Readers respond to Register articles.
Regarding “On Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees, Look to Pope St. John XXIII” (In Depth, Feb. 19): Bravo for the balanced presentation on this issue.
Many articles only echo the “bash-Trump” approach, with no consideration for America’s security.
Many do not understand the very real threat Islam poses to America.
Remember the abbreviation WWJD (“What Would Jesus Do?”). We as Christians try to imitate, in our personal lives, what Jesus Christ did and taught.
Muslims attempt the same regarding Muhammad. The Islamic State is doing what Muhammad did and taught.
Since most do not have the time nor desire to read up on the issue, I recommend a DVD series by Mr. Randal Terry aptly entitled, What Would Mohammed Do?
This DVD may educate many on the great importance of the border issue.
Flower Mound, Texas
I am disappointed by the choice of pronouns used in “SNAP in the Spotlight” (page one, Feb. 19 issue).
“Gretchen” Hammond should not be referred to as “her” or “she,” as this article consistently does.
“Gretchen” calls himself “transgender” and wishes to masquerade as a woman, but it would not be truly loving to play along with this delusion at all, including using incorrect pronouns.
I did read the editorial note at the end of the article that said the Register does not agree with the secular agenda of calling biological males “she,” and I gave consideration to the possible reasons behind your choice.
I believe your intent was to prevent readers’ confusion, since one of the article’s sources consistently calls Mr. Hammond a “she,” and you did not wish to confuse readers by having one person refer to Mr. Hammond as a “she” while you refer to him as a “he.”
However, I believe a better choice would be either to put a note at the beginning of the article explaining that the Register will always use “he” when referring to Mr. Hammond, even though the quoted source will be saying “she,” or, even better, use brackets to replace the “she” in quotes with either “Mr. Hammond” or “he.”
Someone “born biologically male” can only be male. He will forever be male in the eyes of God and, therefore, the eyes of the Church.
We must speak the truth and use only male pronouns when referring to him.
Otherwise, we are perverting the truth.
This is an important moral issue of our time, and we must prevent moral confusion by insisting on using the correct, truthful pronouns.
Weehawken, New Jersey
Irony Is Not Lost
I was mildly surprised to read in “What Is It Like to Receive the Eucharist in Space?” (Culture of Life, March 5-18 issue) that the Russian government permitted U.S. astronaut Mike Hopkins to keep a pyx containing the Eucharist on his flight to the International Space Station.
How ironic! The U.S. has a political party that wants to impeach a president for an alleged affiliation with a Russian government that supposedly enabled him to steal an election — the same faction that placed party above patriotism by sitting on their hands while the president was delivering a very effective initial speech to Congress.
I could not help but call to mind those famous words, “We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us!”
Hammonton, New Jersey
In “Apostasy and Ambiguity” (Arts & Entertainment, Feb. 19 issue) Steven D. Greydanus asks, “Does the act of stepping on an image of Christ always entail apostasy [as commanded by a despot]?”
The answer is Yes.
The number of people threatened with death for noncompliance is irrelevant.
To suggest otherwise is to fall into proportionalism, something rejected by Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor.
Father T.G. Morrow
Silver Spring, Maryland
Regarding “What the Bishops, the Catechism and St. Thomas Aquinas Say About Immigration” (NCRegister.com, Feb. 7):
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) appears to minimize the balance provided by Catholic teaching on the subject of immigration and refugees.
Blogger Kathy Schiffer has the perspective that some of the USCCB has missed. The Catholic News Service excerpted commentary from Church leaders who described the order as “chaotic,” “devastating” and “cruel” to those whose immigration, to be clear, is temporarily suspended. Ironically, some of the bishops’ words went right to the point of the executive order wherein Cardinal DiNardo and Archbishop Gomez correctly observed that the nation “... must screen vigilantly for infiltrators who would do us harm.”
This imperative was immediately neutered by their stating that the “country must always be equally vigilant in our welcome of friends.”
One cannot be both tough but fair and not tough at all. Chicago’s Cardinal Cupich ascribed the executive order to “... a dark moment in U.S. history.”
His Eminence’s narrow view can be measured against acutely dark moments in recent U.S. history, demonstrated empirically by 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino massacres and more.
There is nothing dark about protecting the nation’s citizenry against terrorism and terrorist infiltration, by whatever legal means and whomever it inconveniences.
There is no doubt that infiltrators pose as refugees. Such have revealed themselves among the hundreds of thousands migrating to France, Belgium, Austria and Germany in the mayhem, death and sorrow they have caused in the past year alone.
To exactly quote the U.S. Navy’s demand of those on watch, “Eternal vigilance is the price of safety.” Unbridled immigration weighs on national safety. Christ himself asserted the righteous equities of temporal powers.
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Relative to “The Year of Amoris Laetitia” (page one, Jan. 8): Father de Souza, you wrote an excellent and accurate assessment of Amoris Laetitia and its fallout. To those who would disagree:
I suggest that you read Amoris Laetitia — all 225 pages of it — before offering your opinion on it. I would also suggest that you read Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendor and sacred Scripture (Matthew 19:9):
“And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Marybeth Arcario Chugg
Relative to “Apostasy and Ambiguity” (Arts & Entertainment, Feb. 19 issue):
Since reading Mr. Greydanus’ review of the movie Silence, as well as other comments in the media, I wish to offer situations in our lives and some biblical contemplation in response.
The extraordinary dilemma faced by Father Rodrigues in the movie brings to mind possible death/suffering situations.
Suppose a suffering relative with a terminal illness asked to be euthanized. You had the power to eliminate any further suffering, just as Father Rodrigues considers the elimination of suffering for his flock if he apostatized; or what if a person comes forward with false information to save a criminal on death row.
Both examples are hopeful of relief, but they show false compassion.
In the Bible, there are two passages that guide our understanding in witnessing to the Truth different from Father Rodrigues. One, taken from 1 Peter 5:3, exhorts the presbyters: “Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock.”
This passage encourages a priest like Father Rodrigues to be an example and accept the martyrdom of his flock and not to be concerned with the consequences.
God alone knows the fruits which may come from these martyrs.
A second biblical passage comes from 2 Maccabees 7:1, 20-23, wherein the mother exhorts her seven sons to suffer the scourges of King Antiochus and not eat the forbidden pork and save their lives.
Many thanks indeed for the very informative chart appearing in your Feb. 5 issue (“Catholics in the 115th Congress,” Nation), which makes clear which congressmen, among the self-described Catholics, are voting pro-life and which are voting pro-abortion.
This enables us to distinguish between Catholic legislators supporting Church teaching as to the moral law and the self-described “Catholics” who are indifferent to the child in the womb. Perhaps the U.S. bishops of the many fake Catholics will take appropriate action.
Perhaps they will even cut through the verbal snow of their 91-paragraph document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” and emphasize the life issue as pre-eminent. After all, millions of Catholics voted for the pro-abortion presidential candidate last November.
Regarding “How Catholic Is Your Stance on Immigration?” (NCRegister.com, Feb. 7):
Thanks to the Register and Msgr. Charles Pope for this article.
Msgr. Pope lays the problem out, in my opinion, in a logical, balanced, rational, substantiated and understandable format.
Well worth a review.
Pertinent to your coverage of the immigration crisis:
Catholic social teaching asks us to welcome immigrants and requires immigrants to respect our laws.
The law gives immigration-enforcement power to the president.
Immigrants now make up 25% of our population and will be 50% by 2050.
The problem is with those who are not assimilating or law-abiding.
Donald Trump was elected president to enforce the law and deport criminal aliens.
People who aid these criminals not only defy the law, they betray the moral contract.
Michael F. McCarthy
- letters to the editor