Holy Land Peace

In your CNS story, “Latin-Rite Patriarch Urges Palestinian Freedom & Blames Israel” (April 19-25), we see that Patriarch Michel Sabbah of Jerusalem apparently subscribes to the silver bullet theory of intercultural conflict resolution. The prelate is reported as having declared, just after delivering his Easter message, that “Israel does not want peace,” and that Israeli acceptance of Palestinian state sovereignty would somehow bring peace and an end to Palestinian violence in the Holy Land.

If Patriarch Sabbah genuinely believes this politically correct pipe dream and wasn't just tailoring his pronouncement to ease the very real and relentless pressure on his flock from their Muslim neighbors, then the patriarch needs to understand that wishful thinking is a luxury that, frankly, neither Israel's Christians nor its Jews can afford.

History, that stern and most demanding teacher, simply won't allow it — and she reserves her harshest chastisements for the compulsively myopic.

The wretched but glaring truth of the matter at hand is that violence — murder, massacre, mayhem, rape, torture, and mutilation — is very much at home in the Arab world in general and in Palestinian culture in particular. Palestinian terrorism — the deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians for violence, atrocities, and death — did not begin with Israel's acquisition of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967. Neither did it begin with the founding of the State of Israel a generation earlier — quite the reverse actually: Palestinian terrorism was a factor in making a Jewish state necessary.

Bluntly put, Arab violence against Jewish non-combatants has never been a rarity in the Holy Land since the turn of the century and beyond. What's more significant is that it has never been treated as anything other than heroism and valor in Palestinian society.

This is hardly a secret and the Patriarch of Jerusalem should know it as well as anybody else.

Until such loathsome conduct is met with the same heartfelt and widespread revulsion, outrage, and contempt among their own people as it is by the Jewish community when a Jew attacks Arab civilians, the only “peace” that region will ever know is the peace of the grave.

Michael Zebulon Santa Rosa, California

Bishop Bruskewitz's Stand

Thank you for printing Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz's comments concerning the pastoral letter Always Our Children (“Always Our Children: A Document to ‘Ignore or Oppose’,” May 3-9). I am so happy to see that there is at least one bishop with the courage to set the record straight.

When this letter was first reported by the media, I was very disturbed by what I heard. Later, when I received a copy of the document, I was even more troubled by what I read. It was shocking to see the one-sided way in which the document was dealing with homosexuality. While I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, the pastoral message was overboard — supporting the homosexual activists' assertions of “victimhood” and that homosexual orientation is “a given, not something freely chosen” (which has yet to be proven).

Always Our Children leaned over backwards to defend the homosexual, and to call attention to his sensibilities. Yet, it completely ignored the sensitivity of parents. Parents of such children have been hurt too and are also suffering. If we really wish to promote understanding — shouldn't it be a two-way street?

If the topic had been about children from alcoholism or drug addictions, would the authors still be singing the same tune? The document states, “it is essential for you to remain open to the possibility that your son or daughter is struggling to understand and accept a basic homosexual orientation.” Would it make such a claim about alcoholism or drug addiction? Always Our Children tells us that professional help may be necessary for homosexual children, but that it is important, of course, that he or she received such guidance willingly.” If a child were an alcoholic, would these authors expect the parent to stand by and do nothing just because the child was not willing to receive help? What if the child were a promiscuous teenager? Would the document's statement about “accepting the full truth of God's revelation about the dignity of the human person and the meaning of human sexuality” still apply?

It doesn't take a theological scholar to see that Always Our Children is not a “Catholic” document but a “politically correct” one. Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” I applaud Bishop Bruskewitz for his courage to set the record straight and to feed us the truth. Without such truth, souls could be mislead. I only hope that the American Catholic bishops will join Bishop Bruskewitz in speaking out against the very misleading pastoral letter.

Maria Sumanski

Scotch Plains, New Jersey