Editorial: The Verbal Lynching of Deal Hudson Must End

The perpetrators of this campaign of verbal public lynching against Deal Hudson are trying to destroy the messenger because they cannot deflect the discussion away from the content of the message.

CHESAPEAKE, VA (Catholic Online) - On September 26, 1996, there was a debate underway on the floor of the United States Senate. It concerned the first of several efforts to ban an abortion procedure wherein a fetus (an unborn child) is partially delivered in order to expose the base of her skull for the abortionist. Then, forceps are inserted into the skull in order to facilitate the sucking out of her brains, resulting in her death, and making the collapse of her skull easier so as to facilitate the birth of a dead child.

Fortunately, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Public Law 108-105, HR 760, S 3, 18 U.S. Code 1531)[1] (or "PBA Ban") now prohibits this gruesome procedure. Medically it is referred to as intact Dilation and Extraction". Oh how those medical terms try to mask the horror. The Federal law, recently upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, reads as follows: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

One of those supporting the ban of this procedure back in 1996 said these words on the floor of the US Senate: "I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus, and what on Earth is this procedure?" This is found in the Congressional Record of Sept. 26, 1996 (S11373). Then, a little over six months later, on March 2, 1997, that same person appeared on NBC News's "Meet the Press" and further commented on his earlier own words on the Senate floor concerning the procedure saying it was "...not just too close to infanticide; it is infanticide, and one would be too many."

Who was this person who dared to use the word "infanticide" when referring to the practice of Partial Birth Abortion? Was it Deal Hudson? No. It was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic Senator from New York.

Campaign 2008

Now, let's fast forward to the Presidential campaign of 2008 and what has recently become a very close race. The presumptive Democratic Party Nominee, Senator Barack Obama, has run into a problem. His consistent public support of the so called "abortion right" remains. Efforts to deflect the discussion of where he really stands have not made much progress. His record is clear. I have tried and will continue to try to persuade him that every procured abortion is the taking of innocent human life because the child in the womb, the same one we operate on with these wonderful new intrauterine surgical procedures and take pictures of through our sonograms, is a member of our human family and therefore our neighbor. We all know it. Medical science confirms it does not take religion to prove it; the Natural Law has placed the truth upon our hearts that it is wrong to kill our neighbor. I am also trying, as are many others, to help Senator Obama to see that this is a social and economic justice issue - a true issue of solidarity with the poor. As Blessed Teresa of Calcutta loved to say when she was with us, children in the womb are the "poorest of the poor".

Senator Obama now repeatedly rejects the very notion that he somehow "supports" abortion. Like others who by their failure to live a unity of life, hiding their "personal position" on killing from their public position, he supports protecting this evil by the Positive Law. He strains words trying to argue that it is, after all, a "personal choice". However, we know what that personal choice entails. He simply supports the current "abortion right" which is the direct result of Roe v Wade and its progeny. As a constitutional lawyer and professor he knows that decision well and has repeatedly praised it. He is on record supporting the "Freedom of Choice Act". In point of fact, he was one of the co-sponsors of the legislation. That Act would invalidate, at the Federal level, all State and Federal restrictions on abortion effectively entrenching what the Court did in Roe.

He has regularly reaffirmed this support of the so called "abortion right" saying without equivocation, "I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President" as he did in his speeches to Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocacy groups. During this campaign he has said that abortion is a "difficult moral issue". I hope this reflects a sincere reconsideration. However, NARAL Pro-Choice, in endorsing him for President made his current position crystal clear by quoting the candidates own statement which he submitted to that Abortion advocacy group, upon their request, on May 14, 2007:

"A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women. "I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case.

"I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims. "Finally, I support the enactment and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients."

The record shows that he initially spoke out against restricting even so called "Partial Birth Abortion". Even putting his latest comment to a Christian magazine named "Relevant" where he seemed to indicate that he may be reconsidering his support of the so called "mental health exception" to Partial Birth Abortion in the best light, he does have a record on the matter while serving in public office in Illinois. This record has become the subject of open verbal warfare on the blogs, those on the "left" and the "right". However, he recently stated with clarity his opposition to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the April 2007 Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act with these words: "I am extremely concerned that (it) will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade."

He voted against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that prohibited taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion. His campaign has stated that he "does not support" the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortion through the Medicaid program. He voted to block a bill that would have required an abortionist to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another State. Finally, his position supporting the killing of human embryonic life for experimentation, though not all that different than his opponent, goes even further saying "Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources including in vitro fertilization. ...We should expand and accelerate research using these embryos..."

So, as a result of this clear public position against the Right to Life, Senator Obama is having increasing problems with Catholics and other Christians who hold to the unbroken teaching of the Christian tradition (at least until relatively recently) that every procured abortion is the taking of innocent human life and is therefore intrinsically evil, in other words always and everywhere wrong and immoral. He has tried in innumerable ways to emphasize his other positions which may comport with some other important aspects of Catholic Social teaching. Some of his supporters appeal to the "consistent ethic of life" approach of that teaching to woo orthodox Catholics and other faithful Christians to the candidate's side. However, the polls are indicating that they have not had a lot of success.

As I wrote in a past article comparing both major candidates on the issues, Abortion has become the "800 lb Gorilla" in this campaign. The New York Times on August 7, 2008 indicated in an article entitled "Obama's View on Abortion May Divide Catholics" by John M. Broder that the campaign is considering giving a convention speaking role to Pro-Life Senator Bob Casey Jr. Casey is the son of the last great truly pro-life and pro-poor Democrat, his late father Governor Bob Casey, who was censored by the Democratic Party because of his clear and consistent Pro-life views. Apparently they hope that such an act might undo the harm that horrid act of censorship unleashed. Part of that harm was to push many Democrats (that included me) out of the Party. I can only surmise from this that they know that without the support of Catholics and other Christians (who would vote for a Governor Bob Casey today if were running), they have a real struggle on their hands. They seem to hope that somehow the sons' pro-life bona fides (though not anywhere as strong and consistent as his fathers were) might somehow rub off on this current Presidential candidate. In short, the Obama campaign has a real electability problem on this position.

So, it appears that a plan has been launched which, especially if the campaign is even indirectly involved, is nothing short of reprehensible. It is what I call the Verbal Public Lynching of Deal Hudson.

Public Detraction and the Politics of Personal Destruction

I have addressed this campaign of verbal lynching before in an article I wrote on July 18, 2008 entitled "In Defense of Deal Hudson". In that piece I expressed my deep disappointment at the tactics of a group called "Catholics United" who sent out an E- mail Blast dragging back into the public eye a 14 year old incident involving then Professor Deal Hudson and one of his female students. I was shocked that Catholics would do such a thing In fact; my main concern was that it had serious theological implications. This incident was the subject of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I questioned whether these Catholics who sent the E-Mail in the following words:

"First, let me put it bluntly, for a group calling itself "Catholics United", you should be ashamed of yourself! To bring up Deal's past behavior like you did, knowing full well that that very behavior was forgiven in Sacramental confession, is reprehensible. Do you believe in the efficacy of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? If so, how could you as his fellow Catholics, drag it out, use it in this calumnious E-blast, and once again parade it before the public thereby hurting his reputation and injuring his family?Did you simply do it for some perceived Political advantage? Shouldn't we who are Catholic Christians treat one another differently?

One of my personal heroes from the treasury of our mutual faith is the great Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine. Prior to his coming into the full communion of the Church he lived in a non-marital, sexually inappropriate relationship with a woman who bore him a son named Adeodatus. Augustine later brought that son with him to the saving waters of Baptism. His behavior, having a non-marital sexual relationship, was objectively wrong.
However, when Augustine turned to the Lord in the Catholic Church, that sexual relationship outside of marriage was forgiven through Baptism. It was forgiven and subsequently forgotten, as occurs in every Sacramental confession as well.I hope you would agree with me that St. Augustine went on to do some commendable work. What if you lived during his day and disagreed with him on some issues? Would you have brought up his past indiscretions in the way in which you have brought up Deal Hudson's?

You can disagree with Deal Hudson's Politics. I do, and I have, on many occasions and over many issues. I have made it known quite strongly. Every time I have done so, he has been a worthy opponent. You have had every opportunity to take your own Policy disagreements to the Public Square. I for one would have welcomed an intelligent debate. Instead, you have now resorted to impugning a fellow Catholic's character by bringing up a past indiscretion which was forgiven in the Sacraments. By resorting to such calumny and vicious written attacks like the kind you entered into in that E-Blast, you have also undermined your own moral credibility. After all, at the heart of the entirety of Catholic Social teaching is the virtue of Charity."

Sadly, the effort to destroy Deal Hudson and hurt his family still persists and is getting uglier. It is an example of what is called the "politics of personal destruction" by some. The story is being recycled on the blogosphere and has resulted in several recent news articles. It even merited a spot on the ever rapacious "Huffington Post". If that were all that was involved I might have simply republished my older piece and would not have taken the time to write this one. I would have chocked it up to partisan politics of the worst kind. However, there are now new players at the table in addition to "Catholics United". And, by the way, before I address them let me restate what my own public record has shown, I have disagreed with Deal Hudson on many issues, not the least of which was my opposition to the initial incursion into Iraq. I am an advocate of the full Social teaching of my Church, including the consistent ethic of life (rightly understood within a hierarchy of values) and have rejected long ago all of the tired old labels of "left", "right" or "liberal" and "conservative". I am what I like to call pro-life (whole life/pro-life), Pro-marriage and family, pro-poor, pro-freedom and pro-peace.

I was disappointed by the E-Mail blast of "Catholics United" and wrote my last article to address it. I had hoped that the tactics it showed would not reoccur. However, I recently had sent to me a Press Release of July 29, 2008 which was posted on a blog entitled "Voice From the Desert". This blog may be affiliated with "SNAP", the "Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests" whose Executive Director is David Clohessy. This awful release calls Deal, who I know to be a good husband, a good father, and a man who has received the full forgiveness of the Lord in the Sacramental absolution of the Church for that 14 year old indiscretion, a "Predator"! It then calls for his removal from his volunteer's position with a group supporting the candidacy of John McCain. If this blog is a part of "SNAP", I would love to have SNAP explain to me what this kind of defamatory and injurious diatribe has to do with the stated mission of their non profit organization? Deal is not a member of the Clergy. The incident in question is 14 years old and did not involve a minor.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of respecting the reputation of our fellow men and women in these words: "2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them; - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them." The Code of Canon Law, Par. 220 reinforces the seriousness of this offense with these words: "No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy."

Conclusion

I can only come to one conclusion as I see this awful effort to harm a man and his family continue and worsen. The perpetrators of this campaign of verbal public lynching against Deal Hudson are trying to destroy the messenger because they cannot deflect the discussion away from the content of the message. Deal Hudson has not said anything that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan also said about the procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion". If Senator Obama does not support keeping this deadly procedure available to those women who want to choose to take the life of their children right before birth, he should say so.If he wants to publicly reject his own record on abortion then he should do so.

If he at least finds this kind of verbal public lynching of a man for an action which occurred 14 years ago reprehensible then he should ask those behind it who support his campaign to stop it. Perhaps he is unaware it is even happening? I really want to believe that he is. He began his candidacy for the Presidency promising a "new kind of politics". He said "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players,"

I agree. The verbal public lynching of Deal Hudson must come to an end.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online