Needed and Necessary

Thank the Lord for Bishop Donald W. Trautman (Signs of the Times, 1/29). That’s the first voice of reason I’ve heard on the subject of the new liturgy translations.

I am all for making things better, but the new translations only sound confusing. Yes, the translations may be more theologically correct, but I think we are splitting hairs here. In some parishes you can’t get people to participate; these changes won’t help. I agree with Bishop Trautman. The changes may be the last straw that send some people out the door.

If changes are needed and necessary, I would hope for lots of dialogue between the laity and the clergy before those changes take effect. The laity needs to know why the liturgy has to change. Involving the laity in the changes also makes the changes more palatable.

Let the laity know how liturgy changes, why it changes and if lay people have any say in those changes. I would love to hear a sermon or talk about how liturgy got to be the way it is, and how liturgy changes.

Pat Lovejoy

Concern for Renewal

Mary Ann Hinsdale, I.H.M., James F. Keenan, S.J., and I are the editors of Church Ethics and Its Organizational Context: Learning From the Sex Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), the book that Bishop Thomas J. Curry misrepresented and derided in his recent letter to the editor of America (2/12). His letter is irresponsible and harmful.

The purpose of our book is to foster the development of an ecclesial professional ethics. To that end we invited well-respected scholars from multiple disciplinary backgrounds (theologians, management professors, sociologists, law professors, historians and canon lawyers) to begin a discourse aimed at leading to more mature and accountable models of governance in the church. Contrary to what Bishop Curry stated, for example, Professor Kimberly Elsbach, an esteemed management scholar, did a very responsible job of comparing multiple ways leaders respond to crises in their organizations.

Bishop Curry states that it is deplorable that none of our 19 authors referred to the John Jay Report. However, several of the book’s authors specifically invoke the reporting that the U.S.C.C.B. commissioned to respond to the scandal. Moreover, the John Jay report does not explicitly address the broader organizational and governance issues that were our explicit focus. Bishop Curry further argues that focusing on the scandal alone will not energize the kind of broad involvement needed for church renewal. But our book both recognizes the serious governance crises surfaced by the scandal and envisions means of governance that are likely to enable the church to avoid such scandals in the future.

We find it ironic that in our attempt to work positively for the future of the church we are maligned by someone who professes to share a concern for church renewal.

Jean M. Bartunek, R.S.C.J.

Distraught Prayers

There is no way either Bishop Blase J. Cupich of Rapid City, S.D., or America could have anticipated the confluence of his unambiguous defense of all life (How Unconditional Is the Right to Life? 1/29) and the New York federal jury’s imposition of the death penalty on Ronell Wilson. Perhaps it was the work of divine providence. Bishop Cupich recognizes that such verdicts spring from compassion for the victims of horrendous crimes, a desire to right the wrong and a desire to bring about closure in those affected by the taking of innocent life.

Closure was certainly on the minds of the victims’ widows, who applauded the verdict and saw in it the hand of God, who somehow orchestrated this horror in answer to their distraught prayers. Gone from their tortured memory is the age-old reminder that God, who hates the sin, still loves the sinner and wishes for each person, even the apparently remorseless ones, salvation.

Bishop Cupich draws from a deeper wisdom when he writes that taking a human life in the name of retribution does not breed justice or bring closure, but only continues the cycle of violence and hatred.

Camille D’Arienzo, R.S.M.

Recalling

The juxtaposition of the article on Kofi Annan: Visionary and Victim, by Barbara Crossette, and What Distinguishes the Jesuits, by Avery Dulles, S.J., on the Jesuit charism (1/15) recalls a Jesuit presence at the United Nations in its very early days.

A French Jesuit, Emmanuel S. de Breuvery, joined the secretariat in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in 1950 as senior economist. His expertise was in the use of resources, of water and energy, an expertise he drew on in working with developing countries. He spent much time advising directly in those countries but was also involved in overall U.N. planning and strategy. For example, he organized the U.N. Conference on New Sources of Energy in Rome in 1961 and an interregional seminar on techniques of petroleum development the following year.

An Indian Jesuit, Jerome D’Souza, was a member of his country’s delegation to the General Assembly in the 1950’s. His presence on the delegation and assignment to the Social Committee was evidence of an openness in his newly independent country and in its diplomacy.

At the time I was on the staff of the National Catholic Welfare Conference Office for United Nations Affairs, which was, incidentally, the first full-time nongovernmental organization office at the United Nations.

Jean Gartlan

Gospel Imperative

In her article What Counts as Help, (11/20) Maryann Cusimano Love suggests that peace cannot be achieved where widespread poverty afflicts populations in conflict over financial and natural resources. The Catholic Relief Services experience in Rwanda graphically supports her point. I read along, agreeing that war is still very much with us, that world and U.S. military spending have increased to obscene levels, and that budgets indicate our mistaken priorities.

What went unmentioned was the elephant in the room: the fact that the world’s richest nation is responsible for the highest level of war expenditures. Our government continues to build and trade arms, stockpile weapons and fund the development of new ways to deliver death and destruction. We occasionally read about billions of dollars lost or defrauded while most of Iraq’s infrastructure remains in ruins.

It is our country that resists treaties and systems designed to benefit all populations. In the meantime, our government and its leaders promote destruction in the third world, proclaiming that we must fight the enemy over there to keep our country safe.

We must put our guns away, bring our young people home, start dialogues with our so-called enemies and be more neutral in foreign relations before we can commit ourselves to the Gospel imperative of building peace on earth.

Ruth Zemek

Concern for Life

Pope John Paul II stated quite clearly his view of a Christian’s attitude toward this planet on which we livea moral matter, as I recall. I long wondered whether his message was being announced among the faithful, although several bishops’ groups have written pastorals on the subject.

It was therefore a joy to read, nearly a year ago, the article Where Are the Catholic Environmentalists? by Jeffrey J. Guhin (2/13/06), and to learn of the thinking of Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J. and Miriam Therese MacGillis, O.P.

And now, over the course of two months, three more articles have appeared with regard to our earth: about the universe, energy ethics and global warming. I hope there is a sufficient number of people reading this material, because I do not hear the topic being treated from the pulpit. Is not what happens on earth, to earth and subsequently to earth’s inhabitants a concern for life?

Sheila Murphy, O.S.U.