Abandoned Truth

Regarding “Temporary Inattention or Willful Blindness: Why Did Michael Coren Leave the Church?” (May 19, NCRegister.com):

Jimmy Akin’s analysis of the “Jesus never told me not to” defense is accurate, but more could be said. To give the benefit of the doubt to Coren, and others who employ this specious argument, one must ignore Our Lord’s explicit statement in the Gospels: that “not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all is fulfilled,” as well as other passages, e.g., that he who teaches others to ignore the law shall be “least” in the kingdom of heaven.

Since the law itself contains explicit condemnation of a whole host of specific sexual acts, to say that Jesus “never spoke about” or “never preached on” this topic is defensible only in an alternate universe where the Hegelian/Marxist denial of objective reality is “true.”

The truth is that G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis were correct as long ago as Orthodoxy and The Screwtape Letters: Our civilization has abandoned every notion of a concrete belief in objective truth arrived at by reasoning. The answers seem now to be found not in philosophical argument, but in simplistic fables — The Emperor’s New Clothes coming to mind most frequently.

Gregory Krog Jr.
Memphis, Tennessee

 

The Hole in Freedom

Brian Fraga’s article, “Reparative Therapy Attacked” (page one, May 31 issue) was excellent, as the Register’s coverage of all issues is excellent. However, we seem to be treading water in our attempts to oppose many issues and attacks. We need to repair the hole in the dike that unleashed the flood — the U.S. Supreme Court.

Free-will choice is a faculty of the mind. Therefore, the right and wrong — yes and no — choices we have in every area of life are inherent — ours alone. Government cannot “give” us rights or choices that are already ours. Our Founding Fathers did not “give” us anything, but acknowledged and listed our “freedom of” — our free-will choice.

There are no rights or choices in the Constitution for acts of deviance or divergence from fundamental behavior. Our predecessors were not bigoted, hateful or ignorant. Sodomy, abortion and euthanasia were crimes because they are deviant, aberrant and abnormal acts of supremacy — of domination by one person over other human life. With every act of domination, there is a victim — who may be willing or unwilling.

Abortion’s victim is the helpless, unborn child. Assisted suicide’s willing victim is the terminally ill patient. Sodomy is a non-reciprocal sex act performed by one man upon another man, a woman or child. The victims may be willing or unwilling.

The Supreme Court is responsible for usurping representational government and foisting unconstitutional deviance on this nation — leading men and women into destroying their own unborn children [and other detrimental actions]. The entity called “Church” needs to charge the court with usurping and corrupting inherent, individual, fundamental choices.

         Ruth Ruhl-LaMusga

         Chico, California

 

‘Seamless’ Response

This is in reference to the letter writer who thought that Jesus would be a Democrat because it is known as the social-justice party. Would Jesus think it’s more important to give someone life or an increase in wage? Would the writer rather have life or an increase in wage?

The Republicans and Democrats are after the same thing — just in different ways. The Democrats have good intentions, but the poor actually seem worse off now.

The writer says he is not a one-issue voter, but he is. It’s just that his one issue is poverty, not life. When people talk about the seamless garment, they don’t seem to realize that there are little tears for lots of things, but a great, big rent representing the 1 million-plus babies who are killed each year.

He also said he was in favor of traditional marriage, but why should he tell someone who he or she can love and marry? We as Catholics have a responsibility to always stand up for God’s laws. Also, would we rather have people be chaste in this life or go to hell in the next life for disobeying God’s laws? I don’t think that’s love at all: to tell someone it’s okay to break God’s laws.

Finally, Jesus said you will always have the poor with you — so let’s not kill our children and make it easier for people to go to hell just so we can reduce poverty.

         Ginny Malbon

         Santa Cruz, California

 

Political Careerism

Pertinent to “Failure to Pass Colorado Fetal-Homicide Law ‘a Grave Miscarriage of Justice’” (NCRegister.com, May 8):

I live in Colorado, only a few miles south of the woman who was assaulted and whose unborn baby was murdered.

My wife and I have followed the debate in the statehouse over a bill that would clearly declare that any purposeful assault which causes the death of an unborn child is murder — pure and simple.

I have worked in Washington and in the politics of numerous state legislative houses. In my experience, a clear majority of those elected to public office from both major parties have badly seared consciences. Many of them started out on the right side of the life issues. But in time they have been lectured that to stand out as blatantly pro-life is tantamount to endangering their careers.

Subsequently, they gradually smother the voice of their consciences and tell themselves that no one really “knows” whether the unborn baby is really a human being or not. [That is the way they can live with themselves.] I’ve personally known a substantial number of such lost souls.

It is easy to despise them as the cowards that they are. I fight that all the time. Rather, Father, Son and Holy Spirit wish me to pray and make sacrifices for them — because they are on a path to eternity, whether it be in heaven or hell.

Put bluntly, a common paraphrase of Dante is this statement I learned from one of my professors years ago: “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, fail to take a stand.”

To those who need the courage to stand up for the life issues, I say with St. Thomas More, “Pray for me, as I will for thee, that we may merrily meet in heaven.”

         Desmond A. Birch

         Arvada, Colorado

 

Abortion Alert

Relative to “Fewer Texas Abortion Facilities?” (Nation, June 28 issue):

Abortion organizations are looking for nurses and midwives to perform abortions because doctors are quitting the business, and this is leading to a national shortage of workers.

These organizations have to find ways to expand the abortion business and increase revenues in this downward trend.

Due to the large number of states in the past few years enacting new and effective pro-life laws, many clinics have been forced to close, and these closings induce doctors to leave the business.

The abortion industry tried, but was unable, to force medical schools to mandate abortion training, and this failure forced them to turn to other measures, such as having states allow nurses, midwives and other non-physicians to perform surgical or chemical abortions.

Chemical abortion is one way to expand abortion to new areas. The web-cam system has been introduced, whereby mothers, possibly miles away, communicate via web cam with an abortionist at a central office; he/she then clicks a computer mouse, which releases a drawer containing the two abortifacient drugs back at the patient’s location. If the woman has problems, she can only call a hotline or try to make it to her local emergency room.

Numerous new state pro-life laws illustrate the success and impact achieved, but pro-lifers must be alert because the abortion business will adapt in order to maintain revenues.

         Mabel Ryan

         Ocala, Florida

 

CRS’ Mixed Message

Pertinent to “Addressing Institutional Dilemmas: CRS Vice President Resigns Following ‘Marriage’ Disclosure” (page one, June 14 issue):

Only after a public disclosure did Catholic Relief Services comment on the same-sex “marriage” of one of its vice presidents. Instead of immediately terminating the vice president, CRS said that it had a dilemma. The president said that CRS was “working through” the question of whether it violated Church teaching. It reminded me of the family synod trying to separate Catholic teaching from practice.

In the CRS statement regarding the resignation of the vice president, it attacked the messenger instead of discussing the message: the sanctity of marriage.

         Joel Fago

         Hereford, Arizona