_____Letters__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

Is “Lepanto” relevant?

I love Chesterton, and I can appreciate his “Lepanto” as poetry while recognizing that it is as helpful a comment on the present international crisis as the epic of Prince Lazar on Kosovo. Most of the other coverage by the November Catholic World Report of the issues facing the world since September 11 seemed so strikingly well balanced; why spoil it?

The victory at Lepanto may have permitted the liberation of large numbers of Christian slaves, but we should reflect that it must also have resulted in the fresh enslavement of large numbers of Muslims, because enslavement was the fate that awaited prisoners-of-war on either side if their families could not afford to ransom them. It is true that many of the Turkish galleys involved in the battle itself were rowed by slaves, but the same went for the Christian side. Don John’s flagship, the Galera Real, was too badly damaged to make it back home, but a carefully researched full-size replica was made in Barcelona (where the original was built) to mark the fourth centenary of the battle in 1971. It can be visited in the Maritime Museum, where it is presented with precise historical accuracy as a slave galley on which the rowers were forced to work in appalling conditions and under great cruelty, which usually resulted in early death.

On the Christian side it was virtually impossible to hire free men for service on the galleys. Apart from Muslim prisoners-of-war, criminals could be condemned to serve, but it was often difficult to find enough men guilty of crimes sufficiently heinous to merit such a fate. Notoriously, Pope Pius V rounded up the gypsies of Rome for the Holy League fleet, and only freed them in response to vehement protests from St. Philip Neri and others.

Interestingly, some of the Muslim vessels at Lepanto were manned by free Orthodox Christian rowers, who signed up voluntarily because the pay in the Turkish navy was attractive and the conditions reasonably acceptable, and because they had no qualms about fighting Roman Catholics, whom they regarded as a good deal worse than the Turks.

—Jean Olwen Maynard By email from London

“Lepanto” is not a historical treatise, and in publishing it we did not intend to set off a discussion of either naval history or the rules of engagement for 16th-century warfare. (Although we are skeptical of propaganda against the Catholic cause, we have no doubt that conditions were cruel for all of the combatants—in part because there was much cruelty in that era, and in part because warfare is always cruel, not least in our own time.) Chesterton’s poem is a celebration of Christian heroes who rose to the defense of our religious and cultural heritage, at a time when Christendom was imperiled by militant Islam. Now that our civilization (Christian or not) is again facing an Islamic threat, we thought that readers would draw some inspiration from the poem. We may regret the conditions under which some men served in the Holy League. But we do not regret their victory.

— The Editor

Dispassionate analysis

Your November issue gave me the first opportunity, since the tragic events of September 11, to read a clear-sighted, dispassionate analysis of what the whole conflict means. Congratulations, and thank you!

Most of my neighbors are ready to jump to the conclusion that since Osama bin Laden is a bad man (granted!), then the policies of the US are right. That does not follow. Yes, I agree that we must fight to defend ourselves. But a good general tries to understand the way his opponent is thinking, and a good diplomat should do the same. What is it about the US that makes so many Arabs and Muslims hostile to us, and ready to listen to bin Laden’s ravings? We want to take away the terrorists’ weapons. Well, in the war of ideas the best weapons are arguments. So we need to be cool, calculating, and clear about the policies that we do and do not support. Slogans don’t help, but your reporting might.

—Raymond Wolkowski of Chicago, Illinois

Lasting lessons

I wish to congratulate Father Raymond Gawronki, SJ, for his superb article “Innocent Lives: A View from across the River” in your November issue. I wish all the persons at the White House and the Defense Department would read it and deeply reflect on it.

My congratulations also, to Nicholas Jubber and Michael Hirst for their report, “America through Arab Eyes,” in the same issue. Will our nation learn lasting lessons from all this? Considering the moral flaws in our national news media, the answer does not seem in the affirmative. May the Lord of Mercy touch our hearts and enlighten our minds.

—Father Paul Jones of New Brunswick, New Jersey

The politically incorrect Angelic Doctor

Regarding your cover story, “Christianity and Islam” (November 2001), it is interesting to read what St.Thomas Aquinas thought about Mohammed and the entire Muslim matter. Of course St Thomas lived 700 plus years ago, before the modern undertaking to find good in all religions and to homogenize them whenever possible, “tolerance” being considered more important than Truth.

After considering the nature of miracles and their importance to the ongoing witness of the Christian religion and Catholic Faith, St. Thomas proceeds to write (in Summa Contra Gentiles, Book one, Chapter 6):

On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this. This point is clear in the case of Mohammed. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teachings also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all of this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of great falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words do so foolishly.

—Gavin Stephens of West Memphis, Arkansas

Falwell was right

The Falwell incident has derailed the clear thinking of Diogenes (Last Word, November 2001). When Jerry Falwell blamed pagans, feminists, gays, lesbians, and the ACLU for America’s moral decadence he was right on target. Unfortunately Diogenes quibbled, and expanded the blame to include everybody.

Diogenes needs to explain why it is OK to single out the Taliban for terrorism, the Ku Klux Klan for racism, and drunken drivers for traffic deaths, while the leading corrupters of the nation’s morals should not be given top billing.

Catholic and other religious leaders should have supported Falwell, but they did not. Once again secularism intimidates and wins by default.

—George Koenig of St. Francis, Wisconsin

Diogenes made a fairly persuasive argument: that the nation’s morals could not be corrupted by a small minority, unless the majority somehow acquiesced. There are immoral individuals in every society; the society at large becomes morally corrupt only when those individuals gain control. And in a democracy it is not a mere “quibble” to point out that small activist groups cannot gain legal authority if the vast majority of voters organize to resist them.

—The Editor

Defending Father Gruner

I would like to comment briefly on the item under “Canada” in the November “World Watch.” It concerns the questionable “suspension” of Father Nicholas Gruner, whom you refer to spitefully as a “renegade cleric.” Apparently you did not interview Father Gruner, nor read about his case in his publication, The Fatima Crusader. I consider your comment to be slothful, scurrilous journalism and most unfortunate in a magazine so well thought of.

—Virginia Vabalas of Manchester, Connecticut

That Father Gruner still commands a substantial following was made evident by the many letters we received, making roughly the same arguments in his defense. The purpose of the Vatican announcement which we (quite accurately) reported was precisely to clarify a situation which has become widely misunderstood—in large part because of inaccurate reports in Father Gruner’s publication. Whatever else can be said about his suspension from priestly ministry, it can no longer be called “questionable;” it has been confirmed by the Church’s highest canonical court.

— The Editor

Error on Medjugorje

I was very disappointed to read in the last paragraph of the November, 2001, “World Watch” article on Bosnia-Herzegovina, the statement that “the local bishop has never officially rendered a verdict on the authenticity of the reported Marian apparitions in Medjugorje.”

This statement is incorrect. Bishop Ratko Peric, the individual designated to rule on possible supernatural events in his diocese, is ordinary of the diocese that includes Medjugorje. He has repeatedly attempted to clarify the nature of the “apparitions” in Medjugorje. He has, however, little support even in the Vatican because of the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the Medjugorje travel and hospitality industry and because of political intrigues.

I would like to quote a statement from Bishop Peric’s Confirmation homily, which he gave at St. James Church in Medjugorje on July 1, 2000:

The official statements of the Church, starting from the local bishop up to the bishop’s conference, have not in this case (regarding the apparitions) recognized a single “apparition” as authentic. The Church clearly declared that it is impossible to affirm that these events involve supernatural apparitions. For this reason I wrote decisively and clearly on February 14, 1998 to the local pastor: “Therefore, let no official church premises belonging to the parish be used for these so-called, presumed and imagined ‘apparitions,’ which have never been recognized nor accepted by the Catholic Church.” The parish priest willingly obeyed. Therefore I hereby declare with no doubt in my mind, as the local ordinary and bishop, that not a single so-called “apparition” nor so-called “message” convinces me that these events involve supernatural appearances.

Surely Cardinal Vinko Puljic, who made a statement in the article that Medjugorje is a source of division in the Church, is in agreement with Bishop Peric. I can’t help but wonder how a statement that ignores the facts about the local ordinary’s judgment on Medugorje could have crept into this article.

—Laurette Elsberry of Sacramento, California

Your criticism is justified. Bishop Peric’s judgment was clear and decisive. The local ordinary has indeed rendered his verdict, and the sentence that you cite was inaccurate. We regret the error.

—The Editor

Prejudicial publicity for Fujimori

As a native Peruvian, I oppose the extradition of Alberto Fujimori, (see “Enough Evidence to Extradite,” October 2001) because he would not get a fair trial. He is being blamed for the crimes committed by others, and many false accusations have been made against him, including the ones mentioned in Alejandro Bermudez’ article.

I opposed his policy of voluntary sterilization, but it was Planned Parenthood who tried to force it upon women, going beyond what the president intended. He was against legalized abortion! Fujimori has also been blamed for the excessive use of force by military groups against terrorists—as if he could control all the army.

The accusations that he stole money have been proven false. He lives from the charity of Japanese citizens. No bank accounts have been found because he is an honest man, who worked tirelessly to help the poor through the many construction projects he supervised as an engineer (his profession). I hope the press in Peru shows some compassion and admits their errors, just like Fujimori has admitted his.

—Joseph Louis By email from Texas

The allegations against Fujimori have not been disproven; that would be the point of a trial. And if the former president would build his defense around the argument that he was unable to control his own administration—that both the army and the family-planning office were beyond his control—then it is understandable why he would prefer to avoid such a trial.

— The Editor

A Note from the Editor
In November, President Bush announced that a Texas-based organization, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, was under investigation for possible involvement in the funding of terrorist activities. Several alert readers quickly contacted CWR, to ask whether this organization is affiliated with the Holy Land Foundation: a Catholic group that was featured in our November 1996 issue. There is no connection whatsoever between the two groups.

The Holy Land Foundation—which we profiled in CWR through an interview with the group’s president, Father Peter Vasko, OFM—is devoted to housing and educational projects, intended to help maintain the Christian community in the Holy Land. It is a project of the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, with headquarters in Jerusalem, functioning with the approval of the Holy See.

The Jerusalem-based Holy Land Foundation—as distinct from the Texas-based group—is not and has never been under investigation by US authorities.