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
December 2003
EDITOR'S MEA CULPA
A news item appeared in our November issue {What Would Jesus Do?] detailing a protest by Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests and the group's regional director, Mary Grant, against St. Michael's Abbey for honoring Monsignor Lawrence Baird at a fundraising dinner for St. Michael's Preparatory Academy. Upon re-reading the item, I thought it could be interpreted as a slam on both the abbey and Baird, which was far from its intent. For the record, we did not intend to support SNAP's allegations against Monsignor Baird, nor did we intend to imply anything against St. Michael's Abbey for honoring Monsignor Baird. I have the highest regard for St. Michael's Abbey and the Norbertine priests and brothers; and though I do not know Monsignor Baird personally, those I trust have relayed to me nothing but good reports of the man. Based on the evidence presented, I think the allegations of molestation against Baird spurious and the court's denial of his right to defend himself a miscarriage of justice. Though SNAP folks have honest grievances, the Mission does not support their refusal to honor an ancient principle of our jurisprudence -- that one is innocent until proven guilty. I apologize if our news item gave any credence to SNAP's allegations against Baird or to their protest against St. Michael's Abbey.
THE INDIGNITY OF IT
How strange is your review of the book by Anita Caspary on the history of the Los Angeles area Immaculate Heart Community [see "Witness to Insanity," November Mission]. The author does not give her the dignity of using her correct name, but uses her former religious name, Sister Mary Humiliata. I know this community quite well, and am familiar with the events under question. The IHMs were not a diocesan order but had their roots in Spain. Hence the good Cardinal McIntyre went beyond his normal level of competency and authority in his attempt to impede their implementation of the spirit of the Vatican II reforms. Charles A. Coulombe's article seems to ignore this important fact. Other communities were also implementing Vatican II, but none suffered the kind of reaction that the IHMs were subjected to. That they have continued in their apostolate in the succeeding years is evidence of their strength of purpose and vision of how ordinary men and women can be the church in an age of social responsibility and commitment to their baptismal vows.
Father Robert Miller
received via e-mail
WHY HUMILIATA, NOT CASPARY?
I fail to see how Charles Coulombe's article "Witness to Insanity" contributes to the dialogue concerning the relationship between Cardinal McIntyre and the Immaculate Heart sisters. After referring to the author by her given name (Anita Caspary) in the opening paragraph, he consistently refers to her by her religious name (Sister Mary Humiliata). For what purpose? He also describes her reactions as "angrily," "grudging," "gleefully," and "triumphantly." How does he know what her reactions were?
I would have hoped for a more balanced review.
Deacon John Steele,
Holy Family Catholic Community,
Glendale
COULOMBE RESPONDS:
Dear and Reverend Father Miller: I used Sister's religious name precisely because it is her religious name; that anyone would find that an insult beggars belief. As regards the IHM's Spanish origins, Sister's book trumpets that her branch had been severed from the foundation -- it was and is, after all, the CALIFORNIA Institute of the IHM. As regards the cardinal's actions, they were motivated by a sincere desire (as he told me) to prevent the sisters (and their students, novices, etc.) from quite literally going to Hell. As Father will no doubt be aware, the salvation of souls is the first law of the Church, taking precedence over all others. That Cardinal McIntyre failed was one of the saddest facts of his life; but at least he tried. After all, religious vows are as sacred as marital vows, and the eternal price of breaking them fully as severe.
In any case, whatever his canonical oversight over the IHMs, Cardinal McIntyre certainly owned the schools and other establishments he eventually asked them to vacate. Their own property remained in the hands of the group they morphed into. It is interesting to note, however, that the obedience which Sister Mary Humiliata and her consoeurs steadfastly denied to Cardinal McIntyre, they resolutely demanded from their students, as any who remember their lectures and punishments can attest.
Dear and Reverend Mr. Steele: Had I been able to avoid insulting Sister by avoiding her former lay name at all, I would have done so. Since the book did appear under it, however, I had to use it in the beginning. The adjectives I employed referred to the tone of her writing; as you correctly suppose, I cannot read Sister's thoughts. As far as being "balanced" goes, my review, as the work itself, was written by a witness to the events described -- one who was personally involved. Obviously, Sister's views and mine are affected by our direct experiences; true objectivity will await future historians. In the meantime, I would encourage you to read the book itself.
A REED SHAKEN IN THE WIND
The development of doctrine touched on in your last issue ["These Trends are Perilous," October] is so important a topic that further remarks on it may be useful. Its importance arises from its relation to the foundation of religion, faith. In times when the efforts of modernists to replace sound doctrine with heresy are aided by a do-it-yourself approach to theology in men who wisely leave simpler tasks like changing spark plugs to qualified mechanics, the topic deserves special attention. Doctrine develops by perfecting prior authoritative teaching, not by rejecting it -- just as developing one's mind retains and builds on our first knowledge which is certain but vague. In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII repeated this constant teaching and noted the consequence of departing from it: "to neglect or reject or devalue (basic principles of perennial philosophy and scholastic theology approved by the Teaching Authority) would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind." Dismissing earlier authoritative teaching as erroneous obviously means that all so-called authoritative teaching can be erroneous.
A competent theologian then always shows that his teaching harmonizes with prior authoritative teaching. A competent theologian always distinguishes between principles and prudence: the legitimacy of the death penalty and when it is appropriately imposed. A competent theologian always distinguishes between the personal views of popes and bishops and the teachings of Christ, which they pass on when exercising their teaching offices. He knows that only the latter are infallibly true; that the former may be false or even absurd. The efforts of some to promote peace, as your article suggested, promote a relativism that makes dogma itself a reed shaken in the wind, a wind of hurricane force, thanks to the contempt for tradition often passed off as "the Spirit of Vatican II."
Dr. Richard George