To the editors.

Better than his party

Regarding Mario Cuomo's "Faith & Government" (December 6, 2002): I have long admired Governor Cuomo, both for his open Catholicity and his integrity in handling the affairs of government. He makes a compelling case philosophically, regarding the balance a Catholic politician must maintain between his beliefs as a Catholic and his obligations to the common good in a pluralistic society. But all political philosophy finds its validity in practice, not merely in theory.

Cuomo's reflections work on the assumption of fairness, and as he points out, there are times when specific teachings of the Catholic faith come under the rubric of "Should I try? Would the effort be helpful? Would it produce harmony and understanding?" The difficulty and the flaw can be found in the position the Democratic Party takes toward any public member's judging that some prolife stances might fulfill those criteria. In California, for instance, you will not find any Catholic Democrat in state offices of the Senate or the Assembly, or any candidate for a national office in the Congress, who can commit to such a stand. They will not be supported in any way by the state Democratic Party--financially or otherwise. They will in fact have to face the fierce opposition of traditional Democratic support groups which supply significant funds for Democratic candidates who must espouse one position only.

On the national level, I call to mind the refusal of the Democratic Party to allow Governor Robert Casey to speak at the national convention in Los Angeles, and the lame excuses later made to his two sons. I choose to believe Cuomo is above such rigid applications of his philosophy, but until there is a change in the culture of the Democratic Party regarding issues of pro-abortion versus right-to-life or the complex issues of stem-cell research, his strong convictions about guaranteeing freedom of conviction and judgment are one-sided. He ended his measured essay by saying, "With that I will stop, before proceeding any further down the slippery slope." I think it is precisely where Cuomo stopped that he, and those who believe his is a legitimate stance for a Catholic or any religiously committed politician, must go boldly and thoroughly with this discussion, and challenge the present categories laid down for being an acceptable Democrat in public office. As a registered Democrat, I contend that the Democratic Party's practice at this time largely voids the hope expressed by Mario Cuomo.

(MOST REV.) SYLVESTER D. RYAN
Monterey, Calif.

The writer is bishop of Monterey.

More dissent needed

Mario Cuomo is quite right to point to the need in a pluralist society to respect the majority decision of a legislature. At the same time, however, when there is a legislative bill that offends one's deepest moral convictions, religious or secular, it would be appropriate to register dissent (short of a veto) based on a proposed alternative view. Unfortunately, Catholic politicians in the United States and in Canada have failed to propose alternative views. Racial discrimination, capital punishment, and stem-cell research should inspire principled counterproposals by Catholic politicians, rather than simple acceptance of the current fashions.

Christianity calls us to evangelize, to propose reasonable moral alternatives, not to "impose" them.

E. J. MCCULLOUGH
Calgary, Alberta

Prudential thinking

Thank God for Mario Cuomo's willingness to traverse the "slippery slope" of politics and belief. He is so lucid, so reasonable, so persuasive--so wrong! No Catholic I know expects to "impose" Catholic morality on others. But we should be able to expect that Catholic politicians will not comfortably acquiesce in what we Catholics find morally reprehensible. What Cuomo seems to be arguing for is morality dictated by the majority. We minority Catholics would always lose out in that contest. His appeal to the Catholic "prudential" (again, his word) acceptance of slavery is entirely unpersuasive. Slavery was evil prior to as well as after the Emancipation Proclamation, just as abortion on demand continues to be evil after Roe v. Wade. Mario Cuomo, practicing "prudential, practical" politics, appears to have shifted his position on abortion on demand from one of tolerance--which is clearly within American Catholic political practice--to one of advocacy.

He is the most brilliant luminary still active on our political stage. But he cannot have his political bread buttered on both sides. Still, if given the choice between Cuomo and Ronald Reagan, or Bob Dole and a bushel basket full of Bushes, I'd take Mario every time.

JOHN R. KIDWELL
Manitowoc, Wis.

Where credit is due

In his "Religion Booknotes" (November 8, 2002), Lawrence S. Cunningham credits me with having written a fine piece in Nicene Christianity on the filioque problem. The piece was in fact written by Reverend Thomas Smail. On the other hand, a sentence from my own piece, "Confessing Christ Coming," is attributed to one of the other authors, John Webster. I am flattered to have my work confused with that of these two more excellent fellows, but the degree of confusion in this particular edition of "Booknotes" does not flatter Commonweal. Thanks all the same for a supportive review of Nicene Christianity, which deserves a wide reading.

DOUGLAS FARROW
Montreal, Quebec

The reviewer replies:

I wrote my remarks from the entries in my reading journal after having lent the book to someone and may well have misread my own notes. I apologize for the mistake. I did like Nicene Christianity very much. If the person who borrowed my copy reads this, please return it.

LAWRENCE S. CUNNINGHAM

General absolution I

It was with delight that I read Robert McLaughlin's insightful and pastorally sensitive article on the use of the communal rite of Reconciliation, Form III ("Forgive Us Our Sins," December 6, 2002). Why can't we simply offer the healing Jesus came to bestow by celebrating the sacrament of reconciliation in this way on a regular basis? Isn't the church primarily about the business of offering the healing presence of Christ to wounded people?

When I was pastor of a parish on the southwest side of Chicago, we celebrated Form III of the sacrament of reconciliation during the seasons of Advent and Lent. We were a modestly sized blue-collar parish (about thirteen hundred households). We would often have two or three celebrations of Form III each season to accommodate the more than twelve hundred people who came. Each celebration was an hour and twenty minutes long, marked with dignity, reverence, and meaning. To say that people were healed, that many were welcomed back to the church, that families experienced forgiveness, is an understatement, at best.

It is not a case of either/or--either Form III or nothing. All three forms of the sacrament can be offered. At times, as McLaughlin said, Form I, the private form, may be more helpful to a penitent, but it is the forgiveness of sin, the healing of a person's heart that is important, not mere legalism. Are not the people of God telling the church something? Whatever happened to the "sense of the faithful" (sensus fidelium)? Or does this go the way everything seems to be going in our church these days: decisions made by a few curialists, most of whom have seldom sat in a parish reconciliation room, let alone taken part in a communal celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation.

JAMES FRIEDEL, O.S.A.
Olympia Fields, Ill.

General absolution II

As I read "Forgive Us Our Sins," I wanted to shout with joy and say "Halleluiah! Someone agrees with me." I have been a diocesan priest for forty years in the Archdiocese of Washington. For twenty-three years, I have been chaplain of the Washington Hospital Center, the largest and most active hospital in D.C. I always use general absolution, and have reconciled many, many patients over the years.

But McLaughlin uses the legal term of judge to describe the role of priest confessor, and that terminology is far from my mind when I give absolution. Rather, I see myself as healer, one called to give hope to people who are in pain. Often that pain is spiritual, and people need to know that they're all right because God loves them.

I do not need to hear the specifics or the kinds of sins involved. I ask only one question: "Are you sorry?" The culture in general has changed, and the culture of confession specifically has changed radically. We need to talk about this issue, priests, people, and bishops, and not just be given instructions about preaching and orders to use reconciliation as presently structured. That sacramental form is being challenged by ordinary, holy people, not liberal agitators.

Thank you for sharing this view by Father McLaughlin, and giving support to those of us who see our mission as helping people to be healed in a holistic way and not allowing them to continue to suffer under the fear of "confession" as we practice this sacrament now--even if the name has been changed to rite of reconciliation.

(REV.) JOHN S. WINTERMYER
Washington, D.C.

General absolution III

As a former member of Father McLaughlin's parish, I can attest to the reverent and prayerful services that he and his staff prepared for our parish community. It made so much sense that we as a community celebrated the sacrament together, for our sins had offended not only God but each other. It was fitting that we engage together in the process of reconciliation.

Now I do not wish to approach the sacrament of penance in any other way.

PEGGY ROACH
Waukegan, Ill.

`L'chaim'

As a non-Catholic and sometime reader of Commonweal, and of Margaret O'Brien Steinfels's writing in other venues, I am somewhat saddened by her decision to step down, in order, as she so memorably put it, to "take a nap."

I can well understand the need. I am also a professional writer and editor, and have been doing what I do for more than twenty years. I, too, can use a nap.

Certainly, I wish Steinfels sweet dreams and the best in all future endeavors. And as a partner in tikkun olam (Hebrew for G-d's injunction for repair or improvement of the world), let me express a heartfelt hope that we will hear more, much more, of this dear lady's dignifiedly expressed, though laser-targeted, views. If I may say so as an outsider, the Catholic Church, and all G-d-seeking minds of whatever faith, can only be the better for it.

L'chaim, Margaret. Let us keep hearing your voice.

MICHAEL BAUCH,
Flushing, N.Y.