Show the truth letters.

SHOW THE TRUTH LETTERS, CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY: RE "SHOW THE TRUTH AND CHILDREN," BY AMY GORDON (C.I., Nov. 2006, p. 37) AND LETTER FROM THERESA SMYTH AND PAUL AND CHRISTINA TUNS (C.I., Jan. 2007, pp. 4-5).

I write this on the feast of the Holy

Innocents. It is in reference to the triple-authored letter designed to refute Amy Gordon's stand on the Show The Truth movement. Amy supports it; the letter's authors have their doubts.

I engage two of the authors' arguments: 1) Children are in danger of being traumatized by the displays; 2) Those who have endured abortions are in danger of having their pain exacerbated by the displays. Both these arguments are excruciatingly ironic.

We are talking about children being murdered, and our solution is to draw the curtains on their murder. We mention those who instigate the murder in the first place, only to suggest that drawing attention to the murders would only make them feel worse. When did it become reasonable to prevent the perpetration of atrocities by hiding the ungain-sayable evidence of the atrocities?

I say simply that I do not believe that any one of the letter's authors would find John the Baptist in need of sensitivity training when he said to the scribes and Pharisees, "You brood of vipers! Who has shown you how to flee from the wrath to come?", let alone Christ when he called the same group "Whited sepulchres! Outwardly you appear to men beautiful, but inside you are full of dead men's bones and all rottenness and uncleanness!"....

Toronto, ON

Having just read the letter replying to Amy Gordon--critiquing the 'harmful/traumatizing affects' of graphic pictures on young children, I can honestly say I have seen the exact opposite effect in children of all ages.

In my room I have statues of many saints, and pictures too. At the base of a statue of Jesus praying at the Garden of Olives I have one of the pictures of "Malachi" which we show at the Show the Truth tour of a terribly butchered fetus.

Sometimes my landlady has grand-children run about the house who enjoy coming to visit. They always like to look at my "way cool" statue collection. Wouldn't you know it, they always stop at the picture I have of "Malachi" and ask what happened to the baby. I explain in simple words that cruel people kill pre-born babies. Far from being permanently "traumatized" as these authors would have us think, these young children share some pretty sincere concerns about "who would do such a terrible thing?" and so on.

I also remember in the past showing to my own children while quite young the pictures of the Show the Truth tour. Far from being permanently "traumatized" by the photos, they too responded how "mean" it was to kill a baby....

Check out the billboards with third world children whose bodies--swarming with flies--have been tortured for no other reason than pure lack of food. Their swollen bellies and skull-like faces tell a story a thousand words could not convey. Should these too be hidden from our children?

Well, what about abortion? It seems that those who criticize Show the Truth really don't comprehend that children are far better disposed to comprehend the iniquity of abortion than most adults who have trivialized the issue to the point of not caring.

This is why Fr. Frank Pavone has said, time and time again, that showing the graphic pictures of aborted children is the surest way of getting the pro-life message across. That is why I sincerely believe that the Show the Truth apostolate is by far the most important way of communicating the issue to a lost generation. Far from "trampling" on the rights of parents, it enables a generation of children who are still alive to comprehend the depravity of the act of abortion--that it is a heartless and bitterly cruel act! ....

Ajax, ON

As a parent, I am well aware that we cannot control everything that passes in front of our children's eyes. Oh, that we could! I, too must pass by the tabloids at the checkout counters at the grocery store, with my little ones, in full view of scantily clad women or headlines that have sexual content and have to answer the big question, "What does that mean, Mommy?" I think my response is vital. If I showed anger, I would be sending a message to my children that for some reason, I'm fearful.

Many parents' children, of all ages, viewed photos of aborted children that were on display with the Show the Truth Tour. Many parents are worried about how this will affect their children. The truth is, parents can use all 'unexpected' situations as a springboard for discussion--without fear--with our children.

Of course, the age of the child will determine how much you tell them and the language you would use. But, with all children I would start my conversation with, "I don't like those signs." Then, with a small child, a parent would have to explain, "Before you were born you started inside a warm, safe place inside Mommy. Mommy ate good food and it passed to you. Mommy kept you healthy and safe. This baby was inside its mommy and no one kept him safe. Someone hurt him. These people want us to know that someone hurt these babies."

For an older child a parent might follow, "I don't like those signs," with, "These people want to show us what the choice of abortion results in. For many years people told women that it was just tissue. These signs speak loudly that abortion is killing a real child." This conversation will eventually lead to the choices that we really have to make when an unexpected pregnancy occurs. Now would be the time to help your teen explore the long-term consequences of different choices.

How we react to the images really determines their impact. Let's make it a positive one.

Goderich, ON

I'm a homeschooling mom of five children who once shared the Tuns' concern about the graphic images of abortion used by Show The Truth. But I have come to realize two things:

Show The Truth does not take away my parental right to be my children's primary educator. When they came to our hometown, the first person the children came to ask questions about the images they saw was their mother. I was able to answer their questions with the kind of detail I knew was appropriate to their developmental stages. Was I happy to have these questions presented? No. I wish I could shield them from all the evils in our society, but acknowledge that that is impossible. But I can equip them with sound moral information.

The second thing I realized is that there is a plethora of images and information out there that I do not wish my children to have access to, but which they are exposed to nonetheless. Stand in line at the supermarket and look at the magazine covers, the newspapers. Listen to the radio, look at the video covers on movies. The list goes on and on. Too many of these try to steer my children into moral decrepitude. Show The Truth, while brutally exact, tries to place everyone on the correct moral path regarding abortion. Of necessity, it must be brutally honest to cut through the deceitful information presented to the public by pro-abortionists. Semantic cloaking devices like 'product of conception,' 'blob of tissue,' and, worst of all, 'a woman's right,' need to be penetrated to disclose the term 'baby' that they hide. The graphic images accomplish that.

While I cannot shield or always determine when a subject should be introduced to my children, I do remain their primary educator. Show The Truth has taken the unpleasant task of educating our very duped and misled public about the horrors of abortion in one of the few ways open to pro-lifers, as the usual methods have been blocked. The media, government and most schools will not allow any dissemination of real information on that topic. We live in the Culture of Death and must resist by all available means.

Uxbridge, ON

I found the letter submitted by Theresa Smyth and Paul and Christina Tuns, in your January issue, a difficult read (too many big words). I agree about active pro-life workers in various fields. We each have our strengths on how to get the life message out to counteract the pro-death message. We try flyers, info booths, educational articles, pressure on our lawmakers, etc., but the killing of the unborn continues. I'm convinced that it's time for more drastic measures, and I give full credit to those who have the courage to sacrifice time, energy and money for the silent defenceless unborn.

In keeping with the Magisterium, I would like to remind you that Pope John Paul II continuously exhorted us that prayer alone was not sufficient but actions are needed as well.

Riverview, NB

In their response to Amy Gordon's article on Show the Truth, Theresa Smyth and Paul and Christina Tuns argue that 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.

This seems to suggest that Show the Truth is stealing the limelight that the mainstream media are eager to lavish on the pro-life cause, which is clearly absurd. The media only report Show the Truth because it's shocking. When there are no graphic protests, they do not turn their eyes towards the healing message of post-abortive men and women. They simply don't report the issue at all.

More importantly, though, these writers, who I understand are loyal to the Magisterium and genuinely wish to see the Culture of Life prevail in the culture wars, seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the best offence is a good field hospital. Post-abortive healing ministries do very good work, but they are what we need to do when we've already lost the battle and it's too late to do anything but bury the dead and stitch up as many of the casualties as we can. When loyal Catholics, and particularly leaders in the pro-life movement, believe that this is the greatest work that we can do, it is not merely disheartening, it is a scandal to hope.

Etobicoke, ON

It is not my habit sending letters for public print but I feel compelled to send the following:

Do Theresa Smyth, Paul and Christina Tuns know personally the remarkable and courageous people who travel with Show the Truth? These exceptional pro-life missionaries willingly embark in a tiresome two-week journey in parts of Canada during their summer holidays. They bring the hard and painful truth of abortion to a sleeping Canada. They must also endure the pain of the truth of abortion.

In July 2006 I was privileged to welcome Show the Truth to Moncton. The reaction in the local media was balanced and allowed for an honest debate. Much good was done.

That Catholics faithful to the Magisterium who oppose the mission of Show the Truth find it necessary to express their opinion in the Catholic Insight is beyond me. I congratulate Amy Gordon for her God-given beauty and courage to share with C.I. her experience with STT.

Our beloved John Paul II was asked during one of his many flights: Holy Father, are you not travelling too much? He answered: Sometimes there are things that we must do too much.

Such is the mission of Show the Truth in Canada.

In admiration for your excellent publication Catholic Insight.

Moncton, NB

As a street counsellor/picketer for many years, I ask the three pro-lifers: what type of sign would be appropriate to convey the message re abortion?

It is a fact that pictures of aborted babies aren't pleasant to see, but the public must be made aware of this tragedy existing in our country. Only visible street signs showing this present Canadian holocaust will move some people out of their lethargic state to question the need for so many abortions. As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind."

Thank God for the courageous people involved with Show the Truth.

Toronto, ON

It is both odd and unsettling that the editor of the pro-life Interim in a Letter to the Editor questions Amy Gordon's laudable wish to use Show the Truth pictures in order to expose abortion for the great evil that it is, one that the secular media fights to hide. One concedes that it 'may' be prudent to withhold too-graphic images from elementary-level children, but junior and high schools are exactly where no-holds-barred truths are demanded for today's case-hardened youth.

There's no room for timidity or a censorious attitude to abortion's consequences. The slaughter in Canada has continued unabated since 1969. Our Jewish brethren should be first in line to endorse the value of soul-disturbing pictures; 60 years of publicly portraying their personal Holocaust has brought them enormous benefits including a punishable offence to deny it occurred ...

Burlington, ON

The letter disagreeing with Show the Truth and Amy Gordon's article leaves me astounded.

It is very good to be caring and non-judgmental of women who have suffered an abortion, but this doesn't necessarily reach those who are wrestling with a life-changing decision. Show the Truth is most caring because it endeavours to save the life of a child, as well as save the mother and father from a life of sorrow, before they take that step.

I think it rarely "re-triggers" the pain, as it is more likely the pain is constant and hidden, and there can be some relief to know more people understand and sympathize with their distress. It is also a wake-up call to the rest of us.

As for young children seeing the pictures, it is the responsibility of parents to decide at what age the pro life message is taught, and if any undesirable ads, billboards, bus shelters, TV and Show the Truth pictures are unavoidable and likely to upset their children, then explain them to their children.

I agree with the statement "our movement should be known for its love and quest for truth and justice." I would add, "and courage to show the truth."

North Vancouver, BC

Thank you for publishing the letter from Theresa Smyth and Paul and Christina Tuns re "Show the Truth and children." Now no-one can claim that Catholic Insight is guilty of failing to present "multiple viewpoints" with regard to pro-life strategies. Evidently, the "multiple viewpoints" ought not to have included Amy Gordon's article as the Tuns and Theresa Smyth "disagree with her advocacy for Show the Truth" and even "with the presentation of [Amy's] article in Catholic Insight"!

Rather than debate the content of the disapproving letter, I would prefer to give my account of the event that settled my personal qualms about the appropriateness of Show the Truth strategy.

One year ago last summer I was a participant in the Show the Truth tour in the Durham region (northeast of Toronto). One evening the group providing our supper invited a guest speaker to give us an account of how his family had wondrously been affected by contact with a Show the Truth demonstration one year earlier.

The speaker, a Protestant Pastor, told how his daughter had been advised by doctors that the child she was carrying would be multiply handicapped if allowed to be born. Tests done over several weeks confirmed this prediction and the young mother, under pressure from doctors, as well as from her husband, finally agreed to undergo an abortion. The young couple visited her parents to break the news that an abortion was scheduled for a few days hence. The grandparents begged them not to go through with the procedure but to no avail.

Our storyteller related how, after the young couple left to go home, he and his wife prayed that God would give a sign to the parents of the unborn child which would bring about a change of heart. Show the Truth was that sign.

On their way home the parents encountered our group and the impact was such that the abortion was cancelled.

Our speaker passed around a picture of his beautiful, healthy little granddaughter and concluded his story by saying, "If you people had not been where you were that evening, this little girl would surely never have been born."

So, while it may be true that aborted baby pictures may cause some emotional trauma to some sensitive individuals, undoubtedly they will eventually recover from the experience. The same cannot be said of the countless babies murdered by abortion.

As for me, I can say that after more than twenty years of pro-life activity. I know that one little child was allowed to live and I was part of her rescue. Praise be to God.

Callander, ON

It has been clear to me for some years that opinions about this particular strategy are evenly divided, both among active pro-lifers and others who are marginally concerned. My own particular focus is about Show the Truth and its place in the annual March for Life (Ottawa, on or near May 14).

Early in the ten years of the March for Life, Show the Truth began placing this witness inside the confines of the March itself by placing the signs (billboards) facing the participants. This is the single largest issue that I and the majority of the March for Life Committee have been objecting to. In spite of formal requests made to the organizers of Show the Truth, these billboards continue to be displayed to the thousands who participate.

The March for Life Committee has attempted to respond to concerns expressed by parents of young children. Pro-life people accept that it is the prerogative of parents to teach and guide their own children in these sensitive matters.

We have been often asked why this display would be offered to dedicated pro-lifers. Others have asked why Show the Truth does not follow their normal practice and find a more public space in which to convey these images. After all, the sole reason for the March for Life is to bring dedicated pro-lifers to give witness to the parliamentarians on the Hill.

In the past, the March for Life Committee repeatedly offered to help and participate in Show the Truth at any other time than the March for Life in Ottawa. The fact that this request has been ignored for so long shows a definite slight, by those who make the decisions on behalf of Show the Truth.

I submit that if Show the Truth continue this practise it will continue to deter some families from fully participating in the March for Life. In the meantime I continue to support the program itself and I subscribe to the belief that only in the right place should the general public be "force-fed" these images in any public space, always keeping in mind the impact it might have particularly on young families.

March for Life Committee Member

Toronto, ON

When Show the Truth first appeared in 2001 I recall being impressed, but also just a little shocked. It no doubt did some good, in that it awakened many to the gross injustice and horror of abortion. Yet it seemed to me not to be the best way to defend the unborn. There is the danger, very real, of severely traumatizing sensitive children and of worsening the lot of those unfortunate women who have given in to the temptation to abort, and who are now unable to believe that God has forgiven them. There is also the danger of failing to reach and convert those who support abortion because they react in a defensive and angry way.

During my years as a practising radiologist, 20 years ago, I had witnessed how expectant mothers undergoing ultrasound diagnosis would react when they saw the poorly visible images of those days that depicted their little one with their limbs moving and their tiny hearts beating. If they had not loved them before, they certainly loved them then. The little one was no longer 'a fetus' or 'a pregnancy,' it was 'my baby'!

Now that we have such beautiful real time 3D ultrasound images of unborn children available, would it not be a better idea for Show the Truth to bring those images to the public square and let everyone see how lovely and lovable are our children even before they make their debut unto this world.

Editor: This ends the correspondence; we apologize to the half-dozen readers whose letters will not be printed because of lack of space.