LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 2003
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
JULY/AUGUST 2003

---

A DUTY PARENTS NEGLECT

I thought Camille Giglio failed to communicate why Senator Vasconcellos, Rob Reiner, and similarly opinionated individual efforts threaten the Catholic tradition [see "State of Esteem," June Faith]. In a world where secular humanism abounds and is, regrettably, the norm, many parents do not understand the threat of these legislative efforts. We are too used to handing our children's education, and thus our responsibility as parents, over to the government. This robs parents of the opportunity to educate our children "in the way they should go," a duty many parents (though perhaps, less so, Faith readers), increasingly neglect. They are taken in by the new tradition of public education. And this school of politicians, largely non-Catholic and Democratic, supported by the professional educators, now want to further encroach on the home by instilling these values at the very same crucial preschool and early education years when children should be entirely under the instruction of their parents.

But without activism on the part of parents, the California Master Plan for Education is well on the road to being implemented. Hopefully the threat of the numerous other bills mentioned in this article to promote and maintain chastity among our young adults is obvious. I urge the readership to consider the purpose of their children's education. I believe it is not to make my children feel good about themselves, but to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to gain wisdom and understanding from a Christian worldview, to develop their relationship with Christ, to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance regarding their role in His body, and all within the tenets of the church. In order to retain a clear conscience about protecting this opportunity for all parents, I have voiced my opinions on these numerous bills to my legislative representatives. I hope others will do the same. Hopefully it is not already too late.

Jeannette Foley,
received via e-mail


BEST STORY YET

I have been getting the Faith for several years now, and I must say I feel that the article, "Sweet Deeds of Mercy" [May issue] by Eric Reslock, was the best I've read so far.

How wonderful it was to learn of Thelma Orias and the Divine Mercy chapel! Surely, Thelma Orias exemplifies the spirit of our faith in saying, "let us change the word 'burden' to 'gift.' All that we are doing for the Divine Mercy are sweet gifts from our Lord to glorify His name through us." That is respect for the sanctity of life.

And kudos to you for printing her story!

Rachel Fong,
received via e-mail


NEW OXFORD AD UNLOVING

I was saddened to see an "advertisement" for the New Oxford Review, that was both inflammatory and in truly bad taste, on page 4 of your April issue. It contained a lot of fearful pronouncements and many unloving statements. As a faithful believer in Christ, one who takes to heart his commandment to Love, I have to wonder about the quality of Faith and Love that exists in your organization, an organization that would allow such an "ad" to be printed.

I am sorry for you and pray you all will grow to see the light of Christ in the heart of every person you meet, regardless of his or her sexual orientation. Our Lord would do no less!

Michael Knotz II,
Sebastopol

Editor replies: It is noteworthy that Mr. Knotz criticizes the New Oxford Review's "The Lavender Mafia in the Priesthood" advertisement for being "inflammatory," "in truly bad taste," for having "a lot of fearful pronouncements" and "many unloving statements." Yet, Mr. Knotz never once says that what the advertisement says is untrue. If what the advertisement says is true -- that the admission of homosexuals into seminaries and the rejection of orthodox candidates are at the root of the clerical molestation crisis -- is it somehow unloving to say it? But, perhaps, Mr. Knotz is not so offended by what the advertisement says but by how it says it. The advertisement uses terms like "sodomites" and "flamers," and displays a rather humorous caricature of a "flamer" cleric. Such a treatment of homosexuality would be unloving if, indeed, practicing homosexuals were merely the victims of some unfortunate condition over which they have no control. But while many homosexuals may have had no control over what the Church calls their objective disorder, they do have control over their actions, which are gravely sinful and just plain perverse. By their actions, practicing homosexuals make a mockery of themselves, of nature, and of God -- so, how can one be blamed for merely pointing that out? Is it necessarily unloving to tell someone he is not only making an utter fool of himself, but destroying himself in the process?

Yet, I fear, that so loving and faithful servant of Christ as Mr. Knotz is not being entirely forthright about his objections to the advertisement -- which is really quite mild in its tone. I suspect that Mr. Knotz doesn't like the advertisement because he disagrees with what it says. Mr. Knotz seems to think that the light of Christ shines in all equally, regardless of their sexual orientation (which, I assume, means regardless of how one acts on his orientation, since Mr. Knotz makes no further distinctions. While one who has a homosexual orientation, but does not act on it, may be as holy or holier than anyone else, one who commits homosexual acts has not the light of Christ, just like one who commits other gravely sinful acts. To have the light of Christ dwelling with him, one must repent of his acts and resolve to sin no more. To say otherwise may seem more loving, but it is not in line with the love and truth of Christ, as revealed through the teachings of His Church.

TOP