LETTERS
2001 LETTERS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
FEBRUARY 2001
WHAT AN EXCELLENT TEACHER
Thanks you for Charles A. Coulombe's careful analysis of the video, Tradition, written and narrated by Father Michael Himes (see "Theology in Wonderland," December 2000 Mission). It reminded me what an insightful theologian Father Himes is, and what an excellent teacher.
Somehow, however, I don't think this is the message which Mr. Coulombe was trying to convey.
Rev. Thomas McNally, C.S.C.
Associate Pastor, Church of St. Clement
Hayward
KEEP ON IRRITATING THE NUTS
Coming onto your website for the first time today, I found your response to a letter, in the May 1999 issue [see "Why Support the Worker?" May 1999, Letters], which elevated my respect for your paper by another degree or so. The editor's comment evidenced your strong opposition to the use (maybe even to the possession) of nuclear weapons, on sound moral grounds. It has seemed to me for many years that that is the only proper Catholic position on the question. There is no way to square atomic devastation with anybody's doctrine on just warfare or just wars. The late Cardinal Ottaviani, so prescient and sound in his other opinions, was adamant in his stand against atomic weaponry. So far as I know, his position on that point was unpublicized and generally unknown in the United States, where, if remembered at all, he is seen as a sort of successor to Torquemada.
Our bishops have had absolutely no influence in moderating even Catholic opinion about the bomb. I'll bet nobody but the Catholic Worker people had anything to say against our wasting Hiroshima and, even worse, Nagasaki, at the time. I can remember a number of U.S. prelates exulting in the bombings because we were thereby able to save the lives of so many brave American fighting men. The private opinions of their successors may be different, but we're not likely to hear about that in very strong terms.
Enough of this for the present. I may continue this fulmination at some later time. Keep on irritating the nuts and the wishy-washy with calm and truthful reporting!
Joseph P.D. Kern
Fillmore
FRAUGHT WITH INACCURACIES AND HALF TRUTHS
I am a faithful and devoted reader of the Mission and its sister publication in San Diego. It encourages me that there are lay Catholics of conviction and energy who issue professional and well-founded newspapers month after month in an attempt to rescue our faith from the raging attacks of an increasingly apostate world (both within and outside of the Church).
I must take you to task, however, on your December lead story, "Hysterical Hallucinations?" Its tone was unnecessarily condescending and it was fraught with inaccuracies and half-truths. Needless to say, I was sadly disappointed by the disservice which you provided your readers who turn to you each month for guidance on the issues before the Church.
While ostensibly writing about the Medjugorje Peace Conference, your real intent was a "hit piece" on the reported apparitions in that hamlet in Bosnia. It seems that you were motivated, at least in part, by Phil Kronzer who has apparently been embittered by some difficult personal experiences which he seeks to blame on Medjugorje. Particularly telling was the final quote in your story, provided by Mr. Kronzer. That you would close your article with that shrill discharge speaks to your bias against the events in Medjugorje and your desire to provoke an emotional response from your readership.
Mr. Kronzer speaks of fruits, and as our Lord says, "by their fruits you will know them." Without question whatsoever, it is recognized that Medjugorje has been a source of conversion for thousands, if not millions, of Catholics and many non-Catholics as well (such as Wayne Weible). These conversions manifest themselves in devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, love for Our Lady, and complete fidelity to the Church and the magisterium. Rather than broken marriages, I have seen true Christian marriage, loving acceptance of children and a commitment to making Christ the center of home and hearth. Daily Mass attendance, monthly confession, the Rosary, and a desire to live a life of fidelity to the teachings of the Church -- these are the hallmarks of the pilgrims who return from Medjugorje.
You seek to impugn the reported apparitions by saying that they have been condemned by the Church. Well you got it less than half right. When reviewing supernatural phenomena, bishops' investigative committees can conclude one of three things: (1) that it can be established that the event is not supernatural in nature, (2) that it cannot be established that the event is supernatural in nature, or (3) that the event is supernatural in nature. While using similar language, the first two standards are very distinct in meaning. The first and more rigorous standard discredits the event completely; the second standard essentially says, "We don't know for sure." While Bishop Zanic's commission came down with a negative ruling in 1991, the facts precluded them from choosing the more stringent of the two standards.
As your article points out, it is true that there is great hostility throughout Croatia between the Franciscans (who have been there since the 1300s) and the diocesan clergy. Their quarrels over territory and authority go back to the late 1800s, so it is no surprise that this latest manifestation of their bad blood should come to a boil over such a prominent event. In any case, when Bishop Zanic's report was submitted to Rome for approval, Rome remanded it back to him for further study, which proved to be an embarrassment for him. I got a kick out of the fact that your paper, which so often critically questions the motivations and actions of the shepherds of this country, is so willing to take at face value the pronouncements of a bishop from half way around the world.
You also suggest disingenuously that the pope's "noticeable absence" from Medjugorje somehow undermines its credibility. As I am sure you were well aware when this article was written, popes never go to the site of reported apparitions prior to their final determination of authenticity. In fact, in the case of Fatima, it took 60 years for a pope to visit that shrine. In your view, did that de-legitimize those apparitions? So, it is dishonest of you to suggest that Medjugorje suffers from a credibility problem before the Chair of Peter.
You also cast aspersions at the friars in and around Medjugorje. You recklessly revived an old rumor about Father Tomislav having fathered a child with a nun. It is scandalous (and I dare say sinful) to mention this for several reasons: (1) He and the nun have both vehemently denied this allegation (and that alone should preclude you from gossiping about it in print); (2) this nun became pregnant in 1977 -- four years before the apparitions began, begging the question of linkage to the events of 1981; and (3) even if it were true, what relevance would one priest's indiscretion have to the veracity of the apparitions? You should be ashamed of yourselves, using the same tactics the enemies of the Church use to discredit the Catholic Church and all its priests, because of the actions of a handful of pedophiles.
You further claim that "critics say" this is all a conspiracy to enrich the "corrupt friars." Well, I have seen how these friars live: the ascetic lifestyle they subject themselves to, as well as the innumerable hours ministering in the confessionals, at Mass, in prayer, and in preaching. I wouldn't wish the severity of their situation and the exhaustion they constantly endure on anyone.
From a human perspective, the most compelling fact is this: in the 19 years since these apparitions began there have been scores of, if not well over a hundred, people closely involved with the lives of these visionaries -- dozens of friars who have rotated through St. James parish, the six visionaries and their families, those who have conducted scientific experiments on the visionaries, and many others friends and confidants -- all of whom would have to be party to a gigantic conspiracy -- and never, not once, has anyone involved ever suggested that these events are anything other than authentic. That kind of massive conspiracy is impossible to maintain. Furthermore, these visionaries are all adults now, and hardly susceptible to the kind of exploitation of which the article suggests they are victims.
I strongly urge that Mr. Andrew research his subject matter better prior to writing about it. His predisposition was clear from the outset, but he betrayed his laziness by getting the facts wrong. Besides those already mentioned, he didn't know many of the basics. For example, he refers to the "visionary Yvonne." There is no visionary by that name. There is one named Ivan, however. I am sure he would be quite shocked to see that he had been made a woman in the pages of your paper. Mr. Andrew refers to the term Gospa, used by pilgrims as "a favorite title for the appearing Madonna," without explaining that it is the Croatian word for "Our Lady." (I had one archbishop confront me several years ago because he was very upset about the "Gospel of Medjugorje" which he had been hearing mentioned so often. When I told him that they were talking about Our Lady [Gospa] of Medjugorje, he didn't know how to hide his embarrassment. Yet, these are the misconceptions which ignorance of the facts creates.)
In closing, I have no quarrel with anyone taking a critical look at the events of Medjugorje. We should all approach such reported phenomena somewhat skeptically and cautiously. However, charity and justice call for honesty and professionalism in pursuing a matter as important as this. It is incumbent upon your paper to get the facts right and to shed its bias prior to delving into the subject matter. I generally admire your high standards and expect first rate insight and sound Catholic principle applied to the material you write about. I would hope that you revisit the events of Medjugorje with an eye to getting all the facts straight in a future article, and coming to a sound conclusion -- even if it disagrees with mine -- based on a complete evaluation of the matter.
Victor Pantin
Coral Gables, Florida
Editor's note: Mr. Andrew did consult supporters of Medjugorje and presented their views alongside those of the critics. He also emphasized the positive results of Medjugorje. It is important to remember, though, that these good results alone do not validate an apparition: God can bring good out of evil and Satan, it is said, appears as an angel of light. The Mission does not gratuitously attack bishops; only when they speak or act against the teachings and tradition of the universal Church do we criticize them. As a judgment on the authenticity of an apparition cannot be decided on the basis of Tradition alone, we follow, without question, a bishop's decision on that matter.
IT WAS AN ENDORSEMENT
Editor's note: the following letter was sent to Monsignor Lawrence Baird, media representative for the diocese of Orange.
I'm a little confused about your comments that appeared in the December 2000 Mission concerning the Medjugorje conference. From my research on the subject, I understood that the Vatican is not investigating the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje; instead, they have accepted the determination of the current and previous bishops of Mostar that the apparitions are not authentic. Therefore, the "cautionary note" you reference, "conference organizers recognize and accept that final authority regarding apparitions rests with the Holy See," would be more accurate if it read, "conference organizers recognize and reject the determination of the local Church authority, the bishop of Mostar, that the apparitions at Medjugorje are not authentic."
I agree with Phil Kronzer that it's a mistake for American bishops to support Medjugorje conferences when their brother bishops in Eastern Europe have found the apparitions to be fraudulent. Bishop Brown's greeting and participation in the Medjugorje conference is a tacit endorsement of it; I disagree with you and Bishop Brown that it is not. (A few months ago a group of traditionalist Catholics gathered at a hotel near the Orange County airport. I can just imagine Bishop Brown demonstrating his "pastoral care" for this "very large number" of Catholics by sending his greeting and coming over to celebrate Mass!) The bishop should have asked conference organizers to hold a general Marian conference with no mention of Medjugorje.
Jeff Nihill
Anaheim
YOU MISSED THE POINT
Your article, "Injustice in the Church," in the January 2001 Mission is a treasure trove of missing-the-point, Alice-in-Wonderland logic -- "words mean what I say they mean," a la the Queen of Hearts. Regardless of one's sexual preferences, writers, speakers, and commentators are still bound by the rules of language and logic.
Louis Velasquez is quoted as saying that he "vowed to work to promote equal justice for all in the Church, 'especially' for those 'who had been marginalized'," which included women, the elderly, and homosexuals. Mr. Velasquez and/or Mission writer Maggie Garcia failed, however, to show how women and the elderly have been denied justice or marginalized. At my church, St. Martha's, we have just about "standing room only" every day at morning Mass. The median age is well above 65, and men are in the minority. If those who practice a homosexual style of life feel "marginalized," I ask, is their marginalization due to the Church, or is it because of the lifestyle they have chosen, which the Church has defined as unacceptable? One is not forced into homosexuality any more than one is forced into a life of drugs, alcohol, or crime. These are personal choices, and each of us is responsible for the choices we make in life.
The homosexuals' logic resembles the young man who murdered his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. If the homosexual wants to be "unmarginalized," all that is necessary for him is to lead a celibate life. If an organization declares someone to be outside the mainstream, or "marginalized," because of that person's failure to adhere to the rules and regulations of the organization, he or she cannot say the organization has been unjust. The organization, in fact, has been most just. It has meted out "justice" to the member who refused to obey the rules of membership for that organization.
"Velasquez faulted those in the Church who would 'do a double genuflection to a piece of consecrated bread, but would avoid helping Christ in their neighbor'." That "piece of consecrated bread" is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, who happens to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. It is decidedly more than just a "piece of consecrated bread." If Mr. Velasquez is unable to understand the significance of that, might I suggest reading the gospel story in which Judas Iscariot complains of the waste on the part of Mary, the sister of Lazarus, in anointing the feet of Christ with expensive nard (John, 12:1-8)?
Maggie Garcia quotes a homosexual nurse who asks how can she feel welcome in the Church when she is excluded from two of the seven sacraments? Does this not make her unequal, she asks? No, it does not. She is not excluded from the sacrament of Matrimony. She, by her own choice, has chosen to deny herself the sacrament of Matrimony by electing to follow a homosexual lifestyle. But there is no question of her being denied justice by the Church. She chose a lifestyle that involves certain consequences. That is her choice, and she is responsible for her own actions, as we all are. She is excluded from the sacrament of Ordination, just as many men are, and all women, but this has nothing to do with her sexual lifestyle. I am also excluded from the sacrament of Ordination since I am married. That was my choice and I am responsible for it. But there is certainly no question that the Church has denied me "justice."
"Liuzzi spoke of the sadness he continually experiences due to the behavior of the Church's leaders." Father Liuzzi works for the cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles. He is in close, frequent contact with the man who can change things in the Church in Los Angeles. Has he done anything about the real injustices in the archdiocese? For example: it is no secret that the greatest "leakage" of Catholics from the Church is from the Latin American community to the Fundamentalists and Pentecostal groups. At the same time, the cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles, Father Liuzzi's boss, is building a multi million dollar cathedral that will be used primarily for ceremonies, the principal audience of which are the wealthy and the privileged. Very few cathedral ceremonies are directed toward the poor. What is needed in the Latin American community are "store front Churches" in the barrios, rather than a massive cathedral. The barrios need Spanish-speaking priests, working at the parish level, listening to the problems of the people, resolving them, and becoming community leaders by their example to the young and their availability to the poor. The prime example of this kind of an effective outreach is the Catholic Worker movement, which is none too popular in the Los Angeles archdiocesan chancery.
The Latin American community needs a multi million dollar cathedral about as much as I need four more kids. This cathedral, by the way, happens to be located on the site of an Indian burial ground. As a cradle Catholic from a French/Irish/Indian heritage, I find this incredibly insensitive to my Indian forebears. One cannot help but wonder what would be the reaction in the community if the cathedral were constructed on the site of an ancient Jewish or Anglican cemetery?
Mr. Velasquez says, "the needs of the lesbian and gay Catholics are not heard as clearly as they should be, both in the archdiocese and in the Church." The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity. All are called to holiness." Lumen Gentium says, in this regard: "In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ's gift, so that. doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor."
What I hear Mr. Velasquez/Ms. Garcia saying is that the homosexual community feel marginalized from the Church because of a sexual lifestyle they have selected. They want to have a greater/stronger response from the Church, because of what they consider to be a Church initiated marginalization. At the same time, the homosexual community does not want to give up their chosen lifestyle, which the Church has defined as being incompatible with her teachings. If this is a correct summary of their position, their logic escapes me.
John St. Denis
Murrieta
YOUR ARTICLE MADE LIUZZI SMILE
I received my January Mission and couldn't help but immediately see the smiling faces of Cardinal Mahony and Father Peter Liuzzi. I imagine that their smiles, especially Father Liuzzi's, are even broader now. How could they not be after your puff piece on Liuzzi? [See A HREF="../articles/2001/0101mg.htm">"Injustice in the Church,"]
I don't understand how the Mission could be supportive of Liuzzi. Don 't you know that he is tied into the "gay" Catholic agenda big time? Did you so quickly forget the famous Los Angeles archdiocesan homosexualist propaganda video, "Journey for Understanding," wherein Mahony, Liuzzi and a host of Catholic dissidents promoted the "gay" Catholic life? How is it that the Mission could possibly have been hoodwinked into writing an article which uses all the favorite homosexualist buzzwords and pat phrases, and which is a slap in the face to all those Catholics who have been warning people about Father Liuzzi for years?
What was the author's intention here? Was she trying to be satiric? If she was, she missed every opportunity. If she was actually trying to show Liuzzi in a positive light, she did a great job -- but why is this in your paper? And why on earth would you emphasize -- in large, bold print on the front page -- the lesbian's complaint about the Church -- a statement which many readers will assume mirrors your position? And how can you allow a blasphemous statement printed which refers to the Body of Christ as a "piece of consecrated bread"?
I was sick when I read this article!
Laurette Elsberry
Sacramento
Editor's note: The author's intention was to report on what was said and done at the Advent Day of Prayer for homosexuals. Seeing that you are scandalized by it, I can only conclude that she has done her job well. Generally, with such events, we do nothing more than relate what happens, without commentary. I doubt if Father Liuzzi smiled at Garcia's article, if he is at all familiar with our past coverage of his Ministry with Gay and Lesbian Catholics.
WHAT SNOW DOESN'T KNOW
Dr. Albert Alan Snow bemoans the "flat earth" mentality of the Church in not condoning the sins of sodomy and for the woeful fact that lesbians are not allowed the sacraments of Holy Orders and Matrimony [see "Letters," January Mission]; but does he realize at all that the Church has already spoken on these issues? Women will not be ordained because the Church does not have the power to ordain women; and homosexuality is a "gravely disordered condition," incompatible with Scripture. Marriage is a sacramental union between two persons of the opposite sex.
Dr. Snow cites the "enlightened" policies, regarding homosexual clergy, of Reformed Jews, Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists etc, all of whom are not only riven by dissension but essentially believe in nothing, or believe everything, as the case may be. God save us from such sloppy, self-serving "theology" and from sacerdotal whining about matters upon which the Church and the Holy Father have already ruled.
David D. Jones
received by e-mail