The following letters to the editor appear in the edition of Dec. 18, 2003. Letters appearing in this space do not necessarily reflect the views of the Arlington Catholic Herald or the Catholic Diocese of Arlington. The editor reserves the right to edit letters as necessary. There is no guarantee of publication. Send letters to: letters@catholicherald.com.

Catholics of Convenience

I read with great interest Mr. Weigel’s article "What to do about defiant Catholic Legislators" (ACH 12/11/03). He makes a number of strong points regarding the frustrations of many Catholics. I agree it will take Catholic laity and the bishops working together to get legislators like Kennedy, Mikulski and Leahy to follow the teachings, commandments and doctrines of the Catholic Church. I label people like the Kennedy’s, Mikulskis and Leahy’s as "Catholics of convenience."

These are legislators who are using their label as "Catholics" to garnish votes in their districts. Their activities, interpretations of the Catholic religion and positions of high esteem encourage other Catholics to make their own interpretations of Catholic doctrine. And why not? We see these very same legislators in the news receiving holy Communion on Sunday, speaking on pro-abortion on Monday, with some supporting same-sex marriages as well.

It will take the laity and bishops of our Church to speak out against such "Catholics of convenience." However, it needs to start at the top with cardinals and flow down through our parish priests and laity, who are all voters.

As long as the Catholic Church in America gives in to the power, money and influences of families such as the Kennedy’s, we will be encouraging other Catholics to become "Catholics of convenience." The payoff for some in this life will make it appear well worth their while.

Art Gomes
Centreville

Hasty Judgement

George Weigel raises several serious questions in his discussion of genetically modified foods (GMOs) (ACH 12/4/03). Unfortunately, he treats these matters in the context of an incomplete picture of the global food system, especially if his intention is to clarify public policy in this area.

It is, of course, true that some opponents of GMO foods, including Greenpeace, have sought to move quickly from argument to action by such practices as calling the items they oppose "Frankenfoods." Using such bumper-sticker slogans may be effective in political campaigns, but it rarely helps the reader to understand complex problems.

As Weigel notes, the Vatican has been concerned about this problem for some time; the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, for example convened a conference on the subject in 2001, which took a very cautious view of the value of these new foods, but neither condemned nor endorsed them. Indeed, the academy, while adopting the precautionary principle (first, do no harm) and acknowledging that the human mind is properly concerned with such matters, concluded that the current scientific results were not yet decisive. In mid-November of this year, as the HERALD has reported, the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace convened another such event, in part to respond to critical statements by bishops’ conferences and to the Zambian example cited in the article.

Weigel’s column clearly reflects the fact that the environmental and health risks posed by GMO foods are not substantiated, but he fails to note that the claims of the pro-GMO contingent that these foods "are the way to feed hungry people whose food supply is threatened by natural disaster, insect infestation, or other blights," have not been tested either. Nor has it been demonstrated that GMO foods feed more people, cause less disease and "don’t damage soil, water or air."

Finally, since Weigel brings up the contribution of Monsanto, let it be noted that nearly four-fifths of GMO seed in the world is produced or controlled by that company, which is an outstanding example of the kind of monopoly control found in nearly all parts of the global food system — in the Monsanto case it is mainly seed, fertilizer and other inputs that reflect that control. There are other business concentrations, too, in land owndership, meat and grain production, manufacturing and processing, and trading in grain, soybeans, cotton and other products as well as restaurant chains.

Weigel does your readers a service by bringing up this issue (even though his rationale is not compelling), because the global food system is crucial to all of us. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has said consistently for nearly the past decade, that about 840 million people (one seventh of the human race), do not have food security, which FAO defines as access, though purchase or production, to an adequate human diet.

In short, people are hungry because they are poor, and they are poor because they don’t have the power to be otherwise. It is therefore crucial that the system be changed so that these people are empowered to have access to food through growing it or earning it. If GMO foods can contribute to that goal at an acceptable human cost and pace, they are welcome. However, up to this point (pace Weigel), neither their intention nor their claim to do that is proven.

Martin M. McLaughlin
Consultant
Food Policy and Development
Arlington

Life for the Criminals

This letter is in response to Gene Arbogast’s letter supporting capital punishment, "A Quote from ACLU" (ACH 12/11/03).

I oppose capital punishment. However, it is not because of any research that could prove anyone’s innocence. I oppose it because the Catholic Church believes that it is wrong for our country to apply the death penalty to anyone.

Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not completely forbid the use of capital punishment, it does state that "if non-lethal means are sufficient to protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means." Pope John Paul II has repeatedly spoken out against the use of capital punishment in the United States. Apparently, the Pope believes that our country can administer punishment to even our most dangerous criminals without executing them.

I admit that in an age where terrorism, abortion and euthanasia have had such a profound effect on our society, it is difficult to argue about the value of the human life of a heinous criminal. The D.C. snipers and Timothy McVeigh have particularly challenged my views on capital punishment. However, even the most heinous criminal was created in the image and likeness of God.

It certainly is easier to get angry over the thousands upon thousands of abortions that occur every year than it is to get angry over a few hundred executed criminals.

However, all human life is sacred, even the souls of those who kill others. God is still the author of life and it is not up to us to decide when it should be ended.

John Michals
Alexandria.

Copyright ©2003 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.