Traditional Mass safeguards faith
I was pleased to see that Latin was the subject of a considerable article in the Feb. 26 Sun. I must disagree, however, with some of the views of the Rev. Reginald Foster, as reported approvingly and at some length by your correspondent from Rome.
Father Foster, described as an American scholar of Latin at the Vatican, apparently dismisses those Roman Catholics who are working to have the Traditional Latin (Tridentine) Mass made widely available as an alternative to the post-Vatican II Mass as "ultraconservatives seeking to return to some mystical golden age."
In the U.S., the bishops of more than 100 dioceses (including the Archdiocese of Baltimore) have authorized the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. This hardly demonstrates the sort of hostility Father Foster ascribes to American bishops.
Those Catholics, who have successfully petitioned for the original Latin Mass, have been largely laity, not clergy, and they find in it a reverence and an expression and safeguard of Catholic truth which the "Novus Ordo" (even in its Latin Version) cannot replace. They probably do not include many whom Father Foster would call Latin scholars or experts.
Father Foster seems to despair of the long-term survival of his beloved Latin in the Catholic Church, yet he spurns the efforts of those in the trenches actually fighting for it. In this, he makes no sense.
James P. Lewis
Blame bay problems on population growth
Surprise, surprise! Coastal bays in Maryland and Delaware are endangered, according to a March 10 article. A $500,000 study by the Environmental Protection Agency of the shallow bays alongside the beach resorts shows they are just as degraded as Chesapeake Bay.
A March 9 conference in Ocean City sought ways to protect and restore those fragile bays. The sea grasses are gone, algae bloom and aquatic creatures die. Better management of growth and development may help, the EPA study and conference participants hoped.
Newspaper accounts like the one published March 10 and the people who were quoted in it barely mention the basic problem, which is population pressure. Worcester County's planner, Philip Hager, predicted that county's population will double in 35 years.
The problem is too many people. It is people who pollute, and the best of planning can only delay or slightly mitigate the destructive force of population pressure.
Maryland alone cannot stop people from moving into the state, but the United States government could adopt a population policy for sustainable growth. A slow-down of immigration and incentives for smaller families are elements of a policy that can lead to a balance between resources and people and to preservation of waterways in place of further degradation.
Carleton W. Brown
Shy people not egocentric
It wasn't until I read the Feb. 27 article by Laura Lippman that I fully acknowledged my problem -- shyness. I have suffered from it -- just like the article said -- from birth. My friends don't believe I am and have been shy, but it's true.
Shyness affects me in little ways. I refrain from asking directions when I'm lost; I don't challenge someone who has pushed ahead of me in line at the supermarket; I say excuse me to someone who has bumped into me; I say "thank you" to really rude sales clerks and more often than not I do not return food that has not been prepared as I requested.
I don't like to ask favors, even if I need one, and sharing small elevators makes me nervous. I don't want to make a scene, I don't want to be embarrassed. Being acknowledged in a crowd or public place for something good I did is embarrassing. I may love the acknowledgment but if done in public, I cringe.
Shyness has been my secret for years -- even my mother didn't know. Close friends have berated me for being stubborn or too proud to ask for help, being a people pleaser, and finally, not aggressive enough. But it's none of those things.
I think shy people are modest, very, very civilized and sometimes too sensitive to push themselves ahead of others, to brag or to compete in a way they find morally objectionable. I like to think that for shy people their standards of good behavior may well be a cut above what is considered "the norm." I do not for a minute believe we shy people are "egocentric."
On the contrary, it's the ones who unabashedly push ahead in the grocery line, take the parking spot we've waited so patiently for and lie on their resumes who are egocentric.
Hollins Street needs attention
I read your March 16 article about the Hollins Street couple who had given up all hope of resurrecting their neighborhood. It made me feel disgusted.
Who can blame them for moving up to New Jersey, when you consider the lack of city, state and federal support for the area over the past 10 years?
While these victims fell prey to the incompetent development practices of a state-financed debacle, it seems that the actual amount of money spent to revitalize this historic district is ridiculously insignificant.
The state lost $2.5 million on its lame attempt to try to spruce up this decaying neighborhood, but what does that really mean? In comparison, the University of Maryland at Baltimore campus downtown, which borders on the east side of the Hollins Street neighborhood, has had over 250 times that amount of money pumped into it in recent months.
Why the disparity? Could it be that the people of the university are that much more worthy of this flood of funds than the one-time working-class neighborhood that touches them? Unfortunately, it seems that way, and the university seems to have an agenda that has resulted in its limited involvement with this battered community.
Even though a large portion of this area lies within the empowerment zone, businesses around Hollins Market continue to close. A turnaround is not likely until the city takes the planning of this area more seriously.
If the university is expanding at such a rampant rate, why can't university officials work with community members to make this part of Baltimore a place that people would drive to, not just through it?
John B. Ellsberry
Change law on confiscation
I am appalled to think of the consequences of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding property confiscation during the commission of a crime.
If I own a farm or perhaps a warehouse and rent it to someone who commits a crime, perhaps the tenant has a drug lab and manufactures illegal drugs, then the authorities can seize my property even though I had nothing to do with the crime.
I may loan my automobile to someone or I may have my car stolen and if it is used in the commission of a crime such as drug trafficking, the authorities can take the automobile and keep it.
This is wrong. Such laws need to be looked at on the federal level because our Bill of Rights guarantee us protection against illegal searches and seizures.
If a person on a commercial airline is caught with illegal drugs, will the authorities seize the airplane? If a person at a football game is caught with illegal drugs, will the stadium be confiscated?
I'm not sure how this situation has evolved but it is time to do something about it and change the laws. Perhaps we could rectify the law to decree that if a person commits a crime, the proper authorities may seize a car, real property, etc., only if the perpetrator alone owns it and not if it is owned jointly with someone else.
Robert L. Dorsey Sr.
Pub Date: 3/27/96