| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
On humanitarian intervention
Philip Lawler’s editorial (“Diplomacy by Other Means, January 2000) raises many more questions than he puts into writing.
When considering the devastating wars and genocides of the 20th century, can we fairly exclude the modern horror of abortion? Father Richard Welch of Human Life International points out that the actual US death toll from all abortions is probably as high as 200 million, when you include the abortifacient effects of the so-called “contraceptives” in that figure. We are rapidly approaching the day when this country will have killed in the womb half of those who should now be alive; the present US population is well under 300 million.
What fundamental moral distinctions can reasonably be made between attempts at “extermination or enslavement of entire peoples and regions” and the killing of over 40 percent of the population of the US by abortion? And who is most responsible for the common good of a nation: the international community, or that nation’s own citizens?
The answers that the Church gives regarding the obligations of the international community to defend threatened peoples, and the legitimate means that may be employed in that effort, will have to be taken seriously by all who oppose the destruction of children in the womb. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2270) teaches: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.”
These issues concern me greatly. I am in prison for setting fire to an abortion “clinic.”
—James Mitchell
Beaver, West Virginia
In my editorial, I attempted to outline some of the difficulties involved in the Holy Father’s call for “humanitarian intervention” by international authorities in countries where there is a flagrant and widespread violation of human rights. If the massacre of adults justifies international intervention (as in East Timor), should the massacre of unborn children call for a similar response? What international body should make such decisions, and by whose authority? These are indeed important and difficult moral questions.
Under the political circumstances that currently prevail among international organizations, it is quiet unlikely that abortion would be recognized as a crime; in fact it is much more likely that laws banning abortion would be judged as a violation of fundamental human rights. That political reality suggests that the moral principles being employed by international organizations are at best thoroughly subjective, and therefore open to manipulation, and at worst fundamentally incompatible with the natural law.
—The Editor
The embattled Church
Your January issue gave readers an interesting sequence of short news articles from Venezuela, Kenya, Great Britain, and the United States. I wonder if other readers—or for that matter the editors—noticed the same thread that ran through all four stories. In each of those countries the Church is, or should be, involved in a great moral battle. In each case the battle involves the sanctity of human life. This sequence of stories, taken all together, shows the wisdom and the necessity of the Pope’s call for Catholics to put their weight behind the drive to build a “culture of life.”
In Venezuela the bishops antagonized the country’s new leader by refusing to accept his efforts to downgrade the country’s commitment to protect human life. In Kenya the bishops incurred the wrath of the president when they refused to accept his effort to promote the use of condoms. In these cases the leaders of our Church were filling their roles as teachers and guides, and providing ample leadership for the lay people. In fact, if your reports were accurate (and I have no reason to doubt that they were), the Catholic bishops in each country spoke out when others were silent; they were the ones who forced politicians to pay attention, when an offense might otherwise have passed unnoticed.
But now read on, through the next two articles on Great Britain and the United States. The topic is first contraception, then abortion—a reverse image of the sequence in the first two stories, which involved first abortion and then contraception. Here the offenses against human dignity are much more grave. British authorities have already distributed more contraceptives than the Kenyan president had in mind. In the US, the question is not (as in Venezuela) whether the door should be opened to the prospect of legal abortion, but whether the bodies of the aborted children should be sold for parts, like so many used cars. But in these last two stories, your reporters did not give me any reason to believe that the Catholic bishops were at the forefront in denouncing these abuses.
Just to make sure that no one is confused, let me spell out what I am saying. In Venezuela and Kenya, it seems to me, the Catholic hierarchy was ready to pounce when the government began making attempts to attack traditional moral values. In Great Britain and the United States, where those attacks have been going on constantly for a generation, the bishops are in the background. A generation ago, Catholic missionaries from places like the US and Great Britain were being sent to places like Venezuela and Kenya. Now the flow of traffic has been reversed. Does anyone else out there notice that these facts could be related?
—Michael Cox
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
For the record, we did not arrange the sequence of those news stories to create any particular effect.
—The Editor
Letters Policy
The Catholic World Report encourages readers to contribute their own reflections, either
responding to editorial material or reflecting on world affairs. CWR reserves the right to
edit letters for publication.
Letters are limited to 400 words, and must include the writer’s name and address.
Please send letters to:
Box 1608, So. Lancaster, MA 01561.
Back to Catholic World Report - March 2000 Table of Contents
Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page