Print Edition: Feb. 22, 2015
Sign-up for our E-letter!
To: (Multiple email addresses may be specified by separating them with a comma)
BY The Editors
Light in the Darkness
“Baby Claire Hits the Jackpot!” (Feb. 24, Register Exclusives):
for writing this story. The Truth shall set us free. The importance of writing
this truth about the saving of a baby against the best of the devil’s advocates
trying to kill it brings light into the darkness.
whole world needs to know what is going on in the abortion mills and in the
minds of those who do not desire to do God’s will and knowingly offend him.
need all the Truth to be heard and seen.
we continue to pray for the conversion of the world.
Sister Anne Sophie
The Society of the Body of Christ
Corpus Christi, Texas
“Baby Claire Beats the Odds in Vegas” (NCRegister.com, Feb. 20):
at least a year, my family has been praying a prayer every day to save a baby
from abortion. I can send you a copy of the prayer card we used. We decided to
give our baby a name, so we called her “Baby Claire.”
cannot imagine the emotions that went through our minds when I opened my e-mail
… a baby named Claire was saved from abortion in miraculous fashion.
took only maybe 10 seconds a day to pray for Baby Claire. To have this prayer
answered in such a miraculous fashion is awe-inspiring!
you for sharing this story with us.
Dave and Mona Cattapan
his first essay on the Eucharist (“Source and Summit,” Feb. 14) Mark Shea
mentioned the Protestant accusation that we Catholics “worship Mary.”
I hear that complaint, my response is: “Well, you know that when you kneel
before the televised image of your favorite televangelist he might be dead,
don’t you?” (And, in fact, the people who broadcast the sermons of the late D.
James Kennedy have quit his church in protest over the current pastor.)
we don’t worship him!” is the usual reply.
we Catholics don’t worship Mary. But if you read 1 Timothy 2:1-6, you can see
that praying to saints to pray for us isn’t inconsistent with believing that
Christ is the one mediator.
have to disagree with Dr. William Johnson’s letter in the Register’s Feb. 14
issue (“Re-evaluating Roe”). While a state personhood amendment may express
the truth about humanity and personhood, it will have no effect on the U.S.
Constitution. Abortion law is controlled by the federal Constitution, as
interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal Constitution supersedes
anything to the contrary in state constitutions or state laws. Thus, a proposed
amendment to a state constitution will neither change the governing law nor
stop a single abortion.
court said in Roe v.
Wade that it would not allow
Texas, and by extension any state government, to overcome the federal
constitutional right to abortion by adopting a certain “theory” of human life (Roe, 410
U.S. at 162). The court knew the facts of human development at that time; the
evidence was in the record of the case. Therefore, if the amendment is meant to
be a direct attack on Roe v.
Wade, it is poorly advised. The
court has already heard and rejected the argument on “personhood” under state
Johnson is in error when he asserts that Roe has
been left alone since 1973. In at least four separate Supreme Court cases, the
Justice Department, under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and
other parties, argued that the court should overrule Roe as
bad law. The court refused.
the last one, the Planned
Parenthood v. Casey decision of
1992, the court reaffirmed what it termed the core ruling of Roe. Who
wants to see the court reaffirm Roe yet again and set back the cause of life even
a personhood amendment will have no effect on abortion law, then we have to
wonder what its point is. Does it regulate the behavior of a single
abortionist? No. Will the amendment give a boost to worthy pro-life candidates
on the ballot in the same election as the proposed amendment? No. In the states
where a similar amendment has been put onto the ballot in recent years, it has
had the opposite effect.
seems to me that despite the good intentions of the sponsors, the effort to
enact state personhood amendments serves only to divert scarce donations of
time and funds away from effective legislative efforts that actually save
babies’ lives, such as enacting laws to compel abortionists to make ultrasound
images of their babies available to women before they decide to have an
James S. Cole
Missouri Right to Life
am a 21-year-old biology student at the University of Western Ontario.
reading “Canadian Tiff Over Abortion Overseas” (NCRegister.com; “Northern
Fights” in the Feb. 28 print edition), I felt very strongly against the Tories’
dismissive attitude towards the possibility of including contraception and
abortion in foreign aid.
exclusion of contraception and abortion in an initiative aimed at improving
women and children’s health is tragically ironic. This motion is a pathetically
unambiguous reflection of conservative Christian beliefs. In fact, women’s
health and maternal health are not exclusive, and offering reproductive
autonomy is critical in maintaining female well-being.
implementation of contraceptive education and provision should be reason
enough, as it directly improves quality of life by reducing the spread of HIV and
STDs. Moreover, households in many developing countries do not have the
economic capability to support additional children. By offering contraception,
we are providing measures to counteract this overpopulation.
addition, it is a misconception that abortions cannot improve a child’s health.
There are overwhelming health challenges faced by mothers and their fetuses
during pregnancies. Often in these cases, abortion is the only
preventive method that decreases both child morbidity and maternal mortality.
Furthermore, without sufficient funds, women will continue to seek covert
operations that offer unsafe abortions.
This will ultimately contribute to
the rising concern of infections and deaths. The negligence of the Harper
government lies in its insistence that their ideology be imposed on others, at
the expense of essential health care.
Your review of The
Princess and the Frog (“Southern-Fried Fairy Tale,” Dec. 6) was
misguiding or, at best, wishy-washy.
One of the many inappropriate
aspects of this film is the portrayal of the voodoo woman “Mama Odie” in a
positive light. And, although portrayed negatively, the film showcases detailed
tarot card reading and other occult practices for young, impressionable eyes.
This is a long way from the general “boiling cauldron” witchcraft shown in
classic Disney fare.
Rather than describing the
aforementioned scenes as a “morally mixed depiction of voodoo” or the
wishy-washy “too much for sensitive youngsters,” the review should clearly
state that the film is harmful to children and, in fact, to any Catholic of any
age who wants to advance in their Christian lives.
The Catechism clearly states in Nos.
2116 and 2138 that “all forms of divination are to be rejected.” Why was this
important information not included and emphasized in the review? Similarly,
Scripture is replete with condemnation of the occult, such as Galatians 5:20-21
or even just the simple “refrain from every kind of evil” from 1 Thessalonians
The perspective of a reliable
Catholic reviewer should be informed by the principles of our faith: “whatever
is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is
lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is
anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8).
Steven D. Greydanus responds: For
an extensive examination of the morality of magic in fiction in light of the
Catechism’s teaching and Catholic moral tradition, I refer Mr. Simons to my
essay “Harry Potter vs. Gandalf” at DecentFilms.com. While I have often
referred to that essay in Register reviews, I can’t recapitulate the Church’s
teaching for every movie with magic in it. I assume most Register readers have
a working knowledge of Church teaching.
I do agree with Mr. Simons regarding
the morally problematic portrayal of Mama Odie, and said so. Regarding the
tarot cards and such, I find it positively praiseworthy to occasionally balance
the “general ‘boiling cauldron’ witchcraft” Mr. Simons speaks of with a frank
acknowledgment of the actual dangers of the occult world. How “young” and
“impressionable” are the eyes that see it, as always, is a matter for parental
Too often Philippians 4:8 is glibly
cited against any narrative element people dislike. In his “Letter to Artists”
Pope John Paul II wrote, “Even when they explore the darkest depths of the soul
or the most unsettling aspects of evil, artists give voice in a way to the
universal desire for redemption.” Was the Holy Father wrong? A more appropriate
Scripture here might be Ephesians 5:11: “Take no part in the unfruitful works
of darkness, but instead expose them.” The portrayal of Dr. Facilier exposes
works of darkness for what they are.
Our special message “Lord, Hear Our
Prayer for Haiti” (Feb. 14) was inadvertently labeled “Paid Advertisement.” The
Register staff decided to run the full-page display as a free, goodwill gesture
of solidarity with Catholic organizations providing direct aid to the
devastated country. We feel it’s the least we can do, and we’ll look for an
opportunity to re-run the message — minus the erroneous label.
Copyright © 2015 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction of material from this website without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Accessed from 184.108.40.206