Santorum's Defense

I was deeply disappointed when I read Sen. Rick Santorum's defense of Arlen Specter in his letter to the editor, “Sen. Santo-rum Replies” (Sept. 19-25). His fundamental assumption seems to be that Pat Toomey would have had no chance of winning the general election, and therefore Santorum had to ensure he was defeated in the primary in order to preserve the Republican majority. In fact, Toomey would have had a very good chance in the general election, especially with a popular senator like Santorum supporting him.

Also, Santorum defends Specter by pointing out that he voted for Clarence Thomas, without mentioning the fact that he only did so because he was soon up for re-election and he later called Thomas “a disappointment.” Specter also worked with Ted Kennedy to torpedo the nomination of pro-life judge Robert Bork.

I have no reason to believe that, if Specter is re-elected, he will work with the pro-life Republicans in any way. And I cannot believe that Santorum continues to defend his terrible decision to support him.

SHAWN GRUBBS

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Icon Intrigue

“The Pope, the Bishop and the Lost Icon of Moscow” (Sept. 19-25) failed to provide accurate information about the Blue Army's role in returning the icon to the Russian people. The Blue Army was not unaware of the icon's identity or value, as suggested in the interview with Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

When I served as executive director of the Blue Army USA, I was told that the icon had been found in England and authenticated by a Russian Orthodox bishop in exile. It was said that a Russian Orthodox community in California had attempted to purchase the icon, but their funds for this purpose were stolen. John Haffert, co-founder of the Blue Army, then raised donations from Blue Army members to ransom the icon for the exclusive purpose of keeping it safe until it could be returned to Russia. The return of the icon was envisioned after the end of atheistic communism there, as promised in the message of Fatima. It was first taken on a tour of the United States and then kept in a strongly locked viewing case in the chapel of Domus Pacis, the Blue Army International pilgrim center in Fatima.

Pope John Paul II asked for the icon of Kazan and the Blue Army immediately gave it to him — first, because he is Pope, but secondly, because it was clearly more fitting that the Pope return the icon to Russia than that it be returned by a Catholic lay association. Its great value to the Russian people seemed to require this.

From the start, the Holy Father had no other intention than to return the icon of Kazan to Russia, and he expressed this desire to Bishop James Sullivan, then president of the Blue Army USA. The Holy Father hoped to return it personally, which would have been fitting. Unfortunately, this did not turn out to be possible, and so he eventually had to return it through emissaries.

The Russian Orthodox patriarch's response to the Holy Father seems to indicate that he doesn't realize or appreciate the sacrifices made by so many Roman Catholics to preserve and ultimately return this precious icon.

E. WILLIAM SOCKEY III Venus, Pennsylvania

Lip Service

Regarding “Kerry's Record Speaks for Itself” (editorial, July 18-24):

In a mind-boggling exercise in pandering, John Kerry recently said in an interview in the Dubuque Telegraph Herald: “I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist … who doesn't share it.”

If Kerry had been running for president in 1860, would he have proclaimed that he was personally opposed to slavery, but he didn't want to impose his belief on Southerners who didn't share it or seek to overturn “settled law” as defined in the Dred Scott decision or amend the U.S. Constitution, which defined blacks as three-fifths of a human being?

So Kerry only gives lip service to his Catholic faith? He believes in the Church and its rules, but he votes opposite of what the Church teaches as a U.S. senator? If Kerry does not legislate his beliefs, pray tell, on what did he base all his votes? Someone else's personal beliefs, as in “the devil made me do it”?

Laws against murder are not based on religion. Even atheists oppose murder. And if you believe that life begins at conception, then you must believe arbitrarily ending that life is wrong.

DANIEL SOBIESKI

Chicago

Communion Controversy Continues

Thank you for publishing the leaked memo from Cardinal Ratzinger regarding the norms for denial of Communion to Catholic politicians (“Memo: ‘Obstinate’ Politicians Must Be Denied Communion,” July 18-24).

I'm writing with the hope that your paper can seek further clarification from the cardinal's office regarding a passage in that memo that is becoming a source of confusion among Catholic voters. The passage from the memo is: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

Without clarification, the statement can suggest that a Catholic can vote in good conscience for even the most extreme pro-abortion candidate if the voter makes a mere interior note that he is not voting for the politician's stand on life issues, but is voting for the candidate's other issues. Can the cardinal really be advancing a moral loophole that can be invoked to permit a voluntary severance of intention in the act of voting when it comes to abortion and the other life issues?

A commentator recently used this passage to suggest just as much by announcing that Catholics can vote for Kerry in good conscience. However, this commentator ignored the qualifying clause of “in the presence of proportionate reasons,” upon which the whole moral teaching hinges.

This minor clause has rather major implications for Catholics reflecting on the moral effects of voting for pro-abortion politicians.

MICHAEL SULLIVAN

Chicago

Unfit = Unwanted

In “Couples Ask: What's Wrong With In-Vitro Fertilization?” (Aug. 8-14), Register staff writer Tim Drake points out the Church's opposition to in-vitro fertilization, which is centered around her desire to protect the dignity of the human person, warning against domination over the origin and destruction of the human person. A glaring example of such heinous domination is taking place here in the Midwest.

In the tradition of Nazi human experimentation on those deemed “unfit,” the Chicago-based Reproductive Genetic Institute recently announced that they are engaged in what Pro-Life Wisconsin recognizes to be modern-day eugenics. The clinic has announced that they have sacrificed “genetically flawed human embryos” by extracting their stem cells to begin 12 new stem-cell lines (the first to be formed from embryos with specific diseases), as reported by the Associated Press in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 14.

This is accomplished when multiple human beings are illicitly formed through in-vitro fertilization. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is then performed and the dysgenic embryos are sorted out. Those identified as “unfit” are unwillingly subjected to deadly stem-cell extraction. Stem-cell lines are attempted to be derived with the hope of finding a cure for the exact diseases for which these particular embryonic people are discarded. In Chicago, the sacrificed human embryonic children were found to have genes identified to cause seven different diseases, including muscular dystrophy, blood disorders and a form of mental retardation.

The bottom line is that human beings are being formed for the express purpose of sorting the fit from the “unfit” and using the “unfit” for the perceived good of society. In-vitro fertilization has set us on an inhumane course toward this type of utilitarian treatment of individuals, which can never be tolerated in a civilized society.

PEGGY HAMILL

Brookfield, Wisconsin

The writer is director of Pro-Life Wisconsin.

Carl Olson Fan Club

Carl Olson's thoughts are always so well stated, but, without question, “Holy Cloud!” (Spirit & Life, July 11-17) was extraordinary. His personal touch in taking his faith back to his (evangelical-Protestant) family after his conversion to the Catholic faith could not be more touching or memorable for this reader.

Eliot, Chesterton and Thomas Aquinas are some of my favorite faith writers, and Mr. Olson really rounded off a great contribution by teaching and inspiring with their excellent writings.

BILL MCCUEN

Doylestown, Ohio