Letters

Injunction

An open letter to Mr. Gerry Martiniuk, MPP for Cambridge, Ont., written from Metro West Detention Centre in Brampton, Ont.:

I had not really intended to write to you from here, but something happened that made me change my mind.

On Nov. 10, an inmate from my "range" (or prison unit) was taken from here to a local abortion facility for an abortion. I had no personal contact with her; she was only here a short time, and I found out only later.

She was taken to Toronto's Cabbagetown abortion facility, where Dr. Buriana specializes in late-term abortions (after three months of pregnancy). I was very distressed about the fact that a baby was being killed and that I was helpless to prevent it.

But what struck me even more was the ambiguity of the situation. I was arrested by a government that not only pays for abortions but is actually involved in the procurement of abortions! A government agency - the Ministry of Corrections - feels compelled to personally deliver a woman to the door of an abortionist to destroy her baby!

Abortion is a choice, a bad choice! It is bad for babies and for women. It should be prevented; but instead, it is aided and abetted by people in authority.

I have been a pro-life activist for 20 years, and I know a lot about abortion. Since I am in jail, I'm learning more. The most astounding revelation to me is the open complicity of governments in the wanton killing of future citizens.

I know that since you came to office in 1995, abortion has not been a major issue; therefore, you may not be acquainted with all the facts. Still, maybe you could enlighten me on this subject! Is the active procurement of abortion official government policy in Ontario? Who counsels women either before or after? Is there coercion? Are there options?

The contradiction remains: one woman is convicted of killing (a policeman or a stepson) and another woman receives help to have her child killed by the same ministry of the Ontario government.

How is this problem to be solved? I don't know whether you can respond to me here, but I sure would appreciate some answers.

Anneliese Steden
Cambridge, Ont.

Double effect

In your editorial, "On violence against abortionists" (November), you wrote, "The trouble is, the principle of double effect (the ethical principle we're talking about here) applies to this sort of situation only when the threat posed by the aggressor is immediate." I think that this is incorrect.

The principle that you were talking about is really "that a bad means may be used to achieve a good end." This is always morally reprehensible and is forbidden. Stated another way, it is the principle of "the end justifies the means."

The ethical principle of double effect is quite different. Briefly, it is a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good.

In order for this principle to be invoked and applied, four conditions must be present: the act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent; the agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it; the good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily the order of time) as the bad effect (otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to achieve a good end, which is never allowed); and the good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

The deliberate killing of an abortionist in order to reduce the number of abortions does not meet any of these conditions. Therefore, the principle of double effect does not apply.

Rev. F. X. Johnson, S.J.
Scarborough, Ont.

Contraception

In his article on contraception in the November issue of The Interim, Tim Bloedow refers to the pro-contraception argument based on a couple's financial limitations.

Would God send a child to a couple who could not afford to meet this obligation? I think not. God would provide - which is one reason children are a blessing. We need to remember that the income we think we need is not necessarily what God thinks we need. That child could raise us to a higher level of love and compassion. Maybe that is what we really need.

Contraceptives create a hostile environment in the vagina and/or uterus for the sperm, ovum, and fertilized ovum. Is that love? Jesus said, "You must therefore set no bounds to your love, just as your heavenly Father sets none to His" (Mt 5:48). Jesus also said, "I give a new commandment: love one another just as I have loved you" (Jn 1:34).

Just as Jesus emptied Himself, giving all, so are we called to empty ourselves and become Christ-like, to create a loving environment to welcome God's gifts and not kill them in a contraceptive war zone.
Peace be with you.

Elizabeth Hermanson
Athabasca, Alta.

Homosexuality

I could not agree more with the disgust expressed by Daniel J. Dauvin in his communication, "Sad scene," in the November issue of The Interim. However, he has left himself open to criticism by stating categorically that "no one will ever find the gene for homosexuality". He could be correct in this prediction, but it appears to be unnecessary to make a negative statement on the future.

One cannot profess to know the aetiology of homosexuality in this regard. One must make a distinction between "homosexuality" - meaning homosexual preference or attraction - and homosexual acts. Some observers believe that homosexuality is always an acquired condition. Certainly, many homosexual acts are performed by individuals with no such preference, having been led to this practice by a variety of circumstances. However, psychiatric opinion does indicate that there is a mental disorder, possibly congenital, in many cases. This does not mean that it is necessarily genetic, as there are other causes of congenital conditions; for example, traumatic, toxic, endocrinal, etc.

The above-mentioned psychiatric opinion is that of world-renowned psychiatrists and sexual psychologists in an era well prior to the politicization of this subject. These expert observers were convinced that in some instances, homosexuality was an inherent condition, and these cases were called "true inverts," as distinct from those adopting a homosexual existence as a result of extraneous influence.

In my own experience, I can remember playmates when we were five or six years of age, who were markedly "different" and were definitely homosexual in adult life.

In view of the foregoing facts, it appears that they who deny the existence of homosexuals with an inherent aberration of nature, are in error.

upport should be given to the true invert, if help is desired, and there should be no attitude of contempt. It is homosexual acts which must be condemned, and, if a person engages in such acts, censure is justified, just as a heterosexual should be censured for an extramarital sexual affair or a bank official should be condemned for embezzlement. In such cases, the temptation to do the wrong thing might be strong, but mankind possesses free will and can decide to sin or not to sin. This ability exists in all individuals, whether or not they have abnormal tendencies. The essential difference is between sin and temptation; modern secular society has deliberately blurred this distinction and minimizes the importance of volition.

Harvey Lister
Ottawa