To the Editors.

A clarification

In my letter inquiring about the church's agenda regarding a sexual orientation that it considers objectively disordered, the editors of Commonweal replied, "We doubt that the official church is supporting research to eliminate gays through genetic surgery, or otherwise" (January 12, 2001). I never stated, or implied, that the church is supporting research to eliminate gays (human persons)! Moreover, as you are well aware, a sexual orientation is only one component of the totality of personhood. My inquiry was directed toward the implications of the current, official institutional position of the church. Simply stated: How will it respond, assuming no change in its present stance on nonheterosexual orientations, if the cause(s) of such orientations are uncovered in the future and subsequently the orientations themselves are subject to change within the canons of acceptable ethical norms? The principal issue, of course, is how to interpret orientation itself. The polarities of views on this question range from the "objectively disordered" to "a gift of God." As noted in the original letter, until such time as the church can adopt a more neutral stance on the interpretation of the orientation itself, the dialogue will remain one of defensive posturing.

ROBERT J. COMISKEY
Springfield, Va.

Hoping & praying

I thoroughly enjoyed Jerry Ryan's "1054 & All That" (January 12, 2001). In looking at the ecumenical movement, Ryan pointed out real possibilities and opportunities to come together and share our faith without our traditions inhibiting our worship and dialogue. I hope and pray that I will be able to see this happen in my lifetime.

BEN SHAFER
Chicago, Ill.

Sex & the pope

Luke Timothy Johnson has gotten it right ("A Disembodied 'Theology of the Body,'" January 26, 2001)!

As an educator of adolescents and a married mother of three, I have searched for writings that present a balanced view of the gift of sexuality, including both its pleasurable and difficult aspects.

Johnson is careful to be inclusive of concerns of men and women, heterosexual and homosexual, single and married. It is rare to find this in a single voice.

Johnson is also sensitive to the hidden sexist underpinnings of much of the current church teaching and to the basic logical flaws in many of its supportive arguments.

It would be excellent for Johnson to expand these topics and to open the dialogue for those who would join him in his plea for a revisiting of Humanae vitae.

CINDY NOLAN
Lincolnshire, Ill.

Not for the lukewarm

"A Disembodied 'Theology of the Body'" reminded me to look again at C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity and his comparison of contemporary sexuality and gluttony. It would be interesting to see an article explaining why the analogy is unreasonable. Why is contraceptive intercourse not like the Romans' vomitorium? Could someone explain that to me? Or again, has anyone demonstrated that dissent from Humanae vitae has produced more stable and faithful marriages? I sure would like to know.

(REV.) ANTHONY DI RUSSO
Greenville, N.H.

Who needs it?

The January 26 issue was the last straw. My thought was: with my weak faith, do I really need to read discussions about the deficiencies in the Catholic church as perceived by others? I have enough questions of my own.

The article by Luke Timothy Johnson attempts to take Pope John Paul II to task, thereby defining his deficiency, for not showing some "appreciation for the goodness of sexual pleasure."

After thinking about the article, I concluded that it produced some very thought-provoking ideas. If I have an open mind to the Bible and to the magisterium, then those ideas can result in very wholesome and faith-strenghening thoughts. Where else can you get all this for $44 per year? I'm sending in my check today.

And by the way, for what it's worth from a nontheologian, I think the advertisers, media, celebrities and population in general, promote "the goodness of sexual pleasure" more than enough. Pope John Paul II has a specific message to convey, and there are at least two of us who think his message is right on.

RAY TOLOSKO
West Newbury, Mass.

Unfair to Carroll

I would like to take issue with Robert Wilken on some aspects of his review of James Carroll's Constantine's Sword (January 26, 2001). For one thing, Wilken says the book is "behind the curve of history." According to him, "its message has been heard, digested, and acted upon." Would that were true!

Granted, great strides have been made in the last few decades. Most informed Catholics, for example, now know that the Jews should not be held responsible for the killing of Jesus. Recent events, however, such as the beatification of Pius IX, the canonization of Edith Stein, the placing of the cross at Auschwitz, and the movement to canonize Pius XII demonstrate that the Catholic church as an institution still "doesn't get it." In the domain of Jewish-Christian relations, the church is even now capable of showing great insensitivity.

Wilken says that, according to Carroll, "Christians are guilty for being Christians," in other words that Christianity is essentially anti-Semitic. If this is true, then Carroll's book is worthless because it logically requires either perpetuating anti-Semitism or eliminating Christianity. Carroll does not say that all Christians must be guilty, though he does imply that Christians who live by a Christology centered on the Cross will have an anti-Semitic orientation.

Carroll proposes a different Christology. According to this alternative view, "the coming of Jesus was for the purpose of revelation, not salvation--revelation, that is, that we are all already saved." Those who see their Christian heritage in this light will not be anti-Semitic.

JIM COSGROVE
Wantagh, N.Y.

Gnarled roots

Professor Wilken's scathing review of Constantine's Sword appears deserved if Carroll carries his condemnation of Catholic (and by inference all Christian) anti-Semitism to the point of calling for what amounts to the end of the church. Since the Shoah, the change for the better of heart and voice of Christians toward Jews has been impressive. But can the lectionary readings from the Gospels and Acts that denounce "the Jews"--especially the Passion narrative of John--really be harmless, even in this enlightened age?

STANLEY A. LEAVY
Hamden, Conn.

Santa who?

Lawrence S. Cunningham, in his review of Hannah Green's Little Saint (January 12, 2001), states that Sainte Foy and Santa Fe are etymologically similar. But the name of the New Mexico city refers not to the Little Saint, but to the City of the Holy Faith, that name being chosen by Don Pedro de Peralta in the early seventeenth century to honor in turn the name of the city of Santa Fe in Spain, a siege city raised by Ferdinand and Isabella before the city of Granada in the late fifteenth century, Granada being the last stronghold of the Moors and the Moorish faith in Spain. There are many Santa Fes throughout the Southwest, all with the same name derivation. The cult of Saint Foy, as far as I know, was never established in the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

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

The reviewer replies:

Hannah Green, in her book, makes the argument for Santa Fe being derived from the little saint, Foy. She may have over-reached her evidence (she traces the cult of the saint to the Iberian peninsula via the pilgrimage routes to Campostella and then, among other places, to the New World). If I am wrong (and I may well be) in repeating her assertion, I am grateful for the correction.

LAWRENCE S. CUNNINGHAM