LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
OCTOBER 2001

---

WHAT SHOULD CATHOLIC CHARITIES DO?

Catholic Charities is being told that it must compromise its faith ["Occasion of Sin," September Faith]. The religion of the state overrides all. So what is Catholic Charities to do? The long list of martyrs, and why they chose death over compromise should give us a clue. Catholic Charities should make it crystal clear that it will not compromise. If the only alternative is to close its doors, then close its doors! Yes, I am fully aware of the consequences.

John Peacock

Fremont


THE COMPANY YOU KEEP

I found your news item on Gerald Keane's talk interesting ["Australian Origins Writer...," September Faith]. However, I was afraid it would leave readers with the impression that Catholics have to be young-earth creationists. I was a little troubled by his quote about Catholics having to believe in 24-hour creation days. Maybe in his talk he addressed how time could be measured in days for the first three days of creation, when the sun was created on the fourth day "to separate the day from the night" (Gen 1:14) but this explanation did not fit in a short news item. I was also bothered by the fact that he seemed to present catastrophism as the opposite of evolutionism, when catastrophism is the name of one category of evolutionary theory held by some contemporary mainstream scientists. I would suggest that Catholics interested in the creation/evolution debate check out a wonderful book by Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. This book (actually, a collection of homilies he gave on the subject) used to be published by Ignatius, but is now published by Eerdmans (800-253-7521). I got my copy at the Daughters of St. Paul bookstore. In these homilies, Cardinal Ratziner shows how the Genesis account of creation is so true and yet does not have to be taken strictly literally.

Also, people should keep in mind the company one keeps when getting involved in creationism. Protestant creationist writings are full of hateful diatribes against several notable "papists" whom they blame for promoting the idea of evolution -- including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both of whom apparently believed that God created the raw materials of the world and watched it grow over a long period of time. Of course, these saints did not believe we "accidentally" evolved from monkeys (and neither do I). There are many respected scientists who are credibly questioning the idea of Darwinism/natural selection (such as Michael Behe's molecular biology-based challenge), but none who are arguing for a 6,000 year-old world. You will only hear this young-earth theory from Protestant fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the only valid science book. However, Catholics have always taken a broader view of how God reveals his truths.

Anonymous


NOT A CATHOLIC WRITER

I noticed in your July/August 2001 issue that you published an article written by Scott Lively [see "'Gay Days' at Santa Rosa High" July/August Faith]. I know Scott personally, and very much admire and agree with what he is trying to do in the realm of public policy. However, Scott is not Catholic, and although I don't believe him to be anti-Catholic, he does hold doctrinal beliefs that are at odds with the Catholic Church (e.g., sola scriptura, salvation by faith alone, rejection of the authority of the Magisterium etc.). As it is the stated mission of SF Faith to evangelize non-Catholics and to report what is occurring within the Church, it concerns me that you would not only publish an article written by a non-Catholic author, but also provide a link to that author's website which, to some extent, attempts to evangelize people to protestant Christianity. I understand that a good article is a good article, whomever it is written by.

However, if SF Faith is to stay true to its stated mission, I would suggest that in the future, any published articles written by a non-Catholic be designated as such so as not to confuse people as to what Catholicism means and stands for.

Sincerely,

Roger Ho

Sacramento, CA


STEM CELL RESEARCH A CRUEL HOAX

Pro-life people strive daily to foster a respect for all human beings that transcends that individual's currant medical, emotional, social, economic condition in life. We have taken a position of opposition to the creation and use of embryonic stem cells for research and cloning since that is disrespect for individual human life and is destructive of the individual being created for merely utilitarian purposes. Three major religions, Methodist, Catholic and Southern Baptist, representing millions of individual human beings are opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Creating human life in a test tube in order to place innocent, helpless, non-volunteering human beings in the service of others is uncalled for. Science tells us that there are ways to use the stem cells of living, grown, volunteering human beings to advance the cause of science and cures. It is the cruelest of hoaxes to hold out hope to spinal cord injury victims the hope that stem cells from fetal babies are their only chance of a normal life.

Camille Giglio

Walnut Creek


WHAT ABOUT VACCINATIONS

In the article "The Moral Status of a Stem Cell," [July-August Faith] Dr. Michael D. West is quoted as saying that if we approve of vaccinations made from aborted-fetus cell lines, we also have to approve of embryonic stem cell line research. It seems that there is a fundamental contradiction here, as individual US bishops have made it virtually everywhere mandatory for children admitted to Catholic schools to have those kinds of vaccinations. Are the US bishops acting against the Vatican directive Donum Vitæ by approving of such vaccinations? If not, then there is nothing wrong with embryonic stem cell line research, either. If they are, then the US bishops should be opposing aborted-fetus cell vaccinations as well.

Stefanie Bean

Webster Groves, MO


TIME TO WAKE UP

Just came across the December 1999 newsletter online. How nice to see coverage of my case against the Jesuit order. A shame, though, that such denial still exists about the degree to which the Roman Catholic priesthood in the United States (and not just in the Jesuit order) is a gay entity. In my eight years as a Jesuit, I recall meeting very few priests or seminarians--in any order or diocese--who were not gay. Time to wake up.

John Bollard

Los Angeles

TOP