ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Diocesan restructure won't solve problems

| Saturday, Oct. 7, 2017, 6:09 p.m.

Regarding the article “Commission recommends merging Pittsburgh Catholic diocese's parishes into 48 groups” : These proposed groupings do nothing to increase orthodox Catholicism in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Declining attendance must be analyzed in the context of Bishop David Zubik and his priests' performance as commanded by the last two verses of the Gospel of Matthew.

The failure of Pittsburgh's hierarchy to insure that vocations were and are encouraged has resulted in the dismal number of priests serving the diocese. A subsidiary but salient factor may be the ongoing history of rot associated with the clerical state. The contemporary rot ranges from a cocaine-fueled sodomite orgy to the possession of child pornography.

Perhaps the clerical state is not inviting to good orthodox men based on the failure to excise the rot and the Peronist's seemingly favorable attitude toward it, i.e., “Who am I to judge?”

Spokesman Bob De Witt states, “Bishop Zubik has said the first step is helping people come together.” It seems to be a contradiction to help people come together by first breaking them apart.

Money seems to be a major factor in the decisions to restructure. Aristotle tells us, “the truth is that men's ambition and their desire to make money are among the most frequent causes of deliberate acts of injustice.”

Peter A. Caruso

West Mifflin

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me