"Vatican Orders Cathedral Changes" was a front-page headline on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on July 3, 2001. Yet the text of Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez's letter regarding the St. John's Cathedral renovation project contains no orders of any kind.

One assumes that the confusion in the Journal Sentinel and the strange assertions of the local television stations arise not from malice or a desire to keep a local story alive and controversial but from a serious lack of knowledge about how the Vatican operates.

As a sovereign state and as the visible center of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican tries to operate quietly and to avoid controversy. Granted, there are exceptions to this modus operandi when speaking of grave matters and even some personnel matters -- e.g. the Bishop who recently married in a ceremony conducted by the Reverend Moon -- but the general rule is to make every effort to resolve issues with a minimum of public notice.

Protestor Al Szews doesn't seem to understand this as he invokes the Vatican at every possible opportunity in his crusade against the Archbishop and the Cathedral Project. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments moved to note four areas where there might be doubts with the relevant canonical and liturgical norms. There were no orders issued by the Congregation or the "Vatican."

The first area concerns the placement of the altar from the apse (the east end of the building) to the central nave. The congregation (Dicastry in Vaticanese) speaks of concerns about the placement of the organ and the placement of the altar. It is interesting to note that Cardinal Medina Estevez himself remodeled a Church and moved the altar in just such a manner.

The second point was the size and relocation of the Blessed Sacrament Chapel that seems based on incorrect measurements. When the vaunted new sources suggested the Tabernacle was too small, I wonder that Mr. Szews who wants nothing changed did not protest any effort to change it. In any case, the correct measurements and a more open entrance should render the questions moot.

The third point is the question of reducing the number of confessionals from four to two. The Cathedral currently only uses one of its confessionals. So, two will effectively double the available opportunities for private confession.

The fourth point concerns the ancient and venerable high altar and baldachino. The altar is quite recent and the baldachino is little more than 50 years old. Referring to them as "old" seems an overstatement, especially from a city as ancient as Rome. The Dicastry then remands the plan to Archbishop Weakland for renewed consideration in the light of the relevant canons and liturgical requirements. The Cardinal awaits a considered response with every good wish and kind regards.

Mr. Szews' suggestion that only by delivering the Congregation's letter on the end of a two by four could they get Archbishop Weakland's attention doesn't seem very steeped in Christian kindness and forbearance. Mr. Kershaw, the canon lawyer in Rome hired by Mr. Szews and others, suggests that the Archbishop who has an earned doctorate as well as countless honorary degrees and others don't know how to read English. This seems singularly silly and impertinent.

It is worth noting that Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church are regarded as the legitimate successors of the apostles. It is as Bishop of Rome that the Pope reigns over the Church. For a canon lawyer or a member of Archbishop Weakland's flock to suggest that he must reverse his plans at the suggestion of a Vatican Congregation or that he is not a peer among peers is totally ridiculous as are so many assertions of the opposition and the stories run by those reporting on the controversy.