To: (Multiple email addresses may be specified by separating them with a comma)
BY The Editors
I was very disappointed to read “It
Is in Love That We Are Made” by Melinda Selmys (Sept. 7). As the privileged
mother of four children who have joined our family through adoption, I was
actually shocked to see the article in a Catholic paper.
Selmys wrote: “This is why parents —
biological parents, both mother and father — are the best people to raise their
own children.” I actually agree with this statement; however, what happens to
the children whose birth parents can’t or won’t raise their children? Are they
to be left to languish in an orphanage for the rest of their lives? If a young
woman facing an unplanned pregnancy reads that quote, it might be just the
nudge she needs to make the phone call to Planned Parenthood. How
I am sure that my children do have
many traits, likes and dislikes that are similar to their birth parents’
traits, likes and dislikes. But just because the children share these
similarities, that does not diminish the fact that their birth parents could
not parent them. And it does not mean the life they have had growing up adopted
is any less meaningful, joyful and fulfilling than if they were in their
These 1950s adoption sentiments did
a lot of damage to children and families who felt they had to hide the fact
that adoption was how their family was formed.
If we are truly to be a pro-life
community, then we need to be there after the precious child is spared from
abortion. We cannot stop at the sidewalk of Planned Parenthood. There are far
too many children in foster care in the United States, and too many children
who are living in deplorable conditions around the world. Unfortunately, myths
of adoption perpetuated by people with attitudes like those of this author
The ‘Why’ Question
In your Aug. 24 editorial, “Platform
Games,” you wrote: “Actually, from a scientific view it isn’t difficult to
answer the question: Embryologists all agree that there is a new organism
at conception, and that organism is human. Any theology that didn’t
recognize this science would be unworthy of the name theology.”
Unfortunately, in discussions
of abortion, the scientific truth of when human life begins is rarely
discussed. (Those who deny this truth are not informed enough to have an
intelligent opinion on this issue.)
It is not enough to
ask candidates when they think a child has rights, but why
they think a child has value or doesn’t have enough value to have
rights at any given point in his or her development. The
answers should be most revealing.
By the way, the reason I use the
term “child” is because the 1979 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines
“fetus” as “an unborn child.”
Regarding Father Longenecker’s
article “Anglican Agonies” (Aug. 17): As the wife of an Episcopal priest for
almost 25 years, I have come to understand that the Anglican Communion and
especially the Episcopal Church in the United States, has and always will
deal with controversy. Some will leave the church and some will join the church
because of our stand on homosexuality and the ordination of women and a
multitude of issues we’ve dealt with throughout our history.
I am convinced we will never agree
on everything, and we will continue to argue over almost everything. Thanks be
to God. We are a vital thinking, prayerful and wonderfully imperfect
group of people. We are children of God, and we will survive.
“Catholic” politicians who are
Democrats support abortion (“Biden’s Legacy,” Sept. 7) and insist that judicial
nominees must pass a pro-abortion litmus test. Barack Obama, who claims to be
Christian, even voted for killing babies who survive botched abortions.
If your preferred candidate
supported black slavery, you wouldn’t consider voting for him even if you liked
his other views. Why, then, would you vote for him when he supports abortion
and other intrinsic evils?
The “ends” do not constitute a
“proportionate reason” to justify the evil “means” of voting for the candidate
who most supports the intrinsic evils. To do so is material cooperation with
We can, and must, vote for the
candidate who will limit the intrinsic evils. This is why faithful Catholics
must vote for McCain instead of Obama. Obama supports all of the intrinsic
evils, while McCain favors only one of them. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church obligates Catholics to vote: “Submission to authority and
co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes,
to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country” (No. 2240).
Moral principles, rational thought
and sound logic are universal and color blind — or at least they should
Adding to the Confusion
The author of “Catholic Confusion”
in the Aug. 24 letters wrote that “confusion still reigns among many
Catholics,” caused by those who “distort the true meaning of the Catholic
Church’s position on abortion.”
Unfortunately, the Catholic News
Service (CNS) is adding to the confusion by shading the extremism of the
pro-abortion Democrat presidential and vice-presidential candidates. I note
three of many examples.
In “Biden on Obama Ticket: A
Catholic With Mixed Record on Church Issues” from Aug. 23, CNS reports, “But
he’s [Sen. Biden] no darling of the ‘pro-choice’ view, either, earning a score
of 36% once from NARAL Pro-Choice America for his votes on their select
Only his 2003 grade was cited. His
grade for 2004, 2005 and 2006 was 100%, and it was 75% in 2007. In addition,
Sen. Biden has diligently worked to preserve Roe v.
Wade, voting against the confirmation of pro-life Supreme Court
nominees Robert Bork, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
On Aug. 29, CNS’ “Obama Invokes
American Spirit, Echoes ‘Faithful Citizenship’ Themes” related, “Obama said
that, while people may disagree on whether abortion should remain legal or not,
‘surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this
But CNS did not say Obama has
promised Planned Parenthood that passing the Freedom of Choice Act will be his
highest priority. A new, excellent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad says
that act promotes abortions and will not reduce them.
And in the news service’s article,
“Some Protesters Raise Abortion Issue Outside Democratic Convention,” from Aug.
28, the following was reported: “Prior to the federal act, the state of
Illinois attempted to pass similar legislation, but as a state senator Obama
opposed the act in 2001 and 2002 and had a hand in defeating it in 2003. Obama
later said he supported the federal legislation, which included a stipulation
that it would not be used to undermine Roe v. Wade, and
would have backed the state proposals if they’d had that stipulation.”
But left unsaid was the fact that
Obama defeated a bill in the Illinois Senate that was substantially identical
to the federal bill. When confronted with the documentary proof by National
Right to Life, he said they were “lying,” when it was he who was
misrepresenting his barbaric actions.
CNS reports, which are used in many
Catholic papers, should provide the whole truth and reinforce the bishops’
Pray for Enlightenment
In response to the letters of
Michael O’Neill (“Obama? Why Not?” July 27) and Dan Biezad (“Moral vs. Civic
Duty,” Aug. 10), we must remember that from 1960 to the present time, many
Catholics have been erroneously indoctrinated by dissenting Catholics.
Catholics who support Obama are only mimicking what they were taught:
relativism without proper intellectual formation. They are ignorant of the
True followers of Christ see Christ
in every person. Let us not unjustly criticize these “Obama Catholics.” They
are victims of a half century of overt dissension. We ought to pray for their
enlightenment prior to November.
There is a fierce struggle between
Christian and secular culture. A reading of the Letter of James will help us
In the letter, “Restoring the Family”
(Aug. 24), Donna Dawkins expressed heartbreak over the demise of the black
family, and she sees the restoration of the black family as a priority for our
society. Ms. Dawkins is correct.
Right to Life of Montgomery County,
Md., produced a pamphlet in 2005 that gives statistics on the disproportionate
number of abortions by black women. Also noted are Planned Parenthood’s
decades-long attacks on black families, which have resulted in 70% of black
children being born to single parents. Single-parent, especially fatherless,
families are subject to much higher rates of social pathology: abortion, abuse
of women and children, criminal behavior, poverty, school dropouts, STDs and
teen pregnancy. These families suffer social and educational discrimination,
which results in lifelong economic discrimination.
The pamphlet offers resources for
pregnant women, and it calls for an end to the federal funding of Planned
Parenthood. The final message is a statement by Alveda King, the niece of
Martin Luther King Jr. Sidewalk counselors find it to be an effective witness
tool. This free pamphlet is available by calling (301) 770-LIFE.