When Obedience Is Criminal

I was completely shocked and stunned to read the Sept. 5-11 editorial excusing Judge Richard Casey for his decision striking down the congressional ban on partial-birth abortion (“Judge Casey: Pro-Life, Pro-Law?”).

The judgment of Judge Casey's soul is in the hands of God. We can hope that his attendance at daily Mass and his devotion to the rosary will result in his obtaining the graces necessary to publicly repent of this objectively grave mortal sin, not only of injustice, but also of scandal. However, we are obliged (see Catechism, No. 2480) to avoid words and attitudes that would encourage another in perverse conduct and, thus, we are obliged to tell the truth and not to whitewash the gravity of the offense.

The idea that the “law of the land” required Judge Casey to overturn the ban evidences a completely erroneous view of law. It has long been the Christian tradition, that an objectively unjust law is no law and does not bind. No matter what the Supreme Court said in Stenberg v. Car-hart or elsewhere, it simply has no God-given authority whatsoever to tell a lesser magistrate he must rule in favor of the “right” to kill unborn children. Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and Stenberg v. Carhart are not acts of law, understood in the proper sense as ordinances for the common good. In fact, they constitute tyranny. Obeying them is not respecting the “rule of law,” just the opposite: This is a case where obedience to an unjust law becomes a crime.

Also, all justices, at all levels of the judiciary, are themselves legally bound by the Constitution and have no right whatsoever, whether moral or legal, to decide that a woman's alleged “right to privacy” should take precedence over the right to life of an innocent. When they attempt this, they are acting ex lex, outside the proper sphere of their judicial authority. Thus a decision by Judge Casey to uphold the ban would have been the legally, as well as morally, correct decision, according to the “rule of law” and the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold — while his unfortunate actual decision is void of legal, as well as moral, validity.

Vincent J. Schmithorst

Cincinnati, Ohio

Natural vs. Man-Made

I found the discussion of the issues involved in Judge Casey's decision interesting (“Judge Casey: Pro-Life, Pro-Law?”, Editorial, Sept. 5-11). I will leave it to the legal scholars to debate whether or not there was a possible legal interpretation that would have allowed Judge Casey to find in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban.

I think the moral situation needs further examination. The Church teaches that we are obliged to obey the just laws of the land, but we are not required to obey manifestly unjust laws. We should oppose them. A soldier is required to obey his commander, but not when commanded to do something clearly evil.

By extension I would propose that, when one takes an oath to uphold the law of the land or interpret the law of the land, this, in reality, only applies to just laws. There is a higher law — God's law or the natural law — that does take precedence. Legislators should not work to pass laws supporting abortion even though it is the law of the land. It also seems to me that judges should not reaffirm abortion laws even though it is the law of the land. I do not think a judge's oath to uphold man-made laws supercedes his or her obligation to uphold the natural law.

Pope John Paul II says in Evangelium Vitae: “Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.”

James E. Brown Jr., M.D.

Metairie, Louisiana

Pro-Life Infertility

I appreciate the focus that the Register has given to the moral implications regarding infertility treatment (“Helping Fertility the Natural Way,” Oct. 17-23, and “Couples Ask: What's Wrong With In-Vitro Fertilization?”, Aug. 8-14). I also appreciate that you offer information so as to help couples make better moral treatment choices. God bless!

Ten percent of all married couples struggle with some kind of infertility during the course of married life. Most couples will state that it is their “right” to conceive and carry a child to birth. Unfortunately, most married Catholics who struggle with infertility hold a similar conviction.

The personal, spiritual and societal consequences of manipulating reproduction have led to grave and dark behaviors. It has been my experience that the message of personal pro-life choices in the midst of suffering through infertility is still too quiet.

Catholics need to speak out against the horrendous medical practices and, at the same time, offer hope, encouragement and testimony to suffering couples.

Janis Parker

Squaw Valley, California

We Have Prevailed

Regarding “Catholic Voters Score Pro-Life Gains” (Nov. 14-20):

Praise Our Lord, we have prevailed through prayer, correct thinking and action at the polls on Nov. 2. This 84-year-old is left wondering about one specific point. In the days and months and years ahead, will the mainstream media begin tweaking numbers so that poor Ralph Nader — a man of principle, though we may disagree on many points — will be blamed for “costing” Kerry the election as he was blamed four years ago?

If I may belabor another point, why do they still advocate fetal stem-cell research? After well over 20 years, this research is still full of “maybes” and “possibilities,” with no positive results. Use of adult stem cells (and cells drawn from babies' umbilical cords), on the other hand, has resulted in some progress in treatment of 56 diseases. Political and financial considerations — again?

Harriet D. Fox

Mount Sinai, New York

Not-So-Beautiful Noise

I read with interest Barbara Nicolosi's on-target essay, “Beauty Will Save the World” (Commentary & Opinion, Oct. 3-9). It is my opinion that this piece should be required reading for all pastors.

The number of times that I have been distracted at Mass by the cacophonous sounds of a well-intentioned, unprepared, tone-deaf music director are too many to count. When are pastors going to realize that well-performed music enhances the liturgy and has the ability to uplift the soul? It does not take a Ph.D. to realize that a dignified Mass, with a well-prepared homily and good music executed by professional musicians, is certainly going to attract more congregants.

Unfortunately, in order to save a few hundred dollars on the weekend, some pastors would rather settle for the equivalent of Catholic karaoke. The fact that those pastors do not care in what manner the Mass is presented to our Lord speaks volumes.

The sacrifice of the Mass is a beautiful rite. When it is celebrated, it should be done so with the very best that we have to offer.

Regina Harm

Cherry Hill, New Jersey