Life, Absolutely

Derrick Jones’ column “Making the Difference: The Future of Pro-Life” (Jan. 21) bears scrutiny by someone who, like me, has been accused of being what Jones describes as an “absolutist.”

A misunderstanding has obviously occurred. For while Jones opines that there are two schools of thought in the movement, “the incrementalists” and the “absolutists,” he mis-defines that second group, to which I proudly belong. He claims that we “reject and oppose any protective, incremental steps and seek only legislation that would ban all abortions in one broad stroke.” The fact is, we absolutists do favor incrementalism — but we define what type of incrementalism we favor and what type we oppose.

You see, there are two types of incrementalism. The first, genuine incrementalism, means banning a specific type of abortion with the realization that this ban is one step toward the ultimate goal. The other, compromised incrementalism, means the goal is to stop a specific type of abortion except for cases of rape, incest and purported threat to the life of the mother.

Those of us who understand that making exceptions to permit the abortion of children is tantamount to presenting a pro-abortion position under a pro-life cloak have consistently refused to buy into such flawed thinking. We have not succumbed to the spirit of despair. Rather, we realize that, in order to achieve the ultimate goal of protecting every single innocent preborn child from the instant his life begins, we have to be consistent.

We must not deceive. We must never argue for proposals such as injecting a soon-to-be-aborted child with anesthesia so he will feel no pain during his execution. We must not denigrate the very lives we claim to be defending.

Either we condone a few abortions along the way or we stand firm, never supporting a reason to kill a child. As one very wise woman once wrote to me: “It is estimated that 1% to 2% of babies are surgically aborted for rape or incest. That is approximately 470,000 to 940,000 babies. I’ll pass on the exceptions, thank you, for the sake of these babies.”

Judie Brown

Stafford, Virginia

Editor’s note: Judie Brown is president of American Life League, Inc.

Backing Brownback

As a participant in this year’s March for Life, as well as the Bloggers for Life Conference that day, I can confirm the high visibility of Sam Brownback supporters at the march (“Braving 2 Kinds of Cold,” Jan. 28). I can also tell you why.

A pro-life leader in the Senate since he won Bob Dole’s seat from a pro-abortion governor’s appointee in 1996, Sen. Brownback has sponsored such landmark bills as the Fetal Pain Awareness Act, which he recently re-introduced, and a failed bill that would have offered updated information on disabilities to mothers expecting a child with a disability. He pointed out at the march that unborn Down syndrome babies are aborted at a rate of 80%, yet there are waiting lists of parents to adopt them. He pleaded with mothers expecting a child with Down syndrome not to abort them. He explained that he and his wife have adopted their fifth child, a girl in third grade born to a selfless mother in China who gave her life. These comments brought on some of the most enthusiastic cheers at the march, as the crowd of 127,000 knew of his sincere dedication to the pro-life cause.

Sen. Brownback has been a Catholic since 2002. He came into the Church after reading the works of Pope John Paul II and Blessed Mother Teresa, for whom he obtained the Congressional Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honor. His public stands against human trafficking worldwide and for the desperate situation in the Sudan, along with his willingness to work with senators across the aisle, have shown him to be a man who puts the Church’s social teaching first, his political career second.

Sam Brownback has a sense of mission in his political career due to a bout with cancer. He is a man of the highest integrity who rightly deserves the support of Catholics and pro-lifers of all denominations in his bid for the presidency.

Leticia C. Velasquez

East Moriches, New York

Jewish Views

As a Jew who is a convert to the Catholic faith, I share in the joy and praise to be conferred on Orthodox Rabbi Yehuda Levin for his staunch pro-life views and cooperative efforts with Catholics (“Rabbi’s Message for the Masses,” In Person, Jan. 21).

However, the Register is not entirely correct when it says that, on life issues, “Orthodox Judaism and the Catholic Church could not be closer.” While Orthodox Judaism is definitely not pro-choice and clearly opposes abortions of convenience, there is both a nuanced, complex approach and a spectrum of thought toward the subject among Orthodox Jewish authorities. Some individual rabbis, like Rabbi Levin, and some ultra-Orthodox factions, like Chabad Lubavitch and Agudath Israel, are Catholic-like in their stances on life issues.

Other Orthodox, though, do hold a range of views that entail allowable exceptions for licit abortion in situations dealing with the life and health of the mother, along with psychological distress, rape and incest, and fetal deformity. Significant numbers of Orthodox rabbis are skittish about supporting legal restrictions on abortion. The Orthodox Union has remained neutral in debates over the legal standing of abortion. And embryonic stem-cell research, including its federal funding, has garnered the endorsement of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America.

Also, the State of Israel has become a leading pioneer in embryonic stem-cell research with the approval of its Orthodox rabbinical establishment.

Robert Barnett

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Muslim Mark?

In Mark Shea’s column “Monotheism 102” (Jan. 28), he cites the Catechism, No. 841: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.”

Let me make the usual qualifications here. Yes, I pray that all men will go to heaven, and judgment is left to the Lord. Having said that, let’s move to a more theological discussion on No. 841. One might go to No. 1257, which says the Church knows no other means to get to heaven than through baptism. That is supported by the Council of Trent, specifically Canon V, on baptism, which states: “If anyone saith that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” Sounds like the rule, not the exception.

We also have the problem with the sacrament of confession. I believe one might want to look up No. 1453, which essentially says that serious sins can only be forgiven through sacramental confession. An argument can be made that a Muslim could be saved if he desired the baptism of the Lord, if he was completely ignorant of sacramental baptism. But then he would have to go through life without committing a serious sin and, if he happened to commit a serious sin sometime in his lifetime, we would have to assume that he knew enough about contrition to make a perfect act of contrition and have the desire to get to sacramental confession.

I suggest that Vatican II was gracious in the way it wanted to embrace its neighbors, a worthwhile and noble desire. However, I suspect that writers like Mark Shea — in embracing the Muslim religion wholeheartedly — are marginalizing some of our basic Catholic teachings. 

If you want to dialogue with, instead of evangelize, our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters, I suggest you do them a great disservice. To dialogue without the expectation of conversion is to disregard their eternal souls. We may make this world a little better but, from what I understand of my religion, that is not the point of this exercise we call life.

Don Moga

Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin

Mark Shea responds: Mr. Moga, you appear to have heard vastly more than I am saying. I have no idea what you mean when you say that I embrace Islam “wholeheartedly.” If I did that, I would be a Muslim. I am a Catholic with no intention of changing. The point of my article was really quite modest: to argue that there is nothing wrong with the Church’s basic teaching concerning Islam. That teaching, when summarized, is this: Insofar as Islam affirms what the Church affirms it is right. Insofar as it contradicts the Church it is wrong. That’s hardly a profession that all Muslims are bound for heaven. It’s just an argument that the Catechism and the Second Vatican Council, like Pope St. Gregory VII, were speaking basic common sense in their assessment of Islam.

Now and Then

Congratulations on your 80th anniversary. In the 1940s my mother subscribed to the Denver Catholic Register. We lived in southwestern Colorado. My parents were immigrants from Europe and the closest Catholic church was 3½ miles away in Dolores, Colo. When I was 4 months old, my mother took my 4-year-old brother and me hitchhiking to Dolores to have me baptized! (I think her prayers are the reason our son is now a priest. He just transferred to the Archdiocese of St. Louis.)

Each week I eagerly read your paper and I must tell you how much I learned from Msgr. Smith’s weekly column in years past. I saved them and used them later with our children. He was a beautiful apologist and evangelist.

I had to write this because you have been a stronghold for my Catholic faith.

Mary Hopping

Goleta, California