To the Editors.

Sing on!

Bravo! to Willard Francis Jabusch for his essay on "Relative Morality" (November 3). I agree 100 percent. One doesn't label people "evil" or "sinful" when it is your relative or friend, and you know the person's circumstances.

By the way, I have an old record album I bought in 1967 of "Songs of Good News," folk melodies by Father Willard Jabusch approved for liturgical use. I still play them now and then. (I'm seventy-one years old.)

Hang in there, Father! The essay was a breath of fresh air.

TERESA MOTTET
Richland, Iowa

Theologians too

Willard Jabusch's "Relative Morality" makes a good point and does so gently. May I add the observation that not only are highly placed bureaucrats in danger of losing touch with ordinary folk, academic theologians are in a similar danger. Perhaps they are in touch with their families, but how in touch are they with the people who live out their faith in the world? As a pastor I have often felt that academic theologians have little knowledge of the faithful with whom pastors deal every day, and that the controversies we read about are between two very out-of-touch groups.

(REV.) PAUL ANDREW HOTTINGER
Downers Grove, Ill.

Making sausages

Paul Baumann's column "Counting Votes" (November 3) outlines the frustration and futility of the church's attempts to influence the political environment of the United States. For too long, many Catholics have comforted themselves by voting for candidates who proclaim they are "prolife," thus feeling they were casting their votes in accordance with their faith. If only it were that simple! For too often these candidates can do nothing about abortion (witness the frequent querying of school board candidates on abortion). Candidates mouth opposition to abortion because it is an easy way to pick up the "Catholic vote," and then they proceed to ignore virtually every other Catholic principle. Trying to vote according to Catholic principles is like trying to stuff a sausage open on both ends; as soon as you get something in one end, something else falls out the other.

Distributing guides or questioning candidates on their positions vis-a-vis Catholic teaching is an exercise in futility until we have candidates who embrace more than one or two of our principles. That would be a candidate who opposes abortion and the death penalty, who supports civil rights for gays and lesbians and aid to private schools, who supports organized labor and seeks to improve public education, who opposes economic sanctions against impoverished nations and is vocal in support of human rights.

ERIC STOLTZ
Los Angeles, Calif.

My bishop's vote

Re: "Counting Votes." That Catholic church leaders in northern Virginia chose to become so blatantly involved in partisan politics disappoints and saddens me. On the last Sunday before the election, our parish priest read us a letter from our bishop. The bishop's letter, in effect, said that if we were to vote for Al Gore over George Bush (who has shown no compassion for people on death row in Texas) for president, and Chuck Robb over George Allen (who hasn't shown much compassion for anybody) for U.S. senator, then we could not be good Catholics, because Gore and Robb are not "prolife." The bishop's letter also paid lip service to "family life," "social justice," and "global solidarity," saying absolutely nothing about the meaning of these words; they really did not matter. I still believe that Al Gore would be a more compassionate Christian president than George Bush, and that Chuck Robb was a more compassionate, Christian senator than George Allen will ever be.

How I wish I could vote for bishop!

ANTHONY J. DISTEFANO
Alexandria, Va.

False & offensive

I am flattered that Monsignor George Higgins has over the years discussed so often the relatively little writing I have done about organized labor in the United States (November 3).

Contra his suggestion, I am in complete agreement with Catholic social doctrine on the right of workers to join unions. He continues to have the unenviable task of explaining why so many workers in America choose not to exercise that right. Monsignor Higgins writes: "Neuhaus never publicly spoke this way about the cardinal's stand on labor issues while the cardinal was alive. I think it is a great pity that he held his fire until it was too late for O'Connor to respond." That is both false and offensive.

The cardinal was well aware of my public statements on the labor question and of our differing views on aspects of that question. My most extensive discussion of these matters is in the 1992 book, Doing Well and Doing Good: The Challenge to the Christian Capitalist, which the cardinal praised highly, while not agreeing with all of it. Our friendship was of the kind that accommodated respectful disagreement, as I hope is also true of my relationship with Monsignor Higgins, even when he makes it difficult.

(REV.) RICHARD JOHN NEUHAUS
The writer is president of The
Institute on Religion and Public Life.

Bishops count

I am a deacon in the Archdiocese of Louisville and, along with my wife, am active in prison ministry. Some of what Kathleen Reagan discusses in "Prison Ministry" (September 8) resonates with some of our experiences. Especially here in the Bible belt, Catholics are often given the "leftovers" when it comes to scheduling of available chapel time. This is not lost on the Catholic community within the prisons.

Quite recently Archbishop Thomas Kelly of Louisville visited our institution. Reagan's comment about the "man in the red dress" is accurate. While planning for the archbishop's visit, we were accorded a level of cooperation, especially from the deputy warden who oversees chapel activities, we have never before experienced. In our diocese most of the prison ministry is done by the deacons, with two priests who offer Mass on a regular basis, and two more my wife and I recruited as occasional fill-ins. As in many other dioceses, there is no structured prison ministry at the diocesan level. But we do get some financial support and Archbishop Kelly is our biggest backer. It would be easier, I believe, for dioceses to develop a formal program if there were some national leadership taken by the bishops. Thank you for Reagan's article.

JOSEPH STUBER
Louisville, Ky.

Enough triumphalism

I commend Philip Kennedy for recognizing that Dominus Iesus is a document "devoid" of the "humble penitence" that is proper to a pilgrim church always seeking a better understanding of the divine revelation (October 20). Neither the Catholic church nor any other body can claim to have more than a partial grasp of this revelation, because, by definition, it surpasses all understanding. Thus, the triumphalist tone of Dominus Iesus is entirely unjustified. Moreover, as Kennedy notes, to link the defense of orthodox, Trinitarian Christianity so thoroughly with assent to the doctrine of apostolic succession is regrettable. Quite apart from questions about the historicity of apostolic succession, such a link needlessly alienates the millions of non-Catholic Christians who would happily serve alongside the Catholic church as allies in a conflict against relativism, but who have no wish to be her "gravely deficient" subordinates.

WILLIAM D. WOOD
Chicago, Ill.

A charter for sneaks

It was a pleasure to read the views of a trained legal mind on the consequences of becoming an official Catholic university: John F. Hunt, "Look Before You Sign" (November 3).

I was particularly intrigued by Hunt's treatment of the "probity of life" aspect of the implementation of Ex corde ecclesiae. He referred to an article by Clifford Longley in the Tablet, August 28, 1999--"License for Vatican Sneaks." I checked back, and I found to my surprise that the "delation" process described there was actually about individuals who denounce their own bishops. That is not to imply that Hunt was misrepresenting the material. I believe it is safe to say that if the CDF has no objection to private individuals denouncing their bishops, they would hardly balk at such individuals denouncing members of university faculties and administrations.

The Tablet article is very strong. Anonymous delation, it observes, "is a charter for sneaks. It leads to a climate of resentment, division, distrust, suspicion, and even paranoia. Anything more calculated to drive out charity and undermine the communion of mutual trust, love, and respect between a bishop and his people, not to mention between him and the Vatican, would be hard to devise. It is destructive; it is underhand; it is surely the devil's work....Cardinal Ratzinger once defended the practice on the grounds, more or less, that his was a small department that could not possibly police the whole church unless there were people prepared to rat on their priests and bishops....The practice of secret delation--and I am sorry to have to use such language--is a scandal to the faithful and a disgrace to the papacy."

JAMES COSGROVE
Wantagh, N.Y.

Think again

In your editorial on the presidential debates (October 10), you argue that a health exception to a ban on late-term abortions "makes any prospective ban meaningless." I don't see why this should necessarily be the case. It's true that in the past, the Supreme Court has defined "health" very broadly to include almost any physical or mental complaint. But the current Court has not ruled on whether a more narrow definition of "health" would pass constitutional muster. Given the known views of various members of the Court on the abortion question, it is quite conceivable that a majority would support such an approach.

One idea might be to limit the health exception to those cases where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause permanent loss of function or a disability lasting more than twelve months. The latter standard is what is required for an applicant to receive Social Security Disability Insurance. There is a substantial body of law and regulation related to the definition and medical documentation of disability that could be appropriated for this purpose.

The advantage of enacting a general ban on late-term abortions as described above is that it avoids the absurdity of trying to regulate particular abortion procedures. Propaganda value aside, it is hard to see why the "partial-birth" procedure is any more morally objectionable than the other methods used at that stage of pregnancy, which tend to be equally gruesome. It is also quite easy to see how physicians could make minor modifications to the "partial birth" procedure to evade the intent of any law.

Whether the approach described above could have commanded support from either Congress or the White House is unclear. What is clear is that neither side in the debate was seriously interested in giving it a try. Rather than trying to reconcile the serious moral claims of both pregnant women and unborn children, prolife and prochoice partisans were more interested in inflaming passions and mobilizing their troops for the election. We are all the losers for it.

PETER NIXON
Concord, Calif.

Much too much

Jo McGowan's column (October 20) on raising children in America in contrast to India reflects many of my own views. Most middle-income American children receive too much and are too much in the center of their parents' focus or guilt, having many of their desires gratified instantly.

My wife and I raised seven children deliberately without TV. We believed it stifled imagination, discouraged reading, and encouraged children to become consumer trainees. After she died, I maintained the TV blackout which was sometimes difficult because six of the children were teenagers and their friends were allowed to watch too much. As a result, the friends had the latest clothing, games, and other trendy items that were advertised on the tube. Occasionally, I would be pressured to buy some trendy item, which I knew was unnecessary and destined to disappear very soon as a hot item. My answer was always the same--earn it--because I believed that when they matched their work time with the cost of the item, their enthusiasm would rapidly fade, which it did. I see now how children and grandchildren are indulged with closetfuls of toys they will never enjoy to the fullest.

I am also offended at the waste of food in America, especially by young people. I cannot understand the half-eaten meals that are thrown in the garbage by the students at the university where I teach. It is not as if they come from affluent families. Most are first-generation college educated. But their parents probably did not live through the Depression, when most of us were urged to clean our plates for the starving people throughout the world. This may not have helped the starving, but at least it developed good habits.

Unfortunately, it may take another depression for this generation to develop good habits and the moderation that is the ultimate hallmark of a good life.

A.W. GODFREY
Port Jefferson, N.Y.