LETTERS
2000 LETTERS ARTICLES
Little Notes |
MAY 2000 LETTERS
CRUCIFIX A CRIME? I've just read "News Notes" for the first time. In the "Confessions" column, Mr. Broderick Barker writes of his discomfort with the display of graphics displaying aborted fetuses. Although he writes that he is sorting out his thoughts on this issue, he states that "displaying photos of dismembered remains somehow seems an additional crime against the murdered child, a wrongful treatment of the victim's body". If wickedness, violence and the display of evil ought not to be seen, I wonder how Mr. Barker feels about the image of Christ on the crucifix? L. Clark, San Diego Broderick Barker's April "Confessions" column on the use of aborted-baby signs calls for a "rest-of-the-story" response. Barker's main objection seems that people are made uncomfortable by seeing the truth about abortion. They then call the signs obscene. As a pro-lifer, I would be more uncomfortable knowing that Planned Parenthood also called the signs obscene in attempt to block their use. (Planned Parenthood has stated that the signs hurt their abortion business.) The signs are as gruesome and horrible as the subject is. In this society how else will people discover the truth about abortion? The pro-abortion media, Hollywood, or the education system will not tell them. Many people -- abortion-minded mothers included -- react in shock when shown the signs. They say they never knew what abortion did to a developing baby; babies have been saved as a result. Public support for a ban on partial-birth abortion grew to a majority when pictures explaining the barbaric procedure became known. Barker should save his words of rebuke not for the pro-life messengers but for the abortionists who actually violate the dignity of the human body by butchering babies. Since Barker confesses he is not on the front line in the abortion battle, I suggest he investigate further by coming to the clinics sometime. He would then see the rest of the story of tough love, as the truth sets people free. Sylvia Sullivan Thank you for Matt Lickona's excellent article [see "Belief and Unbelief at USD," April 2000 News Notes]. If I ever needed reasons not to send my children to USD, that article and the one about Archbishop Quinn provided them. It might cost a little more, but it would be a better investment to send them to the Franciscan University of Stuebenville, the University of Dallas, Thomas Aquinas College, or even someplace that's slowly getting better, like Benedictine College. That way, if my kids did lose their faith--God forbid--I would have no one to blame but them. As for USD, how many parents send their children there, pay ungodly amounts of money, only to see their own darling "Lisas" do ungodly things like becoming Wiccan? Why send a child to a school that celebrates the questioning of the papacy -- as Archbishop Quinn did -- as a "gala event," but where a faithful talk by someone such as Scott Hahn or Curtis Martin would probably be relegated to some out of the way classroom? Thank you for the great service you have done by printing these articles. Brian K. O'Neel The title-- "Anti-Papal Love Fest" [see April 2000 News Notes] -- of your report on Archbishop John Quinn's recent talk at the University of San Diego set the tone for what struck me as petty journalism. Details about which door people entered, where they sat, and the fact that they "chit-chatted together amiably," as well as a partial listing of people in attendance, belong in a society column more than in a serious report about a serious talk. I found Archbishop Quinn's manner, his talk, and his book on papal reform to be respectful and non-inflammatory. He made it clear that he intended his remarks to be part of an ongoing dialogue, not the last word. Among Pope John Paul II's many accomplishments, he will surely be remembered for promoting tolerance and acceptance of people's various beliefs and faiths. It is a shame that News Notes is not able to display tolerance for various opinions within the Catholic Church. Reading such a biased account of this event, which I attended, has convinced me that I will not be able to give credence to any article in your paper. So, please take my name off your mailing list. Carol Reilly I never thought I would side with Hollywood writer-director Kevin Smith over the Catholic League of Bill Donahue, but I must [see "Man Behind the 'Buddy Christ'," March 2000 News Notes]. As a practicing Catholic, I asked the Catholic League for help, and instead of a personal letter or reply, I received numerous requests for monetary donations. The Catholic Church is not perfect, as the Pope has shown us; he asks for forgiveness for past sins. I think the Catholic League should also try to heal wounds that promote their own agenda, whatever it may be. Isn't it time to listen to the legitimate complaints of Catholics who oppose the Catholic League on principle, as Kevin Smith states, and seek reconciliation? Craig Galik Duquense, Pennsylvania We thank God for lay-published Catholic newspapers like yours which expose falsehoods and cover-ups, heresies and sex scandals in the Church, since many of our spiritual leaders not only fail to correct many of these evils, but at times are the guilty parties themselves. Speaking the truth in love is the job of every loyal and orthodox Catholic. Misguided liberals, both in the Church and outside of it, call those who disagree with their views "rigid, mean-spirited, intolerant." Such hypocrisy needs to be exposed! These same people claim to be "loving and tolerant," yet they want to silence those who call evil, evil. Those who leave anonymous phone messages calling you "Nazis, rotten, hateful" are excellent examples of "loving liberals" who need our prayers. Keep up the marvelous and much-needed work. Your love for the Church is evident. C.N. Santos |