Your reactions to the position taken by “La Croix” for the presidential election
Thank you very much for your excellent and edifying sample of the varied and contradictory letters about the presidential election (The cross of April 28). Above all, it is proof of your healthy vitality in reminding us of the Gospel.
I join those who thanked you for your Friday April 22 editorial. You have, consciously or not, compensated for the too great discretion of our bishops concerning the presidential election. Call to vote “in conscience, in the light of the Gospel and the social doctrine of the Church” did not in fact provide any practical point of reference since a simple reference imposed a work of research, deepening and interpretation. Only Mgr Ravel, Archbishop of Strasbourg, dared to speak a strong, prophetic word.
Can a Christian reproach you for saying that the National Rally is a real danger! Where is the discernment of our dear Christian friends? Do they have a reading of the Bible that allows them to have discernment… or is it the passions that overwhelm them? (…)
I read in your newspaper of April 28 the reactions to your position for the second round of the presidential election. First of all, having taken a stand is a good thing. Compare to the hypocritical abstention of the CEF… Readers’ comments, positive, bitter, or violent, are ALL a tribute to your newspaper, and to its potential influence on the opinion of its readers. Then, it seems to me that we do not vote according to an emotional feeling for such and such. (…) It is what a president proposes for France that is important, not just for my situation or for me… When we, voters, make a choice, we must assume the proposals of the candidate we support, personally. And if some are contrary to the Gospel, it is normal for you to express it, even if it does not please some Catholics. (…)
Alright, the April 28 Mail pages that show what readers think of your pick. But in fact, your choice does not oblige you to vote like the editorial staff!
Thanks to Camille Richir for his excellent article: “The challenges of the five-year term: ecology” (The cross of April 28). It demonstrates, once again, that for our political leaders, the ecological transition is limited to the fight against climate change, oh so necessary, but forgets the fight against the collapse of the diversity of the living world even if our survival in is dependent, as shown by multiple reports and publications of recent years (…) The factors of the erosion of living organisms are mainly other than those of global warming, even if the latter is superimposed on them. But was this not already the case when President Macron, in his letter to the French of January 14, 2019, announced, at the launch of the great national debate, his commitment to “the preservation of biodiversity and the fight against global warming” and that over the weeks the theme of biodiversity disappeared? It was no longer mentioned in the Prime Minister’s general policy speech of June 11, 2019…
olympics for the deaf
Thank you for your article of May 11 on the Deaflympics and the particular situation of deaf athletes. Thank you for highlighting these athletes. I hope this will help develop the practice.
Cecile de Firmas