Letters to the Editor

I wanted to contribute to Heather King’s article “Wanted: Disturbing Homilies.” Her article seems to be politically motivated and targets a “Catholic in name only” audience. The church has a very strong stance on abortion and the preservation of life. Along political lines, the two parties in the United States have two very different positions on this topic. The right tends to align more with the Church in terms of life being sacred, and preserved at all costs. The left differs greatly, going as far as not recognizing conception as the beginning of life. Knowing this, why do many Catholics, and the Church itself, align with the left? It has been puzzling to me as a Catholic for many years, and perhaps a priest could better explain. Those who claim to be Catholic and yet embrace the idea that life is sacred in some instances but not others illustrate the great hypocrisy that exists within the Church. I’d love to have a clergy member explain, or at least address it. — Yadranka Draskovic

Regarding the Vatican suppression of private Masses: As an undergraduate resident at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, I attended many Masses celebrated by individual priests in the local chapel, at one or another of the side altars.  For me, it was very edifying to know I could go to the chapel in the early morning, and attend Mass before many minutes passed. As far as I know, the priests were unaware of people like me in attendance, but the practice helped to cement the faith I remain graced with 60 odd years later. — Francis Donohoe, St. Raphael, Santa Barbara 

I loved the April 23 issue: the reflections of Archbishop Gomez and the pope were wonderful, Fr. Rolheiser’s reflection on beauty was poignant, and Msgr Antall’s sermon about Barabbas was very powerful. The one sour note in the issue was the unsigned news brief about Fr. Hans Küng. Such a remarkable man’s death should not serve as an occasion to drag out all the criticism of him. If such editorializing must be included in our diocesan magazine, perhaps it should at least lend the name of a specific person who holds that opinion rather than leaving it unsigned — as if everyone shares this view. — Dr. Patrick Whelan, Corpus Christi Church, Pacific Palisades

Thank you for Heather King’s column in the April 23 issue of Angelus. Enough of these insipid homilies that say nothing to anyone. This column should be required reading for all homilists. Post a copy of it in all of the pulpits!  — Jorge Garcia

In response to the letter to the editor from the April 9 issue, “What ‘refugee’ crisis?”: I would like to think, as a Catholic and an America, that we as a faith community and as citizens do not restrict our charity and compassion exclusively to others who share our same beliefs.  Need knows no bounds, and neither should our mercy and care. Mother Teresa didn’t limit her care that way. Neither do Fr. Greg Boyle and Homeboy Industries. Neither was that the spirit of the Statue of Liberty.  In no case is “legality” the criteria. The imperative is compassion. Let’s meet need wherever it presents itself, if we are serious about manifesting Christ in this world. — Eric Searcy

Thank you for Greg Erlandson’s fine article on “Easter and the scandal of saving sinners.” This is a very apt reflection for this present time when it’s so common to “demonize” others. It’s good to be reminded that nobody deserves salvation. I liked especially the author's choice of words describing how we are humbled when we remember this truth: he says he is “bowed low.” I agree that I don’t think we are qualified to “affirm” who truly is or isn’t a “regenerate believer.” We don’t know for sure, even after someone has died, what transpired with their last breath, between that person’s soul and our almighty, merciful God. Isn’t that why we pray for the deceased? Thank you for recalling these thoughts to mind during Holy Week.  — Marilyn Boussaid