Sacks of rocks

Long Trail

Your editorial in the Jan. 19 issue, like your other editorials, is biased and not balanced. The Kyoto Protocols did not require multinational controls on pollution. Only the United States was required to submit to tighter environmental guidelines. China, one of the worst environmental offenders, was let off the hook.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was not signed by China, North Korea or Pakistan. Would you have those countries in control of nuclear weapons while the United States, France and England are forced to relinquish theirs?

I always heard that journalism should be fair and balanced. Obviously you never went to journalism school. If I practiced medicine the way you practice journalism, I’d have a trail of dead bodies a mile long.

William J. Somers. M.D.

Catholics, Abortion and Politics

A task force of seven was established at the U.S. bishops’ meeting Nov. 10-12, 2003, to prepare policy for dealing with Catholic politicians on the subject of abortion. As one bishop stated, the question is most complicated and delicate. The guidelines could possibly promote harmony between the hierarchy and politicians or could pit Catholic against Catholic in unseemly public recrimination of little fruit. Ancient though they be, words of St. Thomas Aquinas can apply and, while they do not define a solution, they can provide a basis for dialogue: Human government is derived from the divine and should imitate it. God, although he is omnipotent and perfectly good, permits some evils to occur in the universe, evils which he could prohibit. He does this because if these evils were removed, greater evils would ensue. Therefore, thus also in human governance, those who rule properly should tolerate certain evils lest other good things are lost and even worse evils come about (Summa Theologiae, Secunda Secundae, q. 10, art. 11c).

There is consensus that some moral evils are best left to instructed individual conscience rather than government enforcement. Agreement comes easily on such actions as wayward consensual sex, dishonoring of parents and unofficial lies. Most Catholics, certainly all bishops, oppose extending the tolerance St. Thomas mentions to abortion and hold to the opinion that government should make laws to protect the unborn. We are appalled by the cloud of insensitivity toward human life that covers our land. This, even though a different sensitivity has a history going back to Hippocrates and beyond. Something is terribly amiss in wholesale, on-demand abortion, uninhibited by moral scruple. Semantics and euphemism can alter the face of reality. Is it not true that if a student were to define abortion flat-out as the killing of a developing human child, a fair-minded professor would not mark him wrong?

Sooner or later the subject of abortion comes up in conversation among acquaintances. People with whom I have spoken, Christian and Jewish, who choose to be called pro-choice admit that abortion is not good but feel that it is a private matter. In essence, they extend St. Thomas’s words to abortion. They point to evils that would occur if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned. In this age, abortion would merely be driven underground, as whiskey was during prohibition. There would be no proper medical supervision of abortion procedures, which could be harmful. Also when a law does not have widespread support, it is unobserved, and disrespect for law in general is produced. If abortion is allowed openly and controlled by law, excesses like partial-birth abortion, recently outlawed, and infanticide of a viable child can be prevented. This control would be absent in underground activity. They also claim that the right of privacy permits abortion, although privacy does not protect many acts committed in private, such as spousal abuse, from government jurisdiction. There are other varieties of pro-choice opinion. But I believe that the above is a fair outline of where the majority of Americans stand at this time. Patently there are exceptions.

If evils associated with suppressing abortion by law are considered sufficient grounds by a Catholic politician for opposing such laws, if he is concerned that abortion should be opposed as a moral, not a legal issue, can his reasoning be dismissed out of hand by the hierarchy? This is the end point at which the outlook of the bishops and that of practicing Catholics in politics can lead to contention. As dialogue proceeds, may we be spared unrestrained words and actions.

A major contribution to a calm relationship now is that abortion is substantially a non-issue in this election year. Roe v. Wade, as even this administration concedes, is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Nothing is going to happen to Roe v. Wade, no matter who gets elected. Politicians and judges are not going to overturn it until the majority of Americans want it overturned. In the meantime, of course, politicians may find it easy to garner votes by taking positions on abortion and making promises that cost nothing and deliver nothing. This practice has misled voters in the past and had them vote for an empty package, wasting votes needed by other urgent causes.

It now behooves us all to proclaim, to the utmost of our ability, the sacredness and beauty of life and to put our faith in instructing, in grace and good will rather than in politics.

(Rev.) Connell J. Maguire