|
|
With genuine respect and admiration for those choosing the celibate life, I do have a few “modest proposals” for consideration.
First, why is there a “consecrated virgin” status primarily focused on women? Can’t men be consecrated virgins too? If the church is going to recognize such a state, why should it be sexist?
Second, since “virgins by choice” seem to violate the purpose of the ever present “natural law” and related arguments on the responsibility to procreate, shouldn’t such individuals be accorded a “lesser” rather than “greater” status in the eyes of the church?
Third, if the church is really looking at “heroic sanctity,” shouldn’t there be a primary emphasis on canonizing sexually active couples who really show sanctity in bearing and raising children in the modern world? They are the ones who deserve spiritual combat pay. I’d feel much more inspired seeing statues of such couple saints in church than those of doe-eyed female virgins in long flowing garments clutching bouquets of lilies.
JOSEPH S. MACIEJKO
Bettendorf, Iowa
* * *
Regarding Tom Roberts’ commentary on the consecrated virgin article (NCR, April 27): The choice to become a consecrated virgin is anything but a devaluing of marriage and motherhood. The core of this vocation is the idea that a consecrated virgin represents the church in a mystical marriage with Christ. The woman being consecrated embodies the church as both bride and mother, shining light onto the importance of these two roles in their own right.
I have witnessed firsthand the joy these women find in their identity as Christ’s spouse. This joy expresses itself in a profound desire to share his love with others. Christ is so alive for a consecrated virgin, she is literally willing to stake her life on that reality and marry him. In a world where so many individuals hesitate to commit to either faith or marriage, shouldn’t the resurgence of consecrated virginity be cause for celebration rather than occasion for negativity concerning the church hierarchy’s attitude toward sexuality?
CATHERINE WRIGHT
San Rafael, Calif.
Given the dismal record of the Catholic church under Hitler and the continuing controversy surrounding the figure of Pope Pius XII, it’s understandable that Ulrich Lerner should hail the 70th anniversary of Pius XI’s encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge as a major event to be celebrated (NCR, April 20). As is quite clear from Peter Goodman’s excellent study Hitler and the Vatican, the final version of the encyclical was a compromise. Both Pius XI and Eugenio Pacelli, his secretary of state and the future Pope Pius XII, wanted to leave the door open for improved relations and feared that too forceful a condemnation of Nazism would endanger the Vatican’s concordat with the Nazi regime, signed four years earlier.
If we look for a truly courageous Catholic document during the Hitler years, I believe the 1942 pastoral letter of the Dutch bishops, despite its disastrous consequences, deserves that designation rather than the encyclical.
EVA FLEISCHNER
Claremont, Calif.
Thank you for publishing “Prevention, not prohibition, is the way forward” by Jon O’Brien (NCR, May 4). As Mr. O’Brien points out, while the culture wars rage on, women’s lives are often used as the battlefield. While many people in good conscience disagree with each other over the issue of abortion, I believe we need to move toward a more holistic approach to pregnancy prevention, including access to affordable contraceptives and comprehensive sexuality education.
In countries with comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives, such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, the result is a much lower pregnancy and abortion rate among teens. Meanwhile, in countries where abortion is illegal, prohibition does little to decrease the actual number of abortions and simply increases maternal mortality. In Brazil, where abortion is illegal, the abortion rate is roughly the same as the United States.
The question is, then, do we want to make abortion obsolete or simply illegal?
JOHANNA HATCH
Waite Park, Minn.
* * *
For many years I have considered myself to be both pro-choice and pro-life because to be truly pro-life means to support life in every way. Many so called “pro-lifers” are really just “pro-birth.” I agree with Jon O’Brien that the solution to the problem of abortion is prevention. We need better, safer and cheaper contraception. We need affordable daycare and housing. We need good sex education for all, not just our youth. I am aware that most insurance plans will allow coverage for Viagra but often not for contraception. Is it about misogyny?
Our church has some wonderful teachings about the sacrament of marriage and the spousal relationship, but having been married for nearly 42 years I can definitively say that the church has missed the mark by insisting that every sexual act must be “open to the gift of life.” In practice, few Catholics believe that or adhere to it.
SHARON DANNER
Dumfries, Va.
The recent article “Scandal reverberates in U.S. priests’ lives” and editorial “Our priests: an appreciation” (NCR, May 4) both perpetuate a false dichotomy between the “bad priests and bishops” who committed or covered up sexual abuse versus a supposed innocent majority of priests and religious who are now paying the price.
Not so fast. Rank-and-file priests and religious must bear the responsibility of failure to confront religious superiors, bishops and chancery officials while the latter engaged in cover-up tactics. They also in many cases failed to respond to signs of mental instability in colleagues or dismissed sexual exploitation and even some crimes as forgivable “slips” in vows of celibacy or chastity. They indulged colleagues and careers at the expense of exploited children and vulnerable adults.
In the aftermath of the abuse scandal, the clerical and religious professions ought to be engaging in collective examinations of conscience to determine how their own culture has been an enabler of the antecedents to the abuse scandal. The result should be articulated and substantive changes made in how they conduct themselves. This would be far more productive than engaging in collective hand-wringing over the inevitable professional consequences and personal injustices of the scandal to which their own culture of clericalism contributed.
GREG BULLOUGH
Doylestown, Pa.
The Sunday after the killings at Virginia Tech, I attended Mass in Chicago. Part of the priest’s homily dealt with the killings. He mentioned that a representative from the governor’s office had called him and requested that he toll the bells of the church a day or two hence at 11 a.m., 32 times for the 32 victims of the killer. As soon as he finished that statement it occurred to me that perhaps Christ would have responded with a question: “Why aren’t we tolling the bells 33 times?” I suspect that the environment that created the situation at Virginia Tech will change little until we begin to understand that there were 33 victims.
WILLIAM C. McDERMOTT
Peoria, Ill.
* * *
In his column reflecting on the Virginia Tech shooting (NCR, May 4), Robert Royal offers two hollow, disingenuous statements back to back. He writes: “America is not a particularly violent society, given its size and diversity. Switzerland has far more guns per capita than we do.”
In a study just published by the Centers for Disease Control, the United States not only leads the world’s richest nations in gun deaths, it alone represents 45 percent of all the gun deaths in the study. Its per capita rate is more than two-and-a-half times that of Switzerland and 285 times that found in Japan. If the hard truth of the Virginia Tech massacre, according to Royal, is that evil exists, then it is important to recognize the political compromises of our elected officials at both the state and federal levels that allow that evil such a free hand in our society.
JIM BRIDGES
Toms River, N.J.
I’m tired of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, SNAP, and its holier-than-thou, our-cause-is-the-most-important attitude. Cardinal Roger Mahony has done a lot for immigration rights by standing up boldly on the issue. I’m sure his public statements and publicity about them here in Los Angeles made many people think, and maybe even change their views. Immigration rights is an issue that affects millions -- several times as many people as affected by clergy scandals. How arrogant of SNAP to oppose the cardinal’s receipt of an award just because he isn’t the perfect model of its narrow issue (NCR , May 4). Maybe if you stop reporting everything SNAP does, it, like the sex scandals themselves, will fade into the past.
MARK SHIRILAU
Irvine, Calif.
Margot Patterson’s article on the wounding of Mairead Maguire includes an unnecessarily biased analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (NCR, May 4). Her analysis presented by quoting Ms. Maguire completely ignores the persistent Palestinian terror attacks on Israeli citizens that are the reason for the various fences, separation barriers and walls. Her analysis ignores the daily 70-lb. rocket attacks into the Israeli town of S’derot that emerge from the recently unoccupied Gaza Strip. I would think that a courageous Nobel Prize-winning crusader for nonviolence would have at least something to say about a group like Hamas that counts the mass murder of civilians as one of its central functions. Your readership would be better served by more balanced articles with less obvious spin.
STEVEN CRADE
Madison Wis.
NCR responds: The article about Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire being injured by Israeli soldiers was a news story, not an analysis. No attempt was made to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general; the story confined itself to reporting on the injuries to Maguire and others who participated in demonstrations against the Israeli wall on April 20 in the West Bank village of Bil’in. As reported in the article, at press time the Israeli Embassy in Washington said it did not have sufficient information to respond to Maguire’s demand for an apology. The embassy’s response is contained in a subsequent article published May 11.
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, May 25, 2007