Letters

Corrections

There were several errors in your article on my two daughters, Kayla and Brooke (Jan. 1999).

We adopted Kayla first, through a private agency, then when we decided we would like to have another child, we went to the Toronto Children's Aid. They did indeed tell us they had no time to help us.

We then talked to the social worker at Sick Children's Hospital (the same social worker we dealt with when we adopted Kayla), and it happened there was a newborn baby being placed for adoption. That was Brooke.

We did not at any time speak to any doctors or nurses about looking for a child to adopt. The nurses and doctors at Toronto Sick Children's Hospital have always been caring and kind, and we have received great treatment for our children there.

And yes, while there were long waiting lists for able-bodied children, that is not why we chose to adopt our girls. They were our first choice, and we are very grateful and blessed to have them.

Many children with spina bifida have learning disabilities. (Of course, there are many children without spina bifida who have learning disabilities, too.) Kayla and Brooke have an educational assistant only for their physical needs at school. They are doing very well in school, with grades ranging from As to Cs, like most of the children their age.

Thank you for making these corrections.

Susie Kelly
Barrie, Ont.

Endorses FCP

Over the years, much has been written on the subject of how pro-life people can be effective in the political process. Many federal and provincial elections have come and gone, and it seems that the pro-life, pro-family, and Christian vote has had little or no impact.

Elections are in the offing in several provinces. Can we be effective this time around? I believe we can. How? By abandoning the futility of giving our votes to the "Big Three" parties. Unless and until every pro-life vote is able to be identified as a bloc, the three mainline parties will continue to laugh at us.

As Winston Churchill stated at the beginning of the last World War, "United we stand, divided we fall." Every pro-life, pro-family person must decide and vote for a united front. Forget any previous party allegiance, even if the representative of that party is pro-life. Every pro-life person must go for the one party that unequivocally is pro-life and pro-family. That is the Family Coalition Party of Ontario.

"But they never get elected," you are saying. Is that really the important point? I don't believe it matters. What matters is that the parties see this strength if we vote in solidarity for the pre-born, defenceless babies. Yes, we have elected some good pro-life political representatives. But once elected, they have become as voiceless as the unborn babies we are sworn to protect.

So it's time to change, and to stand united and committed to our cause, because unless we do, the fragmentation of the pro-life movement will be exploited by the liberal secularists to whom we give the power to rule our lives.

"But," you say, "there's no Family Coalition Party candidate in my riding." Then you be that candidate! Get your name on the ballot sheets and get the word out that pro-lifers in your riding can cast their vote with a clear conscience.

It's actually very easy to run in an election, and does not require a lot of money, as most people think. You can get a lot of publicity by attending all-candidates meetings and getting interviews with newspapers and TV stations. There are other ways of getting your name and your party's policies known, which I will gladly share with anyone willing to take the plunge. I can be reached at (705) 652-7762, and the Ontario FCP can be reached at (905) 640-6702.

In summary, we have to have the courage of our convictions. Continuing to cast a vote for the Liberals, Tories, or NDP, regardless of how good the candidate, is a waste of the pro-life vote. But voting for a solidly pro-life party and candidate is the one sure way to identify our strength and give some real credibility to the pro-life movement - and maybe put the fear of God in some politicians!

Paul J. Morgan
Lakefield, Ont.

FCP CHP needed

I agree with Rita Curly's article in the December issue of The Interim, that we must pray for and send messages of encouragement to pro-life members in various parties. But I see it as absolutely necessary to have a Family Coalition Party provincially and a Christian Heritage Party federally.

The prime minister pays no attention to pro-life people. A man of the calibre of Tom Wappel and others should be in cabinet but are only shot down when they try to protect the definition of marriage, as Tom recently was when he attempted this.

Perhaps the CHP would do well not to run a candidate in ridings where there are members such as Tom Wappel, Garry Breitkreuz and a few others who are proven pro-lifers. It is very necessary that the CHP run candidates in all other ridings. The same holds true provincially.

Whether people vote for them or not, they are witnesses for God, righteousness, and the family. I see my vote as very important, and I have to ask myself: is my vote pleasing to God, or am I simply concerned about whether my party will get in? That which pleases God is first and foremost, as it should be for all Christians.

I agree with Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, that "nothing will capture the attention of those (mainline) parties like a massive swing to the only federal pro-life party in the field." May I add that the same would hold provincially if a massive swing to the Family Coalition Party took place.

I also read with interest the article in the November Interim, "Pro-choice Catholics risk excommunication."

It puzzles me that all denominations are so slow when members of their churches disobey or transgress the teachings of their church. At the same time, when pro-life picketers step one or two feet inside a prohibited zone around an abortuary, they are arrested and jailed. Such brave, consecrated people as Anneliese Steden and Linda Gibbons are behind bars.

Leaders such as Ontario Liberal head Dalton McGuinty, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, federal Conservative leader Joe Clark, and many others, should be written a letter to remind them of the commitments they made when they joined their churches, and be asked if they will return to these commitments.

Rev. R.H. James
Harrowsmith, Ont.

FCP should fold

Re: Rita Curley's letter on the FCP (Dec. 98), I worked one election for the Ontario FCP at their main office and for a candidate in the field. For the time it was a way to make an effort for the pro-life cause, yet now I hold the opinion that the FCP should be ended with a victory cheer.

The FCP could not save a single child from abortion, even if the party controlled the legislature. Abortion is a federal issue. Also, in all common sense, the FCP cannot win control of the government. It's even unlikely the party could win one single seat.

Our money and effort should be directed solely to where decisions about legal abortion are made - Ottawa. There is where the reward is to be found.

Robert Byers
Toronto

Another strategy

Re: "Massive swing to pro-life is best strategy" by Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party in the December issue of The Interim.

I agree that we need a federal government that will create policies to strengthen the family and defend an unborn child's right to life, and I realize that the Christian Heritage Party is qualified for this job. But I wonder how it can succeed when there are far too many political parties to choose from. It is likely that if we continue to split votes, we will see more of the same pro-choice policies from our elected governments, as the pro-life movement will not have enough votes to make a difference.

I believe that the best strategy is to stop the vote-splitting and have pro-lifers vote for the political party with the highest percentage of MPs that are pro-family and pro-life. It appears to me that this would be the quickest and easiest way to elect a government that would put in place policies that would strengthen life and family.

J. T. Nixdorff
Airdrie, Alta.

CWL on NGOs

The article on the World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations in the fall issue of The Canadian League causes me to worry for several reasons.

For instance, the vice-president, Genevieve De Diesbach, points to the important role of non-governmental organizations, and says "their sole concern is to obtain recognition of the absolute value of all human persons." Are she and other WUCWO representatives unaware that the most powerful and loud NGOs at the United Nations are Planned Parenthood and the Rockefeller Institute, which vigorously push abortion at every major conference, whether it is supposed to be dealing with health, habitat, or ecological concerns?

WUCWO says, "Our fundamental purpose is to promote and defend a vision of the world and of women which is defined by our Catholic values and beliefs" does not ring true. WUCWO representatives at the UN cannot be ignorant of the deceit and abortion-oriented dealings of the Population Fund. Are they unwittingly trading the Ten Commandments for a supposedly better life for the smaller families of the developed world?

My information can be verified by reading The Interim, or any publication by REAL Women, or that of the International Right to Life Association.

Mrs. Eileen M. Lantz
Summerside, P.E.I.

Great article

The article by your writer Andrea Procher (Dec. 98) on sex and violence in the movies was absolutely great. It is time the public stopped allowing themselves to be conned into accepting trashy scenes in otherwise good movies.

She gave Titanic as an example of an extremely popular movie that she refused to see because it contained what I call "sexinudi" scenes (scenes which contain at least a measure of explicit sex and-or nudity). Along with graphic violence and vulgar language, such material is all too common in modern movies, which eventually are shown on TV.

The only way to stop it is for the majority of us to adopt a zero-tolerance policy. My wife and I already do this. As soon as we are offended by a sexinudi scene while watching a movie on regular TV (we don't subscribe to pay TV), we simply switch channels. We do this even if we have invested an hour and a half in the movie.

Ms. Procher suggests that those who care about such matters read the back covers of rented videos, but I'm afraid that isn't good enough, and reviews of movies published in newspapers and magazines are useless. Most reviewers want to appear sophisticated and will not pan a movie on moral grounds. Even the classification system is inadequate in grading movies, beyond the "G" category.

Wouldn't it be nice to know beforehand the objectionable nature (if any) of a movie, to spare one the embarrassment of either having to sit through it or leave the theatre? Fortunately, there is such information on the Internet. The website http://www.screenit.com is set up to help parents choose movie fare wisely for their children.

George Heron
Ajax, Ont.

'Gay gene'

Re: "Study disproves ‘gay gene' theory" (International Round-up, August 1998).

It is reported that researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Health were unable to replicate results of a 1995 study which claimed to have found a genetic marker for homosexuality in the X-chromosomes of homosexual brothers.

Where and when was the Institute's research published? As recently as Jan. 11, 1999, Time Magazine (p. 34) accepted the claims of the 1995 study.

Dorothy Petula-Grocott, MD
Regina, Sask.

Editor: The study in question was presented at the annual conference of the American Psychiatric Association in Toronto on June 1, 1998. It was reported in the Globe and Mail on June 2, 1998 in an article by Jane Gadd, entitled, "New study fails to find so-called ‘gay gene'" (p. 4, Metro edition).