I You are quite proud in announcing your opposition to our country’s efforts in Iraq. I strongly disagree with your position.
We went into Iraq to rid the world and the people of that country of a monster, and we did it.
We are not at war with Iraq, never have been. We are there to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and I fully support our efforts.
William J. Quinn
West Chester, Pennsylvania
Point of Reflection
John Kelly’s article, “DNC Response: Democrats are People of Faith” (May 25), prompts me to ask a question that I hope someone can sincerely answer because I ask it seriously and honestly: How can one be both pro-life and a member of the Democratic Party?
This question probably more strictly applies to “pro-life” Democratic candidates, party officials or activists, but ought to also be a point of reflection for all voters.
In practice, no matter what one’s “personal” belief, in order for one to have any kind of future or influence in the Democratic Party, one has to eventually support the national platform.
So by default, any Democrat, whether party official or political player or enabling voter, ultimately supports the Democratic national platform, and that platform is undeniably pro-abortion (not to mention same-sex “marriages” and cloning issues).
As a case in point, “pro-life” Democrat Don Cazayoux of Louisiana was elected to the U.S. Congress.
His record as a state representative may have been pro-life.
However, after Nancy Pelosi and the DNC supported his recent campaign, does anyone doubt that he will be expected to support the national platform at the national level (especially on close votes on key issues like abortion or a Supreme Court justice)?
Furthermore, Cazayoux is now a “superdelegate” and must support either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. How “pro-life” is that? How “pro-life” can you be if you are willing to trade a political vote for political clout?
(If I remember right, Al Gore was “pro-life” before he had national aspirations.)
Time will tell in the Cazayoux case, but by then it may be too late for those souls, living and dead, who will be lost because of abortion.
I know the Republican Party also has serious problems, but at least the national platform is nominally anti-abortion.
I understand that no candidate or political party is completely evil or completely good, but it seems to me that groups like the “Democratic National Committee’s Faith in Action Office” and terms like “Reagan Democrat” are ultimately a chimera that give an excuse to the politically expedient.
It’s kind of like being a member of the Masonic Order because the local temple has a great social action group.
The unborn: You’re either for ’em or you’re against ’em, and you can’t tell me the Democratic Party is for ’em.
Donald C. Marrero, Jr.
Relevant to “The Sacrament of Unity” (June 29):
I wish to commend Pope Benedict XVI for his most recent liturgical initiatives.
Some may recall that a few months ago the Pope celebrated Mass in the Sistine Chapel facing the East rather than the people.
More recently, on the feast of Corpus Christi, Pope Benedict, for his papal Mass outside the Basilica of St. John Lateran, had a kneeler placed at the foot of the altar and distributed holy Communion to four dozen communicants — all of whom knelt and received the Eucharist on the tongue.
This latest initiative is in keeping with those practices that the Church strongly recommends. Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, commented on the significance of the Pope’s gesture saying: “I hope this practice spreads.”
Pope Benedict has previously pointed out that “the man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core.”
The Church, in her “official” capacity, insists that standing for holy Communion is insufficient. The document Inaestimabile Donum, states: “When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling itself is a sign of adoration. When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament.”
Pope Paul VI also explains, in Memoriale Domini, why the Church considers the practice of receiving holy Communion on the tongue to be the norm.
He insists that this is due to a more complete and refined theology on the Eucharist.
He states that “after the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy sacrament and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated bread on the tongues of the communicants.”
Upon greater reflection of these simple truths, one might uncover the greater meaning and implications they might have with respect to the way in which the laity should be receiving the most Blessed Sacrament during holy Communion today.
Relevant to “2 Ways of Seeing Babies” (May 25):
As columnist Robert Novak recently pointed out, it is very likely that a President McCain would be faced with a veto-proof Democrat-led Senate.
Such a Senate make-up would “never” allow pro-life Supreme Court justices to be approved, and McCain has not demonstrated himself to be a fighter for the pro-life efforts. The likely result would be at best moderate judges and more likely left-leaning judges.
The likes of an Alan Keyes would have used the position of the presidency as a bully pulpit to call for the people to let their senators hear from them.
In most cases, you will have options other than Obama or McCain, and staying home is not a responsible option.
Vote for the most pro-life candidate regardless of first-, second- or third-party affiliation.
There is no such thing as an un-electable candidate, if enough people vote for that candidate.
Each of us will be able to make up our own minds and each of us will be responsible for our decision.
Frank W. Russell
As someone who has often deplored the lack of video-game coverage in the Catholic media, I found Thomas McDonald’s article in the most recent edition of the Register to be a pleasant surprise.
Video games are just as important to the new evangelization as movies, books and music.
I greatly anticipate continued coverage of video games and their relevance to Catholic living in future issues of the Register.
I’m writing because I’m very proud of my fellow Register readers.
In the June 8 issue, there are many good letters to the editor in response to John Kelly’s May 25 article, “DNC Response: Democrats are People of Faith.”
When I first read this article, I wanted to respond, but I didn’t have the time. I was also hoping that other readers would respond.
And I was so glad to see the many responses in this week’s issue of the Register.
What particularly struck me in that article was Kelly’s reference to solar panels as a reason Catholics should vote Democrat.
This is ridiculous, especially when compared to Obama’s position on infants who accidentally “survive” an abortion. His position was detailed in the May 25 article, “Obama vs. the Right to Life.”
The nurse’s testimony of how they simply left a child to die struck close to home for me.
My son was born at 27 weeks, and by God’s grace he is now a perfectly healthy 2-year-old.
It makes no sense that he should have had legal protection and the best of health care, when another child his age was left to die, struggling for every breath until he inevitably lost the battle.
I was also troubled by Judie Brown’s letter in the June 1 issue, stating that McCain is not a perfect pro-life candidate.
While this is true, I’m afraid that if pro-lifers split between two candidates, we will end up with Obama, who is immeasurably worse than McCain.
I want to thank the Register for its repeated, sound Catholic advice that we need to cast the vote that will best protect the culture of life. Between McCain and Obama, the choice is clear.
Buffalo, New York
Why Not Expelled?
I am disappointed that I haven’t seen any articles in your paper covering the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
The documentary does a wonderful job arguing for the freedom to teach, debate and research the topic of intelligent design. It uncovers the similarities between the philosophies of Darwin, Margaret Sanger and Hitler.
It shows the beautiful complexity of the cell and promotes the existence of a divine creator.
Ben Stein challenges scientists who teach evolution as more than merely a theory and exposes the discrimination against academics who want to discuss intelligent design. The movie is thought-provoking and well-done.
The Register has done so much to promote other movies such as The Passion and Bella. Why not this one?