LETTERS
2003 LETTERS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2003
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
June 2003
SO EGREGIOUS
A couple of items in the May 2003 issue of the Mission were so egregious, they could only prompt laughter.
The first was the Mission being aghast at Father Tony Scannell's film series being "recklessly divergent from the U.S. bishops," because it featured films that received poor reviews from their film office ["Precious, Shallow, Patently Ridiculous," May issue]. How exciting it is to learn that the Mission will now avidly embrace and live by every word that comes from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops! That will be most refreshing.
The second was a letter writer "shocked" that archdiocesan officials and others called the Catechism of the Catholic Church a reference text. Poor Anonymous obviously has not read the very book he or she is insisting everyone else read cover-to-cover.
In the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, printed in the very front of the catechism, Pope John Paul explains the reasons for the promulgation of the catechism.
Describing the impetus for the development of the catechism, John Paul recalls the 1985 Synod of Bishops, saying, "Very many have expressed the desire that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed, that it might be, as it were, a point of reference for the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in various regions."
He goes on to state the purpose of the catechism: "this catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms... This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine."
So if the writer is "sickened" by folks calling the catechism a reference book, Anonymous should take his or her beef to the Chair of Peter, where that Dangerous Notion began.
Eric Stoltz
received via e-mail
Editor replies: It is interesting that Mr. Stolz quotes only one section of Fidei Depositum on the use of the catechism. The section Mr. Stolz omits with his ellipsis goes on to say that the catechism "is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us. and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes." The letter writer's "beef" was that, he says, he was told that the catechism is "only a reference book" and that "it is not a book to be read." These notions are not papal notions.
NOT SO GAY AS STONEHENGE
How far more appropriate to a setting in a Lincoln Park, otherwise so welcoming to the East L.A. Hispanic community, would be a monumental memorial to the thousands attacked by diabetes. [See "The Wall," May Mission.] Unlike AIDS, that disease afflicts Mexicans of all ages and sexes, in East Los Angeles and everywhere else, and claims vastly more victims than AIDS every year. No cure is in sight for it, either.
Perhaps sympathy is lacking for diabetics because they have really brought it on themselves by their ruinous lifestyle and dietary choices? All they have to do is stop eating beans and rice and drinking soda pop. No similar remarks are permitted to be made about homosexuals or dope-users sickened by or dead from AIDS -- not within the bounds of compassionate correctness. It is obvious to anyone -- it is proudly proclaimed by its boosters -- that the whole purpose of the AIDS monument in that particular park is to popularize homosexualism or, at least, to authenticate it as an acceptable way of life. The monument, from the picture, looks as permanent as Stonehenge, but not as pretty and certainly not as gay.
Joseph P.D. Kern
received via e-mail
CLARIFICATIONS
As one of the angry Latino residents in Lincoln Heights, allow me to clarify some facts from the article about the proposed AIDS memorial in Lincoln Park ("The Wall," May 2003).
Hugo Pacheco had been bravely fighting the memorial before Friends of Lincoln Park/L.A. was organized. He is not "the founder" of Friends of Lincoln Park/L.A., but one of the founders. According to Stephen Sariñana-Lampson: "The group was formed by several of us who were in complete anger and disbelief regarding the takeover of green space for the AIDS Memorial within Lincoln Park. The original group who helped establish the organization included: Sal Vidaurri, Robert Vega, Trinidad Santana, Sam Rios, Sal Vidaurri Jr., Hugo Pacheco and [Stephen Sariñana-Lampson.]" (http://northeastobserver.com/news/news-updates/letters-to-the-editor.html).
Your article states: "But now some residents who claim that the memorial, 'The Wall-Las Memorias,' is about promoting a gay lifestyle in their community -- especially to their children -- have made it their mission to stop the project. The group, calling itself the Friends of Lincoln Park...." Some of us residents are concerned with the gay lifestyle that the Wall-Las Memorias agency promotes, including "Club RoMANce workshops" (http://thewalllasmemorias.bizland.com/pages/services.html) and its Latino Men's Group that provides "incentives for men to learn more about themselves and practice safe sex." (http://thewalllasmemorias.bizland.com/pages/lmg.html).Someone should buy the L.A. archdiocese bureaucracy the "Lexicon On Ambiguous and Colloquial Terms About Family Life and Ethical Questions" from the Vatican.
Nonetheless, Friends of Lincoln Park/L.A. has a mission to stop the memorial, but not because of the gay issue. Friends of Lincoln Park/L.A. has focused on the green space issue and lack of proper outreach to the community. (http://friendsoflincolnparkla.com/wall/wall_main.html)
The park is not filled with monuments, contrary to your statement: "The park is also filled with monuments." Don't believe or print everything Richard Zaldivar (he's name is spelled with a "z" not with an "s") says. The park has a couple of monuments. The majority of monuments his organization claims are in Lincoln Park are actually right across the street in Parque Mexico. They are two distinct park entities.
Jesus Arellano
received via e-mail
APPALLED AT PACHECO
I am responding to the article on The Wall. As a Catholic, I am appalled that Mr. Hugo Pacheco and his wife use God to justify their actions against a community project. He asserts that a memorial with the names of loved ones who have died to AIDS and murals will promote the gay lifestyle. Please tell me, Mr. Pacheco, how could a name of a woman who got AIDS from her husband promote a lifestyle? In fact, this will remind us how silence and denial could destroy the healthy future of our families. AIDS is here and too many of our Catholic families live in pain. Show some compassion and love. That is what being Catholic is all about.
Mr. Pacheco, to say that you are against a community project, and to do this for God, scares me. You are no different than Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein. They all believed that their actions were for God, but we all know that it was about hate.
Maria,
Lincoln Heights
YOU MISS YOUR AIM
It is difficult to see how the article on pacifism ("Was Jesus A Peacenik?" April Mission) and similar articles can serve to foster the restoration and spread of Catholic culture. Personal remarks about Bishop Gumbleton replaced analysis based on the sources of theological argument. The bishop at least seems to have some sense of the authority of Fathers and Doctors like St. Augustine, which is lacking elsewhere, most of all in the offhand opinions which are as opposed to St. Augustine as that dismissed. The trail from Gumbleton to Rice to Hanink to Waldrop to Father Cusak to Cornell wanders from non-violence to just wars to self-defense to martyrdom to conscientious objection. A reader stumbles over idle speculations and conjectures which culminate in the "talk to Saddam" howler, followed by a principle -- "you can't use weapons that indiscriminately kill innocent people" -- that would ban even bows and arrows. The omission of the important qualification, unless there is injury to the community or to others, hopelessly distorts the commendation of non-violence in Gaudium et Spes. Obligations to defend one's life, the lives of family members, and one 's nation are ignored. The neglect of St. Augustine, who speaks of peaceful wars, wars that are not opposed to peace but the means to peace, of St. Thomas, and of other sources of doctrine, suggests a total ignorance as to how to even proceed in an orderly fashion in theological discussion. Such casualness in treating doctrinal matters is hardly compatible with the aim stated above.
Dr. Richard George
Editor replies: The article in question gave no recommendation on how the United States should proceed with Saddam Hussein. Mr. Hanink did not say anyone should go and "talk to Saddam," but gave as an example of non-violence St. Francis, who went to talk to the Sultan. The article, too, qualifies what it meant by "weapons that indiscriminately kill innocent people" by referring to armaments that are "too indiscriminate" because "the destruction they cause to civilian populations is not merely an incidental, 'double effect,' outcome" of their use. The use of such weapons, by its very character when conducted in civilian centers, is ordered not merely to a stated military aim, but to the destruction of surrounding civilians and/or civilian infrastructure.
PAY BETTER ATTENTION
Bishop Ziemann is in residence in one of our sister monasteries, Holy Trinity in Arizona. Have you been there? I have visited there several times. He could hardly be living in luxurious surroundings! I hope he is in comfortable surroundings, as that is the least our Benedictine hospitality can offer. I would like to know what part of 1963 the Bishop Ziemann and Cardinal Mahoney were together at St. John's Seminary College? I was studying with the cardinal, then newly-ordained Father Mahony, at Catholic University in 1963. He could hardly have been at St. John's. If you are so loose with the facts and with your charity in so short a space, I am truly suspicious of most anything you write. Please pay more attention to charity and truth in your publication.
Father Raymond Roh, OSB,
Monastery of the Risen Christ
San Luis Obispo
Editor replies: The news item in question was a short summary of an article in the March 19 San Francisco Weekly. Neither we nor the Weekly said Bishop Ziemann was living luxuriously at Holy Trinity Monastery. The exact quote is: Ziemann "is residing in comfortable, if not luxurious, exile at a monastery in the Arizona desert." The date citation was our mistake. The Weekly article reads: "Ziemann arrived [at St. John's] in 1963, the year after Mahony, the group's superstar, graduated." I thank Father Roh for pointing this out.
SHUT UP!
Your article in the April 2003 Mission ["Don't Hate Him Because He's Beautiful"] about Father Baker was in such bad taste. You want to know why there are no priests? Look at yourselves -- calling a priest a poster boy!
Get off it. I've never read such ad hominem drivel in a Catholic newspaper. Thank God I don't work in your archdiocese.
Got nothin' good to say? Shut up.
Father Larry Carolan, Pastor,
St. Leo's Parish,
Sonoma