More historical perspective on the date set for Easter

More historical perspectiveon the date set for Easter
EDITOR:
Before 1583, the date for Easter Sunday was not the same all over the world, as an April 19 article states.
In days of very slow communication, scattered Christian communities, particularly those that did not accept the Jewish calendar, set the date according to their own calculations. There was also a difference between Syria and Antioch. The Julian calendar sufficed for over 1,500 years, then it was realized that the vernal equinox had slid back to about March 11, and it was only a matter of time before Easter would be celebrated around Christmastime.
In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII decided to reform the calendar. For this, he used the services of the Calabrian Lulli, the German Clavius and the Spanish mathematician Chacon. Their main objective was to bring back the equinox of the calendar to a date as near as possible to the astronomic fact. Out of respect for the tradition of the Council of Nicaea, which had settled the reckoning of Easter, they chose March 21. This does not strike me as being the work of "atheist" astronomers, as the article implies.
Most Catholic countries accepted the new calendar at once, but Protestant countries did not. The remark made by Voltaire in regard to these Protestant countries could well be applied to the Orthodox: "They would rather disagree with the sun than agree with the Pope."
During the past, there has been much speculation about fixing the date of Easter so that it will be the same all over the world. Will the Orthodox acquiesce? When you have a religion where changing a single word, a date, or a simple thing like correcting liturgical texts can end in disaster, I have my doubts.
Rev. EDWARD J. NERODA
St. Stanislaus Church
Youngstown
Santorum, Cal Thomas missthe mark on America's needs
EDITOR:
I am responding to the article "Privacy and morals: Whose decision is it?" written by Cal Thomas in the May 4, 2003, Vindicator.
I do not agree with his side of the quote from Rick Santorum's speech. I have always believed that homosexuality is a personal orientation that should not be ridiculed and never considered a wrong preference. If Santorum is saying homosexuality is on the same level as bigamy, bestiality and incest -- which is my interpretation of the remark -- he has taken the matter one step too far.
I realize many of the American people have different views on homosexuality, but when you think about it, the statement made was spoken before noticing how people would react. If he did think it through, Santorum might as well have spoke about different religious backgrounds and inter-racial relationships, too.
Homosexuals are just the same as anybody else, and I have respect for anyone who deserves their rights. Bigamy cannot be protected because one should look at it as breaking a contract (which has harsh punishments,) bestiality for the animal rights (that are strictly forbidden,) and incest because of the possible cruelty of offspring. Homosexuality is simply a preference of being attracted to the same gender, much like a Presbyterian may be attracted to a Catholic, or an Asian being attracted to a Caucasian. In no way should this be discriminated, and I highly doubt that the legalization of bigamy, incest and bestiality would result from homosexuality.
The interpretation of Santorum's quote was not completely offending. Thomas did mention knowing and accepting some homosexuals, but to say Santorum was not entirely wrong was shocking. Discrimination today is quite high, and I think that statements such as Santorum's are the exact opposite of what the United States needs to become fully "united" during this time. I think that when problems arise, people should not be judged on their sexuality but instead on their case as a person. Maybe that is something we should think more in this day and age.
LINDSEY JOHNS
Lake Milton