Jimmy and Chivalry – Folha de S. Paulo, June 9, 1977
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
We have received a somewhat delayed copy of the American newspaper The Wanderer from February 1977, which reports on a monumental demonstration against abortion in Washington.
Thousands of protesters, some residing in the US capital and others arriving on 700 buses, formed, under the direction of the March for Life Committee, a huge column that marched from the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. The protesters intended to obtain an audience with President Carter. To this end, Mrs. Nellie Gray, the Committee President, had already written a letter to the head of state on December 28, inviting him to address the protesters. Usually so kind and smiling, he was curt this time. He simply had a member of his staff respond to the invitation with a “no.”
On the eve of the march, tireless in her kindness, Mrs. Gray sent roses to the Carters, with words addressed especially to the president: “I invite you once again to speak to us when we ask our government to take measures to stop the slaughter of unborn children.” And, in strictest logic, she added: “You speak of basic human rights, condemn imposing an inferior quality of life on anyone, and affirm that the powerful should not persecute the weak. Such words should not be just part of a speech but be filled with substance and action.” Perhaps it would be impossible to present the campaign in a more gracious manner or in terms more pleasing to Mr. Jimmy Carter.
Indeed, everyone will remember that the new US president has placed his domestic and international actions under the aegis of a supreme moral principle: uncompromising and universal respect for the so-called human rights. With an emphasis, of course, on the weakest, the least known, and the most helpless.
Now, abortion stands in stark contradiction to respect for human rights. It summarily attacks life, the basic right whose possession makes all others possible. It affects the weak par excellence, that is, poor beings in their mothers’ wombs, who are therefore unable to mount even the most basic defense on their own behalf. It slaughters innocents who have no sins to repent of before God or man. Finally, it harms not only earthly life but also the eternal future of its victims. For abortion, as is actually the case, deprives countless victims of the sacrament of baptism. As a result, they are denied access to heaven. All that remains for them is to live in limbo.
Everything would lead one to believe that, enthusiastic about this sublime new field opening up for him to defend human rights, the American president would emphatically accept the invitation from the steering committee of the great march. And that, when it passed in front of his residence at the White House, he would interrupt any activities to address them with impassioned words of support, encouragement, and enthusiasm.
Moreover, what a magnificent photo opportunity in a country where the president is usually a candidate for a second four-year term. In fact, Cardinal Terence Cooke, Archbishop of New York and head of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lamented in a letter read at all Sunday Masses in the archdiocese the deliberate destruction of more than one million children each year for economic reasons.
What a brilliant and admirable opportunity to become the American and world standard-bearer for human rights and the glorious, unwaveringly heroic defender of innocent and helpless little ones whom paternal ferocity slaughters in such large numbers every year!
What an uproar there would be over a summary execution of criminals, drug dealers, murderers, or terrorists anywhere in the world! And rightly so.
However, to public opinion sensitive to such abuses, how much more should the modern killing of innocents, practiced by parents against their children day after day, month after month, and year after year, matter, roughly throughout the world?
All this could have made Mr. Jimmy Carter see that, along with the lovely roses offered by Mrs. Gray, the March for Life Committee President, she was placing in his hands, strictly speaking, one of the most beautiful banners of human rights in a reasonable and sane world.
However, Mr. Carter did not feel this way. He did not condescend to receive the impressive demonstration and instead sent an aide to meet with Mrs. Gray and two leaders of the March for Life Committee. The conversation seems to have been unremarkable, as The Wanderer reports nothing of interest about it.
It would be pointless and ring hollow to view the American president’s abstention as a purely personal decision. Of the millions of people who feel sympathy when they read or watch stories about human rights issues in newspapers or on TV, how many destroy the human lives they create for reasons of personal convenience?
A Lapp who dies of cold due to undeserved misery, a Sinhalese person unjustly victimized in some social struggle in Ceylon, and a black man unjustly shot in Africa bring tears and protests. Shortly thereafter, the protesters extinguish at home the life they had the glory of creating. And they call this “responsible parenthood”!
Our century is blatantly incoherent in everything, even in its compassion.
The truth is that, if waved by the American president, the beautiful banner of the fight against abortion would cause far more unease than enthusiasm.
But a question remains unanswered. Should human rights be defended only when doing so does not cause discomfort for the transgressors?
