I am writing in response to the letter to the editor titled “Go Easy on Iraq” (Oct. 6-12). The author references an Army War College document questioning the assertion that Iraqi forces were responsible for the chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja.

The letter's prominent position gives the letter special emphasis and, along with the author's sure tone, confers authority on the letter's sentiments. The implication is that the Bush administration has made a cynical attempt to play loose with the facts and intends to provoke a war based on a false pretense. Consequently, I think the letter deserves a response.

Regardless of who perpetrated the attack on Halabja, chemical weapons are indeed one of the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein from power. President Bush clearly mentioned the threat during his address to the United Nations. He also mentioned, however, violations of cease-fire terms and U.N. resolutions, support of terrorist organizations and activities, and nuclear weapons research. Saddam's threat will only continue to grow. Does anyone seriously believe that he would permit unfettered inspections or the disarmament of his regime? We know that he certainly has the capability to wreak havoc. The only question is what are his intentions.

Two additional points. First, American support for the Iraqi regime during the 1980s in no way makes an attack on that same regime in the 2000s illegitimate. The purpose for our support during the Iran-Iraq War was to stop the spread of the Iranian revolution to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. Times and circumstances can obviously change.

And second, I would question the characterization that Christianity is allowed to “flourish” in Iraq. Iraq is by no means the only Arab country that has a Christian element. Ask any Coptic Christian in Egypt. Other Arab countries, such as Syria, also have Christian minorities. In addition, the presence of Christians among the Iraqi population should not be a deterrent to removing the Saddam regime.

The issue of regime change in Iraq is indeed a complicated one for the devout Roman Catholic. There are, however, reasons to believe that Saddam poses a threat to the United States and its interests. To criticize the Bush administration based on an opinion piece is a distraction from more substantive debate, for instance on the regional impact of a war, the character of a post-Saddam regime or the justness of the cause.

JOE SCHWENINGER Dublin, Ohio

Swing Away, Catholic Voter

The letter from Joe Ninnemann titled “Catholics and Political Parties” (Oct. 6-12) actually caused me to dig up the original opinion column by Scott McDermott (“Will Catholics Voters Pray Now and Swing Later?” Sept. 15-21) to see what was Mr. Ninnemann's problem with Mr. McDermott's column.

I agree with Mr. McDermott's general opinion of how a Catholic should react with his or her vote. It is my understanding that the bishops are in general opposed to a Catholiconly political party, and having the Catholic vote act more as a swing vote makes a lot of sense when you consider the history of our American political system. This ensures that the Catholic position becomes something desired by politicians or they face being rejected in the next election.

I have seen and read about too many Catholic politicians whose faith becomes corrupted by the party machine just to remain in lock step with some party mantra. One thing that is seemingly missing in this debate is the fact that the American bishops are saying the Church in America is about 50% Hispanic. If this is true, and a good percentage of the Hispanic population cannot vote due to immigration status, what political voting power does the American Catholic Church have in this nation? In short, our Catholic views may be deemed politically irrelevant because we lack a solid swing vote.

ANDREW MARTIN Rockville, Maryland

Covering Theologians

Regarding “Bishops Help Bring Wayward Theologians Back Into the Fold” (Oct. 6-12):

Where has Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger been all these years since Vatican II? Why did he help the bishops of this (and other countries) keep the cover on these “theologians?” My goodness, to come out now of all times and tell us he and the other bishops were aware of — and did nothing to stop — dissenting theologians who have been spreading errors.

Even if some bishops erred in allowing dissenting views to go on being circulated, why did the good cardinal keep so mum? He definitely had it in his power to call for a few heads to roll. Instead, we have “theologians” the likes of Father Richard McBrien, who to this day has a very high place in one of our most prestigious Catholic schools and is allowed to keep spreading his stuff! We do have e-mail, fax, satellites — no excuse for him now not to use these modern devices to do that job! It isn't the Middle Ages, where communication took 250 years. This could be done right now!

For almost 40 years, we — the faithful — have endured the “theologians” and their speculations, along with the added vinegar to our wounds of our clergy telling us we were in the wrong and this is “where the Church is going.”

We are to the point in our Church where the news media only call on these wayward theologians and other dissenters in the hierarchy to interview for the Church's official view on ... just anything.

RETA TALLMAN Reno, Nevada

Mexican Bishops’ Immigration Ire

With all due respect to the episcopal office, I was disappointed by the criticism stated by Mexico's bishops regarding stiffened U.S. border controls that are impacting illegal immigration (“Mexican Bishops Attack Post-Sept. 11 Border Controls,” Sept. 22-28).

The bishops’ statement seems to condone illegal immigration into the United States and fails to give due recognition both to poor Mexicans who are abiding by the law to enter the United States legally as well as to the U.S. government having the right to control passage through our borders, especially when terrorist attacks have killed some 3,000 Americans. I don't think illegal immigration has “its roots in poverty”; rather, I think it has its roots in Mexicans who are willing to violate our immigration laws.

Instead of attacking the United States for enforcing its immigration laws, Mexican bishops should consider devoting their efforts to enhancing economic development and conditions in Mexico to reduce the incentive for Mexicans to seek illegal entry into the United States.

ROBERT BARNETT Minneapolis

Grateful Traveler A long overdue note of appreciation for your inclusion of the architecture and art of great churches and shrines in your “Travel: History & Saints” section.

The recent article by Mr. Joseph Pronechen on Our Lady Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Cathedral in Toledo, Ohio, is a case in point (“Holy Toledo — A Rosary of Living Stone,” Oct. 6-12). Completed in 1940, this magnificent temple of the Lord is a great inspiration to those trying to build again in a manner durable, dignified and beautiful.

I hope that Mr. Pronechen will consider publishing his essays as a book with manifold color photos, while including plans and, of course, the name of the architect.

DUNCAN STROIK Notre Dame, Indiana

The writer is a professor at the University of Notre Dame School of Architecture and editor of Sacred Architecture Journal.

Shrouded From Change

I am just reading your otherwise-excellent article on the Shroud of Turin, “Shroud of Faith?” (Oct. 6-12).

The comment is made that Walter McCrone did not respond to Register requests for interviews. I have no way, of course, of knowing when this article was written, but surely you are aware that Walter McCrone died on July 26, 2002. I am thoroughly familiar with his work on the shroud, and on the Vinland Map (I own the massive work on this latter, issued by Yale University) and, between you and me, have no use for the gentleman.

I enjoy the Register very much and share it with a neighbor who appears to enjoy it even more than I do! Keep up the very good work.

KATHLEEN SMITH Via e-mail