To the editors. (Correspondence).

Good cover(age)

Let me add my vote of resounding approval for your October 11 cover. It is so important that Christianity not be hijacked by the pro-war team, and thank goodness an organization as large as the Catholic Church is willing to stand up to them.

KATHERINE ELLIS
New York, N.Y.

Bad taste

I have subscribed to Commonweal for many years, having read it regularly since my college days--roughly fifty years ago. Your cover artist never drew Bill Clinton with a long nose, like Pinocchio, when Clinton repeatedly deceived the American people.

I do not have a simplistic notion of "my country, right or wrong," but I do have some respect for the office of the president, and for Native Americans.

I resent this cover.

JOHN CLANCY
Wyandotte, Mich.

War paint

Your October 11 cover is of President George W. Bush in what most would agree is American Indian war paint. This was in poor taste, at best; but at worst it was the propagation of the stereotype of American Indians as bloodthirsty savage warriors. American history has done a disservice to the Native American Indian. Your cover adds to the insult. It would have been better to embellish Bush's face with the camouflage grease that we so often see on TV and in the movies.

RICHARD RUSZKAY
Newark, Del.

The editors reply:

To Ms. Ellis: Yes, it is nice to have the Catholic Church stand up to the pro-war team; the allignment of the Vatican, the U.S. bishops' conference, Commonweal (and our friends at America, too) is remarkable, and perhaps unprecedented.

To Mr. Clancy: No, there was no Pinocchio Clinton, but our February 26, 1999, cover did picture Mr. Clinton with his lips "buttoned up"!

To Mr. Ruszkay: President Bush's war paint is white man's war paint, that of Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart.

Banned in Newark

Grant Gallicho, in his "VOTF Watch" (October 11), asks if Voice of the Faithful can survive a disinformation campaign. Anyone who has any doubts about the existence of such a scurrilous campaign need only look at the issues, since late last summer, of the Boston Pilot, once not a bad diocesan paper, as such papers go. The latest blow seems to have been struck by Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark who, if he is being accurately quoted in the press, has banned VOTF from gathering on church property in his bailiwick, on the grounds that it calls into question the authority of the bishops and is, in the last analysis, anti-Catholic.

Whatever one may think of VOTF, it is hardly as if the American hierarchy has recently needed any help calling into question its own authority; several notable bishops have done quite well in undermining that authority themselves. Nor is it easy to understand how a thoroughly orthodox group like VOTF can be considered "anti-Catholic." Are deception and cover-up, to say nothing of moving around abusive priests from parish to parish, somehow within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, while making the suggestion that the laity be given a greater voice is not?

Archbishop Myers's view of anti-Catholicism is all too unhappily reminiscent of the view that any criticism of the state of Israel's policies is, "in the last analysis," anti-Semitic. Of course, criticism of Israel can sometimes give a seemingly respectable face to a deeper anti-Semitism. And criticism of the church may well draw on a now usually latent anti-Catholicism. But VOTF is hardly in that game. Myers, like many others, still seems to believe that any questioning of the narrow clerical control of church affairs is somehow a violation of Catholic orthodoxy.

NICHOLAS CLIFFORD
New Haven, Vt.

`Summa cum laude'

Thank you for the wonderful articulation, the demi-summa, of Catholic good sense in "Catholics & the Liberal Tradition" (October 11), by Michael Lacey and William M. Shea.

SAMUEL B. SOUTHWELL
Houston, Tex.

Good & bad

Thank you for the excellent Shea and Lacey article. I appreciated its depth and civility, which more than made up for the superficiality and snideness that marred your editorial in the same issue, "On the War Path." Unfortunately, the latter reads more like one of Margaret O'Brien Steinfels's political pronouncements than your usual serious engagement with important issues.

PATRICK ROONEY
Massapequa, N.Y.

Unfair to Israel

"When Israel Is Wrong," by Murray Polner and Adam Simms (October 11) is full of distortions. The authors note correctly that only 50 percent of American Jews are affiliated with a synagogue or Jewish organization. However, the views expressed in the piece generally represent those of the unaffiliated, very secular left, rather than Jews who incorporate Judaism into their everyday life. I am not referring to just the 10 percent Orthodox group either, which unfortunately the authors lump together with fellow "tribalists" as a bunch of crackpots, but a much wider group of more observant people who happen to believe in G-d. This piece is replete with the moral-equivalence nonsense, which has been shown to be totally bankrupt since 9/11. The evidence that has poured out from Yassir Arafat's own record keeping clearly refutes the notion that "crazed suicide bombers" are responsible for the mayhem in Israel. On the contrary, the evidence points to institutional directives, all the way up the food chain, that show that homicidal terror is but one institutional policy designed to achieve the goal of the destruction of the State of Israel. The existential crisis many Jewish people feel is justified when this kind of apology is disseminated. I ask Commonweal's readers how they would want our government to respond if people were blown up on a daily basis on the buses, in the malls and restaurants of their towns, knowing that each time it came from people cheered on by the majority of the population of the adjacent community.

ALAN WEISZ
Deerfield, Ill.

Thrown to the wolves

Thank you for bringing balance to the sexual-abuse issue throughout this ordeal, and in particular Terry Donovan Urekew's "A Victim's Defense of Priests" (October 11).

While much of the chaos of the culture grabbed hold of this problem in an obsessive way, Commonweal calmly and intelligently reported it, culminating in this latest piece that captures one victim's sensitivity to how the media singled out Catholic priests, let alone parents, relatives, and others. Wisely, she wanted no part of the whirlwind "whacking" of clergy alone, which has ruined the lives and reputations of accused priests long before their canonical and civil right to trial.

This is the darkest day in my twenty-six years of being a priest. The broken bishop/priest relationship has me on edge. I've watched brother priests thrown to the wolves, whether innocent or not, given someone's "credible" allegation. Let the police do their investigations. Bishops should do what they should know best: Christ and mercy for all victims.

(REV.) LAWRENCE M. VENTLINE
Detroit, Mich.

Mixed feelings

I am conflicted about your decision to run Terry Urekew's commentary. On the one hand, those like me, who are hard-hearted about clergy abuse and the history of cover-ups by church leaders, need to hear an alternate voice. On the other hand, Urekew's concern about disproportionate attention to clergy abusers grinds my emotional gears. My close friend's son was abused by his family's pastor. This friend will never forgive his own lack of vigilance. And people in my small hometown in Wisconsin bear the mark twenty years later of a priest-perpetrator, whose damage includes two suicides and parents who still berate themselves for being "so stupid as not to know."

I am pleased that Urekew has been able to work through the abuse done her. There are reasons, however, why others still rage at heaven and had to rely on the media to obtain some semblance of justice. She may caution against presumptions of guilt; but she should not be "appalled and angered"--or surprised--at people's reaction to what some clergy have done.

VICTOR KLIMOSKI
Saint Paul, Minn.

Children at risk

"A Victim's Defense of Priests" seemed to miss some critical points.

Terry Donovan Urekew was molested by one priest and by a family "friend." She is concerned that the current emphasis on Catholic clergy abuse "ignores abuse by all other groups." The rage Catholic parents feel is largely directed at a hierarchy that protected pedophiles. If any large bureaucracy was engaged in this type of cover-up, I hazard to guess that the cry would be as loud. The bishops' behavior has been shown to be above the law, and I am disgusted by their refusal to hold themselves accountable. There are sick individuals in every walk of life, but they are not systematically protected by "moral" leaders.

Urekew says her abuse was "brutal" but she chooses "not to accuse my perpetrators." The Catholic faith I am part of obligates me to have moral courage. I am happy this woman "dealt with the pain" but her inaction puts other children at risk. Pedophiles have been shown to prey on many children over the course of their lives. We have a moral obligation to protect the defenseless. Both men who she claims molested her should be confronted, and reasonable steps should be taken to leave a record of their behavior. Urekew is "satisfied" to "leave them in the hands of God." She is also in the hands of God, and we all owe God some answers.

MARY FADHL
Danville, Calif.

The worst abuse

"A Victim's Defense of Priests" shows that some victims of sexual abuse do recover and can forgive, but we should not generalize from the author's magnanimous gifts and graces. Urekew's article has some valid points but also a fundamental flaw.

When she says that sexual abuse of children "is equally wrong whether the perpetrator is the child's daddy, uncle, friend, or church leader," she is greatly mistaken. This equation and her later comparison of priest abusers with plumber abusers, journalist abusers, etc., deny the added devastating spiritual effect of sexual abuse by priests.

When priests sexually abuse minors, this adds a significant overlay of trauma. The spiritual life of the soul with God is wounded, often mortally. Obviously not in Urekew's case, but for many, many victims, priestly abuse has effectively been spiritual abortion. Countless victims of priests have understandably abandoned not only the Catholic Church, but tragically any faith in a loving God--for whom, they were taught, the abusing priest was set apart as spokesman and representative.

Urekew might be "appalled and angered at the recent media emphasis on clergy abuse," but many Catholics are delighted that the media recognizes the difference between priest and plumber abusers. And that the media know the difference between abuse by religious "celibates" with reputedly great spiritual power and nonclerical abusers. All sexual abuse, of course, horribly wounds the psyche, but all such abuse does not traumatize the life of the soul with God. Abuse by clergy does.

Generally, the media got it right. Media coverage has not been "disproportionate and inappropriate" as the author claims. On the contrary, by performing their responsibilities the media and courts have forced the bishops to honesty. Does Urekew really think the bishops would have changed the now-discredited practice of settlement, secrecy, and reassignment of pedophiles without constant media prodding? On balance, the media has been doing the work of the Spirit: for example, protecting children from sexual abuse by men allegedly set apart for the things of God.

DANIEL C. O'ROURKE
Cassadaga, N.Y.