Now
there was a surprise when Tom held out this morning's editorial section of The Wall Street Journal. My letter, which I had forgotten,
was published. True, it was edited and tidied up some but Tom said it read well and I certainly like a newspaper which has the guts to print Jesus' name in a letter header. Isn't it sad that such a thing can be considered gutsy these days? Tom pointed out that they undoubtedly received more letters on the subject and said that mine was chosen to represent all those viewpoints in the national newspaper with the largest subscription rate in the country.
Gee, I was already proud. Now I'm insufferably proud.
It may have been edited because my opening sentences were rather condemnatory, possibly needlessly so now that I read it over again. Then again it may have been a space issue as there were two long but very interesting letters from much more famous people than I. One was by Lawrence S. Eagleburger (secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush) about
nuclear policy. Fascinating and you should go read it.
The other from Wang Baodong (Spokesman, Chinese Embassy, Washington), began:
The Chinese government and people are very much displeased with the Journal's decision to publish Rebiya Kadeer's "The Real Story of the Uighur Riots" (op-ed, July 8), which is full of political lies and separatist rhetoric that are schemed to mislead the American public.
Honestly, after such an opening paragraph that is chock full of its own sort of rhetoric, one simply sits back and prepares to enjoy the show. It was spectacular I must admit. I do encourage you to go read the lengthy missive which is designed to leave one standing at attention, singing the Chinese anthem.
At any rate, here is my letter with the edited material in brackets. As I say,
they edited it nicely though I would have wished for a bit more of an intro to the subject. However, let us not look a gift horse in the mouth.
[Tyler Cowden's article, Vaticanomics: The Holy Father Tackles Globalization, does not examine the encyclical in-depth as much as to expose Cowden's own lack of intellectual development.
One is always wise to consider the source and the intended results of a work before excoriating them. Cowden apparently did neither. True enough, Pope Benedict XVI did not set forth the tightly focused global economic plan that Cowden apparently was awaiting as a blueprint for a better future.] True to his master's calling (that would be Jesus Christ, in case Cowden needs a refresher), Pope Benedict instead is calling for a change in men's hearts and minds so that they themselves may reflect their inward spiritual growth outward for positive change in their own societies. This is the goal that has always been set forth for every Christian. Likewise Cowden's sneers about China and India being ignored show his lack of understanding that the pope holds these goals for "all men of good will," meaning the entire world.
Jesus did not preach against slavery or the Roman government's economic plan, and then put forth a blueprint for men to achieve economic gains. He was after something more ethereal and infinitely more precious, men's hearts and souls. Thus Pope Benedict follows in Jesus' footsteps in his encyclical. It is both sad and telling that Cowden expected otherwise. He would do well to read and reflect upon Father Sirico's editorial, "The Pope on Love in Truth," in your own publication, which reminds those who need it that "to this pope's mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people."
As I say, there will be no living with me now!
Editorial focus aside, here are some other great articles that I enjoyed this morning:
