|
Letters 08.17.2008
August 17-23, 2008 Issue |
Posted 8/12/08 at 1:27 PM
Why Not?' Cont.
I found the writers letter gives
clear evidence of the poor formation so many Catholics are plagued by today.
With rising healthcare costs, one
can understand the allure of nationalized medicine. However, the writer is glossing over the
negative aspects of such policies. Sure, it sounds great on paper: health care
for rich and poor alike. The sad truth is that whenever the government takes
over anything, choices are restricted, and bureaucracy runs rampant. What good
is universal health care if you dont live long enough to reap the benefits?
The wait for services is horrendously long. Just ask any Cuban citizen, for
example, how they like their abysmal health care system. Even if such
policies did work, how can health care mean anything if you arent guaranteed
the right to life? Its hard to take advantage of such a wonderful program if
you dont make it out of your mothers womb alive. How is the choice to
extinguish the most vulnerable of lives in line with the justice, liberty and
equality the writer holds in such high regard?
The writer also mentions (or perhaps
harps on is a better expression) the celibate clergy and how they are
obsessed with sexual issues. If only we heard more from the pulpit about
these most important issues! The reason the Church may seem obsessed to some
regarding sexual matters is because of their grave importance.
The more important the matter, the
louder the Church must proclaim the Gospel in that regard. Almighty God shared
his power of creation with the human race, made in his most holy image.
Therefore, sins of this nature are the gravest of all. Aborting the life he has
willed into existence, or preventing it and separating the procreative and
unitive aspects of this precious gift, are most grievous offenses to God a
slap in his face, if you will.
A celibate priest is a beautiful
example of self-giving, just as spouses are. I know I am very grateful for the
sacrifices of my faithful parish priest, who gave of his whole self, to bring
Christ to us every day in the holy Eucharist and his healing mercy in
confession. Does the writer also think
St. Paul was unnatural because he was celibate, and says it is better to be
like him (1 Corinthians 7:8; 7:32-35)? Or, more importantly, that Our Lord is
unnatural? He also was celibate, and recommended celibacy if possible (Matthew
19:12). This is something the Lord calls someone to, and he cannot call someone
to do or be something that is unnatural. If our culture werent so obsessed
with sexual matters, perhaps it would report on the many other important issues
the Church speaks to on a regular basis.
And finally, yes, it is possible to
follow your conscience and still commit an intrinsically evil act, whether you
know it or not, if your conscience is not properly formed. When the Church
speaks of the primacy of conscience, it is speaking of a well-formed one.
Educating yourself on this matter is
crucial, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a great place to start
(No. 1783-1785; 1790-1793). I would urge our writer to dust off his Catechism,
and get his priorities straight, so he may truly pursue the goods of justice,
liberty and equality, as Jesus, teaching through his Church, wishes us to do.
Jennifer Brannon
Maricopa, Arizona
So, a celibate lifestyle is not
natural? But then why call yourself Catholic? After all, the Churchs teachings
originated in a celibate man and were first proclaimed to the world through
such celibates as Paul of Tarsus, and continue to be proclaimed through such
unnaturals as John Paul the Great and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
And, if life is equally precious to
a 90-year-old and a 14-year-old, then why does Barack Obama maintain that the
life of a newborn who has miraculously survived an attempted abortion does not
have the same value as that of a 9-month-old? Justice, liberty and equality
for whom? Specious logic indeed.
Alexis
L. Mazzocco
Oak Hill, Virginia
Regarding Michael ONeills letter,
his comments seem to reflect the blindness that has taken hold of society, and
unfortunately, many Catholics.
Mr. ONeill states that
justice, liberty and equality make a greater claim on his conscience than
abortion.
What about justice, liberty and
equality for the unborn children, millions of whom are sentenced to death by
abortion every year? He talks about the right of a wife to ask a philandering
husband to use a condom. This is not even a political issue, and does not
compare to the tragedy of the deaths of millions of children who have been
silenced before they can even speak. This is the important issue that pro-life
voters are concerned about, not philandering husbands. Are there millions of
philandering husbands out there from whom wives need to protect themselves? I
hope not, but if there are, it is probably the result of the widespread use
of contraceptives, which in the form of the pill and other devices dont
protect anyone from the numerous sexually transmitted diseases out
there. Even the much promoted condom has too high a failure rate when the
consequence of failure is death from AIDS or a lifetime with an incurable STD.
What has come over us that we view a
baby as a worse consequence of sexual activity than an incurable STD so
much worse that we need to take his or her life? To quote Barack Obama,
who was speaking about his daughters, if they make a mistake, I dont want
them punished with a baby. Would he rather have them punished with an
incurable STD, or the emotional trauma resulting from an abortion?
As a grandparent of 12, two of whom
are adopted and could have been victims of abortion, I can only shake my head
in disbelief at how far we have sunk.
My 8-year-old granddaughter with
wisdom far beyond her years, or maybe just logic that is not polluted by the
world in which we live asked, Why would anyone want to vote for Obama if he
wants to kill babies? And why would he want to kill babies? Those are the
people who might vote for him some day.
Maybe this is what Jesus meant when
he said we need to become like little children in order to enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven.
Barbara Harmon
Elkhorn, WI
Michael ONeills letter is riddled
with contradictions and reveals an underlying ignorance of, and hostility to,
the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Blind to the fact that homosexual
marriage, abortion, and contraception diametrically oppose the justice,
liberty and equality he claims to support, he dismisses such issues as the
sexually obsessed fantasies of a celibate clergy.
But all three issues directly impact
the rights of men, women, and children, and the stability of the family. The
Church has wisely always taught against these evils because they threaten the
physical, emotional, and spiritual life and health of all.
Yet, Barack Obama would dismantle
these rights. He recently stated, Well, the first thing Id do as president is
sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
If passed into law, this act would
invalidate all the pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court since
Roe
vs. Wade, including the bans on partial-birth abortion and
government funding of abortion.
Barack Obama is aggressively
pro-abortion. During his tenure in office, he voted in favor of federal
pro-life legislation 0% of the time. Contrary to ONeills claim, John McCain
voted in favor of federal pro-life legislation 74% of the time between 1997 and
2008.
ONeill says that his arguments
follow the dictates of his conscience. But since he confuses license, which
permits us to do whatever we want, with liberty, which permits us to do only
what is good, it seems his conscience has been informed by the tenets of
secular relativism rather than Catholic ethics.
Instead of Church teachings being
far-out, as ONeill has stated, I suggest that ONeill is far-out of the
Church and ignorant of the issues. He should either learn the issues and his
faith or stop calling himself Catholic.
Annemarie S. Muth
Bluffton, Indiana
Michael ONeill from Wainscott, N.Y.,
wrote As a Catholic, I will continue to support Obama. To me justice, liberty
and equality make much greater claims on my conscience and the common good than
homosexual marriage, abortion
Tell me Mr. ONeill: Mutilated and
chemically burned babies are not entitled to justice, liberty and equality?
Are you sure youre Catholic?
R.G. Crisostomo
Alameda, Calif.
Failing to See
While reading of Mr. Kmiecs
enthusiastic support for Barack Obama (A Response to Doug Kmiec, July 13),
despite Kmiecs pro-life views and past service in the Reagan and George H. W.
Bush administrations, I couldnt help but think that this may explain
why such fine presidents had such bad advice on judicial nominations, resulting
in hit-and-miss federal judges (Bork vs. Kennedy, Thomas vs. Souter).
I was also struck by how such a
well-educated and morally-informed man like Kmiec seems too nuanced
for his own good (and the good of the unborn and the nation), failing to
see that the killing of an innocent baby has a higher demand on our
consciences than the sin of racism. I thank the venerable Father
Richard Neuhaus for his moral clarity in this and other issues.
Paul
Caldwell
Vienna, Austria
Voting Life
Regarding Vote Pro-life! (July
13), I would like to remind readers that a vote for any candidate besides John
McCain is a direct vote for Obama. God expects us to use our minds, and not
just hope blindly that he will miraculously make Alan Keyes or Mark Shea our
next president. We are commanded to be responsible and remember cunning
Catholics.
No candidate is going to be
perfect.
Katie Pecha
Lincoln, Nebraska
|