Editorial

On Nov. 12, a jury in Redwood City, Calif., found Scott Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson. They also declared him guilty of second-degree murder in the death of his unborn son, Conner.

This has proven to be a landmark conviction. It is the first high-profile case to be decided since passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act this year. Also known as "Laci and Conner's Law," the measure was signed into law on April 1 by President Bush.

Two victims. The new law forces the courts to recognize two victims in a violent crime committed against a pregnant woman. Twenty-nine states - including California - had already passed similar legislation before the federal bill became law.

Laci Peterson and her unborn son had disappeared in 2002. Their bodies were found washed up not far from a marina where her husband had gone fishing the day she vanished. The jury agreed that the evidence pointed to Scott Peterson's guilt. He had even purchased cement that prosecutors say was used to weight down his wife's body in San Francisco Bay.

Over 80 percent of Americans in several national opinion polls said that Scott Peterson should be charged with two homicides. The jury agreed. We, too, applaud Scott Peterson's conviction for the murder of both his wife and unborn son. This verdict does bring justice and give some closure to Laci Peterson's family.

Continued concerns. However, there remain some continued moral concerns for the California court and our nation to consider:

1. First is the sentencing of Scott Peterson. As the trial moves to the penalty phase, the focus will be on the two choices before the jury: the death penalty or life in prison without parole. Some are calling for Peterson's execution.

Yet, Catholic teaching would recommend life in prison as the better alternative. Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church permits the death penalty if this is the only way to defend against an aggressor, it says non-lethal means should be used when possible as these are more in keeping with "the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person."

It would be better for Scott Peterson to spend the rest of his life in prison, reflecting on what he has done and hopefully asking for God's forgiveness.

2. The second concern is protection of the life of all unborn children. Laci Peterson wanted her son, Conner, to be born. So his life was considered as deserving of protection by our government.

However, if Laci had NOT wanted her son, if she had attempted to procure an abortion, his life would NOT have been protected. Shouldn't the rights of all unborn babies be protected by law? Why should they be considered persons only when their mothers want them?

We believe every unborn child should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our country. Let's hope and pray that the legacy of Laci and Conner will lead to greater protection for all pregnant women and their unborn children.

Mary C. Uhler

Mailbag

	Mailbag policy We reserve the right to edit or reject letters. Limit letters to 200 words or less. All letters must be signed. Please include your city or town of residence. Send letters to: Mailbag The Catholic Herald P.O. Box 44985 Madison, WI 53744-4985 Fax: 608-821-3071 E-mail: info@madisoncatholicherald.org

Protect traditional marriage

To the editor:

My prayers were answered as the citizens in 11 states stood united in amending their constitutions to preserve traditional one-man, one-woman marriage. In Arkansas (75 percent), Arizona (75 percent), Georgia, (77 percent), Kentucky (75 percent), Michigan (59 percent), Mississippi (86 percent), Montana (66 percent), North Dakota (73 percent), Ohio (62 percent), Oregon (57 percent), and Utah (66 percent), the citizens sent a clear message that marriage as God intended is to be between one man and one woman only. Earlier this year the citizens of Missouri (72 percent) and Louisiana (78 percent) showed overwhelming support for similar measures.

Fellow Catholics, we must do the same in our state. Join me now in helping The Family Research Institute (FRI) of Wisconsin in circulating petitions statewide endorsing traditional marriage. You can download copies of the petition by going to the Web site at www.fri-wi.org or by calling 1-888-378-7395 to request copies for your family, neighbors, Christian mothers group, KC members, and church. Bulletin inserts are also available.

With several high-powered, well-funded groups in our state seeking to legalize same-sex marriage which in turn will open the door to the legalization of group marriage, polygamy, bigamy, and incest, we must stand united behind FRI's efforts to protect Wisconsin's families.

If you would like to make a donation in honor of your engagement, anniversary, or your family to show your strong support of God's plan for marriage, please send your donation to The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin at P.O. Box 2075, Madison, WI 53701, today.

We are all called to Build a Culture of Life. We can do that by protecting marriage, the foundation of any civilized society.

Marie Gestrich, Beloit

Bishops provide guidance

To the editor:

After reading the Nov. 11 Mailbag, it was obvious the authors did not agree with the messages being sent by the bishops during this election year and chose to attack the messengers. It is my understanding that midst a bishop's many responsibilities is that of "education." To suggest they avoid addressing the moral issues which affect us politically would be a great disservice to those who turn to the church for "spiritual guidance." Heaven knows it's not Prime Time media material!

I was extremely grateful for Bishop Morlino's informative article in the Oct. 14 issue on making election decisions. He addressed issues that should concern us as Catholics and prioritized their importance in "our decision making."

I am equally grateful for the archbishop and bishops, who support the Wisconsin Catholic Conference. Through their dedicated work, we are continually provided with effective publications informing us on Catholic social teaching and how it relates to current political issues. Their premise being "politics is about the people, not the party."

Thanks to our founding fathers we are, "One Nation Under God, with liberty and justice for all." I do hope during times when Faithful Citizenship calls us out of "our comfort zone," that we as Catholics will pass the test of Faith!

Dorene Shuda, Jefferson

Abortion not same as war

To the editor:

In Tony Magliano's column of Nov. 4, 2004 [print edition only], he writes, "[i]t is terribly inconsistent when many pro-life activists condemn the slaughter of unborn children through abortion, but fail to condemn military policies that cause the slaughter of innocent born children."

Does Mr. Magliano really believe that the intentional destruction of innocent life in the womb by an abortion doctor is morally equivalent to the unintentional loss of innocent life in war? Or does he mean to condemn all wars as unjust, since the loss of innocent life is an unavoidable part of every war?

Or does Mr. Magliano mean to imply that the loss of innocent life in Iraq and elsewhere is really an intended consequence of our "military policies"?

In the first and second cases, Mr. Magliano is guilty of erroneous moral reasoning, and in the last, of a gross slander against our soldiers overseas. The fact is that our military does everything it can to avoid the loss of innocent life and that our soldiers are honorable men and women held to high moral standards.

No soldier of ours intends to kill innocent civilians. If only the same could be said of our enemies.

Joseph Burke, Madison

Teaching on death penalty

To the editor:

Obviously Phyllis Feiner (Mailbag-Catholic Herald, Nov. 4, 2004) is not familiar with the official teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the death penalty as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition): "2267, Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."

Charles Sippel, Waterloo