Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Some comments on Steve Corbett’s column (“Priest apologizes for showing anti-abortion video”) of Feb. 6:
First, Mr. Corbett’s piece belonged, not on the front page, but on the Opinion page, for it was highly opinionated. Indicative of his catty tone was his use of quotation marks when referring to the CCD instructor as the “teacher.” Every student of English knows that this punctuation denotes that the word in quotations is not used in its ordinary sense – it is tantamount to saying “the so-called teacher.” How would Mr. Corbett like to be referred to as a “journalist”?
I didn’t see the video, so I don’t know what Corbett means by the “gruesome, bloody and violent dramatization of an abortion.” The only details he mentions are “flashing lights, gleaming sharp silver instruments, bloody doctor’s gloves.” He also mentions that the teacher showed plastic models of fetal development. He doesn’t explain how that detail constituted gruesomeness or violence.
Still, I agree with him on principle, that when it comes to the classroom instruction of sixth-graders, material that might be construed as graphic should be discussed beforehand with the parents, so that they can decide whether to have their children opt out for that day or even demand that the lesson be squelched. I hope Mr. Corbett will apply this principle across the board and henceforth be on the lookout for textbooks or videos in any classroom (of children that age) that show, for example, emaciated famine victims or the piles of corpses in the Nazi concentration camps.
So I am not concerned to defend Father Leo McKernan against what he himself has admitted, in retrospect, to have been an error.
With regard to Mr. Corbett, however, I will say that there are worse things than making an error of judgment. Mr. Corbett exercised himself in implying that Father McKernan’s error was not an isolated incident, but indicative of habitual fanaticism. He said that the priest “works his hatred for abortion into his sermons whenever he can.”
Language like this at least borders on rash judgment and calumny, if it does not completely cross the line. Rash judgment and calumny are grave blots on anyone’s character but are especially egregious faults in a journalist.
How can Mr. Corbett refer to abortion as “an overwhelmingly safe medical procedure”? It’s certainly not safe to the baby in the womb, who loses his or her life! But if Corbett means that abortion is “safe” for the woman, is he unaware of the growing number of people – both women who have had abortions and even some former abortionists – who testify to the emotional trauma (even to the point of suicide attempts) to physical effects such as infection and sterility that women (and girls) suffer from abortion?
The duty of a journalist is to speak the truth, which means he must be willing to learn.
Mr. Corbett can refer to books such as “Lime 5,” by Mark Crutcher, and “Recall Abortion,” by Janet Morana. If he does not study such works, he will be guilty of habitually neglecting the duty of his station in life – a more serious blot than an isolated error of judgment.
Joseph S. Warakomski
Hanover Township