I have two questions for our readers based on recent developments.
The first question: Was the Nelson compromise in the Senate an acceptable one? Obviously it is not an ideal one. But there is never a case in politics where the ideal wins out. As far as I can tell, Nelson’s imput to the Senate passed bill allows states to decide whether federal subsidies for health care can be used on packages that include abortion coverage. In other words, it throws the issue back to the states, which is what overturning Roe vs. Wade would do anyway. Of course, this compromise means that there will be states where federal funds — your tax dollars — would indirectly fund abortions. However, it also means that many who do not have health coverage will receive it. Does the principle of double-effect apply here? Can we say that this is better than no reform at all?
Second question. Today Rev. Jerzy Popieluszko, the “Solidarity Chaplain,” was declared a martyr by Benedict XVI. He was killed by communist secret service in 1984. I think this is great of course. But it causes me to wonder: Why has Archbishop Romero not been similarly declared a martyr? And then my cynical side comes out and thinks: Is it because Jerzy was killed by left-wing fascists, but Romero by right-wing ones? Any thoughts?