Saturday, April 09, 2005
My e-mail to Nicholas Kristof
This afternoon I read Kristof's op-ed contending that the next pope will permit married clergy in the Latin Rite. The piece, "Let Fathers Be Fathers," is available here.
Wishing more to mock him than to argue with him, I promptly sent him the following e-mail.
TO: nicholas@nytimes.com
SUBJECT: Re. Let Fathers Be Fathers
Dear Mr. Kristof,
I have just finished reading the above-titled article on married clergy in the Latin Rite. I do not wish to raise important objections, but a frivolous one.
If Catholic clergy were to marry, American Catholics would have to increase their weekly contributions by ten-fold, I imagine. While it is possible to have three bachelors share a rectory, that will surely not be possible with three married men. Moreover, any Catholic clergyman worth his salt will not resort to birth control. That means that each of those three families can expect to have between 6 and 12 children. If we permit them to be ordained without sacrificing married life, we should at least insist on their bearing the pains of their efforts. (Man says to priest of Opus Dei: "Father, other than my wife and kids, should I be practicing acts of mortification?")
I suppose this could be spun out into a serious political concern, one that uninvited butt-in-ski's might take seriously. (And would explain why those butt-in-ski's might write op-ed's on the subject in the NYTimes.) The secular justification for tax deductions for Church contributions is, e.g., soup kitchens. If a greater portion of Church donations are dedicated to sustaining the minister's families, and less going to the works of mercy, then we wind up with both lower tax bases (because of the increased donations) and fewer social benefits (because of the greater proportion being consumed in-house, as it were).
But, as indicated, I do not wish to turn this into a serious objection. There are sufficient reasons against married clergy that I will not raise with you. God might very well curse His Church with a pontiff who will permit Latin clergy to marry, but it would bring consequences not predicted in articles such as your own.
UPDATE: What happens when you send Kristof an e-mail?
TO: me
SUBJECT: Thanks for your message **
This is an automatic response to say thanks for your message. I do appreciate both the compliments and the complaints, as well as the information and ideas for future columns. I reply to some points made by multiple writers on my blog, KristofResponds. It's at http://www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.You can also post comments in the open reader forum for discussing my columns: http://www.nytimes.com/kristofforum. If you would like your message considered for publication as a letter to the editor, then please send it to letters@nytimes.com. You will increase the prospect of having a letter published if you send it as soon as possible after publication and keep it to 150 words.Thanks very much.Nicholas Kristof
Wishing more to mock him than to argue with him, I promptly sent him the following e-mail.
TO: nicholas@nytimes.com
SUBJECT: Re. Let Fathers Be Fathers
Dear Mr. Kristof,
I have just finished reading the above-titled article on married clergy in the Latin Rite. I do not wish to raise important objections, but a frivolous one.
If Catholic clergy were to marry, American Catholics would have to increase their weekly contributions by ten-fold, I imagine. While it is possible to have three bachelors share a rectory, that will surely not be possible with three married men. Moreover, any Catholic clergyman worth his salt will not resort to birth control. That means that each of those three families can expect to have between 6 and 12 children. If we permit them to be ordained without sacrificing married life, we should at least insist on their bearing the pains of their efforts. (Man says to priest of Opus Dei: "Father, other than my wife and kids, should I be practicing acts of mortification?")
I suppose this could be spun out into a serious political concern, one that uninvited butt-in-ski's might take seriously. (And would explain why those butt-in-ski's might write op-ed's on the subject in the NYTimes.) The secular justification for tax deductions for Church contributions is, e.g., soup kitchens. If a greater portion of Church donations are dedicated to sustaining the minister's families, and less going to the works of mercy, then we wind up with both lower tax bases (because of the increased donations) and fewer social benefits (because of the greater proportion being consumed in-house, as it were).
But, as indicated, I do not wish to turn this into a serious objection. There are sufficient reasons against married clergy that I will not raise with you. God might very well curse His Church with a pontiff who will permit Latin clergy to marry, but it would bring consequences not predicted in articles such as your own.
UPDATE: What happens when you send Kristof an e-mail?
TO: me
SUBJECT: Thanks for your message **
This is an automatic response to say thanks for your message. I do appreciate both the compliments and the complaints, as well as the information and ideas for future columns. I reply to some points made by multiple writers on my blog, KristofResponds. It's at http://www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.You can also post comments in the open reader forum for discussing my columns: http://www.nytimes.com/kristofforum. If you would like your message considered for publication as a letter to the editor, then please send it to letters@nytimes.com. You will increase the prospect of having a letter published if you send it as soon as possible after publication and keep it to 150 words.Thanks very much.Nicholas Kristof
# posted by Anonymous : 6:52 PM
