From time to time, the fabric of society is torn asunder by a moment too outrageous to ignore. From time to time, individuals and communities who consider themselves nonviolent are forced to witness violence of which they are undeniably a part. Both were the case in a tragedy this spring in Pensacola, Florida, and they reveal a moral crisis of the most profound nature.
On March 10 the life of Dr. David Gunn was brutally extinguished by three shots from a gun fired in cold blood outside an abortion clinic. That violent moment exposed the raw nerve of a social dilemma that threatens our individual and common integrity.
Values perceived as absolutely non-negotiable by some have come into direct conflict with values perceived as absolutely non-negotiable by others. Sometimes disengaged, honest, objective persons are able to identify in such situations the blindness of one side or the other--or both--and to cast the moral debate in a manner with which both sides can live.
But in some cases no one is able to identify acceptable middle ground and the explosive encounter that follows seems beyond the reach of all mediation. Then people of clashing opinion can react to each other in a number of ways.
They can, for example, go to war. They can turn to state-approved or privately implemented intimidation and terror, even going so far as to execute the less powerful opposition. (Too many death squads and repressive governments have chosen this option!) They can withdraw from the public debate and focus on the rights of the individual or retreat into silence to avoid the painful conflict. They can try to influence each other by propaganda or disinformation. Or they can engage in honest debate and dialogue from different points of view, all the while honoring the other's humanity and respecting their right to act in good conscience.
The escalating climate of violence that culminated in Gunn's killing did not come out of thin air. It was the almost inevitable manifestation of a public argument that has lost its moorings. Some, while denouncing the violence of abortion, have perpetrated violence themselves. Wanted posters and other direct threats against individual doctors have helped to create an increasingly ugly atmosphere.
MURDER in the name of life is madness. It is madness in war; it is madness in state-condoned executions; it is madness in private acts of vengeance that fly in the face of God. Murder in the name of life nourishes and is nourished by the spiral of violence that threatens to consume us all. When the pain and frustration experienced by those who mourn the loss of innocent life lead to violence, it is time to look again at whether it is truly a love of life that motivates action--or whether it is actually ego and a focus on one's self.
At the same time, we live in a society that is purportedly defined by participation and pluralism. We believe we have the "space" for disagreement and the right to inject our moral evaluation of any issue into the public debate. We have constitutionally guaranteed for each other the right of assembly and the right to free speech.
Society has the responsibility to use legal means to shape the parameters of the abortion debate, ensuring that it is thoroughly nonviolent and respectful of the rights of others. But those with access to political power--in particular those who would paint everyone with moral questions about abortion as right-wing fanatics--must not use the law to preempt a necessary national dialogue about this painful issue. To make the issue of abortion the only issue in the United States about which it would be illegal to protest peacefully would make a mockery of our national identity and preclude "honest debate and dialogue from differing points of view."
THE ABORTION DEBATE in the United States cannot continue in the volatile direction it is going. Perhaps those who crave justice and pursue it, who choose life and work for it on both sides of the abortion debate, are wavering in our commitment, failing in our faithfulness. We desperately need to examine what failure has allowed the violence of a few individuals and a few organizations to poison the possibility of moving away from violent extremes toward a respectful public consensus.
Nonviolence is the only lasting route to the preservation of life. When Gandhi's attempts to orchestrate massive nonviolent action on behalf of life faltered and violence broke out, he time and again cancelled the resistance campaign and called for the refocusing of values and vision through fasting and reflection. "Nonviolent action," he wrote, "without the cooperation of the heart and the head cannot produce the intended result." When an inner commitment to nonviolence was lacking, it was necessary to start again from the very beginning.
Perhaps, in the tradition of Gandhi, the people involved should call for a moratorium on all public demonstrations and direct actions on the issue of abortion. Surely it is time for an end to all provocative, hostile actions, and all destructive rhetoric on both sides.
It is time for those who claim to support human dignity and life--the rights of the women and the rights of their children--to risk "intense listening" to the other. It is time for people of faith who believe in the value of all human life to re-encounter the Source of life with honesty and humility. What is needed is a time of prayer and deep ethical and moral re-evaluation--and for open, honest, respectful dialogue across the painfully broken landscape of this debate.
Marie Dennis worked in the Maryknoll Society Justice and Peace Office and was the national chair of Pax Christi USA when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!