Offering Tribute to Benedict, Discussing the Meaning of Marriage and Taking a Pro-Life Stand
Relative to “Father James Martin’s ‘Irresponsible’ Take on Marriage: Catholic Priests Call for Clarity” (NCRegister.com, Feb. 2, Feb. 12 issue):
Everyone involved in the squabble agrees that Secretary Buttigieg and his “spouse” are not married in the eyes of the Church, regardless of what the state or some other religious group may say.
And yet we can refer to Melania as Donald Trump’s “wife” without objection, even though they are not married in the eyes of the Church either.
Neither are Joe and Jill Biden. Neither are the many victims of the lie that “civil union” makes it okay to live in sin.
If the principle were being defended, well and good, but selective application shows that the principle is not being defended but rather is being used to hide true motives.
If we denounce some fake marriages and accept others, then marriage is not the issue.
Politicians love to hide their agendas behind religion — we need them to be better than that.
Talking Rock, Georgia
I want to thank the Register for the absolutely wonderful articles that filled the Jan. 15-28 edition. I devoured the entire issue, and my heart was filled with the beauty that was Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI’s life and writings. I have reached again to his books on my shelf and once again read, with hope, his words.
“The great gesture of embrace emanating from the Crucified has not yet reached its goal; it has only just begun. Christian liturgy is a liturgy on the way, a liturgy of pilgrimage toward the transfiguration of the world, which will only take place when God is ‘all in all’” (The Spirit of the Liturgy; p. 50).
May we continue to be inspired by his writings and his life and pray for the transfiguration of the world.
Staten Island, New York
Your Jan. 15-28 issue of the Register, dedicated entirely to Pope Benedict XVI, is a fitting tribute to this wise, holy priest and shepherd of the Church and a source of comfort and hope to us who cherish his memory.
Thank you for honoring Pope Benedict XVI.
May he pray for you and for the Church he loved so deeply and served so courageously.
Mary R. Pearl
Upper Black Eddy, Pennsylvania
No Excuses for Abortion
Regarding “A Pivotal Moment” (Jan. 29 edition) and “Disparity in Abortion-Related Prosecutions Frustrates Pro-Life Leaders” (Feb. 12 edition):
Following the midterm elections, some supposedly pro-life politicians are reevaluating their positions on exceptions.
I guess they think that if they compromise themselves a little more, they will be better liked and able to defend their positions more easily.
In reality, they are simply undermining their argument.
To be honest, if I was listening to both sides without any foreknowledge, I would reject their arguments based on their inconsistent logic and confusing rhetoric.
The fundamental premise of the pro-life position is that the unborn child is a human being at an early stage of development. If the unborn child was simply a tumor, we would not be having this argument.
No one I know is marching to protect polyps removed from the colon. The abortionists clearly understand this, which is why they resist any efforts to “humanize” the unborn child.
Remember their strong reaction to the Super Bowl commercial that depicted an unborn child responding to his father eating chips during delivery.
They seek to suppress any action that undermines their position.
Contrast that with many “reasonable” pro-life politicians who actively promote exceptions that undermine our basic premise.
Let me translate some of these positions by applying them to a born child. It is murder to take the life of an innocent 2-year-old.
We do not allow an exception if the child’s father is a rapist.
In the case of the unborn child, they are murdered while the rapist usually goes free.
Age or gestation is another example. The protections for a 2-year-old child are the same as those for a 4-year-old child.
But again, proclaimed “pro-life” politicians who eagerly defend the rights of the unborn child at eight and a half months readily agree with the abortionists that at 15 days or 10 weeks or whatever arbitrary number they pull from thin air, the younger baby has no rights.
Their arguments fall apart because they are not consistent.
How about this one?
They agree to exceptions “for the health of the mother” and always bring up ectopic pregnancies.
But the medical procedure to address this life-threatening situation is not an abortion. It actually is medical care.
Are there any valid exceptions? In 2015, Ben Carson, a world-renowned neurosurgeon, said: “I’m a reasonable person. And if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen.” In the seven years since then, I have not heard anyone attempt to advance such an argument.
So let’s quit pretending one exists.
Abortion is the murder — intentional killing — of an innocent, unborn child.
Whenever anyone tries to cite an exception, challenge them to apply that argument to a 2-year-old. Until someone can meet that challenge, let us unabashedly defend the life of every unborn child.
The abortionists will be on the defensive because they cannot meet that challenge. The moderates will be uncomfortable because when it comes to murder, there is no moderate position.
The bystanders will be awakened because they can no longer hide behind some phony excuse.
And we can stand firm because we are right.
- letters to the editor