It seems Gray Davis does not understand what the Catholic Church teaches about abortion (“Calif. Bishop to Gov. Davis: Pick Abortion or Communion,” Feb. 2-8).

Abortion is a sin that violates the commandment “thou shalt not kill.” As the California governor is in a state of sin and is not repentant, he should not be receiving Communion. He is, in fact, desecrating the Host by insisting that he receive it while not in the state of grace.

Davis talks of a woman's right to choose. Well, she did choose — she chose to have sex. She now must give the right to choose to the child that she is carrying. How is it she can choose but her unborn child cannot?

Abortion kills and complications follow. One that is often denied is breast cancer. I know the connection is being denied by the American Cancer Society because an acknowledgement of the connection would reduce funds for research. I know doctors deny the connection because publicizing it would mean fewer abortions. Income would be affected. But I don't know why women deny the connection between abortion and breast cancer. Learning about it could save their lives.

I hope the bishop in California will counsel the governor and then deny him Communion until the governor accepts that what he is advocating is against his Catholic faith and repents publicly.

LAURA PIATKOWSKI

Brampton, Ontario

Follow the Weigand Way

Congratulations to Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento, Calif., for having the courage to publicly defend and implement the teachings of the Church (“Calif. Bishop to Gov. Davis: Pick Abortion or Communion,” Feb. 2-8).

Bishop Weigand deserves the prayers of all who abhor the abortion holocaust in our country. We should also pray for Davis’ conversion.

It is noteworthy that Davis claims that he is a “faithful” Catholic, the same claim that Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, made for Leon Panetta, pro-abortion former Congressman and chief of staff for President Clinton, hired by Bishop Gregory as a member of the bishops’ national review board for clerical sex abuse.

Also undercutting the courageous stand of Bishop Weigand are those bishops who continue to permit the use of public figures allied to those who promote abortion to raise money.

The bishops’ conference needs to follow the lead of Bishop Weigand in upholding Church teachings and it needs to establish a consistent policy for all bishops to follow: Stand up for life in actions as well as words.

RICHARD A. RETTA

Rockville, Maryland

Fight for Peace?

Regarding Father Raymond J. de Souza's “A Vatican Signal? La Civiltà Cattolica Criticizes Bush on War,” Jan. 26-Feb. 1):

I think La Civiltà Cattolica, the Rome-based Jesuit journal, and Father de Souza have mis-represented the moral teaching of the Holy Father and the Church. In fact, there is much about the Pope John Paul II's World Peace Day message that these opinionists have overlooked.

First recall the catechism's teaching on just war, which states: “The evaluation of [the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (No. 2309). John Paul has said that war can be decided upon when it is the very last option. President Bush had a personal exchange of letters with the Holy Father on Iraq (as the Register reported in the same issue), and I believe Bush has prayerfully and prudently considered the Holy Father's comments.

Further, La Civiltà Cattolica's and de Souza's intimating that a monolithic position resides in the Vatican is wrong. There are many viewpoints in Rome.

Finally, I object to La Civiltà Cattolica concluding that war against Iraq would be fought for oil supplies. Look, we could always go back to our old ways when we would look the other way from Saddam's crimes and just pay him off to get his oil. Know those days are over; it is no longer U.S. policy.

So what is the Bush policy? I offer that it can be found in his State of the Union address. Bush said: “In a single instant [9/11], we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that we've been called to a unique role in human events. … We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again. We choose freedom and the dignity of every human life.”

Afghanistan and Iraq may be the beginning of a great human rights program for the Middle East. Ambitious? Yes, very. However, is this not the essence of the Holy Father's World Peace Day message, in which he discussed our duties and responsibilities toward others in grave need?

MICHAEL A. FAULKNER

Ocean Grove, New Jersey

Kneel Away

Regarding “A College Readjusts to No-Kneeling Rule” (Jan. 26-Feb. 1): Bishop Loverde says, “any posture [other than standing] is really an act of disobedience to … the liturgical discipline.”

However, as has been pointed out, the Vatican likewise tells us through Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez and the Congregation for Divine Worship that denying Communion to those who kneel is “a serious violation of canon law and an egregious infringement upon the faithful's right to receive the sacraments.” They can't all be right.

No Catholic has the right to disobey his bishop in an area where the bishop has binding authority. Likewise, no Catholic, not even a bishop, has the right to act contrary to liturgical rubrics. Yet, if kneeling is disobedience it can be, at most, a venial sin, since the Vatican insists that Eucharist be given to a kneeling Catholic regardless of the rubric or the bishops’ directive. The act itself is not sufficient to refuse the sacrament. One might argue the communicant is saved from mortal sin only by a badly formed conscience, but finding that idea in the Congregation for Divine Worship's defense of kneeling would be difficult.

Rather, Rome's response seems to indicate this eucharistic-reception norm is essentially just a formalized preference. It cannot abrogate universal liturgical practice. It may be compared, perhaps, to the priest's right to say Mass ad orientem, or the right of every baptized and prepared Catholic to receive confirmation upon reaching the age of reason. A bishop may not like these things, but it is not within his power to forbid them.

To quote a friend of mine, “The Pope, who has ‘universal, total and immediate jurisdiction’ over every church (Canon 333), says it's okay to receive kneeling. Why argue with him?”

STEVE KELLMEYER

Peoria, Illinois

Prudential Judgment on War

For several months, hardly an issue of the Register has arrived without an article quoting Archbishop Renato Martino calling into grave moral doubt a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq. The CNS story in the Feb. 9-15 issue, “Former Vatican-U.N. Ambassador Calls for Alternatives to War With Iraq,” follows this pattern but poses its own grave problem.

There the U.S. “preventive war” policy is reported as being, according to Archbishop Martino, “unjustified under the Church's traditional just-war theory — a position he [Martino] said was the official view of the Pope and the Vatican.” The average, faithful Register reader might be forgiven for thinking “the official view of the Pope and the Vatican” means a judgment of the magisterium and thus one that must be assented to.

The same CNS story partially points the way to clarity when it says: “Archbishop Martino noted that the Vatican as a rule only points out guiding principles, not concrete courses of action.”

Please forward to CNS (and, if need be, to Arch bishop Martino) the following passage from the catechism: “The evaluation of these con ditions for moral legitimacy [of a possible war] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (No. 2309).

It is worth considering whether a possible war against Iraq even is an example of “preventive war.” Let the archbishop and the rest of us prudently consider this possibility.

JOHN R. TRAFFAS

Wichita, Kansas

Trust God, Not Arms

An Iraqi friend mentioned last week that the authorities in Iraq had called on the Muslim and Christian population for a day of prayer and fasting for peace. The ordinary folk decided to put their trust in their common Father and Creator and responded.

A stark contrast to the Western leaders’ endless speeches, saber-rattling, discreet oil revenue and body-bag calculations. They put their trust in their military and economic might.

Regardless of their dubious current leadership, the Iraqi people and the Almighty go back a long way. My friend is from Nanovah (Nineveh) where the people still honor the prophet Jonah and even now have a three-day fast every year to remind themselves of their need for God's mercy.

If only we in the West did the same! Perhaps the twin towers would still be standing. Is it too late to turn the tide? Maybe if we pray and fast, too, God could take the wind out of the sails of our blustering politicians and the anger from the hearts of the fundamentalist terrorists — as only he can lead us to peace.

STEPHEN CLARK

Manchester, United Kingdom