The Supreme Skirmish Is On

Pertinent to “The American Pontifex” by Scott McDermott (Commentary & Opinion, July 3-9):

President Bush will soon pick a judicial nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of the U.S. Supreme Court, more than 44 million pre-born babies have been killed, approximately 3,000 a year through the grisly partial-birth-abortion procedure.

Abortion groups want minors to be able to get an abortion without parental notification.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against displaying the Ten Commandments in Courthouses, which is censorship. Here's a quote from John Quincy Adams:

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”

Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government can take any property under the guise of using it for a “public benefit.” This is what activist judges do; they simply ignore the Constitution to do whatever they please.

Call the president and tell him that you want him to pick a judicial nominee like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, as he promised. Contact the president by phone at (202) 456-1111, e-mail him at [email protected] or fax him at (202) 456-2461.

BEVERLY MORAN

Corinth, New York

Helping or Enabling?

Regarding “An Open Letter to Caroline Kennedy” (Commentary & Opinion, July 10-16).

Although I agree with Father James Gilhooley's recognition of the late Gov. Robert Casey's courage in steadfastly opposing abortion within the overwhelmingly pro-abortion Democrat Party, I do not share his seeking of approbation of any sort from the Kennedy clan, whose most prominent surviving member is notoriously pro-abortion, and nominally “Catholic.”

Furthermore, I take strenuous exception to the praise heaped upon Casey's traditional tax-and-spend liberalism. Father calls “outstanding” the governor's record of promoting usual leftist programs to “help” the poor, the elderly, teen mothers, etc, etc.

My own view is that using the government as the primary agent of granting material assistance to people in unfortunate circumstances is a well-intended mistake — and, indeed, is antithetical to Christianity in practice. (See 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “… anyone who would not work should not eat.”) For the government thereby aids and abets often irresponsible behavior by subsidizing it, while at the same time punishing those taxpayers whose money is extorted from them.

The money taken by government is no longer in the possession of the people who earned it, and is no longer available to them for the purpose of practicing the virtue of giving of their own free will to the less fortunate, or even to those who brought their own misfortune upon themselves by being irresponsible.

The larger issue, beyond Father Gilhooley's immediate concerns, has to do with why so many Catholic Church leaders seem to equate Christianity with socialism. Why do so many well-intentioned priests, in particular, succumb to the siren song of socialism? Since when are socialist, government-funded “gimme” programs a legitimate surrogate for private acts of charity? Why is it right to forcibly take tax dollars from responsible people in order to subsidize dysfunctional behavior?

By all means, Gov. Casey ought to be recommended as a “profile in courage,” as ought all people who are pro-life in our culture of death — yes, including “ignominious” conservative Republicans! But Casey's own muddle-headed use of government to foster supposedly just aid to the supposedly needy ought not to be so honored. Such socialist, statist views inevitably aid and abet a community that is at its heart rigidly secularist, and rabidly anti-Catholic.

With regards for your otherwise fine publication, I remain your faithful reader.

JOHN G. BOULET, M.D.

Austin, Texas

Terri's End

The article about Terri Schiavo's autopsy, “Autopsy Leaves a Mystery: Terri's Heart” (June 26-July 2) has a neuropathologist discussing Terri's death by dehydration and stating that, “based on a clinical definition of ‘persistent vegetative state,’ Terri did not suffer.” I did not see anything in the article to dispute that.

Father Frank Pavone has said, “It is inaccurate to describe her death as peaceful and gentle. I was with her for several hours the night before she died and again the next morning until 10 minutes before she died. She was in agony unlike anything I have ever seen.”

DOROTHY STATHIS

Victoria, Texas

Editor's note: The article quoted David Gibbs, attorney for Terri's parents, who said the Schindlers were still grieving over the “barbaric” way her life was ended; he also said Terri's life had been “worth saving and the quality-of-life analysis that was used to end her life was wrong.” Also, the article's concluding paragraph quoted a statement from Father Pavone: “Terri did not die from an atrophied brain. She died from an atrophy of compassion on the part of her estranged husband and those who helped him to have her deliberately killed.”

Amen to Exxon

Thank you so very much for your ProLife Victory, “Exxon/Mobil Alone” (June 19-25). It would be unseemly for me to use this as an excuse for promoting the company in your pages, but I cannot help but voice an “Amen” — and add a word as to why.

I joined Exxon right out of college. After 30 years, at the strong leading of the Lord, I elected to retire at age 51. At the time I signed the papers, I didn't know what I was going to do, but I had God's assurance that He'd neither leave me nor forsake me. And my wife Sheila was right behind me, though we didn't know from whence would come college expenses for four kids.

A few days after signing the papers, Judie and Paul Brown of American Life League offered me a job at more than the difference between my former Exxon salary and my upcoming pension. Of course, I asked them to scale it back — I didn't retire to get rich on the pro-life movement! That was 1986 and the intervening years have been glorious.

What's that have to do with Exxon? A number of things. First off, I found it to be a highly ethical, well-managed company. I can't say that I was ever put in a difficult ethical situation and I daresay that would be difficult for most people to say. Moreover, the management training and experience I received have served me well (and I hope also the pro-life organizations I've worked for).

Upon reading your article, I asked why Exxon stockholders might be more pro-family, more supportive of a Judeo-Christian ethic in the public square. The answer has to be Exxon management, the way they've handled shareholder relations and communications over the years. It seemingly conveyed what they are and what they believe.

I'll also note that I had a sales-management job where we were selling chemical additives to other oil companies. Thus I got to know these other oil companies pretty well and I found Exxon to be clearly the class of the industry. I thanked God for leading me there. It sure wasn't my doing — I'm not that smart!

DICK REEDER

Green Village, New Jersey

Editor's note: The writer was the subject of a Register ProLife Profile earlier this year (“Pro-Life Pro,” Jan. 30-Feb. 5).

Disposable Devotionals

Joseph Hiebel of East Dubuque, Ill., wondered what to do with all the unasked-for religious articles many of us get in the mail (“Mailbox Dilemma,” Letters, June 19-25).

One very constructive thing to do with them is to give them to your parish's director of religious formation, who can then use them as little prizes for the children in religion classes. Ditto for all the religious greeting cards we get: They are great craft items for class projects, etc. This is much more positive than throwing them into a trash basket or burying them.

Thank you for such a great Catholic newspaper!

JEANNETTE SCHLICHER

Director, Adult Ministries

St. Thomas Aquinas Church

Rio Rancho, New Mexico

In Persona Christi

In your May 29-June 4 editorial, “Priests Are From Mars,” there is a heretical statement: “Priests are [Christ's] representatives.” Not you, too! To make the role of the priest so understated is shameful of you. Say it ain't so! The priest is Christ.

In the same issue, I notice that Monica Migliorino Miller is mistranslating the meaning of the Latin phrase In persona Christi (“Why Are Only Men Priests?”)

I'm convinced that one of the reasons Christ came when he did was because Rome with its very precise Latin was dominant. Latin says what it says. In persona Christi means “the person of Christ” in as emphatic a way as possible.

KENNETH STUDINSKI

Albany, Wisconsin

Editor's note: Here's how the Catechism puts it: “Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him (emphasis added) that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer” (No. 1348).