To the Editors - Letter to the Editor

Commonweal, May 18, 2001

Sparks of joy

Time and again it is good to find an article like Valerie Sayers's "Being a Writer, Being Catholic" (May 4) in your journal. As well she must, she features novels. But before Pentecost this year I rush to mention a 1950s short story, Muriel Spark's "Come Along, Marjorie" in her Go-Away Bird and Other Stories. In it Spark's comic ironies glitter. Midway they fairly burst with Christian joy and awe amid quotidian living that does not go away. Rereading never fails to bring a tear to my eye. Others might not easily refrain from their own tears of Christian joy.

PHILIP C. FISCHER, S.J.
Saint Louis, Mo.

Jesuits & justice

In his review of Jesuit Education 21 ["How to Be Loyal to Loyola," April 20] Dennis O'Brien makes cogent points regarding the departure that was taken at the Jesuit General Council 32 of the Society of Jesus from the Christ-centered focus of Ignatius Loyola. Under the single-minded direction of Pedro Arrupe, S.J., father general of the Jesuits at the time, social justice became the defining characteristic of the Jesuit order in general and of Jesuit pedagogy in particular.

Social justice is intrinsic to the Gospels and a component of Catholic teaching, but it is derivative of both and should be taught in that context. The Arrupean model is hardly "loyal to Loyola" but is clearly a departure from the Ignatian ratio studiorum as a principle of Jesuit education.

The characterization of past Jesuit education as serving "ghetto Catholics" and teaching "Baltimore Catechism Plus" is an affront to the legions of Jesuits who have served Christ and his church for five hundred years. Perhaps this post-Arrupe attitude is why the membership in the Society of Jesus is a third smaller than it was thirty years ago.

WILLIAM DORNBURGH
Cooperstown, N.Y.

Father S. lives

You can tell Peter Feuerherd ["The Territorial Imperative," April 20] that his Father S. (for Schmidlin) is alive and well and now pastor of Saint Matthew Church in Indianapolis. He was indeed pastor of Saint Joan of Arc in Indianapolis twenty years ago when the neighboring parish, Saint Thomas Aquinas, was "a hip Catholic alternative," as Feuerhard describes it.

I sent the column to Schmidlin and he called to say that he enjoyed it--especially the sentence, "He was a prophetic priest making a point." Feuerherd got his point right, he said. Father S. didn't object, but I would, to Feuerherd's description of Schmidlin as "a perpetually disgruntled pastor" or as "a jealous grumpy old pastor." He would have been all of fifty years old twenty years ago and, although Feuerherd might have thought fifty was old then, I'm sure he doesn't today.

JOHN F. FINK
Indianapolis, Ind.

Israeli crimes

Thank you for David Burrell's commentary ["Warring Stories," April 20] on the Israeli settlers and the Palestinians. Northern Ireland came to mind, where hundreds of innocent people lost their lives to the bullets and batons of the security forces, as well as to those of hardline loyalists who were, we were told time and time again by the news media, "simply" responding to attack by rioting civilians. To my mind, there are no morally acceptable excuses for bombs set in civilian settings with total disregard for life. These kinds of outrages are deplorable and the perpetrators should be brought to justice. However, there has been a clear trend in reports and commentaries on the Israeli-Palestinian "situation," to play up the killing of one or two Jewish settlers, and totally whitewash the slaying of Palestinian children such as the nine-year-old helping his father paint their new home, or Aida Fteiha, shot dead on her way home from shopping. Equally inexcusable is the action of the bombers.

We should pray for peace in the Holy Land and for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Currently, the balance is totally out of kilter favoring the Israelis, who can indiscriminately kill with apparent impunity. Thank you, David Burrell, for speaking out.

EAMON M. MAGEE
Kensington, Md.

Burrell's errors

David Burrell's "Warring Stories" rightly indicates that there are two conflicting versions coming out of the Middle East, but he seems to have misheard one of them. Israelis were far more than "let down" by the Palestinian leadership's response to Ehud Barak's offer to Yasir Arafat at Camp David last year. The Israelis I've spoken with were shocked not that Arafat "turned it down" but that Arafat had no counteroffer. He simply walked out. What were Israel's next steps supposed to be?

Father Burrell claims that the intifada is "directed as much against the Palestinians' own leadership as releasing pent-up frustration against" the Israelis. But stones, bullets, and mortars have been aimed at Israelis. Palestinian suicide bombers have not gone to Arafat's headquarters.

Burrell also suggests that Israel has completely ignored the question of Palestinian refugees. On the contrary, Barak's proposal--the one to which Arafat had no response--included return of some refugees and compensation for others.

And as for 1967, it was not only Yeshayahu Leibowitz who advocated returning the occupied territories (which had previously been occupied by Jordan). The Israeli government offered to trade land for peace, an offer that was adamantly refused, with profound consequences for the future.