Getting to Know Him

Our cover story reported on Pope Benedict XVI’s first 100 days and what they signal about the future of his papacy and his efforts to rejuvenate the church. Young Catholics let us know that although they missed John Paul II and the fervent devotion he inspired, they want to give Benedict a chance

I read with interest your articles on Benedict XVI’s papacy and the Roman Catholic youth movement [Aug. 15]. The report on attempts by conservative Catholic lay groups to connect with young Europeans noted that it is not clear how many people “revered John Paul’s austere message as much as the man himself.” The quote from Karl Cardinal Lehmann of Germany, who said, “The girls in St. Peter’s Square who cheer the Pope have the Pill in their pockets,” amazed me. I have been a priest for more than 20 years and have worked with youths in the U.S. as well as in Spain. If there is one single issue that made young people crazy about Pope John Paul II during the past quarter-century, it was precisely his stand against the birth-control pill. Flat rejection of the Pill means being committed to true life-giving love. Taking the Pill would do away with truth, life and love, making those things empty and untrue. I was offended by Lehmann’s comment. I bet lots of young girls feel the same way, and I pray they are not discouraged in their beautiful and faith-inspiring struggle.
Claudio J. Urbano
Pamplona, Spain

It is a pity that most of us Catholic young people don’t have the same enthusiasm for our new Pope that we had for his predecessor. But I believe that he deserves our support and the opportunity to be Pope Benedict XVI and not a copy of Pope John Paul II. We unconsciously want him to be like John Paul, but Benedict needs the freedom to be himself.
Ogbu Chinedu
Aba, Nigeria

As The War Grinds On
The subhead of your report on the “ever more brutal” Iraq war stated, “Here’s why American soldiers keep dying” [Aug. 15]. U.S. troops are dying for the same reason that so many were killed in Vietnam: they are where they have no reason to be. After the U.S. left Vietnam to the North Vietnamese, what happened? Is Vietnam in dire straits today without America to back it? No, it’s expanding economically. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis, and get out. That nation will set itself right more easily without the U.S. tipping the balance. You wanted to oust Saddam Hussein. You did. Now leave.
Arunachalam Ashokan
Quilon, India

As a former french paratrooper and commando during the Algerian war, I was surprised by several aspects of your report on the way Iraqi insurgents have adapted their tactics to U.S. forces. That six Marine snipers could be killed so easily while on a mission, as your story reported, shows a basic tactical error: in a military situation of stealth, a prime rule is for members to stay widely apart so everyone doesn’t get killed at once. Also, the lone soldier on patrol in the photo captioned “Carrying On” should have been taught that when patrolling in a hostile environment, you hold your gun with both arms at the ready, since seconds count. And you don’t look at the ground; you keep your eyes level and pivot right and left to search for movement or something that doesn’t belong in the landscape. That’s basically how you stay alive — longer. I fear that the allied forces are not really prepared for this type of war.
Jean-Pierre Gumprich
Retournac, France

Condi Under Pressure
Your story portrayed rice as a very intelligent person with a gift for communicating [Aug. 15]. Unfortunately, such highly qualified people often have their head in the clouds. They formulate theories for solving complicated problems, and sometimes they are influenced by self-interest or the need to follow the boss’s line. That appears to be the case with Rice. I understand that decisions are not made without lots of in-depth study and that Rice is not alone when a policy is hammered out and implemented. But the basic premises of a policy should be inherently sound. In the case of the Middle East, the idea that democracy is the panacea for all ills is extremely naive. The solution for the Middle East situation lies in resolving the Palestinian problem. Why doesn’t Rice understand this? The so-called terrorists have nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with U.S. support for Israel.
Syed Hasnain Ahmed
Islamabad

“The Condi Doctrine” compared U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with George Marshall, the U.S. Secretary of State responsible for the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe in the aftermath of World War II. To compare Rice with Marshall is like comparing a bad apple with a good one. The Marshall Plan helped restore Europe after a devastating war by relieving, as Marshall put it, “hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.” The Condi (and Bush) doctrine attempts to restore Iraq by forcing democracy down Iraqis’ throats, using coercion and military occupation. Notwithstanding Rice’s and the Administration’s claim that the insurgency is coming under control, the body count keeps rising daily, with no end in sight for the quagmire in Iraq.
Ralph Kress
La Mesa, California, U.S.

Your article said Rice’s becoming the “running mate for the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 … will depend largely on whether she can find a way for the U.S. to declare victory in Iraq before support for the Bush doctrine, at home and abroad, runs out.” How many “victories” will it take before the Bush Administration realizes that you cannot buy friendship or bully other nations into it? Although the U.S. rebuilt Germany and freed France, those countries did not support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. No matter how many young Americans die there, Iraq will never be a reliable friend of the U.S.’s.
Ron Thomas
Wollongong, Australia

Rice seems to disregard the terrible, increasing death toll in Iraq and believe that the U.S. is actually winning. That kind of thinking reminds me of the surgeon who announces, “The operation was a success, but the patient died.” I suppose Rice will declare total victory when Iraq has become the world’s largest graveyard.
Ronald Rubin
Topanga, California, U.S.

Sharing Journalists’ Notes
Time‘s decision to turn over Cooper’s reporting notes [July 18] is akin to negotiating with terrorists. It only emboldens enemies of the First Amendment. The issue is not about Time magazine. It is about the public trust that you hold. Or at least held.
Valarie S. Zeeck
Tacoma, Washington, U.S.

Time did the right thing. As a lawyer and a Democrat, I wish the Supreme Court had heard Time‘s appeal and protected the confidentiality of its reporter’s sources. Still, I applaud Pearlstine for making the principled decision to follow the rule of law, much as he believes the law should be different. We don’t have to like laws, orders or rulings. But unless we are anarchists, we should follow them.
Rich McLeod
Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.

As a college journalism student, I was disappointed by Time‘s decision to turn over Cooper’s notes to federal prosecutors — a decision that sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us. Our profession is under fire enough as it is, in the U.S. and around the world. We don’t need media outlets to act more like corporations answering to shareholders than like journalists answering to readers.
Patricia Mazzei
Coral Gables, Florida, U.S.

U.S. Supreme Court Changes
Will president George W. Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as Supreme Court Justice [July 18] serve to unify America, or will it lead to a confrontational crisis? The U.S.’s Founding Fathers gave Supreme Court Justices lifetime appointments, not foreseeing the deeply acrimonious partisanship that would exist in today’s politics. The majority of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, the court decision that legalized abortion, and we don’t need Bush’s circumventing the public’s will through his selection of a Supreme Court Justice.
Ron Lowe
Nevada City, California, U.S.

Democrats and Republicans alike, except for extremists on both sides, admired Justice O’Connor’s flexibility in the court’s contentious decisions. She eschewed rigidity in favor of nuance in each controversial case, and the U.S. has been the better for it.
Gloria Kottick
Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.

The job of a judge is not to express a personal opinion but to read and apply the laws enacted by our elected representatives. A Justice is not authorized to change or ignore the law. How can we fairly enforce our laws if judges do not faithfully comply with them in every detail?
Jon Moseley, Executive Director
Legal Affairs Council
Ashburn, Virginia, U.S.

This may be a good time to do away with lifetime appointments for judges, including those at the federal level. Judges should be required to retire at age 70. We could extend that rule to all those employed by the Federal Government — including members of Congress and the President. We have too many old folks sending young folks to war.
Stanley A. Green
Stockton, California, U.S.

Everybody’s Encyclopedia
Your story on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia [July 18] was encouraging to those of us working on the project of an international encyclopedia. As a longtime linguist who speaks 27 languages and is an enthusiast of multicultural relations among peoples all over the world, I have been supporting a project of the democratization of human knowledge via the Internet since its inception. I am a regular contributor to the Wikipedia, with articles on several subjects. Time‘s story proved a useful support for our dream of bringing culture closer to our readers.
Hamilton Castro
Rio de Janeiro

Judging the Nominee
Re your report on supreme court nominee John Roberts [Aug. 1]: As a Roman Catholic like Roberts, I want to say that being Catholic does not necessarily make a person a right-wing religious fanatic or a pawn of the Pope. Catholics are thinking individuals. I am not a Republican, but I would not mind seeing Roberts as a Justice. Any chance Bush might resign and John Roberts become President?
Nils J. Mikkelsen
Plano, Texas, U.S.

Atomic Anxiety
Re your report on the anniversaryof the bombing of Hiroshima [Aug. 1]: Washington is continually concerned about the possession of nuclear arms by countries that do not have ideal political relationships with the U.S. Its argument that certain nations cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons is ironic, since the U.S. is the only country to date that has deliberately used atomic bombs against civilians. Iran and North Korea do not scare me. The U.S. does.
Christina M. Gebbia
Valencia, Spain

The world would have seen another mushroom cloud but for the politics of restraint and the memory of Hiroshima and its victims. But with the shift from cold war conflicts to unconventional suicide bombings and the quest by Middle Eastern countries for nuclear arms, are sufficient international measures being put in place to avert another atomic holocaust?
Darlington Owhoji
Abuja, Nigeria