LETTERS
1999 LETTERS
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 1999
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
MARCH 1999
SARCASTIC OR IRONIC?
I wish to make an observation about Barbara Murphy's letter in the February issue [See Letters, February, 1999] in which she points out that she has seen occasional streaks of sarcasm in some of the articles in your paper.
I have not been a reader beyond about a half-year's worth of issues, but I have always been surprised by the professional finesse of the articles, by their cool restraint.
It has been my experience that the writers, in describing events and situations, have deftly let them speak for themselves and we see events tumble into view much as a good bullfighter stands aside and invites the bull to move through the red cape; and if a hideous, snorting face is seen rushing headlong toward the spectators, it was only because of the art of the bullfighter to stand aside and "present." Let us admit that some of the aberrations witnessed in liturgical settings are painful to hear about, both for the insult they may represent to the dignity of the liturgy and the sacred tradition as well as to the brothers and sisters in Christ who may blissfully be sitting though travesties or productions done in poor taste and be quite unaware that they are being shortchanged...and used!
So I wonder if the letter writer is not conflating messenger with uncomfortable message. I just wish that she had provided some concrete examples of articles so that I could assess her comment in a more specific context. I just wonder if it is not possible that she might be using the word "sarcasm" in a way that might be tripping into the zone of the word "irony." I have found that in sensitive areas of taste an ironic observation can often be misconstrued or received as a "sarcastic" comment. There can be a fine line between irony and sarcasm, but they are different. Irony is descriptive, observational. It notices that the emperor has no clothes as just reporting the facts. It lets the facts speak for themselves, and the facts may be quite negative. Sarcasm usually takes those same negative, ironic facts and attempts to use them like a knife and cut with them (cf. the Greek etymology of sarcasm: "flesh cuts") often accompanying the cutting phrase with a cutting tone. It can sometimes take a surgically fine eye of discernment to know when a written statement observing negative realities carries a tone that matches a face launching sarcastic, hateful cuts indicating scorn and contempt.
Also, not to forget that good reporting can also carry a critical edge and use wryness and understatement as an effective, engaging tool of good writing. This can sound sarcastic, but it is not.
I wonder what tone of voice Jesus was using when He called Herod "that fox"? It could have been interpreted as sarcastic by some, I suppose. But I have the feeling that Jesus was doing more than describing an element of calculativeness and cleverness in Herod--He was describing the dangerous, negative reality of the fox who breaks into nests to steal the children of Israel, killing life. Some in the government over Israel would have viewed his words as "disrespectful." But we know that His words were objectively descriptive and served as a warning to watch Herod lest there be sincere and misled people who were allowed to be left unchallenged in an erroneous zone of comfort.
We cannot read hearts, it is true. But we can read quicksand and snares of the evil one. We are dealing with more than a matter of taste in our liturgies--we are dealing with the urgency of salvation, and preciousness and privilege of sacred gifts.
Father David Drewellow
Saint Mary's Catholic Church
Nebraska City, Nebraska
WHO'S AFRAID?
Since I so respect your publication, I am impelled to respond to Pauline Daries' letter [See Letters, January 1999] which, coming from a nun, succeeded both in raising my eyebrows and causing a chuckle.
She begins by calling the Mission a "miserable rag" and then proceeds to engage in the exact type of verbiage she accuses you of using. Daries maintains that she "detests" the "abuse of language" and then goes on to employ phrases such as "self-adulation," "twisted apologies," and "paranoia," and the like. Never once does she cite a single instance in an attempt to prove her points.
Daries states further that the Mission appeals "to those who are afraid" and "ignorant." Sister, I am neither ignorant nor afraid! I have a Master's degree, and have taught high school for half my life. My library is extensive in the areas of Church history, apologetics and theology. I have taught CCD, RCIA, and prepared both children and adults for Confirmation and First Communion. I can read and write passable Latin.
Nor am I afraid. Afraid of what? It is you, Sister, who are afraid. Your hysterical--and I use the word advisedly--response, is one of an aging feminist who sees all her futile liberal "causes" fading away, right along with the misguided orders of nuns who espoused them.
The Mission is, after all is said, a necessary and salient part of the working of the Holy Spirit among those laity who love and serve their ancient and noble Catholic Church, and who refuse to abandon her in her present crisis.
Thomas Hogan
Long Beach
WE MUST DO OUR OWN HOMEWORK
As a parishioner of Our Lady of Peace parish in North Hills since 1985, I was interested in your article by Maggie Garcia ["It Doesn't Matter What They Think," January 1999] about our "proposed" renovation of our church building. Personally, I am content to leave our church as it currently is, but if they can find the funds to remodel, so be it. However, it would make me wonder when so little is done to help our local community/neighborhood, that such funds could so easily be made available for this effort, but not to create programs for the needy of our area in the form of social outreach services.
I recently sent letters to all the members of our pastoral council (which was called parish council in the article). As a point of clarification, a pastoral council, as we have, are members of the parish who are appointed by the pastor (not elected by the parishioners), whereas a parish council are usually members of the parish who are elected by the parishioners to represent them. We have a pastoral council, NOT a parish council. In any case, in my letter to these members, I expressed my viewpoint that where a church places the ambo, pews, presider's chair, etc. is irrelevant to me personally. What is important is that the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus is revered. One reason suggested why changes are desired is so that the "people" would be "closer" to Jesus and/or the altar. My response to that is that NO physical distance can ever separate God from His people. Only we can do that to ourselves. Therefore it's our HEARTS that need the changing, not the physical elements.
I also questioned whose idea was it originally to remodel? Was it the desire of the "people of the parish," or that of the church officials/administration?
Wanting to know the truth about various statements made in your article, I contacted both the author and representatives from our parish who were identified in the article. How ironic that with everyone being a Catholic, I found that each "side" claimed they were telling the complete truth, contradicting the other persons. How am I to know the truth? Only God knows that and He will be the final judge of all of our actions, mine included!
I also obtained a copy of The Catholic Sanctuary (published by TAN Books), and it states that: "Vatican II and the Post-Vatican II legislation did not mandate any changes in the Catholic Sanctuary." This simply states that it did not mandate changes. Does it prohibit changes may seem to be up to the interpretation of the reader. I have not seen myself the 1977 document, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, which apparently supports these types of changes, and I question if the statement that it does NOT have the approval of the Vatican or of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops is true or not. I would like to believe that I can trust what I read, but I am not that naive. To me, it's sad that I can't give complete trust to something I read, even in a Catholic publication, but that's where we all have a responsibility to do our homework and not to rely on others to do it for us.
So, in any event, your article created both controversy and communication in our parish. For that I am grateful. However, I do wish that a simple honest dialogue would result. Not that everything is ever simply black and white, but I believe it can be put into percentages and when it's 51-49 percent, I tend to favor the side with 51 percent. There may have been inaccuracies in reporting, or a denial of comments made because of fear/retaliations, but I hope we can move beyond these differences for the greater glory of God!
Timothy J. Page
North Hills
COURAGEOUS RESPONSE
Editor: the following was an exchange of letters that took place in late December:
The Invitation
Dear Msgr. Kavanaugh:
Governor-elect Gray Davis and Mrs. Sharon Davis would be honored if you would join them at an Ecumenical Service on Sunday, January 3, 1999 at 10:30 a.m. This special service will be held in the Ballroom of the Sacramento Convention Center. Seating and pre-ceremony gather will begin at 10:00 a.m.
Governor-elect and Mrs. Davis have chosen to begin the inauguration of California's Thirty-Seventh Governor with a special convocation on faith and community. They hope you will be able to join them in prayer and celebrate this special time in California's history. If you are able to attend we would be pleased if you would participate in the entrance processional.
If you would like to attend and participate in the Ecumenical service please respond...and provide us with your name and church or temple representation.
Shalom,
Rabbi Brad L. Bloom
President
Sacramento Interfaith Service Bureau
The Response
Dear Rabbi Bloom:
Your invitation of December 24th to attend an inaugural event on Sunday morning, January 3, 1999, for Governor-elect Gray Davis causes me profound distress and grave insult.
Surely you must know that Gray Davis is an outspoken, militant champion of violence--the most cold-blooded violence of killing preborn and partially-born human beings. He incessantly and obsessively proclaimed his commitment to unrestricted and taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in his TV commercials, debates, campaign position statements and even on his Internet campaign site. He would force every California taxpayer, including all the Catholic bishops, priests and lay people to be his fiscal accomplices in payments to abortionists for over 100,000 Medi-Cal abortions per year (out of about 300,000 to 400,000 abortions per year in California).
Just this Tuesday, December 29, on page A3 of the Sacramento Bee, it was announced that Gray Davis had appointed the militantly pro-abortion Susan Kennedy, who had served for six years as the executive director of the California Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL), to "direct his Cabinet" and "serve as a close Davis adviser, organizing Cabinet meetings and acting as liaison between the governor and agency secretaries." A more extreme and profound empowerment of the abortion movement in the Davis regime can hardly be imagined.
To presume that any true Catholic, and in particular, a Catholic priest and pastor, would violate the moral teachings of the Catholic Faith and the very moral foundation of human rights, and would betray and scandalize the faithful by attending a political function dedicated to a leader of the American Holocaust, is mind-boggling. Any Catholic priest and pastor who would publicly give honor and affirmation to Gray Davis would be subject to severe penalties and would rightfully expect the just denunciation and harsh censure of not only Catholics, but all who defend the right to life.
While I would never remotely consider attending any anti-Semitic, anti-life political event, I would find it more outrageous to invite you and any other rabbi, priest, minister, pastor, or religious leader to attend such an event. How is it that you so casually do so not only with me but presumably with many, or even all, other priests in the Sacramento area or diocese? As you must also know, our Sacramento Bishop William K. Wiegand has spoken firmly and often against the killing of innocent human beings and we fully support him in this. Gray Davis and his inaugural committee were denied the use of the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament for this event (Sacramento Bee, November 25, 1998, page A4). Rightly so! We also applaud the five Catholics who wrote letters to the editor clearly explaining why Gray Davis was rightfully being denied use of the Cathedral (Sacramento Bee, Sunday, December 13, 1998, Forum 4).
It reminds me of the actions of Pope Pius XI when Adolph Hitler, the recognized leader of Germany, visited Rome in 1938, before World War II, and before Hitler was so widely recognized as a genocidal monster. Pius XI ordered all the Vatican museums with their art treasures to be closed during Mr. Hitler's visit, to deny him any opportunity for an appearance or semblance (photo "ops" and the like) of approval or acceptance. In fact, the Pope referred to Hitler as "the Nordic pest" and to further shun and snub Hitler, the Pope left Rome.
Recently Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical letter, "The Gospel of Life." This was affirmed in November by the Catholic bishops of the United States in a statement entitled "Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics." It stated: "excommunication affects all those who commit this crime (of abortion) with knowledge of the penalty attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed. The purpose of the penalty...is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance."
Certainly those politicians like Gray Davis who not only proclaim a universal right to abortion but demand that taxpayers be fiscal accomplices in the abortion Holocaust are responsible for the fact that California now has an abortion rate twice the rest of the nation, almost one-quarter of all abortions in the United States being committed in California. It is clear that Gray Davis, by promoting what the Pope has called the "Culture of Death" and demanding taxpayers' money for abortions, has brought on himself automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.
In California, abortion has a strong racial, genocidal aspect. Abortion mills are disproportionately located in poor and Latino areas of cities, especially in Los Angeles (one need only consult telephone yellow pages ads and on their promotions to see this), and marketed in the Spanish language to prey upon young, poor, and undocumented women, especially Catholic latinas and blacks, with Medi-Cal funding providing a strong financial incentive for the greedy mill operators.
I must ask you to reconsider your role in promoting Gray Davis's political inaugural event and to immediately send out a letter of regret to all the Catholic priests and pastors whom you have invited and encouraged to attend this travesty.
Sincerely,
Monsignor Edward J. Kavanaugh
St. Rose Catholic Church