"Show the Truth and children".

(C.I., Nov. 2006, p. 37)

We are faithful Catholics involved in various pro-life endeavours. (Theresa is a clinical social worker and pro-life journalist; Paul edits The Interim newspaper; Christina, a former child-care worker, is a mother at home with the Tuns' five children.) We are delighted that a thoughtful young adult like Amy Gordon could develop into a "pro-life missionary." Nevertheless, we respectfully disagree with her advocacy for Show the Truth--and with the presentation of this article in Catholic Insight.

During her adolescence Amy has carefully considered "the legitimate question as to whether it is advisable to show the photographs where there is a possibility of children seeing them (this, in short, is anywhere)." Based on her observations of reactions from the children of witnesses--including her own wonderfully atypical-sounding family--she has concluded that children are not traumatized by Show the Truth. Amy's investigation is a good start, but it is far from complete.

Within the pro-life movement, we often assert that parents are the first teachers of children. Show the Truth tramples on this duty and prerogative of parents, because it imposes exposure to its images at random.

When teaching their children about abortion, parents need to consider not only child development in general, but also the specific needs of each particular child in the family. Some children have special needs (due to age, ability, or circumstance), because of which graphic images would be harmful. That Amy is confident that the children in her life were not harmed, does not mean that many or most children should see these displays. That her own parents offered a soothing "calm response" to her siblings does not mean that many or most parents would be ready to do so--or that they should be obliged to accommodate the timing of someone else's display. Furthermore, whether or not any individual is "traumatized" by a particular experience depends on both objective and subjective factors--and this is true of both children and adults.

Within the pro-life movement, we often complain that abortion is forced on vulnerable women without their informed consent. Yet Show the Truth repeats this paternalism, by showing its images to the strong and vulnerable alike.

Sadly, many people in our society have already been damaged in ways from which the children in Amy's life seem mercifully to have been shielded. Some children and adults who encounter Show the Truth are already neurologically predisposed to process its information with difficulty--perhaps because they have personal experience of abortion. Too many children are themselves survivors of abortion, and too many adults have not yet healed from their own abortions. Show the Truth's witnesses did not cause the original pain, but they need to consider their responsibility in exacerbating it.

Within the pro-life movement, we wrestle with how to best defend those who cannot speak for themselves. Show the Truth seems to be vindicated when abortion-minded parents change their minds after being shocked by the graphic displays. Yet we are unlikely to receive any testimony from those damaged people whose pain is re-triggered by their unwitting exposure to "the Truth."

Show the Truth has become the most-publicized aspect of the pro-life movement, at a time when our greatest message of healing and of prevention comes from post-abortive women and men and their advocates. Unfortunately, the righteous anger of witnesses using graphic images is sometimes distorted into destructive anger. Our movement should be known for its love and quest for truth and justice; but internally and externally, Show the Truth can be used to intimidate.

The propriety of Show the Truth is far from a settled matter in the pro-life movement. Catholic Insight implied otherwise by suggesting that only "mainstream media groups" complained about the New Brunswick display. Many Catholics loyal to the Magisterium oppose Show the Truth, notwithstanding the magazine's particular editorial stance. When questions arise regarding strategy--as opposed to articles of faith--it behooves the Christian and pro-life media to present multiple viewpoints. By not doing so, Catholic Insight risks the confusion of its position with--and the undermining of--doctrinal orthodoxy.

Toronto