I actually expected the B.C. Catholic story to generate some outraged response mail. It didn't: Just one (one!) reader said I hadn't represented the original editorial fairly. I explained that wasn't my point: I was trying to represent the newspaper story about the editorial fairly, and I believe I did. Then, I got the letter from the editor of B.C. Catholic.

As you've seen, I did not really find his letter to me all that clarifying. His "I didn't mean what I said so clearly" fell rather flat. But perhaps I'm all wrong. Perhaps it's just me that found his words so disgusting. But that can't be it: widespread disgust is what lead to a huge number of newspapers to print shocked stories about his editorial! But what do True's readers think of it? Read on:

Tom in Texas writes:

Seconds later, this came in from Laura in California:

• I did read the page, and although I agree with you about the tragedy of Dr. Slepian's murder and the exacerbation of the polarization between the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" camps, I honestly think that Paul Schratz was sincere in his condemnation of the murder and his expressed horror that people could actually think that it was justified in any way. I also think that Mr. Schratz expresses himself on paper awfully poorly to be an editor of ANYTHING, but suspect that he was selected for other talents than his wordsmithery -- perhaps the quality of being available and willing was enough, as it so often is in non-profit support organizations.

  I have to say that what gives your writing such a pleasurable spiciness is that you are uncompromising in your sense of moral outrage and indignation and more than a little intolerant sometimes of stupidity.... However, seeing Mr. Schratz' article and your comments and responses to him, I can't help feeling that you're being more than a little ruthless and unfair in attempting to unmask an hypocrisy that isn't actually there. It's so easy, when we are absorbed in the idiocy and malignancy in the world to see every action as uncompromisingly black or white, right or wrong, and a kind of cynicism grows in us where we doubt everyone's honor and suspect all motives. I think Mr. Schratz' editorial is one of those cases that fall into the gray area.

The question your "black and white" comment (which I think is a really interesting thing to come out in a religion story!) brings up in my mind: If "white = good" and "black = evil", how much gray -- or, to put it another way, how much evil -- is acceptable for the spokesman of the archbishop to defend? My point about the editorial is exactly what you say: it is gray, in that it both condemns the murder and wallows in glee over it -- it mixes the evil (glee) with the good (condemnation) -- which is not what one would expect from the Church, and is exactly what was behind my "loophole" comment on the story in the first place.

Linda in Colorado sends:

• You are in error re: the Paul Schratz editorial on only one point that I can see. This is EXACTLY what one would expect, i.e. condoning and condemning the murder of abortion providers at the same time. I worked as a nurse in an abortion clinic for a number of years and took a keen interest in similar editorializing. I came to believe that while it is standard doctrine to denounce all murder, many anti-abortionists feel justice has been done when physicians are killed. They have difficulty hiding this duality before scrutiny.

From Kevin in California:

• I did laugh at your original commentary because it was clever and, like most humor, based in truth. There certainly are plenty of Ten Commandment loophole artists out there but I find most of them to be functioning in the field of law or politics. Unfortunately, I am also unwilling to spend a few hours wandering around the Archdiocese web site looking for one editorial, so I am still not privy to any more than Mr. Schratz' reply letter and the 1.5 sentences quoted in UPI.

  But gee willickers Randy. Talk about harsh! I just thought you really let the guy have it for a seemingly benign request that you read his editorial and a statement that he felt he had been misunderstood by the original reporter.

  You couldn't find anybody more anti-abortion than myself, but I rarely agree with the methods I see used in an attempt to intimidate those who do not agree. It doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to realize that this is probably the worst way in the world to get someone to change their mind. And I can honestly say that in the case of a doctor getting murdered, my reaction is not, "Oh goody, one less abortionist". By Mr. Schratz own words it would appear that that is exactly what he felt. If that isn't the loophole you describe, I don't know what is.

  Personally, I think you would have nuked Mr. Schratz by saying that you had read his writing, disagreed with his position, and still feel the commentary you wrote was completely appropriate AND funny. That's all I would have needed anyway. I have read far too much This Is True to think you ever need to go this far to explain or defend what you do. This has been, by far, one of the most worthwhile subscriptions I have ever had. Many of the stories are not that funny on their own, but the commentary you add often has me roaring with laughter. I often wonder just how you work your magic.

  Anyway, the free advice of the day, (which is worth exactly what you paid for it) is, If Mr. Schratz really holds such idiotic views, just give him the time of day, and he will have received much more than he is worth.

Well, you've got me there.

Christopher in New Jersey says:

• I read through your initial commentary, the reply by the archbishop(?)*, your reply to his reply, and the original editorial about which everything was based. I was appalled by the original editorial, amused by your initial commentary, appalled again by the reply, and amused and heartened by the reply^2. It intrigues me that someone would be so blatant about endorsing the death of a doctor that performs abortions, yet condemns the fact that the death was brought about in guise of murder. For this is what was going on. The good that he was apparently speaking of was that this evil abortionist was going to hell. ... It is incontrovertable that whether or not abortion is "wrong" is not a closed decision from the world-view standpoint. In fact, the pro-lifers do not even have a majority. So if someone is going to endorse such a view that Satan is personally involved in causing abortions, it seems somewhat prudent on their part to keep the punishment in the hands of God, rather that in their own.

* -- We need to be clear, here: the Paul Schratz is not the archbishop! He edits the official newspaper of the archbishop of Vancouver, British Columbia. One should be able to presume that, in this position, he speaks for the archbishop, and that the archbishop agrees with what is being said since he has not repudiated the words, but at the same time, we cannot presume Mr. Schratz' words are the same as the archbishop's. In any case, you've drawn an interesting and thought-provoking conclusion!

I found this next one quite interesting!

• Randy, I agree with the readers who thought you were too nice to
  the guy. He has utterly no logical leg to stand on. If there was a
  "misunderstanding," it was simply his inability to sort out exactly what was
  in his own mind at the time he sat down at the keyboard to write the
  editorial.

  Chuck Shepherd
  Syndicated Columnist, News of the Weird

Diana in Ohio wondered:

• Randy-- I have read your columns for some time and have looked forward to them each week. I was spurred on to read the Archbishops commentary directly after reviewing his letter & your remarks on your website. I suppose I could understand how someone might misinterpret the bishop's remarks if they took them out of context but I think he was basically being transparent in his thoughts about the event; he was in a sense 'thinking out loud'. I don't believe for one minute that he rejoices in or agrees with the murder of this man. And I think this is pretty obvious from the tone of his words and from those of follow-up notes on his website. The fact that he had a passing thought that this would make other doctors think twice about performing abortions is just that... a passing thought.....and it appears that because he was being transparent that this caused him some problems. Ok, maybe it wasn't the best thing for someone in his position to say but you can't tell me that if someone who was a pro-lifer was shot or injured in jail as a result of protesting that there wouldn't be a passing thought (or maybe a prolonged thought) among pro-abortionists that this might have a good side?

  (P.S.: After a bit of searching I found the exact address to his commentary & also to his followup comments in case you are interested it is http://www.rcav.bc.ca/bc_catholic/index.htm).

I doubt very many pro-choicers would be gleeful about a pro-lifer being murdered -- I think they're as moral as the next person and would mostly be quite disgusted that what they see as a reasonable misunderstanding had turned violent. But that's not the point: pro-choicers aren't basing their entire argument on the sanctity of human life, as the majority of pro-lifers are. For pro-lifers to do that, and then glory in the loss of life, makes them blithering hypocrites, even if the public display of their glee is accidental by (as you suggest) "thinking out loud" too loudly!

Unfortunately, the URL you gave still isn't right, but it was close enough that I could find the right ones easily. They were, for the original editorial, http://www.rcav.bc.ca/bc_catholic/pasteditorials/98-11-02.htm and, for his follow-up, where Schratz disclaims responsibility for sowing the idea that he encouraged murders by concluding "...who knows how many people around the world were left with the mistaken impression that a Catholic newspaper preached a message of violence. Some people lectured me that an unbalanced person might read the original editorial out of context and use it to justify violence. All I can say is that the editorial is now out of context, winding its way electronically around the world. The truck is thundering down the highway, with nobody at the wheel.", was http://www.rcav.bc.ca/bc_catholic/pasteditorials/98-11-30.htm -- but as of at least early 2007, both had been deleted.