In the March 30 editor’s note
responding to Debi Vinnedge’s comments on voting for McCain even though he
supports human embryonic stem-cell research, you repeat a statement from a
previous Register commentary that I find extremely troubling.
In listing the reasons why a
person’s vote can become less and less tied to totally protecting the culture
of life, you wrote, “Our obligation is to cast the vote that will do the least
harm to the culture of life.” Perhaps that applies to your perception of what
your obligation is, but it does not apply to everyone else’s.
Many moral theologians and laypeople
like me believe that our obligation is to cast a vote that is in direct
relationship to our duties as people of faith, which means we could not in good
conscience vote for someone just because someone else tells us they suspect
this person might do something for babies at some point down the road, whether
that could be Supreme Court nominations or something else.
None of us has a crystal ball, but
we all have the ability to decide for whom to cast a vote, not because the
Register tells us what its perception of our moral obligations is, but because
we know in our hearts that pro-life compromise leads nowhere. … It is a dead
end.
As a 100% pro-life PAC’s political
expert has written:
“Politics is not the shortcut to
stopping the baby killing many seem to think it is. Moral conversion, usually
through education or experience and the grace of God, is. If the voters do not
isolate the issue and force the politicians to address it, they never will. By
accepting the lesser of two evils route for so long, all we have succeeded in
doing is making abortion a non-issue.”
Judie
Brown, president
American
Life League Inc.
Stafford,
Virginia
Editor’s note: We thank
the president of the American Life League for her letter on the difficult topic
of what to do when faced with the choice of voting for imperfect legislation
that nonetheless would decrease the prevalence of abortion. Happily, though,
readers don’t have to rely on what “the Register tells us its perception of our
moral obligation is” or on any “100% pro-life PAC’s political expert” who
disagrees.
Pope John Paul II addressed this
issue in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium
Vitae (The Value and Inviolability of Human Life). Though he
explicitly addressed politicians, the prudential application of this directive
to voters is evident.
“A particular problem of conscience
can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage
of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized
abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be
voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. … [W]hen it is not possible to
overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose
absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well-known, could licitly
support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at
lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public
morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust
law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
Abortion Trumps All Issues
In the article “Obama and Abortion”
by Tom McFeely and in the editorial “Obama vs. Right to Life” (May 18), I
recognize the writers’ zeal and passion for life because I have it in me, too.
My pro-life desire has been to
eliminate violence, an inclusive term which extends to abortion. These past
five years I have channeled some of my energies into speaking out to prevent a
war with Iraq and now to ending that war.
So I am mystified when leaders of my
Church imply that I should vote for a man who supports that war, obviously
something I will not do.
We have graphically portrayed and
described the act of abortion.
Perhaps if the bodies of soldiers
dismembered by roadside bombs were more often photographed and described, the
travesty of war would be more readily seen as a significant life issue.
Thousands of our soldiers have been killed, tens of thousands of them wounded.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people have been killed and wounded.
We do not now nor have we ever had a
truly pro-life president. Our presidential candidates have imperfect pro-life
positions, so we must choose between flawed persons to be the next president of
the United States. The pro-life issue of primary importance in this election is
the ending of the war in Iraq.
Carol Nilles
Thiensville, Wisconsin
Editor’s
Note: Bear with us, those who have seen us answer this point before.
The Register editorialized against
the justice of the invasion of Iraq as early as September, 2002, and kept at it
ever since. But the question of abortion is something different altogether. As
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, shortly before he became Pope Benedict XVI, put it
in a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick: “Not all moral issues have the same
moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. … There may be a legitimate diversity
of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death
penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Shedding Light on Obama
The editorial, “Obama vs. The Right
to Life,” (May 18) is as accurate as it is important. It is astonishing that
millions of Americans are kept in the dark about Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition
to a bill that would protect the right of a baby who survived an abortion to
medical treatment.
How can anyone be taken seriously
about health care for all Americans when he would intentionally allow an
innocent baby to go untreated and thrown away like garbage?
Support for infanticide is not
merely immoral, it is Hitlerian. Many thanks to the Register. It has the
courage, and the erudition, to speak the truth about controversial issues. It
is truly a blessing for all Catholics.
William
Donohue, president
Catholic
League for Religious and Civil Rights
New
York, New York
Standing Up for Life
In an otherwise excellent article,
“Obama and Abortion” (May 18) by Tom McFeely, he ends with an incorrect
conclusion.
David Carlin is quoted, “So I think
if he (Sen. Obama) gets elected president, it’s going to be a very, very bad
time for pro-life Catholics.”
While Obama’s election will
undoubtedly create even more difficulty and obstacles for the
army of pro-life workers around the world, we will keep on praying
and working to save God’s created human lives and their mothers and
fathers.
No, the real victims of Obama’s
election will be the greatly expanded numbers of dead innocent unborn
children, the increased numbers of dead innocent partially born
children, and larger numbers of dead innocent completely born
children, if somehow they survive their attempted murder.
But, how can Obama get elected if
Catholics are serious about life and vote against his election? How can
Catholics even consider voting for him?
Our Pope, successor to St.
Peter, in Yankee Stadium emphatically said No to death.
Our bishops have said abortion is
intrinsically evil and must never be supported.
The Catholic League slammed
Obama’s “Catholic National Advisory Council” for its pro-death,
anti-Catholic public positions.
This election is a moment of truth
for life in the United States. Thank you for printing the truth about the life
and death issues facing us in November. Please remain steadfast on this topic.
After life or death, what else really matters?
Joseph Wildman
Claremont, California
Colleges’ Identity Crisis
Regarding “Strong Language” (May
11):
Michael Novak hit the nail on the
head. The Catholic identity of so many Catholic colleges can be vastly
improved.
Pope Benedict XVI has called for a
renewal. I think this message is particularly important for Catholic colleges.
When the Church is in crisis, it goes back to its roots to find itself. As the
Pope has indicated, academic freedom must be guided by the truth. Following the
magisterium gives Catholic colleges more freedom, not less.
When I attended a Catholic college
in the early ’60’s, it was truly Catholic. Thomistic philosophy was at the
heart of the institution. The Catholic identity was woven into every aspect of
student life. I realize now how valuable this was.
I think we need a strong Catholic
identity at all educational levels as well as in the family and community. At
one time Catholics reflected this in all their basic institutions. Catholics
viewed themselves as part of the culture, but not in it.
Novak is right when he said
“dissenters claim to be saving the Church from the teachings of the Pope by
presenting a more updated version.” The truth is the dissenters get the
opposite of what they want. Under the umbrella of academic freedom, the colleges
have lost what made them unique — academic integrity guided by the truth.
I think the message of renewal
espoused by the Holy Father is right on target. Traditional colleges are coming
into existence as a reaction to the secularist tendencies of many Catholic
colleges.
Let us hope and pray that Catholic
colleges will find their true identity and provide the leadership for a robust
renewal in the Church.
Richard Sherrick
West Nanticoke, Pennsylvania
Donations Accepted
A number of generous Register
readers have inquired as to how to help the Vietnamese orphanage for babies
saved from abortion by Tong Phuoc Phuc (“Good Morning, Vietnamese Hero,” May
18). It’s complicated to get supplies to Vietnam, but tax-deductible monetary
donations are warmly welcomed.
Make your check out to “Viet
Catholic Charity” and mail it to:
Father John
Nghi Tran
Our Lady of
the Assumption Church
435 Berkeley
Ave.
Claremont,
CA 91711
Questions should be directed to
Father Tran by e-mail at or phone at (909) 450-1535.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.
.
