Narnia Negativity

Regarding “Lewis Lite” (May 18):

I am disappointed that the Register has published such a negative article.

I disagree with it for various reasons:

1. “The filmmakers eviscerate the crucial theme of skepticism about the existence of Aslan.”

This is not entirely true. The filmmakers simply adapted this theme to one of more relevance to our times: doubting the goodness/protection/power of Aslan (i.e. God). I think this was a fantastic move!

2. “The notion that stories of Old Narnia are anathema in modern Narnia is simply dropped.”

Maybe the article writer went to the bathroom during the scene between Miraz and Cornelius and immediately following this interaction? It’s pretty clear.

3. “Almost as diminished is the theme of faith and sight, with faith opening one’s eyes to the extent that one believes.”

I strongly disagree with this absurd statement. This theme was stronger in the movie than it is in the book! I wonder how long ago the article writer read the book. I’ve read this book over 10 times (no joke) and I also wonder how awake he was in the movie.

4. “In the film, he says simply, ‘Every year you grow, so shall I.’ This subverts Lewis’ point about the infinite mystery of God, which as we grow is always revealed to be greater than we previously supposed.”

I will admit to this statement as being true. However, the article writer may be reading too deeply into this. No child is going to think that God isn’t omnipotent because he says, “We’ll never know what could have happened” as opposed to, “What could have happened will not be revealed to you.” I think the article writer needs to relax.

5. “The upshot is that Caspian is a good-looking fantasy film with some appealing eye candy and comparatively little to do with the book, beyond basic themes of good vs. evil and rather generic faith.”

Such a cynical statement, ironically.

I enjoyed the movie and when you don’t compare every minute detail of the film with how it differs from the book, you will realize that the message shines through clearly!

To close I would like to say that I do agree with many of the points the article writer makes, and wish someone with more depth was making the film, too, but at the same time, I would invite him to please relax, and don’t chase people off the Narnia scene with negative articles.

Christine Higdon

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Where Is the Truth?

The writer of the letter “Tell Truth About Komen” (May 11) makes an ironclad case for telling women seeking abortions that carrying the baby to term instead of aborting will reduce their risk of breast cancer.

He said “the spirit of truth, good medical practice and respect for women seeking an abortion demand that they be told” because both sides in the abortion-breast cancer debate agree that a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s life reduces the risk of breast cancer.

It follows that breast cancer groups should require that women seeking abortions be told of the risk reduction of motherhood. But Komen does not.

However, there is a very strong case that abortion also raises the risk of breast cancer, and, indeed, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has published Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Link That Won’t Go Away by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, which makes the case that it does.

Yet, in the April 20 report, “With Eyes Open,” Msgr. Gaston Hebert of the Little Rock Diocese said he consulted with an oncologist and an epidemiologist who both denied that abortion raises the risk of breast cancer. On that basis, he resumed support of Komen, an organization that contends that abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer.

Msgr. Hebert also said, “It is important that the stance of the Catholic Church always be based upon Truth.” So where is the Truth? Is the Truth found in the Lanfranchi report or Msgr. Hebert’s consultants? We Catholics, and especially all women, deserve to know.

In the meantime, do Msgr. Hebert’s consultants agree with the truth that all women should be advised that having a baby reduces their risk of breast cancer?

Msgr. Hebert should be interviewed again to get their position and reasons as this major point was missed.

Mary Dougherty

Catholics United for Life

New Hope, Kentucky

DNC’s Standard Script

Regarding “DNC Response: Democrats Are People of Faith” (May 25):

The response of the Catholic Outreach Liaison for the Democratic National Committee follows a standard script: First, suggest that they really are pro-life, then change the subject. How often have we heard this, and wanting to believe the best about people, how many Catholics have fallen for the deception and voted for the pro-abortion Democratic candidate?

Why is it that Catholic politicians lead the charge against the unborn? Catholic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin anchored his re-election campaign on embryonic stem-cell research. Catholic Wisconsin State Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, sponsored legislation to force Catholic hospitals to administer the “morning after” pill to rape victims, as well as supporting legislation to force Catholic pharmacists to dispense contraceptive and abortifacient pills or risk losing their licenses.

The Democratic Party is not pro-life: It stands proudly for 4,000 abortions per day in the United States. The Democratic candidates for president are the most extreme candidates to date on the abortion issue, with Obama voting to allow the death of babies who have already been born and stating that the vote he regrets the most is the one to allow Terri Schiavo to continue receiving food and water instead of being starved and dehydrated to death.

When critics pointed to the evil that Italian dictator Benito Mussolini accomplished in the ’30s and ’40s, his supporters changed the subject to point out that he made the trains run on time. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights, the right from which all other rights flow.

As Catholics, we should be prepared to defer the other, lesser goods promised by the Democratic party until the Democratic party commits the protection of the most fundamental of rights, the recognition of the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. All the trains in the world running on time is not worth the human life of one unborn baby, much less 4,000 each day in our country.

Michael Palid

Marinette, Wisconsin

Relativistic Faith

Regarding “DNC Response: Democrats Are People of Faith” (May 25):

It was with amazement that I read the piece by John Kelly stating that Democrats are people of faith. He would have done well to state that they are people of a relativistic faith, believing in their own brand of Catholicism.

To quote him: “The core values of the Democratic Party are in line with key Catholic teachings.” Really? Does he know what the Democrats teach about abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, embryonic stem-cell research, pre-marital sex, etc.?

Has he compared that to Catholic teaching? If so, he can only conclude that there is a vast chasm between the two.

He would do well to read the statement of then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) to Cardinal McCarrick in July of 2004. In paragraph three, Cardinal Ratzinger sums up Catholic teaching and puts moral issues in their proper place. “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. ... There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

The Democrats certainly may believe themselves to be people of faith but they don’t follow the teachings of the Catholic Church as defined by the Holy Father in union with the magisterium.

Kelly deludes himself if he believes that the Democrats have the common good of the people in mind — especially if he thinks the common good of the people is to kill off the most dependent and vulnerable among us.

Barbara Martin

Fort Collins, Colorado

Column Has to Be Heard

The column by Marjorie Dannenfelser “2 Ways of Seeing Babies,” needs to be told across the airways and the highways and the byways of this nation.

And the picture of these two candidates facing each other with “God’s Greatest Gift,” our babies, as their issue of division, needs to be seen by every voter. Will our babies have life, or will this nation continue it’s obsession with killing them?

The truth of my life holds a third way of seeing babies. I am one of the 50 million mothers in this nation who has had an abortion. I allowed the life of my child to be taken by abortion 35 years ago, June 1, 1973.

I know the hidden world of darkness and despair that comes after the death of a child through abortion. I found myself trapped by a message in my heart that said, “I allowed my child to be killed. My sin is too great for even God to forgive.”

Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. I thank God for my faith. It saved me from giving in to discouragement or losing hope.

I gave myself over to repentance, and I now know the forgiveness and peace that is mine in the sacrament of reconciliation. And, as time has passed, I have been guided by counseling and spiritual direction to ask forgiveness from my child. I have chosen for her to be a girl, and I have named her Mary.

God told us in Scripture, “I set before you life or death, the blessing or the curse. Choose life then, so that you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Sen. Barack Obama calls an unexpected baby “a burden and a punishment.” Sen. John McCain speaks of his adopted daughter as an “extreme privilege.”

Which one is doing what Jesus would do? Which one would Jesus vote for?

Joan Witry

Edina, Minnesota 


Due to an editorial oversight, a page one story in the June 8 issue (“3,000 New Catholics,” misquoted Father David Royel of the Assyrian Church of the East in San Jose, Calif.

The final three paragraphs of the story should have read:

Father Royel agreed that theological dialogue is the proper way to arrive at a mutual and correct understanding of what full communion means. “At this point, though,” he said, “we’re not on the same page.”

Mar Bawai Soro, too, said that the proper theological environment is crucial in moving forward. “If sincere and mutual good intentions exist on both sides,” he said, “there can be no obstacles that prevent unity.”