Two months ago I related what might be called “The Sad Saga of the Pro-Life Postcards” or “How to Get Thumped in Your Own Church!” Soon after that experience (and I am still waiting patiently for a reply to my letter to our temporary Rector) another bombshell hit: the Canadian Churchman, which is the “National Newspaper for the Anglican Church of Canada”, published what must be the most shocking, disgusting Christmas editorial in history. While Anglicans all over Canada prepared to celebrate the birth of the Babe in Bethlehem, the Canadian Churchman’s message was “Kill! Kill! Kill!”
A strong message
There were in fact two editorials, one entitled, “Christmas: a time for faith, hope and love” and the other entitled “Morgentaler verdict shows abortion law must be changed.” In stark contrast to the first, the second editorial stated: “ The Toronto jury which last month acquitted Dr. Henry Morgentaler of the charge of conspiring to procure a miscarriage has sent a strong message to the federal Government… the six men and women forming the jury agreed with Dr. Morgentaler when he said that he opened his abortion clinics in order to provide a necessary medical service for women; to protect their life, health and dignity; and to prevent them being subjected to what he termed ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.” There followed a series of harrowing examples – including one of a woman who traveled by bus from the Atlantic region, stopping in every major city along the way, seeking an abortion. She was 21 weeks pregnant when she reached Toronto, and “had to borrow money to go to New York City for the procedure.” It happened that as I read the editorial, I had on my desk a brochure showing colour pictures of two 21-week babies, one born and alive and the other aborted and dead. That same day I heard that there were not one, not two, but three babies in the Vancouver General of 22-week gestation, all doing very nicely, thank you. There was recently a picture of a dear, lively little two-year-old Vancouverite with her mother and beside it a picture taken shortly after her birth at 24-weeks – it took a lot of nursing and TLC but how wonderful that she is now running around enjoying the life denied to so many little ones like those mentioned in the editorial. I couldn’t help wishing that the mother in the editorial had had the compassion, sympathy and support that would have allowed her child to live.
(Adding insult to injury, the paper on its front page announced the decision of the Anglican House of Bishops wherein they reiterated their stand on capital punishment with the rider that “we cannot be content with an answer that responds to violence with more violence. An answer which destroys human life cannot enhance the respect for, and quality of, life in our society.” How’s that for double-speak!)
The Churchman, in its wisdom, then gave these three recommendations, with the hope that Parliament would now change the current law: 1. “that abortions should be available to all women, regardless of the region where they live, whether through a hospital or an accredited freestanding clinic;” 2. “ a woman should be able to get an abortion with the minimum of delay. The process of obtaining a legal abortion should not, as it does at present, put her health at risk. The bottlenecks that currently exist must be removed;” 3. “hospital abortion committees should be re-examined, and the reason for their existence more clearly defined.”
Any concern here for the person in utero?
Finally, the editorial wound up with : “In many areas of the law, society leads and the legislators follow. The Morgentaler juries have given the legislators a clear indication of where society is leading. It is up to them now to follow.”
Did you detect a single word of concern for the small person in utero? Not one. I was personally appalled, more than that , sickened, that the Church I love should sanction such a policy of out an out abortion on demand (or a freestanding clinic). I am totally convinced in my own mind and heart that when Our Lord said: “Suffer the little children to come unto Me”, he did not mean with their skins burned off by a saline abortion, usually done after 16 weeks, or torn apart with their skulls crushed surgically as in a suction abortion as are 86% of Canadian abortions, or via hysterotomy, also referred to as a mini-Caesarean, or the “terrible twins D & C and D & E in both of which the baby is dismembered and removed. Pity the poor operating room nurse whose job it is to reassemble these poor babies to make sure the uterus has been completely emptied!
Thank God there are other Anglicans who feel the same way I (and my husband) do! January’s Canadian Churchman contained seven letters from readers totally opposed to the editorial, and in February there were several more. (Elsewhere it was reported that of 100 letters to the editor, only 12 were in support of the editorial.) There was also a very hypocritical Editor’s note in January to the effect that: “The editorial did not advocate abortion on demand, or the use of abortion as a measure of birth control. The position of the Anglican Church since 1967 is that abortion should be legally available to women whose health, either physical or mental, is threatened. In a resolution in 1980, General Synod further stated that the Church rejects abortion on demand, or for reasons of convenience.” Does the editor honestly believe that the 75,000 plus abortions done last year were to save the lives of unfortunate women? Does he honestly believe that the majority of the abortions are for reasons other than convenience? If he does, and I understand “he” is a 46-year old man named Jerry Hames and that the editorial was produced jointly by “him” and the Associate Editor, a woman named Carolyn Purden, and he really believes that Henry Morgentaler is a kindly old gentleman who just wants to provide a necessary service to unfortunate women, then they are really not safe to be allowed to cross the street alone, much less write editorials for a church organ.
Didn’t expect the vehement response
Five of our 30 Canadian bishops and dozens of lay people lashed out against the paper in those letters to the editor, which is a pretty sad commentary on our bishops. The Churchman’s board of trustees has now supported Editors Hames and Purden and we who were so upset by the editorial, have been told by the board Chairman, someone named Willard Seasons of Sudbury, Ontario, that we have over-reacted. Said he, “the militant pro-lifers have really jumped on this one with both feet. There was a lot of misinterpretation of the editorial. It said it favoured changing the law, not that it was in favour of abortion.” Mr. Seasons admits he didn’t expect such a vehement response, and was surprised by the backlash from “flag wavers” in small towns and hamlets across the country. I have a news flash for Mr. Seasons: we live in a community of 160,000 which is not exactly a town or a hamlet and we’re darned annoyed that the paper that is supported to the tune of 66% of its annual operating budget by us “flag wavers” and “militant pro-lifers” takes such a cavalier attitude on a life-and-death issue such as abortion. We are also deeply disappointed and disgusted by the bishops’ decision not to take any action. What has become of the dictum “the buck stops here?” Surely the buck has to stop somewhere and surely the bishops have ultimately to take responsibility for editorial policy.
Apparently not, as editor Hames remains at the Churchman unperturbed and unrepentant and was quoted as saying, “Our policy gives us the freedom to comment on issues the Church has or has not taken a stand on.”
We had our annual Parish Meeting not long after the January statement that the article “did not advocate abortion on demand” and my husband proposed (and I seconded) a motion that because of this “the Parish of St. Helen’s admonish the editor of the Canadian Churchman for the hypocrisy of his Christmas editorial advocating abortion, and his January denial thereof.” This really separated the men from the boys, or the pro-lifers from the pro-abortionists! A lively discussion followed with such strange comments as “I can’t vote on something I haven’t even read!” When the vote was taken, we had 29 votes for to 60 against – not earthshaking perhaps but at least there were 29 people who stood up to be counted on the side of the unborn. My sister’s church in Ottawa had sent a strong letter of protest to the newspaper in December. Perhaps we westerners can learn something from those people over the Rockies that we hear so many nasty things about.
Peggy Steacy is a member of St. Helen’s Anglican Church, Surrey, B.C.
