We Hear You! Letters from Our May 2013 Issue

Leave a comment here or send us your feedback by letter or e-mail—we love hearing your thoughts!

by MORE • Editors
lauren graham image

I felt so energized and empowered after reading the articles about strong, "fierce", courageous women in the May issue. Then I turn to page 86 and see the photograph at the beginning of the article about Lauren Graham.  There she is in a stereotypical, provocative pose better suited to a men's magazine. So, you really haven't decided what your message is to women, have you?
--Eileen Kelly

I cannot convey to  you how offended I am about the article on "women priests."  As a lifelong Catholic, I can assure you that only males can be ordained priests.  Just as Our Lord, (who showed little interest in adhering to the political correctness of his day) ordained only men as apostles, so men, and only men, can serve in that role today.

How sad that some women can find fulfillment only in pretending to be men.
--Connie Worthman

As a 48 year old mother of two teens, I have an obligation to model quality periodical reading in my home.  Although I find many of the articles in MORE to be inspiring and provocative, the photographs of Lauren Graham were disappointing at best.  Whom are you targeting with a magazine cover that displays generous cleavage?  Even worse, the full page photo of Graham inside the magazine has her in such a ridiculous unnatural bend-over position (how do you like these breasts) that one is led to believe she might be preparing to urinate in the grassy field where the photo takes place.  What gives More?  Don't you know that when it comes to sharing our bodies, LESS truly is MORE.
--Megan Morris

I take HUGE issue with the inclusion of Candy Crowley in your Fierce List. Seriously? You can love her all you want for her “balls,” but she did a serious disservice to all who tuned into the debate that night. In a blatant attempt to provide cover for the President regarding the Banghazi debacle, she wrongly said the President immediately called it an “act of terror” when Romney was trying to make the point he hadn’t (does "spontaneous" violence ring a bell)? It was completely out of bounds for a moderator to interject him or herself into the debate in defense of a candidate. Worse yet, she got it wrong. He hadn't called it an act of terror until much, much later. And Crowley eventually admitted she was wrong. You gave her props for keeping the candidates "on point" when what she actually did was "create points" for her one, favored candidate. The Debate Commission even said they made a mistake asking her to be the moderator, and disappointingly, you applauded her for it.
--Anonymous

I just cancelled my subscription to your magazine after my first issue since the print size is so small it is very difficult to read.  I have 20/20 vision but now in middle age need glasses for reading.   The font is a couple points smaller than other magazines, and I would think that a magazine who is aiming at a good part of its market to be the 40+ crowd would take readability into consideration.
--Susan Jamieson

By the way, this survey thing is ridiculous, signing up for who knows what, forgetting what one wants to say in the meantime.

I like your magazine.  I do not like the covers of the last two issues.  Here are two fine actresses falling out of their bras and onto the covers. Demeaning dismissive of their real talent.  Shame on you.

I don't like the photograph of the two women fighting in last month's issue; its ugliness took away from the real substance of the research you did.
--Jane Juska

Hello- I am not sure this is the correct contact point but the web goes around in a circle basically when you click on “contact us”  and it never get’s anywhere.

So- while reading the May issue, specifically the “Fierce” article I had to write to someone at the magazine to ask...Are you serious?

To applaud Candy Crowley for her behavior at the Presidential Town Hall debate and actually state she “had the balls” to keep the candidates on point and on their toes is so far into the crazy zone I am still shaking my head.

What’s your reaction?

Comments

Hoyt06.21.2013

I am disappointed to watch More become another magazine for the 35-50 demographic. The occasional inclusion of a woman in her 60's is not enough to balance the focus on celebrities who are nearing or barely 40. There are many talented and interesting women in their 60's and 70's who have reinvented themselves several times and found fashion and a style that suits them. They have found a way to get "more" out of life, and I would like to read about them.
Unless I see some change back to the magazine I thought I was buying when I subscribed, I will allow my subscription to expire.

Hoyt06.21.2013

I am disappointed to watch More become another magazine for the 35-50 demographic. The occasional inclusion of a woman in her 60's is not enough to balance the focus on celebrities who are nearing or barely 40. There are many talented and interesting women in their 60's and 70's who have reinvented themselves several times and found fashion and a style that suits them. They have found a way to get "more" out of life, and I would like to read about them.
Unless I see some change back to the magazine I thought I was buying when I subscribed, I will allow my subscription to expire.

Daphne Galvin06.02.2013

In "How To Find Happiness At Any Age", I found it interesting that there was no mention of "sex" or "sexuality". Hard to believe that those critical components of aging end in our 30's, especially when we are getting happier as we get older!

Cheryle 04.29.2013

The article “The Rebel Priests” in your May edition was a very disturbing and painfully biased article full of untruthful suppositions. It is quite apparent that the author did not take into consideration a number of very basic facts regarding the Catholic Church.
1) When a bishop is excommunicated, he loses all power to perform any sacraments. Ordination is a sacrament; no power to perform this sacrament means no valid sacrament. Hence these misguided women in your article were never legitimately ordained. If you are not ordained, you cannot be elevated to Bishop, thus these misguided women are not valid bishops and are not in succession of St. Peter.
2) To have a valid marriage within the Catholic Church, the ceremony must be performed by a validly ordained Priest or Deacon. I certainly hope that Ms. Venne is not misleading the couples that she “weds” that their marriage will be considered valid in the Catholic Church.
3) The 2010 Delicta Graviora did not “condemn” female priests, it simply reaffirmed in very clear language the church’s stance on the priesthood. The misguided women in your article are free to interpret this as condemnation; however it is a shame that they take such a stand.
4) The priesthood isn’t a myth dreamed up by authoritative or egotistical men; this is also based on scripture. God chose who would be his disciples (Mark 3:13-14). Read the passage closely – he chose all men.
5) The celibate priesthood is also based on scripture (Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:32). In John 13:34 God commands us to love one another as He loves us. This is not an easy commandment – to accomplish this requires a total commitment to the Church and her members. When a man is ordained to the priesthood he knows that his life from that point forward is about emulating Jesus, that he is to love us as God loves us. This is an amazing sacrifice; please do not diminish this unselfish act.
The author also makes the statement that the women profiled in the article had hoped that Pope Francis would allow women to be ordained priests. This is a Canon Law – not a guideline that is simply revised with each newly elected pope. The pope can change a Discipline but he cannot change Canon Law.
One last note: It is true that in the bible many prophets suffered for their cause; however it should be noted that the prophets were all following the laws and the word of God. It is very unfortunate that the women in this article are spinning the words of God into an elaborate web of deceit. Revelations 22:18 very clearly warns of such actions, I suggest they read this passage very closely.

Post new comment

Click to add a comment