Don’t Diss Careful Marital Discernment

I assume “Whither Youthful Weddings?” (Jan. 15-21) was a truncated article and that all nuance was left on the editorial-room floor. A sentence or two affirming the fact that there are many successful marriages among those who married later in life would have been helpful.

Also helpful would have been a statement acknowledging the fact that confusion in the Church and in society often contribute to the decision to take more time in discerning how to remain faithful to God in the midst of a hostile environment. (It’s not always about non-committal men attempting to remain playboys for as long as possible.)

See the multiple Catholic matchmaking services advertising in your own publication and you may come to the realization that things are a bit rough out there right now for faithful Catholics discerning marriage. Finding the right partner or the right vocation at any time in life is to be celebrated, regardless of when it occurs in a person’s life.

There is an unfortunate tendency among conservative Catholics to view vocations realized early in life as being somehow purer and therefore of more value. God calls and provides when the time is right in an individual’s life. Read the Scriptures for countless examples of this. Why, then, the need to create the perception of a vocational caste system?

In the same way that the widespread confusion among many clergy in their priestly identity does not promote early vocations to the priesthood, widespread apostasy among Catholics in general often makes exceedingly difficult the search for a potential spouse among serious Catholics. Societal and economic trends in society also contribute to the difficulty.

I would think it important for a publication such as yours to support those relative few in today’s world who are still attempting to discern and realize God’s will in their lives. This article was seriously lacking in perspective and context.

Daniel Miller

East Lansing, Michigan

Conflicted College

I write regarding a letter to the editor that appeared in the Dec. 18-31 issue of the Register (“Where’s My Alma Mater?”). The letter concerned St. Anselm’s College, from which I graduated in 1957.

The Register reader highly praised the college for a variety of reasons but failed to mention something the college does that’s not praiseworthy at all. While I agree there’s much good to be said about St. Anselm’s College, I don’t feel that welcoming pro-abortion politicians on campus is what a Catholic college should do.

During the last national general election, they invited all the Democratic candidates to speak on campus. They’ve done this in previous election years, too. All these candidates support abortion and their invitation causes scandal and misleads students. They leave the impression that it is okay to support pro-abortion politicians. I wrote to the college and, in their reply, they explained that they invited these politicians because the Catholic bishops suggested that Catholics become involved with politics.

Although we should become active in politics and, through that involvement, try to change this country for Jesus, we should not cause scandal or support politicians who support abortion. Would they invite politicians who support partial-birth abortion?

If we support pro-abortion candidates, we support abortion. We are part of the chain that makes it possible for abortion to be a fact of life. Why they could not see that evil is puzzling to me. Although the college’s official position may be pro-life, what it does provides a different message. I have asked to be taken off the alumni list. 

Thomas Prindiville

Barre, Vermont

Soap Opera in Clerics

Regarding “Complaints Dog NBC’s ‘Book of Daniel’” (Jan. 15-21):

This TV show is either a satire on the sad state of the Episcopalian Church in the United States or a soap opera in vestments.

As a satire, it might be “of redeeming social value” for Catholics. It could be a warning of the destructive effects of addiction to immoral behavior within an ecclesial community that has gone beyond the border of dissent from moral teaching into a world of [spiritual] bondage. The show’s quasi-Catholic culture could be an atmosphere for our reflection. Where they are now, we will be if dissent is given free reign. It could also explain why Anglican ecclesial communities in Africa have severed relations with the Episcopal Church in the United States.

I believe it to be soap opera in vestments, where evil has an investment in appearing good. It is a vision parading intrinsically evil behavior as a cure for the pressures of today’s living. Such a cure is a small comfort that is at worst a pathway to a destructive life: tinsel joy in a garden of evil.

 Deacon John P. Coffey

Brooklyn, New York

Grading Government

I write in response to the letter to the editor titled “Some Things Are Worse Than War” (Jan. 15-21). Both this letter and one that appeared in a prior issue touched on the moral duties of the authorities to declare war, as described in the Catechism. However, both letters used the fact that our nation is at war to implicitly limit Catholics’ ability to object to that war. It is this aspect I wish to discuss.

Paragraph 2309 of the Catechism describes the criterion for legitimate defense by military force (the “just war” doctrine), and then says: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” Paragraph 2310 follows up with: “Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.” What this means is that authorities are the only ones that can legitimately declare war — not some citizen or group of citizens, but only those responsible for the nation as a whole. These paragraphs define when war can morally be declared. But mistakes can, and have, been made.

So what to do if the authorities make errors in judgment? What “Some Things Are Worse Than War” overlooked are a few other pertinent paragraphs of the Catechism. Paragraph 2312 states, “The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict”; No. 2242 states, “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.” The mere fact that a war is taking place does not abrogate a Catholic’s moral duty to evaluate the judgment and performance of his nation’s authorities. In fact, it makes the duty all the more pressing because of the grave situation.

In conclusion, I would like to remind us all that we are Catholics first and members of the political community second. In these troubled times, we should not be using emotional rhetoric or political clichés, but utilizing our God-given reason to the fullest in order to restore peace as soon as possible and prevent future wars. This, by necessity, involves careful critique of our government’s actions and the effects of its actions — all with the aim of ensuring that justice and morality prevail.

Christopher Seyfert

Madison, Wisconsin

War of Words

In a Dec. 18-31 letter to the editor titled “Let’s Step Up and Stop the War,” Ms. Molly Powers-Aranda of Notre Dame University asserts: “It is painfully obvious, in light of Catholic social teaching, that the war in Iraq is not just; nor is it morally acceptable.”

This assertion cannot go unchallenged, for her mere enumeration of just-war criteria without factual specificity does not constitute a sufficient basis for her position. An examination of the facts will serve to provide perspective.

“The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation … must be lasting, grave and certain” (Catechism, No. 2309). Let us be clear. Saddam Hussein was the aggressor, his victims his own people and those within his sphere of influence.

“All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective” (No. 2309). Numerous attempts at diplomacy, spanning the decade prior to U.S. military intervention, by the United Nations, individual nations and the Vatican failed.

“There must be serious prospects of success” (No. 2309). The tyrannical Hussein regime has been removed and, notwithstanding the continued opposition by terrorist insurgents supported by orthodox Islamic elements, Iraq has held free elections; some 10 million voted in the most recent. While prospects for democracy remain tenuous, I maintain that this constitutes significant evidence of success.

“The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated” (No. 2309). No rational person would maintain that the terrorists’ response to attempts by coalition forces to protect Iraqi civilian and promote their liberation constitutes “graver evils or disorders” in the meaning of above.

Pope John Paul II rightly characterized war as “humanity’s failure” — to be resorted to as a matter of last resort — but he understood its realities, a consequence of evil in a fallen world. And while he opposed the war in Iraq, he recognized that others could reach a different conclusion as to its legitimacy.

I submit that, in light of the facts, military involvement in Iraq is and continues to be morally justified under the just-war doctrine. And I would ask Ms. Powers-Aranda and people of like mind to define what they perceive to be the scope of our responsibility as Catholics to oppose evil.

Douglas R. Merkler

Blairstown, New Jersey

On the Road With St. Joseph

I look forward each issue to your articles on beautiful shrines and cathedrals around the world and, in fact, have visited several of them as a result. Mary Gildersleeve’s recent piece on St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Austria (“Where Christmas Eagles Dare,” Dec. 18-31) was excellent and right on target detailing its glories. Yet she missed what I believe is its crown jewel.

I refer to a large painting, located halfway up the main nave, showing St. Joseph with the child Jesus. This may be the most true-to-life image of St. Joseph in the world and certainly the only one I have seen in wide travels. At first glance, one believes the adult figure is, in fact, Jesus; it looks exactly like what we have come to imagine he might have looked like. That image is well fixed in our mind regardless of the painter. However, in this wonderful painting, you quickly recognize that the man is St. Joseph and the child is Christ, looking up with love at St. Joseph.

Your readers will be interested to know that many Biblical historians believe that Jesus, by design of the Holy Spirit, looked exactly like his foster father in order to protect the child and his mother. Had the child not looked like his earthly father, both mother and child would have been in great danger.

I have found only one other depiction of the young St. Joseph and child showing them as looking like father and son, a wonderful statue of them walking hand in hand with the child looking up with awe to his adoring father. This stands in the Basilica of St. Francis in Buenas Aires, Argentina, located about four blocks from the Metropolitan Cathedral.

Ernest J. Berger

Seabrook Island, South Carolina