The Catholic Register - Readers Speak Out

Written by Catholic Register Readers,

Providing pain relief

In the process of dying from cancer my late wife and the wife of a good friend went through periods of great pain. The oncologists were unwilling to give adequate pain relief on the grounds that the patient might become addicted from the doctor’s actions. In other words the oncologists chose to make these women suffer rather than face government or institutional penalties.

It seems to me that in my 16 years of Catholic education I heard more than once that it was morally right for a suitably qualified doctor to administer adequate pain relief even if the unintended result was death. And that euthanasia is wrong precisely because it intends premature death and not just pain relief.

Have any bishops approved adequate pain relief or are bishops opposed to adequate pain relief fearing that it could be the slippery slope of abuse leading to euthanasia by another name?

Pat Warren
Amherstburg, Ont.

Editor’s note: Ontario’s bishops, in two separate recent statements, have recognized that providing adequate pain relief, even if the unintended result is to shorten life, is appropriate. See the most recent (“Going to the House of the Father,” Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, April 2007, ww.occb.on.ca).

Abuse plan lauded

I was deeply moved by John Thavis’s article “Plan proposed for abuse reparation” by the Vatican in the Jan. 20 issue. However, my greatest fear is that this just might be a short reaching out, of very limited time, to our Catholic members, and thus easily forgotten by everyone.

I would like to see some extensive effort, lasting for several weeks, world wide, to accomplish this, even if it means temporarily putting aside special Masses for our blessed saints, and special named events, or somehow finding a way to group them all together (with no offence), in order to give our Catholics, and hopefully non-Catholics, an appropriate enough time to truly appreciate the abuse reparation program.

I think it should emphasize that less than one per cent of our priests are involved, but other religious denominations, with their ministers, imams, rabbis, etc. have suffered the same consequences. This seems to have been carefully swept under the rug and lacks public knowledge. I think the public has a right to know, but not at the expense of saying “We Catholics are better than you.”

Paul D. Haines
Toronto, Ont.

Status questioned

I commend The Catholic Register and, in particular, Michael Swan, for your insightful coverage of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

However, I’ve noticed that on a few occasions Swan has referred to Pax Christi as “the official peace movement of the Catholic Church.” While the organization’s aims are praiseworthy, I’m not sure in what sense Pax Christi is official. In their own publications they do not appear to claim such authority for themselves, let alone to have received it from the Vatican or from the CCCB nationally.

Though it can’t be expected to speak for all Pax Christi, its Canadian affiliate Catholics for Peace advocates “immediately withdrawing all military presence from Afghanistan and encouraging other nations with whom it may have some influence to do the same.” This is a pretty extreme view that is not shared by Fr. Guiseppe Moretti, the Vatican appointment to the Afghanistan mission sui iuris.

Kris Dmytrenko
Toronto, Ont.

Editor’s note: Pax Christi is the only Vatican-recognized lay Catholic movement whose sole focus is peace. We do not, however, intend to imply that Pax Christi or its affiliates are under Vatican direction. Like other movements, from Opus Dei to l’Arche, Pax Christi is self-governing.

Lourdes has meaning

Fr. Thomas Rosica’s inspiring “Lourdes and its message of hope,” Jan. 13 article, was so wonderfully positive and enlightening for me. It has to have given everyone the real meaning of that particular shrine.

I especially appreciated the comparison he made between the athletes of Athens and the spiritual athlete at Lourdes, none other than our beloved Pope John Paul II.

During my radiation treatment for breast cancer in 1985 at the old Princess Margaret Hospital, I often visited Our Lady of Lourdes Church — it was really a comfort. It will be very meaningful for me to go there to receive the special indulgence Fr. Rosica speaks of.

Dorothy Scanlon
Etobicoke, Ont.

Rights trampled

I think your Jan. 13 editorial title, “Muzzling religion,” should read “Muzzling Catholicism” because that is precisely what the latest bizarre decisions of the Human Rights Commissions are intended to do. The Catholic Church, its beliefs and its hierarchy have for a long time been subject to its prejudicial decisions.

Your editorial certainly confirmed my long-held opinion, that our “much esteemed” human rights commissioners are either mentally incapable of or refuse to differentiate between actual human rights abuses and the freedom of expression expressly granted to Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I don’t know what criteria the government uses to choose our commissioners but, whatever they are, they certainly need to be revamped immediately to avoid the farcical decisions emanating from this “august” body. How else can one describe their decisions to acknowledge complaints against the editor of Catholic Insight or the writings of Mark Steyn, both of which, in my opinion, border on the surreal?

The Catholic Register has also unfortunately been complicit in this human rights charade by offering Mohammed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress a stage to voice his ill-conceived opposition, always couched as a human rights issue of course, to every imagined criticism of Islam even when no such criticism is intended. I do, however, defend his democratic right to do so as well as his right to approach the human rights commissions for redress, but what is most surprising is the commission’s response in accepting to examine a claim that has absolutely no validity.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, who has been the victim of the commission’s flawed approach to human rights issues, put it most poignantly when he said that the commissions, instead of using human rights laws as a shield are now using them as a sword.

J.E. Sequeira
Oakville, Ont.

He was offended

While one can appreciate Editor and Publisher Joseph Sinasac coming to the aid of a Catholic publication against alleged human rights abuses, how can there be any justification for the tone of the editorial comments (“Muzzling religion,” editorial, Jan. 13)?

I am personally offended by his labelling of “a small group of social-conservatives” and the “preoccupation with the gay-rights lobby.”

Sorry, he lost it with these comments.

He has shown his true colours and his intolerance for me and many other Catholics who struggle every day to obey the teachings of the church of Christ in all matters.

He has failed to properly serve this archdiocese and the church.

While I expect our new archbishop has many, many things on his plate one can only hope that a complete restaffing and redirection of The Catholic Register is included.

As for this “social-conservative” and “practising to get it right” Catholic, I will not subscribe to The Register.

David Domet
Toronto, Ont.

It’s his ‘cup of tea’

I draw attention to your editorial in the Jan. 13th issue of The Register titled “Muzzling religion,” regarding Catholic Insight and the Human Rights Commission. Your remarks directed at Catholic Insight and its readers such as “conservative Catholics” and “not everyone’s cup of tea” I find demeaning, making these people out to be some oddball faction of Catholicism.

Let it be said that Catholic Insight is always orthodox, e.g. 100-per-cent supportive of the magisterium and this is why it is “under the gun” rather than The Register or other “Catholic” publications that more often than not fall short in this regard.

True enough, our faith permits considerable latitude of opinion in certain areas of morality, social justice for example, but this is definitely not the case with sexual morality where the parameters of licit behaviour are sharply defined regarding homosexuality, contraception, etc. Insisting on the truth, people like Fr. Alphonse deValk and Bishop Fred Henry, against overwhelming odds it would seem, courageously dare to incur the wrath from those they take to task.

Living in a culture gone awry, the future does not bode well for the church or society. To counter a determined homosexual lobby — aided and abetted by Parliament, the judiciary, increasing general apathy and the Charter of Rights that caters to minorities rather than the common good — it is imperative that all drink from the same “cup of tea” under the banner of orthodoxy.

Dr. Frank Browne
Don Mills, Ont.

Thanks for Natalie

Thank you for the wonderful Jan. 13 article, “Natalie MacMaster takes her faith everywhere.” I was especially pleased to see how you printed her love for Medjugorje and her rosary. As a pilgrim who goes to Medjugorje every spring, it was refreshing to read that her husband Donnell Leahy and Natalie have also been to Medjugorje many times. The fruits of Medjugorje are confession and conversions and I have personally witnessed these conversions among the many people that travel to Medjugorje with me. That is why I go all over Canada speaking about this place. Obviously MacMaster and her husband have witnessed this for themselves.

Patricia Duggan
Combermere, Ont.

Don’t weaken faith

This is in reference to the Jan. 20 article advertising an upcoming event featuring a Catholic roshi, or Buddhist teacher.

Not only is Buddhism non-Catholic, but it is also a non-Christian faith. Why in Jesus’ name would your paper promote such an event?

At the very least, it will confuse some of your readers. At worst it undermines our faith, our traditions and our teachings. It implies that the church which Christ founded on Peter is somehow lacking that we need to borrow from other “spiritual sources.”

This is not the time to fence-sit. We are either for Christ or against Christ and His church; there is no middle ground.

Please, let The Catholic Register be a Catholic voice, not an ecumenical, politically correct voice, which only waters down the precious gift of our faith.

Helene Pineau
Chapleau, Ont.

Yes to marriage prep

I would like to comment on Christopher Hunt’s letter to the editor entitled “Move ahead” (Week of Jan. 13). Mr. Hunt asks a very common question about the need for baptized and confirmed Catholics to be “forced” to attend 12 months of preparation courses before they can be married in the Catholic Church. As a lay instructor in both the Marriage Preparation and Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults programs of our local parish, I hear this question often from very well-meaning Catholics.

Our Marriage Prep program runs eight weeks, two hours each week, a total of 16 hours of instruction for a sacrament that will, hopefully, last the rest of a couple’s life. The reality is that many of the couples preparing for this life-long commitment have not given much thought to even the most basic precepts of the faith, let alone the sacrifice involved in a good marriage. Our experience with the couples who have really worked with the church’s marriage program is one of immense satisfaction for both the leaders and the participants.

It is simply not enough for couples to marry in the Catholic Church in order to get the bells and whistles of a Catholic ceremony. We need young men and women who marry in the church to stay married to the church; understanding, appreciating and defending her every day of their married lives.

Mario Loreto
Toronto, Ont.

Recommend this article...