Tough-Loving Church

Thank you for Father Andrew McNair's column “Voice of the Unfaithful? New Group's True Colors” (Aug 18–24).

The reason I'm writing is very simple. Father McNair exposes a group that will do harm to the Church, but he fails to address the underlying reason for the existence of these groups. The fact still remains that, until Church officials stop allowing sexual abuse by priests and others, groups like this will easily find a following.

I suggest you stay a little more focused and in line with the reason for the reaction of the “laymen.” Groups like Voice of the Faithful will come and go, but will always be there when the Church does not solve its own problems. The current problem with homosexual priests is not a tough problem to solve — it simply requires a “tough Church.”

ALAN MERWIN

Fatima, Portugal

Viva EWTN!

I was perplexed that Archbishop John Foley never mentioned the wonderful coverage of EWTN, the global Catholic TV network (“The Church & the News,” Aug. 25–31).

We saw EWTN's coverage of Pope John Paul II's trip to Poland while we were in Albany, N.Y., visiting my daughter. It was beautiful! In addition, we viewed many of their other excellent programs, featuring people like Father Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Eugene Clark and Father George Rutler — all wonderful!

Here in Manhattan we are hoping to have EWTN added to our cable network soon. It is seen in most all the country and the world. It is made available free to cable systems like Time Warner and RCN. There are no commercials. They depend on donations. Their Web site is www.ewtn.com.

ANNE MCLAUGHLIN

New York City

Meetings Don't Mend

I read recently that, when Pope John Paul II called the bishops together when the priest scandals first broke, he said dissent from the Church's teachings on sexuality was the root of the problem. We are still not hearing clear teachings on sexuality and, as far as I can tell, that issue was not addressed at the U.S. bishops' meeting.

In your editorial “Blaming the Pope” (Sept. 1–7), I still do not hear that addressed. It seems to me that more meetings will not solve the problem of lack of constant, clear teaching on the Church's stand on sexuality.

SUSAN CARFAGNO

Atkins, Arkansas

Intolerable Patience?

The Holy Father's style of leadership is superior to many of his predecessors and has been more than successful in the most important areas (“Blaming the Pope,” Sept. 1–7).

What disappoints many is the almost unbelievable patience with which he has tolerated those with positions of responsibility — bishops — who clearly have not defended the faith and actually seek to undermine Catholic teaching.

MARK E. MEDVETZ

Henniker, New Hampshire

Mission: Michigan

Thank you for the article about Jennifer Granholm's pro-abortion position and her pastor's irresponsible defense of her position (“Abortion Politics: Tale of Two Parishes,” Sept. 1–7). In Michigan we have been blessed to have John Engler, a very pro-life governor, for the past 12 years. His current lieutenant governor, Dick Posthumus, is running against Granholm. Posthumus is solidly pro-life and voters have a clear and distinct choice this November.

Priests in Michigan should not miss this opportunity and should follow the excellent example of Colorado's Father Hilton by informing their parishioners of the voting records of pro-life and pro-abortion candidates and reinforcing the official position of the Church. Charles Rice said in your article: “There is no legal restriction to parishes informing people about voting records and telling them they should vote pro-life.” Sadly, so many Catholics are ignorant about these issues.

AGGIE LANGSCHIED

Lambertville, Michigan

The Education Project

I was gratified by your “Making the Case for a Classical Education” (Sept. 1–7) because it highlights the need for the study of classical languages in any truly humane education. But I was mortified by the following offhand statement by Mr. Simmons: “Incidentally, make sure that the parents aren't running the school, because that's a recipe for an oozing demise of anything like real education.”

This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the project of education and of what a school really ought to be. This misunderstanding, so common in our contemporary culture, is responsible for much that is wrong in education today. We Americans seem to have the attitude that we ought to stand back and let the “experts” educate our children (usually that means those “experts” hired by the state). But God has entrusted the primary responsibility for the education of a child with his parents. They should not abdicate that responsibility, even to such finely educated men as Mr. Simmons.

A school is really a moral institution of families who have come together to educate their children. They do this because they judge that they can do a better job educating their children in common than they could individually. But the creation of this institution never absolves parents from their responsibility as the primary educators of their children. So of course parents should oversee the school, no matter how fine the experts are whom they've hired to help them educate their children.

With that said, I hope Mr. Simmons' book does lead to a revival of the study of Latin and Greek in our schools. Classical languages are the foundation of a classical education, because they teach an elegance and precision of grammar that cannot be learned from modern languages. Grammar is the way that we understand and express the nature of reality, and so without it we can learn nothing else. That is why grammar is the first of the seven liberal arts: grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy.

We need scholars like Mr. Simmons to help us educate our children. We just need to remember that we parents are in charge.

STEPHEN HOLLINGSHEAD

San Antonio, Texas

The writer is principal of Our Lady of the Atonement Academy.

‘I Believe in Miracles’ — But ...

Ted Hickel's letter to the editor is false and offensive for insinuating that I disbelieve in miracles (“Miesel and the Miracle,” Letters, Aug. 11–17). What I'm skeptical about are the allegedly miraculous images in the Guadalupana's eyes. I've read both the description of the phenomenon in The Handbook of Guadalupe and seen the pictures themselves in The Image of Guadalupe. What the unenhanced photo shows — before considerable computer amplification — are random white blobs of fiber arbitrarily outlined to form heads and bodies.

How arbitrary? One half of a double blob is taken as a knee, but the rest of the leg is made out of nothing at all. And so on. I remain underwhelmed.

Why must we drown this lovely image of Mary in pious tosh about “God's miraculous Polaroid”?

How do the faces of Juan Diego and the bishop wind up facing the same direction in the Virgin's eyes when they were facing each other when the cloak was opened (as the “primitive account” describes)?

And if the reflections are taken from those in the eyes of an invisible apparition, as Mr. Hickel claims, how do those invisible eyes reflect light?

If they're the reflection in the eyes of the actual image, how much could the small Virgin held by a short man “see” with bent head and lowered eyelids? A whole crowd of people? Really? And where's the vanishing point of her field of view? (Try this yourself and see what I mean.)

I believe in many miracles, but I don't believe that we're dealing with a miracle here.

SANDRA MIESEL

Indianapolis, Indiana