LETTERS
2004 LETTERS
December
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2004
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
September 2004
SORRY, NO BRIEFCASE
Since when does responsible journalism overlook the obligation to check out the story? This article [“All That Perceptions Stuff,” July/August Mission] would not pass as a high-school research paper. The author takes innuendo, assumption, and half the story to be the “the story.”
I do not call the Teisseres liars, but I would have preferred at least a shred of editorial objectivity. Just as a modest example, allow me to reply to the quoted description of me: “he snapped his briefcase shut and said with a big grin....” I don’t carry a briefcase. I haven’t owned one for ten years.
There are much bigger problems, but a thorough reply would give the article more respect than it deserves.
The Rev. Douglas Cook, JCL
received via e-mail
Editor’s reply: Rev. Cook says he does not call the Teisseres liars, but.... But what does he call them? I e-mailed Cook, asking him to give us a more “thorough [and substantitve] reply.” He refused.
STEPHENS NEVER HIRED BY US
In your July/August 2004 article titled, “All That Perceptions Stuff,” you state that Rod Stephens was recently hired by Mission San Juan Capistrano as a consultant for the “renovation” of its Serra Chapel. We have never hired Rod Stephens for this or any other project connected with the restoration work on the Serra Chapel.
The Very Reverend Arthur A. Holquin, Pastor,
San Juan Capistrano
Editor’s note: After receiving Father Holquin’s letter, I e-mailed him asking him what he made of the following statement made by Father Joseph Fenton, Orange diocese’s spokesman, to our writer, Robert Kumpel: “As I understand it, the pastor [Monsignor Holquin] hired him [Rod Stephens] as a consultant and a layman on a preparatory committee and nothing is final yet. They consulted him as a professional liturgist and, like I said, there is nothing permanent yet, it was just done informally.”
Father Holquin sent the following reply:
Unfortunately, Father Fenton was somewhat imprecise in his response. While it is true that Rod Stephens participated in one preparatory committee meeting, a decision was subsequently made that all liturgical aspects of the “restoration” project (more precise term than “renovation” since we are dealing with curatorial issues of re-gilding, historical restoration, etc.) would be overseen by me as former director of the diocesan office for worship as well as one who holds a Pontifical Licentiate in Sacramental Theology from the University of Louvain. Neither the parish nor the Historic Mission “hired” Rod Stephens. The contact was at the level of one informal meeting.
I know there are problems in the church, and I have appreciated seeing them discussed in the Mission. However, when I read a caption that says “Out to Lunch,” [June Mission] referring to my cardinal, I realize that this is not a respectful commentator but a divisive, disrespectful publication. “Blessed are the peacemakers” is something that we strive to live for, and your publication is not helping me in this journey for holiness.
Although your concerns are valid, I don’t believe griping about it disrespectfully in unsolicited mailings is the holy path to take. Please consider spending your time praying for the church and its clergy instead of this publishing effort. The results you desire will better be served, and the Lord will rejoice in your love of His Holy Church rather than be grieved by your disdain of it.
Please stop mailing us the Mission.
Cynthia Irvine,
Quartz Hill
Editor replies: The headline, “Out to Lunch,” is an apt one, since, to judge by his written statements, Cardinal Mahony wants to reduce the Eucharist to little more than a meal that fortifies us for “mission.” If Mrs. Irvine read the entire article, she will remember its argument: that in grossly de-emphasizing the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Cardinal Mahony diminishes the patrimony of the Faith as traditionally taught by the Church and reiterated in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia. If Cardinal Mahony is to be judged by what he has written, it is he who shows disdain for the Church. I am sure Mrs. Irvine would not call for the quietism of “pray and keep your mouth shut” if we reported on a prelate who kept a seraglio of young boys. But for a successor of the apostles to teach heresy is far worse, for heresy directly corrupts the soul, cutting it off from the truth, who is Christ. It is perhaps too mild to say of one who does so, that he is “out to lunch.”
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT VIOLATES SANCTITY OF LIFE
In reference to a letter ("No Comparison," July/August Mission) in which the correspondent avers that she “is appalled and disgusted by [clergy] ... and laity who ... compare the death penalty with ... abortion,” please note — if one accepts the metaphor about life as a seamless garment, one must as a corollary accept that its sanctity cannot be compromised and profaned. That concept mandates adherence to a belief system in which all murder both impugns and trivializes that sanctity. Captial punishment, a form of premeditated and of preventable homicide, violates the sanctity of life.
If, moreover, one attests that through his crucifixion, Jesus died to expiate the sins of mankind, one can logically argue that that one execution should eternally suffice. If, as Jesus seemed to suggest, violence is a substitute both for thinking and for behaving, then the sanitized violence of capital punishment can be embraced neither as Christian nor as rational.
Alternatives to capital punishment exist. Those alternatives respond to legitimate communal aspirations for justice and for safety. They respond religiously to tenets of faith.
K. Bandell,
Norwalk