The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 21)

My compliments for your article. I suggest, however, that you have your sights on the wrong people. Why should you expect "ordinary people," including elected representatives, to refrain from inventing their own flavor of Catholicism, when the clergy not only fails to formally inform them of their non-Catholicism, but the clergy does their own inventing? I will not, however, try to put my two cents in with TAS, because when I did the same a few weeks ago in reply to a related Mark Gauvreau Judge article, my letter was ignored, see below.

Mark Gauvreau Judge writes, "I think we should just declare Weigel's "virtual schism" a genuine schism, and start kicking heretics to the curb." The only problem with that plan is, the kicking cannot start until "we" and "heretics" are clearly defined. And there is the rub.

Would the "heretics" be the pastor of the Catholic Church I attended for many years whose homily, reflecting on the gospel that warned of the Last Judgment, during a time when the Gingrich Revolution was proposing to privatize some functions of the federal government, warned that those who wanted to privatize might find themselves for that reason on the left hand of God?

Or would the "heretics" be the priest who succeeded the above as pastor of the same Catholic Church, whose homily declared that "the Holy Spirit was always referred to in the female gender"?

Or would the "heretics" be the bishop of my diocese who allowed the diocesan newspaper to be used for op-eds that ran the gamut from condemning this nation's desire to forcibly protect itself from those who wish it harm, to federalizing and expanding every form of taxpayer subsidized existence, to the "evils" of Wal-Mart?

Or would the "heretics" be a regular visiting priest at the Catholic Church I used to attend that declared some dozen recent figures of the political left to be latter day John the Baptists? And the pastor of the same church who refused to even acknowledge an objection to such a declaration?

Or would the "heretics" be the Catholic clergy, from priest to monsignor to bishop to cardinal, who cannot bring it upon themselves to look a "pro-choice" person, private or public, in the eye and tell them that they can call themselves whatever they want, but they are not Catholics, period?

Of course, all of the above is anecdotal, and thus hardly scientific or conclusive. But spend the effort if you like digging up the hugely detailed obituary that no less than the New York Times published upon the death of John Cardinal O'Connor. Read how at conferences of Catholic bishops, one after another, O'Connor was the only vote against one resolution after another which coincidentally were consistent with the policy plank of one major political party? O'Connor consistently found himself all alone. That was not anecdotal. That was strikingly conclusive.

p>So tell me, Mark, who are "we," and who are the "heretics?" br> -- Frank Natoli br> Newton, New Jersey /p> p> As far as I am concerned, politicians are below the MSM as far as truth telling goes. If we don't get this country back to our religious roots we are doomed. br> --

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Federal Budget, Social Security, Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Hollywood, Movies, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Fascism, Conservatism, Immigration, Oil