Letters 03.08.15

Archbishop’s Balm

Cardinal Wilfred Napier, archbishop of Durban in South Africa, earned respect and admiration from Catholics when, in front of the world, he unhesitatingly criticized certain synod proceedings.

In the Jan. 11 Register article “… Synod Will Feature ‘Truth, Fidelity and Authenticity,’” the archbishop’s reminder of enlightenment forthcoming from the Holy Spirit in answer to prayers is balm for concerned Catholics.

The U.S. Supreme Court needs prayers for similar wisdom and guidance. Divisive problems plague America, creating the moral dilemmas that confront Catholicism — especially ongoing contraception, abortion and, still undecided, same-sex “marriage.” They’re deviance.

God destroyed Sodom because the act of sodomy is a mockery of the man-and-woman act of procreation, which he ordained — as same-sex “marriage” mocks true marriage. “Equality” doesn’t exist in imitations. The “gay” identity obfuscates the fact that homosexual people are human men and women who want “separate but equal” sexes in marriage. Man and woman are primary identities; anything else is secondary.

John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people.” Same-sex “marriage” in law is a deviant mandate that dictates “two men or two women” sexuality in marriage — while usurping the inherent, individual choice of marital partners.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade gave every woman the “right” to abort every pregnancy, withdrawing protection and loyalty from unborn future citizens from posterity. The woman’s “choice” is given precedence, leaving unborn children with no right to birth and existence.

Those destroyed can’t object, but would the court and abortion advocates dare to expound that to millions who have been born — our children and grandchildren?

Two previous court decisions, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 and Lawrence and Garner v. Texas in 2003, both refused to grant sodomy fundamental status. The Bowers conclusion, which was called “utterly unassailable,” also stated, “The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” Yet the court legalized it in 2003.

Loyalty is again in question. If the Supreme Court circumvents the two previous court decisions and grants homosexual relationships fundamental status through marriage, it will be a betrayal of every fundamental right of heterosexual men and women in this nation — of normal, fundamental sexuality — to procreation necessary for the continuity of human life. The Supreme Court will forfeit its veracity, authority and status.

         Ruth Ruhl-LaMusga 

         Chico, California


Immigration and Rights

I’d like to make a few points about “Church Faces Immigration Challenge With New Congress” in the Jan. 11 issue.

Why does the U.S. bishops’ conference call for “comprehensive” immigration reform and only comprehensive immigration reform? What gives the bishops the political and legal expertise to make such a demand?

Is the immigration system really “broken?” It grants visas, admits millions of legal immigrants and naturalizes citizens. It could do a better job of deporting illegals and securing the border — that’s what really needs fixing. If you think we need less immigrants or more immigrants or different kinds of immigrants, that’s a separate argument to make. Fine, make that argument. But, first, let’s enforce the laws we have.

Why is the Dream Act age set at 16? Someone who comes here at 16 illegally can qualify for a driver’s license, lower tuition, health care and citizenship at 18. And we wonder why millions of adolescents head for our border.

The Church keeps harping on “separated families.” If someone leaves his family to come here, that’s his decision. Many millions of our parents and grandparents made that decision and left family behind. They didn’t expect the whole clan to be reunited.

Many studies — not all, but many — show that high levels of immigration do lower wages. This affects poorer Americans mainly and especially African-American youth. Will the Church speak up for them?

And how about a little respect for America and American citizens? We have our customs, sensibilities, traditions, ways of doing things and getting along together. Can we absorb high levels of immigration indefinitely? Is this country just a great, big job fair to the bishops and immigration activists?

No one is saying treat illegals inhumanely, but there’s a difference between treating someone with basic human decency and granting him or her the full legal rights of a citizen.

                        Jerry Swiacki

                        Aston, Pennsylvania


Indiana Injustice

Thank you for the story “IVF Lawsuit to Cost Diocese $2 Million” (Jan. 11).

Your reporting was more detailed and unbiased than any story I read in the secular media.

For one to prove that one was discriminated against on the basis of one’s sex, one should have to show that the relevant decisions that one says were discriminatory were based upon the fact that one is male or female. I daresay no such evidence was ever presented in this case.

The fact that certain men and women received different rulings in personnel decisions, in itself, is not proof of discrimination. One need only look at the relevant categories used to make the decisions.

In the Herx case, the relevant categories were twofold. First, the category of sin — major (mortal) sin vs. minor (venial) sin. Secondly, the category of contrition and repentance — unrepentant sinner vs. repentant sinner. Neither of these two categories used for decision-making in the Herx case had anything to do with the sex of the teacher. Therefore, discrimination on the basis of sex, as claimed by Mrs. Herx, never occurred.

Furthermore, the relevant categories are unambiguously within the Church’s purview and subject to First Amendment protections: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Clearly, the diocese has ample basis to appeal the Herx decision and should do so posthaste.

I pray that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops offers its financial and moral support to the diocese in this appeal, because, ultimately, this case is not about discrimination at all. It is about religious liberty.

         Patrick Christle

         New Haven, Indiana


La. Court’s Illogic

Most, if not all, of us of the Catholic faith know that the attack on our Church has been fast and furious of late.

This is once again highlighted by the article “Confessions on the Way to the Supreme Court?” (Nation, Sept. 21 issue).

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision that the seal of confession did not shield Father Jeff Bayhi from mandatory-reporting laws is yet another attack. My guess is that the Louisiana Supreme Court probably contains many who were lawyers previously.

My question to them is: Will they remove the lawyer-client privilege and require lawyers to disclose what their clients said to them? What about the psychiatrist and his/her patient? The logic of their decision truly escapes me.

In any case, our Church needs to continue to fight this barrage of attacks and remain unified, as more of the same is on the road ahead. We also need to fight the federal and state governments that are passing more and more regulations that continue to eat away at our rights.

         Ed Lodi

         Campbell, California


‘Seamless’ Argument

In reference to “Catholic Voting” by Charles Lopresto (Letters, Jan. 11 issue):

“How can anyone these days in the Catholic faith vote Democratic?”

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever in voting Democratic. I am a pro-life Democrat, as I believe that abortion is nothing short of murder. But I am not a one-issue voter.

How can anyone vote Republican when their platform is against raising the minimum wage? The Republican senators and representatives vote against a higher minimum wage, yet they take out congressional pay raises for themselves!

And these same Republicans want to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. They want to deny health insurance to millions of Americans, yet they have insurance for themselves and their families, paid for by our tax dollars. These Republicans want women to have their babies, yet deny them a wage increase and health insurance, which would give them more incentive not to abort, while also helping them financially to support their children.

Republicans are very concerned about the “preborn” but look the other way for the “post-born.”

These Republican platforms (aside from the abortion issue) go against what Jesus preached in the Gospels.

I’m also in favor of traditional marriage, but what right do I have to tell someone else who they can love and marry?

The Democratic Party is the party of social justice, which is what Jesus would want.

         Nick Wineriter, OFS

         Rockville, Maryland



The chart on page 2 of the Register’s Jan. 25 issue incorrectly listed Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., as being an “Eastern-rite Catholic.” He is Greek Orthodox. The Register regrets the error.