Can of Sardines

I wish to comment on Immoral Bingeing by Terry Golway (10/18). I feel that I not only do have a right to complain about the price of gas with which I fill my gas-guzzling S.U.V., but I have a right to complain about the cost of my S.U.V., along with the cost of my pants, shirts and shoes. I have that right because I don’t have a say in what I drive. I am 6’ 4 and weigh 190 lbs. For the first nine years of my driving life, I drove Chevy Cavaliers and a Ford Tempo. They have the leg room and head room of a can of sardines. The same goes for those Hondas and Toyotas. It is not fair that I should have to buy an S.U.V., but they are the only vehicles made with a person slightly taller than average in mind. I really feel discriminated against by the fact that I cannot buy a cheaper car. The shorter people are catered to; the taller people aren’t. So I should not be put in the category of S.U.V. yuppies who don’t care how much gas they burn.

Matthew Toohill

Immense Debt

Thanks to Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J., for his magnificent tribute to my former professor, Karl Rahner, S.J. (11/8). I was a student at the University of Innsbruck from 1958 to 1962 and witnessed firsthand the genius and humility of this great priest-theologian.

The church owes an immense debt to Karl Rahner, who inspired so much of the renewal of the Second Vatican Council.

While Rahner could be very serious and profound, he was also very gentle and gracious. I recall sitting with him in the exam room for my oral final. Here was a struggling young American taking an oral exam in the presence of this world-renowned theologian. He pardoned my nervousness, he repeated questions in German and Latin and, like a father, complimented me to give encouragement. The students rightly called him Karl the Great.

(Most Rev.) Donald W. Trautman

Sensitive to Learning

In response to Adults Left Behind (10/11), in which William J. Byron, S.J., observed that society owes our illiterate adults something in compensation for failing them when they were children, a reader, Rudy Cypser, wrote (11/1) that this is another case of finding the root cause of symptoms and trying to do something about it.

But if the root cause of illiteracy is something that happenedor did not happento these unfortunate citizens in their early years when they were receptive to learning, can they really go back? The evidence would indicate otherwise; for hundreds of adults, it is too late now to make a substantial difference through adult remedial instruction. It is also prohibitively expensive.

This is why programs like the Harlem-based Casa de los Nios for 3- to 5-year-olds, under the direction of the Montessori Development and Training Corporation, are sorely needed if we want to interrupt the cycle of illiteracy.

The alternative to remedial programs is to catch children when they are sensitive to language development and learning in general. If you have a small child in your life, you know his constant Why?; and if you care about that child, you will not become impatient and turn off his natural curiosity by sitting him in front of the television set to be quiet; instead you will, as psychologist J. McVicker Hunt has said, match his level of readiness to know with appropriate learning activities or find an affordable institution that provides them. All the research points to this wisdom, but all too few academic programs for young children apply it effectively. Why do we wait until failure sets in and then wring our hands? Why do we waste time and throw away so many lives?

Marion Ragsdale

Trust and Confidence

In a recent issue of America, Archbishop Harry Flynn of St. Paul and Minneapolis reviewed the accomplishments of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (10/18). While there is much to praise in his article, I would respectfully but emphatically disagree with two arguments he made.

Archbishop Flynn states: To keep children safe and to restore trust and confidence, it became necessary to remove all offenders. The charter’s one-size-fits-all approach makes no distinction between rape and a kiss or an inappropriate touching over the clothes. It makes no distinction between a serial predator and one-time offender. It makes no distinction between an offense committed yesterday and one committed 40 years ago. This makes no sense and is unjust. It panders to those who thirst for vengeance. The church cannot yield to vengeance. To do so is to betray the Gospel.

Also, the charter has an all-or-nothing approach to ministry. Given the concerns about returning offenders to parish ministry, why would it not be sufficient, in appropriate cases, to assign an accused priest to ministry that involves no contact with children?

The church teaches that ordination results in an ontological change. A person takes on a new identity. He is a priest forever, not merely an employee who can be fired. It seems that the credibility of the bishops has been so damaged by the poor judgments of some bishops that all are afraid to make any distinctions or to exercise any judgment.

Archbishop Flynn says that accused priests are afforded the protections of canon law. This is simply not true. In my experience with helping hundreds of priests, when a priest is accused he is guilty until proven guiltier.

Dioceses routinely engage in the practice of name and shame, whereby a priest against whom there is found to be a suspicion of misconduct with a minor is publicly named and removed from ministry. Once the bell of child abuser is rung, it can never be un-rung.

Often the diocese will announce that an accusation is credible or even substantiated. Such a finding is based mostly on the impressions of the initial interviewer of the accuser, with little investigation and no cross-examination. Such a process is contrary to canonical due process and fundamental fairness. It is small comfort to have a canonical trial after a public lynching.

Many canonical processes will turn out to be inconclusive. In the secular courts, that would result in the accused being freed. But an accused priest cannot return to ministry unless he can prove the allegation to be false. Once an allegation has been declared to be credible, the burden of proof shifts in effect to the priest to prove his innocence. Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany did this successfully through an independent investigator, but it cost his diocese over a million dollars. Evidently Bishop Hubbard saw that a canonical process would be inadequate to clear his name. An ordinary priest who is accused does not stand much of a chance. All priests are vulnerable. There is a double standard.

In the past two years, the bishops have accomplished a great deal in addressing the problem of sexual abuse of minors. However, when the bishops review the charter, they must correct these two injustices.

Finally, in sharp contrast to Cardinal Avery Dulles’ previous article in America entitled Rights of Accused Priests (6/21), Archbishop Flynn’s article illustrates the difference between Cardinal Dulles’s assertionthat making decisions must be based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the authentic teachings of the church, and in this case as found particularly in the Code of Canon Lawand continuing to base decisions on the inadequate charter.

Joseph Maher

Zero Tolerance and the Power of Grace

The Oct. 18 issue of America carries two thought-provoking articles: What Has the Charter Accomplished? by Archbishop Harry Flynn, and Where Do We Go From Here? by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J. Those pose the questions, where are we and where are we headed? The we is generically the church in the United States and in particular the Catholic bishops. The articles might be called a glimpse of history in the making, a presentation of perspectives. I offer some further perspectives.

The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People has indeed accomplished much, as Archbishop Flynn details. But I question his perspective about speed and haste. It was speedily written but hastily approved. The time for discussion was very limited in Dallas. Much of its content had not been adequately discussed in previous general meetings, particularly the handling of priest abusers and what became eventually the coverup in the reassignment of guilty priests. But more proximately we bishops did not give adequate attention to all of the three points made by Pope John Paul II in his address to the cardinals at their hastily called meeting in Rome. Two points were covered: the expelling of priest abusers from active ministry and the consciousness of the bishops’ actions having a positive influence on society in general, where sexual abuse of the young is a major blight.

But the Holy Father’s first point was not discussed in any way that would have an influence on the overall discussion. Pope John Paul stated: You are working to establish more reliable criteria to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated. At the same time we cannot forget the power of Christian conversion, the radical decision to turn away from sin and back to God, which reaches to the depths of a person’s soul and can work extraordinary change.

That gets to the very heart of reconciliation of everyone. The discussion in Dallas about zero tolerance for priest offenders was not adequately discussed there. Indeed, the discussion was cut off by a motion and vote from the floor. Such a vote was in order and had to be respected. But it is my opinion that it catered to an aspect of haste which sidetracked any discussion of zero tolerance for those past offenders who over many years of priestly ministry demonstrated that they did turn away from sin and back to God and did reflect in their lives that they had gone through an extraordinary personal change, thanks to the power of the grace of God.

Frequently, lay Catholics who have lost a good priest because of abuse that happened years ago ask, Do not the bishops believe in forgiveness, conversion of soul and reconciliation?

Archbishop Flynn makes a distinction between forgiveness of sin and the consequences of sin. He is clear that every sin can be forgiven, but on consequences he simply says that expulsion from ministry and possibly the priesthood is one consequence. But it is a consequence for reformed and reclaimed priests because the bishops say so.

Therein is another consequence: priests who feel abandoned by their bishop, priests who now have no trust in their bishop, priests who feel they cannot turn to their bishop on anything personal or spiritual.

Where do we go from here? The tone of Archbishop Flynn’s article is not encouraging. He seems to discourage any amendment of the charter on zero tolerance, even the narrow consideration of the plight of reformed priest abusers. He sounds this note especially in citing the thinking of the National Review Board that for the immediate future this policy is essential for the restoration of the trust of the laity in the leadership of the Church, provided it is appropriately applied.

With all due respect for the very good contributions of the National Review Board, I fail to see zero tolerance as essential to restoring trust. What we should recognize is that zero tolerance, in being applied indiscriminately to all past offenders, has created a new group of victims, those Catholics who have lost their good pastor in their parish or their good chaplain in a nursing home. The indiscriminate application of zero tolerance will not re-establish trust in the bishops.

The Holy Father suggested that the bishops set an example for society. Perhaps the bishops can draw some inspiration from the bold move made by President Gerald Ford when dealing with the resignation of President Richard Nixon and the disastrous Vietnam debacle. He pardoned Nixon. Then he established a National Clemency Commission to deal with deserters and draft dodgers in the Vietnam War. His words are telling in his proclamation establishing the commission:

In furtherance of our national commitment to justice and mercy, these young Americans should have the chance to contribute a share to the rebuilding of peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Desertion in time of war is a major, serious offense; failure to respond to the country’s call to duty is also a serious offense. Reconciliation among our people does not require these acts to be condoned. Yet, reconciliation calls for an act of mercy to bind the nation’s wounds and to heal the scars of division.

About 15,000 young people applied for clemency. About 13,000 were granted clemency. Another 1,000 or so were granted clemency but only after a time of community service. About 900 were denied clemency.

Some political observers say these actions contributed to President Ford’s loss in the next presidential election. That might have been the price he paid for following the call of justice, mercy and reconciliation.

Without question the bishops, through the charter and the norms, have established as their primary focus the victims of sexual abuse and their protection. But the task of reconciliation is far from complete.

Where do we go from here? In my opinion we must jettison the word and the concept of zero tolerance. Rather, we must return to the Holy Father’s focus on the power of Christian conversion and the power of grace to transform lives. From that will come trust, mutual trust among all of our people. That is the mission of reconciliation which, St. Paul reminds us, is the mission entrusted to us by Jesus Christ.

(Most Rev.) Francis T. Hurley

Society Owes Them

In Adults Left Behind (10/11), William J. Byron, S.J., observes that adults now unable to read were perhaps failed by their schools when they were children, and points out that society owes them something now. Many of those who could not read in school then dropped out of school, went to the streets, drifted into drugs and crime and found themselves in prison. Some of them also had learning disabilities (like dyslexia) and had little support from dysfunctional families. It has been estimated that 40 percent of inmates in state prisons cannot read adequately, and an abnormal percentage of them have learning difficulties.

This is another case of finding the root cause of symptoms and trying to do something about it. Society owes these people a better effort to overcome their disabilities, educate them and enable them to survive productively in society.

Rudy Cypser

Lincoln’s Virtues

One of the most enlightening and inspiring books I have read recently is William Lee Miller’s Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography (Vintage, 2002). It is scholarly but very readable and of great relevance to the current political scene, especially for citizens who are deeply committed to moving their moral values into public policy and law.

Our greatest president, Miller makes clear, was ethically opposed to the institution of slavery throughout his life. Drawing on the language of the Declaration of Independence, he repeatedly affirmed that all men (all persons, we would now say) are created equal. That included Africans reduced to slavery in the home of the brave and the land of the free. He found the institution of slavery morally abhorrent. He said more than once that if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.

And yet he recognized that the Constitution permitted slavery and that it had existed legally as the backbone of the Southern economy for generations. He even acknowledged that had he been born a Southerner he might have become a slave-owner himself. The moral difference between the Northern abolitionist and the Southern plantation owner, Lincoln surmised, could be construed as at least partly an accident of birth and history. He never lorded it over his fellow citizens who happened to be on the wrong side of the slavery issue and he tended to think that full-bore abolitionists were long on moral righteousness but short on political wisdom and therefore ineffective in advancing their cause.

Thus, while adamant that slavery not be extended into any new territories or states, Lincoln nonetheless diverged from the abolitionist agenda regarding the longtime slave-owning South. He even supported, however reluctantly, the Fugitive Slave Act, which required that escaped slaves captured in the North be returned to their owners. The Great Emancipator was, in other words, also the Great Compromiser. He stood his ground on the moral principle but was realistic about what was possible in the public arena. He understood that moral absolutes such as all men are created equal do not always translate smoothly into public policy. He counted on Southern slavery to wither away of its own internal contradictions.

Some Catholic commentators today try to portray the current complex political situation relative to abortion in the same light in which President Lincoln viewed the issue of slavery. But they are often rebuked for doing so by fellow Catholics with the same single-minded moral righteousness with which Lincoln was rebuked by absolutist abolitionists in his own day. No doubt he was slandered with accusations of pro-slavery drivel and lies by people who were not his equal in any way, as was a colleague of mine recently who dared to suggest that deciding how to vote in this presidential election might be a matter of some agony for consistent-ethic Catholics.

Neither of our major presidential candidates today gives evidence of anything like the moral character or political wisdom of Abraham Lincoln. When so many lives are at stake in so many arenas of our national and global communities, fractured as they are in so many ways, the wise might consider that lack of great moral and political leadership an occasion for some agonizing. That was my colleague’s point.

Just as I honor President Lincoln for his understanding of the sometimes tortured relationship between morality and politics, I admire those who try to elucidate a complex political situation in our own day. That they sometimes do so with deep moral concern is perhaps evident only to those who can also appreciate Lincoln’s virtues.

Roger Bergman

Posture, Not Policy

I have become increasingly confused by the demand of Catholic thinkers like Germain Grisez (Catholic Politicians and Abortion Funding, 8/30) that we should be steadfastly opposed to abortion. I am appalled at the widespread practice of abortion in the United States, but I find Grisez’s arguments, like those of many church officials, abstract to the point of emptiness.

Does being opposed to abortion mean that they wish to re-criminalize abortion? If, as Grisez suggests, abortion was wrongly made legal by an act of raw judicial power, I assume he would wish it made illegal by reversing that decision. But a simple reversal of Roe v. Wade would not have the effect of making abortion illegal. Roe undercut state legislation on abortion by claiming a constitutionally protected privacy right. Absent the constitutional ruling, the issue would be back with the states who have primary jurisdiction over criminal law. It is almost certain that in the absence of Roe, some state legislatures would establish laws legalizing abortion.

Specific legislation might range from highly restrictive to more permissive. In short, the realistic outcome of reversing Roe would not be the abolition of abortion as a legal option within the United States. Women seeking permissive abortion conditions would choose a particular state. Easy access to abortion would be as it was in the good/bad old days, when couples went to Reno for a quick divorce.

To make abortion illegal in the United States in an effective way, one would need a constitutional amendment banning the procedure, an act akin to the Prohibition amendment. There are those who opt for such an amendment. All one can say is that it is quite improbable that any such amendment could be approved, given the general if troubled support for some sort of legal abortions within the United States.

But let us suppose that somehow abortion would be made illegal. What would the legal penalty be for violating the prohibition? One would think, judging from the rhetoric about the killing of the innocent (Grisez), that abortion must be tantamount to murder, or at least voluntary manslaughter. Would the normal, severe penalties be exacted in that case? Against the abortion provider? Against the woman? If the death penalty or long prison sentences seem too severe and one settled for fines or limited jail terms, what does that say about the moral/legal status of abortion? If not murder, what? Do circumstances count?

Proclaiming opposition to abortion without examining the very real and difficult problems of specific legislation that are presumed to follow from that stance may warm the moral sensibility, but it remains a posture, not a policy.

Dennis O’Brien

Stay Alert

The thoughtful article, Assume Nothing: A Postscript to the John Jay Report, by Beth Sullivan (9/13), clearly illustrates the need for parents to be aware of words or actions by an adult that might indicate that the person is, or could be, a child abuser. As part of the safe environment programs mandated by the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June, 2002), training programs are now provided in nearly all dioceses and eparchies around the country.

Thousands of parents and caregivers have received information regarding such important topics as: how to identify an individual who might abuse a child, how to determine when a child might be the victim of some type of abuse, what to do when you suspect a person is an abuser, and what to do if you believe that a child is being abused. I strongly urge persons responsible for the care of children and young people to use this resource to learn about the problem of child abuse and how it is manifested in various parts of our society.

Sexual abuse remains the most under-reported criminal activity in the United States. Many factors contribute to this, such as fear of retribution or embarrassment. In those instances where a sexual assault is believed to have occurred, this information should be brought to the attention of the appropriate law enforcement or child protection agencies. It is critical that persons who have been abused come forward as soon as possible in order to prevent future acts from occurring, to ensure that offenders are held accountable and to help victims and their families begin the healing process.

Additional support for victims is available through specially trained diocesan or eparchial victim-assistance coordinators, as well as from public sexual assault and counseling centers located in most major cities.

Kathleen McChesney

Spiritual Journey

Many thanks for the wonderful two-part Faith in Focus article by James Martin, S.J., on his experiences at Lourdes. While reading of the faith experiences of other pilgrims was inspiring, I especially appreciated reading Father Martin’s honest reflections on his own spiritual journey. He made a somewhat reluctant visit to Lourdes, only to find that un-nameable, intuitive something that stayed with him, and his experience blossomed into the prayerful and engaging song of hope published here (8/2, 8/16).

His story reminds me of a young woman we know about who also made a journey and upon recognizing that intuitive something, leapt into her own song of hope and triumph: My soul does glorify the Lord, my being rejoices in God my savior, for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant. Father Martin has reminded us, quietly and powerfully, that God still looks with favor on his lowly servants, that we still call the young woman blessed, and that Holy is his name. Thanks for the refreshing journey.

Elizabeth Thecla Mauro