Last Updated:Friday - 09/24/2010
January 15, 2007
WCR Letters to the Editor
Remember the children
Re: A child with three parents.
Yes, this situation does bring up some important questions. But consider this: in our society, we have not just families consisting of a married woman and man and one or more kids, but also extended families, single-parent families, blended families, same-sex families, "shacked-up" families, inter-racial families, inter-religious families, and more.
That's the reality, rather than only just the so-called traditional (and some say Bible-inspired) family. Many children live and grow up in these so-called non-traditional families.
Would children be better off by somehow only recognizing and supporting the traditional family, or would these children benefit from recognizing and supporting these non-traditional family setups as well?
You can argue that children are better off in the traditional family, but what about the many children who do live in non-traditional situations?
As in traditional families, most of these kids are welcomed, are deeply loved and cared for and obviously feel loved, at home and safe. It's human nature to care and fight for one's children, and this is not just limited to married women and men only.
So, if you wish to promote the rights of and benefits for children, you could support and promote the traditional family setup, but at the same time recognize and support non-traditional families if only for the sake of the many children living in these families.
This is not an either-or situation. Reality demands a wider and inclusive approach for the sake of the children.
Moreover, children are not served by turning this into a political vote-getting issue or an exclusively ideological or religious debate. Reality demands a different approach, for the sake of the children.
Let's not fight battles on the backs and at the expense of so many children.
Support pro-life anti-AIDS efforts
Regarding the letter "Fight AIDS on the frontline" by Phil Little (WCR Letters, Dec 25).
Phil Little incorrectly suggests there is no "guarantee" that donations sent to the Vatican's Good Samaritan Foundation would actually be spent to alleviate the suffering of persons already infected by the AIDS virus. He further errs by inferring that the Church's moral laws on contraception can be broken due to what he calls the "complexity" of the Catholic Church.
He does this in order to convince readers to support the Stephen Lewis Foundation. It is disingenuous, however, for Little to talk about condoms saving "many thousands of lives" when he supports a man (Stephen Lewis) who himself supports the execution of the innocent through abortion.
The Catholic Church's prohibition against contraception is irreversible. According to Catholic teaching, it is never licit to place a barrier between the unitive and procreative dimensions of marital love.
The question being debated involves the particular situation where a married spouse has become infected with HIV through no fault of his or her own such that both parties within the marriage would be deprived of the marital relations to which they have a strict right according to what is called "the marriage debt." This debt, however, is not an absolute and can be refused for a serious reason.
The proposal is itself disingenuous for it seeks to remove the legitimate choice of abstinence as a solution.
It is a scientific fact that the AIDS virus can escape any technical device used such as the condom.
The Church believes the only way to truly combat AIDS is through fidelity and chastity -the only morally acceptable means. Contraception damages the integrity of the full gift of self, which is intrinsic to the sexual act.
I thus encourage all readers to having nothing to do with the Stephen Lewis Foundation and it's anti-Catholic, anti-life agenda.
Viewer finds Nativity Story flawed
After viewing The Nativity Story, I feel it is necessary to point out that, according to Catholic teaching and tradition, Mary, the "New Eve" conceived without original sin, was spared by God the pains of childbirth.
Church fathers and saints have taught that "Christ passed through Mary as light through a glass or crystal." There was no pain (as painful childbearing was a punishment given to Eve for her part in the fall) and Mary would have been in great peace with her body left completely intact.
To portray a "messy" Baby Jesus dropping into "midwife" Joseph's arms is at least an insult (though perhaps unintentional) and at worst a form of blasphemy against the Immaculate Conception and Mary's perpetual virginity.
This same flaw was present in Franco Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth where it was claimed that Catholic theologians were consulted. How did these movies get such wide acclaim (even in the Vatican) with such an obvious and fatal flaw?
Is not the virginal conception of Jesus an awesome supernatural event that his birth would not also be awesomely supernatural? Is not "nothing impossible with God"?
It seems in their search for "realism" and "historicity" moviemakers and theologians (among others, even cardinals) are losing sight of the Catholic truth.
Missa de Gallo tradition enhances Advent season
Advent is always a difficult liturgical season in our hustle and bustle time of the year. That is why we as Christians must try to make Advent an adventure in our spiritual lives.
Our thanks to the Filipino community for sharing their Missa de Gallo tradition with us this Advent.
Here in Red Deer, we are blessed to have Father Gary Lee who gathered us together each morning at 6 a.m. for nine days in honour of Mary, the mother of Christ.
The response was overwhelming from both parishes - St. Mary's and Sacred Heart - including the priests who concelebrated most mornings.
Let us hope that other cultures will share with us their Catholic traditions in making Advent a rich experience of preparing for the birth of Christ.
Rev. Donald Stein
Letter to the Editor - 02/19/07
Letters to the Editor
The WCR welcomes your letters. Please write 300 words or less and tell us your name, address and daytime phone number. All letters are subject to editing.
Opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not necessarily represent the views of the WCR.