If ill opinions cannot be quite rooted out, and you cannot cure some received vice according to your wishes, you must not therefore abandon the commonwealth.”
Sir Thomas More.
In the December 1990 editorial, “The spiritual battle for Canada,” we described the formidable forces arrayed against a society founded on and held together by respect for God and the Christian tradition. Within that tradition a cultural pluralism existed and survived, if not always flourished. A degree of cultural was possible because society at large was confident and united on basic principles.
Today, there is much talk about a multi-cultural Canada and a pluralistic society. Not many people seem aware that the term ‘pluralism’ has shifted its meaning since the mid-sixties from cultural to moral-ideological. Today, the ‘pluralistic’ society means that we can do what we like in the moral order, that all religions are relative, that there are no absolute standards of behaviour and that our society, therefore, should be secular, that is, not concerned with religion or religious morality at all. The more perceptive students of Canadian society are also aware that secularism didn’t even pause before it transformed itself into an aggressive anti-Christian ideology which openly rejects the old standards in order to replace them with new ones.
This is the significance of the Canadian legalization of abortion in 1969. For the first time ever in Canada’s history, secularism triumphed in passing legislation contrary not to some minor Christian sensibility but to a foundation stone of the Christian faith: the equality and dignity of every human life from conception onwards and the requirement to protect it against attack. Secularism replaced this with its own fundamental principle expressed in the declaration that every woman has the right to kill her unborn child.
Tragically, some Christian denominations not only accepted the new order but actually approved of it. Moreover, individuals, including many politicians, played along with this trend, thus contradicting their own beliefs. They excommunicated themselves from their faith by continuing to vote for legal approval of what is a heinous crime in the eyes of God.
What are pro-lifers going to do in the coming years?
First, it seems wise to follow the instruction of the sixteenth century Chancellor of England, Sir Thomas More. His counsel was the fruit of the theological virtue of hope and based on such biblical advice as that of the prophet Jeremiah to the Jews in Babylonian captivity. They should continue to implore God’s blessing on the government while living in the same city as their opponents.
In other words, we continue to work for a better society.
Second, such work must not mean the abandonment of radical opposition to the secular assault on humanity reflected in the struggle against abortion. Nor should it mean the muting of opposition to those in politics, education and religion who act and speak as if this struggle is just a minor item in the nation’s business.
We must not cooperate with anyone who approves of abortion, and we must expose those who act as if we can.
If the Jewish community rightly looks upon anti-Semites as people touched by the plague, how much more reason do pro-lifers have to fight every pro-abortion politician or individual as people utterly unsuitable for public office.