LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC







Contents © 2005
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
December 2005

---

TOO BAD

Although I am a practicing Catholic, your newspaper is crossing the line. You are engaging in right-wing politics, and the articles are becoming more and more tainted. I thought I was reading a Baptist position paper. Too Bad.

Jesus preached love, caring, and tolerance. Your newspaper lately engages in zero tolerance. With all the "priest issues," the lack of Church adjusting to the new world, no wonder many of my fellow Catholics are turning to other Christian religions. In addition, third world and minorities are turning to Islam. It's ironic and comical that the Church, as outlined in a number of articles in your paper, is so anti-gay, and the last survey in the public court system from the hideous molestation lawsuits shows the Church acknowledging that they estimate more than 50 percent of priests are gay. Prediction: research and science within five years will prove the DNA around gay issues vs. choice. What does the Church do then? Deny it? Say it's wrong? What if it isn't a Choice?

I love Jesus and try to live his ways every day. I have a great wife and three wonderful children and thank God every day for what I have.

Instead of spending money and time on positioning propositions or the anti-family agenda, take care of the poor and sick.

Robert Sweeney,
Saratoga

Editor replies: I am happy Mr. Sweeney loves Jesus and is a practising Catholic. However, I am puzzled. As a practising Catholic, why does Mr. Sweeney embrace an opinion contrary to the Catholic faith -- which practising Catholics are presumed to profess -- that homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral? And why does Mr. Sweeney shake his head at the Church's lack of conformity to the "new world"? After all, St. Paul (something of an authority for practising Catholics) said, "do not be conformed to this world." I suppose the same would go for Mr. Sweeney's "new world."

I asked Mr. Sweeney to send me evidence demonstrating his prophecy that "research and science within five years will prove the DNA around gay issues vs. choice." Mr. Sweeney, however, did not oblige me. Of course, a connection between DNA and homosexuality, if demonstrated, does not prove that homosexuality is as "natural" as heterosexuality, or that it is good. For what of DNA-related diseases? Because certain diseases can be traced back to DNA, are they thereby rendered as acceptable as health? Are we to cele brate the wonderful diversity that is sickle cell anemia? By the same token, if it should be the case that homosexual desires are related to DNA, are we to say that anal and oral intercourse (which are really what homosexuality is all about) are natural, normal, and good? That this sort of intercourse is the use for which the participating organs were made?

As a practising Catholic, Mr. Sweeney should know that the Catholic Church is not so foolish as to think morality is determined by DNA, the modern man's version of the philosopher's stone. We are more than our genes make us. The Church teaches that the homosexual orientation is not in itself sinful, though it is an orientation to an intrinsically disordered act, which, if carried out, is sinful. One does not have to be a practising Catholic to agree that there is something rather disordered, or at least disorderly, in sodomy and oral sex.

PRAY, DO PENANCE, READ THE CATECHISM

Thank you to Roseanne Sullivan and the Faith for opening our eyes to the astonishing blindness of some of our leaders ("Is Penance Relevant?" November 2005). It's a good reminder of the call to prayer and penance for our bishops and priests. It's also a good reminder that we need to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for ourselves in order to know what the Church truly teaches. Parents and godparents also need to take note: you are responsible for the faith training of your children. Don't rely solely on parish catechists to teach your children!

Catherine Norman,
Fremont

SHOCKING

In the article titled, "Unfair or Very Generous" [October 2005 Faith], you write, "...the diocese agreed to settle all of its alleged clergy sexual abuse cases -- stemming from incidents that were decades old...."

How can the diocese move forward with honesty when it refers to the many victims of its priests as "alleged victims" for abuse committed "decades ago" when there has been so much evidence to the contrary: numerous real victims and many of them in the decade just past. What has endured for decades is the willingness of the diocese to look the other way and tacitly allow those abuses to continue. I honestly find this article shocking.

Please take me off your mailing list at once.

Philippe Fossier,
San Francisco

Editor replies: The diocese did not refer to the victims as "alleged" in the passage cited by Mr. Fossier; we, the Faith, did. Why? Because the lawsuits were settled out of court. Why is this important? Because in American jurisprudence, those accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty; thus, if they are not proven guilty, they are presumed innocent and all accusations against them must be considered, not proven facts, but allega tions. Hence, "alleged victims." This is not to say that do not believe any of the victims or that we think those accused are guilty; but, short of going into the details of every case, we simply do not know who is guilty and who is innocent.

Though there have been cases of sexual abuse in recent years, the cases referred to in the article were decades old.

TOP