Moral response to crisis
Editor: Praised be Jesus Christ for the article “Bishop Murphy, on behalf of USCCB, urges moral response to financial crisis.” (TLIC 10/1)
Our bishop is to be commended and highly respected for his letter to the Bush Administration and Congress on the financial crisis in our nation. As Catholics, may all of us turn to Jesus Christ for help at Mass, before the Blessed Sacrament, and with countless rosaries; asking Our Lady Queen of the Most Holy Rosary (Oct. 1) for her intercessions so our bishop’s prayers and ours will be answered in this matter. May we never forget that the rosary is our greatest weapon against all evil.
By the power of the Holy Spirit, may Washington and Wall Street respond by considering the moral aspects of this current crisis; that by God’s grace they will take responsibility and accountability for this crisis, and that they will act immediately, to God’s glory, in answer to Bishop Murphy’s letter and all of us praying to rid America and the world from this evil.
Eileen Therese Ballerano, St. James
Who is ‘legal’?
Editor: “Throw out ‘invaders’” (TLIC 10/1) might very well have been written by the pre-Columbian residents of this continent. I wonder whether the Algonquin ‘Indians’ thought of us as legal immigrants.
Leo Marcotte, Massapequa
Movie ratings misleading
Editor: I have just returned from watching “The Duchess,” a film rated A-III (adults) by the movie branch of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (TLIC, 9/24). I am disappointed, baffled and even angry. This is not the first time such “Catholic” ratings turn out to be misleading! This movie includes three quite explicit sexual encounters, one of them with homosexual overtones, plus a rape (not as explicit, but suggestive enough).
The “L” rating is supposed to warn regarding the content that may make a movie upsetting to a Catholic sensibility. Yet, it does not seem to be employed to this end when needed. These ratings (of A-III) are clearly influenced by the low standards and level of tolerance of the rest of the media evaluations. This movie is rated PG-13 in the other rating categories. Should our 13-year-olds be exposed to such provocative material? This is not only outrageous, but indeed upsetting.
Sara Garcia, Coram
Living green is pro-life
Editor: With great interest I have followed the spirited exchange of letters in this paper. It is encouraging to know that other people of faith are also struggling to discern and let the Gospel guide their involvement in the political arena. I was amazed to read the concept of global warming dismissed as “junk science” in K. Stuart’s letter (TLIC 9/17).
The pope has addressed this issue at World Youth Day, and this week affirmed that people have a “duty to protect the treasure of Creation, and to be determined in opposing the indiscriminate use of the world’s goods.” As a community that proclaims stewardship to be a “way of life,” the Catholics of this diocese should be models of “living green,” both at home and in public life. Perhaps it is less of a challenge to lobby for change in the behavior of others than to embrace an issue which will affect our daily behaviors, but we must endeavor to do everything we can to follow Jesus well. The good people who rescue discarded baby equipment from curbsides, who clean and repair the items and donate them to the Life Center, are models of pro-life Christians who “live green.”
Jeanne Monsees, Central Islip
President doesn’t ‘favor' death penalty
Editor: Correspondents have stated that George W. Bush favors capital punishment. Mr. Bush does not favor capital punishment any more than he favors life in prison. He realizes that both are undesirable but sometimes necessary. Capital punishment guarantees that the person will no longer kill. Life in prison does not. There have been prison breaks and crimes committed while in prison.
As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush’s decisions not to commute death sentences were always fair and just.
Joseph & Mary Vallone, Holtsville
Latin, pro and con
Editor: In response to the letter from Margaret Lorenz, “Why Latin?” (TLIC 9/24): She grew up with Latin Mass, didn’t understand it, and felt like a “puppet” because she had to “kneel, stand up, sit, and so on.” It sounds as if she has a very muffled vision of what the Roman Catholic religion is all about.
Last year when our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI made the decision to be in agreement with having traditional Latin Mass more accessible to our parishes, in my opinion, was and still is wonderful news. I was born in the 1960s, and the only Mass I am familiar with is Vatican II liturgy, but I find myself intrigued by the Latin language. I also enjoy listening to Gregorian chant music (even though I may not understand the language, I find it relaxing, mysterious, spiritual and intoxicating.) My mother went all through Catholic school, and Latin was a part of her educational curriculum. I actually feel a little cheated that I never learned Latin, but I am open to learning it, if the opportunity was presented to me, and it would be a tradition I can carry down to my children.
I do agree with a particular viewpoint as to why Latin should have been retained in the Catholic Mass: Latin is the distinctive tongue of the Catholic faith, which unites all Catholics throughout the world regardless of their national tongue. We, as Catholics, should be able to go anywhere in the world and feel “at home” in any Catholic Church, and having Latin incorporated into the Mass makes perfect sense to me.
Patricia L. Maloney, Hicksville
Editor: In response to the letter of Oct. 1: Latin cannot unify. I am sure I am older than this correspondent. Yes, I had a missal such as she described. I understood some of the Latin.
After Vatican II, my husband and I were in a foreign country, and my husband said, “What is this? I can’t understand this language.” I responded: “How often are you here in this country? What is important is that the people here understand.”
I felt then and still do now that the language is best in the language of the people.
Oneness in the Church is not dependent on a universal language, but on belief, holiness and apostolic succession. Latin is not the answer to unity.
Georgia Priebe, St. James
The debate continues
Editor: The presidential election is a crucial one for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision because there is a very good probability that the incoming president will be nominating either one or two Supreme Court justices to replace the justices who will be retiring.
If justices are selected who recognize human embryos as human beings and not disposable tissue, the likelihood of reversing this horrific decision is great. As the justices said at the time, if personhood can be established, the Roe v. Wade case would collapse. (An interesting note: Norma McCorvey herself, the Roe of Roe V. Wade, is working to have the decision overturned.)
If justices are nominated who deny the God-given rights of the pre-born, then the process will be delayed. The result will be more deadly pain for those who cannot speak for themselves, and also their families.
Kate & Bob Sommers, East Islip
Editor: I commend St. John’s parish, Bohemia, for an informative six-page document made available to all parishioners. The document, “Voting Together for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics” is I believe a summarized version of a lengthy discourse issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The condensed version is clearly written, referenced to authentic Church doctrine, and serves well in alleviating the confusion felt by many Catholics.
This confusion, present in all recent elections, was exacerbated by the ill-conceived statements of the Supreme Knight, Carl Anderson (TLIC 8/13), who urges all Catholics to vote for a pro-life candidate over one who is not pro-life, regardless of other inherent issues. The result, among others, has been a spate of letters to this paper supporting and disagreeing with his position. Clearly, lack of knowledge and confusion reigns among the faithful considering this issue.
In urging all Catholics to inform their conscience, apply prudence and vote for the common good, this document quotes Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) who stated, “It could be acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate if proportionate reasons exist and the voter is voting based on these reasons and not the candidate’s pro-choice beliefs. It is never permissible to vote for a candidate merely because of that candidate’s position in favor of legal abortion.” (delivered in June 2004 to U.S. bishops) The document identifies some issues of importance to Catholics such as abortion, death penalty, nuclear disarmament, poverty, war, discrimination, immigration, human and workers’ rights and the environment. It is not intended to equate all such issues, as abortion is a basic tenet of the natural law. But other important issues, with Catholic doctrine and natural law implications, should also be considered by Catholics and all voters.
John Segovia, Oakdale
|
