Father Richard John Neuhaus said Catholic politicians who persist in supporting legalized abortion should be denied Communion. Monika K. Hellwig said that tactic would contribute to the misperception that abortion is a "Catholic issue" when it should be an issue with all candidates.This would have been an interesting seminar, especially if Monica Hellwig was sharing the podium with Fr. Neuhaus.
The guarantee of love is fidelity. If you keep my commandments, said Our Lord, you will abide in my love. Of course, this does not refer to the Ten Commandments only, but to all of the desires of the Good Master. It is a moot question in the spiritual life whether God does or does not give unfailingly the graces of contemplation to a soul that is constantly generous. One author wrote, taking sides in the affirmative: "The perfect life equals the mystical life." There are others who refuse to agree; for them perfection depends not on what one receives but on what one gives. The perfect life, in their opinion, which must seem reasonable to anyone, equals the faithful life.
There is a totality of gift only when the soul refuses God nothing. Where there is a totality of gift, in an earnest and constant manner, there is sanctity-whether God accords or not, as reward for the efforts realized, the free graces of higher prayer or of a more sensible union.
Consequently if God gives me, periodically or habitually, lights or graces which in no way resemble my former states, I must not conclude that I am a saint. God sometimes gives choice grades to very imperfect souls. On the other hand, if God lets me seek Him gropingly in the night, without any of the lights or consolations of Thabor, I must not infer that God loves me less or that I am less faithful, but only that the earth is the earth; that in this land here below I must expect to seek God gropingly, because I shall have eternity for contemplation in light without shadows, and in happiness without alloy.
Perfection equals fidelity. Give me the grace, O my God, to carry fidelity as far as you want me to.
"Thérèse," the new film about St. Thérèse of Lisieux, the Little Flower, will open in St. Louis on Friday, Oct. 1, at the AMC West Olive 16 in Creve Coeur.Please read this article for additional information for ticket sales and group purchases.
Near Review press time, it was announced "Thérèse" also will open on Thursday, Sept. 30, at the Wehrenberg Des Peres 14, Interstate 270 and Manchester Road.
Catholics in the St. Louis Archdiocese are being urged to support the independent film, the work of Catholic filmmaker Leonardo Defilippis and Luke Films. The 90-minute film tells the story of St. Thérèse and her "little way" of serving God, which in her short life inspired millions.
"It is my hope that as many people as possible will see ‘Thérèse,’" said Archbishop Burke this week.
So what do we see next? Not a critique of the film but an ad hominem directed toward Mel Gibson:
I. . .believe that the film has major historical and theological flaws that should not be ignored.
[M]any more people will [now] have the opportunity to see it [since it's release on DVD].
The film also may find its way into either adult or high school catechesis. This troubles me because Gibson’s version of the passion is not as consistent with Church teaching as many think.
My first reservation concerns Gibson himself.So to whom does the reviewer go to get the "facts"?
...Catholics should be aware, despite media misconceptions, that Gibson is not a Roman Catholic.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles has said Gibson has no active relationship to the archdiocese where he lives...Yes, the "reviewer" relies on a stalwart bastion of orthodoxy for his attack.
The cardinal emphasized that if one denies the Second Vatican Council, as Gibson does, he is denying the Church’s magisterium.
[Gibson] has produced a filmed version of the Passion Play genre.And the point is what? Gibson had a two hour window in which to do his work.
Unfortunately because these works compress elements of the four Gospels, they obscure the theological integrity of each evangelist.
As does everyday life itself. Again, the point being what?....Here it comes, the fear of stirring up a wave of antisemitism.
Also because the Passion Play is a drama, it must include antagonists.
If seen outside its historical and biblical context, this conflict has led to certain anti-Jewish feelings.Implying what? Theat even though he may not have set out to do it, that this is what happened? Lord, please have mercy on us!
I don’t believe Gibson set out to make an anti-Semitic film.
But he wasn’t guided by Vatican II’s clear teaching ("Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions") and modern Catholic biblical scholarship.OK, I think I get it...he did not consult ecumenical bureaucrats at the USCCB or the Higher-Critical biblical 'scholars'. Therefore, the movie is full of error. He is incapable of understanding certain biblical passages, just as most Catholics are without the 'guidance' of those blessed with this recently discovered knowledge. It's certainly a miracle that the Fathers and Doctors and Saints of the Church were able to make it without these 'scholars'.
I find it strange that very few evaluated the film by the standards given by our own U.S. Catholic bishops in the 1988 document.This is not the film I saw. I witnessed a complex mix of different attitudes of the people in the film. Some were angry, some saddened, some indifferent...
This document further reminds us that Judaism at the time of Jesus was a rich and complex group of various movements such as the Pharisees and Sadducees.
This is never shown in the film. All we see are a large group of shouting, angry people, who with few exceptions, are bullied by the high priest and temple leaders.
The most glaring departure from history in the film is its portrayal of Pontius Pilate. The Gospels offer conflicting views of him, yet we know from history that he was a brutal tyrant who wouldn’t have hesitated to crucify another Jew.Something is wrong with this picture. While there was certainly no love lost between Pilate and the Jews, it is clear from Scripture that Pilate tried at least twice to spare our Lord's life. Pilate, while wanting to release Jesus, cowered and gave in to the crowd only when he was accused of being "no friend of Caesar's". His reluctance was demonstrated by the fact that he even "washed his hands" to indicate that he was innocent of Jesus' blood, and relented thus satisfying the crowd's thirst for blood and protecting his career and life. This, I believe, happens to be scripturally factual, modern critical biblical scholarship notwithstanding.
We who have been critical because of problematic theological and historical concerns with "The Passion of the Christ" have to acknowledge that those inspired by it had a far different experience.Indeed, some of us were moved to tears because of our sins and what our sins have done to our Lord who suffered and died out of love for us.
Thus I encourage those who would watch or use the movie to proceed with caution.Caution, indeed! If it were left to people like this, we would have only sanitized versions of the Passion, versions which do little or nothing to bring us to conversion.
Or, before you see the movie, read the book published by our own bishops, "The Bible, the Jews and the Death of Jesus: A Collection of Catholic Documents."Many bishops recommended that we see the movie. However, I don't recall many of them recommending the book, which purportedly was published out of fear of a rise of antisemitism stemming from the movie.
Wouldn't we need a "modern Catholic biblical scholar" to tell us how to understand it?
Or better yet, stick with the Gospels.
I do not believe that it is my responsibility or anyone else’s responsibility to pass judgment on Catholics as they proceed to the Communion table.Somehow this does not square with what the Holy See has stated: "The reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm" to the Church and to the faithful who obey it, says a declaration issued by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
Eucharist extends our participation as baptized Catholics and invites us to discipleship. We are invited to the table to join with the community, to give thanks, to be nourished, to be challenged in our discipleship and then sent forth to be disciples. This discipleship requires that we constantly develop a more profound grasp of our faith, that we be attentive to the direction of the church and that we play a part in providing leadership in the world.One of my pet peeves is seeing or hearing the word "Eucharist" used without the definite article "The" as in the case above...I believe it tells much of the person who speaks or writes in this manner. It reminds me of those who also prefer to say "Church" rather than "The Church"...
Archbishop Harry Flynn has said Rainbow Sash members will not be denied Communion, reserving such an action for "extreme" circumstances.So what's "extreme"?
Archbishop Raymond Burke has responded to concerns of members of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish who oppose a restructuring plan by submitting and making modifications to a statement of commitment to the parish.Maybe, maybe not...But without a priest, that point is probably moot.
A spokesman for the parish board of directors said Sept. 14 that the board voted against the Archbishop’s latest proposal. The reason, Roger Krasnicki said, was because "they felt there were no civilly enforceable provisions."
Krasnicki added that the board asked their attorney to resume discussions with Huger. "We still want to keep the door open," he said.Sometimes, we must do things which we find extremely difficult especially if we have been become accustomed to something else, even if was wrong.
Krasnicki said the board wants a peaceful resolution.
Board chairman Bill Bialczak wrote that parish members "are strong Roman Catholics who respect the hierarchy of the Church.
However, we are strong believers to adhere to things that we feel are just. We have great difficulties in trying to undo customs that have prevailed for over 100 years."
What would Archbishop Flynn do if pro-abortion Senator Ted Kennedy or Senator John Kerry came up to him for the Eucharist, and just weeks before Archbishop Burke, Archbishop Donohue, Bishop Vasa, Bishop Baker, Bishop Jugis and Bishop Bruskewitz had all denied Kerry the Eucharist, as they said they would do?This is from Barbara Kralis' article which can be read here. It is, as her articles normally are, very good and to the point.
Would Archbishop Flynn remain 'divided' from these six fellow Bishops and 'do his own thing?' Would he want to obey Divine Law and remain 'united' with these six fellow members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), a conference to which he belongs?
The six bishops who have declared they would deny the Eucharist to persons who obstinately persist in their grave manifest sin are neither quacks nor schismatic, but are faithful magisterial Bishops, members of the USCCB.
The Archbishop speaks of unity, but he causes disunity by giving the impression of a false unity.
Dear Archbishop Flynn, what saith thou of thyself?
A move at the Denver meeting to censure St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke — who in February ordered Mr. Kerry not to receive Communion in his diocese because of his pro-choice stance — was defeated "overwhelmingly," Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine, said.Who was the individual who proposed this? What a despicable act of cowardice. This is first I have heard of this.
The bishops were all set to lay down the law to politicians, he added, until they heard a speech from Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick. He summarized a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog, on whether priests should refuse Communion to pro-choice politicians.They were? Some perhaps, but others, it seems, would rather do anything to avoid taking the high road and following the directives of the Holy See.
Nothing new here...this is a given, I would hope.
A bishop familiar with the meeting told The Washington Times that Cardinal McCarrick did not pass out copies of the letter. "Had the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger been candidly shared with the bishops," Father Neuhaus said, "which was not done but which he intended it should be ... the statement would have been more lucid, more firm, more clear."
Parish disputeMr. Czernikiewicz is taking a bold step in revealing this. He will probably be ridiculed by the board for his efforts.
Your Sept. 11 article does not accurately describe the actual situation at St. Stanislaus Kostka parish. It is the board of directors, not parishioners, who rejected Archbishop Raymond Burke's proposal.
The article implies a unilateral support of parishioners for the board of directors, whose actions are self-serving and are not in the best interests of the Polish community. Many parishioners who support the archdiocese's proposal were not notified by the board about the meeting and consequently were not given an opportunity to voice their opinion.
Jarek Czernikiewicz
St. Louis
I can teach you, on behalf of the Church, the manner in which you must decide for whom to vote, and I hope that in this letter I have given you clear and helpful instruction.Letter here.
"Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church." (CCC #1783-1785)
Bishop Donald Wuerl is calling on the people of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh to prepare for a future with fewer priests.Article.
"Fewer priests does not mean less ministry," Wuerl wrote in a pastoral letter in this week's Pittsburgh Catholic.
St. Francis of Assisi could not think of the Passion without weeping. God, to reward him for the ardor of his love, imprinted in his hands and feet and side the marks of the nails and of the lance.from the book Meditations for Religious
These are special graces. There is no question at all of my aspiring to them.
But can I not, on the feast day of the stigmata of St. Francis of Assisi, examine myself on my love of Jesus Crucified?
Do I love to contemplate my good Master dying on the Cross? I was given a crucifix on the day of my profession, do I use it? Do I look at it often? Does it make Calvary and the painful Maryrdom of my Savior live for me again?
It is not merely a question of compassionating Jesus, but of reproducing my Savior. And without a doubt it will not be through nails, or sword thrust, or visible imprints in my flesh, that I reproduce my Savior crucified. It will depend rather upon my interior generosity, my aptitude of renunciation through love. How generous am I?
The stigmata of Francis were apparent; mine are entirely interior; but there is no need for anyone to see them; it is much better that they remain hidden from all. God alone knows them. They must, however, exist; they must be deeply imprinted. I am too easily contented with transports; my achievements do not correspond to them, not through disloyalty, but rather through weakness. I must learn to study Jesus Crucified, to be strong. The Master that I serve did not spare Himself at all. Forward, then, humbly but valiantly.
Today, particularly, I will refuse nothing to God, for love of my Savior on the Cross.
The solution to that problem is simple and self-evident, according to Karl Keating, a lucid and sensible thinker if ever there was one:Of course, this suggestion follows the "KISS" principle (Keep it simple, Stupid) so there must be a problem with it. Perhaps, it needs more "bureaucracy" - perhaps a "task force" to study it for a few years. Maybe it is not "transparent" enough...
"1. If a priest is ‘gay’ — living a homosexual lifestyle — he should be removed from ministry immediately….
2. If a priest is homosexual but not ‘gay’ — that is, if he is living chastely — let him continue in ministry until normal retirement.
3. Exclude from seminary formation and ordination any homosexual, whether ‘gay’ or chaste…. The latter should not sign up for ‘guy-only’ work that will have him living with other men (thus putting him into near occasions of sin)…. He should be encouraged to serve the Church in other ways…. If the priesthood in this country were healthy, little or no harm would come from ordaining chaste homosexuals whose homosexuality is kept private. But we do not live in ordinary times."
In truth, stewardship is the recognition of God in our lives, who is the source of all that we are and have. Recognizing God, we naturally place Him first in our lives and, therefore, place all of the many good gifts, which He has given us, at His service for the sake of others. Practicing stewardship, we acknowledge that the gifts which we enjoy are not ours to keep but to use in giving glory to God and in working for the salvation of the world. When we put God first in our lives, we consider His plan for us and our world in every decision we make, including budgetary and financial decisions. Putting God first in our lives means an active concern to be a co-worker with God in the care of the world and in the salvation of our fellow man. It means wanting to do God’s will in all things and to please Him by all our thoughts, words and actions.
Tom Szyszkiewicz here. A number of points to make.Jill Stanek's article is also here.
1) The reason I wrote the articles was because the fact that Catholic hospitals are doing what they term early induction for fetuses with anomalies incompatible with life (EIFWAIL--my acronym) is disgusting. And it is morally abhorrent, in my opinion, that they are hiding behind certain of the USCCB’s Ethical & Religious Directives to justify their behavior. However, as a reporter, I did not make that opinion known in my stories.
2) I wrote two news pieces on this for the National Catholic Register and Our Sunday Visitor. Besides some slight attention in the Heart, Mind & Strength blog and a link in Jeff Ziegler’s morning e-mail, they were virtually ignored, which is not exactly what I was hoping for. Jill Stanek wrote an opinion column on my two news pieces. Suddenly the issue is gaining attention. That’s what I had hoped for.
3) As stated in #2, Jill wrote a column. Columns, if I’m not mistaken, are meant to grab attention and to state opinions. Jill could say things in a column I was not able to say in a news piece. I had people telling me that I should come right out and state that this is abortion and the bishops were waffling. I refused as what I wrote was news, not opinion. It is not that I didn’t believe it, but that I did not see a place for it in my pieces. Jill, however, was perfectly free to do so in a column. Was she accurate? From what I have learned in all the time I’ve been dealing with this story (over a year now), yes.
4) The coverage that Domenico mentioned with which I was unhappy was that provided by LifeSite News, not Jill’s column. Their story on the column claims that Jill & I said the hospitals were delivering the children and then killing them. Neither of us ever said that.
Speaking of religious who do not practice their Rule, but who follow from afar their ideal of life, St. Francis de Sales makes this comment: "Cloistered persons without a doubt, but no religious at all."from the book Meditations for Religious
Fr. Lallemant, speaking to some young priests of the Society of Jesus, used a similar comparison, exhorting them not to be mere shadows of religious, that is, men in soutanes, whose souls are not wholly given to God, who are more like walking ghosts than true saints endeavoring to translate into their life the ideal of vocation.
Let me examine myself seriously: I am someone in the monastery; my name is on a door, or my number on a lingerie shelf; I walk through the halls as a figure in regulation dress. But these are merely appearances. In reality what am I? If at this moment I should appear before the Tribunal of God, what judgment would be passed upon me? In the community I can still keep up appearances, although more than one soul of keen insight must have seen through my life for some time. In any case, before God I am exactly what I am; and again, what am I?
What are the most glaring defects of my life? What observations are emphasized for my benefit in retreats? What faults am I asked to correct? What predominating cowardice does my examen reveal to me?
I must reflect, I must change, and to have the courage for this, I must pray much.
"Immaculate" Reception
A bad match for St. Louis: This is just a quickie fan letter to tell you how much I value your courageous investigative journalism. Malcolm Gay's "Immaculate Deception" [August 25] provided a fascinating and damning view of Archbishop Burke's highhandedness. We in St. Louis know of it because of the political bombs he has lobbed against politicians who support reproductive choice, and because of his insensitive treatment of St. Stanislaus parishioners.
While I am not really surprised by what Gay discovered in La Crosse -- a church hierarchy that stonewalled abuse investigations and priests who left the priesthood because they could not in good conscience serve under Raymond Burke -- still his stories affected me viscerally. Burke's leadership style is so at odds with our city's temperament. I had often wondered why in the world St. Louis became afflicted with this man. And a funny thing: Only one day after your story appeared, the Post-Dispatch reported that the archdiocese had just settled eighteen abuse cases. Hmmm, could there be a connection? Maybe Burke's hardball ways made him the "perfect candidate" for St. Louis!
Thanks again for a terrific job.
Anne Bader
Frontenac
An eye opener: Thank you so much for all the time and trouble that you went through to put this amazing article together and for having the courage to print it. It is time that we all opened our eyes and see what is happening in the way the Catholic Church is being operated. There are some very wonderful priests and they certainly deserve credit for the work they do, but it is long past time that we clean up the running of the church and bring it back to what Christ wants.
Mary Ellen Kruger
Webster Groves
Lies and the lying liars who tell them: Apparently the "dirty little secret" that followed Archbishop Raymond Burke to St. Louis is that he is loath to blindly accept the validity of decades-old allegations from accusers who have no evidence to substantiate their claims. The lawyers for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests would of course prefer that they not be challenged to prove any of these charges and that the archdiocese simply open the checkbook.
The American bishops' imprudent methods in the past of attempting to keep a lid on the scandal with hush money have damaged their credibility. Now victims'-support groups are counting on the attitude that when an accusation is made there should be no other alternative than to believe everything the claimant says. The large settlements made in the Boston archdiocese have cemented the tactic of "hitting the jackpot" by threatening litigation.
No one disputes that child abuse is a terrible crime, but no crime is so terrible that someone wouldn't lie about it for a payoff.
George Haberberger
Imperial
Ken Lay has nothing on Raymond Burke: The article about Archbishop Burke should be published in every Catholic Church bulletin. His handling of victims of clergy sexual abuse would put a corrupt corporate executive to shame. He is supposed to be the good shepherd leading his flock to a moral and Christ-like life and instead he is practicing slimy legal tactics.
I hope this article will encourage Catholics to write the archbishop and demand that he reach out to victims and work to protect all the children in this diocese.
Barbara Doris
St. Louis
Raymond Burke -- not to be trusted: Thank you for the article about Archbishop Burke, who I considered from one look into his eyes as someone who couldn't be trusted. Of course, I knew about him prior to his arrival in St. Louis from my relatives in Wisconsin. I am a supporter of the SaveSt.Stans effort and attend prayer services each Sunday. I recently moved to rural De Soto from St. Louis and almost missed this issue of RFT because of infrequent visits to my favorite saloon.
Once again, congratulations on this information and don't let up exposing the criminal activities of this man. He is in the words of the times "an extremist," but his views are distorted and to effectuate his desires, he twists the meaning of the rules of the church to meet his end results. I hope this article will help divert his attentions from St. Stans.
Frank Medved
De Soto
The cold dead heart of the church: My compliments to the Riverfront Times and especially to Malcolm Gay for his extremely well-written and informative piece, which exposes, in graphic detail, the "deficiencies," not only among the hierarchy of the Diocese of La Crosse, but in the Wisconsin state house as well.
I do however, disagree with Peter Isely's statement that "[l]oyalty to the church is of the highest order" for these men, whom I prefer to call the anointed yet tarnished princes of the church. From East Coast to West Coast, and everywhere in between, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States are only concerned with the loyalty they owe to themselves and to each other. These lofty positions to which they have risen and the power that comes with those positions have made them lose sight of why they entered into holy orders in the first place: to serve God, to serve His people, to serve His church. There is no love of God or fellowship of the Holy Spirit present in their treatment of these brokenhearted, broken-spirited children of the church who have been raped in body, mind and soul. In truth, these "men of God" have only proven how cold and dead the heart of Holy Mother Church really is.
Anyone who has read the Report of the National Review Board is aware of that now-famous quote: "The smoke of Satan was allowed to enter the Church." With this quote in mind, we can only wonder: What master does the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church really serve? Can the church be saved? Do the laity have strength and courage enough to take back their church?
Time, as they say, will tell.
Victoria Martin
Santa Monica, California
More on Mason: I was a member of the Roncalli Newman Center when Jim Mason joined us. We found out about his "ways" through the media when he was charged with third-degree sexual assault. Truly a sorry time. I am happy to see this in print.
He was a troublesome man and I can't believe he is still on the La Crosse Diocesan payroll. 'Tis a pity. This man was charming and smart but got to be a very disturbed man. I hope he is kept away or stays away from underage or vulnerable people. Thanks for listening.
Sarah Hundt
La Crosse, Wisconsin
Scapegoating the Catholics: I am greatly saddened by the crimes committed by those priests of the Catholic Church, and I believe that such wrongdoings, when substantiated, should result in ecclesiastical, civil or even criminal punishment.
What perplexes me is that recent allegations of similar sexual abuse in our nation's public schools have been practically ignored, while we have experienced several years of intensive scrutinization of Catholic clergy abuse. The Shakeshaft report on public-school sexual abuse estimated that approximately 4.5 million children in eighth to eleventh grade in the year 2000 had experienced sexual harassment or abuse by school workers. In contrast, the National Review Board report on child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy reported 10,667 individuals alleging abuse by ordained clergy during the 53-year period from 1950 to 2002 (17.2 percent also said they had siblings who were also abused). Both reports included incidents ranging from inappropriate touching and sexual language to statutory rape.
The difference in absolute numbers between the two reports, both issued this year, is staggering. Even if the public schools' figures are wildly exaggerated, and if the Catholic numbers are far higher than reported, the public schools seem to have a much higher incidence of sexual abuse than the Catholic Church.
The real difference in interest in these two reports is due to an impression of hypocrisy in the Catholic Church. The Catholic clergy are assumed to affect an image of holiness and to promote an impossible standard of conduct, while the public schools are assumed to be progressing toward an ideal of openness to universal sexual expression. In other words, the alleged sexual behavior is unbecoming to a Catholic, while the same behavior is admired, at least in some circles, by the secular world. This is then a secular examination of Catholicism by Catholic standards, and not by the standards of the secular world -- which I consider unfair, even though I must admit it is very effective.
Archbishop Burke is a lawyer by training and is acting like the chief lawyer of any large organization would do in similar circumstances. Punitive lawsuits are so potentially destructive to any organization that a certain measure of secrecy is prudent; corporations, governments, and academic institutions are also secretive. Perhaps doing the right thing -- even though it means total worldly loss -- is heroically virtuous, but the church does not require such heroism of its members.
American Catholics were a persecuted minority until the Second World War. During that war, Catholic mothers who hung four, five or six service stars in their front windows, symbolizing sons in military service, demonstrated the patriotism of Catholics and their commitment to the United States. The election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency proved that Catholics had finally arrived, even though he promised no influence of his Catholicism in his service. Catholics supported Martin Luther King in the civil rights struggle and also assured equal employment rights for themselves. Vatican II liturgical and artistic reforms assured that Catholics would not be distinctive anymore and would be viewed as normal Americans. Catholics did all they could to please the world. Acceptance was assured for a while, but then came pressure to conform to new worldly standards. Now we are told that we were no longer liked and have to change again.
The resurgence of traditional Catholic practices and increasing Catholic moral pressure against the mainstream may mean that Catholics are once again outside the pale, but at least high Catholic standards will recover, and this sexual abuse will diminish further.
Mark Abeln
St. Louis
Irreverent, indecent and disgusting -- an unholy trifecta! Your display of bitterness toward Archbishop Burke reached the limit of decency in your deplorable caricature of the archbishop in your endeavor to belittle him in the eyes of your readers. Granted, you have the right to criticize, but to display all the intimate happenings serves little purpose but to arouse disgust in the minds of readers.
Your paper should be a sounding board for good happenings for St. Louis. I feel sure you have not turned many Catholics against the archbishop but have turned away many from your low-grade endeavor to smear him.
Finally, your play on words using a Catholic doctrine of the Mother of God to further insult the archbishop is a true lack of reverence for the Catholic Church.
Fr. Valentine Young, O.F.M. Cap
St. Patrick Church
St. Louis
The Catholic presidential questionnaire is dead — thank GodHighly recommended article.
The Presidential Questionnaire from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is dead. But do not mourn. Its death is a good thing, and is important not just for Catholics but for all who were concerned that candidate Kerry was about to get official Church cover for his pro-abortion position.
The problems with the questionnaire are many. First, the document is almost guaranteed to confuse the typical pew sitter as to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Faithful Catholics and others may applaud that the presidential questionnaire is dead, at least for this election cycle, and may also hope that its death portends more profound changes at the USCCB, what Henry Hyde once called "the Democratic party at prayer."
— Austin Ruse is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Culture of Life Foundation.
