Our February editorial was entitled “Violence, abortionist and anger.” We have received some letters of complaint about this editorial, the first part of which explained (but did not defend) why in the USA a number of abortion clinics have been bombed. The editorial ended as follows:
The pro-life movement represents people who refuse to accept this corruption of society. Their anger is the anger of the righteous. They seek ways to defend themselves, their families, their society against a growing flood of violence and idolization of violent people, such as Morgentaler, as cult heroes. Some in desperation and not knowing what else to do, have resorted to bombing abortion clinics.
This ending does not appear satisfactory to some of our readers. The truth of the matter is, it does not appear satisfactory to the editors of this paper. Well, you may say, why did you do it then? The answer, astonishing as it maybe is: we didn’t: there were three other paragraphs which should have been there but weren’t. We discovered this after the paper had been printed and we have no one but ourselves to blame because we are our own proofreaders.
Having discovered this omission, we decided to publish a new editorial, making our position clear. This appeared in the March issue.
Now, however, we feel that we should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind where this newspaper stands on the question of violence. Thus, admitting our embarrassment at failing to catch the omission which should have been obvious to any one of us-we bring you the three paragraphs. Please accept our apologies for leaving doubts in the minds of some of you on this important issue.
Violence cannot be overcome by more violence. In our society, resorting to physical resistance is permitted only as an act of justified personal self-defence. In all other cases relief must be sought through the law, the purpose of which is to preclude private acts of vengeance. In Canada the goal of pro-life is to work towards a consensus so that the 1969 parliamentary corruption of the law pertaining to the unborn can be repealed.
While waiting and working towards this goal, those angered by the legal and illegal lawlessness around them, both present and yet to come, must embark upon a new journey. This is the pilgrimage of learning how to survive and how to defend themselves and their families, living not merely in the midst of a threatening moral and intellectual disintegration, but even while face to face with the violent ones themselves. These, with the approval and sanction of many, have disguised themselves as progressive and enlightened.
This struggle for truth and justice cannot be done in private only; it must have a public character as well. The task will be formidable and efforts exhausting. Our future hope must reside in God’s help to guide and strengthen us. Our present duty, however is to act as if everything depends on the efforts of each of us.
