It seems that you are trying only to respond to the anonymity of the letter, rather than whatever substance the letter may (or may not) have possessed. If that is your intent, it should be clearer that you are using the letter only as an example of modes of passive aggressive communication that are not consistent with building a Christian community.

That being said, people will want to know the substance of the letter, to evaluate its (un)reasonableness. Many people can find reasons to adopt a nom de plume (or anonymity) under what they think are legitimate circumstances. (Both you and I have done this at the non-community of St. Blog's, of course.) So they may be rightly wary of a kind of per se condemnation of such a thing, and want to pass on its substance as well. This is the practical reason such letters are usually consigned without comment to the circular file, as it were. It's hard to open up the box only to address one aspect of it.
Liam | 08.22.04 - 5:27 pm | #

Peace, Liam.

I was hoping you'd comment. I'm giving the letter much better fare than it deserves. It was about 75% off-target critical, but it did contain a germ of truth. It offered suggestions, couched in terms of quitting the parish over dealing with the problem. Even if it weren't specifically and unfairly critical of some parishioners, I would feel bound to respect its confidentiality, barring of course, permission to reveal the contents.

After a day of reflecting on it, I'm leaning to rewriting my weekly column instead of including this.
Todd | Homepage | 08.22.04 - 5:58 pm | #

I agree with Liam's thoughts.

Also, I tend to use 'could' instead of 'should' in these cases. It softens the tone and doesn't come across as strong in making a judgement.
Steve Bogner | Homepage | 08.22.04 - 7:30 pm | #

Todd, as it stands, it may accomplish what you hope for. But, not knowing the people in your community, I'd fear that the tone could be divisive, and stoke further the fires of whatever discontent prompted the anonymous letter in the first place.
Paul Rex | Homepage | 08.23.04 - 1:59 am | #

"Even if it weren't specifically and unfairly critical of some parishioners, I would feel bound to respect its confidentiality,"

How can an anonymous letter be presumed to be confidential?
Whose privacy would be viloated by its publication?
AlwaysAnon | 08.31.04 - 12:35 am | #

d29888 c673009264
decollatura | Homepage | 12.15.06 - 9:47 pm | #