Letters to the Editor

Regarding the article “Nordic Catholic Bishops: German ‘Synodal Way’ fills us with worry” feature in the “Always Forward” e-newsletter March 12, I agree wholeheartedly with the Nordic bishops in their concerns.  Watering down the Catholic faith and the gospel, in order to satisfy the desires of some people to be like the rest of the world, would not increase the vitality of our parishes, but would kill any spirit of unity, hope, and faith that we have left. I further agree that “Catholics who constitute and carry the life of our parishes and communities ... are not necessarily the ones inclined to fill in questionnaires or participate in group discussions.” The purpose of the synod is not to turn the Church into a man-made institution where we vote on which of God’s commandments and which of the Apostles’ instructions we want to follow. I sincerely hope that the folly of the bishops in Germany will not be repeated. — Marilyn Boussaid, St. James Church, Redondo Beach

In the cover story of the Feb. 25 issue “Trending: The Rosary,” John Burger reported that these new public rosaries “are being organized and attended almost exclusively by men.” This is truly a testament to Our Lord’s faithfulness to his people, that his movements through his mother, to restore his people unto himself, should make use predominantly of men. But it’s here where I must depart from Burger’s claim that it is “most surprising.” It seems of little surprise that Our Lord should revive a public rosary devotion, or that he should choose to do so by raising up men as its primary organizer and participant. What more proper antidote to the cultural and spiritual dissolution of our times than to restore defiled femininity, by raising up voices to the praises of Our Lady most undefiled? What surer way of restoring defiled masculinity, than to make those voices overwhelmingly masculine? Dr. Tim O’Malley is right in noting that it’s “important to remember … that the Church teaches that prayer and worship are for the glorification of God first and then for the sanctification of men and women,” and that “prayer can’t be overtaken by the protest.” Yet, today, even the mere espousal of Christian belief in the public square may be considered a protest of the secular, and rightfully quashed. Therefore, these rosary gatherings will be called politically motivated protests regardless, so such concerns shouldn’t alone be the cause of their discouragement. — Paul Binotto, Bridgeville, Pennsylvania

I was surprised to find that the great part of a story on AngelusNews.com, “Pope visits Russian embassy to show concern over ‘war’ in Ukraine” by Elise Allen of Crux, focused on Vladimir Putin's behavior, and seems to portray the pope’s visit as an occasion to prompt the commentary.  It missed one very important event: Pope Francis stepped on Russian soil! He has been known to want to visit Russia. Now he did, just like Pope Pius IX had stepped on American soil almost two centuries ago when he boarded an American ship in Gaeta.  Pope Francis, in his usual way of dismissing rigid protocol, went quietly to the Russian Embassy with a message of love, caring, and encouraging peace. Many of us already know the ongoing misdeeds of Putin. This visit was a historical papal act and something to celebrate and diffuse, rather than overlook. — Msgr. Larry Spiteri, Vatican City

In the Feb. 25 issue cover story “Trending: The rosary,” Notre Dame’s Timothy O’Malley is correct in stressing that the citadel of prayer is glorification of God, and is correct in his concern over blurring prayer with protest. Those are things to consider. But as Catholics, we have recourse to intercessory prayer (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 2634-2636), and protest requires sacrifice and action, of which St. Josemaría Escrivá said, “Action is worth nothing without prayer; prayer grows in value with sacrifice.”  As for the rosary, I remember a late priest friend who once told me, “Our mother is never out of reach.” Never, and wherever. — James Hanna, McMurray, Pennsylvania

Kate Bryan's essay “Witness that’s worth it” in the Feb. 11 issue of Angelus is a reminder that the Catholic Church — from our bishops and priests, to laypeople and families — needs to do a better job of helping young people in the battle to live chastely.  On one hand, some Catholics can be quick to condemn or exclude those who struggle to live up to the Church’s teaching. On the other hand, there exists a temptation among priests and catechists to “soften” the Church's beautiful teaching on sexuality, or to avoid talking about it at all, out of fear that following it is too challenging or unrealistic in today’s world. Neither approach is helpful. Young Catholics, especially, need the attention, encouragement, and support of their priests, catechists, families, and fellow parishioners in this fight. They need their nearby parishes to offer the sacrament of confession more often. And now that the pandemic situation seems to be improving, they need to have opportunities and places to meet and share with other young Catholics in person again. The future of our Church depends on it. — Anthony Cadena, Lawndale

I am writing in response to a Jan. 20 news article on AngelusNews.com from Catholic News Agency titled “Benedict XVI, Cardinal Marx faulted in Munich abuse report.” It is no secret that the pope emeritus continues to be begrudged by some in the Church, but tarnishing the Ratzinger name does not serve the truth or justice well. The report accuses then Cardinal-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger of covering up the abhorrent sexual abuse of four priests. There would be no problem in charging Cardinal Ratzinger with cover-up if this happened over the past two decades or so.  However, the fact is that at the time these events happened, it was the praxis across the ecclesiastical and civil boards to transfer such perpetrators because their heinous acts were deemed as a serious deficiency in their moral character. Today, and not then, we know that this is much more complicated, and inflicts grave and lifelong damage on innocent victims. I have known Pope Ratzinger since he was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, long before he was elected pope. We worked together on several sensitive cases involving Church law and theology. I found him to be a humble and very approachable man, a great and gracious listener with an extraordinary way of grasping an issue.  Despite his timid personality, he could be very determined and persistent. He insisted that the cases of priests charged with sexual abuse of minors be turned over to his congregation for study, evaluation, and adjudication. He did everything possible to bring to justice errant priests, no matter who the accused priest might be. It seems to me that this Munich abuse does three things wrong: 1) It fails to evaluate action in its historical context; 2) It rushes to fault then-Cardinal Ratzinger with such haste that it fails radically to be just to Pope Benedict; 3) It diminishes, if not completely ignores, his valiant efforts to confront and address the sexual abuse of minors by priests. My understanding is that truth and justice go hand-in-hand. This would involve not only reporting events in a professional and accurate way but also evaluating them within their historical context, otherwise the report’s author is reinterpreting history and doing a great injustice to the object of the report.