Missing Reference

I was astonished on reading your editorial The Worst of All Options (5/8), describing Iran’s nuclear future and American response options, to find not one mention of Israel. Given that nation’s multiplicity of actual and potential roles in this matter, the absence of reference to Israel is at best an intellectual sin of omission. It would be foolhardy for the United States to omit Israeli considerations in drafting its policy regarding this situation, as you did in drafting your editorial.

Robert V. Levine

Not Too Hysterical

If what the Rev. Michael Kane writes about New Standards for Pastoral Care (4/10) is true, I wonder, as a psychiatrist, why any man would even venture to become a priest. The priestly role is already a lonely one in our day, but according to him things are likely to make it even lonelierwith his bishop becoming an advocate for the diocese, and not a support for the priest, and his parishioners so likely to jump on him because something goes amiss in his counseling role that he had better get himself some malpractice insurance.

Frankly, I think the author is being carried away, perhaps because he may really be overly identifying the priest’s role with that of a psychotherapist, whose professional role is so much more clearly defined, while the role of a priest is much broader and not to be guided by rigid boundaries (the buzz word these days for mental health workers).

As I read the Virtus Model Code of Pastoral Conduct,I really get no sense of the doom and gloom he implies to be there. Rather I get a good picture of very reasonable principles to guide a priest in his counseling role, some rather common-sense principles that I assume are easily followed by men with the level of education enjoyed by current priests. Nor do I sense a stage being set for bishops to abandon their supportive role to the clergy. Please, let’s not get too hysterical in the aftermath of the sexual abuse debacle.

Donald J. Carek, M.D.

Long-Suffering People

In the whirligig of Philippine politics, faceless power brokers in the shadows are constantly trying to destabilize the elected government (Current Comment, 4/24).

When the maverick Col. Gregorio Gringo Honasan led the final coup attempt against then-President Cory Aquino, a major Manila daily published my single-sentence letter: After six coup attempts, who is behind them? That question remains unanswered. Honasan, instead of being shot for treason, was later elected senator!

Nor has it ever come to light who ordered the assassination of Ninoy Aquino when he stepped off a plane from Boston in Manila airport. A handful of foot soldiers, including the triggermen, are, of course, in prison. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must watch her back.

I served in the Philippines for over a decade and sadly observe that with all the fun and games in Manila, the long-suffering Philippine people are worse off than ever.

(Rev.) George P. Carlin

Equitable Rights

Thanks for the informative, if sobering, article by Fred Naffziger on the bankruptcy situations in the Portland and Spokane dioceses (3/27).

I have never been able to understand why our Catholic dioceses do not simply implement the spirit and letter of Canon 1256 and set up each parish’s property in an express trust, with the bishop as the sole trustee. That way, instead of having to argue from canon law, apparently ineffectually thus far, that this property ought to be considered a constructive or resulting trust, despite the fact that the bishop holds legal title, American courts might then be forced to recognize the equitable rights of local parishioners and their successors in such property. This would at least offer protection to the majority of parishes that never had any instance of sexual abuse by the clergy.

Paul A. Becker, Esq.

Truly Distinguished

I write this as a board member of the Venerable John Henry Newman Association. It has been a concern of the association for some time to distinguish itself from the Cardinal Newman Society, which society appears so prominently in your editorial, Measuring Catholic Identity (3/27).

The Venerable John Henry Newman Association was founded in the 1980’s by the late Vincent Giese, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, whose present diocesan bishop, Cardinal Francis George, is the association’s spiritual advisor. The purpose of our organization is to encourage research into and to disseminate knowledge of the life, views and writings of John Henry Newman; to contribute in various ways to the cause of John Henry Newman’s beatification and canonization.

The association fosters the first purpose of research into and dissemination of knowledge of this great pastor and teacher through an annual conference, this year being held on Aug. 3-5 at the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, Ill. The theme of the conference is Newman in the 21st century. Further information on the Venerable John Henry Newman Association is available at its Web site, www.udallas.edu/newman.

What I have said about the association also applies to the National Institute of Newman Studies (N.I.N.S.), located in Pittsburgh, Pa., with whom the association is closely allied. N.I.N.S. is dedicated solely to promoting the study and spreading the knowledge of the life, influence and work of the Venerable John Henry Newman. The institute accomplishes this mission by maintaining the Newman Research Library, sponsoring the Newman Scholarship Program and publishing the Newman Studies Journal.

The Venerable John Henry Newman Association and the National Institute of Newman Studies thanks America for this opportunity to distinguish ourselves from the Cardinal Newman Society.

Edward J. Enright, O.S.A.

Watchful Eye

In reading Will the Seminaries Measure Up? by Ronald D. Witherup, S.S., (3/20) the jump-off-the-page statement that there is only one question in the Instrumentum Laboris about homosexuality seems as if that should cover the sexuality issues in the church. What disturbs me is that the question should be, Is there evidence of any inappropriate sexual activity in the seminary? To me the implication of the first question is that sexual activity between a man and a woman is O.K. because it is evidence that the seminarian is not homosexual. Isn’t celibacy the issue here? Why does the church have to go around an issue before facing it? We the people of God have to continue to keep a watchful eye on the leaders of our church, who are not all honorable men.

Christine Ring