The attempt by New York and other cities to regulate by ordinance the operations of Catholic women’s crisis-pregnancy centers need an imaginative response. Since the article in the Register’s Jan. 2 issue (“Crisis-Pregnancy Centers Under Attack”) suggests the pro-life spokespeople have a piecemeal approach to the skullduggery propaganda of the abortion industry on this issue, I would suggest the following retort when an anti-crisis-pregnancy-center bill is being debated at any city hall meeting:
“Members of the city council, I would inform you that one of the major goals of our crisis-pregnancy center is to persuade pregnant women to give birth, not to abort, even if there are circumstances that present perceived obstacles to raising a child. We provide them with detailed information about the availability of adoption as a choice preferable to abortion. I would respectfully remind you that the alternative choice was endorsed by Barack Obama during his campaign for the presidency. In keeping with his expressed intention, we would request you pass an ordinance that would require abortion businesses to have adoption literature available in their waiting rooms. In addition, if you want to help the president, you could pass a resolution asking him to send a bill to Congress to require abortion businesses to receive federal funds to have educational literature outlining statutory procedure and available public services in their waiting rooms.”
Planned Parenthood should be supportive of this type of legislation, because for women wanting to make reproductive health choices, including mental health, it could no longer be accused of obstructing informed choice.
Robert A. Nicklaus
Writer Melinda Selmys in “The Poor You Will Always Have With You: Poverty, Part 2” (Jan. 30-Feb. 12 issue) states, “The Church in the last century has consistently pointed toward the need for public social programs to alleviate poverty.”
I offer the following based on two assumptions — that God’s commandment not to steal is still recognized by the Church and that the writer means government when she uses the word public.
Let us say that a group of five gets together and they democratically vote 3-2 to steal from someone, and they vote 4-1 to give their ill-gotten gains to the poorest member of their group. This is a violation of God’s commandment against stealing even though the decision was democratic and the perpetrators of the crime had the good intention of helping the poorest among them.
Expanding the number from five perpetrators to include a whole nation and codifying the stealing into law does not change the immorality of forcible taking from some to give to others. Even more scandalous is that so-called economic justice programs oftentimes result in the forcible transfer of the poor’s meager wealth to others.
Stephen R. Meyer
Vero Beach, Florida
Why Is Doe Ignored?
Your Jan. 16 editorial (“The State of the Unborn”) was a real lift to my aching heart. Thank you for clearly stating that there were two decisions handed down by the infamous 1973 Supreme Court: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
There’s a horrifying irony: As late as two years ago, Notre Dame professor David Solomon said that he was surprised to discover the ignorance among his students about the basic legal and philosophical issues surrounding abortion and other life issues, and in his medical ethics class he said that 80% of the students believed that Roe v. Wade allowed abortions on demand only in the first three months of pregnancy and after the first three months you have to have a special reason!
This is shocking! Why doesn’t this kind of evidence — the virtual failure to communicate the full reality of abortion on demand effectively — shock the pro-life movement? Yet, during the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, we saw many headlines written by pro-life groups referring to Roe v. Wade alone, as though Doe never existed. Why is it being ignored when the Supreme Court considered it to be a vital part of Roe v. Wade?
You could do a great service for the pro-life movement if you’d write an editorial on the educational power of Doe v. Bolton. My voice is one crying in the wilderness, but yours would carry a great deal of weight.
God bless, and prayers for our preborn citizens.
Charles N. Marrelli
Shining Through Darkness
Regarding “When a Pupil Has 2 Daddies” (Feb. 13): It’s important not to lead anyone to everlasting perdition. The decision of the Archdiocese of Boston and the endorsement of Michael Reardon, in the eyes of many souls, give a big Yes to homosexual “marriage” and parenting.
Jesus went through the unspeakable suffering of his passion and crucifixion for each person reading this terrible decision. Why would Boston try to undo our blessed Savior’s work and gift of redemption?
We are all tools of the devil at different times of our life. We must pray for the light of the Holy Spirit to shine brightly on our minds — and quickly.
When we’re sorrowfully talking to children about errors in the Church, it’s a great consolation and fortification for parents to be able to point out to our children strong, clear, correct statements from Church figures we can hold up in great esteem. Thank you for quoting Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput’s decision on the issue [in his archdiocese]. Also, would you please get a quote from Cardinal Raymond Burke and put it in a prominent position?
Implementing Ex Corde
The editorial “From the Heart of the Church” (Feb. 13) caught my interest since I have followed the lack of progress in implementation.
I assume that you have read it. It isn’t very difficult to understand. Had the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wanted to implement it, it would have been relatively simple.
However, if you look at many of the directives that have come from Rome, the USCCB has had a problem. They believe that the laypeople are incapable of understanding such directives — they will need to be analyzed and translated so that the laity will be able to comprehend.
The USCCB danced around Ex Corde Ecclesiae for about 10 years before they took any action. Whatever that action was is not plain. Little has resulted. Theologians at “so-called” Catholic colleges have either ignored it or have defied it.
Peter A. Loughlin
Buffalo Grove, Illinois
Regarding “A Nation and Its Demons” (NCRegister.com, Jan. 28, and also page-one story this issue):
I am grateful to Patti [Maguire Armstrong] for a sound article — helping us to appreciate more the power of the sacrament of confession.
We need to be encouraged to avail ourselves of this great healing gift. I’m happy to learn that the bishops are taking the problem of oppression/possession so seriously these days.
With the rise of evil influences through television, film, print and other sources of “entertainment,” which give the evil one an “in,” we see the corresponding rise in mental afflictions and even outright possession.
Let us encourage others to avoid pastimes that can lead to the need for exorcism and stay close to Christ and his Church through the sacraments, Rosary, Liturgy of the Hours and reading the lives of the saints.
Eleanor Kranz Edwards
Brave Bishop Olmsted
Pertinent to “Catholic Hospitals and Bishops: Trust but Verify” (NCRegister.com, Jan. 27):
As a Catholic physician who has tangled with a “Catholic” hospital that permitted the use of the “morning after” pill in its ER for “victims of rape” (please be aware that this claim can be loosely applied), I very much support Bishop Olmsted who bravely stood up for Catholic moral values.
Regarding “Guilty Until Proven Innocent?” (NCRegister.com, Feb. 15, and front-page story this issue): In my opinion, your article was well written. We have worked with over 5,000 priests in the past nine years, many of whom were accused and removed. The world is not coming to an end, and there is hope in Christ and his Church.
But, unfortunately, this is the cross we all must bear right now on both sides.
co-founder and treasurer
Opus Bono Sacerdotii