A letter writer to ash's home paper had an agenda for asserting abortion is a moral issue. It allowed her to argue against the fact that government "permission" is relevant to one's position. ash challenges the premise:
[Name withheld] of Sherman is wrong. Abortion is both a moral and governmental issue. It is also a legal issue. Before 1973 abortion was illegal. Through its Roe v. Wade ruling,
the Supreme Court – the highest court in our judicial branch of government - made it legal. Issues don’t become more governmental than that. Furthermore, as politics derives from government, abortion is a political issue as well.
Regardless of [Name withheld]'s position on abortion, a woman is free to have one, or to choose not to. Regardless of Pesch’s religious affiliation, which may dictate her moral behavior, and regardless of her freedom to attempt to persuade others to adopt her views, her efforts will be thwarted by women consulting their own consciences and morality on the issue of abortion.
Sen. John Kerry is a pro-choice politician running for President of the United States, in which abortion is legal. He is also a practicing Catholic who presumably follows the church’s admonition against abortion. While this might constitute a conflict of interest, if not heresy, in the opinions of Catholic clergy, laity, and others, Kerry as presidential candidate realizes he must not impose his personal, moral beliefs on an entire nation, in which no official religion is recognized.
It astonishes me that this debate continues to be perpetuated by Ms. Pesch and others of her mindset. As long as she persists in disregarding the simple concept of the line between church and state, those who do adhere to it will feel compelled to correct the record.
Here is the opinion which prompted my response.
Church has right to deny Communion
Dear Editor,
Diana Hare's May 20 letter contends that "it is abhorrent ... that any church would deny anyone Communion because ... of their professional stance on government issues." I assume Hare is referring to the Catholic Church's denial of Communion to politicians who vote in favor of abortion. This premise begs to be challenged.
First, abortion is a moral issue, not a "government" issue. It is inconsistent for a politician to say she is personally against abortion but continually vote in favor of its practice. If a politician can reason that abortion is morally incorrect on a personal level, there is no barrier to drawing that conclusion on a "professional" level. Our laws are based on moral judgments - right vs. wrong. Our children learn that it is (morally) wrong to lie, cheat, steal, etc. It is also legally wrong to do so. How do we determine which actions are legally wrong? We agree that these things are morally wrong.
Secondly, priests have been placed in the position of helping parishioners reason through moral decisions such as is it morally correct to kill an unborn baby and place the "rights" of the woman to control her body ahead of the life of that innocent who was most likely conceived by a woman who exercised her "right to choose" to engage in behavior that resulted in her pregnancy? Only a God who created us in his image could imbue us with the understanding that human life is precious.
Let's stop acting like human life is no more valuable than the slime from which evolutionists argue we rose. Courageous persons need to take a stand in the political arena in favor of that precious life, and religious leaders should use their authority to encourage them to do so.
Of course the Church has the right to deny Communion to those who are thumbing their noses at basic church doctrine for political expediency. Shame on those religious leaders who are not doing so, and shame on those who are not addressing issues with their congregations because of the mistaken belief that these are "political" issues and not moral ones.
Barbara Pesch, Sherman