To The Editors.

Egan & Hillenbrand

Albert Schorsch III's letter [Correspondence, April 7] lends a certain credence to the old saying that no good deed ever goes unpunished. Monsignor Jack Egan performed a very good deed in visiting Monsignor Reynold Hillenbrand [see Commonweal, March 10] for the sole purpose of trying to lift his spirits at a time when Reynie was widely reported to be in deep depression. Maybe I have missed something, having been away from Chicago for sixty years, but I have never heard anyone suggest either directly or indirectly that Egan's purpose in visiting Hillenbrand was to garner a degree of validation for Egan's point of view. In my opinion, this allegation is very unfair to Egan.

To round out Commonweal's treatment of the Hillenbrand era, it might be useful to note that Hillenbrand's ecclesiology (like that of almost all of his contemporaries) was papalist, for lack of a better term, and fell somewhat short of Vatican II's emphasis on a more collegial style of church leadership.

I would hate to think that offering this observation might be interpreted by some as being disrespectful to the memory of a truly great priest--surely one of the greatest priests of his generation in the United States.

(MONSIGNOR) GEORGE G. HIGGINS
Washington, D.C.

Thanks for the ammo

John Garvey's "The Hidden God" [April 7] was brilliant. Recently I have been involved in a discussion group studying world religions. Many members of the group are atheists or agnostics, and all are anti-Catholic. I am grateful for Garvey's sensitive insights which address my own difficulties with believing and offer, as well, suggestions about how I can best respond to the prejudice and misunderstandings of others. Perfect timing.

Eric Stoltz's "Signs of the Times" in the same issue gave me much to ponder, and was a challenge to examine knee-jerk reactions to same-sex marriage. Thank you all for a wonderful magazine.

PHYLLIS TOWNLEY
Marion, Mass.

Against gay marriage

Civil marriage as a descendant of sacred, holy, ritualistic marriage has been subjected to extensive corruption over time, as the article by Eric Stoltz ["Signs of the Times," April 7] points out. This has resulted in a blurring of the promise and the responsibilities accepted by oath, before witnesses, by a man and a woman. Should the blurring of meaning be increased to the point where the obligations become meaningless and the event turned into a charade?

In a March plebicite, most of the citizens of California (61 percent) said that the community should define what civil marriage is and that the blurring of distinctions should stop. The only rights and privileges of civil marriage that Stoltz seems to covet are the rights of inheritance and the legal power to make health-care decisions for another of the same sex. I have always understood that both of these issues could be easily taken care of through the use of wills, trusts, and partnerships, and have nothing to do with sex.

I am willing to accept gays as they are and, with hope, look forward to the day when they will be freed from the burden they must carry. In the mean time, I ask them not to further corrupt our rituals.

JAMES H. TRUMBO
Port Angeles, Wash.

'No' on 22

Recently, while looking for something else in a back issue of America [March 28, 1998], I reread the article "Notes from a Community Catholic and Gay" by Eric Stoltz. I was impressed then and am now by his picture of the gay community in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

His article "Signs of the Times" in Commonweal [April 7] is a sad reflection of the effect on that community of Proposition 22--the "protect marriage" initiative supported by Cardinal Roger Mahony and the bishops of California. I do not appreciate that they contributed a reported $310,000 to promote the proposition. As a California Catholic, they did not represent me by so doing. I hope to see more commentary by Eric Stoltz, and I wish him well.

VIRGINIA FAULKNER
Orange, Calif.

Abortion and 'Cider'

The editorial regarding the film The Cider House Rules [March 24] ends with a poignant and profound statement, "We cannot make up the rules every single day, for that...is an invitation to violence." In this age which still sees so much violence your statement is certainly true.

However, in discussing the violence of abortion, you let the proverbial nose of the camel get under the tent. While the editorial is excoriating the movie for its utilitarian approach to morality, it offers, "Allowing legal access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when a mother's life is in danger, is a morally defensible position." Whereas, I will grant that an abortion to protect the life (N.B., the life; not the health) of the mother may be acceptable, albeit a very difficult choice, I fail to see why this violence should be permitted in the event of rape or incest.

Without a doubt these two situations are unspeakably traumatic for their victims. But is it not true that the child conceived as a result of a rape or incestuous relation is also a victim? The very fact that the mother wishes to abort this child makes it all the more a victim. Regardless of how the child has been conceived, regardless of who fathered it, does it not deserve a chance to live? Isn't it the son or daughter of God? The issue of abortion has been and will always be a devisive issue. As people of good will, regardless of our creeds, we must not forget the child.

PAUL MARX
Prairie Village, Kans.

The editors reply:

In the abstract, Mr. Marx is right. But in a nation where abortion on demand has been legal for nearly thirty years, more than the nose of the camel is already under the tent. There is little possibility of seriously reducing the number of abortions or of enhancing respect for fetal life in our laws if prolife advocates are unwilling to consider compromise. In that context, a prudential decision to support allowing for legal access to abortion in cases of rape and incest is morally defensible.

Anti-Catholicism

The disdain that Commonweal ["Anti-Catholicism?" April 7] has for the Catholic League needs neither explanation nor defense, but you do Father Timothy O'Brien a disservice when you say that there was no anti-Catholicism involved in the House Chaplain selection process. When he publishes his account of what happened, you will look more foolish than you already do.

WILLIAM DONOHUE
New York, N.Y.

The writer is president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Report from Sudan

Thank you for the fine article "Eye on Sudan: The Forgotten War" by Patrick Jordan [March 24]. I fear that as fuel prices soar, with the Khartoum government controlling the oil fields in Southern Sudan, it will be even more "forgotten." Canada's Talisman Energy Firm, in spite of vehement protests by many religious and social organizations, continues to extract Sudanese oil, funneling millions to the Khartoum government, which has stated publicly it will use the money to continue funding the war.

Having lived and worked in Sudan in recent years, it remains a mystery to me how a human tragedy of this dimension is allowed to continue with so little international concern. I was in Sudan in 1994, so near to Rwanda, where five hundred thousand people were massacred. Six years later, many outside organizations, leaders, and countries continue to beg forgiveness because they either "knew" or "should have known" it was coming, yet did nothing to stop it. It is never too late, and even though more people have already died in Sudan than in Rwanda, we can still raise our voices to effect some change.

I would like to offer one correction to the article. In writing of the ABC "Nightline" feature on Dr. Susan Nagele's work, Jordan mentions that the ABC cameras conveyed the plight of one Southern tribe, the Dinka, with whom Nagele has worked. While Nagele has worked with the Dinka for many years, ABC's cameras were showing footage of the Taposa and Nyangatom, two other Southern pastoral tribes, among whom Nagele now lives and works. The systematic destruction of the Dinka, and all Southern tribes, however, is exactly as Jordan describes.

MARJ HUMPHREY
Staten Island, N.Y.

A vote for candles

In "Better to Light a Candle" [March 24] Sidney Callahan speaks for many in questioning the aesthetic norms of contemporary Catholic culture. Perhaps those of us who are converts may seem overly sensitive to this issue, but it is wise to remember the initial lure of Catholicism often comes through the senses. Having endured renovated churches, artless translations, and sacro-pop music, it is hard not to think of our aesthetically misguided and undernourished spirituality as an Achilles heel.

Callahan says she doesn't want a "simple-minded imitation" of the past. Who does? But when concerns like hers are dismissed out of hand, as if preferences for votive candles or Gregorian chant somehow inevitably signal a dangerous theological drift, we shouldn't be surprised if thoughtful people despair. The desire for warmth, mystery, and transcendence is not regression. It's a human need which the church should make every effort to fulfill.

RANDOLPH NICHOLS
Lincoln, Mass.

European churches

Having just spent three weeks in France and Switzerland, and having visited many churches, I was struck by how little impact Vatican II seems to have had on the outward signs of change in the Catholic churches of those countries. Statues of saints, paintings, often of enormous size, and especially votive candles were everywhere. If it had not been for the new altar tables and lecterns, the reforms of Vatican II would not have been manifested.

How different, I thought, from our North American Catholic churches. Imagine my surprise when, upon my return and opening my Commonweal, I found Sidney Callahan ["Better to Light a Candle," March 24] lamenting the lack of votive candles. To her credit, she decries the excesses of the "art" I had just witnessed.

One exception stood out, however. It was a Protestant church in Zurich. Originally a monastery church, it had been modernized, brightened both in light and color, creating a wonderful warm glow. Add an altar table, tabernacle, and stations of the cross and you would have had a beautiful Catholic church, combining the best of both traditions.

In the end, I think Callahan answers her own question. It is the believers who inspire the places.

JOHN BORST
Dryden, Ont.

Say it ain't so, Richard

Richard Alleva ["End of the Affair," April 7] no longer your film critic! "Say it ain't so," Richard. Of course Erin Brockovich would put it more colorfully, more memorably, but no more heartfelt. In my opinion (which, to be truthful, the Roman curia frequently ignores), Richard is the best in the business. He has given Commonweal readers ten glorious years with his insights, allusions, breadth of knowledge, and grasp of the subject matter. He was simply nonpareil.

Richard, it was quite a ride, and I thank you for it. But where do we go from here? Won't you reconsider?

ANDREW GALLIGAN
Tracy, Calif.

Harry Potter's cousins

I enjoyed Daria Donnelly's column, "Hey, Harry Potter Has Cousins" [April 7] but wish she had also mentioned our family's favorite fantasy writer, Diana Wynne Jones, who I believe is unsurpassed for her originality, charm, and sheer power of imagination. She did the Harry Potter thing long ago in the Chrestomanci books, and has written many others, including The Ogre Downstairs, in which the children grow a hilarious crop of ancient Greek warriors; Dogsbody, featuring Sirius the Dog Star in canine form; The Homeward Bounders, a subtle riff on time travel; and, for older readers, Fire and Hemlock, an intense version of the Tam Lin legend.

STEPHANIE MARTIN
Newton Centre, Mass.

A Democrat first

Like Peter Feuerherd ["A 'Wing' and a Prayer," March 10], I enjoy "The West Wing." Unlike Mr. Feuerherd, however, I have no doubt how "this Catholic president views abortion." Bartlett, after all, is identified as a Democrat. Feuerherd's "willful suspension of disbelief" may allow him to believe the Democratic party of today could nominate anyone other than a prochoice candidate. Mine does not.

GENE VADER
Minnetonka, Minn.