I believe that our bishops erred six years ago when they supported the tortured logic that you could vote for someone who demonstrably supported all abortion all the time (like our current president) if you did so because of his other views. As a result we now have Catholic organizations and Catholic-run businesses being forced to provide medical services that may include elective abortion and abortifacients.
Furthermore, no matter what was promised, many Obamacare plans, paid for by our tax dollars, provide access to abortion. Pro-abortion politicians castigate their pro-life Catholic opponents as “anti-women monsters,” and supposed Catholic politicians take advantage of the lack of strong, clear Catholic leadership positions by making up their own Catholic doctrine on abortion. We beg our Catholic leaders to state strongly and unequivocally that it is inherently wrong to vote for a pro-abortion candidate for office.
Re: “A boiling point” (Editorial, Oct. 5).
Despite the implication that we face imminent climate disaster, it might be helpful to keep a few points in mind. Climate always changes — it’s called weather. There is a reliable body of science, largely unreported in our politically correct media, that casts doubt on whether there has been actual climate change over the past 100 years, the generally accepted minimum period for measurement.
There is an even larger body of science that casts doubt on whether it is man-made. If all of the onerous restrictions in the proposed climate treaty were implemented, it would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 1.5 percent and have negligible effect on climate. At the same time, these restrictions would negatively affect the poor of the world the most as it would slow development in less developed counties the most. As far as the matter of our clericals’ pronouncements on the matter, we are just now, after four centuries, recovering from the Galileo debacle. It would probably be best for them to confine themselves to more general statements on moral behavior and leave the scientific details to those better equipped to debate them.
— Donald Link, Louisville, Kentucky
Re: “Synod to explore care of divorced, remarried” (In Focus, Sept. 21).
I appreciate the two-part In Focus supporting the synod on the family. My particular interest is improvement in the care of divorced Catholics. This applies to me, unfortunately. I hope our clergy and Doctors of the Church will give these thoughts deeper consideration.
The first example is all of the debate of annulment as part of the solution. In my case, there is no way I would conceive of pursuing an annulment. After 30 years of marriage and raising four children (now adults), why would I want to even suggest that our marriage was not valid — especially to my own children?
Next example, from the In Focus: “Matrimony and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children.” The procreation goal of marriage was fulfilled long before my wife and I separated. I’d like to see some perspective that deals with Catholics as adults — love beyond the parenting years. Doesn’t a senior couple beyond child-rearing age have a reason to share intimate relations without procreation as a goal?
Lastly, I struggle with reconciliation — or lack of. I am told I must terminate the relationship I am currently in before I can confess the “sin” and promise not to repeat it. My partner and I have not remarried (can’t sacramentally and won’t civilly). The only remarriage either of us consider worthy is one within the Church, which is currently off limits for us. I pray that the synod consider the complexities of divorced Catholics who have new long-term relationships that are bringing them closer to their salvation in Christ. Find ways to make all of the sacraments available to them and not maintain obstacles to the practice of their Catholic faith.
— A.W. Brehl, via email
The most popular stories on OSV.com this week included: