I am writing this article on a lazy, hazy, humid afternoon. It is August 3, to be precise. It will not appear in print for several weeks but the principles will still be valid.
Three things roused me to write on this sultry day. The first was the announcement this morning that “Prime Minister Mulroney has at last broken his silence on the abortion question.” The P.M. said that “He is not in favour of abortion on demand.”
Are we supposed to cheer? According to the report in the Globe and Mail this morning, Mr. Mulroney added that “abortions could be obtained in certain circumstances.” He declined to say what those circumstances are. The report continues, “Yesterday’s statement is believed to be Mr. Mulroney’s first on abortion since 1983, when he also declared that he was not in favour of abortion on demand.” So, four years and 240,000 murdered Canadians later, the Prime Minister has not changed his views. What leadership!
In a speech in British Columbia this week, the P.M. having pledged 28 million dollars to the grape growers, made this dramatic pronouncement, “I believe in you and I stand by you in moments of difficulty. That’s what a government of Canada is supposed to do and you can count on us to do precisely that.”
I have no objection to the grant of 28 million dollars to the grape growers, mainly because I know nothing about the issue. But I do hate public hypocrisy. If a government is supposed to stand by its people in moments of difficulty, why has Mr. Mulroney refused to stand by the hundreds of thousands of unborn babies who have perished during his term as Prime Minister. Why has he been silent on this paramount of moral issues while he “stands behind” the grape growers? I can guess. Grape growers vote. Dead babies don’t!
The second reason for writing in a statement a week or so ago in the Globe and Mail (July 28, 1988), quoting Conservative MP Gabrielle Bertrand. Here is what the report said, “Conservative MP Gabrielle Bertrand told the House yesterday that, while she is a practicing Catholic, she does not have the right to impose her religious beliefs on others. “Who am I to judge as a criminal a woman who decides to interrupt a pregnancy,” she asked. Sorry, if I appear rude, Gabrielle, but if you really said that – it is one of the most illogical statements I have ever heard.
Unless you are suffering from an acute attack of schizophrenia – and I’m sure you’re not – you cannot possibly hold that abortion is immoral on Sunday, while you are in Church, and become moral on Monday, while you are in “the House.” You can’t have it both way, Gabrielle.
Abortion is objectively speaking, either right or wrong. It is not wrong “because you are a Catholic and “right” because you are a politician. If you hold personally that it is morally wrong to kill unborn babies – as you apparently do – you cannot in conscience vote for abortion anywhere.
Let’s apply your principle to other crimes. I presume you oppose murder. But are you against murder because it is morally wrong or because the Church says it is wrong? Suppose the man next door feels he has a right to murder his wife and child. Would you say, “Well, I know murder is wrong, but who am I to impose my morals on others? So, I shall not interfere. I shall not even report it to the police! How do you think this statement would sound in court? I don’t think anyone – least of all the judge – would accept it. But that is the principle you are using to assuage your conscience in voting for the continued murder of Canadian babies. Since the Conservatives came to power more than 240,000 babies have been “legally” aborted.
Here is an official statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome (1974). “Whatever the civil law may decree in this matter, it must be taken as absolutely certain that one may never obey an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law approving abortion in principle. One may not take part in any movement to sway public opinion in favour of such a law, not may one vote for the law.
My third reason for writing is the announcement this morning that Joe Clark took part in a torch light procession last evening. It was a protest against Apartheid in South Africa. Are we supposed to be impressed by such an act of courage? Let me say immediately that I am not in favour o the political philosophy of Apartheid. I consider it unjust and immoral. I saw in it action in Durban and it is revolting.
The point I want to make is this. It is very easy to support “popular causes” as long as they are thousands of miles away from the polling booth.
But we have had numerous marches to protest the killing of unborn babies in Canada and we have never seen Mr. Clark with candle in hand or a placard saying “Unborn babies are human too.”
Mr. Clark has been in politics for many years and has been Prime Minister. He knows that over a million Canadian babies have been killed in less than twenty years. Yet – as far as I know – he has never made a statement against abortion. In fact, he has consistently voted in its favour. If Mr. Joe Clark considers himself in practicing Catholic, I have news for him. He isn’t!
And now I have a fourth reason for writing. I gave in to the heat and didn’t complete this article last evening. So, today is the tomorrow we talked about yesterday.
According to the six a.m. news this morning, Mr. John Turner refused to state his position on abortion. He said that his views on the matter are “irrelevant.” I wonder what has changed?
In 1968, Mr. Turner’s views were so “relevant” that they have been – to a great extent – responsible for the deaths of over one million Canadian babies! If Mr. Turner’s argument is that he was – as a politician – obeying the will of the majority, then he sold his soul for a “mess of politics.” And in so doing, he sold the bodies of more than a million babies – literally – down the drain.
As a Catholic myself, I feel that I must apologize to those great non-Catholic politicians like Gus Mitges and Jim Jepson, who have stood so courageously by their beliefs and principles while our “Catholic leaders” have ignominiously “sold the pass” and betrayed the future of Canada.
If any of the “Catholic” politicians about whom I have written were to ask my advice – which is highly unlikely – regarding their present position, my “solution” would be this. Get out of the Catholic Church and do it publicly. Don’t “hang in there” and continue to betray both your Church and your Country. Why not join one of the other religious bodies which will not disturb your consciences by “imposing moral principles.” But don’t go to the Pentecostals or the Canadian Reformed. They wouldn’t have you! Or why not start up your own Church? You cold call it the PAPC – the Pro-Abortion Post Catholics. King Herod could be your Patron Saint and Gabrielle could be your first Pope. Of course, she would remain a “Practicing Catholic.”