JRR Letter To The Editor, December 5, 1975: "He Criticizes Catholic Church's View Of World"

Joseph Rosenberger lit a firestorm of controversy with a short letter to the editor, published in the Chicago Daily Herald on December 5, 1975:

He Criticizes Catholic Church's View Of World

The fact that 74 per cent of the pregnant teen-agers counseled at Crossroads Clinic, in Palatine, come from Roman Catholic homes (as reported by The Herald) in which "they had little or no sex education, including discussion on emotions and morals," should surprise no one even vaguely familiar with history.

Sex, common sense and progress have always been big no-nos to the church. After Columbus discovered America and thereby proved that the earth was round, universities in Europe were still forced to teach that the planet was flat. The earth remained "flat" for almost 300 years. How could the Popes be wrong?

The same stupid and backward attitude prevails today. The Roman Catholic stand on abortion is only one example, with Catholic pressure being applied on lawmakers to pass laws that would forbid any woman in the United States to decide what to do with the baby growing in her own body! In short, Roman Catholics are dong their damndest to legislate their religious beliefs into the Constitution of the United States! How long must intelligent people tolerate this superstitious cancer eating at the body of American society?

Joe Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove

One week later, ten letters were published in response, with eight of them opposing Rosenberger. I can imagine JRR enjoyed stirring up a lot of anger. Another letter in opposition was published three days later. Some highlights:

Rosenberger Letter Stirs Response

Where does Mr. Joseph Rosenberger get the audacity to think that a woman can do what she wants with the "baby growing in her womb"? She did not create that baby. Only God can create. Women just have the privilege of procreating. ...

Mrs. Jane O'Reilly
Arlington Heights

***

The church has existed for all these centuries in spite of the human weaknesses of its members and will continue to exist long after Mr. Rosenberger is gone and forgotten. ...

Phyllis Mack
Buffalo Grove

***

Joe Rosenberger's attack on the Catholic Church is both frightening and pathetic. To call Catholics "superstitious" because they believe that every person has a right to life shows not only ignorance of biology, but also an attitude reminiscent of Hitler's death camps.

Joan Anderson
Arlington Heights

***

After reading Mr. Rosenberger's interpretation on how a group of teenagers became pregnant I feel a responsibility to take issue less some unwitting soul read and believe such a fatuous and illogical explanation. ...

Amazing conclusions have been reached through the manipulation of arithmetic but Mr. Rosenberger's suppositions lack an intelligent basis and to the contrary reflect a bigoted attitude toward the Catholic Church. ...

Mr. Rosenberger, this is still a free country and from the content of your article it is immediately apparent that you lack the objectivity to publicly air your opinion on the material contained in your letter quoted in The Herald.

Earl K. McDonald
Arlington Heights

***

If you are even vaguely familiar with history, Mr. Rosenberger, you will clearly realize that many great men in the history of the world have had their ideas and inventions rejected, including Edison, the Wright brothers and Fulton, to name just a few. The Pope had nothing to do with the rejection of their inventions. In short, we found your letter very hostile toward Catholics for no discernibly good reason. Shame, shame Mr. Rosenberger, your prejudice is showing.

Judette Tummillo
Jackie Flynn
Elk Grove Village

***

Mankind has always been plagued. Sometimes by drought, sometimes by floods, sometimes by pestilence. But every couple of years that part of mankind known as Roman Catholics have Rosenberger of Buffalo Grove crawl out from under his rock. ...

[T]oo bad your mother didn't share your views when you "were the baby growing in her own body!" Rosenberger, it is you who are the "cancer eating at the body of American society."

I've learned from my own personal experience when anyone constantly condemns and chews at something he personally hates (in your case, Hitler, the Roman Catholic Church), it is just a case of jealousy, pure and simple. Merry Christmas, Rosenberger, under whichever rock you are.

Alice Willes
Arlington Heights

***

The letter by one Joe Rosenberger of Buffalo Grove is rather infuriating. I only wonder if a newspaper should print such a bigoted letter. It reeks with half-truths. If this man were anti-semitic or a racist, his letter would either be "filed" or ignored. Why was this man allowed to take all those "cheap shots" in his obviously anti-Catholic letter. ...

Sex, common sense and progress are areas where the church admits backward ideas, but in the past 10 years the church has come a long way and maybe even has a long way to go, but it is aimed in the right direction. ...

Frank Vito
Streamwood

***

I was not aware that God was living in Buffalo Grove. After living in Prospect Heights for 20 years I have been enlightened by the "words of wisdom" from Joe Rosenberg. Such statements, as made by him in the Fencepost on Dec. 5. are food for war — the Catholic Church has not professed common sense, has never spoken on sex, nor made any progress since its inception? Where have you been Mr. Rosenberger? I would like to respond to the issues you brought to the readers of The Herald.

Did you not know that Catholic priests are among the finest sex counselors in the world? Has not the Catholic Church demonstrated sound, ordinary sense and progress in the changes and strides they have made over the past century? You sincerely believe that the Catholic Church's stand on abortion is stupid and backward? ...

It is people like you who breed contempt, not the Catholic Church, and it is people like you that will destroy the body of the American society!

Marilyn J. Schneider, R.N.
Prospect Heights
Manager, Surgery and Recovery Room
Holy Family Hospital
Des Plaines

***

It was refreshing to read Mr. Rosenberger's recent letter criticizing the Catholic Church's 15th century philosophies.

If enlightened-thinking, open-minded Catholics would stop and think about it, their goals are similar to those who devote time and effort to controlling our runaway population problems.

Both parties might violently disagree on abortion, but both should agree that the best possible solution would be to have no unwanted pregnancies.

Taking the next logical step, how could this be accomplished? Obviously by instituting meaningful, explicit sex and contraceptive education courses in our schools.

Yet those same people (Right-to-Life, etc.) who profess such concern over mother-with-child after-the-fact situations are the ones who yell the loudest when meaningful sex education courses are considered for local school curriculums.

Taking this a few steps further in one jump, those Americans who are not religious had better begin speaking up and asserting their views.

Those who do not believe in religious mumbo-jumbo (and recent statistics show 112.3 million Americans currently do not attend church at all) are going to have to decide whether they want to continue supporting churches.

That's right, even if you don't attend, you're still paying for it.

ITEM: U.S. churches' total real estate (tax-exempt) wealth is estimated between $80 billion and $103 billion — this exceeds combined assets of the nation's 10 largest industrial corporations.

ITEM: U.S. churches' gross (non-taxable) revenue is greater than the combined income, after taxes, of General Motors, AT&T, Standard Oil, Ford, Texaco and Sears.

ITEM: Roman Catholic assets and real estate holdings in the United States exceed the combined assets and holdings of Standard Oil, AT&T and U.S. Steel.

ITEM: Churches commonly use an ingenious (but not illegal) scheme known as leaseback to share their tax-exempt status with private enterprise business.

Guess what? All the monies that are not collected on church properties, church leaseback schemes with businesses and other goodies like church-owned retirement homes come out of your pocket. You pay these uncollected monies. Think about it.

Jim Peterson
Hoffman Estates

JRR Letter To The Editor, March 12, 1974: "Anti-Abortion Stand 'Twisted Logic'"

The Wheeling Herald, March 12, 1974:

Anti-Abortion Stand 'Twisted Logic'

Regarding Thomas H. Dittmer's letter regarding the evils of abortion, I have only one comment: here again we have the results of stupid, bigoted thinking, of half-truths and twisted logic, the worst of which is a comparison of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to the tactics of Adolf Hitler.

Unlike Hitler, the U.S. Supreme Court has not ordered anyone eliminated. The U.S. Supreme Court did decide that a woman has a legal right to decide for herself whether or not she wants an abortion. This decision also meant that no individual (take note, Mr. Dittmer), nor church, nor organization, has the right to try to cram its belief down the public throat.

Mr. Dittmer, you wrote that "The right to life is the supreme right of God to give or to take away."

Have you talked to God lately, Mr. Dittmer? Did he tell you that? How do you know what God wants, other than what you have been taught by previous know-it-alls? In the Old Testament we read how God told the murderous Jews to treat their captives – "save the virgins" but kill the soldiers, plow 'em like fertilizer.

This sort of makes God sound like a sort of cosmic Hitler to me! Of course, God didn't say any such thing, but it was a helluva slick trick on the part of the Jewish leaders who could make their people believe anything – and they're still waiting for their Messiah!

You write, Mr. Dittmer, of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!" I suggest you practice what you preach and permit others to pursue this philosophy without telling them how to do it, without deciding for them what is right and what is wrong in the mind of "God!"

Personally, I find it odd how bigoted fanatics are always convinced how "God" is on their side and/or just "know" what "God" wants!

When you, Mr. Dittmer, and your know-it-all kind are willing to take care of the thousands of unwanted children (that would be born into the world if you had your way), when you're willing to put out hard cash for the cost of their birth, for their food, clothing, medicine and schooling, when you're willing to put your money where your big mouth is – you still will not have earned the right to tell other people how to live.

I would also suggest you keep the facts straight and quit twisting the truth to suit your own hell-fire-religion purposes. Tell it like it really is: that the United States Supreme Court is not forcing abortion on any woman: the decision only permits the individual woman to decide for herself. And don't give us the claptrap what the "American people" want, because poll after poll has revealed that the vast majority of Americans – and this includes Roman Catholics – approve of this decision, in spite of the lies screamed by the Right To Life minority, which isn't fooling Congress the least bit.

Congressmen, realizing how votes are buttered, aren't about to "amend" this decision, they know that eventually all crackpots turn to other noble causes.

Amen!

Joe Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove, Illinois

Rosenberger's letter prompted at least six letters in opposition. One of them, from Patricia Nichols of Mount Prospect, included this admonition (April 8):

I am tired of your name calling. In every letter you write you must resort to childish name calling. Your last letter had such adolescent words as "stupid, twisted logic, bigoted fanatics, crackpots." I wish you could state your ideas in an adult-like manner.

Jim Peterson of Hoffman Estates offered support for Rosenberger (April 22):

... I thoroughly enjoyed and concur with Mr. Rosenberger's letter.

On second thought, I disagree when he refers to some anti-abortion views as twisted logic. I see no logic at all in their arguments, twisted or otherwise. ...

Now let me get down to the point which really frosts me. Since it is unlikely that [two previous letter writers] are going to shop around for an abortion, why must you insert your collective noses into other people's business when they wish to obtain a legal abortion?

If you are so concerned about lives, and children's lives in particular, there is no end to the need for your services.

Two thirds of the people in the world (two-plus billion) are malnourished (don't get a proper diet, usually protein deficient) and one third of the people alive in the world today (one-plus billion) are undernourished (don't get enough of any kind of food).

Furthermore, since 40 per cent of the population of the underdeveloped world is made up of people under 15 years old, these children are usually the ones who comprise the bulk of the 3½ million people who die of starvation each year (3½ million is a conservative estimate).

Granted, it would be more convenient for you to help these people if they lived next door in Mount Prospect, but I'm sure you'll understand they haven't been able to scrape together the air fare yet.

JRR Letter To The Editor, August 30, 1973: "Suggests A Bible Ban"

Chicago Daily Herald, August 30, 1973:

Suggests A Bible Ban

I was more than just a little amused when I read that the school board of Dist. 96 was considering a policy that would apply censorship to all educational materials used in the district's three schools.

I trust that Big Brother Censors will not forget the Tarzan books, since Tarzan and Jane were never "joined in holy wedlock." Damn it! Tarzan and his broad are living "in sin" – and this is a big no-no!

I also suggest that the Bible be banned, that perennially popular book of fairy tales which is filled with sex and violence. Not only is the Old Testament filled with descriptions of orgies, but even incest, in the form of Lot and his daughters, rears its ugly head, not to mention prostitution and homosexuality.

Tch, tch. Such reading is not good for innocent children.

On the other hand, good Christians and god-hucksters on TV tell us that we should follow the "Good Book" and live accordingly. Since "an eye for an eye" and a "tooth for a tooth" is mentioned in the eternal fairy tale that never grows old (only more boring), I submit that we should toss out our hard-working, over-criticized police and indulge in our own personal, "Christian" brand of justice.

We could also revert to a plurality of wives, some good old fashioned polygamy, since King David and other Biblical characters had more than one wife, not to mention the "in" they had with the Creator.

As I see it, all this would be moral and proper for the good Christians of 1973 because it was all very moral and proper and legal in Biblical days – and if the Bible was the word of God then, isn't it still – right now?

We know all this happened because the Bible says so, stating that "God was with King David and all he did." And old King David was one helluva swinger – and so was King Solomon, who chased teenagers! Whether or not he was "wise" is a moot question.

Shucks, if we followed the Bible, we could even go about beheading those who stray off the path of Christian "morality," since we are told that God bid Moses to "take all heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the sun." Well, the daughters of Moab should have behaved themselves and not have been Biblical swingers. On the other hand, what was good enough for Charlton Heston – I mean Moses! – is good enough for me. After all, Moses conned a lot of people. Ask the Israelis! A lot of these dumbbells still think a "Redeemer" is going to come down out of the clouds and save them. So far, their only "Redeemer" has been the United States, with its gun and ammunition!

Yes, if we are to censor books, if we are to ban them, if we are to toss out the sandbags of common sense and soar away to an idiot world on a balloon of stupidity, let's do it right: let's follow the "Good Book," or else ban that mess of pornography!

Naturally the Bible will not be banned because the censors and would-be book burners are bigoted Puritans sick with the illness of smug fundamentalism, sado-masochists who love dwelling on "sin," fools who would condemn to their silly hell anyone who persists in thinking for himself and refuses to conform to their crazy spiritual dictatorship.

Joe Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove, Illinois

As you might expect, there were several angry replies. (I'm guessing that provoking or offending as many people as possible was Rosenberger's goal.)

She Staunchly Defends Bible

To Joe Rosenberger:

You suggest a Bible ban for various reasons, some of which are: it is filled with sex, violence, incest, homosexuality, etc. You call the "Good Book" an eternal "fairy tale" and cite cases from the Old Testament to make your point, then call this the "Christian" way.

True, the Bible does contain stories filled with the things you mention – and more – which only proves that it is NOT a book of "fairy tales." If it were the stories would be just the opposite – showing the "goodness" of man. But, since it is NOT a book of "fairy tales" it "tells it like it is," showing the true nature of man – not his goodness, but his sinfulness.

Obviously, you have knowledge of "things" contained in the Old Testament, but you do not know the God which is revealed therein – the God who loves us IN SPITE of our sinful nature which results in the things you mention, violence, sex, etc. You do not know the God who came to earth in the person of Jesus the Christ to redeem us from this sinful nature.

You quote from the Old Testament then say this is the "Christian" way, such as "an eye for an eye . . .". It would seem that your knowledge of the New Testament is very limited – possibly non-existent, for most of the Scripture you quote is from the Old Testament.

Here is an example of the "Christian" way: In the book of Matthew, chapter five, Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say . . . if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . ." He tells us not to resist evil with evil but to overcome it with love. Hence, the "Christian" way is not violence but love.

A brief reference you do give to New Testament Scripture is "A lot of dumbbells still think a 'Redeemer' is going to come down out of the clouds and save them. So far, their only "Redeemer" has been the United States, with its gun and ammunition!" If, as you say, our only 'Redeemer' is the United States, then truly we ARE lost and without hope – just take a look around you!

The truth, whether a person wants to believe it or not, is that the only Redeemer for mankind has come to earth (Jesus the Christ), is living now (in Heaven), and will return to earth one day! God said it in His written word (the Holy Bible), therefore it is TRUE and man's opinion regarding it will NOT alter this Truth one iota!

Patricia A. Johnson
Palatine
September 7, 1973


Bible 'Misunderstood'

A deplorable situation is created when an individual exercises his right of free speech in blatant ignorance, such as Joe Rosenberger did in his Fence Post letter appearing in this paper on Thursday, August 30. His ironic suggestion that the Bible be banned due to its pornographic content merely reveals his own narrow-mindedness and prejudice.

To be effective, or even credible, a critic must demonstrate that he comprehends the material he criticizes, or at least he must display a working knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Mr. Rosenberger shows us he possesses neither.

His obsession seems to be exposing the horrible sins of Old Testament characters, which, given the consistency of human nature, hardly surprises anyone. Any knowledgeable Bible student who "rightly divides the Word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15) can readily ascertain that the Old Testament was given to us so that we might profit from both the good and bad of our predecessors (II Timothy 3:16). While Mr. Rosenberger is hung up on recounting the sexual delinquency of the human race through biblical history, he entirely overlooks or avoids the pertinent Grace message in the New Testament (primarily conveyed in the Pauline Epistles) which reveals God's present economy involving mankind (Ephesians 2:8 and 9, Titus 2:11 and 12). Omitting perhaps the most significant portion of a work, in writing a critique, is hardly considered equitable to either the work or to the author.

Remember, Mr. Rosenberger, that book, which you apparently deplore so greatly, was one of the foundations upon which the American Democracy was laid, by men who believed firmly in their God and his word, the very same Bible. These men were hardly the type who would "soar away to an idiot world on a balloon of stupidity" or believe firmly in "a mess of pornography" as you have labeled the Bible. And they were quite tolerant of one's "thinking for himself," as evidenced by their foresight in establishing such a system as the one which currently allows both you and I to express our opinions.

Thomas and Paula Moore
Palatine
September 10, 1973


Bible Defended

In reply to Mr. Rosenberger's letter, "Let's Ban the Bible."

No, Mr. Rosenberger, the Bible will not be banned and not because of bigoted Puritans as you stated. By its own weight the Bible will remain in existence. Peter does remind us, "The Word of the Lord endureth forever."

What book down through history has been already burned, banned, ripped and scorned more than the Bible – yet has survived intact? Obviously, it was not only divinely inspired, it has been divinely protected.

Yes, it contains sex and violence, but God does not condone everything He reveals. As the author of truth He must tell all – like it is – and the Bible is full of warnings against human debauchery.

The Bible also contains, love, peace, joy, wisdom, beauty, justice and power. It's unfortunate that so many minds are unaware of its content.

As for Christianity – many people who dismiss the Christians have never personally examined the grounds for the Christian claim. They have never read through the New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, with an open mind.

Mary M. Wells
Schaumburg
September 13, 1973

JRR Letter To The Editor, August 22, 1973: "Pornography Foes 'Crackpots'"

From The Chicago Daily Herald of August 22, 1973:

Pornography's Foes 'Crackpots'

Mr. William D. North of Arlington Heights is to be congratulated for his brilliant analysis regarding the paradox of "pornography," his dissection of the prevailing situation clearly and concisely giving evidence to the fact that "pornography" is what any particular person might think it is.

Unfortunately, every society in all periods of history and in every nation, has had its Watchers of Morals, those "saintly" morons who try to cram their own brand of Right vs. Wrong down the throat of their neighbors. Today, we see this brand of dictatorship not only in those completely hazy areas regarding "pornography," but in all subjects with which the Know-it-Alls disagree.

Abortion, for example. Completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court said it was any woman's right to decide whether or not she should have an abortion, there are those who are still screaming "sin" and "murder" simply because they do not believe in abortion; and they cannot be wrong in any moral pronouncement! This is another way of saying that they would deny the rest of society the very basic freedom of choice. In short, these damn fools would deny another person the right to his own belief!

It is the same crackpots who, in their frantic effort to make the rest of society conform to their own personal beliefs, are now making a big, useless noise about "pornography," the same breed of Nut who would have the police act as Censors – and who would probably have society read nothing but the Bible. My advice to the police is to ignore these crackpots.

Should censorship ever work, what would be the next logical step? Censorship of the free press, the same free press that exposed Watergate? Or perhaps they would decide how their neighbors should vote, or the religion in which their neighbor should believe. Since they are immune to all logic, they will quickly tell you that their religion is the only "truth faith!"

Medieval Europe saw this very thing happen, and for over 200 years the arts and sciences came to a complete standstill! Why? Because they, in the form of the Pope and other crackpots, decided that all anyone needed to know was contained in the Bible! It was this same believe-as-I-do-or-else that led to the Italian and Spanish Inquisition, in which millions of innocent people – even children – were torn apart with a savagery equalled only by the Nazi sadists in Hitler's Germany.

John F. Kennedy summed it up very well when he said: "Censorship is basically against human rights. The lock on the door of the legislature, the parliament or assembly hall, by order of the King, the Commissar, or the Fuhrer, has historically been followed or preceded by a lock on the door of the printer's, the publisher's or the booksellers."

President Kennedy forgot to mention the local crackpots who watch everyone's morals but their own!

Joe Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove, Illinois

JRR Letter To The Editor, March 20, 1973: "Abortion: Both Sides"

The US Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was announced on January 22, 1973. Less than two months later, the Chicago Daily Herald printed six letters to the editor regarding abortion. Only two of the six writers supported a woman's right to an abortion. Joseph Rosenberger was one of those two supporters.

I am getting more than a little nauseated at these smug anti-abortionists, who, with their myopic little minds, fail to understand what the entire issue of abortion is about: namely, whether or not the individual woman should have a choice in the matter. Or have they conveniently forgotten?

Deciding on a point of law, not on a point of morals, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is the right of every woman to make up her own mind as to whether she should have an abortion. All this is in stark contrast to Roman Catholics and other religious groups, who have neatly cataloged all the "rights" and "wrongs" of the human race, and who have taken it upon themselves to dictate to American society their own special brand of morality.

Sometimes these know-it-alls, these next-to-God people succeed, and when they do we have explosive situations that exist in Northern Ireland, where "good people" are slaughtering each other (and their brats) because they disagree on the various routes that supposedly lead to that Eternal Social Security Land in the Big Sky; or Ireland proper, where the Church is so powerful that we find censorship of the press, to insure that those who disagree with primitive superstition can't express their views; or Spain and Portugal, considered two of the most backward nations in Europe; or Italy, where, until a few years ago, even divorce was illegal, all of which resulted in millions of couples merely living together "in sin."

Isn't it odd that while anti-abortionists also roar and rave about individual rights in other matters, they would take away those same rights and freedoms from others by imposing their own moral beliefs on all of society, by NOT permitting the individual woman to decide the moral question of abortion for herself!

More paradoxical is the fact that these religious crackpots never even whisper the other moral aspect of the abortion question: that they are free not to have an abortion. Of course, they couldn't anyhow, or they'd go to "hell" and sizzle forever like a piece of bacon in a too hot skillet!

And isn't it odd that while they scream about "religious freedom," they assume it is their "moral" right and duty to impose upon all of society their own special brand of right and wrong.

I suggest it's time for these big mouthed know-it-alls to practice their own beliefs, which is certainly their right, and leave others alone to practice theirs.

Just for the record, lest someone blame the poor Jews for my opinion, because my name is Rosenberger, let me state that I am not Jewish (I've got more sense than believe in "redeemers").

Actually I'm from another planet, doing a survey on the various religious and mythological superstitions of Earth creatures, and find it unique how hypocrites can scream about "religious freedom" when all they do is try to dictate their own framework of organized superstitions to the rest of society.

Perhaps it's the nature of the beast; perhaps it's because even intelligent people insist on clinging to any belief – no matter how ridiculous that belief is – that offers some hope of afterdeath security. Personally, I pity such fools.

Joseph R. Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove, Illinois

JRR Letter To The Editor, October 31, 1972: "Critic Explains Letters Stand ..."

Continuing the discussion from the last Letters post, Joseph Rosenberger wrote:

Critic Explains Letters Stand ...

It would seem that my criticism of the prayer vigil held at St. Joseph The Worker Church has stirred a tornado in a thimble; it has also brought a response which indicates that some people are not too well informed about their own faith, other than believing the official propaganda with which they have been brain-washed. I refer to Mr. Thomas F. Mahoney of Buffalo Grove, who, with typical crystal ball logic, has the "ability" to read hidden meanings in apparently any letter!

What Mr. Mahoney seems to forget is that religious freedom also means the option NOT to believe in "traditional" religion, the freedom to express one's opinion, and the legal and moral right to denounce what one considers ignorance and/or injustice, whether one be a deist, an agnostic, an atheist, a humanist or a rationalist!

If the "community" and one's "neighbors" would deny any person this freedom of choice, then the community and one's neighbors would be indulging in hypocrisy and ignoring the Christian concepts of justice in which they profess to believe.

If I were so narrow as to indulge in Mr. Mahoney's kind of reasoning, I would suggest that he's advocating "when in Rome do as the natives do"! Believe as everybody else believes, don't have an opinion, and for God's sake (no pun intended) don't rock the holy boat! I can only wonder: if Mr. M. had lived in Nazi Germany, would he have bleated "HEIL" with the rest of the sheep, simply to avoid "offending the community"? Would he have advocated the hanging of "witches," had he lived in Salem, Mass. in 1692?

As for my "patent ignorance of the positive emphasis" of Catholic education, I am more than familiar with this so-called emphasis, so much so that, as a professional author, I've written books both on Roman Catholic sexual philosophy and Roman Catholic education – and all from the Catholic viewpoint, too. Writing these books was simply another job, and I was well paid for the task.

I personally fall to find any "positive emphasis" in a moral credo that, among other things, would turn a woman into a baby-making machine by subjecting her to the rhythm system, which is considered a joke among medical men, who refer to it as "Vatican Roulette!" And woe to any RC wife who refuses to play the game. She is excommunicated latae sententiae – Canon Law 2350. This is the kind of "positive" teaching that evolved and was updated from the same "wisdom" that once taught, in the Middle Ages the craziness that a male fetus acquired a soul in 40 days and a female fetus in 80 days. St. Augustine said so, and this dictum was followed by the Church for three centuries. I can also assure the "community" that this is fact, since Jesuit friends of mine, teaching at Louis University, a Catholic institution, have told me so. Needless to say, they also considered it a joke!

Mr. Mahoney also indulges in the old fashioned Christian tactic used by Apologists: That of the false analogy. In this case, since I disagree with him, there must be something wrong with me. I must have a "peculiar problem." I would suggest Mr. M. acquire a good college logic (and a Roman Catholic Encyclopedia). Then again, perhaps he has read a few lay books on psychology and fancies himself a kind of "expert" in human nature. . .

Sorry, Mr. Mahoney, but I don't have any "peculiar problem" – financially, emotionally, or otherwise. In fact, I'm quite content and happy. I don't even have the problem of being bothered by narrow-minded people who don't even know the facts about their own religious heritage. But I don't complain, anymore than I become annoyed because a baboon has no appreciation of beauty, or because an aborigine is not conversant with the finer shades of courtesy or self-sacrifice. On the galactic scale, the human race is still young, and the limitations of the contending religious systems may be but the growing pains of humanity on its spiritual pilgrimage.

Joseph Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove, Illinois

On the same date – October 31, 1972 – two letters in opposition to Rosenberger's original letter were published:

... And A Catholic Criticizes Him

I am offering my rebuttal to Mr. Joseph R. Rosenberger's article entitled: "Catholic Sex Ed Needed" in our Catholic schools. I really pity your bigotry, especially since it comes from one of the "chosen people." I'm sure you don't speak for the rest.

Yes, Mr. Rosenberger, Roman Catholic authorities and Roman Catholic parents should be allowed to teach the Catholic faith to members of our church and to our children, and without any interference from an outsider. No, Mr. Rosenberger, we are not "demanding public funds to teach our faith." It's amazing how one reads into each debate on this issue only what one chooses to. Of the hundreds of subjects taught in parochial schools, whether that school be Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, religion is ONE subject. We only appeal for aid on busing, which the public school children have; we request aid for the purchase of secular, I repeat SECULAR, books, which public school children have; we request aid for the purchase of secular science and lab materials, secular gym equipment, etc. etc., which public school children enjoy.

How can you call our church "ostrich-headed" in its attitudes on modern sex education. You have no idea whatever what goes on in our private schools. Our sex education program can match any similar program put out by the public schools. If you wish your children to know everything there is to know and then some, go ahead and teach them; no one is stopping you. You think you're qualified in so many other facets, you certainly should be capable of teaching them the facts of life. I suggest you pull YOUR HEAD out of the sand, stop over at St. Mary's, speak to Father Duffy. He will be more than happy to give you the material we use from grades 1 through 8, relating to sex education. Then, after you have read this material. see if you still call us "ostrich-headed."

Soon our schools will be in danger of over-educating our children in matters of sex and drugs. Soon our schools, both public and private, will employ so many techniques, in over-education, that our country will lead the world in unmarried pregnant girls; we will lead the world in hard-line narcotic users. Education along these lines is of great benefit WHEN applied wisely. Certain ages and levels of maturity are capable of learning in certain stages. The parents, not the schools, know which of our children are capable of learning what things. But it sounds like you wish to push the pendulum so far the other way we will over educate. And Mr. Rosenberger, there is such a thing as OVER EDUCATION. Don't show the child the dangers of drugs, but even show them how to prepare an injection of heroin on film, so in case that child wasn't sure how to do it, after the film he will be! So the children who had no interest in drugs before the film, now had the interest perked up.

Mr. Rosenberger, the GREAT AUTHORITY on prayer! You must know something beyond us. How are you so sure prayer is a joke and does NOT help. Prayer and faith have sustained countless of generations before you were born, and it will continue to sustain countless of generations long after your passing. Don't sell the power of prayer so short! It is people such as you who make fun of prayer, that are the first ones to invoke God's name during a tragedy.

Then, your "prayer" is usually the old "gimme-and-I'll-give-ya" type, such as "Oh God, if you let Billy pull through, I'll do such and such." This "prayer" is invoked in the emotion of the moment, and the barter is usually broken as soon as Bill pulls through. I'm not saying that this type of prayer is wrong. Sometimes it takes tragedy for us to find our way to God again. But I am saying that prayer can also be: "Thank you God for my life; thank you God for my parents; thank you God for my health; thank you God for my children; thank you God for this beautiful earth." And a prayer for you, Mr. Rosenberger, "thank you, God, for the ability to be in a free nation that allows me the right to write in a newspaper expounding my bigotry."

You remind me of the little boy standing outside the candy store window, wishing he were inside with the rest of us. Well, Mr. Rosenberger, come on in – we won't charge you.

Alice Wiles
Arlington Heights

P.S. What a giant step backward you and I have token from ecumenical goats. Shame on us!

And:

Sex Ed Letter
'Unfair Comment'

I would like to support Thomas Mahoney in his reply to Mr. Rosenberger's letter on sex education, and go one step further.

Should the Rosenberger letter have been printed in the first place? This is the second time in recent weeks that the Fence Post has published letters that had no other apparent purpose than to hold the beliefs and practices of a particular religious group (interestingly in both cases, Catholics) up to scorn and ridicule. That was the case in Mr. Rosenberger's letter and that a few weeks ago, quoting scripture texts out of context to question what the author believed were Catholic practices, which he objected to.

This is hardly fair comment on current events!

In these days when concerned people everywhere are trying to build bridges, letters which tend to divide or accent differences, particularly religious differences are out of order, especially on the editorial page of your (our) newspaper.

Harry J. Walsh
Buffalo Grove

Rosenberger's letter of October 31, 1972, prompted two more replies, which appeared on November 10. The first, from the aforementioned Thomas Mahoney:

Rosenberger's Stand Is Assailed

Mr. Joseph Rosenberger of Buffalo Grove apparently discerns in my criticism of his attack upon Catholic moral teachings implications of a constitutional dimension. In no sense, however, do I question his legal right to expound his ideas, however puerile. Rather, I point only to his lack of civility. The question is one merely of manners, not of First Amendment freedoms.

Mr. Rosenberger conjectures regarding my conduct had I been In Nazi Germany. Not having been there, I cannot satisfy his curiosity. In posing the question, however, Mr. Rosenberger appears to be suggesting an equation between his own potty-spirited attack upon a prayer vigil at St. Joseph the Worker Church and high-minded resistance to Nazi tyranny. Which nonsense suggests that Walter Mitty is alive and well, and living in Buffalo Grove.

I accept at face value Mr. Rosenberger's assertion that he has written at length on the subject of Catholic moral teaching. The fact remains nonetheless that his letters on the topic disclose only gross ignorance, both social and theological. In this field, as in others, writing varies considerably in quality. It is possible that bits and snatches of Mr. Rosenberger's prose rise above incompetence and achieve mediocrity; but I doubt it. Nor is it very important; the real point at issue here is Mr. Rosenberger's bad taste.

Mr. Rosenberger describes himself as a "professional author." How then explain his reliance upon infantile invective in lieu of reasoned discourse? The answer lies perhaps in the very looseness of the phrase, encompassing as it does root only skilled craftsmen but also hacks who churn out junk ranging from third rate advertising copy to pornographic novels. In any event a more precise appellation for Mr. Rosenberger is at hand. He states he has been "well paid" for advocating a philosophical point of view, which he personally deems detrimental to the intellectual development of his audience. This by definition is literary prostitution.

Charity, as I have previously indicated, compels sympathy for such a man. Surely we can rejoice with him, not only that he has learned acquaintances in academia, but that – and more importantly, since it clearly occupies such an exalted place in his personal hierarchy of values – he has been financially successful in life. But most importantly, in the aforementioned spirit of charity, we ought, like Gypo Nolan, to tell him we are sorry for his troubles.

Thomas F. Mahoney
Buffalo Grove

Gypo Nolan is the title character of Liam O'Flaherty's 1925 novel, The Informer, which was also made into a movie by John Ford in 1935.

Joyce McCabe adds her thoughts:

Local Sex Ed Controversy Continues

I am writing in response to Mr. Joseph R. Rosenberger's letter regarding the need for sex education in the Catholic school. As long as Mr. Rosenberger is liberal enough to believe that Roman Catholic authorities can teach the Catholic faith, it's a shame Mr. Rosenberger does not take advantage of the open house at St. Mary's once a year. If he did he would be aware of how advanced St. Mary's is. He would also be aware that not only do we teach sex education but also the responsibility which goes along with sex.

Mr. Rosenberger makes the statement, "How can two priests who never had children or had to worry about paying bills impart any advice regarding the sexual function." I can speak only for our priests who have 765 children, 1,300 families and more bills in a month than Mr. Rosenberger sees in a year. If this qualifies one to impart os [?] the sexual function, then our priests are qualified.

Mr. Rosenberger also feels that prayer will not produce a normal healthy sexual urge. I think that these children who are being taught sex education along with prayer and Christian life will put a much higher price and respect for the human body than those taught strictly just the physical function of the human body.

It appears Mr. Rosenberger speaks from ignorance when he states that the church neglects the needy. He should know the functions of Catholic Charities, Bishop's Relief Fund and individual needs churches provide for needy people. It has always been the policy of the Catholic schools never to deny a child a Catholic education because of lack of funds.

Maybe Mr. Rosenberger should accept people for what they are instead of a label. We do not wish to impose our religion on anyone.

Joyce McCabe
Buffalo Grove

JRR Letter To The Editor, October 12, 1972: "Catholic Sex Ed Needed"

Joseph Rosenberger writes a Letter to the Editor:

Catholic Sex Ed Needed

It was with a combination of pity and amusement that I read of the "Prayer Vigil," regarding chastity, to be held at St. Joseph the Worker Church in Wheeling, Oct. 13.

While believing that Roman Catholic authorities should be allowed to teach the Catholic faith to members of the Church (provided they don't demand public funds to do it), I should think that more progress could be made – both with young people and adults – if the Church would cease its ostrich-headed attitude and permit a program of modern sex education in its schools, instead of depending on pious platitudes formulated in the Middle Ages, during the days when certain Popes could "prove" the earth was "flat" . . . platitudes that were built around the premise that all sex, even between married couples, was – is – somehow frowned upon by the Creator of the universe!

Personally, I fail to see how two Franciscan Friars, who have never had to worry about paying bills, or children, or family or anything else in the every day world of making a living, can impart ANY advice regarding the sexual function. Nor do I feel that "prayer" will chain the normal and healthy sexual urges of a teenage boy or girl!

I trust these Friars, educated as they are in Church History, Catholic philosophy, homiletics, etc., will inform their listeners that modern sociological thought does not attach the exceptional value that a superficial, limited, and unscientific religious ethic sets upon it.

Most psychiatrists (and other professionals connected with the public welfare) consider absolute chastity a form of ignorance, their feeling (based on medical evidence) being that even partial chastity constitutes a blind denial of the legitimacy of the sexual acts and is nothing more than a vestige of the ancestral taboo that certain religions persist in teaching without producing any scientific or logical reason to justify it. As to those misinformed people who point to the Bible . , well, on that basis we should legalize polygamy, since many a prophet and king in the Old Testament had more than one wife. (Actually modern society does have a form of progressive polygamy, only we call it "divorce and remarriage!")

Of course, if people prefer to believe superstition and ignore modern science – that's their business. However, they should keep in mind that "prayer" has not helped any family that finds itself on the brink of bankruptcy because of too many mouths to feed. They should also realize that while the Church is a Santa Claus when it comes to giving advice, it's a miser that would put Scrooge to shame when it comes to shelling out hard cash to ANY needy family, or even permitting that family's children to attend parochial school without paying the necessary tuition.

Joseph R. Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove
Roselle Register, October 12, 1972

Six days later:

Sex Ed Letter Hit

Many people, I would suspect, are likely embarrassed for Mr. Joseph Rosenberger of Buffalo Grove, whose letter in the Fence Post (October 12) suggests that increasing sexual permissiveness is somehow the key to better mental health. Quite apart from the inanity of his thesis (and his patent ignorance of the positive emphasis Catholic education today places upon the sexual aspect of man's nature), Mr. Rosenberger's tirade against the religiously-based moral values of many of his neighbors is a deplorable exercise in bad taste.

It is a mark of the maturity of a community that its residents respect the religious convictions of one another, and in that regard Buffalo Grove is truly a fine place to live. Friendships easily and often cross religious lines, and inter-faith cooperation is frequently evidenced. Few people, fortunately, share Mr. Rosenberger's predilection for attacking the traditional moral teachings of any particular religious faith; and few also, I would hope, are so devoid of charitable sentiment that they would fail to sympathize with Mr. Rosenberger's own peculiar problem – whatever it may be.

Thomas F. Mahoney
Buffalo Grove
Roselle Register, October 18, 1972

This was not the end of the conversation ....

JRR Letter To The Editor, May 29, 1972: "A Fetus Just Isn't An Infant"

Joseph Rosenberger did not limit his writing to action-adventure and adult books. I have discovered close to dozen Letters to the Editor, mostly written around the mid-70s, when he was living in Buffalo Grove, Illinois.

Rosenberger often ranted against organized religion in the early Death Merchant books and that is a favourite topic in these missives. He also uses somewhat goofy turns of phrase and is extremely generous with exclamation marks (there are 11 in the letter below)!

Several writers who knew Rosenberger say he held reactionary opinions and his DM books are certainly filled with unchallenged right-wing rants. However, Rosenberger was also adamantly pro-choice, as five of the nine letters I have found are in strong defense of abortion. His opinions – snarky and pompous and delivered with the finality of a court decision – often provoked letters in response, which is a nice bonus.

The earliest letter I have found (so far) is from the Chicago Daily Herald of May 29, 1972:

'A Fetus Just Isn't An Infant'

Mrs. Phil R. Dowd's recent letter condemning legalized abortion was a masterpiece of emotionalism, distortion, and just plain ignorance. In a manner similar to that used by proponents of public aid for private schools, Mrs. Dowd puts forth an appeal that is majestic in its rhetoric, but ridiculous and pathetic in its logic.

The only thing wrong with Mrs. Dowd's logic is that – apparently – she doesn't know what a fetus actually is (from a medical standpoint)! I rather gather, from her letter, that Mrs. Dowd is under the impression that a fetus is practically a perfectly developed human being, with all the faculties of adult reasoning, a sort of super-duper midget who sets up temporary housekeeping within the mother's womb – or doesn't Mrs. Dowd know that there is a universe of difference between a Fetus and a fully developed infant about to be born and that there is a very definite time limit in which an abortion can be performed. It is much more complicated than . . . say . . . cutting off a corn . . .

If I wished to indulge in Mrs. Dowd's form of fallacious reasoning and employ her deceptive logic, I would conclude that no human being should ever be operated on for cancer! After all, any cancer is a growing organism within the parent (host) body; too, a cancer goes through developing stages, just as a fetus does. How dare any surgeon give "pain" to any precious cancer!

Still using Mrs. Dowd's "pain" premise, I could also put forth the proposition that even births should be prohibited, since men of science tell us that the birth process is an extremely traumatic experience, as well as painful and emotionally disturbing for the new-born child. Of course, none of us remember the birth experience, nor is it likely that a fetus could interpret the termination of its low-level conscious existence.

Mrs. Dowd makes reference to a Dr. James H. Ford, who is apparently as confused as she is, or he wouldn't equate the very real problem of world over-population with the unreal nonsense that, if need be, the entire world population could be stacked "within a plot 30 miles square."

Fortunately, we don't live in a make-believe world, but in one that is very real. Certainly, the world could hold untold trillions of people if we wished to stack them like cordwood. Indeed, the eventual result would be "standing room only!" We can only imagine the standard of living under such conditions!

Unfortunately, neither Mrs. Dowd nor Dr. Ford offer a solution for the day when every single square foot of earth would be crammed with a bursting humanity! Abortion? Hell no! That would be "murder!" Of course, people might possibly stand on each other. Or, people might learn to breath in water, in which case we could overpopulate the oceans!

Mrs. Dowd also forgets another dark part of the problem that is seldom noticed – the crisis in morals. There is an ancient Chinese saying: "It is difficult to tell the difference between right and wrong when the stomach is empty."

People tormented by constant hunger, by joblessness, by fear and insecurity; people huddled together in overcrowded cities; people without education . . . helpless in the present, with no hope for the future – can such people be expected to develop a genuine respect for all the ethical niceties which admonish them not to steal, not to covet, not even to envy?

So we're having trouble in our cities now! What will it be like 25 years from now, if population continues to soar?

The facts are more than obvious: over-population reinforces poverty; poverty generates desperation, and desperation leads to immorality.

While legalized abortion is not the overall answer, it is a start, a partial solution, for unless population is stabilized, the children and adults of Tomorrow will find themselves in a world filled with undreamed of misery, a world of hunger and violence, a world of early death and complete immorality.

And all the well-meant, pious platitudes about "murder" and fetus "pain" by today's anti-abortionists, who would have their great-great-grandchildren inherit a hell on earth, won't change it.

Only hasten it!

Joseph R. Rosenberger
Buffalo Grove, Illinois