Pro-life activist: graphic images will remain in Amarillo

Images of aborted fetuses put on public display have sparked controversy lately — but the man behind them has no plans to remove them.

Details:

Lori Saunders shielded her 8-year-old daughter’s eyes as the trio of trucks left the Westgate Mall area.

“Our children shouldn’t be subject to these graphic images,” Saunders said. “Nobody should have to see this.”

Neither the billboard trucks nor a plane toting a banner featuring images of aborted fetuses appear likely to leave Amarillo soon.

Even though the Rev. Frank Pavone, the priest they’ve been brought in to support, disagrees with the tactic.

“As ill-advised as what we’re doing is, it’s much better advised than the alternative, which is to allow the bishop to make false claims and misstatements of fact,” said Gregg Cunningham, executive director of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, an anti-abortion group based in California.

Controversy has swirled around the Roman Catholic Diocese of Amarillo since Bishop Patrick J. Zurek earlier this month ordered Pavone, who leads several prolife nonprofit groups, to return here to sort out questions over finances. Pavone is a priest in the Amarillo Diocese and a board member of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Cunningham’s group last week launched a protest on Pavone’s behalf. It features the billboard trucks and airborne banners that have riled Amarilloans such as Saunders, who isn’t Catholic and wasn’t aware of the dust-up between the bishop and his priest.

“I’ve lived in Amarillo for eight years and I’ve never seen anything like this,” Saunders said.

Pavone did not return a call for this story, but he said during an Ave Maria Radio interview last week that he’d asked Cunningham not to picket. He called it “very, very counterproductive to put a bishop of a diocese in a position where there’s going to be this kind of public protest.”

Cunningham heard the interview, but declined to confirm whether the conversation with Pavone took place.

Read more.

If you’re wondering what sorts of images we’re talking about, click here.

Comments

  1. [Comment deleted for being off topic. -- Ed.]

  2. “As ill-advised as what we’re doing is, it’s much better advised than the alternative, which is to allow the bishop to make false claims and misstatements of fact.”

    As if there’s only one way to address the claims and statements of the bishop! Or is this the only tactic that The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform has?

  3. My 2 cents about graphic images: The purpose of such images should never be used to condemn those who have had an abortion. Anyone who has suffered the loss of a child to abortion can find healing and forgiveness of their pain and grief and reconciliation with their child.
    Graphic images are a good way to present the reality of the death of these innocent babies. These images represent a call to our nation’s repentance so that abortion will become an unthinkable choice. My hope is that the graphic images will lead parents and all post abortive persons to seek reconciliation and healing so that they will not spend years suffering emotional problems, addictions, repeat abortions, and other self-destructive behaviors that many suffer after their participation in abortion.
    I hope the images of these aborted children will bring about a sense of honoring these babies. That we not forget them ever, most especially the ones that will be slaughter because there are those of us who do not do anything to stop the slaughtering. Hopefully if someone in a crisis pregnancy situation were to see these images it would help lead that person to give their child life.

  4. I can understand, though I do not always agree with, the arguments for using graphic imagery to sensitize people to the nature of abortion, but that is not what is being done here. The enormity of the suffering these innocents have endured is being disrespectfully wielded as some kind of shock and awe weapon against a bishop who is only exercising his competent episcopal authority. There is no “duty” or even right I am aware of in canon law to exploit the already-exploited as some sort of laity-extended come-to-Jesus invitation. Mr. Cunningham claims the laity have a canonical duty to petition their bishops to reconsider ill-advised choices. Oh really? When Call to Action or Voice of the Faithful try that, it’s rightly called insubordination at best. Leave these little ones (the victims and the innocents in front of whom you’re waving the pictures) in peace, let God (who alone knows what choices are ill-advised in this situation) do his will, and pray for increased respect for all life, including the life of Bishop Zurek.

  5. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Thank you, jkm.

    Lest we forget, the teaching of the catechism:

    2300 The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.

    I’m not seeing much respect, charity, faith or hope in the public display of eviscerated children.

    Dcn. G.

  6. Later in the article, we read: “Cunningham said. ‘What we’re doing is a bad thing, but it’s less bad than the alternative. Bishop Zurek forced us to go down a path that we didn’t want to do.’”

    How does anyone with such a shabby grasp of the principles of moral decision-making (e.g., “Never do evil that good may result.”) expect to be taken seriously by intelligent discussants of public policy?

  7. I’m torn as to using the images. On one hand there is a certain vulgarity to using them, both because of the disrespect to the poor victums and to public decorum. But many of the people who are casually pro-abort are under the impression that the unborn is just a mere bunch of cells. Such images hold a mirror up to what is being done and condoned. Sometimes you have to make people see the horror to get them to comprehend it.

  8. So the next time I’m protesting war, I’ll trot out the graphic images of our soldiers who have been mistreated by other nations, mmkay? Or when I’m protesting violence against women I’ll pull out the graphic pictures of assault victims.{/sarcasm}

    The problem with using graphic images in public places is that you are trampling on a parent’s right to protect their children, and that’s a pretty crummy thing to do.

  9. 8 MhariDubh
    So the next time I’m protesting war, I’ll trot out the graphic images of our soldiers who have been mistreated by other nations, mmkay?
    __________________________________

    One could argue that just such type images during the Vietnam war, presented before families at the dinner hour by TV news, was what brought more public awareness/disgust and what was one of the catalysts for ending the war. …esp. that image of the naked little burning girl running for her life. Mother Theresa called this holocaust a “war on the womb” – and one sees just that in these other images of burned little innocents. Now….continue the little discussion among yourselves on this other chosen little topic….which is a nice distraction from reality don’t you know.

  10. naturgesetz says:

    Manny and Kris,

    THe problem is that in this case, the pictures aren’t being used to educate people about the evil of abortion; they are being used to be so nasty to faithful Catholics that they will pressure the bishop to change his decision. It is very important for the freedom of the Church that such vulgar pressure tactics by outsiders not be allowed to succeed in influencing the inner workings of the church.

    And not only is Cunningham wrong in thinking that it’s okay to do evil in order that good may result; it’s also absurd for him to claim that he was somehow forced to do this. He could have started a letter-writing campaign for the faithful of Amarillo. That he is doing this is nobody’s fault but his own.

  11. @naturgesetz
    I realize that. I was opining about the general practice, not this specific case. You seem to be correct about this case.

  12. It doesn’t seem that Fr. Pavone got the point across how counterproductive this would be for his case, which judging by the comments in the Amarillo paper it has been. If the Center is not going to take the advice he supposedly offered, it might be best for him at this point to resign from their board to clearly show he is opposed to this tactic.

  13. Put aside that CBR’s publicity stunt comes just at a time when pro-lifers were slowly coming around to the prudent use of realistic photos in the battle against abortion (setting progress on that matter back years), and put aside that CBR’s campaign against a bishop is in open support of a priest in a matter of Catholic Church discipline, either of which factor should have lead to Pavone’s vigorous and unambiguous opposition to CBR’s actions in his behalf.

    Worse, we have now, from Cunningham’s own lips, a public admission (doubtless, sincerely offered) that he believes that doing bad in the pursuit of good is justified. Great scot! Does he understand what he just said? What abortionist could not say (has not said) essentially the same thing? “Yes, abortion is terrible, but we do it to prevent worse from happening.”

    How did the Bard put it?

    BASSANIO: I beseech you …To do a great right, do a little wrong. PORTIA: It must not be . . . ‘Twill be recorded for a precedent, And many an error by the same example will rush into the state: it cannot be.

    The view that ‘evil may be done so that good can be achieved’ is so contrary to fundamental Catholic moral principles that, in my opinion, Pavone’s continued public endorsement of CBR is beyond inappropriate and his continued service on CBR’s board of directors is completely unacceptable.

    CBR needs instruction from serious minded Catholics, not continued praise from its famous members.

  14. pagansister says:

    Unfortunately many TV shows (CSI as an example) have decided that one should see how the bullet went through someone’s brain or the knife cut the head off someone etc. Many folks have been conditioned over time to see things that are just as graphic as the pictures discussed in this article. Over many years horrific images in magazines, on TV, computer games, movies etc. IMO, have been used so often that they really do not create shock in many folks anymore. So as to the reaction that is wanted from the pictures of terminated fetus’s? May not have the desired effect—to prevent terminations or make a woman think twice.

  15. Deacon Greg

    Are you saying the use of the images of aborted babies is never useful and should never be applied in any instance or only this instance where its being used to protest a Bishops right to authority over his priests and deacons in his diocese?

  16. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Tyler…

    I can’t say whether it’s “useful.” Describing it that way suggests that the butchered corpses of babies are commodities that can exploited for emotional effect.

    I think it’s something that demands prayer and reflection, especially in light of the Church’s teaching in the catechism.

    Dcn. G.

  17. Fiergenholt says:

    Tyler #15

    “Are you saying the use of the images of aborted babies is never useful and should never be applied in any instance”

    Deacon Greg was ambivalent; I am not. I donate regularly to various pro-life movements but I do not and will not donate anything — time or money — to any of those agencies who portray aborted fetuses for shock effect.

  18. Deacon Greg.

    “Lest we forget, the teaching of the catechism:

    2300 The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.

    I’m not seeing much respect, charity, faith or hope in the public display of eviscerated children.”

    I think the Cathecism is talking about the actual bodies, not pictures. I used this argument when we were obtaining the aborted great grandchild killed in an abortion mill so we could provide it a proper burial along with my granddaughter killed in the same mill with her.

    As to these pictures, they are being shown to show how much we need PFL working at full strength to end the holocuast.

    On your statement that showing these pictures is not showing them respect, charity, faith, or hope, I wonder how that makes sense in the light of a massive display of photos of those killed in the nazi death camps. Guess where they had a huge exhibit of those photos? The Vatican where then Pope John Paul II said that “humankind needed to see these photos lest we ever forget for a day what evil has been done.” And guess what, many of them were of dead children. The nazi’s killed 6 million and the event happened over 60 years ago. The holocaust of abortion in the abortion mills continue right now will 4,000 more dead every day and 54 million already killed. If seeing the children of the nazi death camps of 60 years ago are seen as something worthwhile by Pope John Paul II so we may never forget, I doubt he would think being shown these if it will help put an end to abortion in this country is in any way wrong.

    We also use to have pictures of blacks hanging dead from trees and telephone polls, some who had also been burned outside our churches when I grew up. I would bet this was wrong as well.

    For those of us who are fighting the culture of death, we have seen this tactic has save lives. If it gets the Bishop and Father Pavone together to settle their issues and gets PFL back in the fight with its founder and leader, then it is doing its work in this battle as well.

    So is Pope John Paul II wrong in allowing the Vatican display of nazi camp holocuast murdered victims and in his statement on its importance? Is doing this violating what you quote in the cathecism? Is putting those pictures in childrens textbooks at school wrong and evil? Was showing pictures of blacks who had been hung outside our churches to try to get people to understand why we had to try to get FDR to support anti lynching laws wrong?

    I would love to hear why Pope JPII comment on images of dead children was wrong. I have sympathy for the woman who does not want her child to see these images. I wonder if her church puts out crosses during life month to show the huge number of children killed each day? I wonder if she is concerned over her child seeing holocaust pictures of dead children in her textbooks or those of blacks who have been lynched. In a recent look at my grandchilds social studies book, it contained both of these pictures. If only they contained the picutes of aborted children with the same negative wording, maybe the pro life cause would grow faster and save lives.

    Please show why all of this is not the same concerning these pictures. Lets forget Amarillo as you seem to have an issue with the picutres being used from your quote of the cathecism. forget Father Pavone or bishop Zurek involved, is this not proper use of images for the same reason the others are used, even outside churches?

  19. naturgesetz

    “It is very important for the freedom of the Church that such vulgar pressure tactics by outsiders not be allowed to succeed in influencing the inner workings of the church.”

    So no outside force should be used anywhere to put pressure on a bishop and his inner workings of the church?

    If we can have that as an accepted rule in America, then it might prove interesting. We could start with the pressure on the bishops by SNAP, or maybe the pressure over healthcare reform, or how about immigration, or then there is gay special rights. Please, why is it only when the pressure is coming to stop something like abortion that we hear this type of plea?

    Kind of like when democrats when elections, then they won and the others have to sit in the back of the bus, but when republicans win an election, we hear cries for compromise and bipartisanship.

  20. Danial T. Everyone said Father Pavone should make a statement. He did. So now he should resign?

    What many are after here has nothing to do with Amarillo diocese or with protecting the power of the bishop, and everything to do with trying to remove Father Pavone from PFL because he was very vocal about the democratic president and the policies of his party in regard to abortion. Many find the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion as a non negotiable issue getting in the way of supporting the pro abortion democratic party. Of course what Father Pavone has stated is exactly the same as our current Pope Benedict while he was serving as
    head of Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith

    “The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it”

    “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    Don’t hold your breath on Father Pavone resigning and don’t expect those who are in the fight to end abortion to stop the battle to see this warrior returned to the full fight at the head of PFL.

  21. Ed Peters.

    he believes that doing bad in the pursuit of good is justified

    Martin Luther King believed that breaking laws and thus doing bad was justified. Anyone who has read his Letter from the Birmingham jail would easily see that MLK knew that he needed at times to jolt even his own people to act.

    “You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

    So today, with 4000 babies being killed every day, and PFL one of the most highly regarded group for life, sees its founder in controversy with his Bishop, I wonder if what we are hearing now, to back off; to not have outside agitation, to leave it to quiet negotiation with no direct action, makes sense. Isn’t the babies being killed at such a pace every day not at least as equal to what MLK saw in Birmingham?

    I know that I will not rest or stop doing everything possible including signatures, donations to PFL only under Father Pavone, letter to the Vatican and the USCCB, or supporting the showing of the impact of abortion with these images until we can see Father Pavone back on the battle lines. We are at war and everyone needs to see that. What other war has claimed 54 million dead and continue at 4,000 a day. All the year of the inquistion did not exceed what we lose every day to abortion.

    Again, here what MLK said from his jail..

    “My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

    These protests are in line with Catholic teaching on protests and with the first amendment rights of Americans in our Constitution. Why so strong an effort to shut them down?

    Wait, be silent..what did MLK in jail say?

    “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

    Substitute the “disease of the culture of death or abortion for segreagtion” or “it rings in the ear of every baby being slaughtered with piecrcing familiarity” above. Wait and see what happens. Why not push this Bishop to get this matter disposed of with perhaps an uninvolved bishop like Chaput to look this over and end the personal dispute. Why let it fester and create these type of posts on Catholic blogs? Why the outcry for this priest to obey his bishop, when dissent has been going on out in the open for generations since Vatican II on the very teaching of the church not only with bishops, but with the Pope and magesterium?

    And finally one more quote from MLK letter.

    “One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

  22. Deacon Greg..

    Tyler…

    I can’t say whether it’s “useful.” Describing it that way suggests that the butchered corpses of babies are commodities that can exploited for emotional effect.

    I think it’s something that demands prayer and reflection, especially in light of the Church’s teaching in the catechism.

    Same issue addressed above. I think you are reading the cathecism wrong in that it is talking about the actual bodies and there is a long history of images being used as quoted above, as shown in the Vatican exhibit on the holocuast and in the quote of JPII.

  23. “Greta”. You don’t need to explain “direct action” to me. I was involved in it, as a sidewalk counselor by day and a legal researcher for the sit-in defense team by night, more than 30 years ago. I met my future wife at a party thrown for our mutual friends who had been released from trespass charges. My pro-life experience has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my commentary on the canonical aspects of this case, but if experience did matter . . .

  24. naturgesetz says:

    greta #19

    “naturgesetz

    ‘It is very important for the freedom of the Church that such vulgar pressure tactics by outsiders not be allowed to succeed in influencing the inner workings of the church.’

    So no outside force should be used anywhere to put pressure on a bishop and his inner workings of the church?”

    You misstated what I said, and what you said does not follow from what I said.

    If you can’t understand what other people write, or if you deliberately twist it, perhaps it’s time for you to retire.

  25. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Greta…

    We’ll just have to disagree about this.

    Dcn. G.

  26. Fiergenholt says:

    naturgesetz #24

    “If you can’t understand what other people write, or if you deliberately twist it, perhaps it’s time for you to retire.”

    My friend “N.” You do know about the “Law of Unintended Consequences” don’t you? If “greta” did retire, almost a full third of the comments on this blog would vanish.

    I will not directly respond to her anymore but that is more because of her rudeness. Several times I have asked her to keep her comments direct, simple, limited to three main points and under 150 words. She ignores all of this informal protocol and just goes on her merry way.

  27. Ed 23.

    My comments did not challenge your “pro-life experience has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my commentary on the canonical aspects of this case” but the statement you made “Worse, we have now, from Cunningham’s own lips, a public admission (doubtless, sincerely offered) that ‘he believes that doing bad in the pursuit of good is justified’. Great scot!”

    What has that got to do with canon law? That is what I was commenting on which I note you did not discuss in your reply. The simple fact the same criticisms were made about MLK sparking his letter from the birmingham jail I quoted seemed to apply to your quote about the form Cunningham was taking to protest and his statement which had a direct corallation in my view to what MLK utilized in his battle on civil rights. MLK did things against the laws and went to jail for his belief in the goal of doing something good. You attacked almost the exact same thing from Cunningham who is agreeing that he might be doing something bad in the pursuit of good as being justified.

    Instead of addressing the point and corallation to MLK, you comment as if I was attacking your pro life experience. Try commenting on the point of what I said and challenged which is your great scot point.

  28. Fiergenholt

    Not sure what you see as rude in that most of the posts are often quotes from others like MLK or Popes or church teaching points. I try not to be rude to a person, but to stay on the points raised. If I have been rude, I apologize.

    As to length; at times, it takes more than a bumper sticker to make a point. But again, I apologize that my limited formal education hinders my writing ability.

  29. Deacon, not sure what points you feel are in disagreement. Was it in error on your quote of the cathecism? Was it the use of images and my example of the Vatican exhibit and quote of Pope JPII? Just curious

  30. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Greta…

    I think the catechism is clear. So do you. We disagree on what it’s clear about.

    Furthermore, you think it’s helpful to use pictures of butchered babies to advance the cause of life. I don’t. We have different philosophies about this, and yours clearly are formed from personal and painful experience that is very different from mine.

    We’ll agree to disagree. End of discussion.

    Dcn. G.

  31. naturgesetz says:

    Fiergenholt #26,

    While I think your 150 word limit is too strict, your policy of not responding to greta is probably sensible.

  32. Deacon Greg,

    “I can’t say whether it’s “useful.” Describing it that way suggests that the butchered corpses of babies are commodities that can exploited for emotional effect.”

    Deacon, with respect, I did not mean to put it that way, to commoditize a life. Rather I meant that I think its important to force people to confront the horrors of either their own “indifference” or their purposeful actions or beliefs. It would seem obvious that the pictures of aborted babies make one do this.

    The material world is part of our God-created reality. The church gives us rules on how to interact with it, yes, but why not use these pictures where it is appropriate (Prudence) and where people are engaging in actions everyday that lead to abortion. (I.E College Campuses)

    Furthermore, I am a Catholic Convert. I’m going to tread carefully here, but is it not, as Catholics, the “Crucifix” that we use instead of the protestant “Cross” as our symbol? As Catholics, don’t we use this imagery of “The Body of Christ Crucified” as a reminder of his sacrifice? It is his crucified body we view..it is the most Christian material reminder or reality of the truth. The Church’s dogmas and Christ command us to confront evil with the truth. It is there in the discipline of the sacrament of confession..it is there on the Crucifix at the front of your Parish.

    How could that be different than forcing people to deal with the reality of the behind-the-scenes absolute evil that occurs in what they think is their hum drum normal lives?

    Out of Sight Out of Mind is not a cliche for no reason

    What say you Deacon?

  33. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Tyler…

    An artistic or devotional representation of Christ on the cross is different from an actual living child butchered into bloody pieces and thrust into people’s faces.

    I just don’t like it. That’s me.

    Dcn. G.

  34. Let me first state that I am a little ignorant of all the details about Fr Pavone’s recall to his home Diocese. Let me also state that I agree that obedience to one’s superiors is a must. However, please show me (I mean that sincerely) what it is that Fr Pavone has actually done wrong? Is there actual evidence that monies collected were actually spent in an imoral/unauthorized manner? Why exactly is his Bishop recalling him back to his Diocese (I know it is his right) but in fairness there should be a reasonable rationale?

  35. Fiergenholt and naturgesetz

    Choosing not to respond to points that make us uncomfortable or that represent truth we do not want to believe is the given right of everyone. I note a lot of that here in that few respond to points made. It is far easier to simply throw out posts to long or some other issue rather than take on that which has been raised that puts a hole in our thinking.

    As to retiring, at the age of 77, and with a diagnosis that will soon end my life, retirement will soon be at hand so neither of you need worry yourself.

    I saw this quote from a Steve Jobs speech to Stanford graduating class.

    “No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share.”

    Facing death is never easy, even when we are old. Getting hammered for being rude without any specifics is never easy to hear and again, I apologize for my rudeness, but would love to see where that has happened. Disagreeing on a point is not rude, but showing enough respect for the other persons point to take the time to respond.

    So your wish to see this ol lady retire is at hand. But the facts laid out will remain and the inablility of anyone to show where they are in error will as well. With a few months to live, I doubt I will in the end be here much as it is predicted that the pain will soon start and that means medication which will make posting here or doing much of anything else I love to do in life very difficult.

    Until then, the issue I posted on the use of images of dead and injured and ill used for decades to show the horror of the last holocaust by the Nazi’s and shown in the Vatican stand in the face of those that say using the images of th dead have no place in the world of protest. So do the images of blacks lynched and burned being used outside our churches during the days of FDR. One then must ask why only the images of the victims of abortion are so offensive? One might also ask why some indicate the use of dead is somehow against church teaching and how this squares with the use of them in the Vatican exhibit on the holocaust lest we forget fit in with that thinking? But it is easier to just ignore facts and call for those that bring them to go away than to deal with truths.

  36. Not sure why that came through as Anon above. fairly obvious it was me. Computers and I do not get along at times.

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X