Letter to the Editor from Peachtree City, GA

Published: October 21, 2004

To the Editor:

I am troubled by your decision to publish the two commentaries from CNS on the issues of unilateralism and immigration (The Georgia Bulletin, Oct. 14). I do not dispute the facts of the two articles, but I do have a problem with the lack of balance and the clear bias towards Sen. John Kerry.

Both articles are guilty of depicting President Bush’s policies as diametrically opposed to Catholic social teaching on international justice while lauding Sen. Kerry as a white knight of those values. The experts quoted for the pieces have little positive to say about President Bush. You have Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen saying the Bush administration “couldn’t be in a more different position” from the Vatican on preventive war and Prof. George E. Lopez condemning Bush for having “done everything to kind of defy existing international agreements.” Regarding immigration, Angela Kelly criticizes Bush for “basically doing nothing on immigration since” January and the article itself says that the “White House reportedly asked Senate leaders to hold” (emphasis added) up a key bill on immigration while providing no proof of such an action.

On the other hand, both articles are frankly gullible in their uncritical presentation of what Sen. Kerry SAYS he will do. Kerry will be more multilateral; Kerry will be a better partner with the U.N.; Kerry will sign the immigration bill; Kerry will fix all the problems associated with immigration, etc. Problem is, except for one remark about how Kerry voted to give the president authority for the war, the articles fail completely to provide evidence from Kerry’s senate record in support of his many and sundry promises.

Not that the authors and commentators are beyond looking at the facts. Both articles’ focus are full of examples of Bush’s perceived failures or lack of action on the two issues. Yet, the authors choose to completely ignore whatever the President has said himself in defense of his policies. And, nowhere are commentators like Father Richard John Neuhaus or theologian Michael Novak given the chance to defend Bush’s policies in light of Catholic social teaching.

Finally, the most disturbing remark from a Catholic perspective is when Prof. Lopez asserts that although Kerry “personally comes closer to Catholic positions” on international justice, his positions on other issues (i.e., abortion, stem cell research, homosexual “unions,” etc.) “are a bit wanting.”

“A bit wanting?” Is this how a Catholic professor from Notre Dame regards clear and open contradictions to Catholic doctrinal teaching on issues of life? Let us remember: the Church’s positions on contemporary political issues and “social justice” are important, but they do not carry the weight and are secondary in nature to its teachings on the value of human life. Calling Sen. Kerry “a bit wanting” on such issues is like calling partial-birth abortion “a mildly troubling procedure.”

This sentiment, more than the obvious slant of the articles, is the most troubling and most misleading. As Catholics, it is unacceptable for us to relegate issues of life to second- or third-rate status. They are non-negotiable. A candidate who cannot even pledge to protect the most innocent life in the womb should be dismissed out of hand as being incompatible with core Catholic beliefs.

Trey Hoffman, Peachtree City