Vatican gets it right in decision on women Re: "Vatican revises its rules on clerical sex abuse," July 16

I commend the Vatican for reaffirming the attempted ordination of women as a "grave crime."At first sight it may seem that the demands of radical feminism in favor of a total equality between man and woman are extremely noble and, at any rate, perfectly reasonable.

However, this kind of emancipation of women signifies that sexuality is no longer rooted in anthropology; it means that sex is viewed as a simple role, interchangeable at one's pleasure.Logically this means that the whole being and the whole activity of the human person are reduced to pure functionality.

Women, who are creative in the truest sense of the word by giving life, do not "produce," however, in that technical sense valued by a society that worships at the foot of efficiency. Ultimately, the emancipation proffered by radical feminists results only in women conforming themselves to a culture of production that seeks nothing but profit and power.

In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.

Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario

Claiming necessity ignores faked intelligence Re: "Was Bush moved by hubris or duty?" July 14

Noemie Emery would have us believe that President George W Bushinvaded Iraq out ofaperceived necessity rather thanasa war of choice started out ofhubris, but her rationale convenientlywould have us forget the faked and stovepiped intelligence upon which his decision to invade was predicated. Along with theBritish, our intelligence was compromised by"fitting the facts to the policy" rather than letting the facts determine the policy and by blackballing prominentopponents such astop Bush stafferLewis "Scooter" Libbydid byouting Valerie Plame.

Emery's notion that Saddam,thenin a power struggle with al Qaedawhich perceived him as too secularist, would give some terrorist group a weapon of mass destruction we had no proof he even had is nonsensicalfor no other reason thanthatour nuclear arsenal would have wreakedon Saddam and Iraq aswift and devastating a counter.Deterrence and containment work.

Dino Drudi