Letters To the Editor
Published: October 28, 2010
To the Editor:
The Oct. 14 (Georgia Bulletin) article, “Bishops: Social Teaching Should Guide Voters,” states that “Human life is sacred. The dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society.” However, the article goes on to define what this teaching calls us to oppose, “torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering.” Uh, is something missing here? What happened to opposing abortion and euthanasia?
As stated in the USCCB document on Faithful Citizenship, the bishops define the issues that are “preeminent,” i.e., rank highest:
“As we wrote in ‘Living the Gospel of Life’, abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others. Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable.”
Our bishops continue to clearly state that opposition to abortion and euthanasia is the foundation to all other social issues.
Many want to think that all social issues have equal weight. They don’t, and our bishops, in line with the Magisterium, clearly state that they don’t.
Editor’s note: For information from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Faithful Citizenship, go to the website, www.faithfulcitizenship.org. The site includes the complete text of the bishops’ statement, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
To the Editor:
The article in the Oct. 14 edition (The Georgia Bulletin, “Bishops: Social Teaching Should Guide Voters”) urging voters to use their faith as a guide in voting was timely and interesting. Unfortunately, it does not make the choices easy because while I can say that I personally completely agree with all seven principles, the sad truth is that I cannot find a single candidate that I can vote for who embraces all seven.
For example, I frequently see candidates who are strong on the “right to life” part, but not so much on the “right to food and shelter, and education” part. And the same is also true in reverse. The two concepts seem to me to be consistent with the teaching of Christ and the Church, but we are asked to choose between the two, and pick, I suppose, the lesser evil.
Despite the difficulty I face in making my selection, I am grateful for the work done by the USCCB for pointing out that the issues are multi-faceted, and complex. And thanks to the Bulletin for giving the article prominence on the front page.
Charles E. Day