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
December 2004
WORTHLESS PAPERS
I am asking you to stop sending me your monthly newsletter, which is just an attack on authority. It makes no sense to send a dozen of these worthless papers to people who work in the ACC [American Catholic Church? Ed.]. What do you hope to accomplish with it?
Sister Alina Sincemaille, ICM,
received via e-mail
Editor replies: I asked Sister Alina to explain where and when the Mission has attacked authority. She did not reply. As far as I know, our writers have always upheld the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is the authority for Catholics. If we have not done so, I would like to know when and where, so as to correct the error. I welcome any readers who wish to write in and show how we have departed from Catholic authority.
MAHONY A HERETIC?
In one of your editor replies to a letter to the editor in the September '04 edition (see "Not Respectful But Divisive" and "Out to Lunch," referring to Cardinal Mahony), you allege Mahony to be a heretic. I agree. However, where is the proof? I can lay out a case based on what he has failed to do, but it requires discernment other than objective. In other words, I don't know of any things he has said or done which have been called heretical by his superior.
This leads to the problem of what heresy is: can heresy be present without a judgment by a superior?
It reminds me of the logical problem I first heard in my public high school physics class -- if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, will it make a sound? This is kind of an introductory question, since one has to assume many things that don't exist to be alive and well in the question. One such thing is the absence of all animals, which can sense the effect of the falling tree on the environment. It also has to deny the fact that no one was there to see the tree fall, and can only presume it fallen and not having come into existence in its present state. And so forth.
But for a cardinal to commit heresy -- how is this to be a known fact? If, for example, a cardinal says to you directly that Jesus never existed, would this make him a heretic? But first, would the statement itself apart from the cardinal be a heretical statement? That is, by what authority? If you say by God's, then who are you to speak for God in our hierarchical Church? Then if you point to various Church teachings which are written down, still who are you to interpret even the clearest of these teachings, since it is the pope who has the final say -- or does he? So, you see, what I am driving at in this obviously difficult question. And you see my bias, which matches your allegation.
Perhaps it is not to be pronounced other than by some spiritual judgment on Cardinal Mahony, or by some bolt of lightening that fries him in our time, or even that he admits it himself and perhaps even repents of it.
John L. Sillasen,
received via e-mail
Editor replies: The letter to which I replied was written in response to an article, "Out to Lunch," which appeared in the June Mission. The article compares a talk Cardinal Mahony gave on the nature of the Eucharist with the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia by Pope John Paul II. Whatever evidence there is for "heresy" on the part of the cardinal is laid out in that article.
The Mission does not purport to be magisterial in authority. We who write for it are laymen, and anything we write is to be deemed only our own opinion, not the teaching of the Church. In the reply to the letter Mr. Sillasen refers to, I said, "but for a successor of the apostles to teach heresy is far worse [than pedophilia], 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.'" If I had used the word "error" instead of "heresy," would that have been more appropriate? Perhaps. But from where I sit, error in doctrine is heresy.
There are two kinds of heresy, however. There is material heresy, where one holds an erroneous opinion but does not realize it. It is more like an honest mistake. In some sense, such heresy is not truly heresy, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith," or "an obstinate doubt concerning the same." What the Catechism defines as heresy is what has been called formal heresy. In speaking of what I perceive to be the cardinal's Eucharistic teaching, I was thinking of material heresy, for I don't know the cardinal's heart. My language was imprecise.
But heresy, considered objectively as false teaching (irregardless of the interior state of the teacher), is no less damaging to those who are subjected to it as teaching than is formal heresy. It is still error, and error corrupts the soul -- both of the hearer and of the one who holds to the error and teaches it. It is like ingesting a poisonous substance; you might not know it's poisonous, but it still kills you, either quickly or slowly. Too, errors are never isolated. They lead to further errors, maybe even errors that one knows to be contrary to the teachings of the Church and which, by the force of the logic, one will feel compelled to embrace. For instance, one may innocently hold that sexual intercourse is not primarily oriented to procreation. This error could lead him to conclude, however, that artificial contraception is permissible under certain circumstances. And if he knows that this conclusion is contrary to the magisterium of the Church, but holds to it nevertheless, he goes from being a material heretic to a formal heretic.
Finally, I agree that a conclusion of formal heresy must rely on the authority of the Catholic Church, vested in the pope or in an ecumenical council. But individual Catholics can conclude for themselves that particular teachings are erroneous, and argue for the same -- as long as they don't claim more authority for themselves than they have as individual members of the faithful. The absence of magisterial authority does not imply the absence of a mind.
GLASS CARAFES NOT REPROBATED
I just read the article "Pope Roger" in the November 2004 Mission. It is interesting to note that Redemptionis Sacramentum says that the use of carafes should be "avoided" because of the danger of spilling. It does not indicate that this is a "reprobated practice." In fact, the use of multiple chalices on the altar was specifically prohibited by Pope Gregory II (died 731) in a letter to St. Boniface: unde congruum non est duos vel tres calices in altario ponere cum missarum solemnia celebrantur. ["Whence it is not fitting to place two or three chalices on the altar when the solemnities of Mass are celebrated.] Evidently Cardinal Arinze did not read previous papal documents!
You might be also interested in knowing that what is explicitly "reprobated" is the use of glass chalices. Nevertheless, Cardinal George (in Chicago, who is often noted as following all Rome's liturgical norms) has permitted the continued use of glass chalices as long as they are not easily broken (see list of prescriptions issued in September from Chicago archdiocese).
There are many good things in Redemptionis Sacramentum, but it seems that more than one bishop (and cardinal) are finding difficulty with certain prescriptions.
Rick Tar
received via e-mail
Editor replies: The prescription of Pope Gregory II, to which Mr. Tar refers, is a disciplinary act which can altered by succeeding popes. And since Redemptionis Sacramentum was promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II (not Cardinal Arinze), its prescriptions stand, irregardless of previous law. Such prescriptions called for by the universal authority of the Church, may not be altered by any other authority. Popes cannot bind popes, but popes can bind bishops and, even, cardinals.
Section 117 of Redemptionis Sacramentum says, "reprobated ... is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily." It does not, as Mr. Tar alleges, refer only to chalices; the section begins, "sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books." Section 106 specifically forbids the use of "flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms." Moreover, Cardinal Mahony himself in granting "exceptions" to section 106 tacitly admits that Redemptionis Sacramentum forbids the use of glass vessels. He does not, however, show whence he received the authority to grant such exceptions.
And as for Cardinal George -- last time I checked, no one has vested in him the authority of Congregation for the Divine Liturgy or of the pope.
A GREAT FAVOR
The Evangelical Protestants who voted for President Bush did a great favor for Catholics. A pro-abortion and pro-homosexual Catholic president would have been a terrible cross for Catholics to carry.
Robert A. Obergfell,
Bellflower