Should Angry Responses Change How We Proclaim Truth

In January 2007, CCBR received an e-mail from a Catholic pro-life leader who opted not to support CCBR because she had received angry phone calls from two women. These women were upset about the possibility of graphic abortion images being displayed not only generally, but particularly in upcoming CCBR talks at their Catholic churches. Because the concerns this leader expresses may also be raised by others, CCBR’s response is provided below as a teaching tool. Names have been changed and personal references have been removed to maintain confidentiality.

Dear Sandra,

You wrote, "In the last three days two women, who don’t know each other have called me, both very upset about the possibility of these images being displayed and of your upcoming talks in their parish. Their calls have reminded me of the harm the photos can cause and while you at CCBR see positive outcomes through the use of these images it is not consistent with the work we do through [names of post-abortion ministry and pro-life organization]."

It is surprising that just because someone is angry at the images, you would conclude the photos do harm. After all, many people were angry at Bishop Fred Henry, of the Calgary diocese, for speaking against gay "marriage." Should he not have done so? Countless people were angry at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, the early Church martyrs, and Jesus Christ. Take Saint Paul as an example. Prior to his conversion he was irate over what Christ’s followers were saying and doing. Yet God made the scales fall from his eyes. Perhaps if Saint Paul had never been angered, he would never have converted to Christ.

Sometimes people get angry when they are convicted of truth and yet are resisting that truth. That inner struggle takes on an outer appearance of frustration. Through that frustration, through wounds, we can be motivated to look for answers and for healing. This concept became clear to me as I watched a presentation by Christopher West as he taught John Paul II’s "Theology of the Body." He pointed out that it was through experiencing the wounds and pain from his immoral sexual choices that he started asking himself questions and looking for answers. That turmoil was a part of his conversion process.

As Christians we are called to follow Christ. He didn’t say, "Don’t make people angry." Christ said, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). He also said, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18). Time and again the scriptures show Jesus having more concern with truth than with feelings. And He realized that in stating truth, some people would get angry; in fact, the Gospel reading a week ago highlights this: "When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath" (Luke 4:28).

Any expression of opposition to abortion will anger someone: Memorials to the unborn, involving displays of crosses, have been destroyed. "Feminists for Life" poster-campaigns, which focus more on women and are non-graphic, have been ripped down on Canadian university campuses. Participants of LifeChain are often met with angry shouts and middle-fingers to their word-based messages. Non-violent pro-lifers have been arrested outside abortion clinics for trying to talk to women in crisis pregnancy or for standing with word-based messages that state facts about the law. Pregnancy Care Centres have been smeared for offering alternatives to abortion. Post-abortion ministries have been criticized by abortion advocates as having a "guilt-ridden approach" that "can often exacerbate and prolong a woman’s anxiety about her abortion" (www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/98spring.shtml). Billboards offering toll-free help lines to women have been defaced with graffiti.

These approaches are non-graphic and likely your centre has participated in some or all of them. If angry responses cause you to avoid participation in pro-life activities, you won’t be participating in any pro-life activities. If people get angry whenever someone claims that abortion is wrong, and you don’t want people to be angry, you won’t be claiming abortion is wrong.

Clearly, anger in and of itself is not a reason to stop doing what you are doing. We need to get to the reasons behind the anger. Are people angry because one is being unkind? Or, are people angry because they are being convicted of sin in which they are somehow complicit?

This matter of angry responses to us is a point we address here under the GAP FAQ.

Therefore, I do not see how our approach is inconsistent with [your post-abortion ministry]. For any of your clients to find healing they need to come to terms with their involvement in their children’s death. To use a comparison, people with alcohol addictions who want healing must admit they have a problem. In fact, many members of support groups introduce themselves as, "Hi, I’m Tracey and I’m an alcoholic." As you know from working with post-abortive women, taking ownership of guilt is not an easy thing to do. But often what is right is not easy.

I am concerned about [your post-abortion ministry’s] ability to help women find healing if your ministry considers graphic visuals to be negative. These women need to be healed and we rob them of true peace when we water down sin in the healing process. Anyone who cares about a post-abortive woman will want to know why the images make her angry, not simply that the images make her angry. Perhaps she has never come to terms with her abortion and not sought forgiveness; if so, her anger is an opportunity to minister to her. Perhaps she has been forgiven but is not yet healed. Again, this is another ministering opportunity. Healing takes time. And there are many wounded women who are forgiven but not healed. As mentioned above, anger can be an external expression of an internal issue that needs to be addressed. To love that woman is to address that issue, not to feed into it or mask it.

Furthermore, part of healing involves moving beyond our own hurt and having concern for others. A post-abortive woman who regrets her abortion should most desperately want to save other children from death and other women from the pain that follows abortion. Far from graphic imagery damaging these women, it gives them hope that the lie they fell for will be exposed and therefore both unborn and born human beings will be spared similar suffering. Therefore, the woman who is upset at graphic imagery can be challenged to shift her grief. Yes, any counsellor or friend must certainly be sensitive to the woman’s suffering and grieve with her. But then that woman can be challenged, "Offer up your suffering in the interest of saving babies. I can see how much you are overcome with grief that you killed your child. But I want you to know that you can be overcome with hope that you can save other people’s children. God can bring good out of a bad situation. And this is one way to do that; know that through the darkness of your choice—and we all make dark, sinful choices—you can be an instrument of light by saving lives."

When explained from this perspective, graphic pictures are redemptive pictures; they are healing pictures. She needs to be shown how to think about the babies who will live or die based on their mothers’ seeing the truth about abortion. My e-mail to a post-abortive woman who was angry about CCBR’s graphic visuals provides evidence of babies being killed because their mothers never saw the truth about abortion as well as evidence of babies being saved precisely because their mothers did.

I would like to also address the point sometimes expressed in pro-life circles that the graphic nature of abortion should be covered up because to do so is "loving" or "compassionate." That is a frightening sentiment of perverted compassion and perverted love. Christopher West points out in his teachings on "Theology of the Body" that Satan takes what is good and twists it. Compassion and love are good. But when these virtues are divorced from truth and used to justify covering up the truth, they become dangerous sentiments. When these virtues are used to rationalize tip-toeing around born people’s feelings at the expense of unborn people’s lives, the very nature of those virtues gets lost.

To love means to want the other’s good. A parent who says she loves her child and as a result does not discipline him to avoid getting him angry has a perverted sense of love. A parent who has true love for her child will discipline him. Like medicine, sometimes what is good for us doesn’t seem that pleasant.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Gray

Executive Director