Invited to taste and see.

KATHLEEN CHESTO'S JULY COVER STORY "THIS IS NOT your father's religion" is very poignant and well written. Not only did the author point out and explain the differences, but her application of scripture was very original and reflective. I believe that no parent can bring their children back to the church, but with this article's wisdom we can anticipate the action of the Holy Spirit and provide understanding and acceptance along with low-key hospitality.

With the help of the Gospel of John, we can somewhat understand the very different religious experiences of our children. Let us not forget that when they return (please, 0 Lord) they will do so to a Roman Catholic Church very different from the one we boomers had.

Ben Sharer
via e-mail

I am a member of the generation that Chesto's article focuses on. However, I do not consider myself a representative speaker for it. I am given hope for the church to know that no one else is, either. To think that the universal church should adopt a simple to-do list so that young, middle-class Americans can fit into it better is borderline ridiculous.

Outside of an unlikely proclamation by the church or the Holy Father that one gospel is better than another, I don't understand how Chesto can speak for me (us?) as to how the gospel message should be related. Such equivocating philosophy drives to the heart of the problem with the culture we have inherited today. Why should "the message" be sculpted to fit the moment--why can't the truth, which the great doctors and vessels of the church have spent millennia living, be presented at its face? Is there something in the truth's denial of certain values that those complicit with our culture's sad mores are afraid of?

Myself, I am constantly reminded that we are good because God loves us, not so that God may love us.

Rian Girard
Hoboken, N.J.

No need to whisper

Father Donald B. Cozzens, in his July interview with the editors ("Where goes the priesthood?"), "found himself huddled in a corner with a Vatican archbishop" and rightly asks, "Why in the world did we need to whisper?" The discussion of pastoral tension over church positions on points of moral theology applies an old approach to current issues (contraception and Mass attendance in the U.S.).

Catholic pastors in the South could see Catholic slave owners as "filled with God's spirit," in spite of the fact that certain papal encyclicals, beginning in the 16th century, condemned slavery as immoral. Likewise, they later accommodated segregationists, in spite of church teaching. A crime boss in our area some years ago attended Mass with some regularity and was very welcome. After being gunned down by rivals, he was afforded a Christian burial to the chagrin of some Catholics. And does anyone really believe that it is only recently that some priests have been sexually active?

Perhaps the real danger occurs when behavior that is objectively immoral by the measure of church teaching is accepted by so many priests.

This difference in the degree to which pastoral approaches are applied today may call into question the teaching authority of the church and lead to significant confusion by what is taught. This is where the discussion should focus, not on individual cases. But it should never be whispered.

George F. Gumpper
Havertown, Pa.

The interview with Cozzens was open and honest, both in its questions and its answers. That was a courageous thing to do, considering how painful are the issues of pedophilia and the alarming increase of gay men in the priesthood. Perhaps such honest discussion may finally move our bishops to institute a thorough, professional investigation into the causes of these regrettable trends.

Father James E. Sullivan
Whitestone, N. Y.