Illusory Rights

“Democrats Try to Score Catholic Votes” (May 2-8) criticizes various organizations for treating all issues as equal when trying to decide how to vote.

The article says, “While Archbishop Chaput stated that abortion, immigration law, the death penalty and housing for the poor were all vitally important issues, he said ‘no amount of calculating can make them equal in gravity.’” What is needed, then, is some guidance that says how to weigh the issues.

Two paragraphs later, the article says, “a 2003 publication, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, provides guidance from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.” It turns out that publication is written by the administrative board of the U.S. Catholic Conference, and it does not provide a weighting of the importance of the various issues Archbishop Chaput indicated was necessary.

There is, however, a publication that does provide weighting of the importance of the issues. It was voted out by the entire U.S. bishops' conference in 1998 by an overwhelming vote. It's Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics. Here's what Article 19 says:

“Pope John Paul II elaborates on this responsibility in his 1988 apostolic exhortation Christifideles Laici [The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World]: ‘The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life … is not defended with the most maximum determination. … The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor … [Moreover, if] indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, health workers and the many who hold economic and political power’” (No. 38).

The 1999 version of Faithful Citizenship on Page 13 contained a sentence that followed Article 19 very closely: “Calls to advance human rights are illusions if the right to life itself is subject to attack.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Administrative Committee took it out for the 2003 version of Faithful Citizenship.

CLARE K. AND WILLIAM J. RICHTER, Charleston, South Carolina

Why Catholics Don't Sing

As a lover of both the liturgy and the rich musical heritage of the Catholic Church, I am writing in response to “Bishops Plan to Make New Hymn Rules” (March 28-April 3).

It seems that, in many Catholic churches throughout our country, the congregations do not sing. I believe part of the reason lies in the fact that the hymns used in the liturgy are continually changing. Even in the tunes many of us know as Catholics, the lyrics are continually changing. This is particularly painful for me, because lyrics I memorized as a youth and that have a deep spiritual meaning for me have changed.

When I was in Portugal for two years, I observed that many of the hymns contained a small response and the actual scriptural text from the standard Portuguese edition of the Bible. In the United States, the hymns seem to be based loosely on the Scriptures, but the literal scriptural text is not preserved. Wouldn't it be a good idea to actually sing the literal words of Scripture to a common tune in order to help the faithful memorize key passages of Scripture?

Finally, it deeply saddens me that one rarely hears a Marian hymn. We often sing the Easter tune “Lasst uns erfreuen.” The literal German text is “Let us rejoice heartily, for Mary no longer suffers or mourns. Alleluia. Alleluia.” All reference to Mary's participation in the Easter mystery is removed from the English text. Perhaps we as a nation more than others need to re-cultivate our country's consecration to the Immaculate Conception, especially since we seem to have lost our sense of purity and sexual morality as a nation. What better way to begin than ending every sacred liturgy with a hymn and prayer to Mary?

EDWARD WASSELL, Fillmore, California

Communion

After reading Cardinal Theodore McCar-rick's responses to interview questions (“Invigorated by the Holy Father,” Inperson, May 9-15), I can't believe he is heading up the bishops' task force on politicians who oppose Church teachings.

The Church position on abortion is the most prominent Church teaching being opposed. And our spiritual leader, Cardinal McCarrick, says he's concerned about “the Eucharist becoming a political tool” and that “once a person in his own heart feels he or she is able [to receive Communion], then, even though we might not agree because of the public things that are happening, I am uncomfortable about using the Eucharist as a point of confrontation.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion since the first century and that this teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable (No. 2271). While the Catechism certainly agrees that a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience (No. 1790), it also says moral conscience can remain in ignorance and make erroneous judgments (No. 1791) and that education of the conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings (No. 1783).

JOHN OPPIE, Georgetown, Texas

Pro-Motherhood Feminism

How refreshing to finally see an article embracing the concept of the “new feminism” (“New Feminism' Is Pro-Motherhood, Says ‘Endow,’” May 9-15).

The 1960s version of feminism stated loud and clear that what was keeping women from achieving equality with men and “having it all” was their reproductive faculty. Instead of looking at this as the gift God intended it to be, it was viewed as a curse. Consequently, women bought into the notion of birth control, sterilization and abortion — the sacrificing of their own children — as a way to achieve equality.

I, for one, welcome the advent of the new feminism. As the mother of three children (two daughters and one son), I hope my children are recipients of better opportunities in the workplace than those offered in the last four decades. I sincerely hope the new feminism will afford all of my children opportunities to be able to better balance a fulfilling life outside of the home while raising their children at the same time (and not leaving that all-important job to someone else).

I'd like to see their God-given skills used fully not only in the home but also in the workplace. Perks such as benefits, retirement and even travel would also be nice amenities. Companies might even be surprised by the win-win situation for both sides — more hours for the employee to spend with home and family, and a dedicated worker for the company. The employer might be truly surprised by an employee who is grateful for the opportunity to contribute to a workplace that will let the individual pursue both home and work pursuits without neglecting — or sacrificing — either.

The new feminism — unlike the old feminism — can certainly embrace both home and the workplace, if the workplace becomes more willing to accommodate the changing needs of the family. Until that time, companies will continue to lose out while women such as myself will continue to find other ways of doing both without sacrificing either.

L.A. GRIBLE, Akron, Ohio

The Gift of Suffering

I always read Jennifer Roback Morse's column with interest. Her “Passion and Pain” in the May 9-15 issue, and another column about offering personal suffering in solidarity with Christ and with those suffering in the world (written a year or two ago), address the mystery of suffering with profound insight.

Suffering has always been a stumbling block for the greatest theologians. Avoidance of suffering in our culture accounts for the pervasive and addictive use of drugs, sex and violence to smooth the way into oblivion. Roback Morse's thoughts on suffering affirm my personal experience that, though we fight tooth and nail to be comfortable and secure, when the inevitable pain and difficulties overwhelm us, we dimly perceive suffering to be a gift. Our only recourse is surrender to the mercy of the suffering Christ.

BETSY KLECZKOWSKI, Salt Lake City, Utah