Unworthy of Our Nation

On Jan. 22, our nation sadly observed the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision of Roe v. Wade.

Since that infamous decision when abortion became law, more than 50 million unborn babies have been destroyed in what can only be described as a collective barbarism unworthy of our great nation.

A spokesman commenting on Roe v. Wade some time ago concluded that the high court decision eventually brought legality to “infanticide.” Specifically, partial-birth abortion is the most recent example of “infanticide” having taken legal root in our beloved nation!

What else is in store, given “Washington’s Pro-Life Reversals” (Feb. 15)?

    Thomas E. Dennelly

West Islip, New York

Future Football Fans

Even though “NBC Sacks Super Bowl Ad for Life” (Feb. 8), I say: Run the ad next year. Be not afraid. Without life there is no choice — and there is absolutely no hope.

If we as a nation fail to protect life in the womb, all issues debated at election time or all programs in place to aid the disadvantaged children and youth of our country are declared null and void.

The NFL has joined into a partnership with the United Way. Some who play professional football have founded charities for underprivileged children. This is all well and good. However, if life in the womb in not nurtured and protected, all endeavors are null and void.

The baby in the womb at this moment is either the football player of the future or the football fan who will eventually draw revenue for the franchise. Babies in the womb are the future of this country and the world.

William P. Murphy

Huntington Station, New York

Ad Criteria

Regarding “NBC Sacks Super Bowl Ad for Life” (Feb. 8),  I thought you might appreciate Raymond Arroyo’s (EWTN’s “The World Over”) “take” on NBC’s refusal to air the pro-life ad during the Super Bowl: Perhaps if someone had told NBC that the embryo was naked they would have reconsidered.

Bill Motzel

Ormond Beach, Florida

Focus of Attention

Openly criticizing Vice President Joe Biden for receiving Communion because he supports abortion is giving him exactly what he wants: attention (“Will Biden Persist on Communion? Feb. 1). Constantly reporting every time he receives unworthily gives him what he craves. Biden will get his reprimand when he faces God on Judgment Day.

Arguing about whether or not all the bishops agree or do not agree on refusing Biden holy Communion should not be the issue. The devil loves to see the bishops and Catholics disagreeing in public. The issue is: What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion? Then all agree. End of discussion.

Marlene Zachman

Albertville, Minnesota

Support Catholic Schools

I am responding to former First lady Laura Bush’s acknowledgement of the subtle but positive effects of a Catholic school education (“Laura Bush on Catholic Schools,” Jan. 25). Five of us children were “disadvantaged students” who were blessed by this mission to educate. My father left the plantation, acquired his GED, and secured a trade to better his life. My mother also left plantation work and had up to a seventh-grade education. They wanted better for themselves and their children.

All five of us kids were sent to parochial school. We went to school with the governor’s and elected officials’ children. Some were personally chauffeured, and there were other “disadvantaged students” in the school, all being treated with an even hand from kindergarten through high school. Children from other denominations were also attending.

Because of the mission of the Catholic education and the excellence and Catholic values instilled in us, my family benefited. The result is five college graduates. Four of us are professionals.  Two own their own businesses. Our children are college educated and early in their professions.

Support traditional Catholic schools. They do make a difference in our society.

Richard L. Ribellia

Moses Lake, Washington

Cost of Catholic Schools

I finished reading “Assessing Catholic Schools” (Jan. 25) regarding the decline in enrollment Catholic schools are experiencing. I think I know why.

The Army is relocating us to the Washington, D.C., area this summer, and we were thrilled that we would be able to send our two elementary-aged children to Catholic school. In my wife’s 16-year Army career, we have never been stationed close enough to a Catholic school to be able to send our other children there.

Imagine my disappointment when I started to do some research online and found that it would cost us around $11,000 a year to do so. With two daughters starting college in the fall, you can see what choice we have to make. College is more important than elementary school.

On the one hand, the Church says we must be open to all the children God wants to bless us with (we have been blessed with 6), but on the other hand, they tell us: For the Church to educate our children, we have to be wealthy. That, my friends, is why Catholic school enrollments are declining.

Dan Clabaugh

Saint Robert, Missouri

States Can Help Schools

In response to “Assessing Catholic Schools” (Jan. 25), for far too long, parents who choose to send their children to Catholics schools, or indeed any religious or private school, have been cheated and robbed. They are being forced to pay taxes for schools they do not use. Due to ever increasing taxes, many of these people have been forced to take their children out of the schools they prefer, because they could no longer afford to send them there.

In Florida, where I live, the courts have paralyzed every effort to give the proponents of school choice a fair chance. They have ruled against tuition vouchers. The Florida Supreme Court prevented two proposed amendments involving school choice from going on the Nov. 2008 ballot so the people could decide.

If we Catholics and other proponents of school choice wish to save religious education, I see only one way to do it: We must induce our state legislatures to reduce taxes and reduce the state budget. It should be obvious which part of the budget should be reduced.

Bob Barattini

West Palm Beach, Florida

Compare and Contrast

In response to Jeffrey McHale’s letter (“Catholic Promises,” Jan. 11): Let’s get some facts straight. Republicans have fought to stem the anti-life tide by a series of laws and executive orders from Reagan to Bush. Nobody can deny this. Democrats have sought the opposite, and nobody can deny that either. The Republicans cannot overturn the abortion laws on their own. That can only come about when the American people come to their senses. And that will never happen if millions of Catholics continue to reject Church teaching and direct appeals from the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps McHale should point out to us how “in communion” Democrat politicians are with Church teachings. For example: What Democrat policy overrides the killing of 50 million babies? I am very interested to know.

Now as to economic policies and their impact on family life, it would be very worthwhile to list the policies that both parties have pursued. Compare and contrast the results and we will see who has the better record.

Finally, it’s high time that the theologians, bishops, priests and laity who say that there are “proportionate” reasons for voting for an abortionist come out of the shadows and into the light of day and clearly state their reasons. Perhaps having the trains run on time is one of them.

       Edward J. Kirkpatrick

  Anna Maria, Florida

Misarranged Priorities

The Catholic bishops’ letter to Obama listed abortion as the last focal point (Daily Blog, “Bishops Tell D.C.: Protect Life,” Jan. 16). Universal health care was first. Well, Obama is giving them the health care they want, while naming strongly pro-abortion “Catholics” to his cabinet. He has already reconfirmed his absolute adherence to Roe v. Wade.

Does no one get the message that this is a culture-of-death administration? Are the bishops going to be satisfied with their priority demand and forget the babies being killed every day?

Ulysses de St. Germain

Carrollton, Texas

Distinct Not Separate

There is an error in the article “Priest Suspended” (Jan. 18). The author of the article stated that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that Father Haight had downplayed or denied central teachings of the Church, including the teaching that the “Son and the Spirit are separate persons within the Trinity.”

The Church does not teach that the Son and Spirit are separate persons. No doubt the author of the article meant to say “distinct,” not separate. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The divine persons are really distinct from one another” (No. 254).

Mary Irving

Port St. Lucie, Florida