facebook

America Staff
Posted inLetters

Letters

facebook by America Staff

Medieval Practice

Thank you for your well-reasoned editorial about the number of innocent people condemned to death in America, and the public’s growing distrust of a flawed death penalty system (2/7). Wrongful convictions, however, are not the only problems evident with this medieval practice. The system is arbitrary, unjust and riddled with inconsistencies. Death sentences are doled out overwhelmingly to poor defendants and racial minorities who kill whites. More than 90 percent of executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977 have taken place in states of the former Confederacywhat’s called the Death Belt. While proponents claim that the death penalty deters crime, no study has ever demonstrated this. State killing is revenge, pure and simple. As you pointed out, a sentence of life without possibility of parole protects society and stops the cycle of violence. We commend the Catholic Church for its leadership on this issue, and look forward to the day when the government no longer stoops to the crime for which it punishes the perpetrator. To quote Bishop Gabino Zavala, auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles, The power to take a life is God’s.

Jeff Gillenkirk

Posted inLetters

Letters

facebook by America Staff

Homiletic Material

As a baby priest, age 58 and three-and-a-half years ordained, I am constantly on the lookout for homiletic material. Frequently a Faith in Focus or Of Many Things column fits the bill. As a case in point, the neighborly exchange of keys related by James Martin, S.J., in the latter on Jan. 17 struck a familiar chord. Last summer, after locking myself out of the old family house, I was rescued by such a key, which my mother, deceased over six years, had entrusted many, many years ago to a neighbor. After Mom’s death, I had thought about retrieving the key but never followed through. Good thing I didn’t! Of course, much more than keys are involved. I sense a future Christmas homily in the works here. Perhaps theosis in the exchange of house keys between neighbors?

(Rev.) Edward Kolla

Posted inLetters

Letters

facebook by America Staff

Continue to Inspire

On behalf of the National Religious Vocation Conference, I want to congratulate and to thank you for the positive portrayal of women religious you have featured in recent issues of America (e.g., 11/15/04, 1/3/05, 1/17/05). The American church owes tremendous gratitude to our religious sisters, who with profound faith, hard work, little money and great ingenuity substantially contributed to the Catholic institutions and ministries we proudly celebrate today.

Although they are now fewer in number, they continue to inspire us with their stories of love, fidelity and sacrifice in the service of God’s people. In a culture that promotes a distorted value system of sex, greed and power, may the stories of these generous, faith-filled women encourage others to consider religious life as an alternative life option that, when lived with joy and integrity, can be both exciting and fulfilling.

Paul Bednarczyk, C.S.C.

Posted inLetters

Letters

facebook by America Staff

Government and Religion

Edward F. Harrington, in The Metaphorical Wall (1/17), effectively debunks the prevailing mythology about government and religion. The framers of the Constitution quite clearly sought to insulate religion from the reach of government; they did not seek to inoculate society from religious expression. But as Terry Golway points out in the same issue, Matters of Which We Dare Not Speak, the invocation of separation of church and state may be the preferred legal strategy, but it is fear and outright loathing of public expressions of religion and faith that is really at work. In short, there is more than flawed jurisprudential reasoning that is driving this issue.

William Donohue

Posted inLetters

Letters

facebook by America Staff

Adopted Sons

Adoption: A Life-Giving Choice, by Thomas P. Muldoon (11/29), recalled to me a poignant personal experience. Several weeks ago I attended by accident (I had wandered into the wrong room) a session on adoption at the Lesbian and Gay Center in lower Manhattan. The principal speakers were a gay couple who had arranged to adopt a baby from the woman who was carrying it. The couple would pay all the mother’s expenses, and considerably more to the adoption agency, but there was no guarantee that the mother would give the baby up for adoption in the end. As I listened to the partners speak, I was struck more and more by how much over the period of the pregnancy they had bonded with the mother in ways that probably transformed their lives as well as hers. The men are relatively well-off urban professionals; she is poor, rural, and something of a substance-abuser.

One incident in their relationship remains in my mind. She already had a 2-year-old boy, whom she feared officials might take from her. One day she called the men in desperation. The 2-year-old was sick and had been crying for four days. She was afraid to take him to an emergency room lest her own noncompliance with drug rules be discovered, but she was even more afraid that she might hit the child in desperation. She had no one else to turn to. One of the men immediately got on a plane and flew across the country to stay with the woman and care for the child until the crisis was over.

Of course it was in his self-interest to do so, but what came through so strongly during the hourlong presentation and discussion was how two gay men and a straight, single mother of totally dissimilar social, economic and cultural backgrounds broke barriers to work together in the best interests of a child. Their now-adopted son is 2 years old and looks exactly like his 4-year-old brother had looked two years previously. Undoubtedly, some gay couples should not adopt children, but on the whole, can one think of an act that is more generous, loving and, in the end, Christ-like?

Frank Oveis

Posted inLetters

Letters

facebook by America Staff

Memory Comes Back

Many thanks to Patricia Kossmann for calling attention to the 25th anniversary of the death of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on Dec. 9 of this year.

During the seasons of his Life Is Worth Living television series, the bishop would periodically decamp across the Hudson for a few days. His objective? The so-called bishop’s suite in St. Michael’s Monastery of the Passionists in Union City, N.J.

As seminarians, we took turns bringing Bishop Sheen a mid-morning snack of coffee, or mid-afternoon tea with a Danish or cookies. We all noticed the small piles of lined yellow foolscap on the floor along the walls. One classmate finally asked: Bishop, are those the drafts of your future talks? The answer: No, Confrater, each pile has drafts of separate paragraphs for the one talk I’m working on at the time.

As I begin to write a new homily, that memory comes back and gives me the courage to keep trying. Maybe it’s the same for my good classmates.

(Most Rev.) Norbert M. Dorsey, C.P.

Posted inLetters

Letters

facebook by America Staff

Culpability

The articles by Archbishop Harry Flynn and Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., (10/18), and Archbishop Francis Hurley’s letter (11/8), dealing with the one strike and you’re out approach to pedophile priests, clearly state many important considerations.

One not addressed is the culpability of any bishop or religious superior who, despite understanding that there is a significant degree of recidivism among pedophiles, regardless of the quality of treatment, returns a pedophile priest to active ministry.

If that reinstated priest commits another act of pedophilia, then the bishop or superior is the proximate cause of a grave sin and is also guilty of a grave sin. Sanctions similar to those proposed by some for proximate cause pro-choice politicians might be an appropriate response.

Likewise, an act of pedophilia is statutory rape in criminal law. The bishop or superior should be considered an accomplice before the fact, subject to civil action for that felony.

Eugene Bova

Posted inFrom Our Archives

Religious Freedom in the Catacombs

facebook by America Staff

This is not a good time for religious freedom in American law. More and more, U.S. courts are explicitly embracing arguments that religious freedom extends only to those religious practices that are confined and compartmentalized. Religious practices are explicitly receiving reduced protection if th

Posted inNews

Ethical Analysis and the Facts

facebook by America Staff

Irresponsible

In the column Food for Terri Schiavo (ethics notebook, 11/24), John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., notes that some assertions made about Terri Schiavo’s actual condition seem to be irresponsible. We believe that some of his assertions are also irresponsible.

Without acknowledging that the Second District Court of Appeal, in Lakeland, Fla., published an opinion containing findings of fact about the Schiavo case, he opineson the basis of conversations with a swallowing expert at the Mayo clinicthat most patients on tube’ or peg’ feedings can, with care, swallow. From that conversation he concludes we should let volunteers spend time feeding Terri Schiavo to help her taste the sweet and cool. Nowhere in this scenario does Kavanaugh note that the court found with clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavounlike most patients being tube fedhas for 10 years been in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure.

Lest there be doubt of the extent of destruction to Terri Schiavo’s brain, the court writes, The only debate among the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

More irresponsible than his failure to comment on the Court of Appeal’s findings was Kavanaugh’s attack on the neurologist whom he quoted from a New York Times article as saying, There’s never been a shred of doubt that she is vegetative, and nothing’s going to change that. Kavanaugh advises that the physician might want to rein in his hubris. Kavanaugh also notes that this physician spent a mere 45 minutes examining Terri Schiavo while another physician, [who] after more than 25 hours with her, judged her not to be vegetative. Kavanaugh concluded from this evidence that the first doctor needs not only humility but also further training.

Ronald Cranford, M.D., the first physician, is perhaps the premier expert in the United States on patients in a persistent vegetative state. He is the neurologist who testified as an expert witness in such landmark PVS cases as those of Brophy and Cruzan. He has served on the American Academy of Neurology’s task force on PVS, chaired the Academy’s ethics committee, which set the norms and standards for treatment of patients in that condition, and served as a consultant to the U.S. president’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine. His statement in The New York Times is exactly the same conclusion to which the trial court came after reviewing the detailed medical evidence presented in the case.

Kavanaugh does not identify the physician who purportedly spent 25 hours with Terri Schiavo and pronounced her not vegetative. The Florida Court of Appeal identifies three physicians who so opined. The New York Times article identifies a fourth physician who had provided an affidavit that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative condition. Only one of the four is trained in neurology. The Court of Appeal noted that even that physician’s proposed treatment vasodilation therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapyis worthless for patients like Terri Schiavo. In the court’s words, such treatment cannot replace dead tissue.

The trial court, after an extensive review of the medical evidence, concluded that the judgment of those physicians who believed Terri Schiavo was not in a permanent vegetative state was incorrect. That finding, as the Court of Appeal noted, was entered several years ago and has [four times] been affirmed by this court.

An essay entitled Brain Death, Pro-life and Catholic Confusion, co-authored by Dr. Cranford, which was published in America in 1982 (12/4/82), stressed the importance of clarity and precision of terminology with regard to such critically important issues as brain death and persistent vegetative condition. Its conclusion remains an imperative for those who provide ethical analysis or commentary on public policy: [O]ur task…is to be informed on developments in medicine, to consult widely and wisely in this area and to formulate positions that are both prudent and in accordance with [the reality of the human condition].

We believe that John Kavanaugh’s article fails to meet those standards.

John J. Paris, S.J.

Posted inNews

Letters

facebook by America Staff

From One Who Was There

As one who actually participated in the Second Vatican Councilas a private consultant during the first period and as an official of the council in the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity for its three other periodsmay I add a few reflections of my own to the articles you published by Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., and John W. O’Malley, S.J.?

Both articles contain many positive observations and insights. Still, neither quite conveys the notion of the council as a process, an event in which there was a growth in understanding and a willingness to open up to new horizons while maintaining the great tradition and truths of the faith.

Cardinal Dulles speaks of efforts at harmonizing different opinions and points out thus there were, at times, compromises and even deliberate ambiguities. That was openly recognized by Pope Paul VI. In various addresses he gave during the council, as its head and leader, he indicated ideas for interpretation that are still valid. Often these are not even adverted to, much less used by commentators since then.

Twice in the final homily at the session for promulgating documents held on Dec. 7, 1965, the pope spoke of questions still seeking answers, which in the postconciliar period the church could address with generous and orderly energies. In his words: Since the council had not intended to resolve all the problems raised, some were reserved for future study by the church, some were presented in restricted and general terms, and therefore they remain open to further and deeper understanding and a variety of applications.

No one would deny that after the council, there were some radical interpretations of it and its documents that went beyond what the council said or wanted. In my years of working for the Holy See and in ecumenical dialogues of various types, I myself had to struggle with this extremism, which could cause confusion and misunderstanding and lead to the polarization that often followed. However, in his presentation of the situation, Cardinal Dulles does not clarify enough either the myth or the reality, and so the confusion continues.

First, he does not use, as one important element for proper interpretations, the speeches of Pope Paul VI that I have already mentioned nor the relationes of the various commissions to the plenary sessions of the council, all of which are published. Second, in expounding his 12 points, he generally opts for the most narrow interpretation of the ambiguous statements or legitimate differences found in the documents. The consideration of the role of the laity is also treated in a purely juridical way, without proper consideration of the moral obligations of those in authority in exercising that authorityan idea that permeates quite a few of the other documents (and, incidentally, is repeated incisively in Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte [2001], No. 45). Nor is there any mention of the arrival of the lay auditors during the council’s third period and their contribution to developing a fresh understanding of both the doctrine and the reality of the lay apostolate.

One point I found particularly painful. The ecumenical problem is reduced to a word-battle about the meaning of subsists in the Catholic Church. No attention is given to be the excellent developments that have taken place over 35 years as Catholics and other Christians reflect together on the many treasures found in a wide array of the conciliar documents. In this we have the reality, not the myth.

With regard to subsists, the narrow interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Dulles adopts, was certainly not the view held by the theological commission or in the secretariat as we were drafting texts and responding to the bishops and as the bishops accepted its introduction into the text. We were influenced, for example, by the recognition of the fact that in many churches not in communion with the Holy See, by the celebration of the Holy Eucharist the Church of God is built up and grows in stature (Decree on Ecumenism, No. 15). Obviously we were not speaking of any second church of God.

This and other aspects of the mystery of communion, real even if imperfect between the Catholic Church and other Christians and their communities, indicate a deeper meaning than Cardinal Ratzinger will admit when discussing subsists. His view has been strongly contested by others, such as Cardinals Willebrands, Koenig and Kasper. Nor will these or others accept his restricted opinions on communion, even when these have been expressed in documents coming from his office.

As one who participated in many of the activities and debates of the council, I believe that there are clear signs of retrenchment from what the council said or left open for legitimate future developments, as Paul VI put it.

On the basis of my experience, I believe that many of the documents mentioned by Cardinal Dulles at the end of his article need further examination and even important rethinking as not corresponding well enough to the debates held in the council and the documents resulting from them.

Pope John Paul II, discussing his office and mission as successor of Peter in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, speaks of finding a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation, and proposes that pastors and theologians of our churchestogether of course[seek] the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned (No. 95). In his apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte (January 2001), the same pope writes: To make the church the home and school of communion: that is the great challenge facing us in the millennium which is now beginning (cf. Nos. 43-45). We are not involved in myths when we continue to engage the reality of that challenge 40 years after.

John F. Long, S.J.

Gift this article