TO: The Register

FROM: A Reader

I was shocked to hear from the American Life League that this newspaper and 11 Catholic diocesan newspapers refused to run the “Deadly Dozen” ad.

I am ashamed that your paper would do such a thing and not give an explanation for your decision to refuse this very important message. Are you starting to be politically correct at the expense of truth? We as Catholics need to hold those who call themselves Catholic accountable for the public acts of immorality and sinfulness against the gospel of life.

It is clear to me that the Register has at this particular instance more respect for political power of fraudulent Catholics. I hope and pray that the morals that this paper holds are not slipping. Because I will not support any paper that will do that.

Please reconsider this decision. God bless!

STEPHEN KREKLOW

Vancouver, Washington

Editor's Note: We also were shocked when we got the news that shocked you but for a different reason. The following exchange of letters shows the source of the error and both the Register's and American Life League's desire to rise above human mistakes, correct them and push forward investing our energies in the things that really matter.

TO: American Life League

FROM: The Register

Your letter of Jan. 24 acknowledged my written explanation of why the Register would not run the “Deadly Dozen” ad. I also note that the text of the original ad was modified to reflect suggestions from the Register.

Now, however, your signature is on a direct-mail piece received in late March that says: “Speaking of Catholic newspapers, … we were shocked when our ‘Deadly Dozen’ ad was rejected by the National Catholic Register, The (sic) Sunday Visitor and eight of 11 diocesan newspapers!! … And not one of them was willing or able to give us a written explanation for their decisions to refuse to run our message!”

Rather than believe you capable of telling a deliberate lie, I am willing to surmise that there has been some miscommunication between you and your direct-mail department by which you authorized and signed, perhaps inadvertently, a flagrant untruth. It is injurious and extremely unprofessional but, as the Spanish saying goes, these things happen even in the best of families.

American Life League's direct-mail piece continues: “But it's clear they have more respect for the political power of fraudulent Catholics like ‘The Deadly Dozen’ than they do for the spiritual power of Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II!”

I find it hard to accept that you would knowingly approve such a crass and untrue characterization of the Register. And so, also in this case, I am willing to suppose that there was another miscommunication that ended in another unfortunate slur.

It puts American Life League in the ridiculous position of equating an ad with the magisterium of the Church. This position is rendered even sillier by the fact that the very reason the Register rejected the ad was that the language in the ad is not in accord with Vatican guidelines, as I explained in my Jan. 16 letter to you [which said: “To quote from your letter from the Pontifical Council for the Family, there are ‘necessary distinctions … between those who have fallen under the sentence of excommunication and the others who, although they may not have fallen under the sentence, are public defenders of the crime of abortion to whom holy Communion must be denied if they do not make a retraction.’ These distinctions were not made.”]

This has all the elements of a news story and, of course, news is what the Register covers. However, being a Catholic newspaper, we are a part of the Church, which is a communion. The Register's policy is, therefore, to build communion, which is what this letter is trying to do.

We have been contacted by Register readers who have received American Life League's direct-mail piece. Naturally, they have concerns. The Register is placed in the situation of having to give a response. It is not our policy to undermine the good that American Life League does. The Register welcomes American Life League's suggestions as to how we should respond to such inquiries. Out of respect for the life of the unborn, a good that transcends both our organizations and one we both serve, your suggestions will be well received.

As I said, I am willing to trust that your libelous defamation of the Register was inadvertent. Even so, there remain the fact of the defamation, the harm done to the Register's reputation and well-being, and the consequent moral duty of restitution. How this may best be achieved is up to you, and I do not wish to dictate the means. So, I offer the following as suggestions: You may wish to choose these and/or others.

▸ In any future mailing to recipients of the libel, retract the false allegations regarding the Register.

▸ The Register is willing to offer American Life League free space in the paper, including its Web site, within the next two weeks to make appropriate restitution.

▸ In any communication from American Life League that mentions that the Register refused to run the “Deadly Dozen” ad, you include the explanation that was given in my letter to you.

There is, however, another matter: We are aware that American Life League is in the course of preparing a substantial direct-mail drop using the texts under discussion. We expect that American Life League will not deliberately (and from receipt of this letter on, it can only be “deliberately”) defame and libel us with these false claims again.

I look forward to your confirmation that you will refrain from this defamatory and libelous action and expect to receive such confirmation, at the latest, by noon on Thursday, April 3.

As you asked in your letter to me, I do remember your work in my prayers. And my prayer now is that we can together bear witness to the power of Christ, whose grace makes us able to seek the truth in charity.

FATHER OWEN KEARNS

Publisher, National Catholic Register

North Haven, Connecticut

TO: The Register

FROM: American Life League

Since 1979, when I founded American Life League, one of my guiding principles has been to tell the truth, even if it hurts.

That's why, when I received your most recent letter, I put the brakes on this place and made it clear that everyone's No. 1 priority was to find out what the truth of this matter really was.

Several staff members spent virtually the entire day re-creating the paper trail and personnel trail that allowed this misstatement to bypass our usually reliable proofing system. Our two governing mottos are: “When in doubt, don't” and “Double-check and triple-check before we ask for a single check.”

After nearly an entire day of file-searching, phone-calling and fact-checking, the staff investigators had puzzled together the unique set of circumstances that has conspired against our best and most honorable intentions. Here's what they discovered:

The acquisition letter in question was approved and signed by me the first week of January, prior to my receipt of your original letter. The original mailing date of the acquisition letter was to have been in the early part of January.

What I did not know was that the letter's mailing date was postponed, due to a lack of postage. In fact, the entire batch of acquisition letters sat at our printer's for nearly two months. Until yesterday, I had been completely unaware that this delay had taken place. In other words, I had no idea that the opportunity existed to correct the letter because I was under the assumption the letter had been mailed prior to the receipt of your letter.

I must tell you, Father Kearns, that this revelation of our in advertent error has had me on the verge of tears most of the day and I only wish you were here so I could personally deliver my most heartfelt apology.

Furthermore, you may be sure that my staff has been directed to construct a fail-safe plan that will never allow such an event to transpire again. Further, I believe I have no doubt with anyone on our staff that this is the one and only time such a miscue will be tolerated.

Please be sure that the offending text has been completely removed from the referenced letter and will not appear in any future mailings.

Our aim here is to tell the world the truth about the sanctity of innocent human life and in order to do that effectively, we must be doubly careful in ensuring that everything we say is truthful. So, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to write your corrective letter — otherwise we may never have had the opportunity to expunge this erroneous statement from our files.

Sincerely yours in the Lord Who is Life,

JUDIE BROWN,

President, American Life League

Stafford, Virginia

Wanted: Stories and Pictures

The Register is planning a special issue that will be a tribute to Pope John Paul II, and we want you to help. Two features in the special issue will need reader input.

Tell us what he said. We'd like to hear your stories of significant meetings with Pope John Paul II. In telling the story of Pope John Paul II, it's easy to find the big, significant meetings he's had with heads of state and public figures. What gets overlooked, however, is the profound effect he had on ordinary Catholics. Tell us your story, in 500 words or less, as long as it meets these criteria: There was an exchange of words, and they had a significant impact on your life.

Send a picture of your John Paul. In John Paul's many years as Pope, there have been many children named for him. We're interested in publishing pictures of children named after the Pope. Please send yours with baby-mugs style information (see the bottom-right corner of this page for details) and, if your John Paul is old enough, include a quote from him on what he thinks of the Holy Father.

Age of Fasting

In “Spend Holy Week With Christ” (April 13-19), the staff writer states that “Fast binds all over the age of 21…” This is not correct in the United States.

In 1984, the U.S. bishops changed the age of fasting to “the completion of the 18th year.”

For full details, please consult www.usccb.org/norms/12521253.htm.

JOHN DESMOND

Pepperell, Massachusetts

Popetown Pot

Frankly, I was not surprised to see that the BBC was producing a cartoon-comedy called “Popetown” that would mock the Pope and the Catholic Church (“British Catholics Angry About Papal Parody,” Media Watch, April 6-12).

I deem this an after-effect to the promotion of “respecting” the belief of others. As Catholics, we have downgraded the Church that Christ himself established. We no longer hold out the Catholic Church to be the true, most sacred, only holy body of Christ to the world. We neither defend her nor do we promote her. Our own Pope does not elevate her to her proper place among other “beliefs” and, therefore, plunges her into the pot of religious relativism. It is our own fault.

We (inclusive of the laity, priests and our bishops) do not treat the Church with the respect and awe she deserves. And it begs the question: If we do not respect ourselves as Catholics, why would others respect us? Just a thought.

GINALYNNE MIELKO

Woodstock, Georgia