letters

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Story on bishops' push draws a large response

I am about as Catholic as a Catholic Christian can be. Certainly as Catholic as the bishops who have recently urged pastors of Catholic faith communities and their congregations to vote for an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman ("Bishops begin fight for marriage vote," Oct. 15).

I believe I am one of many of the Catholic faithful who are deeply saddened -- in fact, scandalized -- by the position the bishops are taking on this issue.

I just want fellow Catholics and believers of all traditions and nonbelievers to know that, while I am speaking here for myself, there are many of us who see the bishops' position on this issue as at best wrongheaded and at worst, unbelievably pastorally and politically misguided.

LADONNA HOY, WAYZATA

• • •

As an active member of a Catholic parish in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, I was both disheartened and disturbed by the front-page story regarding Archbishop John Nienstedt's 2012 election priority.

With growing and stressing issues related to job loss; income, pension and benefit insecurity; hunger and homelessness, especially for children, and other related issues, he has declared the proposed marriage amendment to be the priority of the archdiocese in the upcoming election.

The threat to my marriage was a work-related, lethal exposure to asbestos, not the love between two consenting adults. I pray that the leaders of the Catholic Church rethink and reprioritize their political agenda.

SUSAN VENTO, MAPLEWOOD

• • •

I, for one, am grateful for Nienstedt's loud and clear message about the amendment, which would deny civil marriage rights to gay citizens living in Minnesota. His dictates are totally in opposition to the core teaching of Jesus to "love your neighbor as yourself."

If the people in the pews and our priests heed the clarion call of Jesus, they will resist the bullying tactics of this archbishop, and we will all work tirelessly to defeat this very unloving referendum.

DARLENE WHITE, EDINA

• • •

Two headlines in Saturday's paper:

• "Bishops to rally on gay marriage vote."

• "Bishop accused of not reporting abuse."

Too bad they don't devote the same intensity toward stopping and preventing child abuse by religious leaders as they do toward inflecting their beliefs on the general population.

RUSSELL L. TUFVANDER, NORTHOME, MINN.

* * *

BEAR BAITING

Nothing sportsmanlike about hunter's big kill

Once again a bear is killed by baiting ("Wisconsin hunter may bag record with bear," Oct. 17). What kind of sportsman lays out food for a wild animal, sits and waits for the poor creature to show up, then shoots it dead?

No honors are deserved by the latest slayer, whom I doubt is killing to put food on his table. Shame on him, and shame on the government for allowing such deadly tricks.

JULIENNE WYCKOFF, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS

• • •

I understand wanting to live near wild and natural areas. I can imagine how engaging it might be to match wits with an intelligent creature such as the black bear described in Monday's Star Tribune.

I don't understand the satisfaction in luring a magnificent animal to its death when it had done no harm. How big and smart and beautiful would a bear have to be to justify its existence?

I feel a sense of loss.

ELISA HAYDAY, ST. PAUL

* * *

PROTESTS

Take them to the next level with boycotts

I have been advocating and watching for a movement from the American people to stop the greed of corporate executives for more than 20 years. The current Occupy Wall Street movement could be a great start to meet that objective.

I do not hear or see any agenda other than drawing publicity.

Please, American workers and consumers, take the issue to the next level. It started in the 1990s with the establishment of NAFTA. This action gave corporate executives the venue to acquire cheap labor at the cost of American middle-class workers.

Next came executive compensation rewards for increasing stock values rather than actual productivity. The elimination of American workers and production facilities soon followed. It can be tracked as to leading to today's economic quandary.

The next step should be an action plan that would affect corporate executives where it seems to hurt most -- their personal pocketbooks.

This can be attained not through regulation, but by boycotting those corporations that continue to show disregard for American workers and the economy of the United States for the enhancement of their own welfare. In order to succeed, they still need the support of American consumers.

RICHARD LERCH, HUDSON, WIS.

* * *

THE MILITARY

Bash the generals? Vaguely familiar ...

I was struck by John Freivalds' Oct. 17 commentary ("All hail the generals. Aw, hell, the generals.")

For some strange reason, I felt a time warp to, oh, around 1969, and the same slander of the military we heard from the antiwar masses, the overwhelming majority of whom were shallow, stoned followers.

Only a few percent had anything real to say, and even less actually did anything.

While I agree that the military is far from perfect, and the war effort in Afghanistan is certainly questionable, Freivalds' rant smacks more of cheap slams than anything substantial.

The implication (as in the past) is that the military is responsible for the wars -- not the talking heads, whose former college roommates seem to have gotten us into a little financial jam in this country.

But it's the same old stuff offered by the academics. And by the way, thanks for sharing the idea about the roofing nails and manholes -- I'm sure some idiot faction will pick up on that.

Hopefully he can keep the other 5,998 ideas how the bad guys can hurt us under his hat, but I guess some things are just too juicy to keep secret.

GREGORY VITAS, MINNETONKA