I’m intrigued by Ken Trainor’s column of April 28 and the subsequent responses by Chuck Thomason and Virginia Seuffert on May 19. [It’s critical that Catholics find their voice, Viewpoints, April 28] I applaud Trainor’s appeal to his fellow Catholics to become more open-minded toward homosexuals and women, and the notions of a married clergy and birth control. But, in so doing, as Virginia Seuffert correctly observes, he’s denying the foundations of the church he wants to believe in. [Trainor’s Catholic rant can’t go unchecked, Viewpoints, May 19]
My problem with the Catholic Church, as with many other religions, is its exclusive nature. It is essentially a club that accepts those who agree to the rules, thereby excluding all the rest. I favor a more inclusive view of humanity, one that tolerates and accepts all humans so long as they don’t hurt other people, and all cultures that are not out to destroy others. I suppose this is a form of humanism that has been around for a long time, and will probably, unlike any one religion or another, be around as long as humans are.
Virginia Seuffert’s view of life, as is the Catholic religion’s view of life, is exclusive. So is Chuck Thomason’s. [Trainor helps spark needed conversation, Viewpoints, May 19] Why ask only “What would Jesus do?” Why not ask “What would Socrates do?” or “What would Shakespeare do?” As for Ken, I think he is a humanist, as I am, who wants to be inclusive but just doesn’t realize that his church isn’t as enlightened as he is.
Edward Nelson
Forest Park
