As Received - Our Readers

How Sweet It Is
To Be Loved By You
Readers share their opinions.

Sweet Home Alabama
Thank you for putting out an excellent magazine for apologetics and evangelization. I live in a small town 50 miles southwest of Birmingham in a largely non-Catholic area. This magazine is a great tool to use to help other Catholics realize the fullness of our Faith and to remove the falsehoods and misunderstandings our non-Catholic brothers and sisters still hold. May God bless you always.
David Dilleaher, Tuscaloosa, AL

Defending Envoy
I enjoy your magazine with the utmost enthusiasm. I am glad to see a magazine that deals with apologetics in a manner such as yours. I was saddened to read (in May/June issue) that there are people who are "turned off" by your tongue-in-cheek approach. I, for one, am glad the articles are laced with such levity. To digest all the information we need to know would be a feast I would walk away from, were there no breaks between courses. I do hope that those who have canceled subscriptions will come back and give the magazine a fair chance.

I would also like to say I was very pleased to read the article by Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun on the myth of overpopulation. I have, many times, encountered those that would have me believe that I, as a "breeder," am destroying the planet. I have always conveyed to these "chicken littles" that there is no threat of overpopulation, and now I have the numbers to prove it. Keep the information and humor coming. I wait in anticipation.
J. Munday, via e-mail

We're Hiring Him For Our PR Department
I was so taken aback by the letter from Steven and Debra Johnston in a recent issue (May/June '98), that I had to write you myself. The Johnstons said they felt Envoy was "too snappy and flippant," the "graphics ugly," and the magazine just "too gung-ho." But I say, Amen! These are the characteristics that make Envoy my favorite magazine. I think Envoy's graphics are excellent; they're eye-catching, colorful and always enhance the related articles. I especially like Bill Gerhold's illustrations. As for Envoy's attitude, I love it! The humor is upbeat and never venomous; in fact, the Envoy staff poke fun at themselves more than anyone else. More importantly, the humor shows that the folks at Envoy enjoy being Catholic — they convey an exuberance for the Faith which is contagious. Scripture tells us to "be joyful in the Lord and rejoice in His salvation" (Psalm 35:9).

How can we make our Faith appealing to others if we come across as dreary and somber? Finally, I love Envoy's content. The articles are always interesting and informative. My favorite regular feature is Nuts & Bolts. Tim Staples doesn't just set out Catholic teaching on particular doctrines, he walks the reader through the issue, giving practical suggestions on how Catholics can correct misconceptions about Catholic teaching and share their faith with others. Random Access and What Would You Do? are also excellent sources for practical evangelization tips and techniques.

In addition to these great regular features, Envoy readers have been treated to fine articles by Peter Kreeft, Michael O'Brien and Thomas Howard. And, each month now, we get Scott Hahn's Scripture Matters (a Hahnvoy in my Envoy!). The only problem I have with Envoy is that every time a new issue arrives at my house, I have to play "Rock-Paper-Scissors" with my wife and son to see who gets to read it first. God bless you all and keep up the great work.
Richard Ryan, Ramona, CA

Raiders Of the Lost Article
I give up. Your May/June cover promises an article on the lessons learned at a Catholic/Protestant debate. I have scoured the magazine and can't find anything about a Saturday night debate. What am I missing? Is it that there is nothing to be learned from a Catholic/Protestant debate? I must say you've hit upon an ingenious ploy for getting me to read every word including the ads. But surely you are not referring to the ad on page 9? That would be "legally accurate." But it would be inappropriate. In fact, it would be wrong (ha!).

By the way, congratulations on delivering the magazine prior to the Autumnal equinox and even before the start of the regular NFL season! All those other boring magazines send their issues out weeks, even months before the date on the cover. On another note, I have to disagree totally with my friends, neighbors and fellow parishioners, the Johnstons (May/June As Received). Your magazine is not too snappy, flippant, ugly or loud. As we already established, it is more sluggish than snappy. And when it comes to flippant, ugly and loud, I'd say it strikes about the right balance. Please don't lose your sense of fun. Your work is very effective. There are different gifts, but one Spirit.

In all seriousness, Envoy has been my favorite magazine for quite some time.
Rich Davis, Ellington, CT

Thanks for your support, Rich. The debate article was the May/June Nuts and Bolts, which takes place at a debate.
— Editor

Patrick Madrid's Narrow Escape
I almost had a bone to pick with Patrick Madrid's article, "Pope Fiction." On page 33, paragraph 8, where he says that the name "Ellen Gould White" adds up to 666, he left out the "L" in Gould. I was going to say it's hard enough to be fighting for the Catholic Church without having wrong facts. But alas, he is correct. "Ellen Gould White" does add up to 666. Mr. Madrid's only error was not including the "L." What a great article and what a truly great magazine! Thank you.
Tom Jaksha, via e-mail

A Note From Honest Abe
I have just started subscribing to your magazine, and am thrilled with the content. I have subscribed to several Catholic magazines, but Envoy is head and shoulders above any other that I have tried, as far as meeting my specific needs at this time. I especially enjoy Tim Staples' Nuts & Bolts column, but all of it is very good. It is readable and understandable, yet contains enough really practical information to be very useful both in dialogue with non-Catholics, and in the education of Catholics (myself especially!)
Abe Fisher, via e-mail

My Typewriter Has No "O"
Greeting, brothers. I'm 35 and I love G_D and the Catholic Church. I came across your Web page today and it touched my heart very dearly. Sometimes, I feel I am alone on these issues. Reading your web page warmed my heart and brought a tear to my eye. Sometimes, my soul feels so heavy seeing people give so much to their lost faith and get so little good back from it. I'm looking forward to ordering your magazines. I hope it will help me so I can help, in a more productive manner, to lead people to what is right. G_D bless you.
Tyner Douden, via e-mail

Disappointed With Father Hugh
I love Envoy. It's my favorite magazine. Still, I must strongly disagree with something Fr. Hugh Barbour wrote in the March/April issue regarding Medjugorje. He stated that Bishop Zanic had the last word on the validity of the apparitions, and that obedience to his decision was required. But this claim was contradicted in a recent letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In it, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone wrote, "What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of 'Famille Chretienne,' declaring: 'My conviction and my position is not only non constat de supernaturalitate, but likewise, constat de non supernaturalitate of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje,' should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion" (May 26, 1998 letter to Bishop Gilbert Aubry). It seems, then, that the Holy See has instituted its own investigation, taking over the Bishop's decision. I'm sure Envoy wants to keep the awesome reputation it has built up. I was disappointed that Fr. Hugh did not have all the facts straight on this point. In light of this new information, I ask him to reconsider his statement.
Steph, via e-mail

Fr. Hugh Barbour Responds:
Frankly, I'm amazed at how a very calm presentation of the problems related to the events of Medjugorje can cause people to become quite excited. The argument is usually advanced that the "fruits" of the apparitions are the proof of their authenticity. This is in some measure true, if by "fruits" one means the holy lives of those to whom the grace of the apparitions is supposed to have been given. The Church has canonized St. Bernardette, for example, and has declared venerable Francisco and Jacinta of Fatima. The fruits which are evident in the lives of those who have made pilgrimages to Medjugorje give witness to the authenticity of the faith and devotion of those people and their use of the means of grace which the Church has always encouraged the faithful to use. They do not provide proof that the graces alleged to have been given to the seers are genuine. For that, the seers themselves must be examined by the authority of the Church, which up until now has made judgments which are negative (all the bishops of Mostar since the events began in Medjugorje) or very reserved (the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia).

The Holy Father has said nothing in any official capacity about Medjugorje, even though he has been to Bosnia. To claim he supports the apparitions is just conjecture, not fact. In reality, when he spoke in the Cathedral of Sarajevo in Bosnia in 1997, the Holy Father praised the pilgrimages to the official diocesan shrine of Our Lady Queen of Peace, "Kraljica Mira," in Hrasno forty kilometers from Medjugorje, and called it in a letter to Bishop Peric in the same year, "a true center of Marian devotion." It's very telling that the Holy Father would make a point of praising a much smaller and almost unknown shrine which has the same title as the devotion practiced at Medjugorje (and is in the very same region), and make no mention at all of the events of Medjugorje. It was clearly his quiet way of supporting the bishop there, and of encouraging the devotions approved by the Church's legitimate pastors.

Hit and Myth
I was extremely dismayed by Jacqueline Kasun's "myths about overpopulation." What a mess of academic hyperbole!

In the first place, no one is going to be convinced by her argument. She may be a qualified economist, but she needs to learn something about rhetoric. To argue that there is no global warming, ozone depletion or deforestation puts you in the same category as an ostrich with its head in the sand or an attorney for the tobacco industry. You lose all credibility.

Secondly, there are arguments that are credible. For example, we can look at the incredible waste of our natural resources, the manic over-consumption and over-use of fossil fuels by industrialized nations, of which ours is the worst offender. We can show how by consuming less, there can be enough resources for all. Ignoring, if you will, all the grain now stored in silos, if we just took the land currently devoted to livestock grazing and planted grain instead, we could more than feed the world's population.

Admittedly, though the arguments may be credible, convincing Americans that they should do without hamburgers and jet-skis so that others may live requires a conversion most won't want to face. It's easier to demand population control of others so that we might justify our greed.

We could point to research indications that there is an increase in fertility rates when a population is in distress, such as wartime. Conversely, we see decreases in fertility rates in affluent, developed nations (as Ms. Kasum herself noted). What that tells me is that "Nature" (a.k.a. Divine Providence) can take care of the population if we will take care of each other. We need to see people as more valuable than "things." We need to trust our heavenly Father for the size of our families. We need to live more simply, as good stewards of the earth's resources, so that others may simply live. We need to believe that God really is in charge of history and really does care for us more than the sparrow or the lilies of the field. Let's put the blame for these "myths" where it belongs: on our own sinfulness and lack of faith.
Joan Caldwell, Kokomo, IN

Jacqueline Kasun Responds:
It's true, as Joan Caldwell says, that "if we just took the land currently devoted to livestock grazing and planted grain instead, we could more than feed the world's population." But there's no need to do this, because the rest of the world is fully capable of feeding itself.

Africa itself could feed the world with its abundant agricultural resources, but Africans starve because their leaders prefer to make war, confiscating farmers' output in order to buy arms abroad. The leaders of North Korea let children starve while the government bleeds the farming population in order to build missiles.

These problems would continue even if Americans were to give up hamburgers and jet skis, as Ms. Caldwell suggests. Americans have, in fact, for many years, given a great deal of food and other goods to the poor in other countries. This is, I believe, our Christian duty. We should be very thankful that we've been able to do this. But we shouldn't feel guilty, or raise our children to feel guilty, about living in this rich and productive land. We're rich because we're productive. Instead of warring on each other, we're raising food and producing a wealth of other goods. If we were to have a civil war, we'd suffer as people do in the Congo. We should also be careful not to ruin agriculture in other countries with our exports of cheap food.

I gave the sources of my information about the climate and world forests in my article. Joan Caldwell can find more information in my book and in a very good book by Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw, Facts Not Fear: A Parent's Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment (Regnery, 1996). My book gives detailed information about the world network of power-seeking organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, that seek to be in charge of "saving" us from the "environmental holocaust."

Joan Caldwell rightly reminds us we should "see people as more valuable than 'things'" and that "God really is in charge of history." I'd add that "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Kasun Dismissed!
As a scientist, an argument I have to deal with frequently to which I have the fewest answers concerns "individual reproductive rights," particularly the issue of artificial contraception. As the story goes, without it, the world would be flooded with human beings even while it is already overpopulated. Even though I had suspicions about such a story, I had neither the information nor the resources to obtain information which I would need to debate the point. That is why I was particularly happy to see the article "Too Many People?" by Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun appear in your last issue (May/June 1998).

Unfortunately, though, while reading the article, I found several misrepresentations on the subject of the present state of the Earth's climate system. As Dr. Kasun points out, frequently one hears that "overpopulation is causing global warming." I cannot speak to the popularity of that sentiment, but I can assure her that I have never seen this in the scientific literature. I am not aware of any scientific publications in the field of climate research which attempt to demonstrate a direct connection between birth rates and global warming. The papers I do read investigate the possible connection between global warming over the last century and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. I hope this relieves at least some of the suspicions Dr. Kasun has about climate research.

At this point, though, Dr. Kasun's points become riddled with oddities. First, she quotes a line in the "Leipzig Declaration" which states "there does not exists today a general scientific consensus about. . . greenhouse warming." I have never heard of a "Leipzig Declaration" and still cannot find anything on it after a library search. Also, there is indeed scientific consensus about some issues of global warming and not others: to what lack of consensus does Dr. Kasun refer? Third, Dr. Kasun brings up the names of "respected climatologists" Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard S. Lindzen and Robert D. Balling because they "vigorously dispute the notion of a global warming danger." Hugh Ellsaesser has written one letter-to-the-editor and has never published any original research on the subject. His one letter-to-the-editor was immediately repudiated for misassociating people with institutions. Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, generally argues not that global warming is not happening but the degree to which we can expect it to occur in the future. An especially brilliant scientist, he points out theoretical possibilities of how the state of the atmosphere might react in the future to blunt the impact of an increased greenhouse effect. Currently, no data exists to confirm or reject his hypothesis because we currently do not have the ability to obtain the relevant data. Nonetheless, the international panel assembled by the United Nations treats his work very fairly, and consequently, Prof. Lindzen has consented to sign his name to the document.

Finally, Dr. Kasun refers to "the satellite readings of global temperature" which indicate no warming of the atmosphere. She is referring to observations of the Microwave Sounding Unit on NOAA satellites in analysis done primarily by Roy W. Spencer and John R. Christy. The results of their work have stood in stark contrast to the measurements by land-based meteorological stations over more than a century and weather balloons (radiosondes) over the last half-century. I don't know why Dr. Kasun does not mention these. Not surprisingly, an error in the analysis by Dr.'s Spencer and Christy has been corrected to reveal that the satellite data, in fact, do show warming over the past 15 years. In short, the scientific consensus is that the atmosphere is warming, but whether that warming is caused by an increased greenhouse is not agreed upon. Thinking will converge, though, as each year the global average temperature is higher than the previous year (yes, 1997 is the warmest year on record, which is just in front of 1996, which is just in front of 1995, etc.).

In light of these points, I would suggest to Dr. Kasun that instead of arguing that global warming is not occurring, she argue that there is no reason why we cannot restrict greenhouse emissions and continue to propagate the species simultaneously. Maybe electric costs would rise providing us a convenient way of sacrificing to God. Maybe we ought to make a commitment to cleaner alternatives such as hydroelectric power or nuclear power. Maybe we ought to consider carpooling to work. Mostly, we ought to consider not abusing the Earth that God has given us dominion over so that we can live as comfortably as we'd like.

Then Dr. Kasun argues that the ozone hole is not formed because of world overpopulation because we are not even certain it exists. First, scientists do not argue that ozone is depleted because of overpopulation, but because of very cold temperatures in the stratosphere and man-made chlorofluorocarbons chiefly manufactured in the world's most prosperous countries. Then Dr. Kasun quotes Fred Singer, perhaps the least respected scientist (besides Patrick Michaels) in the climate research community, because his sole sources of funding have been consortia of oil companies and chemical manufacturers who stand to lose money should restrictions on emissions of CFC's and carbon dioxide be implemented. It's like being funded by tobacco companies to study the effects of smoking on health: we all know what the conclusions will be a priori. Also, rest assured that the ozone hole exists. See the data yourself at http://jwocky.gsfc. nasa.gov/eptoms/ep.html.

Finally, even though Dr. Kasun suggests that those who have implemented the ban of CFC production are the tools of profit-seeking chemical companies who will replace CFC's, I'll guarantee that the scientists who have done the relevant research are my colleagues and friends and teachers, all highly trustworthy, some Christian, and dedicated to seeking the truth.

While I am able to spot mistakes in a non-expert's assessment of climate change, I am not able to discern mistakes in assessments of the agricultural capacity of the Earth. I am left to wonder, though, whether similar numbers of mistakes were made there, too. I hope not, as Dr. Kasun's arguments on those points both here and in her book (The War Against Population) seem quite good. I encourage Dr. Kasun to refine her arguments in the future and to let me know when she publishes again.
Stephen S. Leroy, Pasadena, CA

Jacqueline Kasun Responds:
Dr. Leroy seems to have misunderstood me. He accuses me of an assortment of "misrepresentations" and "oddities" which are so serious, in his opinion, as to cast doubt on much of what I say. He claims he found no reference to the Leipzig Declaration in his library (as if I made it up or got it from some unreliable source). In fact, he could easily have found it on his computer at http://www.sepp.org/ipcccont/item11.htm. The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change was based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on November 9-10, 1995 under the sponsorship of the Prime Minister of the State of Saxony. I stated that "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide" and "most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever." The statement was signed by 79 scientists, including Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences. Note that the Symposium was concerned with "the greenhouse controversy," while Dr. Leroy insists that "the scientific consensus is that the atmosphere is warming." If there is such a consensus why is there a controversy? Again, contradicting Dr. Leroy's claim of consensus, the Petition Project of 1998, with some 15,000 signatures, again including Dr. Seitz, says, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouses gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Dr. Leroy can find this statement at http://206.67.56.58/pproject/s33p37.htm. This petition urges the U. S. government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, if there is "consensus" about global warming, why was there a major dispute in 1996 over the report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change? Dr. Frederick Seitz publicly charged that someone "rewrote basic technical material . . . with the result that scientific doubts about man-made global warming were suppressed" (Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996).

Though Dr. Leroy faults me for not mentioning Spencer and Christy, I am aware of their work showing that the satellite data do not exhibit global warming. I am also aware of the alleged "error" which was supposedly found in it, as Dr. Leroy points out in his letter. Spencer and Christy thanked the scientists who found the "error" and corrected their analysis, and again found the "data still don't show the expected signature of global warming" (see gov/new-home/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm). Dr. Leroy does not mention this. Contrary to Dr. Leroy's accusation, I did not say that the ozone hole may not exist. I said, truthfully, that it, like global "warming," is also a matter of intense scientific dispute. This is because not all scientists agree that it is caused by chlorofluorocarbons released by activity and many scientists do not believe that it threatens the climate or life on the planet. The ozone "hole" is a temporary thinning of the ozone layer during the Antarctic spring. Dr. Leroy launches an ad hominem attack on Dr. S. Fred Singer, who called the ozone scare a "misuse of science." Dr. Singer is an atmospheric and space physicist who participated in the earliest ozone measurements in the upper atmosphere and Dr. Leroy's insult is not an answer to the scientific arguments and evidence that the "hole" may not be the result of human activity and may not be a threat to human health.

This dispute is important not only because the ban on CFC's increases the cost of refrigeration in hot climates where many poor people live, but also because the Clinton administration, obsessed with its war against CFC's, has even gone so far as to ban CFC asthma inhalers for children. Robert M. Goldberg, senior research fellow at the Center of Neuroscience, Medical Progress and Society of George Washington University, protested this in the Wall Street Journal, September 19, 1997.

Also, in my article I did not say that scientists claim to have found a relationship between the birth rate and climate change. On this point, Dr. Leroy and I are in agreement. However, the Clinton administration, working together with the United Nations and many government supported special interest groups, has insisted that saving the planet from catastrophic climate change requires population control. And these groups have issued a steady stream of propaganda on this theme on television and in the other media and in the schools and colleges. Here are just a few examples: Vice President Al Gore has claimed that to combat "an environmental holocaust without precedent" which he likened to a "black hole," the "first strategic goal should be the stabilizing of world population" (Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, Houghton Mifflin, 1992, p.177). Tim Wirth, then Secretary of State for Global Affairs, told the National Press Club on July 12, 1994 that "the spiral of population growth will dim . . . every environmental endeavor." Among a host of recommendations to save the environment, President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development has said that "population must be stabilized." Wirth sent accolades to the Population Reference Bureau for its "educational" materials showing "the links between population. . . and the environment," according to the Bureau's Publications Catalog for Spring/ Summer 1997. Wirth insists that U.S. efforts to reduce birthrates abroad must also apply to our own country (where the birthrate is already below the replacement level) (Speech to "Soap Summit II," New York, September 7, 1996). Agenda 21, produced by the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, claimed that "the growth of world population" is a cause of "increasingly severe stress on the life-supporting capacities of our planet." Herman Daly, an economist at the World Bank, has called for the government to license births in order to counter the alleged greenhouse effect, ozone hole and other environmental scares. His arguments appear in the book he wrote with John Cobb, For the Common Good, (Merlin Press, 1990). It is astonishing that Dr. Leroy seems to be oblivious to this steady stream of official propaganda regarding the connection between population and climate change. And it is sad that his response to a discussion of these facts is not to provide scientific evidence or argument but to cast slurs on the credentials, ability and objectivity of those who offer evidence he doesn't like. I appreciate Dr. Leroy's comments and I hope my response will be helpful.

Airing a good suggestion
Thank you for your magazine and cutting-edge Catholic apologetics topics. Your staff does a wonderful job. The magazine is topnotch and I pray for your success and will continue to support your magazine and endeavors. Envoy provides crisp writing and eye-catching graphics that are so impressive that I have sent several anonymous subscriptions to my fallen away Catholic friends. I know they read it, because their comments to me about religion and the Church have increased since they started receiving their subscription.

Suggestion: I know you are probably up to your eyeballs in work, but I have an idea I want you to put on the back burner until I become a millionaire so I can finance this endeavor. Take your magazine expertise and bravado into AM radio. Find a good market with Catholic and non-Catholic cross over where you can take some of the stuffiness out of typical Catholic radio.

It may be a while before I get to millionaire status, but if you ever started something like this, I would certainly support it from my present situation. Keep up the excellent work!
Thomas Crown, San Diego, CA

Get a Young Life!
"I read with interest the section entitled, "It's a Not So Wonderful Young Life" in a recent edition of Envoy. I'm a parent of two sons and empathize with the mother who is concerned that her daughter not dilute her Catholic faith by attending Young Life meetings. However, I am also a staff member of Young Life. Young Life is clearly Christian but is neither a Protestant nor Catholic organization. Many organizations like that are worthy of trust, while others are not. The proof is in the track record and support base. Over the years, we have had many Catholic priests and even a few bishops who have served as advisers to us. People like myself are invited to speak and participate in activities of Serran's, NFCYM, World Youth Day and various Diocesan events. In some parts of the world, for example in the Philippines, the work of Young Life is almost exclusively Catholic. In other words, we are supported by and support Catholic ministry ventures.

The best way that I can describe our philosophy and theology is to refer your readers to the NFCYM booklet, The Challenge of Catholic Youth Evangelization. That booklet articulates precisely what we believe and how we operate. Evangelization, as articulated in the booklet and in Young Life groups, is both verbal and non-verbal, always relational, and totally based in the theology of the Incarnation.

Going to a Young Life meeting should in no way be construed as "leaving the Faith" as was pointed out in your article. Our desire is that every young person will have the opportunity to experience the reality of Christ and be faithful followers of Him. Catholic kids should know Catholic doctrine and attend Mass. Doing that however, does not have to replace attending Young Life gatherings with dozens and sometimes hundreds of other young people of all Christian persuasions. Many Catholic parents would join me in desiring such a positive influence for our kids. Catholics and Protestants work together in communities all over the world to promote justice, righteousness and evangelization. Leading Catholic cardinals, bishops and educators have joined forces with Protestant Evangelical leaders to commit themselves to promote the Kingdom of God in many ways. Young Life has always sought to be part of that positive form of Christian ecumenism. We agree with Pope John Paul II that parents should be the primary educators of their children in the Faith. Indeed Catholic young people can and do support the faith expressions of their Church and are involved in Young Life.
Cliff Anderson, National Coordinator, Young Life — Catholic Relationships, Colorado Springs, CO

Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
After reading your magazine for a few months, it occurs to me that your sole purpose is to discredit the Protestant Church. Since they are happy, and since they know the Truth through the born again experience, why don't you expend your energies in trying to reach the unchurched?

I have found a greater joy and closeness to Jesus Christ in nondenominational churches than ever I could in Roman Catholicism. And we should never subscribe to the one-world religion even if the Pope wants it!
Janice Judd, Honolulu, HI



Express yourself. Send your comments to: Editor, Envoy Magazine, P.O. Box 640, Granville, OH 43023, E-mail: editor@envoymagazine.com.