November 30, 2004
Un-freaking-believable
Or not.
This morning, Michelle Malkin links to a simply astonishing obituary in the Seattle Times, a death notice for a man who also happened to have (allegedly, but pretty clearly actually) shot and killed his two daughters.
She quotes:
"More than anything in the world, Steve loved his daughters, Kelsey and Hayley. He was at every soccer game, every school performance, every important event in their lives. He taught them how to do all the things he loved - ride bicycles, go sea kayaking, ski, or simply find some good snow to play in. They read together, played games, went to movies, worked on school projects. He hiked halfway up Mount Rainier with them when they were very young, and all the way up on his own. He taught them by example to love the world, to be adventurous, and to be gentle."
Read the whole thing, as well as the other links Malkin provides.
To be honest, I can't but help see this (the attitude that seems to stand behind glossing over these murders) as an extension, logical or not, of thirty years of abortion and its warped effect on our moral consciousness. Several years ago, I heard Jean Garton, the author of the seminal pro-life work Who Broke the Baby? (scroll down the linked page for thoughts from Garton) speak at an NRLC convention in Orlando at which I was also speaking. The point she made that struck me so very strongly, and that I've thought about quite a bit since, was this:
The first, most important impact of Roe has been lives lost, pure and simple, bottom line.
But second, and almost as pernicious, is the twisting of our moral sensibilities necessitated by an acceptance of abortion-on-demand. In order to live with it, in order to accept it without going mad, we must agree, implicitly, to the destruction of our reason: sometimes what lives inside a pregnant woman is a baby, sometimes it's not. If you want it, its life is precious, if you don't want it, it's disposable. On one floor of the hospital, heroic measures are taken to save young preterm babies. On another floor, or in a clinic down the road, babies of the same getstational age are killed, for a profit. It is somehow a "loving" act to pay someone to kill the innocent within, the most "caring" choice, an act of "compassion."
Our psyches are fractured. Our moral compasses have lost their bearings. And this obit and the attendant commentary is really just one more piece of evidence of how true this is.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83421b3f053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Un-freaking-believable:
» Kelsey And Hayley Byrne, Killed By Father [ Video ] from Diggers Realm
A few days ago I linked to a story that Michelle Malkin did on a sweet and nice obituary written for a man that killed his two kids. My entry was entitled "How Would You Write An Obituary For A... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 4, 2004 4:01:26 AM
» Kelsey And Hayley Byrne, Killed By Father [ Video ] from Diggers Realm
A few days ago I linked to a story that Michelle Malkin did on a sweet and nice obituary written for a man that killed his two kids. My entry was entitled "How Would You Write An Obituary For A... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 4, 2004 12:58:32 PM
Comments
There's a journalistic question here too.
I notice that this was a paid death notice, as opposed to an obituary generated by the newsroom, so one of the questions for me is should the paper have run this notice as is, since the family was paying for it?
Or should the paper have "spiked" the paid notice, or maybe boiled it down to a perfunctory listing of survivors, funeral time etc.?
I would vote for a trimmed-down, just-the-basics death notice, but I can't say that all my journalism colleagues would agree.
Posted by: Whitcomb at Nov 30, 2004 12:22:18 PM
"Dolf, who lived in Berlin, savored life. He has left us now, in a struggle to find peace, and we will miss him. But we will remember that savoring of life, his love of painting, speaking, writing, hiking. His love of an incredible mountain vista, how the leaves turned gold in the fall, a great bottle of Hofbrauhaus and a wonderful vegetarian meal with friends, a long ride around Berchtesgaden or up Brenner Pass. He loved his friends and fiance' as well, and we loved him. More than anything in the world, Dolf loved his dogs..."
Now pardon me while I go to vomit...
Posted by: Dale Price at Nov 30, 2004 12:27:30 PM
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not that unusual. Normally the guy will kill the wife as well but I suppose here she wasn't present. The reason for this sort of "senseless" crime is jealousy and possessiveness--I can't have her (them), nobody can".
I don't think Roe v Wade was responsible for the attitude necessary to commit such a crime which has always happenned in the past.
The glowing obit is a stunner though, gotta admit.
Posted by: carolyn at Nov 30, 2004 12:32:55 PM
The attitude is as ancient as any motivation for murder, you're right, carolyn, but the mainstreaming of it and uncritical presentation of it isn't.
Posted by: amy at Nov 30, 2004 12:49:20 PM
I agree with Carol that I'm not sure how much we can link this with abortion. I think that families of murder/suicide perpetrators have always tried to convince themselves that the killer was mentally disturbed or insane and therefore not responsible for his actions, even when (as seems to be the case here) there is no evidence that this is true. I suspect that might be the underlying story behind this, although it is true that the obituary never makes such a claim explicitly. (There is a vague reference to "a heavy burden none of us could know.")
I do agree with the larger point, as seen in the light sentences meted out to mothers who kill their babies after they are born instead of before.
Posted by: James Kabala at Nov 30, 2004 1:09:58 PM
I don't see anything wrong with wanting to remember the best in people; that's just charitable.
I think it's jumping to conclusions to assume his motive was jealousy and possessiveness; it might just have been a deep depression and lack of hope. Only God really knows - why do we presume to assume his perogitive? The saddest thing is that he appears to have known no hope, no Christ to live for.
It seems to me that widespread acceptance of killing led to Roe v Wade - probably that in the horrific wars of the 20th Century, and in the death penalty. Once you accept killing "the enemy", all the unwanted become "the enemy", and targets. Abortion is the logical consequence of the acceptance of killing.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Nov 30, 2004 1:10:55 PM
There is nothing wrong in wanting to remember the best in people.
But it is morally deranged to *only* remember the best in people and to paper over the great evil they do. Especially when the effort is deliberately deceptive about the evil done and the innocent victims involved. Speak no ill of the dead does not mandate the "hagiography for Hitler" treatment Byrne's unspeakable crime received. This fawning press release for a child killer--his own children!--is positively Hellish.
I shudder at the thought of Andrea Yates' obituary in forty odd years. The statue will probably follow.
Posted by: Dale Price at Nov 30, 2004 1:30:15 PM
Wars have always been bloody, but they don't serve to extinguish the distinction between self-defense and murder. Chris, would you have us believe that we should have launched a protest letter to Japan after it bombed Pearl Harbor? Perhaps a million mom march would have done the trick. Gee, why didn't the Poles think of that when Hitler invaded?
I think Amy is spot on here. Once we justify the killing of the innocent (especially the most innocent), human life is inevitably cheapened. No reason to celebrate killing in defense -- it is sad and nasty business; but it is not morally comparable to the deliberate killing of the innocent.
Posted by: Miike Petrik at Nov 30, 2004 1:47:02 PM
You're making a number of leaps here, all of which I think are unjustified.
First, this was a paid death notice. These are generated by the advertising department, which means someone sent it via e-mail or dictated it over the phone, and no meaningful news judgment was involved other than, "You think this check will clear?" The people who handled it likely had no idea who the guy was, and as long as it didn't contain a naked picture or bad language, would not have flagged it for any objectionable material.
Second, this is hardly an unusual response. A few years ago, a divorced father in Fort Wayne killed both of his children with a bludgeon, then himself with a knife, and left the whole bloody mess for his ex-wife to discover when he failed to bring the boys home after a weekend of visitation. After a few days of news coverage, she -- the ex-wife and bereaved mother -- wrote a letter to the police, ordering them to stop telling lies about her husband to the media, that he was a caring, loving father who had a few personal problems but nothing worth hating him over. The three dead were all buried together, and had a common funeral.
Really, I think this has more to do with shock and denial than with abortion. The human heart is a mysterious organ, and will resist all attempts to inject it with a logic potion.
Posted by: Nance at Nov 30, 2004 1:50:14 PM
At the risk of bothering the noble anti-abortion folks, I would like to offer my opinion that this really has nothing to do with abortion.
It is filicide (the technical term for killing of children older than infancy; distinguished from infantacide or abortion). Filicide is, unfortunatley, not that rare an outcome of custody disputes following divorce. If you want to point a finger at a social ill that precipitated the tragic deaths of these two girls, it is divorce, not abortion. Here is a case in Australia from this summer.
There was a series in the Houston Chronicle following Yate's acts of filicide in 2001. They listed some recent cases with all sorts of causes other than divorce.
A study of filicide in Canada by the RCMP in 2000 found, among other things:
- mothers and fathers are equally to kill infant children, but more mothers than fathers kill older children.
- gender of victim children is equally distributed.
- the offendor was most often severely depressed or mentally ill
- in all cases, family discord and relationship problems were a factor, consistent with literature
- cases of filicide increased in Canada from 1990 to 1998.
In adition to filicide, many "missing children" and "Amber alerts" are also related to custody battles after divorce.
When parental relationships fall apart, children suffer, always.
Posted by: Zhou De-Ming at Nov 30, 2004 2:16:58 PM
As a 30-something born to good parents and schooled via 12 years of Catholic education. An education that unfortunately failed to stem [by my own free will of course] the torrent of neo-paganism that has taken hold of our society, we really, really shouldn't look for single truths about our abortion culture. There is no "there it is" or "it's their fault." I know many Christians don't want to hear this but abortion is a collective failure, OUR failure. Something that has eroded our national consciousness, we're all to blame. I've been on the other side, lived the life, believed the lies. Now I don't, thanks be to God, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin.
Abortion is an unseen evil. To God and those who've had abortion, and of course, the child, it isn't, but to the rest of us, it's an unseen enemy we know is out there, but in our workaday lives, never witness. We see the homeless because some wicked CEO screwed their employees, we see on the news war, rape, murder, and rightly so, we're outraged at these and other ills of our society. Some of us even get riled up over some bird that lives in a tree someone wants to cut down. But the baby, now in pieces, we don't see that. The Germans knew what was going on at Auschwitz, but that was 100 miles away, no one talked about it, and the TV sure didn't show it. Just don't think about it.
Two generations, myself included, were sold a lie we ate up and swallowed whole. Whose fault is it? The 60's generation? Our schools? The ACLU? Liberals? The media? The devil? Sure, all of these and more, but I'd point my finger at the devil first. Myself and my peers, and now those younger than I bought the oldest of lies; We, as individuals are the source and summit of all that is important in this world. Look out for number one. Evaluate all stimuli, opportunities, events and circumstances and reduce them to one simple principle; how does it affect ME?
We might not think we teach our kids this, but we do. Be all you can be. Score that winning touchdown. The individual created America, not people. Great men made this nation what it is. The CEO gets the $1 million bonus, HE did it. Son/Daughter, you have to do good in school and get that good job, you have to make the money. I think you get my drift. But we forgot the most important thing, people can do great things, but without God, these things are worthless, or worse, will devolve into evil. God was taken away. Compartmentalized. Religion is fine. God is good, but just keep him over THERE, no need to mix in that sentiment and spiritualism, keep focused on the goal. "I think my faith and public policy should be separate" to paraphrase something I heard during the past election.
Our society has also reinforced this by how our very lives our set up from childhood. You have to get the grades, get that 1400 on the SAT, go to a good school, get a good job, or you're screwed. Sure, many eschew that mentality, but look around you. 50 years ago, a high school education and hard work would set you up pretty nicely. Now the same will get you $7hr at Wal-Mart, no benefits and an apartment. If you live in any metropolitan area, unless one breadwinner makes a tidy sum, both parents have to work. I live in Southern California. To have a family, very modest home, car [Honda, not BMW] you need $80k a year, minimum. If any of you have kids, talk to them, the pressure is intense.
When you mix a selfishness as birthright, a society that's Darwinism at it's finest, and religion that is little more than a decoration, you invite disaster. Focus on yourself, damn anything that gets in the way. It's everywhere. It's being forced down the throats of almost every kid in this country. And that woman now pregnant, it isn't that she is evil incarnate and has some bloodlust, it's just that she was sold a bill of goods that her baby is now the only thing that stands between her and something. A job, school, doesn't matter. Heck, you see it with people WITH kids. Take the pill and when it's convenient, get off it and have kids because now they fit into their life. The child is an object. One must keep focused on the goal, oneself. Don't believe me that we as a society do not think this way? I can't imagine how you couldn't.
I can't say how to fix this. I have a young family so I better darn well pray and figure out how. I do know this, my parents were, and still are, the best. I can't blame them. But I will incorporate my Catholic faith into every nook and cranny of my kids rearing, rather than the occasional Sunday Mass and dusty Advent calendar schlepped out every November. I pray I can instill deep into their soul that Jesus is the source and summit, not them. That God's designs permeate everything. That without God they too will stumble and fall, like I did. That what the world teaches is a lie, ".. God knows your hearts; for what is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God."
I'll also say this, for those of you who've read to this point, whether you are old or young, with kids or none, you have to do something. Abortion is a symptom of the wreck our society is fast becoming. Sitting back and thinking everything's going to be okay is no different than those "good" Germans 60 years ago. Fix the culture, abortion and a host of other evils will melt away just as did slavery, Nazism, Communism and a thousand other demons we've managed to cast back into hell.
Posted by: andrew at Nov 30, 2004 2:20:55 PM
Nance,
Your first point, about this being a paid obituary generated by the advertising department of the newspaper, leads to, I think, a pertinent question, cf. "Thou shalt not bear false witness to thy neighbor," to wit: did you ever hear of false advertising? Dale Price's parody of a paid obituary for "Dolf" is spot on in this context: the author is leaving out some of the essentials of this man's life, i.e., he murdered. I do not think it too much to ask of a newspaper to know the product which is advertized in their publication. Newspapers have a responsibility to the public to tell the truth, not just to their advertising clients to publish whatever they deem as unobjectionable. And unobjectionable by whose standards, Nance? Yours? There are objective facts about this man's life which were purposefully omitted, to portray something quite different than the reality. That is deception, and it is morally unacceptable. You can excuse the obituary staff write after you write that excuse for Dan Rather not checking all his facts.
You make a great leap in your second point, i.e., the mere reporting of facts about a person is somehow equivalent to "hating" the person. The facts are unpleasant, even horrible, but facts do not hate. They can certainly be used to deceive, but in your example, you do not demonstrate whether there was deception by the press or not. You just suggest that the ex-wife should have the last word, and that is that. I think a lot of people would be more than just a bit incredulous as to the words of an ex-wife in describing a deceased former spouse. But facts are stubborn things. Why place fast and loose with them, just to salve someone's feelings?
Posted by: Fr. Brian Stanley at Nov 30, 2004 2:23:06 PM
Correction:
...obituary staff RIGHT after you write....
Homonyms really get me down.
Posted by: Fr. Brian Stanley at Nov 30, 2004 2:26:23 PM
I didn't intend to draw a causal line, as I attempted to clarify, but I stand by my point that this kind of misplaced, bizarre articulation of what compassion and good parenting means is - an extension of, reflective of, of the same piece of the mentality that sees abortion as an act of compassion to the victim.
Posted by: amy at Nov 30, 2004 2:43:22 PM
And is the great lie that is core to the culture of death.
Posted by: Faith at Nov 30, 2004 3:01:05 PM
Andrew, not too far above this post seems to me to express the problem very well, which Amy was also driving at. I do not know how to fix it either. But it sure needs a lot of prayer if it is to be fixed.
Posted by: Dick Rood at Nov 30, 2004 3:08:30 PM
I think Nance is close to spot on, and I think Fr Brian has jumped ahead of things somewhat in his response to what I read as reporting the truth -- as she and others of us see it. The messenger deserves no criticism in this instance.
That said, I'll also weigh in against this being a cause and effect result of abortion on demand. It strikes me first as being incredibly codependent: making excuses, smoothing over, the lie of saying something convenient instead of saying something true. I think the paper is obliged to provide its readers an answer. I don't doubt that their editorial page in-box will (or should be) full of responses.
My opinion is that this episode and abortion are each symptoms of a much deeper pathology at work in the human race. People have always tried to cover up crimes, gloss them over, make them legal, convince themselves and others this is perfectly normal behavior. This reminds me of Bishop Wenski's blundering about to make some point on immigration. I think the paid obit is repulsive, but I think Amy weakens the argument against it by appealing to abortion.
Posted by: Todd at Nov 30, 2004 3:15:46 PM
Thank you Andrew for putting it so well.
I believe the solution is the application of the totality of Catholic Social Teaching to the totality of society.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Nov 30, 2004 3:16:15 PM
And then there's this:
"Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20041130/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_child_euthanasia
Posted by: Don at Nov 30, 2004 3:17:13 PM
Chris:
I must say I am astonished at your apparent indifference towards the victims of this appalling murderer.
We need to learn to condemn a little more and 'understand' a little less.
Enough of your patronising excuses!
Posted by: JG at Nov 30, 2004 3:21:44 PM
JG,
If I was indifferent to them then I wouldn't have stopped to pray for them.
We need to condemn the mentality which justifies killing, not those who sucumb to it.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Nov 30, 2004 3:49:39 PM
Chris:
We need to condemn the mentality which apologises for murder.
Posted by: JG at Nov 30, 2004 3:54:11 PM
JG,
Agreed.
Just read an interesting article on this very subject in our daily paper.
Gwynne Dyer: Gentle monsters offer a lesson
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Nov 30, 2004 4:04:00 PM
What a horrible story. Suicide Dad is also a murderer. Does this ad signify anything greater than a confused and possibly bereaved family member who has lost three loved ones in a shocking and senseless tragedy?
Of course, it takes Michele Malkin to see the paid death announcement of a murderer as a sign of anything other than befuddlement and confusion on the part of the survivors.
This is almost schadenfreude on Ms. Malkin's part--taking a malicious enjoyment in the pain of others, the others not being the odious murderer, who has already met his Maker, but the surviving family members and friends. Shame on her.
I also fail to see a connection between a murderous father and legalized abortion, but at least I understand Amy's point.
Posted by: George at Nov 30, 2004 5:02:26 PM
Perhaps more mothers are going mad, such as this one, also in Texas.
Another article on When Parents Kill.
Britian seems to have a "innocent by reason of post-partum insanity" law. In the US, fathers who kill tend to get harsher penalties than mothers.
One of the root problems may be:
VIEWING CHILDREN AS PROPERTY,
whether implicitly (MY baby) or explicityly, as in a divorce custody settlement. Viewing unborn children as "property" also helps "justify" abortion. Quote:
"The property theory does provide these answers. Women still believe that they have sole dominion over so little property that arson and armed robbery and rape make no intuitive sense to them. But the destruction and control of something deemed to be a woman's sole property sends a powerful message about who's really in charge, and this message hasn't changed since the time of Jason and Medea.
It would, of course, help if we could stop thinking of children as anyone's property. It does nothing to advance the feminist cause to simply assume that all mothers who kill their children must necessarily be crazy. It will do a good deal to advance the cause of children's rights if we begin to consider them as legal entities in and of themselves."
Posted by: Zhou De-Ming at Nov 30, 2004 5:36:12 PM
