To the editors - Correspondence

Commonweal, Sept 27, 2002

Priceless

I've been a reader for half a century, ever since coming across Commonweal at my public library as a high-schooler.

As I was paying bills recently, I wrote you a check to renew my subscription, and said, "Wow! Forty-seven dollars?!" (I was also renewing other subscriptions for $15.95 or $19.95.)

Then I said to myself, "Wait a minute! What is the value of the information, ideas, and opinions you get from Commonweal's dedicated crew?" Truly, it is many times the value of those other, more secular, journals.

Thank God for Commonweal and the witness you have been all these years.

DAN DAMON
Plainfield, N.J.

Get the facts

Christorpher Ringwald, in his hagiographic essay on Jim Dwyer ("The City Is His Beat," August 16), quotes Dwyer as saying "when a monsignor in Queens can run off with a couple of million dollars in church funds ... you realize how many of the Vatican II reforms fell apart in this country." In fact, the monsignor in question did not "run off" with any money. He did give large sums of money to people he considered needy; most people would not consider many of them worthy of such largesse, but what he did was, unfortunately, legal. I agree that canon law and corporate practice regarding parish administration should be changed, but this misuse of money had little to do with the crumbling of Vatican II reforms, or malfeasance on the part of "guys in pointy hats." It was those "guys" who started the investigation, called in the police, retired the pastor, and discussed the issue in great detail with the parishioners, holding multiple meetings with parish committees. As a former trustee in the parish, I am well aware of the diocese's efforts to correct the problem.

The monsignor in question gained nothing for himself; in fact, he lost his own house and is almost impoverished.

Dwyer's use of "run off" and his description of the "pointy hats" is a clear example of a reporter not getting the facts but using facile language to sell a personal opinion. It calls into question all the wonderful things said about Dwyer as a reporter in the essay. I am afraid it also calls into question Commonweal's judgment: why is this sloppy thinker being lionized?

We Catholics have had too many problems as it is; we don't need journalists--or anyone else--using our misfortune as the basis for their hand-wringing pronouncements, especially when they do not bother to get the facts straight.

JOHN P. MONAGHAN
Forest Hills, N.Y.

Jim Dwyer replies:

I agree with everything John Monaghan says, and more. The ex-pastor gave $700,000 to three ex-convicts, and apparently was a soft touch for money; he had stashed $1.8 million in a secret bank account. Meanwhile, the parish facilities started looking run-down. The parish in question had no finance committee of lay people. Naturally, the parishioners went to the guys in the pointy hats to fix everything. Pardon my syntax. JIM DWYER

Good copy

Christopher D. Ringwald's profile of Jim Dwyer is a heart-warming and provocative reminder of what a journalist's vocation can be at a time when journalism schools, notably Dwyer's own alma mater Columbia, are re-examining the nature and role of journalism in the contemporary cultural context.

Ringwald emphasizes Dwyer's "constant search for the delicate balance between a journalist's sense of mission and professional detachment" and notes that Dwyer is "most comfortable in the space between apathy and zealotry, where he can bring compassion and an eye for the disadvantaged to his work." Ringwald also makes clear that Dwyer would not be the journalist he is without his deep religious roots and sensibility.

Thank you for the wonderful article.

THOMAS EWENS
Middletown, R.I.

A long tradition

In your reply to Patrick Connor's July 12 letter on rights talk in the Catholic Church (Correspondence, August 16), you write "whatever `rights' may lurk in canon law, to be sprung on us when they suit the Vatican's views, we doubt they are the kind of rights we enjoy as citizens of the United States, which generally seem to be the kind of rights ARCC promotes in urging reform of the Catholic Church."

It is true that the language in ARCC's Charter of the Rights of Catholics in the Church sounds vaguely similar to a document like the Bill of Rights, but the concepts are much older than this nation. For example, Right 1 states that all Catholics have the right to follow their informed consciences in all matters. Thomas Aquinas was a great teacher of this truth. By 1776, he was long in heaven. Also, Right 5 in the charter states, "All Catholics have the right to a voice in all decisions that affect them, including the choosing of their leaders." In 1215 the Magna Carta granted nobles in Britain a voice in public affairs. Our founding fathers and mothers had, among other things, the Magna Carta in mind when they considered breaking free from England.

The notion that a democratic church is solely an American vision is unfounded. Two centuries ago, the United States and indeed the Catholic Church in this country were founded by refugees from tyranny. Those early immigrants (even today's immigrants) brought with them a spirit that cries out for the recognition of the rights of individuals. The yearning for democracy is not strictly American. It is human.