Letter to the editor: Obfuscating Zubik should retire |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Obfuscating Zubik should retire

The article “Bishop Zubik announces ‘year of repentance’ in response to child sex abuse allegations” (Sept. 11, TribLIVE) states, “Zubik has said the church didn’t cover up the abuse and that the church has instituted internal reforms to address abuse by clergy.” Such hutzpah. Sounds like diabolical narcissism working overtime — no cover-up, just a bit of obfuscation.

Do their internal reforms require all clergy be free of the proclivities assenting to any form of sodomy? Why has he not acknowledged and addressed the root problem, the homosexual clergy, who are unable without reservation to preach, teach and believe the truth?

Zubik states, “… We feel both shame and sorrow, and are reminded of our own sinfulness and the need for mercy.” These are hollow words, self-serving laments and expressions, doing nothing to restore the faith of those they failed to catechize.

Zubik, the principle teacher, should make clear the meaning and correct application of repentance. The four periods of prayer and fasting cited seem to be Ember Days originally thanking God for the gifts of nature; perhaps he should have chosen the Rogation Days instituted to appease God’s anger for mankind’s transgressions.

Bishop Zubik, it is time for you to retire. The psalmist tells us, “Do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding.”

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.