The following letters to the editor appear in the edition of Sept. 16, 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.

Death Penalty v. Abortion

I just finished reading the full-page story on the differences between John Kerry and President Bush on the death penalty (ACH 9/9/04). I hope that you devote the same amount of space to the position of the two candidates on abortion v. pro-life. You are doing your readership a great disservice if you do not.

Although the anti-death penalty position has been held by the Democratic Party for years, one must ask themselves about the pro-choice position taken by most Democratic candidates, including Kerry, a Catholic himself, who has a solid record of supporting abortion rights and other pro-choice matters.

While the dichotomy of the differing stands on the death penalty and abortion presents a dilemma for the Catholic voter, I would maintain that the taking of an innocent life is much more serious that the taking of an evil one. Some U.S. Bishops have made it pretty clear that Catholics should vote for pro-life candidates. If the Arlington HERALD indeed supports life, from beginning to end, then you must devote equal space to the candidates’ views on that issue as well.

Thomas H. E. Drinkwater
Warrenton

The ‘Whole Truth’

I was shocked and terribly disappointed to read the article "Kerry, Bush at Near-Opposite Extremes on the Death Penalty" (ACH 9/9/04). I was shocked that the HERALD would print such a blatantly biased article and disappointed that the author failed to tell the truth.

Both candidates are for the death penalty. John Kerry believes it should be used to terminate the lives of pre-born babies whose only "crime" is that they are being formed in their mothers’ wombs. George Bush believes it should be levied against those who kill, terrorize and mutilate their fellow man. John Kerry’s pro-death penalty stand results in over 1.3 millions executions a year; George Bush approved 152 during his entire tenure as governor. I guess we all now know what the DNC really stands for: Definitely Not Compassionate. Please, print the whole truth.

Sandy Bertini
Annandale

Gifts of Finest Wheat

I usually do not write letters to the editor of any newspaper, but I was very interested in the article and Father Saunders' column about the young girl who could not digest gluten (ACH 9/9/04). The child's mother wanted her pastor to suspend the requirement for using wheat in the unconsecrated host and did not want her child to receive first holy Communion with consecrated sacramental wine because she did not believe a young child should have alcohol.

I don't think the problem is with the host or the wine. It's a matter of faith, of which the mother appears to have a shortage. Our faith teaches us that when the bread and wine are consecrated, they are no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ.

We can cite all types of regulations for the preparation of hosts and types of wine to be used at Mass, but the bottom line is that once they are consecrated, they become the body and blood of Christ, our Lord and God.

Patricia A. Binninger
Alexandria

Voting Record

Referring to your full-page article about Kerry v. Bush on the death penalty (ACH 9/9/04), we’d like your readers to consider this: the voting record by John Kerry on the capital punishment of the unborn, the innocent. This includes partial-birth abortion, the cruel murdering of nearly full-term babies that Kerry fully supports.

Cathy and Russ Carolla
Manassas

Moral Obligation

I was shocked and distraught to see the full-page CNS article comparing President Bush and John Kerry on the death penalty in last week’s HERALD (ACH 9/9/04). My difficulty arises not from the analyses of the two candidates’ positions on the matter, but the general impression given to the reader of the Church’s teaching on the matter and the obligation of the Catholic voter. Indeed, the article was quite misleading and left the gentle reader with the impression that from a Catholic perspective Kerry is not only a viable candidate, but a desirable one, at least based upon this issue.

The article treats the death penalty as if it was one amongst many issues, and as if it is of equal importance with such a matter as abortion. This, however, is not the case. Abortion, stem-cell research and sodomy are, in themselves, always and everywhere morally repugnant and grievously sinful. It is for that reason the Vatican recently reminded us that Catholics are morally obliged to strenuously oppose these issues at all times (cf. "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life").

The death penalty, though, is not such an issue. Indeed, the Church opposes and discourages the use of the death penalty in our day and age, but she does not deny that the state may have recourse to it in cases of necessity (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 2267). As St. Thomas Aquinas stated, "if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good" (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q64, A2). Thus, as in the case of just war, the state can legitimately and morally have recourse to the death penalty in some cases, and whether or not such a case exists is a prudential judgment call. Never may an innocent child be killed, however, and the Catholic is morally obliged to fight such as evil.

Thus, when faced with two candidates, one of whom is pro-life and pro-death penalty, and another who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty, the Catholic is obliged to vote for the former: the pro-life candidate. The HERALD, by the articles it prints, does not convey this obligation, but quite the contrary, casts the morally repugnant candidate in a favorable light. I certainly hope that henceforth the HERALD will make it clear to its readers that John Kerry is unwilling to defend the lives of the thousands of innocents threatened by abortion, and is not a morally acceptable candidate for a Catholic to support.

Thomas Cole
Manassas

Non-negotiable Issues

I am very upset at your publication of the article that seems to endorse John Kerry because of his opposition to the death penalty (ACH 9/9/04). While I am not a death penalty supporter, at least as presently imposed, there are much more important moral issues at stake in the coming election. As stated in the article, "Most U. S. provisions for the death penalty are at the state level, and the president has no role in how they are applied ... "

In the "Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics," published by Catholic Answers, five non-negotiable issues are presented: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual marriage (note: the death penalty is not included). These things are always morally wrong, and candidates who are wrong on any of these issues, even if they are right on other issues, should be considered disqualified. On this basis, President Bush is far more compatible with the Catholic position than Kerry, who even supports partial birth abortion, and has publicly stated that he would nominate only "pro-choice" judicial appointments.

John Grant
Lake Ridge

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.