| |
 |
|
Contributions to Reader's Forum should be limited to 250 words.
Letters must be signed and must include the writer's address and
phone number for verification purposes. All letters are subject
to editing.
Mail your letter to:
The Catholic Voice
2121 Harrison St., Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94612
FAX: (510) 893-4734
Email letters to:
|
|
|
The worst scandal
Although it pains my 75-year old cradle-Catholic heart to say so, Pope
Benedict XVI needs to resign as Bishop of Rome. I believe he must do so
to save his/our Church from the worst scandal of its history.
But, before he goes, Benedict should do three things:
1) Remove Cardinal Bernard Law from the position John Paul II famously
gave him after Cardinal Law left Boston in disgrace.
2) Remove from any position of authority all other bishops throughout
the world whose glaring sins of omission enabled the horrors of child
abuse to proliferate.
3) Adopt throughout the Universal Church the U.S. Church’s standards
of zero-tolerance, immediate reporting to civil authorities, and removal
from the priesthood of abusers.
Our beloved Catholic Church can no longer be held hostage by a hierarchy
that places defense of the institution above the defense of its children.
Such an institution does not deserve to be called Christian.
Jesus Christ made it crystal clear how he viewed abuse of His “Little
Ones.” Jesus made it equally clear that His apostles were to be
the servants of His followers. He spoke not one word about preserving
the hierarchy of the Church founded in His name.
Jesus led by bold example, driving moneychangers from the Temple. It is
time for Peter’s successor to act boldly, in the name of Jesus.
Regrettably, Benedict’s leadership path in bringing the Church back
to a credible fresh start, leads him through the steps of resignation.
James K. Brennan
Walnut Creek
Unwise decision
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the historic health
care reform bill. The Catholic Health Association, which represents
more than 2,000 Catholic hospitals and medical providers, endorsed the
bill. A group of 60 nuns from orders they say represent 59,000 Catholic
Sisters endorsed the bill. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic Michigan Democrat
holdout, endorsed the bill.
To the end, the U.S. Conference of Catholic of Bishops did not endorse
the bill; thus, the bishops joined with the Republican Party in its opposition
to a comprehensive overhaul of the American health care system. This decision
could prove to be a very unwise. In many ways, it is like the American
nation has moved forward, while the Conference of Bishops has stayed entrenched
and behind.
George Fulmore
Concord
Unwarranted concerns
After reading the March 22 issue of The Catholic Voice and after listening
to media coverage regarding the Health Care Reform Bill, I again became
disappointed in the stance that the Catholic bishops have taken towards
the bill. My understanding is that federal funds will not be used for
abortion.
The concerns of the bishops, to me, seem to be unwarranted. Why are their
concerns strictly focused on the abortion language? Should they not have
also considered how many millions can be affected in a positive way
as well?
I feel the bishops need to be reminded that having the “pro life”
position does not only apply to the unborn. The fact that bishops/clergy have
covered up priest molestations of young children is inexcusable and a
violation of the respect for the sanctity of life for those children
who were affected. To add salt to the wounds of the molested, these
clergymen were not defrocked, but reassigned to other parishes with the
possibility of molestations occurring again. Where does the protection
of all life come into play with these actions?
I feel that the passage of the health reform bill is a good thing. I hope
that in time, as the law moves forward, many will be grateful for its
passage.
Mary Morrissette
Concord
Disturbing discrimination
The item (News in Brief, Voice, March 22) about the children of lesbians
being refused enrollment at a Boulder Catholic school is really disturbing.
Since when did admission to a Catholic education require being even a
baptized Catholic? Within our own Diocese of Oakland, many school enrollments
include non-Catholics.
In the news item referenced, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver is quoted
as saying, “If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church,
or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering
with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.”
Does that mean children of divorced parents, or parents who practice birth
control, or parents who don’t attend Sunday Eucharist, or parents
who differ with some church discipline like clerical celibacy, woman’s
ordination or homosexuality should not be permitted to attend a Catholic
School? If that were the case, we wouldn’t need many Catholic schools
at all.
I am not a big fan of slogans, but “What Would Jesus Say?”
Jesus was about bringing people in — the least, the lowliest, the
marginal. He said He came to give life and give it abundantly. Church
that is the believing community would embrace these children. Would that
the hierarchical Church would do the same.
Marilynne Homitz
Piedmont
Not to be missed
There could not have been a better Easter message than Brian Copeland’s
testimony (Voice, March 22). I feel it should be reprinted in parish bulletins
for all to read who missed it in The Voice. His local presentations of
“Not a Genuine Black Man” are not only entertaining but thought
provoking and inspirational.
Mary McMahon
Livermore
No cell phones in church
I would venture to say that most Christians are aware of the story in
the Scriptures about Jesus overturning the tables of the merchants outside
the Temple. Jesus’ words were, “My Father’s house is
a house of prayer, and you have made it a den of thieves.”
So here we are in 2010 and not much has changed in the disrespect of people
in the Lord’s house. I am speaking of cell phones. More often, the
Mass is rudely interrupted by the ringing of a cell phone, and interestingly
it occurs mostly during the homily.
Recently during Mass at my parish, cell phones rang four times during
the homily and the priest tried to make some kind of a joking excuse and
incorporate it into his message.
For me, and I am sure many others, it is a blatant insult and disrespect
for God, the people and God’s house. Just once, I would love to
hear the priest who is celebrating Mass chastise the guilty party for
the disrespect. If Jesus was physically present at Mass, would cell phone
owners think twice about making sure the phone was turned off or would
they wait for Him to turn them over as He did the tables in his father’s
Temple?
Pam Brady
Pleasant Hill
Trumpet and clashing cymbals
The Lockwood letter (Forum, March 8) decrying use of pianos during liturgy
appears to express a dismal lack of information on the part of the writer
and the writer’s unexplained disdain for this instrument.
His letter makes one wonder how he would handle the use of oboe, harp,
ten-string harp, lyre, ten-string lyre, trumpet, horn, cymbal, drum, strings,
reeds or any of the other instruments listed in the Psalms for the praise
and glory of Yahweh.
In my view, the piano is a harp writ large, though some might argue that
it is a percussion instrument of drum, of sorts.
The best response to Mr. Lockwood lies in Psalm 150:
Praise
God in his temple on earth,
Praise
him in his temple in heaven,
Praise
him for his mighty achievements
Praise
him for his transcendent greatness!
Praise
him with blasts of the trumpet,
Praise
him with lyre and harp,
Praise
him with drums and dancing,
Praise
him with strings and reeds,
Praise
him with clashing cymbals,
Praise
him with clanging cymbals,
Let
everything that breathes praise Yahweh!
Alleluia.
Psalm 150 aside, one must consider that the organ, electric or pipe, is
a very difficult instrument to master and there are very few accomplished
organists around.
Albert Limberg
Concord
Liturgical treachery
One would be hard-pressed to find a piano in an Orthodox church. On the
other hand, one would not find it at all difficult to locate one in a
Protestant church. This is because the use of the piano in liturgy is
really a Protestant invention. Why, as Catholics (Latin-rite or Byzantine),
do we feel so compelled to make our liturgy a music festival filled with
pianos and lutes?
I would joke that perhaps we should include sitars and didgeridoos as
well. Sadly, I am sure that this would be neither a joke nor a novel idea.
If we continue down this path of theological and liturgical treachery,
we will become Protestants. If that is what you want, please don’t
let the door hit you on the way out.
John-Paul Deol
Moraga
Many instruments of worship
Mr. Lockwood (Forum, March 8) has a limited view of worship. I agree that
he should find a worship setting that inspires him, but he is incorrect
in saying the piano is not an instrument of worship, but only for entertainment.
(By the way, organs are also instruments of entertainment.)
Many different instruments are used throughout the world in the Catholic
liturgy. Not only is the piano an instrument of worship, so is the accordion.
And the bandoneon, now associated with the tango, was designed for worship
in German churches that could not afford an organ.
The Psalmist exhorts us to praise God with trumpet sound, harp and lyre,
timbrel and dance, stringed instruments and pipe, and crashing cymbals.
I’m pretty sure that if pianos were around in that day, they’d
be in the line up.
Ann McChesney-Young
Berkeley
Why parish nurses?
A “new” ministry, referred to as the Parish Nurse Program,
has arrived at St. Ignatius Parish in Antioch. The program claims, according
to the March 8 Voice article, to be an additional aid in bringing spiritual
and physical health and healing to parishioners.
In 1996, the L.A. Times wrote about parish nurse program in a Presbyterian
church in Hollywood. The article’s subtitle was: “Clinics
at schools and churches?” It went on to describe the innovative
use of church as the point of contact of potential new clients for government
health and welfare programs.
The parish nurse program, also referred to as Church-Based Health Care,
was developed in the 1980s by Granger Westberg, a Lutheran-trained minister.
It was modeled on programs he visited while accompanying a government
health care fact-finding trip to China.
The internet carries several parish nursing programs and descriptions,
http://www.parishnurse.org/about-the-program.html#philosophy
The parish nurse is described as one who, acting on a level of authority
with the pastor, liaisons between the faith community and the civic community,
forming partnerships outside the church with other community health and
welfare resources. She is an integrator of faith and health. She connects
family members with the community resources she deems necessary including,
in California, Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs.
Parishes have realized financial gain for signing up clients with government
programs.
Is this to be the role of the Church in the 21st century?
Camille Giglio
Walnut Creek
Inflammatory claims
Robert Burke (Forum, March 8) attacked reproductive health care providers’
and advocates’ supposed knee-jerk response to the Tim Tebow Super
Bowl advertisement.
Many groups, not merely pro-choice organizations, did have a problem with
the decision made by CBS to air certain advocacy advertisements, while
excluding others. However, Ms. Tebow’s choice was certainly not
the primary issue in the matter. Yet, Mr. Burke used a broad range of
negative reactions to the TV spot to lump all pro-choice groups together
under a supposed “pro-death” umbrella.
Regarding Ms. Tebow’s choice, Mr. Burke claimed that, “A truly
‘pro-choice’ organization would have congratulated her on
her choice and expressed their hope that all women would be allowed to
make their own choices. Instead, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other
pro-abortion groups went into a ‘shark frenzy’ attack mode
and tried to force CBS into censoring the ad.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Burke’s evidence and argument were fundamentally
flawed.
In a statement released prior to the advertisement’s airing, Planned
Parenthood publicly expressed their support for Ms. Tebow’s decision,
and her ability to make her own choice regarding her reproductive health.
Planned Parenthood stated that, “The Tebows’ story is compelling,
and central to it is the fact that we must respect the ability of every
woman to make important medical decisions for herself and her family,
after receiving counsel from medical professionals, religious leaders,
family members, or others she trusts.”
Mr. Burke chose to rely on false claims to assert his opinion that pro-choice
groups mask a true desire to promote abortion in every circumstance. If
someone chooses to make inflammatory claims, they should at least research
the facts to back them up.
Kristen La Follette
Brentwood
Letters to the editor provide a forum for readers to
engage in an open exchange of opinions and concerns in a climate of respect
and civil discourse. The opinions expressed are those of the writers,
and not necessarily of the Catholic Voice or the Diocese of Oakland. While
a full spectrum of opinions will sometimes include those which dissent
from Church teaching or contradict the natural moral law, it is hoped
that this forum will help our readers to understand better others’
thinking on critical issues facing the Church at this time.
back
to top
home
|
