The following letters to the editor appear in the edition of Sept. 30, 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.

Moral vs. Judgmental Concerns

Mr. and Mrs. Prikockis, authors of the letter to the editor "Not All Catholics for Bush" (ACH 9/23/04), are misguided. They are trying to equate moral concerns with judgmental concerns, the old apples and oranges stuff.

Abortion and euthanasia are matters of morals and can never be sanctioned for any reason. A Catholic voter cannot morally cast a vote for a candidate who supports abortion and infanticide, as does Sen. Kerry. While abortion can never be moral, war and the death penalty can be moral in certain circumstances. Angela and Larry pointedly mention 1,100 U.S. lives lost in Iraq. I ask, what about the millions of U.S. lives sacrificed to abortion? Maybe if more Catholics vote based on moral concerns, the Democrats would come to realize the importance of all human life from conception to natural death.

Education and tax policies are a completely different matter. There are no moral issues on the same plane as abortion. There are many different opinions as to what policies most effectively achieve social justice.

We believe real, faithful and practicing Catholics will understand the moral difference between abortion and social justice policies and be able to vote accordingly. Our family will vote for President Bush on Nov. 2.

S.L. and Cyndi Higginbottom
Manassas

Making a Difference in Haiti

Each day this past week I read about the worsening situation in flood-ravaged Haiti — well over 1,000 killed; no food or water; rampant disease; mass graves. The more I read, the more helpless I felt. In conversations with others, I saw the same tendency to numbness and inaction. "The scope of the problem is so huge, what difference can I make," said many.

The problem is that we are trying to grab hold of the entire situation and, failing to do so, we don't take small steps to help. If, instead, we were to focus on getting one gallon of water to a thirsty family; getting one child bandaged to prevent infection; getting one bag of rice to a hungry village; then the problem becomes manageable in our minds. Rather than each of us fretting over how hard it would be to deliver 100,000 gallons of water, we could visualize, with a donation of a couple of dollars, a delivery of one gallon of water to a needy family. Now it becomes easier for us to act and act immediately.

So let's 100,000 of us dig into our pockets and send a couple of dollars each to Food For The Poor, Catholic Relief Services or any of the fine organizations who are working in Haiti and elsewhere. In so doing, we can each make a difference, one person, one family, one village at a time in the lives of the poor. And we will be following our Lord's call to action in Mt 25:31-46.

James I. McDaniel
Springfield

Give Life a Chance

I have a few comments to make about Angela and Larry Prikockis’ letter to the editor entitled "Not All Catholics for Bush" (ACH 9/23/04). Believe me, I know there are many Catholics who are not for Bush — Catholics never vote as a block and more the pity because if we did we could have stopped the terrible sin of abortion many years ago.

There are many political issues today, but what do they matter if you can’t be born? Education, the environment, the war and even the death penalty (at least they had a chance at life) don’t really matter without the gift of life. And don’t use the "seamless garment" argument — it’s a cop-out to soothe people’s consciences.

My background is Irish Catholic — I should be a Democrat, but that party has gone so far to the left that I couldn’t possibly vote Democratic. Shame on those Catholics who are baptized Democrats. I sometimes wonder if they would vote for the devil if he were running as a Democrat.

I am one Catholic who will vote for Bush. I am proud to be a pro-life Republican. Let’s give life a chance again and we can get back to partisan politics.

Eileen M. Sowa
Annandale

Not to Be Praised

I would like to comment on Russell Shaw's article last week extolling the praises of Nelson Mandela (ACH 9/23/04. page 5). I believe if one were to research the background of Mandela they would find that he condoned the commission of many atrocities while acting in an official capacity with the ANC.

Specifically, one of these acts condoned was the barbarous act nicknamed the "necklace" in which a dissident's arms were chopped off, a car tire placed around their torso, and then the tire was set on fire, causing them a slow, tortuous death.

I hardly think the HERALD should be writing favorable articles about such a man.

Mike Patton
Woodbridge

Taking Exception

I must take issue with Jerry Filteau's article (ACH 9/23/04, page) "Candidates Take Different Approaches to Unilateralism." Two months ago, the Catholic hierarchy was advising its parish priests to deny Sen. John Kerry communion due to his stand on abortion and his voting record in the senate. Now Filteau and others claim Kerry is the better presidential candidate because of his "multilateralism." They claim Kerry's position is more in line with Catholic social teaching by his intention to defer to international bodies such as the United Nations on matters of national security. I was not aware that multilateralism was a higher priority to the Catholic hierarchy than changing the laws on abortion. I certainly hope not.

Filteau also claims President Bush's policy on fighting terrorism does not meet the standard of multilateralism required by Church teachings and that only with more justice will we have a more peaceful world. Several points come to mind.

First, peace is not merely the absence of conflict. True peace is achieved when the motivation for conflict is removed, either by negotiations, or by force, and normal relations with that nation are once again restored. Were we really at peace in the years leading up to Sept. 11 while the terrorists were busy planning the attack? No, we were just indifferent to the danger signs. We should not be searching for peace at any cost, but a just and lasting peace, which is sometimes costly, but far more effective.

Second, the western idea of social justice, as I learned it, is equality under the law, and mankind helping mankind - good and worthy goals, for sure. However, the radical Islamist view of social justice is to eliminate the 'infidel' (that's us) from the earth to make it pure for Islam. In my mind, you cannot apply the western standard of justice to a radical Islamist and expect a positive outcome. Given the attacks already made upon our country and our citizens, it would be irresponsible to not preempt terrorism where it grows, instead of waiting for the "smoking gun" so fashionably described by the liberal politicians. Multilateralism was not attacked, the U.S. was.

I don't mean to sound crass. Social justice and peace are desirable goals, as long as they are sought from a position of strength. They last longer that way. We simply cannot subrogate our security to a world body with the history of ambivalence that is the U.N.s. As one of the "infidels" that escaped death by 75 feet outside the Pentagon, I can tell you with certainty there was no God or social justice in the cockpit of that airliner. He was in the back with the passengers.

John J. Schumacher
Fairfax

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.