LETTERS

LETTERS
March 2004

---

WAKE UP!

I want to commend Stephen Frankini, who in his recent article, "Wise Shepherding or Lack of Commitment: Bishop Ryan, Measure Q, and Catholic Social Teaching" [February Faith], succinctly brought to the attention of us citizens of Monterey County that Bishop Ryan's public advocacy of Measure Q's attempt to save Natividad Medical Center, Monterey County's only county hospital, failed to include the very important fact that said institution does, in fact, commit the sin of abortion. Even I, a Catholic clergyman (though not under Bishop Ryan's jurisdiction), in the hubbub of trying to remind my fellow citizens that Measure Q was not about money but about real, actual lives, failed to note such a glaring omission. For that, Mr. Frankini, I tip my fedora to you.

But I must spend the balance of my letter pointing out to Mr. Frankini, and the Faith's editorial staff, that on the rocky pavement where the Gospel rubber hits the road, mere mainline Catholic disparagement of any and all things that don't accord immaculately with official teaching, simply doesn't fly. If Mr. Frankini had lived as long as I have in Monterey County, and Salinas in particular, where Natividad Medical Center resides, he may not (vain hope, I know) have been so quick to pen the following sentence: "Can a Catholic voluntarily vote for a tax that will fund both health care and abortions?" (Emphasis his.) The question 'round these parts, Mr. Frankini, is not that, but rather: "can a predominantly Latin American tax base, itself by and large existing only marginally above poverty level, conscientiously not vote to keep alive the only medical institution for many, many miles around that is, by state law, required to provide it intensely needed medical care lest death result, and which institution also quite, quite regretably -- morally and gravely regretably -- uses the taxes it receives to perform abortions?" Laboriously delayed question mark, I know, but truth hurts.

Now, I'm not officially defending Bishop Ryan's not having supported Measure Q while at the same time insisting that Natividad Medical Center stop committing the sin of abortion. In fact, I can't, since I'm not even part of his Church, per se. And I'm certainly not going to deny that he allows a whole lot of unacceptably liberal hoo-haw to take place within his diocese (I can think of a certain parish in Pacific Grove, for one). But the last thing I'm going to do is not praise him for remembering that (when it comes to such a hot-button issue, particularly in a county populated with folk who think the Boston Tea Party was the single most important event in all of human history) overtly mixing controversial topics is, quite simply, a bad idea, and particularly if you are a moral and spiritual leader.

Something else Mr. Frankini needs to remember, besides everything stated heretofore, is that the nearest Catholic hospitals to the geographic area Natividad Medical Center serves are approximately an hour's drive away. And once there, insurance would still be a virtually insurmountable obstacle. Remembering the poverty-stricken straits most Natividad Medical Center patrons are in, Mr. Frankini needs to ask himself if these very same, mostly Catholic, patrons should be forced to find themselves in a position where they cannot provide even basic medical care to themselves, their families, and especially their children, and all just so a band of Catholic watchdogs can preen themselves on a major victory over a public institution that had, during its long existence, committed the sin of abortion.

Though the issues are black and white, the problem facing the Catholics of Monterey County is anything but. But when faced with a deeply controversial issue, the toeing of the party line against which would mean the destruction of an absolutely essential public institution, the only response is that which Bishop Ryan has given. To say he is easy on the sin of abortion is ludicrous; he's a Roman bishop, after all. But no one can say he has the great idiotic sense to look at Natividad Medical Center and advocate its disappearance.

Wake up, Mr. Frankini. Wake up, San Francisco Faith. Towing the party line no matter what the cost only makes Christ weep all the more than he already does. Bless you, Bishop Ryan.

Rev M J "Mike" Logsdon, Deacon,
received via e-mail

Editor replies: It seems the Rev. Mr. Logsdon holds that where necessity holds sway there is no room for moral considerations. The hospital is necessary; therefore the fact that murder is performed within its walls is of no practical importance in deciding whether or not to support it with tax money. That the hospital dispenses contraceptives to and performs sterilization on predominately Catholic Latinos -- thus aiding and abetting mortal sins which kill the soul -- should not enter the consideration as to whether or not Catholics should support it. Certainly not, for man lives by bread alone. Physical death is more to be dreaded than spiritual death. Logsdon's point is analogous to that of those who grow impatient with anyone who, in the midst of war, question whether or not the military is using just means; the time to question the justice of a war, they say, is not when one is waging it.

The issues that Logsdon says are "black and white" are precisely the issues one must use to guide particular acts, even in murky situations. The question Mr. Frankini asked is the right question in the situation at hand -- how can a Catholic support an institution that performs and promotes moral evil? Despite the Rev. Mr.'s reading of the article, it does propose a way in which a Catholic could in good conscience support something like Measure Q -- the principle of double effect. Would that Bishop Ryan had invoked this principle and clarified the issue for pro-life Catholics. The measure might have met with less resistance from those who toe the "party line." I cannot speak for Christ, since I am not a member of the clergy as is the Rev. Mr. Logsdon, but I would suggest that ignoring moral considerations probably makes Christ weep "all the more." And more and more.


NOT IN EXILE

The article entitled "What Strings? Are Public Charter Schools an answer to Home School 'Isolation'?" by Eric Reslock [February Faith] was a poorly researched article in terms of presenting options and alternatives to the challenges of home schooling. The comments made by a Betty Crotty that home schoolers are in "their own exile," that "Mom, and Mom alone, does all the work," and the subtle analogy to Andrea Yates is a false representation of real home schooling families.

To suggest there is only one way to home school is like saying that Catholic parents who send their children to public schools are wrong. There are a variety of ways to educate children, and it is the sacred duty of parents to determine which way is meant by God for their family.

Home schooling for my family is not only our academic choice, it is our family life style. Our Catholic faith is the reason for all we do. It is up to the parents to make their family Catholic. No charter school is going to do that. Charter schools only pay some of the education bills, and the choice of curricula is restrictive.

If isolation in home schooling is a concern, there are home school support groups that are designed to encourage parents in this task and to supply the socialization outlets for children and parents. In the San Francisco archdiocese there is a home school support group called Holy Family Homeschoolers. We have First Friday Mass, field trips, park days, Mother's Night Out (dinner and discussion), monthly Fathers and Sons Saturdays, and the beginnings of some cooperative classes. For more information, Holy Family Homeschoolers can be reached by email at HFHomeschoolers@aol.com, and is a chapter member of T.O.R.C.H. (Traditions Of Roman Catholic Homes), which is a support group for families trying to live out faithful Catholic family life styles. There are other TORCH chapters around the Bay Area.

I am not "in exile," nor am I alone. I am a busy mother of seven children, still at home, and I am home schooling six of them. My greatest support comes from my husband who is constantly interested and involved in all aspects of our children's education. He may not teach main subjects during the day, but dinner times are special times of discussion and review. Dad's presence and involvement with our sons is especially needed during the teen years when boys are searching for a masculine identity.

Friends are not to be discounted. My dearest girlfriend, a mother of five, lives one city away and is a sounding board and support for me in the "toughest job I've ever loved."

As for doing all the work alone, that is a fallacy. I would be doing my children a disservice if I did not train them in living skills. In our home, my children do most of the jobs, and I manage and oversee their skills and productivity. This is also necessary for a large family.

As for my last point, I am concerned about the association of home schoolers with Andrea Yates that the article made. God bless Mrs. Yates for the burden of mental illness she carries; but to link home schooling families and mental illness is offensive.

There are many families who are rightfully concerned about ties to charter schools, and it would have been balanced reporting to have included their reasons and their statements.

Jeanne Condon,
received via e-mail

Editor replies: As we indicated at the end of Mr. Reslock's article, the Faith will in the future carry an article further exploring home schooling families' alleged isolation.

TOP