Father Rutler Objects

In your account of my recent debate on capital punishment (Nov. 7–13, “Can Catholics Support Death Penalty?"), one might get the impression that I suppose a prudential matter to be a “mere” matter. [During the debate,] I explained the teachings of Augustine, Aquinas and Vatican II as well as the recent teachings of Pius XII and John Paul II. In no way did I counsel disobedience.

To impute intrinsic evil to capital punishment per se is to go against St. Paul and all the Doctors of the Church. If I am wrong in distinguishing moral commentary from development of doctrine, then I am wrong with Cardinal Newman. To deny to civil magistrates the right to conscience or to propose that the civil authority has capital power only by delegation of the Church would contradict the sacred tradition of the faith, as Pius XII taught in 1952 and 1953.

It is absurd to call the response of many faithful to magisterial counsel on the use of capital punishment the equivalent of the response of dissenters to Humanae Vitae. To suppose that there is any authority to change the sacred tradition on natural law, which neither the Pope nor the Catechism does, would in fact call the very foundation of Humanae Vitae into question.

I continue to suspect problems in some uses of the “seamless garment” of life issues. There is clearly a difference between aborting a baby and executing a criminal. And why do many who lump them together not include contraception in that “seamless garment”?

It would help those who cannot fathom the economy of conscience and religious obedience in the ordinary magisterium to read Newman's letter to the Duke of Norfolk. In a less serious mood, it would be interesting to ask them what their response would have been to Pope Gregory XVI's condemnation of smallpox vaccinations.

Father George W. Rutler

New York

Partial-Birth ‘Regulation’

Your Oct. 31-Nov. 6 headline “On Abortion, U.S. Senate Tries to Have It Both Ways” does not accurately describe the alleged partial-birth abortion-ban legislation. The reporter fails to point out that the bill passed by the Senate does not ban acts of infanticide described as partial-birth abortion; it merely regulates the procedure. The bill contains an exception. Honesty should require us to describe politically motivated votes taken on flawed legislative proposals accurately. Lives are at stake.

Judie Brown, president American Life League Inc.

Stafford, Virginia

Three Kings and a President

I have not seen the film Three Kings, which John Prizer reviews in your Nov. 7–13 edition, but since Mr. Prizer uses his review to defend George Bush's abandonment of the Shiite Moslems of southern Iraq at the end of the Gulf War, something which he says the film criticizes, I feel called to comment.

When the Iraqi surrender came, they were allowed by the Bush administration to take their tanks and artillery back to Iraq with them, a strange favor for such a manifestly evil regime. Within days those weapons were turned against the Shiite opponents of Saddam Hussein in southern Iraq. They used them against not just rebel combatants, but against the civilian populace, including women and children, as the film apparently portrays. This slaughter went on while George and Norman and Colin were patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Most who criticized them argued that the Iraqis should simply not have been allowed to take their weapons of slaughter back home with them — they did not argue, as Mr. Prizer asserts, that American troops should have been used in defense of the Shiites.

Mr. Prizer defends the Bush administration's actions, first, on the grounds that Shiites in other places had done bad things to Americans. There is not the slightest evidence that the Shiites of southern Iraq had anything to do with the incidents Mr. Prizer alludes to, and to lump them in with them is like identifying all fundamentalist Protestants with David Koresh. It is a stance of bigotry.

Mr. Prizer's second defense of Bush is that the Shiites might ultimately have threatened the Saudi regime if they carved out a homeland for themselves in southern Iraq. That's probably an acceptable reason for letting them be slaughtered from a Machiavellian point of view, but its hardly a Christian one. And since the administration had previously encouraged the citizens of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, the turnabout also amounts to betrayal.

Finally, Mr. Prizer identifies the critics of the with drawal policy with those who opposed the Gulf War in its entirety. That is far from the case. The real line is not between hawks and doves, but, as with other military actions, between those who think that, in war, Machiavellian selfishness suddenly becomes something better than the sin it is in peacetime — and those who think each and every action of a war must be judged by Christian standards. In fairness to Mr. Prizer, by the end of his review he manages to concede this, but he is too quick to absolve the Bush administration of such examination.

Mark Gronceski West Melbourne, Florida

Justification Without Jargon

With regard to the Lutheran-Catholic agreement on justification (“Lutheran-Catholic Agreement: ‘Baby Step’ In Direction of Unity,” Oct. 31-Nov. 6), I feel that a new era of confusion in the Church is about to be ushered in unless there is proper catechesis. To say that we are justified by faith, and that our works are evidence of that faith, is not true Catholic teaching. Yet this is exactly what a Catholic priest says in your article.

It depends on what one means by “works” and by “faith.” There always has been a point of essential agreement between the Catholic and Lutheran or Reformed teaching on justification. There is nothing new here.

The bottom line is that justification (being made right before God) is effected through grace. The human person is justified by God alone (grace alone). But at the point of justification, the person must be properly disposed. The essential disposition is faith (the beginning and foundation of justification), but for the adult, as opposed to the infant at baptism, certain works (movements of the will) are necessary in order for the person to be justified. The most essential of these is contrition for sin.

For the adult sinner, it is actually contrition which effects the entrance of sanctifying grace into the soul (justification) on the human side of the equation. A cooperation with the grace offered is necessary on the part of the human person in order for God to justify him.

The virtue of faith is the necessary disposition for justification, but it does not effect justification. It is the works of the human will, most especially contrition, which effects justification on the human side. The bottom line is still that it is God who drives the engine of salvation. On that much, Catholics and Lutherans, as well as Calvinists can agree.

Paul A. Trouve Montague, New Jersey

Correction: Most American Lutherans are represented by the “Lutheran-Catholic Agreement” referred to in the Oct. 31-Nov. 6 article. Due to an editing error, the article made the opposite claim.

Disconcerting Apostle

I first saw the movie The Apostle favorably reviewed in Guideposts magazine about two years ago, before it was even released, if I remember correctly. Because of that review I rented the movie this past summer and watched it from beginning to end, waiting for the big redemption and conversion scene. I cannot tell you how very different my experience of this movie was from what I read in Guideposts.

I was very surprised to again find the movie reviewed if not “favorably,” then at least ambiguously, in the Register (Oct. 24–30). The [main] character, “Sonny,” was a violent and deceitful man from beginning to end. Most disturbing of all was [Register movie reviewer John] Prizer's depiction of Sonny as a “suffering servant.” I saw nothing gentle or true in him at all, and certainly nothing of self-sacrifice in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, the saints and martyrs.

Mr. Prizer, and indeed every person of good will, would benefit from viewing “Hollywood vs. Religion,” an excellent exposé by Michael Medved.

Sister Sara Marie Belisle, OSF

St. Francis Convent Hankinson, North Dakota

John Prizer responds: I, too, have some reservations about The Apostle, as indicated in the review — yet I saw in it two attributes that, I believe, make it a worthwhile viewing experience.

First, it forces us to think about evangelical Protestants without the usual stereotypes; this is a rare thing for a mass-entertainment product. And second, it allows us to consider how God may use sinners to do his work. Incidentally, I agree that Hollywood vs. Religion by Michael Medved is an important book — in fact, I have quoted it several times in my movie reviews. I've also worked with Medved on a number of projects, including helping to set up a screening of this video based on his book for the Catholic Press Association a few years ago.

The Register Welcomes Letters

Mention which item you're responding to by headline and issue date. Please include your address and phone number;