|
|
Regarding the appreciation of Jesuit Fr. Robert Drinan (NCR, Feb. 9): When your writer says of the late priest’s leaving Congress, “to his credit he opted for obedience over defiance,” I winced. Many saints have defied the pope for the common good. In my view, this was a Drinan failure -- one of very few -- and I wonder if he doesn’t know that now.
BILL CLEARY
Burlington, Vt.
We were glad to see that some bishops in New Mexico are supporting a bill that will ban cockfighting (NCR, Feb. 2). We think it’s long past time the church finally stands for animals and against their abusers. For so long the church seems to have viewed animals as having no value of and in themselves and that only humans and their desires mattered. Cockfighting is, according to the bishops, “abusive to God’s good creation” and not an element of “traditional Hispanic culture” as claimed by those who oppose such a ban and make money from the chickens in these events. Cultural ideas change over time as people become more educated as to what goes on behind the scenes in these so-called “cultural treasures.”
We’d like to see the church speak out against the use of animals in dog fights, circuses, rodeos, bullfights, dolphin and orca water shows, greased pig contests, racing; many of these and other events force animals into slavery and captivity. God called all his creations “good” in Genesis; none was called useless, deserving of cruel treatment or exploitation. We grieve the mindset that reduces the mystery and beauty of this world to product and profit and the indifference that makes pain not one’s own an irrelevance. Cruel animal activities flourish because we have not been raised to question them. Most certainly all living beings are part of the same breath of creation, and we owe these other magnificent fellow travelers the right to exist without cruelty from man. Cardinal John Henry Newman said, “Cruelty to animals is as if man did not love God.”
PETER and BARBARA STASZ
St. Paul, Minn.
The article, “Confession, the disappearing sacrament” (NCR, Feb. 9), perfectly illustrates the theological adage that “the way people worship is the way people believe” (lex orandi, lex credendi). So why today would people of God need a separate sacrament for confession when the first part of every Mass is a sacrament of confession complete with an absolution? Unless you were a public sinner in those early days of the church, a Christian used the penitential first part of the Mass as a sacrament of reconciliation before Eucharist; it was not until the Middle Ages that private auricular confession began. What worked for the early people of God works still for the 21st-century people of God.
PAUL J. ACKERMAN
Columbus, Miss.
* * *
“Whatever happened to confession?” reminds me of my own experiences, sometimes bad, mostly good. It is a sacrament that requires direct participation by the penitent, who is a work in progress. I know that for many it has had its tough moments. I remember my first confession in preparation for first Holy Communion. The priest got us all through it with a minimum of fear and wondering, and we all, especially the boys, felt worthy to receive. A few years later I remember leaving the confessional mad at the confessor. I had confessed that, like a lot of guys, I threw rocks at the glass-covered street lights in our neighborhood. For my penance, Father told me to put my weekly allowance in the collection basket on Sunday. Dang bust it! There went my weekly movie and candy treat. But I stayed with the sacrament. I am especially appreciative of the communal penance our parish has during Advent and Lent. I feel comforted and encouraged by my fellow parishioners, companions in the spiritual life.
LARRY HOGE
Brandon, Fla.
Thomas Rausch’s review of Damon Linker’s book The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege (NCR, Feb. 9) hints at the danger theocons like Fr. Richard Neuhaus, George Weigel and Michael Novak constitute for the preservation of American democracy. They use their influence to insert a partially Catholic morality (of their own cafeteria-style picking) into the public policy of the country. Neuhaus’ Evangelicals and Catholics Together works for “an alliance for common cause in the culture wars”; he served as an “adviser” to George W. Bush and he pressed the bishops to deny some Catholic political candidates Communion. Weigel used Catholic “just war tradition” to defend President Reagan’s reckless military incursions in South America. Weigel, Neuhaus and Novak supported the 1991 and 2003 wars in Iraq. These men impress their partially Catholic views on our highest political leaders as though their ideas represented all that is moral and ethical in our country. But so often they are biased, shortsighted, narrow and wrong. The three of them and others of their ilk must accept partial responsibility for the failures of the U.S. invasion and for the Iraqi civil war which has resulted. Let us hope that both the American people and Catholic bishops assess the theocon view for what it is and let us hope they do this before the 2008 election.
JOHN L. CONRAD
Liverpool, N.Y.
Rich Heffern’s review of The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan (NCR, Feb. 9) cited many excellent references in the book but the most significant were those that describe how the global food system, not just actors in the United States, dominate and manipulate that system to maximize profit and to further impoverish poor people everywhere. He points out that the federal subsidies for crops go not to the farmer but to buyers like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra and Coca-Cola, registering enormous profits while driving small farmers off the land. Beyond that, he calls attention to the author’s exposure of “the perverse infrastructure upon which our breakfast, lunch and dinner are built.” Indeed those companies and others like them here and abroad drive a perverse infrastructure that is worldwide and that bears the responsibility for keeping one seventh of the human race from having access to a decent human diet. I hope many of your readers will look at Pollan’s book and that you will publish more on global food security, which is central to Catholic social teaching.
MARTIN M. McLAUGHLIN
Arlington, Va.
File this one under “Egads!” I was unaware that until the 1960s Catholic nuns were not permitted to teach or take courses in public colleges if they wore religious habit. In “More than fashion”(NCR, Feb. 16), Sr. Joan Chittister articulates some good points and questions, not the least of which is: What is the difference between habits for nuns in public places and head scarves, abayas or burqas for Muslims? The same week this column ran, I heard an item on the BBC that a task force of the American Psychological Association reports that the media’s portrayal of young women as sex objects harms girls’ mental and physical health. “Sexualization” leads to a lack of confidence with their bodies as well as to depression and eating disorders and also has a negative effect on healthy sexual development in girls. This task force was set up after mounting public concern about the sexualization of young girls. Examples given include young pop stars dressed as sex objects; dolls with sexual clothing such as fishnet tights; clothing such as thongs for 7- to 10-year-olds; adult models dressed as young girls. Task force chairperson Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen said: “We need to replace all of these sexualized images with ones showing girls in positive settings -- ones that show the uniqueness and competence of girls.” It seems to me that traditional Muslim garb worn in public is the least of our concerns.
KATE GILE
Ellsworth, Maine
* * *
I was interested in Joan Chittister’s comments about religious dress and particularly about the veils and coverings of Muslim women. Many of us find this troubling because the Muslim niqabs and burqas seem to represent oppression of women. We have all heard stories of the way women in rigid Muslim societies are shut away, deprived of the rights to work and be educated or even get appropriate health care. Such an approach often suggests a male attitude of ownership of women or perhaps a male lack of self-control. However, in other societies such as that of the United States where women are free to choose whether or not to wear a veil, many do choose to do so. They say it is out of modesty or perhaps to express their identity as faithful followers of Islam.
I personally am in favor of women and men choosing what they want to wear with no social or political stigma. I don’t think Catholic nuns need to wear religious garb and the rest of us shouldn’t need to wear any object or clothing that shows we are Christians. The fact that we are Christians should be obvious from the kind of people we are, the way we treat others, and how we go about our daily lives. Apparently this was true among the first Christians.
LUCY FUCHS
Brandon, Fla.
Thank you for your recent article by Scott Schaeffer-Duffy on rejecting all violence (NCR, Feb. 23). I believe that Benedict could be the pope to challenge all Catholics to reject all violence and follow Jesus in absolute peace. Speak to us, Holy Father. The issue with violence, of course, comes down to “permission.” Who gets to kill? Who gets to commit violence? As long as the answer to that question is anything but “God alone,” it will be a matter of who the majority this week finds acceptable to kill. The unborn? Iraqis? Jews? If you support any violence, you enable all violence. I pray that Catholics can ultimately be the ones who lead the world in the Gospel’s absolute rejection of violence, into real peace -- the kind that God prepares for us. Let our hearts be changed!
JAMES BALMER
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Regarding Fr. Richard McBrien’s review of Fr. Donald Cozzens’ book about celibacy (NCR, Feb. 9): I have always thought it strange that geography seems to be the determiner regarding the difference between the celibate West and the marrying East. Why is it that in the West the priest must be celibate as Christ was? He must not have family responsibilities because it would take away from the time and attention he should be giving his flock, he can be a loving father to the whole parish and not just his own family, but once one crosses, say, the Danube River, these principles no longer apply? Is there some celibacy line of demarcation that divides the unmarried Western clergy from the marriageable Eastern clergy? Does God have such an odd sense of humor that he lays sexual/commitment restrictions on his Western clergy but he permits his Eastern clergy to experience this beautiful fulfillment of human yearning in the marriage relationship? Does this make sense?
If the answer is basically that it is a historical/traditional development and that both Roman and Eastern churches as a whole stick by their traditions, that makes no better sense considering the costs to the Roman church in terms of fewer clergy to serve the faithful in providing the support of the sacraments. Let priests marry, wishing them much happiness. They deserve it.
BRENDAN CURTIN
Elmira, N.Y.
Letters to the editor should be limited to 250 words and preferably typed. If a letter refers to a previous issue of NCR, please give us that issue’s date. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Letters, National Catholic Reporter, PO Box 411009, Kansas City, MO 64141-1009. Fax: (816) 968-2280. E-mail: letters@ncronline.org (When sending a letter via e-mail, please indicate "NCR Letters" in the subject line. We've installed a new spam filter on our letters e-mail account. If it's not clear to us that yours is a letter, we might delete it.) Please be sure to include your street address, city, state, zip and daytime telephone number
National Catholic Reporter, March 9, 2007