Letters to the Editor

As a survivor of clerical sexual abuse at the hands of the late Theodore McCarrick, I want to express my profound indignation at Msgr. Richard Antall’s recent essay (published on AngelusNews.com April 30). The piece soft pedals horrors that thousands of survivors have spent decades forcing into the light. Antall highlights McCarrick’s former charitable work while glossing over the 2018 Vatican report on McCarrick, the civil suits in New Jersey, and the criminal indictment against him. Downplaying all that evidence presented against him insults every victim who risked retaliation to testify. Antall’s suggestion that McCarrick’s downfall stems from a “cultural overcorrection” rather than decades of stone-walling by bishops is either historically tone deaf or an intentional diversion from institutional culpability. I recognize opinion columns allow strong viewpoints. What Angelus published, however, muddles opinion with omission so egregiously that it lands in the realm of revisionism. I am appalled that you would allow one of your writers to treat survivors’ pain as a footnote to clerical reputation. When the Catholic press skirts the full truth, it deepens the very distrust the late Pope Francis, and now our new Pope Leo XIV, want healed.

Greg Erlandson’s “Racism, genocide, and more: Getting comfortable with the uncomfortable” (AngelusNews.com, April 30) rightly urges us to confront the evils of racism — not just in their abstract form, but in their devastating consequences: violence against the innocent. But I found myself caught on one line: “And yet they did. And do.” No, sir. We did. We do. The temptation to speak anthropologically, as if the perpetrators are always others, risks distancing ourselves from the very sin we are called to confront. Racism is not a relic of a distant tribe. Genocide is not the work of monsters. These are the sins of humanity — and we are not exceptions. None of us escapes implication, even if we have not raised our hands in violence. When I look upon Christ on the cross, I do not see the results of others’ actions. I see the results of mine. That is the uncomfortable truth at the center of our faith: We are not innocent bystanders in the face of evil. We are active participants unless we actively repent and resist. The author is right: We must face the horror of our history and present. But let us not shield ourselves behind abstractions. Let us say, with trembling honesty, “We have done this. We still do.” Only then can healing begin.

Evan Holguin’s article “The American Catholic giving crisis” in the April 18 issue has a single focus: Catholics simply don’t donate enough money. But the article doesn’t offer possible explanations as to why. Please accept that I cannot speak beyond my 75 years of age nor my 40 years of Catholic faith. As a child I was raised Methodist. Our family and church did what was possible with both time and money. Money would include donations of food, clothing, household needs or other material support. Time was invested in many ways to support the community. Charitable support also extends beyond a direct connection to the church. What about levels of support for organizations like Unbound, Heifer, Mom’s House, and Tunnel to Towers? Factors that affect charitable giving are stewardship, accountability, and transparency. While the statistics of Catholic giving are interesting, the article doesn’t recognize what the breadth of charity includes, doesn’t offer explanations or remedies, and doesn’t inspire to simply give more. — Michael Jacobs, Holland, Ohio

Kudos for publishing Msgr. Richard Antall’s thoughtful essay on “The problem with the Catholic immigration debate” in the April 4 issue.  I too know many Latinos, including undocumented, who supported the candidate Trump last year … even Haitians! This is telling us that there is something deeply broken in our immigration system, and in our national politics. And it deserves serious reflection from Catholics. — Thomas Estrada, Miami, Florida

Father Ron Rolheiser’s column in the April 4 issue about the distinction between “Jesus” and Christ” left me feeling uncomfortable.  I’m not a theologian, but I think maybe Rolheiser has been listening too much to Evangelicals.  The early Church used the title “Christ,” meaning the “Messiah,” to emphasize that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament. The title “Christ,” then, focuses on his Divine Mission as the One everyone was waiting for: the King of the Jews. “The Moshiach,” the Messiah.  Making a New Agey distinction between “Jesus” and “Christ” risks confusing people, in the same way that Evangelicals are confused. Jesus, God Incarnate, is the same Divine Person as the Person we call “The Christ.”  — Marilyn Boussaid, St. James Parish, Redondo Beach 

Thank you for your sensitive and balanced coverage of immigration in Kimmy Chacón’s article “Answers and Assurances” in the March 21 issue.  I have found some of President Trump’s actions and statements on immigration during his second term to be necessary, others wrongheaded, and sometimes immoral. But they are having real life consequences for faithful, hardworking families in parishes like mine, and the workshops are a prudent approach to the problem.  — Elisa Molina, Venice