Thank goodness for Haselberger, but can that task force be trusted to act independently?
Thank goodness someone spoke up
Jennifer Haselberger, former canon lawyer for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, stated that she saw child pornography on a priest’s computer. That makes her a witness (“Insider puts her church on trial,” Oct. 13).
She stated there is a lack of transparency in the archdiocese in reference to its practice of protecting priests known to have exhibited tendencies toward child pornography and sexual attraction to children. That makes her a whistle-blower.
Because her efforts to move the archdiocese to do the right thing were to no avail, she resigned a high-level position for which she was eminently qualified and wrote a letter that she knew would be made public and would put her in the line of fire. She did this to protect children and to warn parents and parishioners.
It is sad indeed that it takes a newly appointed committee and further investigations to determine if what she saw and what she learned is true. In my opinion, her word is enough. Disgruntled? No, heroic.
ANDREA JOHNSON, Lake Elmo
• • •
Years ago when St. John’s Abbey at Collegeville, Minn., received accusations of pedophilia in the monastery, a task force was appointed to oversee changes and to make sure it never happened again. We haven’t heard of any cases since.
Let’s compare it to the task force appointed by Archbishop John Nienstedt and headed by Reginald Whitt from the University of St. Thomas. Can the members of this task force be totally independent when investigating a colleague at St. Thomas? Why not have victims represented on this body?
KATHLEEN ZIEGLER, Lino Lakes
WORDS ON WAR
Thanks, Ike — and thanks, Jason Lewis
I want to commend Jason Lewis for his Oct. 13 column, which urges his fellow Republicans and the rest of us to follow President Dwight Eisenhower’s words about the folly of jumping into wars to save American interests in the world. For the first time ever, I completely agree with Lewis!
I am an 85-year-old, front-line veteran of the Korean War and holder of the Bronze Star medal for my service in that war.
I consider myself a liberal, having voted largely for Democrats. However, if the Republican Party were to adopt Eisenhower’s views, I might even vote for Republicans again.
RICHARD D. THORSEN, Minneapolis
• • •
Like Lewis, I have come to appreciate the balanced reason behind much of what Eisenhower stood for and acted upon. I would, however, suggest a different Ike response to the following example Lewis posed: “Some Republicans, such as Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, have called for increasing the Pentagon budget by undoing across-the-board cuts contained in recent budget sequestration. How do you feel?”
The Eisenhower response, from his State of the Union address in 1953: “To amass military power without regard to our economic capacity would be to defend ourselves against one kind of disaster by inviting another.”
PETER SAMMOND, Minnetonka
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
The real reasons for public skepticism?
Trudy Lieberman’s Oct. 13 commentary on the Affordable Care Act (“The best covered story that remains a mystery”) was right on target.
Nearly every article that has appeared in the Star Tribune since the launch of the health exchanges has focused on the glitches, the fixes, and the numbers visiting the MNsure website.
On the other hand, before and during the Minnesota State Fair, the paper provides entire color sections, including full-page maps on how to find new attractions and navigate the fairgrounds.
Maybe there should be at least equal treatment to the cheese curd vendors (no offense to the cheese curders) to help people navigate the new law and its exchanges.
TOM BAUMANN, Isanti, Minn.
• • •
Lieberman was off-base in blaming the news media for the public’s not connecting to Obamacare. When the Affordable Care Act was first passed, there were two groups of people in favor of it: Democratic politicians and government workers who believed Obamacare would enhance their careers, and people who believed Obamacare was free, or would cost less than what they were paying.
As time passed, the latter group shrank. People not only noticed that Obamacare cost more, but also that they were losing the health insurance and doctors they already had, or that they were losing their jobs and seeing their work hours cut. If they personally didn’t suffer, they had relatives, friends and neighbors who did. Also, people who can do math know that increasing benefits and the number of people covered will not make Obamacare cost less.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.