Still More on the War

Regarding the Register symposium “Did the War in Iraq Secure the Peace?” (Jan. 4-10):

If we stick to the facts of the Iraqi war — that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, that the United Nations failed miserably with 17 resolutions trying to get him to comply with U.N. directives, that the connection with Saddam and al-Qaida is being made, and that Saddam killed tens or hundreds of thousands of his own people — then “liberating” the Iraqi people would seem to be a very good thing.

The threat to the United States in Bosnia and Kosovo was not imminent, and yet we went in and are still there. That is a good thing, too.

If the American people, as well as the world, had been informed by our international news sources — the BBC, CNN, Reuters, The New York Times and others — that Saddam was butchering, raping, torturing and mass-murdering his own people, then the world and the United States would have gone in like we have in the former Yugoslavia. Or how about Rwanda or the Sudan, where millions have been killed? Does this not fit perfectly into the just-war theory?

But the world doesn't seem to care. If the threat isn't “imminent,” then let the butchering continue.

The United States sent a message to the Middle East and the world that wanton and random acts of mass murder will not be tolerated. (And isn't President Bush bound by the Constitution to protect the American people?)

This may not satisfy the proponents of just-war theory, but it will certainly satisfy the inhabitants living in these countries.

MIKE ACHESON

Port Angeles, Washington

You presented a variety of views in your symposium on the war in Iraq. This balanced approach was unusual for a Catholic publication, and more should adopt it.

However, the authors (especially Mark Shea) failed to consider all of the teachings of the Church. I specially point out St. Bernard of Clairvaux's De Laude Novae Militae, in which he lays out when Christian warriors may “smite” the enemy. As St. Bernard wrote before the final, foolish and sad division between the Western and Eastern (Orthodox) Churches — and long before the Reformation — it is assumed that he wrote for the entire Church of God. His status as a doctor of the Church gives great weight to his positions.

St. Bernard warns against killing on the basis of wrath, vengeance, pride and other like weaknesses, as such make the killer a murderer and a sinner.

However, he does encourage the use of force, including deadly force, against the enemies of Christ, for the punishment of evildoers, for the protection of the holy places and that which is within them, for the elimination of nations that “love war” and against other like offenses and offenders. St. Bernard strongly approves the “smiting” of such persons, albeit without the weaknesses noted above.

Also, your writers failed to note (as too many persons nowadays do) that the present and chief external enemy of the Church and of civilization is [militant] Islam — especially in nations ruled by such monsters as Saddam Hussein or in smaller associations led by such servants of the evil one as Osama bin Laden.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be considered as the beginning of an “object lesson” to such external enemies that there is still and again a force of just and righteous knights in this world who will inflict justice on evildoers, without the sins noted by St. Bernard, which order of knights is composed by the armed forces of the United States, Poland, the United Kingdom and a few other nations.

James Pawlak

West Allis, Wisconsin

This letter pertains to the Register symposium, along with Rich Beckman's letter (“Premature Symposium?” Jan. 11-17) and the editor's note concerning that letter.

We are faithful readers of the Register; however, we have to agree with Mr. Beckman that your assessment of the Iraqi war was premature. Maybe the war won't alleviate all the problems in the Middle East, but maybe it will help turn things around. There is evidence that this is happening.

Our greatest worry about your symposium, however, is the influence it might have on voters who are wavering on their decision to vote pro-life. They might reason that starting this war is just as bad as abortion. Whether you believe that starting this war was the right decision or not, you must admit that the number of deaths caused by this war is relatively small compared with the more than 4,000 deaths every day caused by abortion.

Our current president has taken a stand for life in so many ways, but we are worried that articles like this might convince Catholics to vote in a way that would take away our chance to secure good pro-life legislation.

Dorothy Reineke

Beardsley, Minnesota

I applaud three letters to the editor in your Jan. 18-24 edition. Two of these letters are under the headline, “Two Thumbs Up on War” and the other is headlined “Bias in the Register?”

In my mind, a large country with a powerful military force has a duty to topple the cruel and sadistic regime of a small nation such as Iraq.

However, the aftermath of this war has also led to much suffering. One hopes, with the help of God in prayer, peace will eventually come to this area.

Mary Lou Petersen

Marion, Iowa

Woe Is Roe

Regarding “Roe v. Wade + 31: Partial-Birth Ban Heads for Court” (Jan. 18-24):

On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a woman had the right to kill a child in her womb. The information on which the court based its decision was provided in large part by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a highly respected gynecologist, and Norma McCorvey, alias “Jane Roe.” Sad but true, at a later date, Nathanson and McCorvey both admitted they had lied.

Sarah Weddington, the attorney for “Roe,” was a young and frightened lawyer with little experience who thought her cause was so important that it gave her permission to trump the very foundation of our legal system, which is truth and justice. In a classic example of “the ends justifying the means,” Weddington allowed the perjured testimony of her key witnesses to be presented to the court.

From a legal standpoint, her win-at-all-costs approach to the abortion issue was a serious breach of ethics — but for the more than 40 million pre-born babies who have been aborted since then, it was a death sentence.

DONALD F. GERNE

New Canaan, Connecticut

Powerless Preaching Prevails

In “The ‘New’ Liturgy at Age 40: What Happened to the Vatican II Mass?” (Dec. 7-13), Capuchin Father Edward Foley maintains that preaching 40 years ago could have been about something “on somebody's moral agenda, it could have been on a current dogma, it could have been catechetical; it didn't have to have any connection with the liturgy.”

It seems to me that Father Foley's concept of “liturgy” is much too narrow. Liturgy includes all that the Catholic Church stands for. And what does he mean by “somebody's moral agenda” and by a “current” dogma?

He says, “By and large preaching in the Catholic Church today is scripturally based.” Really? For the past 15 to 20 years, I have heard at our Cardinal Newman Center (and in other Catholic churches) hardly any challenging, Scripture-based sermons. Almost without exception, our students receive highly personal testimonials (about the priest's father, mother, grandmother or aunt), up to 25 minutes in duration, even on high holidays.

Twenty years ago, my students still knew the basic tenets (and even more) about their Catholic faith. Students would engage in substantial discussions. Today? They are in matters of belief illiterate and can, as I have observed, either lose their faith altogether or join other denominations, especially the ones that impart a well-defined “credo.”

In one way I do understand Father Foley's predicament: A number of priests I know have “burned out” from informative doctrinal sermons; they long to work off emotional tensions, etc.

Father Foley received a solid, well-defined and detailed catechetical education in his youth. He can now afford the luxury of “scripturally based” preaching. Our young people do not get a full catechetical exposure. They will eventually get tired of hearing personal testimonials, lose their faith or join other denominations. They need the type of preaching that was done 40 years ago.

Peter Horwath

Tempe, Arizona

The writer is a professor of languages and literature at Arizona State University.

State of the Church's Soul

Has anything really changed in the Catholic Church in the United States? Are bishops looking outward (policy changes, audits, new procedures) rather than inward (the spiritual state of their soul) for solutions to problems in today's Church?

Is the setting up of lay committees to investigate sexual-abuse claims good for the priesthood? Can we no longer trust other priests to investigate these matters? Does this not cast a dark shadow on all priests — even the good ones who truly love the Church?

The very fact that policy changes became necessary — along with the fact that audits are necessary to see that these policies are being followed in each diocese — shows that something is very wrong with the spirituality of bishops in the United States (and elsewhere). Is it therefore truthful to call them “good shepherds”?

How many good priests have already been falsely accused — and taken from the community they served and loved — while awaiting the completion of an investigation that may or may not prove their innocence?

Is it not also a great scandal — and another sign that something is seriously wrong in the priesthood — when investigative committees within a diocese, made up of lay people, become a necessity? Have they not become necessary because bishops have not followed God's holy will in the past, and they are not trusted to follow his holy will in the future in these types of matters?

If bishops are unable to discern the state of the soul of an innocent or guilty priest, how can they be trusted to discern the state of the souls of others in their care? Is not spiritual lukewarmness in the priesthood, which has contaminated many bishops (and priests), the greatest scandal in today's Church?

Vincent Bemowski

Menasha, Wisconsin