Beware Blog Banter

Regarding “Pssst. Did you hear about?” (Arts & Culture, Dec. 3-9):

I hold the unpopular view that not everything is my business. Just because a particular scandal has occurred — or a particular priest has been denounced, or a popular Catholic writer is getting a divorce — the fact that it’s “Catholic” does not make it my business. I have asked my husband to stop reading to me the latest reports of priestly abuse cases from his favorite blogs because I take seriously St. Paul’s admonition to think about the good, the worthy and the beautiful.

Don’t get me wrong. I have lived in the South, where abuse by Protestant pastors far exceeds what I have heard about priests, and I have lived in New York City, where the most sickening crimes were brought to my attention every day. That is precisely why I find it detrimental to consider every repulsive or disturbing or even intriguing or interesting tidbit. I know what’s out there, and I am responsible for maintaining the purity of my mind.

Louis Martin, the father of St. Thèrése, was onto something when he forbade his daughters, who all became holy religious, to read the daily papers.

But back to blogging. My first objection to blogging has to do with the cult of the individual. Just what is it that makes every blogger, Catholics included, feel that their views are worthy of public display? Why the need to broadcast to “whomever” the way I feel about something? Or addictively check to see how others have responded to my comments, or the comments of others? Why this need to elicit, from strangers, a response to my feelings?

My second objection is the weirdness of the virtual relationships among bloggers. Bloggers act as though they are buddies who really know each other, who have actual involvement in one another’s lives. I think this “virtual community” is an illusion at best, dangerous at worst.

The blogosphere isn’t a real community. It invites the dangerous high of abandoning our real families, those in our real lives who are waiting for us to get the heck off the computer and find time for them. The people in our real lives are waiting for us to come to dinner, read us a story, give us a kiss, hear about our day, empty the trash.

How different is the fleeting, stimulating, anonymous interaction — focused on our refined areas of interest and stripped of real-life pressures and stresses — from using pornography? Not much.

Jennifer Heath

Greenfield, Massachusetts

Word Wise

I am on the verge of canceling my long-standing Register subscription due to your newspaper’s continued use of derogatory terminology regarding Eastern Catholics and Eastern Catholic Churches (Not Rites). Twice — in the article “Turkish Delight” (Travel, Nov. 26 - Dec. 2) and “On Priests, Marriage and the Sacraments” (Commentary, Dec. 3 - 9) — you have permitted your writers to use the derogatory term “Uniate” in their articles.

This term, today only used by those ignorant of Eastern Catholic Churches or by those intending to insult Eastern Catholics, was developed by the Russian Orthodox to deride and denigrate those Eastern Orthodox Christians who — for a variety of social, economic, political and religious reasons — entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church. While each of these Church unions attempted to protect the integrity of the liturgy, theology, canons and traditions of these various Eastern Christian Churches, they served and continue to serve as an irritant to those who wish to denounce the possibility of communion between the various Eastern Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. Those people should not find support from a Catholic newspaper in perpetuating the ongoing use of this derogatory term.

As an instructor in Eastern Christianity at John Carroll University and a Byzantine Catholic priest, I realize that, 20 or 40 years ago, the derogatory term “Uniate” was still acceptable in both newspaper writing and other popular media. But just as other derogatory terms have pasted by the wayside in cultured and educated use, one should expect the derogatory term “Uniate” to do the same.

I call upon the Register’s editors to censure the word in your stylebook or immediately cancel my subscription and refund its remainder.

Very Reverend Protopresbyter

Bryan R. Eyman

Mentor-on-the-Lake, Ohio

Editor’s note: Your point is well taken. In fact, the use of the term is already prohibited by our editorial policy. We apologize for our lack of vigilance on the matter.

The Bulls are Alright

As one involved in the rodeo industry, I wish to counter the letter titled “Bulls Deserve Better” (Dec. 10-16). Written by a representative of Catholic Concern for Animals, the letter states that rodeo bulls are treated in a cruel manner. Her descriptive term of “agonizing” when speaking of spurs and flank straps is not only misleading but erroneous.

The flank strap is nothing more than a plain rope. No spikes, no caustic agents, nothing. And the spurs are thick, blunt spurs with well-rounded edges. You couldn’t puncture or damage the skin of a tomato with the spurs, much less the incredibly thick hide of a bull.

These bulls are bred for their sport and are treated as prized athletes. Upon retirement, the bulls go on to stand at stud. They sire other prizewinning bucking bulls. The contractors who supply the livestock share the same respect for their animals that all animal-lovers have, including St. Francis of Assisi.

Stephanie Andrus

Ville Platte, Louisiana

Unconvinced

Mark Shea asserts, “All of these techniques” — cold cells, waterboarding and long-time standing — “are things that any reasonable person would call ‘torture’” (“Mark Shea responds,” Letters, Dec. 3-9).

I am a reasonable person. I do not call these things torture. Therefore, Shea’s entire argument fails.

Bernard F. Shearon Jr.

Dallas Texas

On Unbaptized Innocents

As I finished reading Stephen M. O’Brien’s letter “Finding Limbo” (Dec. 10-16), my heart was filled with sorrow and even some anger. This year I had two babies die in utero. In January, Hyacinth Benedicta died at 8 weeks gestation and, in August, Jude Edmund died at 15 weeks gestation.

My husband and I have four living children, all baptized. All of us miss those two precious babies and the place they would have had in our family. I gave both of them to Jesus and his Blessed Mother the moment I found out that they were no longer alive in my womb. Would either Our Lord or Our Lady refuse them? I cannot, in my heart or head, believe that our most merciful and just Father would intentionally keep from his presence those children who were never able to be baptized.

I trust and hope in God’s mercy and love.

 

Ann Gray

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Editor’s Note: Regarding unbaptized babies, the Catechism teaches: “Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children … allow us to hope that there is a way to salvation for children who have died without Baptism” (No. 1261). Pope John Paul II goes further in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Addressing women who have had an abortion, he says: “You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is living in the Lord” (No. 99).

Mary’s America

Your news article “Bishops Reconsecrate U.S. to Mary” (Nov. 26 - Dec. 2) missed what many readers would consider the most important facet of the consecration ceremony.

The consecration prayer was essentially the same prayer used at the original dedication of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. But this time the American bishops added a new paragraph, consecrating the United States of America to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Catholics devoted to the message of Fatima will rejoice to learn that our country is now specifically joined to the consecration of the world and Russia made by Pope John Paul II in 1982.

E. William Sockey III

Venus, Pennsylvania

Iraq Now

I recently began to subscribe to your fine publication, and am very impressed by the quality of your articles and your willingness to tackle tough and controversial subjects.

I thought that the lessons in your “What Now?” editorial in the Nov. 19-25 issue were right on target. However, in your comment that the Iraq war was not fruitless, I feel that you have inadvertently perpetrated one of the worst myths that led up to this unfortunate conflict.

You write: “The troops who died there at the hands of al Qaeda truly gave their lives so that our families wouldn’t be the targets.” It is important to note that al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. The Bush administration did its best to imply a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, greatly exaggerating meager intelligence reports. In fact, the only terrorists in Iraq were a small group in Kurdish controlled territory in the north, where Saddam had no sway.

The Vatican and Pope John Paul II wisely rejected the Bush administration’s case for a preventive war in Iraq. Let us not tarnish that repudiation by implying a link that never did exist. There were no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to the terrorists who launched the 9-11 attacks on the United States. There were no legitimate moral grounds for this ill-fated U.S. invasion.

Michael Stone
 Director, Office of Justice and Peace
 Catholic Diocese of Richmond
 Richmond, Virginia

Editor’s note: A compelling case has been made by Catholic chaplains returning from Iraq that, regardless the merits of the original invasion, the Iraq war did become a focus of violence by al Qaeda terrorists who otherwise would have focused on civilian targets. In that sense, our troops who died in Iraq gave their lives in place of civilians. “No greater love is there than this …”

Vocations Ahoy

Regarding “A ‘Culture of Vocations’ Brings Vitality to Saginaw Diocese” (Dec. 10-16):

Beautiful article! Jesus is still calling young men and women to religious life but fewer are answering his call. This article certainly fosters vocations. Thank you!

Peggy Stinnet

Traverse City, Michigan