LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 2003
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
FEBRUARY 2003

---

YES, YOU ARE FIXATED

John Kyle [" Your Paper Is Offensive," Letters, January 2003 Faith] describes your paper quite well. He certainly does not say that the Faith is centered on homosexuality. Rather, he states what many of us cannot help but notice, your own personal fixation on homosexuality. Many of us feel that you, paraphrasing classical literature, seem to protest too much, quite likely betraying your own overriding personal issues and letting them control the main focus of your paper. Your paper is offensive, primarily because it is mean-spirited and because it pretends to suggest that your own personal issues and mean-spirited approach are representative of proper Catholic thinking. Instead, the paper merely speaks for you, for your own narrow vision of the Church. Luckily, many other Catholic publications are far more balanced and caring.

Anonymous,
received via e-mail

Editor's note: We never pretend that we speak for anyone but ourselves. However, we do base our arguments on the teachings of the Catholic Church and think we accurately represent them. Perhaps you or someone else would like to help us "broaden" our vision of the Church by demonstrating how we have misinterpreted the teachings of her magisterium? Again, I repeat, our coverage of homosexual issues is a response to the overwhelming advocacy for those issues in society at large and in the Church, in particular. The following letter, I think, bears me out on this. As for my "overriding personal issues" -- you must know more than I do about myself. My wife, the mother of my six children, assures me that she doesn't know what these "personal issues" might be.


DON'T BE A FOOL!

You would really like it for these people to get back in their closets wouldn't you? Don't hold your breath! You might as well face the fact that homosexual people are not going to rest until they achieve full rights in all sectors of life, no thanks to misguided religious fanatics like yourself. There is nothing that you say or do that will alter this societal progress to full individual rights. Canada has moved in that direction, as have many other countries -- no matter if bigots like yourself think this is "not right" according to your stifling religious doctrines -- and so will the socially backward USA come around to giving full rights to all its citizens. It's their muddled religious superstitions that prevent an early resolution to this problem. "If they back off from their activism, we'll back off from our opposition," you say. Don't be a fool. That will not happen. There are many Americans who wish that the blacks had not won their battle against segregation. And I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them.

Tom Stevenson
received via e-mail


SALACIOUS COVERAGE

In your January 2003 issue, writer Phil Sevilla wrote an editorialized column (more than an objective article) about the annual catechetical conference in the diocese of Oakland [see "Bless the Lord, for We Are Good"]. Despite Mr. Sevilla's misleading title, "Bless the Lord, for We Are Good," the theme of the conference was less self-promotion and more of a spiritual celebration of the diocese's 40th anniversary year and the 25th of the pastoral leadership of Bishop John Cummins. In a day-long conference, with some 20-30 or more speakers, including a keynote by Bishop Cummins himself, I'm not sure why Sevilla chose to devote at least half of his critique to my two lowly workshop options. Still, three points should be noted for fairness and clarification.

(1) His main complaint concerning my "moral decision-making" talk seems to be that I told elementary and high school catechists that I could share with them Catholic moral content (i.e., my expertise as a moral theologian), but that I was not claiming to be able to give expert advice in the realm of catechetical methods, the "how to" of teaching this Catholic content in children's classrooms. Because of my candor, Mr. Sevilla accused me of being dishonest, unhelpful, and so on. I thought I was being candid about where my gifts and expertise lie and not claiming to be proficient where I am not.

(2) In the afternoon seminar about "hot topics in bioethics," which he left early, Mr. Sevilla insisted on making a false connection between a clear-cut case of the principle of "cooperation" concerning a nurse in a medical school dilemma, and the much-publicized rape/murder on the streets of New York, in which people who could have intervened and prevented the murder declined to get involved. The two cases are quite distinct, apples and oranges, but Mr. Sevilla chose to conflate and misrepresent the situation to your readers.

(3) Finally, and this seemed most bizarre, while neither of the two workshops were on sexual issues, Mr. Sevilla chose to insert a rather graphic quotation from a totally separate sexuality workshop four months prior, out of context, arguably to bring a salacious quality to his journalism. It had absolutely nothing to do with the catechetical conference on which he was reporting. By the way, the comment he quoted, however biologistic, was in fact a clear statement of the official Catholic natural law position about why homosexual sexual acts are considered "disordered" and immoral. Still, I said it on a totally different occasion, in another academic setting altogether, in response to an audience question near the end of a 90-minute in-depth seminar. Why Mr. Sevilla dropped it up front into this article about Oakland's day-long conference, I have no idea.

Father Richard Sparks, C.S.P.,
Newman Hall, Berkeley


SEVILLA RESPONDS:

The title for the article was apt. As Father Sparks suggests, it was about self-promotion! This writer did not attend the bishop's talk expecting that it would be a bland self-congratulatory regurgitation of his social programs dating back twenty-five years. There were 70 workshops that day and, absent powers of bilocation, this reporter had no means to attend them all. Father Sparks' workshops were chosen, specifically, because his talks seemed utterly misplaced in such a conference and because of his notoriety. His heterodox statements at other conferences are well publicized by the Catholic press. Introducing in the article the background of the speaker, including scandalous remarks he has made in other forums, is appropriate and fair game. It shows the quality of speaker the diocese of Oakland chooses to address its catechists.

Regarding Father Sparks' accusation that I made a "false connection" regarding his presentation of "a clear-cut case of cooperation" -- I shall leave it to the readers of the article to judge the appropriateness of the comparison and of Father Sparks' qualifications as a Catholic moral theologian. Let them reflect on Sparks' conclusion that the nurse's decision to stay and merely observe the murder of an unborn child is a "judgment call."

Sparks' accusation that my journalism has a "salacious quality" is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Readers should be aware of Sparks' comments at the L.A. Religious Education conference in 2001. In his own words -- about our Blessed Mother and St. Joseph: "Do you think Joseph ever wanted to jump her bones? Do you think Joseph ever thought, 'God, why can't we consummate this thing?" About our Lord and St. Mary Magdalen: "When I suggested that Jesus might have had a wet dream -- or that Jesus might have had some passion for Mary Magdalen or that Jesus might have dreamed about getting married, if you go -- 'don't say that about Our Lord' -- then you are saying, because thinking those kind of thoughts is not what holy and good people do -- then that says married people are all second-class citizens."


REMEMBER THE PALESTINIANS

The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species. When the modern state of Israel was established, there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago, the number was down to 80,000. Now it's down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.

So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland? We have lost hope, that's why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget. I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see the modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to Paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to Hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel. Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy, this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right, for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we Palestinians don't enter into anyone's calculations. The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone. Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) said: "God Appeared to Abraham and said: 'I am giving you this land,' the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true." House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright: "I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank. I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave." There is a phrase for this: ethnic cleansing.

So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well. since Christ? Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done. Palestinian Christians, Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions -- Muslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha'is -- for centuries. We want to do so for centuries more. But we can't if we are driven out by despair. What we seek is support -- material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost, and few people (the Ashkenazi Jews are one) have lost more than us. But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.

Professor Abe W. Ata,
Melbourne, Australia

TOP