Twenty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time 2000 (B) - "The Hypocrisy of the Press Concerning Abortion."

(Twenty-second Sunday of the Year (B): This homily was given on September 3, 2000 at St. Pius X Church, Westerly, R.I. by Fr. Raymond Suriani. Read Mark 7: 1-23. Please note: verses 9-13 of Mark 7 [which are referenced in this homily] are omitted in the Lectionary.)

"The Hypocrisy of the Press Concerning Abortion."

Given the humidity, this will be a much shorter homily than the one I planned on giving today. (I am somewhat merciful, believe it or not!)

In this Gospel story from Mark 7, Jesus reprimands the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. Hypocrisy occurs not when you fail to practice what you preach or say (that’s a common misunderstanding of the term); hypocrisy happens when you don’t believe what you preach or say. The Pharisees said they believed in the Ten Commandments, but deep down inside they really didn’t accept at least one of them—the one that said, "Honor your father and your mother." That was clear from this little "tradition" they had of allowing people to dedicate money to God and neglect their parents in the process.

If Jesus were walking the face of the earth today, unfortunately he’d still have to deal with Pharisaical hypocrisy—especially in the press and media. On that note, I wrote two letters to the editor this past week: one to the Sun, the other to the Providence Journal. I focused my comments on two articles I had read (one in each paper) which related to the very same subject matter. Let me now read to you some of what I wrote in my letter to the Sun:

I’m confused. An article which appeared in the Westerly Sun on August 29^th was entitled, "Prosecutors seek to jail pregnant woman to protect unborn child." The first line read: "Prosecutors are seeking to protect an unborn child by locking up a pregnant member of a fundamentalist sect who is suspected of covering up the death of her last baby."

Acting on behalf of the state in this matter is Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh. Mr. Walsh was quoted as saying, "Someone must act to protect that baby. I would never forgive myself if I stood by doing nothing and then something bad happened to that baby." In a related article in the Providence Journal on August 30^th, Mr. Walsh stated, "If society can’t do something to protect this kid, then there’s something wrong. . . . I want to save this baby."

District Attorney Walsh is certainly to be applauded for his efforts. But my confusion persists. What is contemptuously called a "fetus" by abortion proponents (as if to deny its humanity), is referred to in this context as "a child." Which is it? If it is a child, then why doesn’t it currently enjoy a "right to life" here in the United States--a right clearly affirmed by our Declaration of Independence? The truth of the matter is: this innocent human being could legally be killed according to current United States law. In fact, this baby’s life could be terminated even at the moment of its birth, [through partial-birth abortion].*

Mr. Walsh’s words are poignantly prophetic. There is something terribly wrong with a society which is unwilling to protect the lives of its most innocent members.

Both papers referred to "the child" and "the baby." So it’s clear: these journalists and editors know it’s a human being who resides in the womb for nine months prior to birth! But I ask you: Where, oh where, are their diatribes against the murder of these innocent children? Very rarely do you find one. Most of the articles and editorials I read in newspapers like these support abortion. This, my brothers and sisters, is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. They say in most of their writings, "We don’t believe it’s a person," but deep down they know quite well it’s a human being. If you want to know what Jesus Christ would say to these men and women if he were walking the face of the earth right now, just read this Gospel text again and take note of what he said to the hypocritical Pharisees.

*In the actual letter sent to the Sun, I described in vivid detail this gruesome procedure. The final line of the paragraph read: In fact, this baby’s life could be terminated even at the moment of its birth, by having scissors stuck into the back of its neck and its brains sucked out.