| |
 |
|
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:
|
|
|
Teach the faith
The front page of the Oct. 18 Voice addressed a survey
by Pew Research indicating Catholics on average know less about their
faith and the faith of others than do atheists and agnostics.
Early last year, I wrote a letter to The Voice on this same subject, in
response to some who suggested our catechetical efforts in our schools
and faith formation programs where “just fine.” This survey
convincingly points out that we do have a serious problem. Too many of
our young people are completing their Catholic formation and entering
adult life without knowing what Catholics believe or why we believe it.
Our diocese should make effective formation a top priority. A good start
would be to determine the extent of the knowledge gap by annually administering
a standardized assessment in all parishes and schools. Each parish and
school would then evaluate the results to improve curriculum and train
staff as appropriate.
No need to test every grade. Start with eighth grade and then develop
more advanced tests for adults who may wish to better understand their
faith.
Knowledge of doctrine and dogma is not the end of our journey as Catholics;
it is just the beginning. However, without a solid understanding of the
basics of our faith, we are leaving our children defenseless against a
hostile secular culture.
Mike McDermott
Concord
Christian emigration
After reading “Alarm over loss of Christians” (Voice, Oct.
19, I have a few questions.
Is it a surprise that Christians are emigrating from Islamic countries,
given the discrimination and hostility aimed at them by the majority populations
and their governments?
Will Christians’ telling Muslims “’what our fears are’”
lead to more tolerance of Christians by Muslims? History tells us it will
not.
Lastly, to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a significant factor
in Muslim intolerance and Christian emigration in the region as a whole
is fallacious. If Israel were 100 percent Christian or 100 percent Muslim,
would the number of Christians in Iraq or Iran increase? Not likely.
David Donovan
Via email
Retiring editor acknowledged
As a long-time reader and the former coordinator of social justice for
the Oakland Diocese, I want to thank Monica Clark, the esteemed editor
of The Catholic Voice, as she moves into retirement. While appreciative
of both her vision and dedication, I am especially grateful for the paper’s
coverage of the local, national and global social justice landscape.
Monica has always raised up the great work of our parishes, schools, and
wider community, whether it was a food collection in an elementary school
or a community organizing project serving a whole county.
She covered the range of stories on peace, life and dignity, immigration,
faithful citizenship and the economy while drawing in the various viewpoints
and reminding us of our roots in Catholic Social Teaching.
The paper also lifted us beyond our local concerns to strengthen our relationship
with the global community. Coverage of global emergencies and development,
the environment, and the international Church always connected to some
action we could take to build solidarity. She has truly been a friend
of the poor, and a prophetic voice for the Church.
Mary Doyle
Berkeley
Clarification from bishops
In the letter from Christine Wise (Forum, Oct. 18), the claim is made
that the California bishops “have a misguided objectionable education
list.” Apparently Ms. Wise did not read the brochure from which
the list was obtained. If she had, she would have noted that the list
did not originate with the bishops—but is verbatim from the California
Education Codes. The brochure states:
“According to California law (Education Code Sections 51240, 51513,
and 51938) a parent or guardian may request that his or her child be excused
from any class, assembly, presentation, discussion, project, survey, extracurricular
activity or program presented by the school district and/or by its agents
which involve any of the following.”
What follows is a list that includes witchcraft; showing of R, NC-17 or
X-rated films; yoga — and a plethora of other possible topics that
could be the subject of “classes, assemblies, presentations, discussions,
projects, surveys, activities or programs.”
Our lawmakers saw fit to list all of those subjects in the codebooks because
they had at one time been objected to in a public school classroom.
Likewise, in another letter on the same subject, Father Ronald Schmit,
takes issue with the “list,” criticizing the bishops for “creating
fear and sensationalism rather than inviting rational conversation.”
Repeating what I mentioned above — the list came directly from the
California Education codes, not from the bishops.
The bishops know that most of California’s Catholic families have
their children in the state’s public schools rather than in Catholic
or other private schools. The bishops support public schools and laud
the many dedicated public school teachers who serve our children. The
brochure was an information piece which sought to remind parents that
they are the first and foremost educators of their children and that they
need to be carefully monitoring their children’s activities.
We thank both Christine Wise and Father Schmit for raising the issue of
how the “list” was perceived. We did not intend to imply that
the Catholic bishops find everything on the list objectionable. I believe
we have clarified that.
Edward E. Dolejsi
Executive Director
California Catholic Conference
In defense of public schools
I was delighted to see Father Ronald G. Schmit (Forum, Oct. 18) stand
up for the public school system. I am a cradle Catholic and a product
of public education. Like Father Schmit, I am a proud supporter of public
education. My husband, myself and our two children have all attended public
school and “witchcraft” or “teaching sex acts”
was never offered as part of the curriculum.
As the laity, our mission is to bring Christ to those in our work or school
environment. How can we fulfill this mission in a positive way when the
Church asks us to “attack windmills, thinking they are ferocious
giants.”?
I applaud Father Schmit for his willingness to say what others may only
think. The Church needs more free-thinking priests like Father Schmit.
Sali Carty
Via email
Parents are primary teachers
The many letters in defense of public schools appear defensive in
nature, in disproportion, and unnecessary given the parent’s
rights to be informed and involved in their children’s education.
The Sept. 20 Voice article clarifies that parents and guardians have the
right to “opt out of many influences and classes that contradict
their family values.” The California bishops are shepherding their
flock when they empower parents to fulfill their duties as primary educators
of the faith. “The role of parents in education is of such importance
that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitution.”
(Gaudeum et Spes 3)
The Voice article and bishops are not attempting to “misguide and
misrepresent the schools,” rather they are fulfilling their primary
role as successors to the apostles.
Therefore, the parents should be closely connected with their
bishop as the Church is attached to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ
is to the Father.
The primary goal of the California bishops is not to discredit
the public school system; rather it is to empower parents to
play an active and informed role in educating their children. Parents know
their children best: parents are equipped with the grace conferred
from God to lead and protect their children. To deny this fundamental
gift and right is to separate the beautiful purpose and meaning of
parenting.
I want to acknowledge and affirm the California bishops for taking
a leadership role in order to aid parents. This will ultimately strengthen
families and lead us to our salvation.
Peggy Murray
Antioch
Relative morality taught
As the primary educators for their children, parents need to be aware
of what their children are being taught in the schools. Unfortunately,
my experience as a parent of six children attending public schools was
not as pleasant as the experience of the reader (Forum, Oct. 4) who had
concerns about irresponsible reporting by The Voice.
While public schools have merits in teaching math, science, and the arts,
I had to “opt out” my children in several public school programs.
Critical thinking sessions taught relative morals. Although the primary
purpose of public schools is to teach morals, there were no absolute moral
standards.
For example, in discussions about suicide, if a student expressed the
idea that suicide was acceptable, that opinion was fine with the teacher.
The teacher did not teach the students that life is precious and that
suicide would hurt your friends and family.
Another classroom exercise was to discuss a scenario with 10 people in
a boat and only food for nine. The question was, “Who would you
throw overboard?” Again, there was no absolute correct answer. Many
students thought that the old man should be sacrificed. The correct moral
answer to share the food and try to keep everyone alive as long as possible
was not even considered.
In sex education classes, sex outside of marriage was OK if you felt ready
and used condoms. Responsible sex was not necessarily waiting for marriage,
but simply using contraceptives. Teachers did not teach students that
sex was sacred and intended for marriage.
If you believe that moral relativity, fornication, homosexual acts, contraception
and abortion are not serious matter for sin, than a parent would have
no reason to “opt out” their children from these classroom
activities. Your child may be regarded by the secular world as an ideal
citizen and outstanding students, but he/she would fall short of Catholic
moral standards.
Thomas Lenz, MD
Clayton
Cup not contaminated
I was very saddened to read the letter (Forum, Oct. 18) questioning receiving
the Holy Eucharist under both species. The Bible is very clear on Jesus’
words at the Last Supper when He offered His Body and His Blood and then
tells us to take them.
Vatican II served to reinforce this understanding but respects that not
everyone is comfortable with this option. Making the Cup available is
especially important for those who are medically unable to receive the
Host. Regarding children, the Eucharist is available to all, regardless
of age.
Jan Conway
Alamo
Purifying the Cup
I have distributed the Blood of Christ for 15 years in my church. Communicants
come week after week. I hope that they are responsible enough not to receive
if they are sick. (Forum, Oct. 18).
First, hygiene is practiced in all places of meeting by sufficiently ventilating
the premises. All priests wash their hands in the lavabo before Communion.
All Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion can wash their hands in
the sacristy before Mass as well as using a purifier before distribution.
The materials are of metal, usually 14kt gold. Metal is not porous, therefore
avoiding contamination.
All vessels are purified by priest or instituted acolyte. Alone the alcohol
in the wine kills germs.
Lillian Silver
Walnut Creek
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
|
