To the Editors.

Profile in courage

I wanted to thank you for the profile of Ambassador Robert White ("Death & Lies in El Salvador," October 26). His comments reinforced a belief I have long held that American foreign policy should be tied to the principles we profess to believe in.

I came away with the impression that White's epiphany in El Salvador was triggered by the deaths of the four American church women; that he began to see that American policy was giving aid and comfort to the enemies of democratic change. I have come to believe that when governments rob their people of the hope for a better life, they sow the seeds of rebellion. White's comments reinforced that belief.

Thank you for the profile.

MIKE FARENELL
Schenectady, N.Y.

Francis revisited

I appreciated Patrick Jordan's review of books on Saint Francis ("One of a Kind," October 26). It prompted me to revisit my old 1957 Image Book of Chesterton's Francis, which has a big "65 cents" printed on the cover (now $10.95, I see).

I was especially grateful for the piece because it came while I was reading Gerard Straub's Sun and Moon over Assisi: A Personal Encounter with Francis and Clare (Saint Anthony Messenger Press, 2000), which I found absolutely absorbing.

Valerie Martin's book Salvation is evidently a worthy contribution to the Saint Francis volumes, but it is hard for me to believe that it would match the impact of Straub's book.

Commonweal is doing a great job of nourishing this Lutheran soul, and I thank you for that!

ARTHUR SIMON
Colmar Manor, Md.

Work left to do

In his November 9 article, "A Cloak of Many Colors," Father Andrew Greeley describes a problem of great significance for the future of Catholicism. Nearly two generations after Vatican II, he says, we find ourselves trapped (sacramentally) between the "empty rituals of the past and a bare-bones, low-church Protestantism." Our sacramental heritage has become impoverished because we have discarded too much of it. We know now we should have done more to reform those parts of our sacramental heritage that were lifeless and less to eliminate them. But nowhere does there appear a sustained effort to do so.

In 1992, Margaret O'Brien Steinfels wrote about another trap we Catholics have gotten ourselves into. She described it as "The Unholy Alliance between the Right and the Left in the Catholic Church" (America, May 2, 1992). I believe the two traps are related.

The Catholic Right identified the sacramental diminishment problem early on and has argued, not for a reform of the church's sacramental life, but for a restoration of pre-Vatican II sacramental practices. Greeley is right to oppose the restorationist agenda, and the Catholic Left is too. Unfortunately, though, the Left seems to see any move toward reestablishing a richer sacramental life as a capitulation to the Right. Most of the energy of the Catholic Left has been focused on issues of justice and church governance. When it comes to sacramental life and practices, the Left has been content simply to thwart the Right's restorationist agenda.

Ironically, the Catholic Left's greatest opportunity for influence lies precisely in the sacramental area it has for the most part neglected. Reforms of the sacramental heritage of Catholicism, if they are to occur, must come from the Left; reforms of church governance, if they are to occur, must come from the Right. This is simple political realism. For just as welfare reform became possible only when President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, took the lead, and a major tax increase and a reduction in defense spending became possible only when President George H. Bush, a Republican, took the lead, so too will reforms within the church become possible only when those who have veto authority decide to lead the reform rather than oppose it.

Greeley concludes his article with "a modest plea that someone get to work to do something about it" (recovering the sacramental heritage, that is). That someone should be the pastors, theologians, liturgists, musicians, and artists of the Catholic Left.

ROBERT SUPER
Saint Paul, Minn.

Expert opinion

Regarding James Davidson's "Yes, Jesus Is Really There" (October 12), here is a clarification on the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist (if I may prescind for a moment from his presence in the community and in the person of the presiding minister). Transubstantiation is a technical term, and (unlike ordinary words) such terms are defined, which means you have to ask an expert in theology for the definition.

Now here comes the relevant fact: There are two definitions. The first one is used by Innocent III in 1202 and by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It means: the true and total change of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. Thomas Aquinas knew this definition; the Council of Trent restated it, with the comment that the term is both apt and proper.

The second definition comes from Thomas Aquinas's own theological and philosophical analysis, which argues, in Aristotelian terms, that other analyses (namely, impanation and consubstantiation) are mistaken, and that only his own analysis makes sense. Paul VI was to give transfinalization and transsignification a similar treatment, without, however, endorsing Aquinas's analysis and definition of transubstantiation. But this implied that the magisterium has never endorsed Aquinas's theory of transubstantiation--only the two conciliar definitions are Catholic doctrine. If you want to see the whole argument, read James D. McCue's article in Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue (1967). Just be sure to brush up on your Latin.

(REV.) JOZEF VAN BEECK, S.J.
Chicago, Ill.

Kept reading

My wife and I are among the people who love Commonweal and thank God for its existence. However, I want to join the voices [Correspondence, November 9] of those who can't believe Paul Baumann's treatment of gay issues ("My Son the Boy Scout," October 12). It's like he really doesn't get it. Maybe he takes too seriously the church's putdown language of "intrinsic evil." Who people are, not their behavior, is at the core of concern and the issue of discrimination. And then his use of "polygamous...and other groupings" in the context of the identity of a person struck me as highly insensitive and condescending. In the sixties we had sensitivity training groups for such behavior. Maybe I'm nostalgic for the good old days or, speaking of the unbelievable, maybe I'm becoming even more liberal than Commonweal.

Andrew Greeley's article ("A Cloak of Many Colors," November 9) was just what the doctor ordered. Please tell him that his desire for beauty and the good things of our tradition are alive and well at the 11:30 Mass at Old Saint Joseph's in Philadelphia!

I probably should have stopped reading that issue because I could not believe what seemed so prejudiced in the statement by Terrence W. Tilley ("Opposites Detract," November 9) about a "neo-Anglican path, with well-done liturgy and laxity in doctrine and morals..." Gee, some of my best friends are Anglicans, as well as many Commonweal writers!

RUSSELL SULLIVAN
Saint Davids, Pa.

Paul Baumann replies:

Equally unbelievable is the way Russell Sullivan willfully misreads my column and my reply to earlier letter writers. I was writing about the legal conundrums raised by the Boy Scouts' actions and same-sex marriage, not about what Sullivan refers to as the "the identity of a person." Doubtless we all need sensitivity training when it comes to this question.

Dual citizenship

Thank you for publishing Patrick J. Deneen's review ("Monarchy Anyone?" October 26) of my book, Christian Faith and Modern Democracy (University of Notre Dame Press).

Deneen rightly notes that my main purpose is to challenge the commonly accepted view that Christianity necessarily requires democracy. Contrary to prevailing opinion, I argue that Christ's distinction between the realms of God and Caesar (and later, Saint Augustine's distinction between the city of God and the earthly city) implies that there is no necessary connection between Christianity and any particular form of government and social order--whether it be monarchy or democracy, socialism or capitalism. Using this distinction, I argue that the forgotten lesson of Christianity is that all the crucial decisions about politics--such as the best form of government, economics, class relations, and war and peace--are judgments of prudence.

Appealing to prudence, I argue that contemporary liberal democracies are not the best regimes for realizing the ends of the temporal realm because they overemphasize personal autonomy and allow rights claims to subvert legitimate authorities (in the family, the church, the school, the military). Moreover, the mass cultures of modern democracies tend to level differences between high and low in society and in the human soul, weakening Christian faith and moral virtue.

In criticizing democracy and human rights in this fashion, however, I do not infer that the American system of government is illegitimate or that constitutional democracies are unworthy of "our best efforts and even our devotion"--as Deneen implies. I am an American patriot, and I appreciate the positive features of constitutional democracy and accept its legitimacy. But I view democracy as a second choice compared to more hierarchical regimes because the missing ingredients in modern mass democracies are the traditional hierarchies that promote the highest aspirations of the human soul. The conclusion I draw is that we must learn to manage the enduring tensions of the earthly and heavenly cities--to live with dual citizenship--rather than demanding a convergence of Christian faith and modern democracy.

ROBERT KRAYNAK
Hamilton, N.Y.

Ensoulment

I read with interest Deacon Kreilkamp's letter to the editor (October 12), in which he states his opinion that ensoulment could occur seven to eight days after conception with the advent of implantation. He brings to point his deaconship (retired) and his medical training (medical internist).

Doctor Kreilkamp's statement, "I believe that this ensoulment occurs only after implantation, some seven to eight days after conception. Our Catholic Church has never issued a definitive statement on the time of ensoulment, and probably never will," raised my eyebrow. The recent Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 2270 states: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." To me this is a definitive statement if there ever was one. Unless, of course, Kreilkamp does not consider the catechism to be a source of definitive statements for the universal church.

While I understand the good doctor's opinion from a human viewpoint, I was surprised that one so educated and devoted could put this type of misinformation into print.

JAMES C. ANTOS, D.C.
Daytona Beach, Fla.