Cardinal Mahony on Choice
There are several ways in which to respond to the editorial by Cardinal Roger Mahony (“ ‘Faithful for Life’: A Moral Reflection,” Sept. 28) but I will address two. First, it is admirable that the Roman Catholic bishops of America speak out on current social trends from their religious perspective. And, while I agree with Cardinal Mahony that much for the blame for the social decay of America can be laid at the foot of “liberation” ideals, he is wrong in asserting that these ideals were codified by the Roe vs. Wade decision. Rather, the social ideal of freedom of choice is codified in the document upon which the U.S. Supreme Court based its decision in Roe, the U.S. Constitution. It is disingenuous, then, for the American bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, which financially benefits from the separation clause of the First Amendment, to assail “freedom of choice” using a court case they refute on theological grounds.
The second point of refutation of the American bishops’ statement is its theological assumption. It is the right of these bishops to believe that life begins at conception and therefore deduce that abortion is tantamount to killing a human. But theirs is not the only opinion on the subject. Roman Catholicism may be the largest Christian denomination in the U.S. but it is not the only one. Furthermore, Christianity is not the only religion in America. So while the bishops have the right, as defined by the Constitution they criticize, to speak their conscience on the issue of abortion, let them do so with more humility and sensitivity to the religiously pluralistic society in which they speak. Let them preach to their congregants and refrain from attempting to impose their beliefs on others through their veiled efforts to support attempts to insinuate theological beliefs into law.
ROBERT B. HARRIS
Lancaster
*
Mahony again and again says his church is opposed to “choice.” He professes that the only true way is fidelity and loyalty to his institution. I believe such a naive vision that if people only did as he said they should, life would be better for all of us is ludicrous.
How can Mahony continue this tired argument about controlling birth when his church so vehemently tries to block all areas of family planning? It really comes down to condoms. If Mahony’s church could choose to stop the problem before it got to an abortion, we’d all be better off. Until that time, I’ll let a woman choose when to have an abortion, and my grandmother choose if the pain is too great from her terminal cancer, and support everyone’s conscious choice to choose to prevent having a child by wearing a condom.
BOB PHIBBS
Long Beach
*
The “abortion problem,” to which the cardinal refers, is a problem because it represents the failure of our society to provide real health education that empowers and protects young people as they struggle with potentially life-altering decisions. It is a problem because every day health care services for low-income and disenfranchised people are threatened by fiscal restraints and cutbacks. It is a problem because those people in elected office represent one of the greatest threats to the dignity of women by advocating a return to the time when women were compelled to seek vital health care services under illegal and poor-quality conditions, amid threats and uncertainty.
When we deny to families the power and the choice to decide when to bring children into the world, we will force the most vulnerable to seek illegal remedies in desperate situations, and we will force more unwanted children into a world that has proven, time and time again, its inability to provide for many of those that are already with us.
Those factors that will contribute to a more civil society include respect for those individuals with differing views, compassion, and dignity for those faced with difficult decisions. Those factors do not include punitive measures directed solely at women.
JON DUNN, Executive Director
Planned Parenthood, Santa Ana
*
Mahony is absolutely correct in stating that the “pro-choice” position, no matter how well-intentioned, is fraudulent, and for unborn babies, bloody and fatal. In calling for a “fidelity” to life, however, he curiously omits the crucial three-letter word that undergirds his cause: God. The fidelities to which he calls us--to the unborn, to our living children--ultimately rest on a fidelity to God.
G.V. CLIMACO
Brea
*
Mahony’s column just makes sense. As nurses we’re seeing the devastating, debilitating results of the sexual mixing that has occurred in our country since the sexual revolution of the ‘60s. One in four Americans ages 15 to 55 are infected with a sexually transmitted disease, with 33,000 new cases being diagnosed every day.
Medicine and morality agree: Sexual activity (outside of a committed exclusive relationship, i.e., marriage) can be hazardous to your health!
GERMAINE WENSLELY RN
Los Angeles