2000 CONFESSIONS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January

Little Notes
Letters

Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 2000
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

JULY/AUGUST 2000 CONFESSIONS

IRREVERENCE

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself cannot stand." These are Christ's words, spoken when he was accused of casting out devils through the devil's power.

After the publication of my column questioning the use of photos of aborted children by pro-lifers, I received several letters. One consisted of an essay defending the use of such photos and ended by citing this quotation and exhorting those who object to their use at least to remain silent. One printed in this paper went so far as to suggest that I "sow division in pro-life ranks, isolate, demonize, and demoralize selected groups of law-abiding pro-lifers, not to mention providing aid and comfort to the pro-abortionists and very conveniently focusing attention away from the 4,000 acts of violence that occur daily in the abortion mills."

The Catholic Church has enemies, some of whom are scandalized, no doubt, by the divisions within the church. We Catholics claim to be the One True Church, and yet Catholics criticize fellow laypersons and even those in authority for what they see as abuses of the faith. Are those critics playing into the hands of the anti-Catholics, focusing attention away from the heresies and sins that plague those who oppose the Church from without? Or are they trying to cleanse what they see as error from a good institution? As for the charge that such criticism should not be made public, I think it significant that I am not writing for the Union-Tribune, but for a lay Catholic newspaper. The second letter wondered if I would level the same charges at souls brave enough to display photos of Holocaust victims outside Nazi concentration camps, if I would "accuse them of having displayed obscenity, violated the dignity of the [victim's] body, set wicked things before people's eyes, and objectified the victims depicted in the photos." I don't know. Clearly, a great evil is being fought in both cases; clearly, there exists in both cases a "culture of denial" which must be overcome. But that does not answer the question of whether my charges are true, it simply claims that the charges are less important than the good which is sought. And while both letters attested to the effectiveness of such signs, this also is no answer, except to say that the ends justify the means.

The letter that came closest to addressing my objections, and the one that affected me most, was the quietest. A card arrived in an envelope. On the front, a photo of a saline-aborted baby, laid on a white sheet. On the back: "Mr. Barker, I am curious: Does this picture bother you? I believe this baby body is treated very respectfully." Horrific as the image is, there is somehow a reverence to the treatment of the body here. I think it helps that the body is not dismembered and sends me drifting back towards pictures of healthy children in utero.

Another letter: "If wickedness, violence, and the display of evil ought not to be seen, I wonder how Mr. Barker feels about the image of Christ on the crucifix." Much differently than I would feel if the image of Christ on the crucifix were a photograph. A painting or sculpture is an abstraction, a step removed from the actual image -- it is not actually Christ's body that I am seeing. This is not merely a matter of "good taste;" I am better able to contemplate his passion, to explore the spiritual worth of his suffering, when I am not fending off revulsion at the sight of rent flesh.

Further, I make a similar sort of objection to paintings of Christ that show him covered in blood, his body ripped to shreds by the scourger's whip, his head by the crown of thorns. Whether or not this is a perfectly accurate portrayal, I believe there is a reason why most representations depict only the wounds in Christ's hands, feet and side, and refrain from gory excess. The artist is seeking something better than the visceral response such a display might elicit.

Graphic photos, though more immediate than other media, are also removed from life. Even if they were able, I don't think pro-lifers would display actual corpses in front of clinics, holding the dismembered heads aloft for passersby, pointing out the fully-formed organs to those considering abortions. I suspect that they would see such behavior as an irreverent treatment of the body. But in photos -- as distinct from drawings or paintings -- you are still showing an actual image of a particular person, and I don't think it quibbling to suggest that some of the same irreverence is shown.

I do not demonize anyone; nor do I cast judgment on any soul. I admire the courage of those willing to stand against the wrath these photos sometimes inspire. If I am wrong about their effects on the viewer, I stand corrected. I agree that the horror of abortion must be exposed. I still question the use of pictures of infants' murdered bodies to achieve this end.

[Follow these links to read the original column and subsequent letters in the May and June issues.]

TOP