To the Editors.

Inspiring woman

What a wonderful article by Sister Mary Carita ["At Bayonet Point," February 23]. I have known her since 1955 and was fortunate to have her as a teacher at Saint Elizabeth College in Convent Station, New Jersey, and later as a superior in the religious order of the Sisters of Charity. She has always been a source of courage, understanding, and compassion to us who have come under her influence. Many times when I have stumbled and lost courage I have thought of her strength. God bless her and all who have given their lives for others.

ROBERTA PAUL HORTON
NAPLES, FLA.

Man the wall!

I was disappointed by the swipe at Americans United for Separation of Church and State in your recent editorial on President George W. Bush's "faith-based" initiative ["Church, State & Money," February 23]. You chide us for warning of the imminent destruction of the "supposedly sacrosanct" wall of separation between church and state, but then spend the rest of the editorial raising many of the same objections to the Bush scheme that we have made (see "Bush's 'Faith-Based' Plan: An AU Top 10 List on Why It's Wrong" at our Web site, www.au.org).

We oppose the Bush proposal in part because of its deleterious effect on religion. One need only look to Europe to see what happens when government funds churches. Houses of worship in most European countries receive generous tax support, but they are all but empty on Sundays. Volunteers and donations build strong churches; government subsidies enervate them.

The "wall of separation" you so casually dismiss has protected the religious institutions of America in many ways. It ought not be bulldozed by President Bush--or Commonweal.

JOSEPH CONN
Washington, D.C.

The writer is director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The editors reply:

The potentially deleterious effects of government funding of faith-based services are of real concern, but that concern is quite different from the position of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which argues that such initiatives are, or should be, unconstitutional. As the editorial noted, separation of church and state does not require an impermeable "wall" between government and religious groups.

Rotten egg?

J.A. Schumpeter said that the first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie. Don Wycliff, the reviewer of my book A Personal Odyssey ["Look Back in Anger," February 9], must be very idealistic because he manages to completely misstate a brief episode in a New York subway, as anyone can see by simply comparing his account with pages 168-169 of the book. This is by no means the only gross distortion in his review, but you don't need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten.

THOMAS SOWELL
Stanford, Calif.

The reviewer replies:

Thomas Sowell accuses me of misstating his account of an incident in the New York City subway. He invites readers to go to the source and see for themselves. I urge them to do the same. I am confident they'll find my rendition of the account accurate. If Sowell had challenged any of my opinions about his book, I might have been inclined to defer to him. But not on this factual matter.

As for the other "gross distortions" that he alleges, I await proof.

DON WYCLIFF
Jason Robards, R.I.P.

Seeing Jason Robard's name among the Commonweal Associates contributors for 2000 [February 23] brought me up sharply with an urge to stand and applaud his talent and prowess. He was a seaman, probably not yet out of his teens (like so many of his cohorts in those grim and dreadful times) serving on a tin-can in the harbor at Pearl when the Japanese planes flew in to take out the fleet. His ship was probably the only one to get up steam, get under way, and fight back. And I wondered whether, then, he ever thought that he'd live to see the end of the millennium or even the end of the coming war. Probably not. Few did. They did what they had to do and took their chances. Most never looked back. In their innocence they left it to the revisionists to explain what had gone on.

PAUL LOCKREY
Indian Mills, N.J.

Girl talk

The articles on confession ["Empty Confessionals," February 23] were a wonderful idea. I was reminded of the most recent confession experience in my own family (sorry to break the seal of the confessional), when my two daughters (aged eleven and nine) went to confession during a parish penance service. I suspect they confessed the usual eleven- and nine-year-old sins (brutal persecution of their six-year-old sister, mostly), but they were then interrogated by the priest (a recently ordained older man) who asked, "And do you do your homework every day?" and "How about your parents, do you obey them all the time?" They came back to their seats after this experience with what I can only describe as relatively patient but perfectly appropriate eye rolling. I doubt this is something they'll do again, other than under duress, for some time.

This isn't to knock all priests who hear confessions--many are compassionate and have a gift of knowing just what to say. Lucky the person who knows one. Most people don't.

Like the sacrament of the sick, where change would also be appropriate, maybe someday we'll see others empowered with the administration of this sacrament. As the nine-year-old said a couple of years before, at her first confession, "You know, I would feel much more comfortable talking with a girl."

TOM BAKER
Princeton, N.J.

Repression or sin?

I was in eighth grade when Ernest Hemingway killed himself. My classmates and I were assured by the parochial-school nuns that he had committed a mortal sin, with what grave implications for his soul we understood too well. Today, we know that Hemingway suffered from clinical depression.

In high school I was taught to regard Elizabeth Taylor as the most despicable woman since Jezebel. Today it seems likely that no marriage tribunal in the land would rule that even one of her marriages was an indissoluble sacramental union.

And let's not forget that whole meat-on-Friday curiosity: one week a mortal sin, the next week "Never mind!"

In short, some Catholics may wonder why they should confess today to a sin that may be no biggie tomorrow. I suspect also that some Catholics think the church should put its own house in order before demanding repentance of its members. The pope has apologized for the church's historic sins, but words are not actions. Where are the wives of priests who are not Episcopalian converts? Where are the women priests? Where are the reparations for inmates of Ireland's Magdalen laundries? Where is the "Never mind!" for Humanae vitae?

ANGELA STOCKTON
Clermont, Fla.

Expand the options

Talk about doing things by species and number! Commonweal devoted (by my count) some four hundred lines to O'Toole, Donnelly, Marget, and Steinfels on the subject of confession. Of those lines, only eleven gave thought to a change in format of sacramental confession.

We are mistaken if we think that the long-line, once-a-week, species-and-number confession that we knew several generations ago is a desideratum to be returned to today. Public general absolution (used during World War II for the military and perhaps for others as well) was just as theologically valid a means of sacramental forgiveness as the one-on-one modality that the Roman legal mind developed and laid upon the faithful.

Continue the availability of the private "box" confession, and its more modern derivatives? Yes, by all means. There is a definite place for it. Provide public general absolution when and where indicated in view of the felt needs of so many of today's faithful for sacramental pardon and peace? Yes, too, by all means. There is a definite place for it.

(REV.) G.F. WERMER
Edgewood, N.M.

Remorse & ashes

Commonweal's articles on the decline in the practice of confession were far-ranging and enlightening. The decoupling of confession from Communion and changes in the notion of sin would certainly have to rank high among factors accounting for the decline of the practice of confession.

But there are other things to consider. First, the decline in the use of confession occurred at about the same time as the decline in attendance at Catholic schools. Second, the contraception debate gave many Catholics a clear conscience to receive Communion without confessing the use of birth control. Did this confident reliance on conscience perhaps creep into other areas? Third, in many parishes today, unlike fifty or a hundred years ago, the majority of Catholics are as well educated in general and as well read in church matters as their priests. They are not as deferential as earlier parishioners to the judgments of the priest. For good or for ill, that deference was a strong bulwark of confession.

What's to be done? A few years ago our parish hosted several priests who provided unusual penance services. After the customary preliminaries--hymn, prayer, sermon--we were told to write a letter to the Lord acknowledging our sins. We then brought this letter forward and presented it to one of the priests who read it, said a few words, and tossed it into one of several small fires contained in cauldrons in the sanctuary. After people understood the format, these services were attended in extraordinary numbers. The church was packed. This service is not a final answer, but it seemed to be a grace-filled moment in which many, many people examined their consciences, confessed their sins, and felt the cleansing power of God's forgiveness.

LEO GAFNEY
Lakeville, Conn.

On the menu

Kudos for Luke Johnson ("A Disembodied Theology of the Body," January 26). Humanae vitae has been promulgated as a defense of Christian marriage and the idea that contraception is the culprit responsible for the sexual promiscuity of our age. As the mother of eleven, I contend that neither is correct.

The analogy between eating for nourishment and sex for procreation is too simplistic. Marital intimacy involves two people and has a more profound end than the begetting of children. The latter may take a few minutes but the rearing of children requires years of constant care and sacrifice. I marvel at the Creator's ingenuity in providing an impetus and reward whereby husband and wife reaffirm their love and commitment in sexual union. Humans are different from other animals in this regard.

To consider intercourse apart from the spiritual realm, for example, the mind and emotions, is to deny that these should be integral to arousal, fulfillment, and purpose. Nothing prostitutes the sexual act more than calculated planning (NFP).

I will personally attest to the anxiety and frustration created by the constant preoccupation with identifying the fertile period.

We intervene in nature with medications, operations, artificial supports, whenever the health of a person is at stake. There are many instances where the health of a mother and the well-being of the family demand birth control. In these instances the most reliable and least harmful method should be used. This may be more a medical decision than a theological one.

It is no secret that most fertile couples practice contraception. They are termed "Cafeteria Catholics." The hierarchy should be very troubled over this. If young people don't listen to our church in regard to human sexuality and marriage, is it because of credibility?

Yes, Humanae vitae needs to be revisited. There is much more at stake than birth control.

HAZEL G. STULTZ
Middletown, Md.

All in the family

Regarding William Pfaff's "The End of NATO" [February 23]: Yes, "Europe and the United States are different societies," but in spite of "different histories," North America and Europe have developed economically in tandem through the mercantile period, two industrial revolutions, as well as the currently evolving technological era. We call this amalgam of like communities the "Industrial West."

The miracle of the EU represents the belated recognition by Europeans that it is only through unity that they will remain an equal partner in that vibrant club. (And it would be shortsighted not to urge and assist Russia to join.)

The undeveloped regions of this world, in which the industrial West is vitally interested, are already leap frogging previous industrial revolutions into the technological age. At the same time, they are recognizing the needs and weaknesses shared by neighboring communities, and are finding strength in cooperation. Political union of one kind or another will take place.

The industrial West will continue to enjoy its productive supremacy only if it focuses independent adventurism on the part of its individual members into the good of the whole. It can do this only by strengthening the political and military bonds that unite the member nations.

It is in our best interest to continue close cooperation militarily with Europe. Surely there is a way that we can accommodate the rapid-reaction force. Let us first admit that we who are considered the protectors of Europe, did not react promptly in the Balkan disaster. Could the rapid-reaction force not be made an adjunct to an expanded NATO, each organization having its own predetermined contingencies for a call to action?

VAL BETTIN
Ventura, Calif.