Letters 08.24.14

Immigration Issues

Regarding the Register’s ongoing coverage of immigration in the United States:
The Register continues to shift blame and responsibility for problems and issues relating to our country. Most recently, you blamed — not only in your headlines, but also in your editorializing of the issue of women and children who come to the country as refugees from Central America — hunger, gang terrorizing, economics, etc.
Your focus was on criticizing the leadership of the country based on policies brought forth more than two years ago, rather than questioning the political parties and Congress, who have not done their job of updating policies to not only save the loss of lives, but to facilitate assimilation.
Jim Paschall
Carlsbad, California

Fair and Equitable

Relative to your coverage of illegal immigration:
I’m probably preaching to the choir, but when Jesus fed the crowds, Christ had the apostles arrange the crowd in orderly groups. May Christ forgive me if I misinterpret this, but it seems that Christ had no problem with law and order in carrying out charitable works (“Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”).
So why don’t we Americans, with the cooperation of all of the religious organizations and non-corrupt government offices in the home countries, emphasize the order, organization and lawfulness that is necessary for a just, rational, legal and charitable immigration procedure and hound the U.S. Congress for an honest, just and charitable immigration law solution — and then encourage the administration to enforce it?
That, to me, seems like a more fair and equitable solution that would help more law-abiding, needy people.
It seems we are currently focused on an emotionally charged preferential treatment of those who, by paying corrupt and dangerous individuals in and around Central-American countries, thrust themselves into the U.S.A. They, or their relatives, somehow can afford the thousands of dollars for the dangerous and illegal coyote assistance.
Yes, treat them with charity, but don’t, even unintentionally, encourage lawlessness. There are many thousands more people — of all ethnicities, from so many countries — who want legal access to the U.S. but are denied and frustrated by the existing lack of rational and just immigration procedures and/or enforcement.
Frank Diani
Goleta, California

Archbishop Sheen

In reference to Joseph Pronechen’s article “Abp. Sheen’s Cause Takes Another Step” (page one, July 13 issue):
I know no one who would be more joyous to see his canonization than myself. I begin and end each day with a petition for his canonization. When I converted in 1949, Bishop Sheen became my chosen mentor, and my admiration has never wavered throughout the years. Father Andrew Apostoli knows about what my heart surgeon and I consider to be a miraculous cure.
I was in quadruple bypass heart surgery for more than 13 hours. At one point, Dr. Shorn came out to see my wife. He said that my aorta would have to be replaced with a plastic aorta; he said that all of my organs must be shut down and that my brain needed to be artificially oxygenated. The danger was that if it took more than 28 minutes, I would only be a vegetable. He asked if she wanted to take that chance.
She asked him if he had done this before, and he said, “Yes (the Mayo Clinic came to me), but I will need help.” She said, “Yes,” and he completed the procedure in 23 minutes, and he received the help from a source that he least suspected.
Before the operation, my wife, all of our friends and Benedictines in a convent began a novena to Archbishop Sheen. After the surgery, my wife placed a small picture of him in my clenched hand. My wife kept vigil at my bedside, not knowing whether I would live or die. I believe it was the fifth day when she looked across the bed and saw Archbishop Sheen standing there, looking down at us. He did not say anything, but my wife was encouraged that I would survive, and I have indeed — for the last eight years — since 2006.
I was struck by the evaluations of the doctor for James Engstrom during his recovery.
 My doctors first said I would not be able to care for myself. Then they said I would never be able to work.
When I did return to my writer/editor job, they were dumbfounded.
I retired at 83, and my heart is still going strong at 87. As a poet, I still manage to write one or two poems every month.
I still thank Archbishop Sheen for what I know to be miraculous.
Bob Rowland
Irving, Texas


Ethical Nursing

Relative to “Nurses on the ‘Front Lines’ of Health-Care Reform” (from February 2013) and “You Cared for Me” (April 6 issue): I’m glad to see you writing about nursing and the ongoing ethical challenges we face.
However, I would really like to see some coverage on the ground in the local diocesan support groups for nurses and hotlines to call when faced with an ethical problem, as well as legal support for the men and women who may well lose their jobs because they speak up.
Let’s talk about how to address these issues together, rather than leaving us alone to advocate for the weak, the poor and the dying.
Valerie Foltz, RN
Fenton, Michigan

Forgotten Words

The recent Register article “What Should the U.S. Do About Iraq?” (page one, July 13 issue) notes Pope St. John Paul II’s opposition to the war in Iraq.
Only rarely is it noted or mentioned that he also had something to say after the invasion of Iraq had already occurred: “Today what matters is that the international community help put the Iraqis, freed from an oppressive regime, in a condition to be able to take up their country’s reins again, consolidate its sovereignty and determine democratically a political and economic system that reflects their aspirations, so that Iraq may once again be a credible partner in the international community” (“Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See for the Traditional Exchange of New Year Greetings,” Jan. 12, 2004).
But America quickly forgot the country, and the people our intervention put at risk were alone; and the vacuum left by the withdrawal of U.S. forces has left the country in a state that is so distant from John Paul II’s intentions that it is difficult to maintain any hope that those intentions can yet be realized.
At the very least, the U.S. should intervene to spare refugees — especially those who are faced with renouncing their faith, persecution or death. As Catholics, we have a special responsibility to speak out on behalf of our Catholic and Christian brethren who are suffering greatly.
We seem to have quickly forgotten the “boat people” — after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam — and photos of people dangling from landing skids of the last helicopters to leave.
Patrick J. Grant
Lanham, Maryland

Catholic Thought

Regarding “Archbishop Chaput Weighs Francis’ Message on Economic Justice” (NCRegister.com, July 30):
I thought this speech was excellent! He captured what I’ve been thinking.
The right and the left criticize the Pope, but I think he’s taking a challenging position, one that is neither liberal nor conservative.
I like, too, that the archbishop pointed out how Pope Francis is building on the foundations laid by Popes St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The Church needed these two men to lay the theological and intellectual foundation when they were elected pope.
I really like the article.
Deacon Steve McGlone
Tacoma, Washington

Extra Scrutiny

Regarding “No Catholic Divorce: Grounds and Obstacles to Annulments” (NCRegister.com, July 21):
Your story states: “However, the third category of grounds for annulment — and the most involved processes for tribunals — are marriages involving consent, where one or both of the spouses did not intend to embrace all the goods of marriage: permanence, exclusivity or openness to children, for example.”
A source explained, “There are plenty of people out there who believe in divorce, but they say, ‘Oh, but that’s not going to happen to us.’ Well, that’s presumably a valid marriage with valid consent. But if somebody says, ‘I believe in divorce and in terminating this marriage if it comes to that,’ well, that casts some serious doubts on the consent.”
“The most recent Vatican clarification of the law was the 2005 instruction Dignitas Connubi. These cases can involve things such as whether mental illness, sexual abuse, traumas or addiction to drugs, alcohol or sex render a person incapable to consent to or live out marriage,” the article also stated.
Why is it that the Church does not look deeper into these areas before allowing the marriage in the first place? I feel that the Church is, in part, responsible for the number of annulments because she does not routinely rule out these problems before granting the couple the sacrament of matrimony.
It has become a revolving door — couple marries in the Church one year and annuls in the Church some time later. Where is the initial scrutiny?
Barbara Kolner
via email