|
|
Your Editor’s Note of appreciation for priests (NCR, May 4) moved me to tears. I have been teaching in a Catholic school for 27 years and have worked closely with our parish priests and the Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, N.Y. I have watched discouragement and sadness envelop many of them. While there may have been one or two who struggled with private demons, most of them have been powerful witnesses to me. Several of them are responsible for saving my soul from darkness at various times. There has always been a priest or sister to hold my hand through life’s struggles. It seems the tables have turned; now we have to support and nourish their souls. It’s only fitting.
Thank you for reminding me to thank the priests and sisters who are in my life today and those who have gone before. Somewhere, somehow there is still hope. I have two sons who work in jobs that help others. Whether either realizes it or not, their Catholic upbringing sticks to them like glue, all due to the wonderful foundation laid by priests and sisters. You’ve touched a real nerve with me.
SANDRA L. SCHADING
Geneva, N.Y.
* * *
Thank you for Emiliano Huet-Vaughn’s article, “Scandal reverberates in U.S. priests’ lives” as well as Tom Roberts’ compassionate comments. I have known many wonderful priests who do their best to bring Christ alive today. A friend will soon be ordained to the priesthood, and I am happy for him. I am, however, concerned about what the editorial describes as “a new breed” of priests “enamored of the robes, jewels, costumes and attitudes that are as misfit a medieval concept as limbo.” Such men cannot be faithful disciples or effective ministers when they place themselves on pedestals above the people they are called to serve. Clergy are not holier or more virtuous than laypeople. They are our brothers who exercise a particular ministry within the community of faith. Those priests who believe that the bishops have made the same mistake twice with respect to the sexual abuse scandal are probably right. It seems that many bishops are more concerned with protecting the institution at all costs than they are with leading us in doing Jesus’ work in the world. Where is their faith in the goodness and fidelity of God?
SHERYL B. ZABEL
Fairport, N.Y.
Is Robert Royal’s column, “Setting the record straight on Reagan,” a joke or what (NCR, May 25)? The Contra affair with Ollie North seems to have slipped Mr. Royal’s mind. Did Reagan really do as Mr. Royal says? “He stood up to some of the worst tyrannies known to history.” Actually he encouraged them by default; South America is still trying to put itself back together. The criterion for a good leader is how well the leader takes care of all people. To put down Jimmy Carter and raise up Mr. Reagan is foolishness and downright wrong. Other countries who expect leaders to care for their people could not believe that the American people did not appreciate Jimmy Carter more than they did. Mr. Reagan was an actor and he sure fooled Mr. Royal and the two who wrote the book Mr. Royal read before writing the article. We have enough to make us angry without putting an article such as this before our eyes. I read it expecting it to be a spoof.
(Sr.) PAT ASELTYNE, IHM
Houston
* * *
By Catholic and Christian standards, President Reagan couldn’t hold a candle to President Carter. Jimmy Carter actually believes that a follower of Jesus can’t turn away from the poor. When I think of all the good he has done since he left the White House, I realize we didn’t appreciate him enough. And Robert Royal’s answer to why the “Americanist believer” succeeded doesn’t satisfy, especially when he asserts that Ronald Reagan had a belief that America had been given great gifts and had a reasonable claim to defend them. I don’t think we’re supposed to defend our gifts; we’re supposed to share them. Mr. Royal’s theory that we have one set of morals in private but should act differently in public is what I’ve come to expect of him. Let him quote Augustine or Winston Churchill. I think we should be quoting and listening to Jesus. He said, “Whatsoever you do for the least of my children ...” not “Let them eat ketchup.”
KAYRENE ANDERSON
Lisle, Ill.
Fr. Raymond Schroth makes some disturbing comparisons with the Mormon church and Catholic hierarchy in his article, “The odd, resilient Mormons,” displaying an intellectual integrity and capacity for reflection that is commendable (NCR, May 25). However, how ready are Catholics to think critically about dogmatic assertions that have assumed the character of unfolding revelation in the church? I have studied the history of the development of the Immaculate Conception, for example, and find a history both contentious and diverse, with saints and doctors of the church on both sides of the issue.
From a purely objective point of view, preserving Christian faith and historical and biblical sources in their essential integrity, one can say that there is just not enough information available to justify the idea of a new divine revelation, especially after centuries of debate and nearly 2,000 years. One may love Mary, honoring the mother of God, but must one stop thinking? Can anyone without sin from conception have faith, free will or even personality? No one asked Mary what happened, and the church never consulted women for advice on what they think, and yet we engage in a kind of theological gynecology, which is odd, to say the least. Part of the difficulty lies in a Counter Reformation backlash and part in the hold Marian devotions and their potential both for beauty and spiritual consolation have on the Catholic imagination, which is something I do not take issue with.
ROBERT HELFMAN
Hurley, N.Y.
Jon O’Brien’s article on abortion (NCR, May 4) and the comments that it has provoked are accurate only as far as they go because one of the critical issues in any pregnancy is the necessary participation of a male collaborator and his proportionate share in the responsibility. Unfortunately, it seems that a patriarchal church or a patriarchal society never seems to worry about the males who share in the responsibility for pregnancy. We prosecute men who invade the privacy of other people’s homes and steal their possessions, but our society never prosecutes the males, especially in Third World countries, who invade the privacy of a woman’s body and leave her to suffer the consequences alone. Since most traditional religions forbid modern birth control, either because it is considered to be immoral or because it violates the sacred right of the males to be a “real man” and “make children,” women are still slaves to the male ego, and abortion is often the only solution for women in this patriarchal society.
LARRY BOUDREAU
San Antonio
Two recent letters to the editor underscore the continuing problem of bringing to closure the clergy sex abuse scandal (NCR, May 25). Mark Shirilau speaks of his resentment of the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) for criticizing the recent ceremony honoring Cardinal Roger Mahony for his work with immigration rights. Since that issue affects many more than those abused by priests, he said he is “tired” of victim support groups. While it is true that Cardinal Mahony has been a major advocate for immigrants and has done numerous other good works, he has unfortunately been a major opponent of the disclosure that is necessary to move the abuse issue to a just conclusion. That is vital because we were dealing not only with horrendous crimes that scarred individuals for life, but the continued enabling of those criminals by those in authority.
Greg Bullough’s letter correctly points out that many “good” priests stood by while their brother priests perpetrated crimes. It is important that we honor good priests who truly serve their people and put that service above clerical concerns. In fact, should we not expect the highest standard of honesty from our clergy and, especially, our bishops? NCR is to be congratulated for being one of the few Catholic periodicals that has consistently maintained that the major issue in seeing justice done is the bringing of the full truth in this matter into the light. It appears, though, that some will still oppose this goal in favor of institutional protection if they see their priests or bishops as generally “good guys.”
ROBERT A. NUNZ
Los Alamos, N.M.
Regarding Joe Fuerherd’s cover article on Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (NCR, May 11): Has it ever occurred to Sen. Brownback that the pope whom he admired so much was adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq?
MARGARET P. GILLEO
St. Louis
In the article, “Opinions divide over pope’s gaffes in Brazil” (NCR, June 8), it is said that Pope Benedict would have people believe that the church was separate from the vast and horrific crimes against the indigenous peoples of the Americas. But the tons of gold, silver, precious stones, a myriad of valuable artifacts and vast tracts of land in church possession stand as witness to centuries of crime and continuing guilt. Those possessions constitute blood on the hands of Catholic leaders both in the past and today. Full restitution is an essential part of real repentance. It is also essential for a true believer in Jesus Christ.
MARY BETH ROMEO
San Antonio
The military’s Archbishop Edwin O’Brien in his address on Memorial Day (NCR, June 8) offers almost no criticism of the Bush administration’s folly in this Iraq war of choice and cites the “just war” principle, indicating a belief in a “probability of success” in what is an obvious disaster. In a world of increasingly deadly nuclear weapons in which the entire planet could potentially be annihilated in about half an hour, the just war theory no longer holds any validity, if it ever did. Archbishop O’Brien’s position is far too gentle with the administration and the ongoing horrors perpetrated by it. He seems oblivious to the 665,000 dead Iraqi civilians, many of them women and children. In World War I, civilians accounted for 10 percent of the deaths; in World War II, 50 percent; in Vietnam, 70 percent; and in the Iraq war, civilians account for a huge 90 percent of the deaths. The deaths of some 3,500 of our finest, bravest young soldiers is unacceptable.
The Iraq war is not about helping the Iraqis build a democracy. It is not about protecting the American people. It is not about fighting for our freedom. It is about fighting for the freedom of big oil companies to use the military for a hostile takeover of the rich oil reserves of Iraq. One of the most perceptive of American writers, Herman Melville, stated that a chaplain in the military is as inappropriate as a musket on the altar at Christmas.
JOAN PICARD BLEIDORN
Shorewood, Wis.
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, June 22, 2007