2000 LETTERS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January

Little Notes

Confessions
Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 2000
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

JUNE 2000 LETTERS

---

After reading the article by Allyson Smith on St. Sebastian's Angels (March) I was dumbfounded to hear about the inroads the gay agenda has made into the Church and their audacity in criticizing the Church's position on sexual morality.

It is one thing for the laity to be lax in their (our) morality and to be "let off easy," but when some members of the clergy become corrupted and publicly advocate immoral conduct that is a real tragedy and should not be tolerated.

To allow priests like that to remain in a priestly capacity in the Church does us all a disservice and they must be taken out of their positions.

If it hasn't been done, I wish to suggest that a copy of the article be sent to the U.S. conference of Bishops, all Catholic newspapers, to Cardinal Ratzinger, and anyone else in the Church in a position to correct this iniquitous situation.

From what I see in the Southern Cross, I doubt if it would do any good to copy them but, then again, one never knows.

Douglas Byrne
From the Internet


LAIDBACK JEWS

"The Other Counter-culture", by James McCoy is an interesting article and an example of how we Catholics can learn from others. One of the most important missions of the Lubavitcher movement that counter-cultural Catholics can learn from is their witnessing to their co-religionists who are non-practicing Jews in a calm and laidback manner. Too often counter-cultural Catholics come off as strident and taking a sledgehammer aproach to liberal and nonpracticing Catholics. Chabad asks Jews to try to perform at least one commandment then move on to greater participation without judgement or rancor for their less than ideal practice of the faith. We could learn from this approach.

Paul K
from the internet


TAKE A LESSON FROM MARY

This letter is written in response to Broderick Barker's note to Miss De Cristofaro's letter in the April issue:

My dear Mr. Barker, you have missed the point entirely. The point is you should not be veiwing nudity or onscreen sex at all, nor should you be discussing such things. It does not matter how nudity and sex are presented since they should not be presented at all. Discussions concerning the marital act should be kept between husbands and wives.

In the last few decades our society has lost its sense of decency because of the ever increasing onslaught of impure material presented on TV, in the movies, and in print. Do you think God excuses us from partaking in these things just because they exist?

Take a lesson from our Blessed Mother. She who is the beauty of all beauties, the most perfect human being ever formed by God, always appears covered from head to foot. Obviously this is what pleases God. In her apparitions in Fatima in 1917, she spoke of fashions that were going to be introduced that would greatly offend God. Since how we dress can offend God, surely you can imagine how nudity and sex on the screen offend Him. Most often the sex presented is fornication or adultery or even worse. Why would you want to watch sinning? You call that entertainment?

Elizabeth De Cristofaro
Escondido


PRO-LIFERS VS. PRO-LIFERS

It's a pro-abortionist's dream come true: pro-lifers publicly attacking other pro-lifers. This has been occurring in the San Diego area over the past several months, in the form of shrill criticisms made either in the press and/or other public forums by a few pro-life entities and individuals, against pro-life street activists who display graphic images of aborted babies. Broderick Barker's "Confessions" column ("Is Violence Obscene?") in the April 2000 News Notes is the latest example.

Mr. Barker condemns the public display of photos of aborted babies by labeling such images as obscene. Just as pro-abortionists do, he also equates showing such images with violence itself: "Secondary to the question of the obscenity of these images is the question of their effect. I believe that violence, though sometimes unavoidable, begets violence, and by extension, violent images provoke violent reactions. This may be the desired effect; apathy is a real enemy." Here Mr. Barker also implies that those who display such images may be hoping to provoke a violent reaction from viewers. Although he accuses demonstrators who display graphic baby photos of being inflammatory, he himself makes an inflammatory statement, apparently without having asked the demonstrators themselves about the reaction they hope to provoke. Such a statement plays very neatly into the hands of the pro-abortion movement, which incessantly portrays even the most nonconfrontational pro-life demonstrators as violent and dangerous. This ploy is part of the pro-abortion movement's ongoing effort to end all forms of public pro-life witness through legislative and judicial suppression of pro-lifers' First Amendment rights.

A local example of abortionists attempting to violate the First Amendment rights of pro-life street activists is Planned Parenthood's current lawsuit and injunction against pro-life demonstrators outside of its Mission Valley killing center. This legal action was aimed primarily at, but not limited to, demonstrators with the gory aborted baby signs. It is quite possible that, if PP wins this suit, the banning of the gory signs would simply be the first step in PP gradually blocking all forms of pro-life presence outside its mill. However, the conclusion drawn from this case by some local pro-lifers seems to be that refraining from displaying the gory signs will appease abortionists, and therefore they will no longer harass pro-life demonstrators. Some local pro-lifers have been so intimidated by this suit that they no longer use any pro-life signs of any kind and others have been permanently frightened away from any activity outside of PP. Of course, that is precisely PP's objective: at a minimum, to get rid of the gory signs and ultimately, to intimidate all pro-lifers into permanently staying away from its killing center.

I don't believe it's any coincidence that the public anti-sign rhetoric by some pro-lifers against their fellow pro-lifers has escalated noticeably since PP filed this lawsuit last spring. I have also noticed that some local pro-life activists now seem anxious to distance themselves from their fellow pro-lifers that use the gory signs. I believe that both of these developments are, in part, rooted in fear of what step abortionists might take next against pro-lifers. Such fear is quite natural and understandable, since PP's tactics against legal, peaceful picketers in this case are frankly terrifying. The same can be said for many other abortionists' suits against legal, peaceful demonstrations. So, to my fellow pro-lifers, I say: It's okay to be afraid to use the aborted baby signs or engage in other forms of pro-life street activism. Besides, not everyone is called to be on the front lines, and there are many other ways to support the pro-life cause. But please don't try to disguise your fear by lashing out at your fellow pro-lifers who are not afraid to use the gory signs or engage in street activism in general.

Moreover, if there was ever a time when all local pro-lifers needed to rally around their fellow activists, it is now, because, regardless of how one feels about the signs, the Constitutional rights of the defendants in the PP lawsuit are clearly being violated. Those of other pro-lifers may well be trampled on next, if there isn't more solidarity among the local pro-life ranks. A word of advice to pro-lifers who think abortionists can be appeased by not using gory signs: Appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis by Britain's spineless prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, obviously didn't work, and it won't work with people whose vocation is killing babies.

My own opinion in this debate is that, since every human psyche is different, some approaches probably work better with some people than with others, and different approaches are suited for different situations. There are numerous verified instances of babies having been saved and minds and hearts having been changed by viewing the gory signs; others may well have been turned off, but no technique ever works one hundred percent of the time. The pro-life movement is a large, grass roots phenomenon and it's inevitable that there would be differing approaches to activism. My quarrel is not with those activists who do not use the gory baby signs. In fact, I have the greatest admiration for veteran pro-lifers who have spent many hours on the street, but don't use such signs. Locally the street activists who use the gory signs and those who don't usually work out ways to accommodate or work around each other. In short, "in house" differences of opinion among pro-lifers on this issue are one thing. It's quite another matter to publicly chastise fellow pro-lifers simply for using legal tactics different from another group's. It sows division in pro-life ranks and isolates, demonizes and demoralizes selected groups of law-abiding pro-lifers, not to mention providing aid and comfort to the pro-abortionist camp and very conveniently focusing attention away from the 4,000 acts of violence that occur daily in the abortion mills. By the way, I have never yet seen or heard any criticism of pro-life street activists who don't use the gory signs by those who do. It's also interesting to note that locally, the public attacks on the gory signs usually come from pro-lifers who rarely or never participate in any street activism themselves, as is the case with Mr. Barker. Thank you, Mr. Barker, for being honest on this point.

Besides fear of legal retribution from abortionists, I believe that another factor in the condemnation of the gory signs by some pro-lifers is the success of twenty-seven years of incessant news media propaganda that portrays such tactics as fanatical. As evidence I cite another of Mr. Barker's statements: "But the apathetic often recoil at the sight of what they see as fanaticism, and if there is some real objection to be made to this display [of gory signs], they may be more likely to regard pro-lifers as fanatical." The reality is that many Americans view anyone who believes that human life is sacred and inviolate from conception to natural death as a fanatic, regardless of whether or not that person displays gory signs or engages in any other form of street activism. Attempts to distance themselves from certain forms of legal pro-life activism by publicly condemning them will not spare Mr. Barker and similarly minded pro-lifers from being labeled as fanatics, although they certainly have a First Amendment right to make such condemnations.

Those "fanatical" pro-life activists who use the gory baby signs are in noble company. Msgr. Edward Kavanagh of Sacramento, a Catholic priest, became a celebrity of sorts in California pro-life circles upon publication of his razor-sharp response to an invitation to attend an inaugural event for militantly pro-abortion Governor Gray Davis. In January Msgr. Kavanagh picketed a Planned Parenthood luncheon, holding a gory, aborted-baby poster with the caption "Stop the Holocaust Now." Fr. Frank Pavone, another Catholic priest, is the founder and director of Priests for Life, a nationwide pro-life organization. He just completed a two-year stint in Rome coordinating pro-life activities for the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family. In April Fr. Pavone served as a prayer leader for pro-life demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court building during the Court's partial-birth abortion hearing. These demonstrations included displays of aborted baby signs. He has written a letter of endorsement for the Center for Bioethical Reform's current campaign of bringing gigantic banners displaying graphic images of aborted babies to college campuses. Fr. Pavone also sits on the CBR's board of directors.

Consider the photographic images of starved, mutilated, tortured, gassed and charred bodies of Nazi concentration camp victims, which are often shown in documentaries on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. They are shown, of course, to educate viewers on the historical events that produced such a horrendous result, in the hope that such horrors will not be repeated. However, according to Mr. Barker's reasoning, such images should never be shown:

"Displaying photos of dismembered remains somehow seems an additional crime against the murdered child, a wrongful treatment of the victim's body." Consider that, under both Hitler and Roe v. Wade, millions of innocent people have been put to death at the whim of someone else due to the legalization and institutionalization of utilitarian philosophies.

Of course, anyone who participated in meaningful public opposition to Nazi policies ended up in a camp himself or was otherwise imprisoned or executed, but just suppose that a few souls had somehow managed to put on a large public display of the above-mentioned gruesome photos near Nazi concentration camps, hoping to puncture Nazism's culture of denial (very similar to our own), educate ignorant members of the public and arouse some opposition to Nazism's extremely legal but unspeakably evil policies. Would Mr. Barker now be condemning these concentration camp protesters? Would he accuse them of having displayed obscenity, violated the dignity of the body, set wicked things before people's eyes and objectified the victims depicted in the photos, as he has accused the pro-lifers who now display similarly gruesome images in front of contemporary America's killing centers?

A pro-lifer
Via the Internet
San Diego


REALLY LISTEN

I am responding to the article "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" and congratulate you on finally opening up to one of the abuses being forced upon us by our conciliatory hierarchy. They, being our pastors and priests, keep telling us that in the spirit of Vatican II we must change from the old, antiquated ways of the past to the new advent. This declaration is usually followed by the happy suggestion that the changes are for a more people-centered involvement and that it will enhance our participation, thus increasing our faith and love of Christ and our separated Christian brethren.

From the sampling of Catholics and bishops in the News Notes article, most would rather have the tabernacle put back at the center of the church behind the altar. If the new thinkers or modernists that I have heard say "we are church" really listened to the Catholic faithful, the tabernacle would be back, front and center, the altar rails would be re-installed, the chalice re-gilded, and the glasses broken -- they would be doing what the people of faith really want. When this is restored I'm sure one of the primary dogmas of our Catholic faith -- the real presence of our Lord -- would jump substantially from the 30 percent and dropping who now believe. The way Jesus is distributed, Communion has been degraded to a mere sacramental.

If you had asked the obvious next question, "and why do you think that the tabernacle was removed from its traditional place of honor and adoration?" my guess is that 90 percent would have no idea.

Jim Haddock
San Diego


CELIBACY IMPOSSIBLE?

News Notes is engaged in work that seeks the reform of the clergy and the Church in general, but the problem is that the sexual lives of secular priests have probably always been the same as now since the establishment of celibacy in the Western Church in the eleventh century. Of course, among the regulars, the cloistered life was celibate by its very nature.

Celibacy is heroic, but there are few heroes in the human race, and by this time, it should be apparent even in the most traditional circles that celibacy is for the very few. I daresay that the next Pope will end it among the seculars. We are deceiving ourselves when we espect normal men to give up sexual activities. If the sexual instinct is denied, it manifests itself as masturbation or homosexuality. I have observed priests who did not even conceal their relationships with women. Why continue a system that fails ninety percent of the time?

The hypocrisy of this situation is unbearable, and it causes young people to apostasize.

Among Protestants, there is just as much sexual irregularity among their clergy as there is among the Catholic clergy, but they at least do not have to worry about vows of chastity.

Am I saying that chastity is impossible and that it is ridiculous? Not in the least. By certain physical and psychological dispositions, certain persons are called to a chaste life, and historical evidence bears this out. Many monastics never struggled against overwhelming sexual desires, and they seemed fit for that kind of discipline. But in a modern world where sexuality has an entirely different emphasis, celibacy is a challenge that very few can met.

Anonymous
San Diego

TOP