Letters to the Globe

Published letters to the Globe

YOUR REPORTER WASN'T INVITED

Date: November 17, 2002 Page: D12 Section: Letters

I would like to thank the Boston Globe for in-depth reporting on the abuse scandal that has affected so many lives. Without this kind of reporting, the awareness, as well as the apparent newfound willingness of the Archdiocese of Boston to deal with this would not be possible.

It is unfortunate that after months of professional journalism on this crisis, the Globe would put its own interest before the requested privacy of the victims ("In meeting with victims, Law begs forgiveness," Page A1, Oct. 30). What had taken us months to build - a dialogue to establish the beginning of healing for victims and their families - could have been severely damaged in a minute's time because the Globe chose to disregard our request, the victims' request, for privacy.

Stating in the story that "a Globe reporter was present" does not do justice to the truth. Your reporter wasn't invited and should not have mixed in among the victims and their families. The healing and yet painful journey that was braved by victims and families that night was one that we have walked down step after step, mile after mile, for decades. It is unfortunate that your reporter was there for the ride.

GARY M. BERGERON

Lowell

Published letters on gender and sexual orientation

THE REASON MOST VICTIMS WERE BOYS

Date: April 26, 2002 Page: A18 Section: Letters

I am tired of hearing the intolerant and uninformed lay the blame for the abuse of boys by priests on those priests' sexual orientation. Gay men are not any more prone to depravity or unable to live celibately than their heterosexual counterparts. The reason that most of the victims in the abuse cases are boys is that girls are more protected from predators.

These abusive priests rely on the trust of their victims' parents and community to give them a degree of access to boys - on camping trips, in vestries, in bedrooms - that would never be considered acceptable if the children were girls. We must recognize that sexual abuse is not about lovemaking or sexual orientation. It is about violence and power and the violation of trust - in this case, the trust of the faithful in their priests, and in those priests' superiors.

JENNIFER SPENCER

Norwood

CATHOLIC CONFUSION ON GAY PRIESTS

Date: April 22, 2002 Page: A18 Section: Letters

You report that Vatican Officials may be considering a ban on gay seminarians (``CARDINALS MAY FACE OBSTACLES AT SUMMIT,'' PAGE A1, APRIL 18). If gay men actually follow this mandate, then the number of priestly vocations in the United States will drop. The priesthood is growingly increasingly gay, which should not trouble Rome because gay orientation per se is not sinful.

However, many people think the current scandal is a gay problem. They are partly right and partially wrong. They are right because the church's sexual teachings increases the tension gay Catholics feel, and some of those sexually confused men may seek solace in the priesthood. They are wrong because the abuse of young people is a psychological problem having nothing to do with sexual orientation. The real problem is that the hierarchy that allowed this tragedy to occur is in charge of fixing the problem. Where is the lay input? Where is the lay oversight?

KEN FORTON

Montpelier

IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION A FACTOR?

Date: March 24, 2002 Page: E8 Section: Letters

MICHAEL PAULSON'S MARCH 13 FRONT-PAGE STORY, ``ALL FAITHS QUESTION HANDLING OF ABUSE,'' WAS EXCELLENT. HOWEVER, IT BEGS A QUESTION: WITH INCIDENTS OF ABUSE VASTLY HIGHER AMONG CATHOLIC PRIESTS THAN IN ANY OTHER FAITH OR CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION, WHAT IS THE CAUSE?
Another recent Globe article stated that research indicates that a large proportion of Catholic priests are gay ("Vatican stance on gay clergy criticized," Page A13, March 4). Most child sexual abuse committed by priests, in contrast to most other clerical sexual misconduct, is committed against boys. Paulson's article says that critics argue that the requirement for celibacy draws sexual deviants into the priesthood.

It seems unlikely that there is any correlation between being Catholic in faith and being sexually abusive toward children. Are we invoking political correctness in refusing to admit to the very obvious probability that the scientifically correct conclusion is that there is a strong correlation between the tendency to commit such abuse and being homosexual?
DAN TANNER

THE VATICAN FINDS A SCAPEGOAT

Date: March 8, 2002 Page: A18 Section: Letters

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'S RESPONSE TO THE CHILD MOLESTATION SCANDAL GROWS MORE SHOCKING BY THE DAY. NOW WE GET THE POPE'S CHIEF SPOKESMAN SUGGESTING THAT ONE WAY AROUND THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE TO ANNUL THE ORDINATIONS OF ALL GAY PRIESTS (``VATICAN STANCE ON GAY CLERGY CRITICIZED,'' PAGE A1, MARCH 4).

As usual when it comes to dealing with sexual matters, the Vatican is ignorant. For one thing, mature homosexuals - just like mature heterosexuals - are attracted to other adults, not children, so invalidating the priesthood of gay men isn't going to inconvenience a single pedophile. For another, every Catholic has reason to be grateful for the ministry of gay priests, all of whom have been channels of God's grace, some of whom have almost certainly been his saints.

Are these faithful gay priests now supposed to question the validity of their ordinations? What about all the gay bishops who have ordained so many priests? Are all the Catholics in the world supposed to doubt the validity of every sacrament they ever received because somewhere along the line in the last 2,000 years there was a gay priest or bishop who broke the chain of grace? Surely this is pure idiocy, and the Vatican's proposal is completely inexplicable.

ALLAN J. CURRAN

Boston