic Abortion Images Help Or Hurt The Pro-Life Cause? UPDATED

Image taken from CCBR site

Yesterday was a busy day. While I was protesting abortion outside another local parish, a young Catholic man greeted me, passed by my sign and without travelling too far, turned about and returned to speak to me. He was quite disturbed about the graphic abortion picture which I was displaying. He explained to me that he was actually the leader of one of the local Catholic pro-life groups but that he had learned to get past the extremism of graphic imagery and to take a more compassionate view when dealing with people on the subject.  He told me that he was currently dealing with a “poor” woman who had had an abortion and who was attending Mass there at that parish today. He thought that my sign might destroy some of the good work he was doing in embracing her, welcoming her back to the community and evangelizing her. He was hoping to direct this woman to the Archdiocesan Counselling Center where she might get some help in overcoming the trauma of her past abortion but he saw my approach as detracting from, possibly undoing altogether, his efforts. He pointed out that the Bible doesn’t tell us we should show pictures of aborted children. Moreover, he said, the Bible also doesn’t tell us we should go around offending people.

Much has been written on the use of graphic abortion imagery in turning the hearts of society towards the plight of unborn children. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) continues to do outstanding work in providing an apologetic for their use of such imagery. By following this link you will discover one of a great many of their arguments. Another link dismantles the pro-abortion charge that graphic pictures traumatize small children. Their apologetics arsenal on the use of graphic images is immense and worth exploring in greater detail.

I have written several posts on the subject myself. Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue wrote an apologetic for the use of graphic images, including a special section addressing the arguments against subjecting children to the images. Abort73, a great resource, has a concise rationale for the use of these images as well.

I would like to have had more time in discussion with the young Catholic man I mentioned above. In fact, I would be glad to have an open debate with him and his young pro-life friends on the subject of graphic abortion imagery.

One final note: There is an interesting expression found in Western society, “The law is teacher.” We learn much from our laws. In Canada we have no current law respecting abortion. When no law exists to limit an evil action it becomes extremely difficult for individuals to comprehend the depth of evil and injustice associated with that action. Regardless of the objective facts, a huge, almost insurmountable, obstacle prevents individuals from grasping or acknowledging the true severity of the crime evil action. Thus, the unborn child (sometimes even the newborn child) in Canada has a sort of phantom, uncertain identity which precludes the possibility of placing them on the same moral level as other children. We just don’t rate them as equal human beings (again, because the law is teacher, and teaches us that we can “dispose” of them). The young Catholic gentleman to whom I referred above said not a word about the murdered child. He saw only the “poor” woman, the only survivor of the crime evil action, and yet the only individual who had full power to prevent the murder of her child. But when he saw the graphic abortion image, immediately the “phantom” vanished and he was forced to see the awful reality of a dead human being. Instinctively, I believe, he feared this is also what the woman would see in that graphic image. His heart was certainly in the right place but he was missing a key perspective on showing the truth.

UPDATED:

I’d like to comment further on a couple of things this Catholic pro-life gentleman stated.

Since the woman was at the very center of this man’s argument for not showing the pictures, I would like to say from my heart that my actions in protesting abortion and in using the tactics that I do, are in no way opposed to the following statement by Blessed Pope John Paul II from his encyclical "Gospel of Life":

“I would like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors that may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that, in many cases, it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly, what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try, rather, to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitely lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living with the Lord” (99).

Now on to a couple other points: I was told that Jesus nowhere instructed us to use graphic abortion pictures. True, but only in the literal sense. Jesus didn’t specifically tell us to take that approach. However, He left us a powerful example.  “The cross itself was a bloody, public image of incredible brutality.” The linked article is very insightful and worthy of the reader’s attention.

Further, Jesus did not prescribe in great detail what every man and woman should do to lead their daily lives of faith and obedience. We are to obey His commandments, certainly, as well as the commandments of His Church, but beyond that each believer must listen attentively to the Holy Spirit, Who will lead us in love to do the will of God. Thank God no two believers act exactly the same in trying to live out a life of holiness. If someone maintains that actions of Christians that lead to offense by others is always an indication of a lack of love, that is a ridiculous over-simplification. If true, it would make Jesus out to be a loveless fraud. When Jesus confronted people in their sin, it was often accompanied by great offense, but Jesus, the incarnation of Love itself, and out of love, chose not to allow people to continue in their sin.

Another point I’d like to make regards the question of murder. I noted to my fellow pro-lifer that everything on my signs was 100% faithful to the Catholic Catechism. He agreed but took issue with my approach. I’m sure he would agree that abortion is murder because it not only fulfils the formal definition of murder but the Catechism places it in the context of murder and Popes have specifically called it murder. So when he protests the showing of the image of a murdered 10 week old baby and voices concern about the harm it will do to the woman, it leads to an obvious question: If the woman had murdered her neighbour, would he protest to the court that gruesome pictures of the victim not be shown as they would certainly hamper the rehabilitation of the “poor” woman? Here is where we normally hear the common retort: But it’s not the same thing! What exactly is not the same? Is it our understanding of murder? Clearly not, because we all know well the implications of that word. Is it our understanding of the victim? YES. OF COURSE. Any human being killed intentionally by an attacker is tried in our courts for murder and courts regularly use graphic photos of victims as “truth” evidence in administering the full scope of justice. Don’t the pictures add their own special, unique dimension to the truth of the heinous crime perpetrated? So we have identified where the disconnect lies: The murdered child is said to be human but in reality believed to be something less than human, i.e. dehumanized in our thinking. That is why “It’s not the same thing!” But doesn’t God, who at conception says Amen! and breathes a soul into that little one,  consider the child fully human? Yes, of course, and the Church says so. So why should we hold a distinction in our minds and hearts?

One final thought that at times comes to me in regard to assessing the actions necessary to put an end to abortion can be summed up with a quote from a letter I once sent to a Canadian Bishop:

Further to the subject of disrespect of remains, etc. and admittedly on a hypothetical note, wouldn’t the Unborns involved have given their permission to take and to show pictures if done in an effort to save their fellows from equally horrid deaths? One could not imagine an answer in the negative. Is not true respect for these precious little souls best shown by a respect for what is very likely their last wishes? At memorial services for those we love, we regularly use this same criterion in determining the method of honouring their life and memory.

Personally I often find myself asking a very simple question when in doubt about a course of action in defense of the Unborn. When courage is questioned, when persecution looms, when clear thinking seems elusive, the difficulty can often be resolved by asking: What would the Unborn have me do in such a situation? In virtually all cases the answer immediately presents itself and all peripheral issues fade away. Would the Unborn want the CCBR to represent them in the fashion they do, despite the fact that perhaps no other group takes a similar approach? Obviously the answer would depend on whether the Unborn saw hope for their cause from the efforts of CCBR. I believe even a short analysis of the work of CCBR and a reading of the testimonies of the many individuals won to the plight of the Unborn by CCBR will attest to the effectiveness of their tactics and so I say a resounding Yes! The cause of justice for the Unborn is being well served by CCBR and the Unborn would encourage such efforts.

Always I am challenged deeply, yet often inspired, by the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae.

(#73) “Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them [emphasis mine] by conscientious objection.

“It is precisely from obedience to God -- to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of His absolute sovereignty -- that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for ‘the endurance and faith of the saints’ (Rev 13:10).”

(#90) “I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person's natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law.”

Yes, challenging, because I must ask myself: If my obligation to oppose them is “grave and clear,” what actions must accompany an obedient attitude? Certainly this would demand serious steps. The matter of “obedience to God” to the point of imprisonment or at the risk of physical injury speaks to the seriousness of these crimes and to the seriousness of my response as a Christian.

Much controversy over the use of graphic images has taken place in Canada in recent years. Even the pro-life movement seems unsure and timid at times. I hope my comments will help us all get on the same page so we can stop the killing.

Pro-Lifer Assaulted And Knocked To Ground Outside Catholic Church UPDATED!

In my previous posting a few hours ago I described what happened to me earlier this morning at St. Patrick's Church. Here's a short video of the incident.

I was strangely reluctant this morning to get out and do my regular protests at the parishes in St. John's area. Mostly I think this was a result of the troubling comments made recently by Pope Francis. Immediately that I read the transcript of his remarks I thought to myself that he has just made it doubly difficult now for anyone on the frontlines in the culture wars. Not only will we get the usual flack and venom from the secular side but we'll also have liberal Catholics and dissidents of all stripes reminding us that we "obsess" too much over abortion, contraception, etc....according to none other than the Pope.

Even before my day started, the psychological and spiritual damage from the Pope's words were, for me, quite significant. I predict there may well be a serious backlash to pro-life efforts on a widespread basis. I am not directly blaming the Pope for the attack which I endured today but I will simply say that considering I suffered a vicious attack from a fellow Catholic, I expect that future attacks from this quarter will be even more probable. In fact I was truly expecting some Catholics today to mock my protest using the Pope's words! It didn't happen today but I guarantee it will sometime soon.

By the way, the Catholic man who assaulted me today accused me of being "on our property" but in fact my sign, which is six feet wide, was about half way on the sidewalk and half way off the sidewalk. It was a crude and cheap way for him to try to justify his violent behaviour.

UPDATE 1:

I filed a report today with the local police, providing them with my videotape as well as still shots of the perpetrator and at least 6-8 witnesses, all of whom, by the way, were content to watch the vicious assault without saying a word or offering help when I was lying on the road. One gentleman did approach me after the assault and indicated that he had witnessed the event and that he was prepared to corroborate what took place if I required a witness. I later learned that he attends St. Patrick’s Church and is actually a local police officer, although he did not know the thug who attacked me.

I explained to the officer at police headquarters today that I was prepared to press the matter to the limit of the law for two reasons. Firstly, it was a vicious crime which came not only suddenly but with violent force and entirely without provocation. Also the potential outcome of the assault was extremely serious.  Fortunately I am a 63 year old man in very good physical shape without any disabilities which means that my body withstood the hard impact of the road without serious injury. All I have today is a bruise on my knee, a sore shoulder and some numbness and weakness in my right arm which took the major force of the fall. Had my physical health been poor, I suspect I would have sustained broken bones or back injury or even head impact. It is entirely possible that an ambulance would have been required. Furthermore, I was shoved into the actual path of traffic and landed where the wheels of traffic would have traveled. There was normal Sunday traffic that day and I could quite possibly have been struck or run over while on the road.

Secondly, I explained to the officer, I protest regularly throughout the St. John’s area, not only at churches but at other sites as well. I take a good degree of abuse every time I carry a sign, from cursing to spitting to throwing stones to the one finger salute and every possible and colourful epithet imaginable. But never before have I endured such a despicable, cowardly attack, one with potentially life threatening consequences. The person responsible must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if for no other reason than as an example so that other similar minded thugs will not be encouraged to do the same to me or to some other peaceful, law abiding citizen. As far as animosity is concerned I can honestly say I have forgiven the man and I do indeed pity such a poor cowardly wretch. But forgiveness and justice are two different things.

UPDATE 2:

On another note, I tweeted out my experience at St. Patrick’s Church to my Twitter followers as well as sending direct tweets to LifeSiteNews , LifeNews and ChurchMilitant.TV. (Check out my Twitterfeed in column to the right.) So far it appears that none of them are interested in following up on the story. I haven’t heard back from any of them and none of my tweets have been retweeted, favorited or otherwise passed along. I find that to be more than a little surprising. I thought a pro-lifer being assaulted and knocked to the ground for protesting abortion would be news worthy....more so being outside a Church and perpetrated by a fellow Catholic. But I must be mistaken I guess. Maybe this sort of thing happens all the time and nobody says anything. Could it be the graphic abortion sign that troubles them or could it be the message against contraception in the pews that scares off pro-life media? I'd really like to know. Come on now, I'm a big boy, I can take the truth. 

Canada: Get Your Eyes Open

Today I left in the morning as usual to protest at several parishes in St. John's area with abortion signage.

At St. Patrick's Church I was standing on the sidewalk with my usual signage when a well dressed gentleman strolled towards me and when he was about 15 feet away he yelled out: "Get that sign off our property" and by that time he was at the edge of my sign and then gave it a huge shove. Since I was holding up the sign, I went with it and before I could even think about what was happening he took advantage of me being off balance and gave me a big push out onto the road. Basically I went flying and hit the ground hard, fortunately not on my head. However, more fortunately still, no traffic was coming my way or it could have been lights out.

I picked myself up, got my hat and picked up my sign and within a minute or two was back to my spot. The man had gone into the Church by that time. But I didn't have to call the police. Someone in the Church had already called the police and said there had been a confrontation with an anti-abortion protester. Nice twist, eh? The police soon arrived.

When the police arrived I had to clear up that confusion and explain that the confrontation was 100% on the other side. I didn't know the man nor did I say a word to him. I have the proof because I videotape all my protest events. As I explained to the police I will be processing my video and will be filing a formal complaint to lay charges.

More to come.

Canada, do you see what you are becoming? When the ones who expose the violence become the targets of new violence? And that violence is perpetrated by well dressed Catholics minutes away from Mass who take offense that you are "on our property."

The Catholic Church of Nice is Dying On The Vine

Pat Robertson Gets A Smack Down on Contraception

Ouch! Pat Robertson stepped into the hot subject of contraception recently. Michael Voris sets the record straight and takes advantage of the situation to expose a major weakness of Protestantism.

The Mass Explained By Catholic Convert, Former Evangelical Pastor

Entertaining and instructive video from Catholic convert Michael Cumbie, former Protestant, Evangelical pastor, now a lay Catholic evangelist. Worth the watch.

Question: "Since Billy Graham Is Not Catholic, Do You Believe He Will Be Saved?"

Response from John Martignoni, Bible Christian Society

Very interesting question there about Billy Graham being saved or not.  But, even though it is an interesting question, it is the wrong question to be asking.  I understand that we, as Catholics, can look around us and see many Baptists, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and so on who, from all appearances, seem to be sincere and devout followers of Christ in accord with the teachings of Christ as they understand them.  They go to church every Sunday, and many every Wednesday, too.  They read their Bibles, they seem to love their families, they volunteer at various charities that help the poor and the oppressed...they just seem like all-around good folks.  But, what we need to remember, just as it is not within our authority to condemn anyone to Hell, so it is not within our authority to canonize anyone as a saint of Heaven, either.

No matter how good someone may seem on the outside to us, we have absolutely no way of judging the interior of their heart - that is the province of God, and God alone.  When speaking about judgment, particularly about his judgment, St. Paul said, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.  It is the Lord who judges me.  Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart,” (1 Cor 4:4-5).

St. Paul did not even judge himself, because he recognized that it is the Lord’s place to judge man - good or bad - not man’s place.  I want to expand on this by looking at that question about Billy Graham.  Will Billy Graham be saved, even though he is not Catholic?  I think many people, including many Catholics, would say, “Oh, absolutely.  What a good and holy man Billy Graham is.  He obviously loves Jesus. Look at all the revivals he’s done in his life.  Look at all the people he has brought to Christ.  Surely Billy Graham is on his way to Heaven!”  And I believe anyone who thinks that way is doing a great disservice to Billy Graham.

Why do I say that?  First of all, as already mentioned, it is not our place to judge.  Second of all, do we have all the facts with which to make such a judgment?  Have many people come closer to Christ because of Billy Graham?  Undoubtedly so.  But, have many Catholics left the Catholic Church because of Billy Graham?  We cannot be sure, but for the sake of argument, lets say that there are Catholics who have left the Catholic Church because of Billy Graham - I would be willing to bet that many have, whether he knowingly pulled them out or not.   Which would mean, while he has brought some closer to Christ, he may have actually helped to pull some away from Christ.  For any Catholic who leaves the Eucharist has moved away from Christ.  

Also, Billy Graham is a very intelligent man and a very learned man, so it is reasonable to assume that he is aware of what the Catholic Church teaches - about the priesthood, about the Sacraments, about Mary, about the Pope, and so on.  Yet, since he isn't Catholic, he quite obviously rejects those teachings and he quite obviously rejects the authority of the Pope and the Church.  Jesus tells His disciples, “He who rejects you, rejects Me,” (Luke 10:16).  Is Billy Graham rejecting Christ by rejecting the Church founded by Christ and by rejecting those who have been appointed to lead the Church of Jesus Christ?  We are not in a position to know the answer to that question, but these are all questions we need to ponder before we canonize the man.  

So, why do I say it is a disservice to the man to believe he is well on his way to Heaven?  Because by doing so, we are essentially saying that Billy Graham is just fine, thank you, without the Eucharist, without the Sacrament of Reconciliation, without the Communion of Saints, without the priesthood, without recognizing Mary as his mother, and so many more treasures of the Catholic Church.  So, since we assume he’s just fine as is, we assume there is no need to try and evangelize him.  And that is doing him a disservice.  That’s why I said at the earlier that asking whether or not Billy Graham (or anyone else) is saved, even though not Catholic, is the wrong question to ask.  The question we should be asking is: “Would Billy Graham have a better chance of being saved by receiving the Eucharist?  Yes or no?”  

That is the proper question to ask about Billy Graham, or about anyone else who is not currently Catholic.  The answer to that question, is “Yes!”  Everyone who is not currently receiving the Eucharist would be better off by receiving it.  So, our question regarding the non-Catholic should not be: “Are they saved” - that’s a question that is beyond our pay grade - our question, rather, should be: “Would they have a better chance of being saved by receiving the Eucharist?” Since the answer to that question is, “Yes,” then the next question we need to ask is: Are we are doing everything we can to bring those who currently do not receive the Eucharist into the Catholic Church so that they, too, may become “partakers of the divine nature,” (2 Peter 1:4)?