Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
1) S. Jetchick (2007-April-13)
2) J. McGarry (2007-November-01)
3) S. Jetchick (2007-November-01)
4) J. McGarry (2007-November-05)
Mrs. Joanne McGarry, Executive Director Catholic Civil Rights League 301-46 St. Clair Ave. E Toronto, ON M4T 1M9 (416) 466-8244 Good day Mrs. McGarry, Well, I hope you won't be too angry with me getting into an argument with you like this in front of everybody! Normally I just exchange private e-mails, but when something important is at stake, I feel obliged to speak publicly. As you know, I'm a cardholding member of the CCRL, and I can't really remember ever disagreeing with you about anything important, even though we've been communicating for a few years already (so that must be some kind of record, for someone like me with the social graces of a belt sander! :-) But twice now in a space of a few weeks I've disagreed with you. A few days ago, I wrote: "Hi Joanne, Shouldn't the CCRL sign this letter [broken link, restoremarriage.ca/restoremarriagecanada/wcf4sf.cfm, it was a petition for an ironic apology to the world on the part of Canadians, because Canada is promoting the legal glorification of sodomy]? Thanks!" To which you replied today: "Hi Stefan, We were invited to sign the letter but declined. We think that "apologizing to the world" for something we not only did not cause, but in fact did everything in our power to prevent, is not an image we want to convey. The people who should be apologizing are the ones who are probably bursting their little buttons with pride for "promoting equality"! Although we won't sign it, we do think they make some good points. I have no problem directing our subscribers to the letter, for them to support should they so wish. Talk to you soon. Joanne." Of course, I fully agree with you that the "gay" lobby pushed hardest for this legislation, that the CCRL was against it, and that it's the "gay" lobby who should be begging for the world's forgiveness, not the CCRL. But that is the whole point! The message is ironic, and everybody understands that the signers are against sodomy. The image projected by that letter is absolutely and totally against homosexual unions and in favor of real marriage! You might say: "OK, so you and I disagree about one small petition". But that's not my actual complaint. My actual complaint is that I was never consulted about this decision, even though I'm a cardholding member and I pay my dues! (Ooops! I hope I've paid this year! :-) Seriously, you regularly send us e-mail updates about this and that. I got one again today. Couldn't you have sent us an e-mail saying: "This is an informal poll. Do you want the CCRL to sign this letter? Please reply within 24 hours with "YES" or "NO" in the subject line. Please read the petition below, along with the Pro and Con arguments of a few CCRL Directors added to help you examine both sides of the issue." Shouldn't the CCRL be representing the will of its members? How can you do that, if you never ask us what our will is? (Please don't tell me you don't have time, I could have organized that quick poll for the CCRL.) The essence of this complaint is the exact same one as for the previous disagreement I had with you a few days ago. As I told you, the rights of all Catholics in the Province of Quebec are under governmental attack: private Catholic schools are going to be forbidden to teach Catholicism! This is why the CCRL exists! But, as I told you, the hard part about this problem is that the Quebec Bishops are the ones attacking us, mostly by misrepresenting the official teachings of the Catholic Church: Religious Freedom In School How come the CCRL isn't publicly reprimanding the Quebec Bishops for disobeying the Pope and the official teachings of the Church? You might say: "But we only defend your Civil Rights when they are attacked by nasty Sodomites and Atheists. If the attack comes from people claiming to be Catholic, then they have a blank check from the CCRL." OK, maybe the CCRL is like that, but where does it say so in the Mission Statement? And if the Mission Statement doesn't state that explicitely, why not run another quicky poll? Why not ask the members something like: "Do you want us to scream blue murder when Catholic Civil Rights are attacked, even if the attackers are wearing episcopal mitres?" If they say "NO", then fine. I don't have a problem with that. Nothing prevents the CCRL from specializing in specific types of attacks against our civil rights. But why not ask us? It's so easy... Anyway, sorry for the long e-mail, but I officially request that this e-mail be forwarded to whoever is in charge of reading such complaints. (The Board of Directors, maybe? I don't know.) I also officially request that this e-mail be forwarded to all CCRL members, so they can make their wishes known to the CCRL. Well, I guess that's all the nasty things I had to say for today! ;-) Have a nice weekend! Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Joanne McGarry Sent: 1 novembre 2007 10:00 To: 'Stefan Jetchick' Subject: RE: Renewal decision for S. Jetchick's CCRL membership card Hi Stefan, Sorry, I thought I had sent a reply. Here is what is said: (or would have said:): The League's mandate is to support Church teaching in the public square (for most of us, that's the media, courts and the legislatures). It's not that we don't believe other aspects of the Church are important, only that each organization has its own charism - its own 'bandwidth' if you like - and ours is limited to the activities of the laity in promoting the fair treatment of our faith in public areas such as media and the arts, and public policy consistent with our faith. On the second part of your question, the League is governed by a volunteer board. To be sure, ours is a very informal League in the sense that some of our members are much more active than others, and interests vary. That is why we are much more likely to make our members aware of something like the "apology to the world" and let them decide whether to sign, rather than tell them that they should. Your suggestion of e-mail polls is a good one, and I've been known to solicit opinions electronically. However, the reality is that I have e-mails for only about 60 per cent of our members, and not all of them check it regularly. It would therefore be of very limited value in matters requiring fast action or majority opinion. Hope that helps. Talk to you soon, Joanne.
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: 1 novembre 2007 12:08 To: Joanne McGarry Subject: RE: Renewal decision for S. Jetchick's CCRL membership card Hello again Mrs. McGarry, >> Sorry, I thought I had sent a reply. I'm pretty sure I didn't get any, but of course e-mails do get lost once in a while. No harm done. >> The League's mandate is to support Church teaching in the public >> square (for most of us, that's the media, courts and the >> legislatures). Nothing wrong with that, of course! >> each organization has its >> own charism - its own 'bandwidth' if you like Here again, nothing wrong with limiting ourselves to doing one thing, and doing it right. >> ours is limited to the activities of the laity in promoting the fair >> treatment of our faith in public areas such as media and the >> arts, and public policy consistent with our faith. Here again, I don't see anything wrong with that. But you're avoiding my question... Or maybe my question is so muddled in my previous e-mail, that it's invisible! ;-) I'll try to re-phrase it more clearly. You say the CCRL tries to "promote the fair treatment of our Faith in public areas". I'm saying: "But what if our Faith is attacked, in those aforementioned public areas, by some bad religious leaders?" It's not a hypothetical question. Our Faith is under attack in the media, by many "Catholic" Priests and Bishops! Is it in the mandate of the CCRL to be systematically blind to those attacks? Cheers! Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Joanne McGarry Sent: 5 novembre 2007 10:30 To: 'Stefan Jetchick' Subject: RE: Renewal decision for S. Jetchick's CCRL membership card Hello again, The Church has its own internal structures for addressing situations involving clergy such as you describe. There is also at least one lay organization that gets involved (Catholics United to Peter). For our part, we work almost exclusively with lay leadership. It's not that we don't think other issues and situations are important, only that they're not part of our mandate. Hope that helps. I'm working on our annual report this week (the AGM is Thursday). I appreciate your questions, since they help me fine tune our work and our messages. Thanks, Joanne.
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves