LETTERS
2000 LETTERS
December
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2000
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
JULY/AUGUST 2000
NO MONEY, NO LOVE
Caroline Miranda's paean of praise to capitalism, leading off your June 2000 Letters, sounds like the propaganda of the Acton Institute, exposed by Michael Jones in "Culture Wars" as a fifth column sponsored by moneyed interests to neutralize any remaining Catholic opposition to the Culture of Death. If capitalism is so great, why can't it stand any competition?
In fact, capitalism provides freedom only to those with money or power. Didn't it give you pause, Caroline, that facing your letter was an article about a baby and mother saved in priest-ridden Mexico -- a baby that certainly would have gone into the garbage disposal in the great empire of democratic capitalism to the north? How many individualistic mothers here have made a simple calculation, like a needle going into the red: expected expenses (with baby) greater than expected income, therefore the baby has to be aborted. "Moral choice" -- yeah right. No money, no love.
In case you are wondering, I am not some drone to be written off by capital-Calvinist standards. I am a Ph.D mathematician, an inventor with patents granted and pending, and several times a founder or major investor in small technical startup companies. Money totally trumps creativity, and stifles innovation at least as often as it encourages it (remember Microsoft?). In fact, most of the technical triumphs (which Miss Miranda insultingly claims "saved" the pope and Mother Teresa) came from academic and government institutes with structures of duty and tenure that originated in medieval times. Entrepreneurship is mostly marketing fluff, whose value is in creating temporary employment.
If you want to know what really creates moral freedom, it is cohesive families and widespread ownership of productive land, as I have shown in my Book of Honor. The logic is really pretty simple; it lets you make your needfuls without depending on the whim of depersonalized forces; whereas we are helpless pawns. The greatest creative burst ever known, the Renaissance and age of exploration, was a result of late medieval agricultural efficiency improvements. Tyranny followed, and now the tyranny of marketing continues to drive us like Gadarene swine.
We are receiving imperial tribute, Caroline. Look around you at what is befalling the rest of the world, for instance the ex-Soviet empire, decaying from the moral seriousness of a Solzhenitsyn to the pornography and gangsterism of the new "freedom," with a DECLINE in standard of living compared to Soviet times! Stop echoing the promotional flack of the heartless land, and search for the "right grammar" of alternatives.
Larry Dickson,
La Jolla
ONE MASS ISN'T ENOUGH
Please refer to the Mission, May 2000, about "Roamin' Catholic" by Charles Coulombe.
As a parishioner of St. Martin of Tours church in West L.A., I believe that the author's point that there should be more reverence given to the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle was well taken.
At St. Martin of Tours, every morning, except Sundays, the Liturgy of the Hours is recited at 7:45 am and, after Mass, the Rosary with the prayers of reparation given at Fatima is said faithfully and with devotion. Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is held on the first Tuesday of the month from 8:30 am to 12 noon. You cannot judge a Church by attending one Mass.
anonymous
received by e-mail
WHO ARE YOU, ANONYMOUS FRIEND?
Thanks ever so much to the little person who wrote that ever-so-cute anonymous note in your June issue. You know, the one that accused you of "always [being] full of HATE." I really appreciated the baseless ad hominem attack on the work of Dr. Nicolosi. Writer, I also like how you offered no proof that Dr. Nicolosi himself is not "learned" or that his work isn't "proven." The height of intellectual repartee, to be sure.
And then to that claim of "HATE." Precisely where, dear anonymous friend, did the Mission spew "HATE"? Was it when it faithfully reiterated the Church's teachings on homosexuality? So that teaching is hateful? Why? Or is it a hateful publication simply because its worldview is at odds with yours? Can people of good will not fervently disagree without being demonized with epithets like "hatemonger," which you implied about this publication in your letter?
It seems to me that your letter was beneath someone so "learned." I hope you find some time to reply in a future issue and elaborate on the intellectual shortcomings of Dr. Nicolosi and his work, as well as to detail for us why the Mission is so full of "HATE." And this time, maybe you can come out from under the rock of anonymity and sign your name. Because only a coward doesn't sign his name and you are obviously a brave fighter for the cause. So do let us know who you are, won't you?
Brian K. O'Neel,
received by e-mail
DISMAY AT YOUR DEGRADING TONE
Since receiving the Mission from the time of its first issues, I have very frequently seen the need to write and voice my dismay at the constant, degrading tone you have adopted toward those clergy and/or laity in our Church who do not fit into the mold you have somehow determined is the only acceptable one. Anyone or anything on your long "black list" is subject to your vitriolic ravings. As if this weren't enough, you and your staff stretch beyond the limit of credibility your so-called news items. "I Was Impressed With The Papacy," is one of the best examples yet of the absurd lengths you will go to insert your criticism of Cardinal Mahony and our new cathedral into this ridiculous piece. William Wilson's opinion of our cardinal, the new cathedral, or anything else related to the Church is of no importance whatsoever and certainly carries no credibility. This piece was merely another vehicle for you to protest again and again. It puzzles me how you can think that you are really doing a service to the Church with the always negative and frequently incorrect pieces you print. It is past time to remove my name from your mailing list. Do so immediately.
Barbara Kennedy,
Venice
DON'T BE TOO HARD ON ZIEMANN
Yesterday, at my work (an auto dealership) a woman waiting in line for service hit the back of a new, fresh off the truck car, leaving an imprint of her license plate on the bumper. She denied responsibility, though there were several witnesses, blaming the service writer for distracting her when he came up to greet her. This was a minor incident, covered by her insurance to boot, but she would not accept blame.
Our courts are choked with crooks denying responsibility, civil defendants denying responsibility and plaintiffs blaming others for what used to be considered the ordinary misfortunes of life.
Only 25 percent of non-custodial parents pay their child support. Fifty percent of married Americans are cheating or have cheated on their spouses. Teen promiscuity and pregnancy is off the charts. These sins result in abortion, divorce and more parents not paying child support. Definitely not good for children and families. So why on earth have we Christians chosen to focus on homosexuality as the Big Evil, the Destroyer of Families? Because homosexuality is far removed from most of us and if we focus on that we can ignore the other sins that hit uncomfortably close to home.
Bishop Ziemann, while "concluding or continuing" a homosexual affair with Father Hume, denied Father Hume was a homosexual. This should not surprise anyone because people in the process of bad behavior typically do what they must to avoid its discovery. They also typically fail to admit fault when caught.
I understand the Ziemann investigation is still ongoing. But when the smoke clears, before we jump too hard on Bishop Ziemann, let us remember that he is the first priest (and one of the few Americans) in a very long time to admit responsibility in a major scandal, and he had a lot more to lose than a $500 body shop repair.
Kim Johnson,
Santa Barbara
Editor's note: It is not accurate that Christians have chosen to focus on homosexuality; rather, vocal homosexual rights activists have forced Christians, time and again, to focus on the issue. These activists have insisted, not merely that we respect homosexuals as human beings (a just demand), but have called for a reevaluation of homosexuality as a natural orientation and the homosexual act as sinless. Such a reevalution must be resisted by Christians because it is false, and, more importantly, because it confirms those suffering from homosexuality in a vice harmful to them, physically, psychologically, and spiritually.
TOO TIED TO EXTERNALS
Richard Kern's letter regarding the Anglican Church of St. Mary (June Mission) prompts this response. It is a reflection based upon my personal knowledge of the parish, both through friends and my late uncle, whose funeral Mass I attended. He like many others at St. Mary's abandoned Roman Catholicism mostly because of the changes in the liturgy after the Second Vatican Council.
In my conversations with those who attend St. Mary's, and this includes priests, I have found a vein of obstinate pride and unyielding self-consequence as regards the importance of vestment styles, sacred vessels, artwork, a pipe organ on decibel par with a steam calliope, and loads of incense.
I have no great love for Cardinal Mahony or his cronies, but unless he is convicted of heresy, he is the lawful ecclesiastical authority in this archdiocese. Perhaps in his past dealings with St. Mary's, the cardinal too felt this obstinacy as regards, alas, externals. And important as externals can be, after all, that is all they are.
Also in fairness, it may be noted that the indult, or "old Latin" Mass is permitted to be celebrated regularly in the Los Angeles area.
Thomas D. Hogan,
Long Beach