Up With Abstinence

I find it troubling to hear about the American Medical Association rejecting the teaching of abstinence in our schools (“AMA Rejects Abstinence,” Dec. 26-Jan. 1). I am the founder and president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, which exists to promote abstinence until marriage as the standard for adolescents and young adults. All across the nation, the message of abstinence until marriage is gaining an exciting reception. The fact is that “safe sex” is a deadly game and saved sex until marriage is a healthy choice. We back abstinence education 100% and are excited for young people who are making commitments to remain sexually pure until marriage.

Leslee J. Unruh

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Wealthy Catholics

That professional athletes want to engage in prayer is one thing, but I find it ironic that these athletes, many of whom are multimillionaires, are so public with their prayer, yet live a lifestyle in contradiction to the life of poverty that Jesus lived (“God, Business and the Super Bowl,” Feb. 20-26).

My question is this: The Church teaches that Catholics, by the fruit of their labors, or just plain good fortune, are permitted to own private property — but what does the Church have to say about the superfluous wealth of [some] Roman Catholics?

Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven. If Jesus asked, “Would you rather win a Super Bowl or go to heaven?,” one would be wise to answer, “I want to be with you, as this world is nothing and your Kingdom is everything.”

Richard Mackin

El Segundo, California

We Have Sinned

I can't even begin to express my disappointment with your paper.

Friday when I received the paper and saw the article on the election and a picture of the presidential candidates Bush and McCain excluding a picture of Keyes (also a candidate) my heart was pierced. This is something I have begun to expect from the secular media, but not the Register. I depend on the Register to give me a well-rounded picture of the national news with perhaps a Christian outlook.

Well, I called the paper immediately to complain and was told that Keyes was sick and unable to comment so they didn't include his picture because it would look funny to have a picture with no comments. I disagree. Would you have excluded Bush or McCain if one of them were unable to comment?

On such an important day as Super Tuesday where so many people have their primary elections, this issue should have included pictures of all the candidates. As I read the article I was even more convinced of this, because the subject of most of the article was anti-Catholicism. The picture with a statement that Keyes was sick and unable to comment would have been much more complete and responsible, and included a very important candidate who upholds the Christian, Catholic view on the issues of this election.

I understand the secular media not including Keyes because of his views on abortion and the moral crisis of this country, but for the Register to omit Keyes is unforgivable — should I even consider using “anti-Catholic”? I feel very disappointed and as one of your most outspoken supporters I feel, for now, less desire to promote and support your paper.

Signed, “Cheerleader who has put down her pompoms.”

Sheila Beingessner

La Palma, California

Editor's Note:Ouch! The writer makes an excellent argument which would have caused us to rethink our coverage. We only ask, in the spirit of the March 12 Jubilee Day of Forgiveness, that readers accept our mea culpa for this omission.

Kill or Be Killed?

The headline in your paper read “Journalist Calls the Church a Key to Ending Death Penalty” (Feb. 13-19). The article does admit that even the final edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church allows that the death penalty may be just in some cases (after all, that's what the Bible says: see Exodus 21:14, Luke 23:39-43 and Romans 13:4). But that doesn't bother the journalist in question, Alan Berlow [author of Dead Season: A Story of Murder and Revenge], because he isn't Catholic and his only interest in the Church is how he can use it to further his political agenda.

If he succeeds in convincing Catholics that the Church bans all executions, that might drive them away from the Church. After all, while crusaders like him have apparently failed to come up with a single innocent man who was executed, plenty of innocent people have been killed by convicted killers.

That's why the Code of Canon Law warns us that the laity have “freedom in secular affairs” and so, when speaking about politics, “they are to heed the teaching of the Church proposed by the magisterium, but they must be on guard, in questions of opinion, against proposing their own view as the teaching of the Church” (Canon 227).

Don Schenk

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Witch-Hunt Warning

The article “Bishops Publish Rules for Complaints About Theologians” (Feb. 20-26) was very enlightening. According to the rules, anyone can make a claim against a theologian. The complaint is sent to a bishop, who forwards it to his experts. The experts then report back to the bishop, who then makes a decision against the theologian. The theologian then must accept the bishop's decision or be disciplined.

Where, in these procedures, does the theologian have the chance to defend him- or herself before the bishop's decision? We've heard about taxation without representation; this is condemnation without representation! Out of the clear blue sky a theologian can receive a letter stating, “You've just been silenced,” signed by the bishop. The Catholic Church sure knows how to resurface its witch-hunt policy in the modern age.

Anthony Stojak

Montgomery, Alabama

Editor's note: The Australian rules for “trustful dialogue” between bishops and theologians are hardly a “witch-hunt” policy, both because the Church always gives theologians ample opportunity to defend themselves, and because the promotion of bad doctrine is a very real — and, unfortunately, common — problem.