The following letters to the editor appear in the edition of Sept. 2, 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.

Catholic Social Issues — A Pyramid

In her letter "‘Consistent Life Ethic’ Party?" (ACH 8/19/04), Mary Curry Narayan provided an opportunity to comment on the social issues related to Catholic responsibility in the voting booth.

Catholic teaching is better characterized, not as a table where all issues are equal, but as a pyramid where the protection of human life is the basis for all other issues. At the national level, Catholic social teaching is not restricted to one document, but should be looked upon in the totality of several teaching documents. Furthermore, the local bishop provides a very important role in explaining the teaching through his oral and written communication to the faithful.

Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde explained this very clearly prior to the 2000 election when, in a series of articles and talks, he described a pyramid of the four moral priorities that guide us in the voting booth: (1) protecting human life, (2) promoting family life, (3) pursuing social justice and, (4) practicing global solidarity — the same themes found in the republished statement on "Faithful Citizenship." In his letter prior to the 2000 election, Bishop Loverde placed into practical terms the image of the pyramid when he wrote that foundational to the pyramid was the protection of human life. " … Protecting human life is the most basic of these four priorities, since the other three would be rendered meaningless without the first. If we do not uphold and protect human life in its beginning at conception, there will be no life to uphold and protect thereafter … How can we expect a political candidate to protect a society from injustice, if he or she supports the taking of the life of a nearly born child?"

In a homily at St. Louis Church in Alexandria on Aug. 14th of this year, Bishop Loverde cited a statement made at the June 2004 Bishop’s Conference in Denver, Colo., by Archbishop Levada of Sacramento, Calif. He said, " … Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia" ("Reflections on Catholics in Political Life…," 6/13/04). These identical words were repeated by Cardinal Keeler during a question/answer session at the Respect Life Leadership Conference in St. Louis, Mo., earlier this month.

Yes, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a "consistent life ethic" party, but we don’t. Voting decisions are made based on the importance of one issue over the other. Our bishop as a teacher has been very clear in wading through this topic. "No Catholic can claim to be a faithful and serious member of the Church while advocating for or actively supporting direct attacks on innocent human life … Protecting human life from conception to natural death is more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural law and the divine law."

Bob Laird
Director
Office for Family Life

Other Defenders

I was disheartened to read Eugene Phillip's letter entitled, "The Sole Defender" (ACH 8/19/04).

The Catholic Church is not the only Christian church that is the defender of the institution of marriage the way God intended for it to be. I have friends in other Christian denominations with whom I have spoken about just this matter. Yes, other Christian denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.) are struggling with the issue. While there are dissenters in the ranks of these denominations and others, there are many evangelical Christians that are committed to biblical orthodoxy and espouse the one true teaching about marriage. There are painful schisms in these other Churches because of this, but to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church defending God's plan for married couples is shortsighted and inaccurate.

Kelly Wagner
Montclair

Clarifying ‘Confused Ideas’

I must answer Russell Shaw's article (ACH 8/26/04) and several Letters to the Editor, which continue to express confused ideas about what our behavior in the ballot box means. Let me clarify the issue. If I had been a German citizen in the early 1930s and knew that Hitler supported exterminating Jews, should I have voted for him because he was bringing back economic prosperity and pride to a nation in the wake of military defeat?

We don't have the excuse of not knowing what Hitler intended to do. We know what legal abortion means.

Anyone voting into office a supporter of "the right to choose" is voting for a lawmaker who makes or keeps the extermination a group of human beings legal. Period.

Anyone voting into office a supporter of "the right to choose" is voting for a lawmaker who is callously indifferent to the psychological and spiritual damage this practice imposes upon women in crisis who believe that, because abortion is legal, it must be OK and will not harm them. These poor women are equal victims because they cannot see that in participating in the death of their child, they're inflicting a mortal wound upon their own souls. That 80 percent of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder is vivid testament to that reality and the betrayal they feel at the hands of those that deceived them with that lie.

What possible justification could there be to support trusting such lawmakers with the control of our nation and our laws? What must it have felt like to be a German citizen forced to confront the reality of Auschwitz in 1945?

Pamela C. Garrett
Woodbridge

Offended By Letter

It was with great regret that I read Mr. Cizek’s letter (ACH 8/26/04). I do not know Mr. Cizek’s ethnic background, but as an American of Polish decent, I am greatly offended by the accusatory tone of his letter and by his willingness to perpetuate myths and lies. I am equally offended that the Arlington Catholic HERALD would print such a letter.

The history of the relationship between Christians and Jews in Poland is too long and complex to be dismissed in a short, sneering letter. First, what evidence is there of " … Christian Poland’s long history of anti-Semitism." Today 80 percent of the Jews in the world trace their ancestry to the Polish Commonwealth according to the Jewish demographer Lucy Dadowitz. In 1939, more than 10 percent of Poland’s population was Jewish and 50 percent of all the doctors and lawyers were Jewish. Second, the Polish underground did supply Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto with arms. The autobiography The Pianist describes how arms were smuggled into the Ghetto.

I would like to remind readers that more than 6 million Polish citizens died at the hands of the Nazis in WWII and that Nazi punishment for Poles aiding Jews was death for the whole family, the most severe penalty in Europe. For a better understanding of Christian-Jewish relations in pre-WWII Poland and Nazi actions, I recommend reading In My Hands by Irena Gut Opdyke.

The Ghetto uprising and the Warsaw uprising were great tragedies. To denigrate or demean one or the other is a disservice to both. In the future, please do not perpetuate ethnic slurs.

Joseph Mydlinski
Leesburg

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.