The Truth Is Out There

The Catholic New Service report “Bosnian Church Official Sees Slight Change in Ethnic Attitudes” (Aug. 7-13) is horribly misleading, misinformed and full of fiction perpetrated by the likes of the Clinton administration, their Bosnian allies and the United Nations.

From the excellent journalism of Bill Schiller (Toronto Star), Tim Butcher (London Daily Telegraph), Charles Krauthammer (Newsweek) and Jared Israel (emperors-clothes.com) the truth can be known: The United Nations was allowing Islamofascist Bosnians to use “safe zones” like Srebrenica, Tuzla and Sarajevo for staging areas of mass murder on innocent civilians.

Under the guidance of SS- and Gestapo-trained Alija Izetbegovic, and carried out by a true war criminal, Nasir Oric, neo-Nazis — backed by the United States, United Nations and NATO — committed unspeakable atrocities against non-combatants. Serbian general Mladi's protests of the “safe zone” misuses were ignored and he warned of a military response. With this knowledge, Oric took his forces, which included Islamic terrorists from all over the region, out of Srebrenica. The Bosnian Muslims who remained were left believing that the United Nations would protect them. The U.N. conspired with the Bosnian government to allow the city to be undefended against attack, thus increasing world sympathy for the Bosnians.

General Mladic had the women and children of Srebrenica evacuated before taking the city; then he engaged the remaining Muslims in battle. Some of these Muslims retreated and were killed by Oric's forces on the outskirts of the city for not staying and fighting. Of the 8,000 supposed “massacred,” only 2,000, some 10 years later, have been found and many of these were likely killed by Oric before the Srebrenica battle and during their retreat.

Secretaries Christopher and Albright, Ambassador Holbrooke and others were well aware of the truth of Srebrenica, which is why they lobbied so hard to convince people otherwise. Europe's real “worst atrocity since World War II,” Krajina, destroyed the lives of 250,000 Serbs, prompting Croatian leadership to gleefully declare the city free of the Serbian “cancer in the heart of Croatia.”

Why did the United States, United Nations and NATO conspire with these Islmamofascist neo-Nazis? Only God knows the answer to that.

The Serbian Orthodox Church should be reluctant to admit to falsities. Either the Serbian Archdiocese has political motivations for playing along with these lies or they have been fooled like most of the unwitting world. Take your pick. Regardless, it is shamefully un-Christian to continue to perpetuate such lies.

ERIK RICHARDS

Coldwater, Michigan

The Real Roberts?

I was glad to see Andy Schlafly's commentary “Will Roberts Judge Amorally?” in your Aug. 14-30 edition.

Ann Coulter, a conservative columnist, has taken a position similar to Schlafly's regarding Roberts' nomination. She has criticized his lack of public controversy that typically arises over moral issues. She has pointed out that non-controversial judges appointed by Republican presidents in recent history have disappointed conservatives.

In the early '90s, when the legalization of physician-assisted suicide was under consideration in Oregon, the state's medical society took a “neutral” stance, obviously to avoid controversy. It wasn't long before physician-assisted suicide was legalized in Oregon. Recently, in California, attempts to legalize physician-assisted suicide failed. Unlike Oregon, the state's medical society opposed its legalization. “Neutrality,” then, is really baseless — and therefore dangerous.

If Roberts doesn't stand against evil, then he will actually be voting for it. Our society cannot afford any more judges who will avoid controversy at any cost.

DEBORAH STURM, RN

Aliquippa, Pennsylvania

Tainted Television

Pertinent to: “Teens Imitate TV Sleaze, Says Study” (August 21-27):

A recent episode of “The Simpsons,” offered on primetime Sunday evening for family and children viewing, featured a Catholic school that Bart Simpson was attending. I immediately thought this New York-based show was going to slam the Catholic faith. I was not wrong.

It did not take 10 seconds before nuns, priests and Catholic beliefs were under attack. I watched the show just to see where it was going with this theme. After 28 minutes of slamming every belief, including the pope, confession and just about everything else Catholic, the last two minutes were devoted to the fact that we all come from different beliefs — Protestant, Jew and Catholic — but that we should live together and tolerate different beliefs.

This show was a blatant attempt to undermine the Pope's visit to Germany, where hundreds of thousands of youth displayed their Catholic beliefs for all the world to see — including the uninformed and immature writers of “The Simpsons.”

RICHARD A. ECKERT

Ocean Springs, Mississippi

God's Hand and Evolution

Regarding the Catholic News Service story “Church's Stand on Evolution Gains Notice” (August 7-13):

Vatican documents do not at all say that “the scientific evidence supporting an evolutionary of life is overwhelming.” Either Catholic News Service got it all wrong, or the Register mistook the CNS report.

Science has never succeeded in fashioning life from a bionic soup — and don't hold your breath, because it never will. It is absurd to expect that what is non-living can elevate itself into living plants or animals. Only God's creative hand can bring about what nature cannot do on its own.

The Vatican document of 2004 cited by CNS actually denies the possibility of an evolutionary origin of life: “It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” CNS (or the Register) turned the Vatican document on its head.

The faithful who accept evolution, including myself, must keep their head on their shoulders. That includes belief in at least five creative interventions on the part of God as I see it: 1) creation of the “Big Bang”; 2) creation of plant life; 3) creation of sentient life; 4) somehow God nudges nature into a design (flowers produce nectar, bees produce honey, human taste buds savor honey's sweetness); and 5) creation of man (each of us individually).

FATHER ANTHONY ZIMMERMAN, STD

Nagoya, Japan

Welfare Alternatives Work

Recent letters have suggested that politicians who support family caps on welfare payments are not pro-life (“The President Is Not Pro-Life,” Aug. 7-13, and “Life and Taxes,” Aug. 14-20). This is a non sequitur. Many such politicians, including those named by the writer, support alternatives to unlimited cash payments to welfare recipients. These alternatives encourage expectant mothers to keep their babies.

An example is funding for community-based charitable organizations that serve these women and their children. In addition to preventing abortions, such alternatives promote subsidiarity. Furthermore, they help curtail fraud and abuse, which are rampant in systems involving government transfer payments to individuals.

CHRISTOPHER J. MATTIA

West Bloomfield, Michigan

Atomic Argument

The problem I see with your editorial “After Hiroshima” (Aug. 21-27) is that you do not seem to have a concept of war. Decisions have to be made for strategic reasons, and military people do not have the time to consult Vatican officials or St. Thomas or St. Augustine. War by its definition is to break things and kill people — therefore, it is irrational. A nation is entitled not to put its own people in harm's way.

Dropping the atomic bombs was hardly a gratuitous act. We were the attacked. The bloodshed to the Japanese in city-by-city fighting would have been as severe as the bomb, and prolonged. We, as the wronged, or sinned-against (using theological terms), did not need to sacrifice our military people. Our president would have faced impeachment, were it known that he had the resources to prevent untold deaths of our own military persons. It would have been an impeachable crime.

The problem you have is that you are applying rational thought to an irrational situation, one called war. The result is ridiculous. This is why you had the upset readers. You, in this editorial, or with the Pakaluks' commentary, are full of pontifications, as opposed to reality. Facts always trump the great and lofty pontifications in war. This would require real thought.

MARY L. GILBERTSON

Franklinville, New York

Editor's note: If your argument is that we should be loath to criticize fighting men who are putting their lives on the line, and that culpability is mitigated in the heat of a pitched battle where confusion reigns, then we wholeheartedly agree. If your argument is that commonsense moral reasoning is impossible in war, or that no rules should apply, then not only the Church, but also the entire military tradition of the United States disagree with you.

We would remind those who have contacted us about this topic that there are three relevant moral principles in the Catechism that must be grappled with:

1. You can't do something wrong, even if you expect a good result to come from it: “A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus, the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation” (No. 1753).

2. You can't target civilians in war: “Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely” (No. 2313).

3. The Church has authoritatively taught, through a Church council and through the Catechism, that the use of the atomic bomb was wrong: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 80, 3.] A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons — especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons — to commit such crimes” (No. 2314).

That said, the United States didn't need to consult theology books or Vatican officials about the atomic bomb. Our country's own proud tradition is that it's wrong to target civilians — a tradition we adhere to in Iraq.

Japan's war tactics were cruel. The Nazis' concentration camps were inhuman. We're not like that. Our greatest generation sacrificed more than we can imagine ridding the world of those evil ideologies so that our better way would prevail. Part of our better way is our recognition that there are lines we must never cross.