Politics and L.A.’s new archbishop; praise for Father Gregory Boyle; the U.S. and Israel

Church and state

Re “An unapologetic Catholic voice,” April 12

I began reading the article on Archbishop Jose Gomez with admiration, but ended in horror.

Gomez has taken admirable positions in favor of some human rights. But then he endorsed a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and “assailed President Obama’s healthcare reform package, largely because he felt it would increase the number of abortions” -- mistakenly, I believe.

But this is merely Catholic orthodoxy. What is terrifying is Gomez’s apparent approval of the views of Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, reported in the article as having given a speech “arguing that the very notion of the separation of church and state is wrong.”

The “notion”? The “notion” that is in our Constitution, the highest law of our land?

What other “notions” can we look forward to the Catholic Church -- or its spokesmen (I guess I can safely say “men” here) -- arguing to be wrong?

Paul Cooley
Culver City

Anyone chosen to take over as leader of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles must be “concerned about doctrinal purity,” as Loyola professor Father Thomas P. Rausch put it in The Times, and should insist that Catholics adhere to church teachings on abortion and other issues.

It’s hard to tell if Rausch agrees this is a good thing, but at Priests for Life, we applaud the selection of Archbishop Gomez to lead Catholics in “laid-back Southern California.”

To have someone with an unambiguous commitment to life leading the nation’s largest diocese can only help our cause, which is saving the lives of thousands of babies every day.

Also, a bishop has every right, indeed an obligation, to inject the church into national debates. Pope Benedict XVI has given us a clear mandate to do so.

Father Frank Pavone
Staten Island, N.Y.
The writer is national director of Priests for Life.

Boyle has made a difference

Re “Homeboys’ hero,” Opinion, April 10

Kudos to The Times and Patt Morrison for reminding us that one person truly can make a difference, that not all priests are pedophiles and that the solution to gangs is not to lock people up and throw away the key.

Even an atheist can appreciate the work of Father Gregory Boyle as a “man of the cloth.”

Lynn Kessler
Sherman Oaks

Close your eyes, take a deep breath and imagine for a minute or two what the world would be like if Boyle were pope.

Patricia van Hartesveldt
Reseda

Meddling in Israeli politics

Re “Don’t go there,” Opinion, April 12

Saying that America has meddled in Israeli politics is specious. It’s like saying that a police officer thwarting a holdup is meddling in the affairs of the bandit.

Israel has subjected the Palestinian Arabs to a brutal 42-year occupation that America has continuously tried to stop. Urging and advising has had no effect, so supporting Israeli politicians who might do the right thing while opposing those who likely would not is in order.

Calling this meddling is insulting to the country that supports Israel financially, diplomatically and militarily. I resent the author’s accusation.

Richard Herman
Costa Mesa

Aaron David Miller is absolutely right that the meddling in Israeli electoral politics will be counterproductive and ineffective. His reasoning is not sound, however. All we hear about now is the peace process, not peace.

The problem is on the other side. What Palestinian Arab leader is willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and acknowledge that the Palestinian “right of return” is dead? Miller knows that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and later Ehud Olmert each offered the best deal that an Israeli government could, and they were rejected.

Peace will come when the Arabs give up their notions of destroying Israel either militarily or demographically.

Until then, it doesn’t matter which political party controls the White House or who leads the Israeli government.

Gil Stein
North Hollywood

Healthcare, by the numbers

Re “Health premiums likely to rise more,” April 13

The projected rise in health premiums could have easily been prevented if Congress had created a more rational healthcare system that included protections for the general public.

Having Medicare cover the total population would have been the simplest way, considering that Medicare’s overhead and administrative costs are much lower than those of most private insurers.

Short of that, a “public option” would have created a competitive system that would have made it impossible for private insurers to arbitrarily raise rates to unaffordable levels.

Congress created neither of these systems thanks to the medical care industry’s lobbyists. Is corruption limited to Third World countries, or is it present at the highest levels of our government too?

Bruce Boyd
Valley Glen

Insurance companies are businesses that expect to earn a profit.

The profit margin for the industry is very low -- about 3%, according to a study by the American Enterprise Institute.

So why are insurance companies the “bad guys” in the mix? Why have the soaring costs of other products and services been ignored?

If Congress puts price controls on insurers without controlling the rising cost of care, one of two things will happen: Insurance companies will increase co-pays, or they’ll go out of business.

Democrats would fight large co-pays and would proceed to let, or actively cause, the companies to fail. They’d get the result they have always wanted: a single-payer system.

If the care providers are then “controlled,” we would have fewer providers and less care.

Who are the ambulance chasers going to sue then, the U.S. government? Good luck with that.

Bob Driscoll
Woodland Hills

Voters have a lot to chew on

Re “Back home and defending their healthcare votes,” Column One, April 12

Just imagine Republican incumbents in Congress facing the millions who lost their insurance, jobs or homes, trying to explain why they stuck together to keep these unfortunates from getting health insurance.

Their voters largely blame Republican lapses for the economic collapse that cost them their jobs and homes, and now the Republicans won’t even let them have health insurance or protection from rising insurance rates and rejection for preexisting conditions.

Why should we even expect a Republican victory in the fall elections? The only valid historical precedent is the 1934 midterm elections (after the economic collapse of 1929), when the Republican opposition lost many seats in the Senate and the House -- not the midterm elections of economically more normal times after new administrations were coming in.

The Republicans are whistling in the dark.

Peter H. Merkl
Goleta

Memories of bookstores

Re “The community of books,” Opinion, April 9

Joy Horowitz’s article on independent bookstores was a very welcome reminder of the irreplaceable place of the independent bookstore in a vibrant society.

Speaking from the vantage point of my 91 years on this planet, I well recall my time spent as a student on Washington Square in New York during the 1930s, when Barnes & Noble was a single store on lower Fifth Avenue and was enormously popular with students.

The loss of neighborhood bookstores is something no literate society should have to abide. All the electronic gadgetry in the world can never replace the joy of holding, and reading, an old-fashioned paper book -- and yes, even to treasure it after it has been read.

Sidney Reiff
Beverly Hills