Re: Editorial: Why Harry Forbes, USCCB Film Reviewer, Must be Replaced

Dear Editor,

It strikes  me as more than just a little suspicious that these film reviewers continue to recommend films that are obviously not commensurate with Catholic morals.  Seems to me that these are not just a few “cowboys or loose canons”.  They are doing this because someone or someones are allowing and/or perhaps even encouraging them to do so.  I think the moving forward position should not be to critize them and/or encouraging people to write the USCCB but a “charge” that the Bishops in charge are directly responsible, accountable and complicit.  The buck starts and stops at the top.  This is happening because, frankly, they are good with it.

I know there are Bishops that have spoken against it but, as a group, they are guilty.  Talk is cheap.  They can and do have the power to do something about it.  So why aren’t they ?  The answer is simple.  Because they think it is OK.  It is the only logical reason why.  It is just another form of scandal that, sadly, they are failing, once again to do something about and do something about it quickly. 

God Bless and keep up the good work 

Joseph Anthony D’Ettore
  Brampton, Ontario



Re: Massive Canadian Child Porn Bust Only Tip of Iceberg say Police

Dear Editor,

  Kudos to Commissioner Julian Fantino and his team for their no doubt exhausting work on eliminating child pornography.

In Canada, child pornography is defined as being pornographic material of children under the age of 18.

Our Federal government continues to allow the age of sexual consent to be 14 years of age in Canada. The Conservatives want this to be changed to 16 years of age. This is part of Bill C-2. While the Conservatives have passed Bill C-2, the “Tackling Violent Crime Act”, it is doubtful that the Liberal Senate will pass the bill.

The imbalance between child pornography and sexual consent in Canada needs to be corrected. Sexual consent should not be allowed for people under 18 years of age, just as there should be no pornographic material made of people under the age of 18.

At the present time, the law says to Canadians “it’s okay to have sex with a 14 year old, just don’t take any pictures”!

It is because of our government that, in 2000, an international report on child sexual abuse singled out Canada as a haven for sexual predators of children. The report, 178 pages in length, is called “Looking Back, Thinking Forward”, for your reference.

There is something dreadfully wrong with Canada, when Internet providers are allowed to transmit illegal content to their customers, and not be held legally responsible.

Until the law is changed, I feel that the efforts of police will be wasted.

Joe Caverly
  St. Thomas ON 


Re: Homosexual lifestyle as risk factor

  Dear Editor,

Why are the Canadian government and other responsible people – e.g. school trustees, public health officials and others – ignoring the demonstrated fact that the homosexual lifestyle is a risk factor?  It might even be considered a method of slow suicide?  Also, a widely-known fact is that even homosexuals on treatment for AIDS are infectious.  There is a ban on donating blood or giving an organ if a man has had sex with another man in the previous two years.  Yet, when people take a stand to protect children against indoctrination, not to mention abuse, they are hauled before our homosexually sympathetic Human Rights Commissions.  Parents are responsible for the education of their children, but have no voice in the design of the curriculum.  What kind of logic is this? 

M. J. Ferrari, M. D. 


To write a letter to the Editor: E-mail your letter to [email protected]. Write “letter to the editor” in the subject line. Include your name, city and province or state of residence, as well as your phone # (the phone # is for our use only, and will not be published). Please note that all letters are subject to editing. will publish letters to the editor at its discretion, giving priority to the most concise, insightful and timely submissions.