Letters to the Editor

Submit a letter to the editor electronically | For our letter writing policy, click here

Sticking to traditional family model leaves many orphans out in the cold, reader says

In his opinion column in the March 22 edition of The Criterion, “Facing the downstream effects of same-sex parenting,” Father Tad Pacholczyk makes the assertion that placing orphaned children into a same-sex home invariably deprives them of a mother or a father, and that this has long-term negative effects on the child.

He cites two published studies that he claims support his view that children raised in same-sex parent homes fare worse than those in a traditional heterosexual parent household. Neither study definitively supports his conclusion.

Father Pacholcyzk’s likely intent is to support the traditional family. However, the effect of limiting adoption to those families that adhere to his strict criteria leaves many children desperate for a home out in the cold.

There are currently more than 153 million orphaned children in the world.

Living with a family has been shown to be better for children than living in an institution.

A compilation of 75 studies of 3,800 children in 19 countries documented an average IQ 20 points lower in children raised in orphanages compared with foster homes.

The conclusion from another such large study was that institutionalized children suffer “risk of harm in terms of attachment disorder, developmental delay and neural atrophy in the developing brain.”

In our society, we do not regulate who can have and subsequently raise children.  Therefore, the circumstances in which children grow up are varied.

Some, unfortunately grow up in two-heterosexual-parent homes with drug, alcohol, mental illness or abuse and suffer lifelong ill effects. Others are raised by a loving single parent or same-sex couple parents and are nurtured and protected.

By limiting who can adopt a child based on the parent’s sexual preference or marital status we are depriving many children of a much-needed home.

Whom the parents choose to love makes little difference as long as they love the child.

- Dr. Stephen O’Neil, Indianapolis

Redefinition of marriage will cause country to lose another piece of its moral fiber

There has been much in the news lately regarding “same-sex” marriage. Recently, a Congressman from one of our neighboring states reversed his stance on “same-sex” marriage seemingly to justify his son’s proclamation of being homosexual.

I suppose that many of us might be inclined to make such a compromise of our beliefs for the sake of our children, but I think the more loving thing would be to explain to them the truths behind those principles and encourage them accordingly.

This father could have explained that by natural design (by God’s design) we exist as man and woman, to complement each other and within the marital relationship become one in new life. It is only by this union that marriage can be defined in order to bring about new life, the continuation of humanity.

Our nation thrives on this miraculous gift of life. The strength of a nation is in its people, and it seems obvious that a nation which encourages the unnatural union of two partners of the same sex and equates this union to a traditional marriage of one man and one woman, compromises its own well-being by hindering its own growth and, therefore, its strength.

He could have also explained that sex outside of marriage has always been considered an immoral act, even though many in our society may disagree. Without a doubt, this immorality has cost the nation billions of dollars in health care costs.

I remember three “sexually transmitted” diseases that existed back in the 1950’s, and now there are more than 50. HIV and AIDS alone have been catastrophic, all a result of our moral decay and the sexual revolution.

There can never be the same total self-donating love within a homosexual relationship that exists between a husband and wife which results in new life.

If the Supreme Court fails on this issue, we will lose another piece of the moral fabric which is so quickly unraveling and bringing about our country’s demise.

Please God, help us!

- Gary Diehl, Lawrenceburg

Who called for our Lord’s crucifixion?

In his Faith Alive! article published in the March 22 issue of The Criterion, catechist Marcellino D’Ambrosio repeats the well-known charge that the same people who praised Jesus on Palm Sunday called for his crucifixion on Good Friday. That seems very unlikely to me.

To avoid antagonizing the crowds who had hailed Jesus, his enemies among the priests and scribes deliberately planned a secret arrest of Jesus. It took place at night and a trial was rushed through a hasty process. The crucifixion came within less than 24 hours of the arrest.

Who then was “the multitude” calling for the crucifixion of Jesus? In all probability, it was made up of two groups. 

One was a group gathered together by the temple authorities to support their plan to have Jesus killed. The other was made up of supporters of Barabbas—people who knew that Pilate was going to release one prisoner (Mt 27:15), and were there to win the freedom of their man.

The people of Jerusalem who had hailed Jesus earlier in the week were surely stunned and saddened to learn that he had been crucified by the Romans.

- John C. (Jack) Moore | Bloomington