No Limits to ‘Nothing Sacred’ Dialogue

Regarding Catholic League President William A. Donohue’s article, “A Political Agenda Mars ABC’s ‘Nothing Sacred’ ” (Counterpunch, Aug. 11):

Once again, an apologist for a Catholic mouthpiece steps forward to protest a portrayal of a priest that doesn’t match the party line. What else is new?

Never mind the fact that, with so many negative stories of priests and ministers making print these days, a show about a priest who practices the gospel he preaches might just be a light unto people’s souls. Like the old “Insight” stories, which featured men and women of God who didn’t always behave like little stone statues, here’s a story featuring a priest who doesn’t have all the answers, who questions the hierarchy and Pharisee-like teachings that reduce God to fire and brimstone; this show could truly be a family-friendly program that people would be interested in seeing.

I just hope that “Nothing Sacred” is worth all the hubbub and hoopla; nothing would be sadder than to find plots gutted and dialogue muted just because Donohue and his cronies made noise. If advocates for “family values” television want honest views of religion, they should be prepared to see it, warts and all.

JULIE T. BYERS

Temple City

*

Donohue’s article shows a side of the church that continues its attempt to intimidate not only the media but also the majority of its congregation. As a daily reader of The Times, I am constantly amused by the paranoid overreaction of the church hierarchy (and its lay mouthpieces) to intelligent discourse they deem offensive. As a Catholic who has digested over 16 years of the church’s education system, I am not amused by a church that ignores the humanity of its members by discouraging any meaningful dialogue that has not been approved by the “Magisterium.” Whatever the heck that is.

JAMES L. HARRIGAN

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

Donohue’s scathing attack on ABC’s “Nothing Sacred” exposed some of the core reasons why so many Catholics seem so disenfranchised from the church or, perhaps more accurately, what they believe to be the church according to people like Donohue. Donohue blasts the show’s Father Ray for declaring a “moratorium on sins of the flesh” because he is tired of being a “sexual traffic cop.” Donohue is convinced that this is a double-barreled assault on church teachings on homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity and the like.

But is it? What Father Ray was really saying was that being a moral fascist is not in a priest’s job description. The job of a priest is to bolster moral fiber by bolstering faith. Priests are not and should not be “sexual traffic cops,” just as prayer should not be used as a quasi-liturgical rabbit’s foot where it is relegated to mere superstition.

What I found equally upsetting about Donohue’s diatribe was his attack on David Manson, the co-producer of the series, who happens to be Jewish. Says Donohue, “It is no more the job of a Jew to create dialogue (read dissent) among Catholics than it is the business of corporate foundations to fund anti-Catholic front groups.” Does he really have so little faith in the ability of viewers, particularly members of the church, to think and act for themselves? And isn’t it everyone’s right and responsibility to create meaningful dialogue whenever and wherever possible, regardless of the religious leanings of the catalyst of this discussion?

I was fortunate enough to view a tape of the “Nothing Sacred” pilot several weeks ago. Not only did I feel challenged intellectually, morally and spiritually, I felt compelled to attend Mass the following morning to see what I was missing. And by the way, I’m about as Catholic as David Manson.

MICHAEL LAZAROU

Encino

*

I was profoundly disturbed by the fundamentally anti-democratic thrust of Donohue’s criticism of “Nothing Sacred.”

He seems to be against dialogue on theological and moral questions or wishes to limit that dialogue to club members only. Donohue says that because the producer is a Jew instead of a Catholic he has no business creating a dialogue on questions of religion and morality that includes positions of the Catholic Church.

That would be fine if the objective were only to reinforce already-held opinions or beliefs, but it is clearly not a good approach if the objective is the pursuit of truth and justice. Should not public dialogue on television--not a private sermon inside a church or synagogue--seek, in the broadest possible terms, truth and justice by including the largest number of voices?

Certainly we should not limit the public examination of moral questions, especially ones as important as human sexuality, only to those for whom there are no questions to be asked but only rules to be followed. That would not be dialogue but indoctrination.

JERRY SMALL

Venice