Burdens of priests are many
Dear Editor: I’m writing in regards to Alanna McVay’s letter of May 28th about the Catholic church. What a pity to leave our church for a simple excuse. I’ve been a Catholic all my life and am proud of it. How dare you condemn a priest. Maybe you don’t know he has four churches to take care of and he does a splendid job. He has to run from one church to another. He landed in the hospital not once but two or three times with a blood clot in his lungs.
They do not refuse when they are asked to visit a shut in. The Eucharistic minister does not toss the communion in her mouth. I can verify that because when I came home from the hospital I was visited by them and also had communion and it was not tossed in my mouth.
Is it a crime for him to play with the Llama? Also the priest does not refuse to administer the Last Rites because he is too busy. I called the priest for my dying friend, and he said, “I’m on my way.” It was minutes before he came and administered the Last Rites and spoke to the family and helped them with their grief. How can you say that they don’t care about your 70 year-old bedfast friend who is a life-long member of the church?
I’m very angry reading this. A priest does not deserve this kind of nonsense. He does his job very well. Please don’t accuse him for all the wrongdoing.
Marge Antonelli
Carmichaels
Feds propose shuffling vets
Dear Editor:
The Veterans Administration has decided to shift its care to vets who need it. Don’t they all need it? Are they not all deserving? How can one possibly say who needs and who doesn’t? If they are there for treatment then they are there for treatment. They gave their all, they deserve their all and not to be put aside like an orange crate.
Importantly, what I’m saying is, the possibility exists that vets will lose immediate access to strategic care.
Restructuring? Just another way for our caring government officials to keep a buck and possibly give it to another country. Let’s hope not.
New services will be added, they say, and changing operations for the better.
I believe it’s a beguilement statement and vets will never see things differently. I truly hope I’m wrong.
Based on the government of improving services, it is of deep concern. It could lead to the domino effect of shutting down more facilities. You’ve heard the expression before, give an inch and take a foot.
The General Accounting office predicts it would be costly to operate unneeded buildings. Why can’t they improve those facilities according to the veteran populace, rather than have him or her travel to distant services. Gas isn’t getting cheaper.
What? You say it’s easier said than done. No, it’s easier considered than not done.
The government said their goal is not to cut service but to re-deploy where it is needed the most.
You’re saying that this vet is more deserving than that vet. This is totally perplexed.
What’s more important Uncle Sam, a vet or a buck?
Gary Shaporka
Grindstone