Peaceful, Law-Abiding Outlaws

I have recently enjoyed two long email exchanges: one with an administrator at Abolish Human Abortion and another with a representative of Right to Life of M-----. The former was the result of an inquiry about starting a Houston chapter of the organization (toe-dipping, before I knew their biases), the latter a result of an attempt on my part to logically validate or invalidate certain methodologies and tactics.

It is difficult not to have respect for an organization like Abolish Human Abortion, whose leaders at least declare a no-compromise approach to the fight against organized genocide. They call themselves "abolitionists", and vigorously proclaim an "anti-abortion" message.

Likewise, one would be hard-pressed to discredit the legal work of the various Right to Life state organizations. In fact, I would go so far as to say that anyone who claims to be pro-life and yet discredits the important legal work of National Right to Life or its subsidiary chapters would be dishonest in his/her approach to this holocaust.

"Our way or the highway"

However, as my discussion with AHA developed, rather than being questioned about my pro-life -- or anti-abortion, in this case -- convictions and activities, I found myself pushed into an arduous and elaborate defense of my Catholic faith. It turns out that AHA will not accept anyone into its ranks who does not submit to its unique interpretation of the Gospel sola scriptura, and so its proposed message of 'no quarter and no compromise' is diluted by a strange compulsion to press its ideological Christianity on allies and fellow Christians. Rarely is it more evident that a corporation (a group of persons) may have religious convictions than in this instance, and rarely are those religious convictions more inappropriately applied.

Regardless, it would seem to me irresponsible to totally reject AHA's role in the fight against abortion. Displaying the truth by holding signs and offering alternatives is always necessary, as is constant prayer. But the effectiveness of one's mission to stop abortion, to "stop the unjust aggressor", might be questioned if he/she is constantly criticizing loyal and indispensable brothers-at-arms. But we need people to stand up and fight the good fight, to tell the world that they can no longer stop their ears and avert their eyes from over 40 years of mindless slaughter, and so we can support AHA as a valid moral voice insofar as it is doing just that.

The Myth of Time

My conversation with the very polite representative at Right to Life of M----- began with a question I had posed about RLM's position on civil disobedience. The policy of RLM states that they make no judgement about others who may participate in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, and it also affirms that the mission of RLM is to pursue constitutional amendment. My goal was to clarify the implications of the phrase "make no judgement". While it is logical and reasonable to focus on the singular mission of one's organization, I wanted to be sure that RLM understood and endorsed the necessity of other forms of action, specifically the "nonviolent direct action" of Martin Luther King's conception.

In other words, I wanted to be sure there was no latent disapproval of nonviolent direct action within the organization. I wanted to be sure that RLM stands for life and allies itself with all of those who do so in a morally licit manner.

My contact at RLM was very legalistic in his language when providing details about the official policy, but, ultimately, he gave the following explanation (emphasis mine):

"RLM does not condemn non-violent civil disobedience, but we will not engage in it, approve it, or support it in any way. [...] It's impossible to run an effective organization that can not stay singularly focused on their mission. Unity is worthy, but our mission is not to unite or divide the prolife movement, it's a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

and

"What is worth condemning is abortion. But we say our four decades of wisdom means that we will not support methods outside of the law. No one strategy is equally valid to another, some are better than others. You are free to disagree, but we believe abortion will end significantly quicker by working through the system, as opposed to civil disobedience."

I will preface the following by saying that my contact at RLM was, by this time, very familiar with my desire for a complete and accurate understanding of the mission, values, and opinions of RLM. He began the above paragraph with this statement: "I see that you are someone with great concern for precision."

A House United

We must fervently agree with RLM when they say that "It's impossible to run an effective organization that cannot stay singularly focused on their mission." We must fervently agree. We must say that to lead a flock of cats would be exceedingly difficult, and that in order to succeed, an organization must remain committed to its purpose, pursuing every means by which that purpose may be accomplished. For RLM, and for National Right to Life, this purpose is the criminalization of abortion through legal means.

We must not seek to direct these organizations away from their paths, so long as those multitudinous tributaries and hunting trails meet in the great roadway of Justice.

We must also fervently agree with RLM when they say that "unity is worthy" and that it is only through unity, through a "singular focus" on the common "mission" that we may obtain the necessary goal of equal rights for the unborn, for it is impossible to run an effective organization that cannot stay singularly focused on its purpose.

Thus, neither can we run an effective pro-life movement if all of its moving parts, all of its constituent organizations, are not wholeheartedly in mutual support.

We must be precise, and we must be careful when we define our mission, our purpose. We must say not that our mission is "a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution", for while this would be a great milestone in the quest for justice, in 40 years it has not been attained, and time, a neutral reality, does not heal wounds. Thus, we may justly pursue legal intervention as one of the many means by which we call upon the world to render justice unto its most fragile wards, but we may not claim that this method is supreme -- even implicitly, even by "making no judgement" -- posing as if we have some authority to expend as many lives as necessary so long as our indirect means of legal action remain intact.

It is reasonable, in this sense, to approve of legal action and legal goals insofar as the manner in which this is done does not conflict with the overarching mission of saving lives and restoring dignity. It is reasonable to approve of legal action if the manner in which this is done does not conflict with the eternal law.

We must remember that we are not the lawbreakers. We must remember that there exist many barbaric inconsistencies within the current 'legal' system, such as the illegality of murdering individuals who have been born and the converse legality of murdering those who have not, such as the double-homicide count if a pregnant woman has been killed and the converse legal protection of late-term abortionists, such as the illegality of racism and the converse taxpayer support of racist eugenics organizations that kill an overwhelming majority of minority children.

We must remember that we live in a barbaric society where true order has forsaken the legal system. We must remember that any action we commence within that system, while possibly beneficial, creates a false dialogue in which good and evil are set upon a plane, in which the champions of right and the carrion birds of wrong are given equal say. But we must use all means that are morally licit, and so we uphold and we praise the work of organizations like the National Right to Life.

However, we cannot condone any suggestion implied by any organization that MLK's "nonviolent direct action" is, at its worst, immoral or, at best, unnecessary. Just as the human laws of the land are now tools of barbarism, so now those things which are considered barbaric by the barbaric law are the very righteous tools by which barbarism will be overthrown and a tranquil order take its place.

Some may say that the situation today is different from that of the Civil Rights Movement in that those who seek to protect the unborn are not the victims of abuse, and have less license to rise up in civil disobedience. There are many people today, who, in consonance with the Zeitgeist of tolerance, wish to seem like reasonable persons. They ask, "Why can't we all just calm down and have a rational conversation?"

And I answer that there is a certain point at which rational conversation becomes futile, and that point is reached when one party to the conversation is no longer speaking rationally. Killing human beings for profit, pleasure, or convenience is not a rational activity. Moreover, it is irrational to have a conversation about persecution without the voice of the persecuted being heard. It is irrational to remain calm about countless vicious atrocities that are committed day after day within the boundaries of the law.

Furthermore, I answer that we have more of a right to defend the unborn with the sacrifice of our very persons and property because we have more duty to do so. No, we are not fighting for our own rights in an unjust society as many American blacks did in the 1960s (and valiant and praiseworthy was their struggle). Rather, in an even more radical gesture, forsaking our present remaining ease and comfort, forsaking all the rights that we enjoy, we answer the ancient call of love by willingly placing ourselves in harm's way for the sake of these little ones who have no voice and no strength to defend themselves. Just as God raises the battle standard when we let it fall, so we rise to fight for the unborn children. We rise in their stead.

Duty does not disappear when strength is lacking. Either the oppressed can stand or they cannot, and when they cannot, we stand or we fall for them. We need not refer to any other than Jesus Christ, the greatest revolutionary of all, God Himself, who sacrificed his very flesh for the lives and redemption of others, saying, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

I will conclude by saying that, as yet, no reasonable person has proven the ineffectiveness of "nonviolent direct action", but rather a great many reasonable persons, 50 years ago, proved its great effectiveness in pushing negotiations to a positive tension so that certain just demands be answered or the entire social framework devolve into chaos. Their righteous demands were answered, but entropy must continually be countered with order.

Let no one discountenance nonviolent direct action. Or if someone should, let this individual then answer why the Islamic State should not be stopped with decisive action. Let this person then explain why Boko Haram should be addressed with passive, non-confrontational measures. Let him explain why, when the soldiers of the Allies encountered the concentration camps, they should not have invaded and destroyed them, but rather should have held as many 'rational' conversations with the Nazis as possible while the wrongs continued. Let him decry Jeanne d'Arc or Christ purifying the temple.

And when this reasonable person has answered these several challenges of thousands more, let him say again why we should not offer ourselves in peaceful demonstrations as holocausts for a graver wrong, a more horrific indignity, a vast and bloody genocide. Let him, surely a reasonable person, explain why every able man should not take part.

Finally, let no reasonable person denigrate any of the necessary means by which abortion must be fought. Let no reasonable person, in a weak moment of pride, preach sole validity for his method alone and the rejection of all others (or worse, pass no judgement at all) -- not Operation Rescue in the 1980s, not legal organizations nor evangelical groups now. We all need each other.

We are brothers.

We are brothers.

We are brothers.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. Let us all together wear our various scars.