Needs at This Time

The proposed national plenary council for U.S. bishops (Signs of the Times, 8/26) sounds like a desperate exercise in self-validation. The time would be better spent in a critical self-examination of bishops’ needs at this time in church history.

For example, what should be the job description of a bishop/cardinal in the 21st century? What should be the job description for a priest? What are the educational needs that will bring bishops/cardinals up to speed to become competent managers? This is a serious issue. What programs need to be devised for the continuing education of bishops/cardinals?

The teaching office of the bishops is a relic of a church that no longer exists. We are no longer a congregation of ignorant peasants. Many faithful Catholics are better educated than their bishops. Additionally, it is time to re-examine the truths that the Catholic Church teaches in the light of history, scientific discoveries and biblical scholarship. Bishops need to learn to listen again to theologians who have pondered these revelations of God’s presence in our midst.

There are even more frightening issues to be faced. Do these men dare stand up to the Vatican and assert that they, English-speaking ecclesial authorities, have the competency to decide what should be the English-language translations of biblical and liturgical texts? Do they dare stand up to the Vatican and say that there is a crisis in the number of priests, and say that they will ordain whomever they please to assure that the faithful will have access to the sacraments? Probably not. But some time soon, dynamic leadership will have to emerge to save the church.

Jim Harvey

Just War

I want to thank you for the very insightful article by John Langan, S.J., about whether or not we should invade Iraq (9/9). But I wish to offer some points for you to consider. First, the use of the term vigilante justice seems to be an oxymoron, based on the question raised about the justice being done by the aggrieved and angry party, which implies that it is more likely to be vengeance than justice.

Second, Father Langan seems to imply that if one could prove that the consequences of an invasion of Iraq can be mitigated, then such action might be acceptable. This can never be the case, because the primary consequence of such a unilateral action would be to undermine the rule of law. What makes us different from Iraq? We claim that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons, but we have more weapons than any other nation on earth. Isn’t our willingness to restrain our power and abide by international law the very essence of the difference between us and Iraq? Wouldn’t a unilateral invasion of Iraq destroy that difference? Wouldn’t it make us the most dangerous rogue nation in the world? If we got away with such an invasion, what would convince other countries that we can be trusted to restrain our power in the future?

Even if we are able to gain support from other countries in the region, wouldn’t a pre-emptive strike undermine the just war principles? The author chose to defer consideration of the just war principles until after all can agree that the goals for the region would not be hampered by an invasion of Iraq. That is a mistake. While I have serious reservations about the just war principles (to some extent because I do not believe that the church ever applies them honestly or in a timely manner), I believe it is a mistake to wait until after everyone agrees that a war is necessary to bring up the moral principles that should instruct such decisions. Once everyone believes that war is necessary, there is great pressure to bend the just war principles to conform to that belief.

Many are looking at the issue of war with Iraq in simplistic terms. Evil must be resisted. Your article has done much to remove the blinders from people’s eyes so that they can see the complexity of what they contemplate. But it does not challenge them to see the ultimate truth. If evil is to be resisted, why aren’t we resisting war itself? The just war principles give us permission to use evil to attain justice and security. But what good is justice and security when we have embraced evil?

Stephen D. Stratoti

Life Experience

For some time now, I have intended to write you to commend you on your excellent writing and articles on the sexual abuse issues in the Catholic Church. The report in Signs of the Times (7/29) about the remarks of Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz prompts me to write.

Current understanding among human development professionals includes the idea that each human person finds herself/himself somewhere on a continuum with regard to sexuality and affectional preference. That is, some people are more inclined to think of members of the opposite gender when they think of someone loving them; others think of persons of the same gender. And some people are emotionally attracted to members of both genders equally.

Bishop Bruskewitz focuses on two elements that I think are not indicated by the life experience of persons of either affectional preference. One element is to equate homosexuality with addiction (note his reference to persons suffering from drug addiction, alcohol dependence and kleptomania). Another troublesome element is his implication that persons who are attracted to persons of the same gender are driven to sexual promiscuity. To turn the tables, one might (erroneously) make the argument that it is not appropriate to ordain heterosexuals because they would likely be at risk of giving in to temptation of having sex with the wives and daughters of parishioners!

As a licensed counselor, I have met no person with a same-gender affectional preference who says that it is right to have sexual relations with children. Most gay people of my acquaintance want what most people want from a relationship: a special, monogamous relationship with the ability to love and be loved. And that does not always include genital sexual expression! Many persons of the gay affectional preference have been so rejected by their culture and/or family members that they certainly do not put themselves in the position to be rejected again. In sum, they are not pedophiles, nor are they sexual predators, in my experience.

One priest wrote in another publication, I believe God asks of homosexual relationships exactly what God asks of heterosexual relationships: truth, faithfulness, longsuffering, and the continuing forgiveness of the other. He then quotes Gal. 5:23: Against these there is no law.

We can all learn from one another. Your articles on this topic reflect good writing and pastoral sensitivity.

Louis Lowrey

Complicity

Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of humanitarian intervention, mentioned by Drew Christiansen, S.J., (8/12), contrasts with the U.S. policy of acting only if it is in its strategic interest. East Timor showed the tragic gulf between the two.

The East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence in a United Nations-mandated referendum, believing as they courageously went to the polls that they were under the protection of the world community of nations and, certainly, its superpower, the United States.

Instead, they were sheep to the slaughter, as militia gangs wrought carnage that Americans watched on television news for weeks.

The United States not only failed to act, fearing to offend Indonesia (though the United Nations had never recognized the bloody annexation of East Timor), but blocked Australia, East Timor’s near neighbor, from acting.

When the combat-ready Australian troops were finally allowed in as peacekeepers, the game was over. East Timor was a land of corpses, rape victims and rubble.

As we preen ourselves on the moral high ground in the world arena, we ought to look in the mirror. In East Timor and elsewhere we have been complicit in the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

(Rev.) George P. Carlin

Wise Investments

The call for an end to the Cuban embargo by John W. Donohue S.J. (Of Many Things, 7/15) is well intended, but should not be considered uncritically. Indeed, there are two considerations, both legal and moral, that should give us pause: collaboration and ideological apartheid. Is it moral for American tourists to stay at hotels where Cubans are not allowed, even if invited by foreign friends or relatives? Is it right for a baseball team to play in Cuba when tickets are doled out to government supporters, and Cuban players are barred from baseball because of suspicions that they are politically disloyal or potential defectors? Is it right for an intellectual to speak at a university, when dissidents have been expelled from the faculty and are not allowed to attend? Should American investors be allowed to build a factory where the politically incorrect are denied jobs or higher paying positions? Ideological apartheid is as objectionable as racial apartheid. Though we do not make the owners of a sweatshop in Asia responsible for poverty in the countries where they invest, we should make them responsible for conditions and wages in their factories. So too we should simply require that American companies and travelers not collaborate with political apartheid through their commercial or investment activities. And this rule should not single out Cuba, but should be applied to all foreign investments, while keeping an eye on those countries where violations are most likely to occur. That way the United States would not be imposing its values on other countries, but on its own citizens and companies.

Pedro J. Saavedra

Cautious Hope

The article by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., linking Catholic and Evangelical theologies (7/15), is well crafted toward ecumenical hope. Another article is needed, however, to see the stark differences that indeed have grave implications for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Most Evangelicals value charity but do not consider justice a Gospel imperative. In Central America, to the joy of elitist rulers, Evangelicals preach that poverty and the death of children are the will of God. Systemic sin is unacknowledged; financial success is the reward of right-eousness; weaponry is admired; enemies are satanic. An option for the poor or the oppressed matters little when the end-time is at hand. Why does this scare me about our president?

Robert J. Brophy