To the editors. (Correspondence).

Leg room

I thought Rand Richards Cooper's "One Boy's Story" (June 1) was wonderfully written, honest, and insightful. That bright and self-aware boy has obviously grown up into an equally bright and self-aware man. This "story" was such a different take than anything I had read before relating to the sex-abuse crisis in the church. It was a pleasure to see one of my favorite movie reviewers get to stretch out in a long article on a very different topic. Quite remarkable.

SIDNEY BLANCHET-RUTH
South Bend, Ind.

Courage

The June 1 cover was excellent; it captured Rand Richards Cooper's story perfectly. I want to compliment Cooper on the brilliance of his prose. It was a wonderful story, marvelously written, and "something" did indeed "happen." Thanks Rand Cooper and Commonweal for having the courage to share it.

JOHN BORST
Dryden, Ont.

Cooper's delusions

I am puzzled and deeply disappointed by your selection of the cover story in the June 1 issue. "One Boy's Story" would be more aptly titled "One Man's Delusions."

Consider Cooper's childhood: A protected fenced-in schoolyard "resembled a prison yard." A schoolyard pastime was "a rough game." His twelve-year-old schoolmates were "a mob of gang-tacklers." That might be because they lived in the "welders/policemen/coaches part of town," whereas Cooper resided in the neighborhood of "doctors/lawyers/accountants." Rand couldn't be tough because his "grades were too good." An elderly woman religious who probably spent her life serving others is unfeelingly described as the "decrepit Sister Catherine Mary." This from someone who describes himself as "secretly sensitive."

This unbelievably precocious twelve-year-old concludes that at his elementary school "a blunt anti-intellectualism joined teachers and students alike." Cooper tells us that in the schoolyard "lurid rumors swirled" about the priest-principal. And there are other might-bes and said-tos culminating in: "Was Father M an active pedophile? I don't know for certain, but it seems likely." Cooper also has the unusual, perhaps unique, ability to recall--verbatim--a conversation between him and Father M that occurred three decades ago. Not only does he perfectly recall the conversation, but also he remembers that "Father M gave me a look that in retrospect strikes me as utterly knowing." A thirty-year retrospective! Whatever possessed Commonweal to front-page an article of rumors and uncertainties?

JOHN P. POWERS
Ronkonkoma, N.Y.

Tabloid journalism

I thoroughly enjoyed "One Boy's Story." What a marvelous piece of fiction! Supressed memory syndrome, perhaps? If Cooper would like to cash in on the current hysteria, I can recommend a good, and obviously unscrupulous, attorney. Seriously, though, dear Commonweal editors, do you really think this type of fanciful reminiscence is very helpful to concerned and thoughtful Catholics struggling with the current crisis in our church? Anyway, may I suggest that it may be more appropriate for Cooper to make his next submission to a supermarket tabloid?

M. BAHN
York, Pa.

Sexual McCarthyism

After the excellent article by Peter Steinfels ("The Church's Sex-Abuse Crisis," April 19), a piece I now use as a touchstone for other reporting on the issue, I was very disappointed and disturbed by the cover story of your June 1 issue.

Rand Cooper's memoir, recovered memory, or creative writing exercise--difficult to describe exactly what it is--contributes to the tabloidization of this sensitive and serious topic. Even the article's presentation on your cover was more reminiscent of what one might see at a supermarket checkout line than what one would expect from a "review of religion, politics, and culture."

From the beginning, Cooper admits, "I was not molested, exactly. But something happened." He then proceeds by innuendo to unfold a sordid (imaginary?) "something" that may (or may not) have happened "In Father M's Office" (oooh!). Secretive, suggestive looks, words, rumors about the priest, "dark-haired, bearded, handsome ... (with) flair," are then treated at embarrassing length in a way that smacks more of sexual McCarthyism than a serious contribution to understanding this topic. ("Father, did you ever mention the word ejaculation in the presence of an adolescent?")

Father M's recent letter to him, the author opines, "betray[s] an impulse one can only call pedophilic--unable to refrain from stoking the memory of a little boy's good looks." What does Cooper's recollection of a priest "bearded, handsome ... (with) flair" betray, one might ask? Much of the article hints at turning in the direction of fantastic letters to the "readers forum" of a popular "adult" magazine.

In the current atmosphere of media hysteria, where all allegations and circumstances are placed on the same level, and guilt is assumed and blame too smugly assigned, readers of Commonweal would expect a balanced, honest approach. We have received this, but not in the instance of Cooper's article. One wonders why he wrote it. Even more, why did you publish it?

(REV.) DAVID J. NORRIS
Fresno, Calif.

The author replies:

It's hard to see how I aroused such ire, and hard to respond to arguments containing far more invective than coherence. Indeed, these letters share an ad hominem fervor I find remarkable: my memoir is pornographic, unscrupulous, and McCarthyist; a cynical attempt to "cash in" (with a Commonweal paycheck?!); and doubtless untrue as well. The resort to ridicule and name-calling betrays an angry wish that this problem would simply go away. If the subject is "embarrassing" to these readers, I'd suggest the difficulty lies not in the way I have "treated" it, but in the subject and in themselves.

There's a big difference between reporting on the ethical, legal and institutional issues pertaining to priestly pedophilia and an attempt to depict the thing itself. I suspect any account of the exchange between sinning priest and seduced child is simply too disturbing for some people to face. So they attack the messenger. For the record: "One Boy's Story" is neither "recovered memory" nor a work of fiction, but a memoir true in every detail to my recollections. And as for the notion that my memoir presents a "tabloidization" of the issue, well, quite the opposite, it seems to me--if by tabloid we understand a drastic simplification of human nature. My piece attempts to explore a complexity of motive, stratagem, psychology, and ultimate meaning. Whether it succeeded will be left, I trust, to the judgment of readers less furious than these. rand richards cooper

The editors reply (too):

We published Rand Richards Cooper's "One Boy's Story," first because we were convinced that it was true. Second, because it helpfully complicated, without in any way excusing the adult involved, an issue where, as David Norris suggests, "guilt is assumed and blame too smugly assigned." Third, as Sidney Blanchet-Ruth writes, because it was "wonderfully written, honest, and insightful."

Making saints

I found Stafford Poole's article ("Did Juan Diego Exist?" June 14) on the question of Juan Diego's canonization very disquieting (perhaps because I'm a historian). His book on Our Lady of Guadalupe was apparently criticized by the Vatican (and he had no right of response--typically enough, it seems). What is the church's attitude toward history, he asks, and quotes one of his correspondents as asking whether "we as historians are expected (by the church) to stop searching for the truth?"

Samuel Butler once remarked that God cannot change history, but historians can; that is why he allows them to exist. But I'm not aware that he shows the same forebearance towards churchmen and -women. So my own answer to Poole's question would be, No, of course not. Whatever the leaders of the church may say, it is our duty to correct them when they are wrong.

Still, what does the possibility of canonizing a figure who may not even have existed say about the process of canonization today and its meaning? It is no longer one I can take particularly seriously, as the founder of Opus Dei is about to make the grade, and Pius IX--the man who, arguably, did more harm to the church than anyone else in the nineteenth century (Karl Marx and Charles Darwin included)--seems to be on his way to sainthood as well. I have no objection to believing that Pius is among the blessed in paradise, for God works in mysterious ways, but I have many objections to the idea that somehow we should take Pio Nono, grimly clutching the last shreds of power in the Papal States as they are torn from him, as a model for either ecclesiastical or political behavior.

None of which may be a particularly satisfactory answer for Stafford Poole.

NICHOLAS CLIFFORD
New Haven, Vt.

Double standard

Your June 1 editorial, "The Do-nothings," presented an interesting contradiction that is worth exploring. How is it that Rome is in such support of the rights of sexually predatory priests but shows no such inclination in terms of the laity? Why are some of the most conservative members of the institutional church asserting the right to secrecy in such matters, including the right to shield accused priests from civil authorities and reassign them without notification of their past records?

The experience of so many dioceses over the last several decades has shown that retaining and reassigning these priests often results in a significant financial burden and an even greater scandal. Are these church leaders somehow more compassionate than their more liberal colleagues? Or could it be that they had come to the conclusion that removing all such priests would have placed a significant burden on an already understaffed population of clergy, and expose the hierarchy to a renewed demand to reconsider allowing priests to marry and the ordination of women?

GEORGE WHITE
North Easton, Mass.

Rights talk

As vice president of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC), I was piously gratified to see Commonweal [June 1] deploring the way Rome "during this pontificate, has trampled on the rights of bishops, bishops' conferences, theologians, priests, and religious, to say nothing of the rights of lay people." ARCC has been making noise about this for more than twenty years, and during that time, my perception was that Commonweal looked rather condescendingly on ARCC's efforts to talk about the rights of Catholics in the church and to draw up a charter of rights. Welcome aboard!

(REV.) PATRICK CONNOR, S.V.D.
Bordentown, N.J.

From the editors: The sentence before the one quoted by Father Connor begins: "Using the language of `rights' within the church is often misleading." We had ARCC in mind not because we condescend but because we disagree.

Greater Israel

Your editorial "Jewish Fears" (June 1) is so wrong on so many points that I would urge you to reread your editorial last December ("An Unholy Land," December 7, 2001) when you rightly excoriated the Israelis for their brutality and obstructionism in the peace process.

Awash in verbiage, we always seem to lose sight of a simple fact: Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and Gaza. For thirty-five years they brutalized and pauperized the Palestinians while stealing their land to build colonies to form Greater Israel. They continued to build colonies (why did the Palestinians allow such a thing?) during the ten years they were negotiating with Arafat and continue to build them to this day. It took the Palestinians a long time to realize that they would negotiate until there was nothing left to negotiate, and Israel would have effectively colonized the entire West Bank.

I agree with you that so much of the discussion about Palestinians and Israelis is tit-for-tat denunciation, and that Arab anti-Semitism certainly matches Israeli racism (conversations I had in pre-intifada Israel were almost identical to the bigoted ranting of American Southerners forty years ago), but the solution is not another conference or "small gestures," but a bold effort by the world community to enforce a peace settlement: by replacing the Israeli military with troops from other countries, rebuilding a Palestinian government and economy, removing the Israeli colonies entirely from Gaza and substantially reducing those in the West Bank, compensating Palestinians for their seized land, and establishing a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Every aggressor nation has always claimed "self-defense" as its excuse for seizing more land and Israel certainly follows that pattern. The problems Israel is having now are of its own making. It sought the West Bank to fulfill its historic mandate for a Greater Israel, never caring what would happen to the millions of Palestinians who lived there, nearly all of whom were displaced from their original homes when Israel was created.

Perhaps Israelis and Palestinians will some day be able to overcome present hatreds and "open our eyes to the humanity of the enemy," as your editorial states. Certainly today's Germans and Jews are prime examples of overcoming enmity and forming bonds. But for now, the most important step is to remove the Israeli boot from the Palestinian throat.

JOSEPH D. POLICANO
East Hampton, N.Y.

Villain?

I do not disagree with Paul Baumann's comments concerning Hendrik Hertzberg and Bill Keller in his "Catholicism for Dummies" (June 1). What I find appalling and unworthy of a Commonweal editor is his unrelated throwaway introductory reference to Cardinal Bernard Law as an "incorrigible villain."

I could go over Law's heroic role as the young editor of the paper of the Diocese of Natchez-Jackson in moving a conservative bishop toward an understanding of the civil-rights movement in the sixties, or his recent role as spokesman for our bishops against the death penalty, or the attachment of Boston's immigrant communities to him. What is more relevant today is that Law has admitted his serious mistakes in priest assignment. Call him negligent if the column is about him or his archdiocese. Call him a poor administrator if you wish, but don't throw "villain" around loosely with its implication of evil intent as you write about another topic.

GORDON A. MARTIN JR.
Newton Centre, Mass.

Law must go

Congratulations on having the courage to say so clearly, "He [Cardinal Bernard Law] must go" ("Lawless in Boston," May 17). Liberal and conservative voices have already called for Law's resignation. It is important that a moderate journal like Commonweal adds its own voice. If Law has lost credibility with the moderates, what does he have left? He no longer has the support needed to be a leader. You cannot lead if you don't have followers.

THOMAS A. MCCABE
Garnerville, N.Y.

Church & the law

Many thanks for Kathleen Reagan's crystalline analysis of the recent shift in First Amendment applications to church matters ("Church & State" May 17). She observes that the hierarchy brought it on themselves by "abandoning children and by keeping that abandonment hidden for far too long." Indeed, they have abandoned integrity and sacrificed trust for la bella figura. Will any of us see the restoration of the church's moral voice in our lifetime?

(REV.) RAYMOND MAHER, O.CARM.
Boca Raton, Fla.

Part of the problem

As one who has renewed my subscription for more than twenty years, I must express my disappointment in your May 3 issue.

The near total absorption with the "priest scandal" is not what I had depended on from Commonweal. (I found Peter Steinfels's article in the April 19 issue ["The Church's Sex-Abuse Crisis"] one of balance and fairness.)

At this point I am asking myself whether the "destruction of the Catholic Church," the "lack of trust" felt by Catholics, the "loss of faith" experienced by many--charges found in the press daily, and, sadly, insinuated in your May 3 issue--are caused more by unbalanced press coverage than by the "sins" of priests and by the concealment of these "family scandals."

Saying this does not mean that I excuse the abuse of children or that I believe family sins can be hidden--particularly in an age that is obsessed with revenge for the past.

I am choosing not to sign my letter, lest I be judged one of the "teleprompters at Fox TV" (Correspondence, May 17). Wrong is wrong, and it must be dealt with. Let's be sure that more wrong is not being encouraged.

ANONYMOUS

Limit damages

Of all the good Commonweal has given to the church in its more than seventy-five years, its greatest contribution may yet be the facts, gravity, context, and lessons you have published concerning the clerical sexual scandals.

One dilemma I see, however, is the call for episcopal action in apologizing and leadership in healing, and at the same time not having their words and actions boomerang and cause even greater tort damages.

The pauperization of the church will mean fewer schools and hospitals, fewer havens for the abused and addicted, a reduction of nursing homes for the elderly, and a curtailing of inner-city social and economic initiatives.

Keep pressing, as you have been, for reform and reparation, but, at the same time, develop some practical guidelines to help bishops walk the tightrope between the necessary reaching out to victims and the retaining of services for the rest of the flock.

FRANK C. ARRICALE
Bayside, N.Y.