The following letters to the editor appear in the edition of Aug. 12, 2004. 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.

Disqualification

I take exception to Carol Zimmermann’s article "Can Dissenting Catholic Politicians Speak on Campus?" (ACH 8/5/04). Her comment, "We are in a very troubled world and we need to engage that world. If we nitpick everyone’s record, we will disengage entirely," troubles me greatly.

As I see it, if a politician is for the morbid killing of "preborn" children, then there isn’t anything more basic to disqualify them for my vote. In addition, they have not earned the right to speak, as a Catholic, at any Catholic college. First, this gives the college students the reasoning that the laws, values and orders of the Church don’t mean much. Second, that the Church says one thing and does another — hypocrites. Third, I would say parents pay the extra tuition to send a child to a Catholic college to learn the teachings of the Church, not how to defy the authority of God Himself. Fourth, when a "speaker" comes, he or she comes to outline their agenda; there is no real distinction between an "honoree" and a "speaker."

Some may say that Sen. Kerry’s address was to give an economic policy speech. That does not negate the fact that he is a person of leadership who supports the killing of human babies. The world, I believe, saw the Catholic Church’s defiant school and diocesan leadership snubbing their nose at Christ and that for which He died: our souls.

To put "educators" above the rest of the Catholic community and allow them to make the decisions to invite Catholic-defying speakers is teacher elitism and snobbery at the fullest. "Educators" in any Catholic school, pre-K through the highest of college degrees, should be the best examples of Christ’s teaching. The students at our colleges will learn the negatives of society from their peers fast enough.

Ultimately, standing in front of God Himself, we will have to explain why we called ourselves Catholics yet refused, by "choice," to live by "the rules" of God’s commands.

Catherine Nelsen
Fairfax

Memorial Inscription

George Weigel's commentary (ACH 7/29/04) continues an error first published in the Washington Times and later retracted, regarding FDR's speech inscribed on the WWII Memorial.

The line in the speech that Weigel mistakenly believes was edited — "With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounded determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God" — is not inscribed on the memorial. The sentence from President Roosevelt's Day of Infamy speech that is inscribed — "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory" — appears several paragraphs earlier in FDR's speech and is used in its entirety. Unfortunately, an e-mail in circulation on the Internet perpetuates this error.

The complete inscription in the memorial reads as follows:

Pearl Harbor

December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy ... no matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

The next line in his speech — "I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us" — was not inscribed.

Richard A. Couture
Director
National World War II Memorial

Focus on Prevention

The article, "Family Life Office Reframes the Abortion Debate" (ACH 8/5/04), explains that a series of pro-life luncheons this summer hope to refocus the abortion debate from "condemnation" to "forgiveness." I was at the first luncheon in McLean.

The idea of shifting the language away from "condemnation" is fine. Shifting it to "forgiveness" focuses on the wrong audience, the post-abortive woman, with whom we are not in a debate. Let’s turn our attention to those who need to hear our new message so that we can end abortions and not have to minister to those hurting from the impact of them.

We are in a debate with women contemplating abortion, with our pro-choice fellow Catholics, and with our secular friends and legislative bodies. If we want to change our language to reframe the debate, we must change the language that we use with them.

For example, maybe instead of signs in front of the abortion "clinic" which show dead babies or even the milder ones that say "Abortion Stops A Beating Heart," perhaps we should have signs that say "We care about you"; "Let us help"; "You and your baby deserve better."

With our pro-choice fellow Catholics, maybe we need to talk about God’s design for family life and how even when we make choices outside of that design, that children are always and only a blessing, gifts from God. Perhaps we need to challenge these fellow Catholics to be there for women in trouble with long term support and works of mercy.

And with our secular friends and legislative bodies, we need to encourage them to offer women in crisis something besides the cheap, quick fix of abortion, which most women discover fixes nothing but breaks more things in their lives. We need to challenge them to give women real choices: alternatives to abortion, information on fetal development and abortion risks, data on abortion doctors and facilities in terms of safety records, cleanliness, and aftercare, abstinence education at the same level as condom distribution in our public schools, and the list goes on.

Instead of waiting to reach the point where the woman needs God’s forgiveness, lets refocus the debate from condemnation to concern, caring, and compassion that will prevent the abortion in the first place so that we don’t have post-abortive women in need of forgiveness and especially so we do not have dead babies.

Jenny Sullivan
Arlington

We Need to Do More

The three bishops who are now withholding Eucharist from pro-death politicians are being excoriated by voices from our pagan American culture, and by some in the Church.

Yet, the bishops are acting consistently with Canon 1398: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a ‘latae sententiae’ excommunication." "Latae sententiae" means, essentially, "at the time of the act." No public excommunication trial is necessary, because the mind of the procurer is obviously far from the mind of the Church that the state of excommunication is self-induced. These bishops have seen that "procure a complete abortion" is identical to, or not far from, "voted to provide funds to procure a complete abortion."

Well. The idea of withholding Eucharist is not to "throw the bums out," because they've already done that to themselves. Rather, it is to warn them that they are in grave spiritual danger, and it is part of a bishop's job description to issue such warnings. At the same time, we Church are not to condemn, but to be welcoming, and ensure that the excommunicates understand that God is always ready to forgive. We also need to ensure consciences well formed by the truth. That abortion even happens at all says that we need to be and do more.

Peter N. Roth
Fairfax

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.