Letters To the Editor
Published: August 19, 2010
To the Editor:
In response to Dana Greene’s letter (The Georgia Bulletin, Aug. 5) regarding the July 16 document “Substantive Norms,” I believe there has been much confusion, which the secular press does its best to foster. While, as Ms. Greene says, the Church is tasked to form the moral conscience of the laity, the layperson has an equal responsibility to make sure he/she is getting the proper information from reliable sources. ...
… The Vatican was announcing changes made last May in regard to how it deals with graviora delicta (exceptionally serious crimes). One … was to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse from 10 to 20 years after a victim’s 18th birthday. This is a positive change that will make it easier for the Church’s tribunal within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to remove a pedophile priest, even when the victim does not come forward until the age of 28. In reading several articles from Catholic sources ... I came to understand that this document was about safeguarding the sanctity of the sacraments and was a “roundup,” if you will, of various crimes and sins that were handled by the CDF. …
...To the revised list of more serious crimes concerning celebration of the sacraments was added the attempt to ordain a woman to the priesthood. Because the attempted ordination involves the serious abuse of the sacrament of Holy Orders, it was logical to place those cases before a tribunal of the CDF. The Vatican clarified during a press conference that in revising the list of more serious crimes, it did not intend to equate the attempted ordination of women to the priesthood to pedophilia. The fact that one court deals with widely varying crimes does not imply that every crime they deal with is of the same shocking or grave matter. No one in the Vatican tried to conflate the two crimes. The secular press, however, did its best to convince people that it did. As to the theological reasoning behind men-only ordination, it can found on the Vatican website, and for those who struggle with this issue, you might find yourself greatly enlightened by taking the time to understand the Church’s well thought-out theological reasoning in regard to this matter.
To the Editor:
Many state and Congressional officials promoting anti-Latino immigration proposals are pro-life. These officials are advocating Latino immigrants be harassed, deported and, shockingly, have their American-born children stripped of their precious U.S.A. citizenship. Unfortunately, our Catholic-supported pro-life organizations have been silent and fail to acknowledge or understand that “pro-life, anti-immigration politicians” are exploiting the Latino immigration issue to the detriment of the Catholic Church, which is home to 50 million Catholic American Hispanics.
While I commend Catholic bishops, and specifically Archbishop Wilton Gregory, for speaking out on the Latino immigration issue, I can assure you the anti-immigration politicians, many of whom represent Pentecostal and evangelistic anti-Catholic communities, will continue to exploit the Latino anti-immigration issue as long as our Catholic-supported pro-life organizations remain silent.
We need Catholic-supported pro-life organization leaders who believe Latino immigration is a major pro-life moral issue. They should mobilize their membership to support our Latino faithful by confronting the anti-immigration politicians by espousing immigration as a pro-life moral issue.
The 11 million undocumented, mostly Catholic, Latinos must know their Catholic pro-life organizers are campaigning on their behalf. If our pro-life organizations fail to challenge the anti-immigration politicians our Latino brethren can justifiably accuse our pro-life organizations of being hypocritical. You can’t encourage a mother to give life to a child then by silence encourage anti-immigration politicians to threaten to deport and strip her child of his/her citizenship. This is more than guilt by association. This is a moral travesty.