Dialogue on difficult subjects appreciated

March 25, 2019
Alex M. Saunders, MD
San Carlos
 
The letter by Ted Kirk (Feb. 28) commenting on my letter of Feb. 14 indicates dialogue is possible on difficult subjects and is much appreciated. Perhaps Mr. Kirk has another set of questions on difficult readings different than mine. Both need teaching from the pulpit and the Scripture reflections column in CSF, or PIP (people in the pews) will continue uninformed.
 
Regarding Ted Kirk’s descriptive, generalizing euphemism, he implies that desiring “non-existence” is wrong. Certainly, it is wrong for suicide and the like. However, the church sanctioned practice of natural family planning has that exact intent. Given the same intent it is an appropriate subject for preaching and the CSF Scripture reflections column, to show (if possible) the moral difference between NFP and methods that would work in male dominated developing cultures, where NFP is impossible, where women are sorely in need of protection, and where overpopulation is a real concern.
 
Paul R. Ehrlich, in “The Population Bomb,” used data available to him in 1968 to make his projections. He did not make predictions! As a scientist he carefully stated that his projections may be wrong! Ehrlich may have exaggerated, but his scenarios are playing out in real life (and death) in developing countries today. Or are the pictures of starving children we see in Catholic Charities advertising also part of an attitude, conspiracy or fake news?
 
(Should love of neighbor not extend to non-existing humans who otherwise would fall by the wayside?)
 

Letters policy

Email letters.csf@sfarchdiocese.org

Write Letters to the Editor, Catholic San Francisco, One Peter Yorke Way, San Francisco, CA 94109

Name, address and daytime phone number for verification required.

Short letters preferred: 250 words or fewer