Vatican gives cover to those who hate gays

As a Catholic, I was saddened to read that the Vatican has ordered a Maryland priest and nun to end their 30-year ministry to gays and lesbians, informing them that they are "permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons" ("Vatican bars Md. priest, nun from ministry to gays," July 14).

Given the current political and cultural climate where homophobia -- fear and hatred of gay people -- often goes unchallenged, I am concerned that the Vatican's action may further marginalize gay people.

I don't believe the Vatican's intent is to hurt homosexuals, but its recent action will provide cover for those who hate them.

I teach history at a Catholic high school. On my classroom wall is a quote from Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel: "Hatred Means Auschwitz."

My students have read Mr. Wiesel's "Night"; they understand the quote. They are familiar, too, with the names of hate and violence today: Kosovo, Bosnia, Oklahoma City, Littleton, Matthew Shepard.

Sometimes I think the most radical thing my students can do with their lives is simply refuse to hate, refuse to add to the carnage that marks so much of human history.

I shudder to think that contemporary religious doctrine could contribute to the fear and prejudice that underlies hate.

Could the Vatican's action inadvertently fuel further hatred of homosexuals?

In disciplining the Rev. Robert Nugent and Sr. Jeannine Gramick, the Vatican stated that the homosexual orientation is objectively disordered and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil.

What might some people do with their own interpretation of this statement? Will it give them license to ridicule or bash gays or further exclude them from visible participation in our communities?

As it is, prejudice against gays is among the last socially acceptable forms of bigotry. Adults who would correct children for making racist comments ignore homophobic remarks or themselves laugh at or tell gay jokes.

The popular put-down kids use when they don't like something is to say, "that's gay." I hear it often at school. "Gay," then, becomes associated with "bad."

Would decent teachers or parents allow kids to say "that's black" or "that's Jewish"?

And what of gay youth? If their sexual orientation is "disordered," does that mean that they themselves are wrong? Are they less worthy of God's love, or their parents'? Are they entitled to full citizenship, to equal protection under the law?

Is it any wonder young gays are at a high risk for suicide? According to government studies, one-third of all young people who end their lives are gay.

Studies of gay adolescents also show that most of them experience severe feelings of isolation because of their sexuality; fully half say they are rejected by their parents because they are gay.

Think about that: Parents who have loved and sacrificed for their kids and would give up their own lives for their child, will reject gay children because they have swallowed society's lie that they are defective and perverse.

How long will the adult community continue to turn its back on our gay youth? How many more young people will we lose before we say to them, unequivocally, that their lives are precious?

A couple of years ago, a former student came back to school for a visit and told me she was gay. This student was as good and decent and kind a young person as one could hope to know.

When she told her mother she was gay, her mother disowned her. Her mother, after all, was a very religious person, and could not in any way condone what her daughter "had become."

My heart breaks for my students when I hear such stories. If the efforts of Sister Gramick and Reverend Nugent have prevented one child's suicide or mended one fractured family relationship, their work has not been in vain.

I applaud their courage, I commend their commitment and I hope they will find a way to continue their much-needed ministry.

Liz Reiley, Baltimore

Unionists blamed in Ireland

The Sun's editorial "Breakdown in Belfast" (July 18) suggested that the Irish Republican Army's (IRA)refusal to disarm justifies the Protestant Unionist's refusal to accept nationalist representation in the province's proposed new cabinet.

The editorial does not mention the reality of this cease-fire for the nationalists: many have been murdered, their homes have been bombed and hundreds of Catholic families have been terrorized.

By maintaining the cease-fire, the nationalists and the IRA have demonstrated their willingness to move forward.

Until the Unionists and the Northern Ireland government show, as the Good Friday Accords require, that "freedom from sectarian harassment" exists, it is unrealistic to expect the IRA to disarm.

The Unionists' intransigence is causing the gridlock in Northern Ireland.

Patrick J. Ward, Havre de Grace

For years, I have been amused by The Sun's biased coverage of Northern Ireland, but the editorial blaming the IRA for the recent collapse of the province's power-sharing agreement was the last straw. The blame for this collapse rests squarely with David Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party.

It was clear to everyone who voted on the Good Friday Accords that talks concerning disarmament were to be on a separate track. The time-frame the Chastelain Commission devised for disarmament was acceptable to all parties, except the Ulster Unionists.

The arrogance Mr. Trimble and his party have shown in scuttling a chance to bring peace to Northern Ireland has demonstrated to the world that their goal is still to exclude Catholics from any meaningful role the area's affairs.

If Mr. Trimble has any decency, he should return the Nobel Peace Prize.

Patrick D. Conner, Baltimore

Kennedy tragedy sparks mourning and nostalgia

Millions of people around the world were ill-prepared to accept the heart-rending reports that John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife and her sister had crashed.

We were unprepared to believe that the young man many of us remembered as a child who stood at attention, saluting, at his father's funeral had left us so soon.

Could this have been just a nightmare from which we would awaken and find that young, charismatic man still with us?

As we watched coverage of the tragedy and the minutes, hours and days elapsed with few new findings, we hoped in vain that no news would become good news.

John F. Kennedy Jr. was a maturing, serious and sensitive young man.

He had the ability to lead us, one day soon, along the humane path of justice, fairness, compassion, tolerance and decency. He was an outstanding and astounding role model.

The enormous tragedy the Kennedy family has suffered is also an enormous tragedy for us all.

Leon Peace Ried, Baltimore

A thought about why so many strangers to the Kennedy and Bessette families have been drawn to the coverage of and shrines to their tragedy: Perhaps this loss has dredged up unresolved personal grief and people find this a safe outlet for their sorrow.

Those young people who died represent beloved sons, daughters, spouses and siblings everywhere. Strangers who mourn them may also be mourning their own lost loved ones.

These rituals are important and comforting.

Ellen Eisenstadt, Owings Mills

I understand that Gov. Parris N. Glendening has lowered the flag over the State House to half-mast in tribute to John F. Kennedy Jr.

When I heard this, I began to wonder about those soldiers killed last week in their peace mission to Kosovo ("2 U.S. soldiers die in accident in Kosovo," July 20). Where is their flag being flown?

Where are our priorities? We grieve over an icon who reminds us of the Kennedy administration's vision of Camelot, but most of us don't know the names of the soldiers who died last week.

Michael Werdin, Baltimore

When I thought of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, who lost her father to murder, her mother to cancer and now has lost her only brother to an accident, tears came to my eyes. Tears for her and tears for us.

America suffered an enormous loss when President John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. When his son died, we all lost a bit more.

We lose something when people with the capacity to inspire us leave us.

The mythical feelings for President Kennedy don't come from what he did. They come from the dreams of our nation more than 35 years ago: for prosperity, security, and equality -- for greatness for our nation and all of its people.

I too wish that, as a nation, we could dream of greatness the way we did when JFK was in the White House.

I am sure that many people believe John F. Kennedy Jr. could have led us to do so again.

Christopher Callaghan, Sparks

Voluntary or not, drug treatment works

The Sun's recent editorials on addiction in Baltimore (June 27-28) suggested that "voluntary" addiction treatment is a "philosophy" that must prove itself before it merits further funding (June 27-28). But treatment is not a philosophy and its efficacy is already proven.

Drug addiction treatment has been evaluated many times under rigorous condition similar to those the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses to evaluate new medications. Many studies have shown unequivocally that treatment reduces crime, drug use and the spread of HIV.

Given the money it saves the health and criminal justice systems, treatment more than pays for itself.

Making treatment available through the criminal justice system is a promising approach -- and one that has been available for decades. However, rigorous research comparing "coerced" to "voluntary" treatment has been lacking. The data available on this comparison is not conclusive.

But such comparisons overlook the obvious: The real difference is not between coerced and voluntary treatment, but between no treatment (which is the usual situation today) and any treatment (coerced or otherwise).

Thus citizens should focus on making treatment available to all who would benefit.

Finally, The Sun incorrectly suggested that Baltimore's low treatment-completion rates, compared with those in other parts of the state, indicate that treatment somehow doesn't work in Baltimore.

But completion rates are a poor measure of success. Large and sustained improvements have been shown for patients in treatment, whether or not they complete the program.

And given the variation in socio-economic status, drug-use severity and the types of treatment across jurisdictions, it is unfair to compare Baltimore's outcomes with those in the rest of the state.

Baltimore's concentration of poverty has enormous impact on expected treatment outcomes for all chronic disorders, including addictions. The large proportion of city addicts receiving methadone also affects the city's completion data unfavorably.

Dr. Robert Schwartz, Baltimore

The writer is director of the University of Maryland School of Medicine's Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and a board member of the Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems Inc.

I applaud The Sun for raising the visibility of drug abuse treatment as a way to address Baltimore's drug addiction problem.

As president of the Maryland Chapter of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, I am acutely aware of how inadequate treatment funding has hampered efforts to reduce the harm associated with drug addiction.

It is unfortunate, however, that The Sun criticized recent efforts by the city's health department and Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems Inc. because they haven't reserved treatment for offenders.

While few dispute the need for treatment within the criminal justice system, providing voluntary and non-voluntary treatment should not be presented as opposing alternatives.

Treatment is effective -- whether prompted by court referral or self-referral.

The problem is that all types of substance abuse treatment have been inadequately funded for years and are not available to all who seek it.

A Band-aid solution will not work here. We need a real commitment from city and state leadership to enhance the treatment system so that it can provide care and services to all.

If we are going to make real progress on this important issue, we must put aside arguments about whether voluntary or non-voluntary treatment is better.

In the meantime, let's support all efforts to increase the access to and quality of drug treatment.

Robert White, Baltimore

The writer is president of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence's Maryland chapter.

Saving the 'Book Block'?

As a believer in the rule of law, I am offended when our leaders appear to pick and choose which laws they will obey.

This appears to be the case in the current battle to save 10 buildings in a National Historic District in Charles Village. These 10 buildings are also within the confines of a "parking lot district."

Chapter Nine of the "Zoning Ordinances of Baltimore City" reads, in part: "In the parking lot district, no . . . building [shall] be razed so as to permit the use of the land as a parking lot unless by the authority of an ordinance approved by the Mayor and the City Council of Baltimore."(Section 9.0-3)

The regulations also say that, in considering such an ordinance, the mayor and city council must evaluate ". . . the need and necessity for the parking lot . . . and the possible aesthetic damage to the area surrounding the parking lot with particular respect to the proposed removal of historic or aesthetically valuable properties."

No such evaluations have been done. No such ordinance has been considered.

Yet the site's developers, Trout, Segall, Doyle LLC and their proposed tenant, CVS Pharmacy, have already been issued a permit to build their building and parking lot.

As of this writing, no demolition permit has been issued. But there is little doubt that one will be -- unless the city decides to obey its own regulations.

If it does, it will find that the parking lot is not needed unless the CVS store is built and that the aesthetic damage the building would do to the surrounding area is considerable.

It is easy to see the probable damage. Look at nearby blocks that have been decimated, in turn, by a gargantuan Safeway, a Hollywood Video and the soon-to-be-built Anderson car showroom. An entire row of townhouses has been sacrificed for that showroom.

CVS' suburban-style eyesore will demolish half of the "Book Block" -- now the last intact block of townhouses on 25th Street.

Until this proposed development forced out the bookstores, the block was a thriving haven for antiquarian book shoppers -- a use that fit the character of the neighborhood very well.

Charles Village is not alone in trying to stop such destructive development. Neighborhoods on the west side and in East Baltimore are fighting the destruction of historic structures by developers.

And, across the nation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is actively working against this suburbanizing of America's Main Streets.

No one involved in these efforts wants to stop development. What they want is responsible development that maintains or enhances their neighborhood's character.

Lynda Case Lambert, Baltimore

The writer is a member of the Committee for Responsible Development on 25th Street.

More drivers are coming

On June 15, The Sun printed a very sensible editorial, "Shortchanging transportation," that rightly pointed to the need to make infrastructural investments in highways, transit systems, ports and airports.

However, George Maurer of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) took offense in his July 4 letter, "Building more roads takes social toll, but won't ease congestion."

Apparently, it is the CBF's position that, despite projections of increases in population and vehicle travel in Maryland, we should stop enhancing highway capacity.

Professional environmentalists argue that highway improvements only encourage more driving. But that's coming, whether we accommodate it or not.

Unless we outlaw people moving to Maryland, estimates suggest there will be 5 million more daily personal trips taken in the state by 2020.

To double Maryland's transit ridership -- from the current 500,000 to 1 million riders per day -- might require a substantial increase in the state's gas tax or other tax hikes. Still, it would address only 10 percent of projected travel growth.

Highway investment not only creates jobs and moves our economy, but saves lives. In the early 1950s, before the interstate highway system was constructed, there were seven fatal crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled nationally.

Today that figure is 1.6 per 100 million miles. Non-fatal injury crashes have dropped 53 percent as well.

The Sun was right to call for serious planning for transportation facilities and funding. This should involve a mix of solutions, including highway, transit, port and airport improvements.

Robert E. Latham, Glen Burnie

The writer is executive director of Marylanders for Efficient and Safe Highways, a highway construction advocacy organization.

Pub Date: 7/24/99