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
JULY/AUGUST 2001
ONE FOR ST. JOHN'S
I began studies at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo in 1988 at age 36, and was ordained at age 40 in 1992. To shed some light on the formation at St. John's, which has been the subject of articles [in the Mission (see "It Was Us Against Them," March 2001, and "Forced Spiritual Crisis," June 2001)], I offer my memory of my experience there.
I entered St. John's as a formed Catholic with seven years of Catholic school in doctrine and practice, a continued relationship with the Catholic Church in worship, but also very much formed in the American society's, values, media, etc. on all the hot button issues of the day in morality. I came out of St. John's very well formed in doctrine, practice, and in Catholic morality.
We were told right up front that we were being trained to be parish priests, not professors or chancery workers. A second pastoral language was required and taught, Spanish for most of us, English for others. Cultural customs were taught to us to help us understand some of the immigrants we would be meeting in the future. We were sent out on apostolic work in youth ministry, to the poor, etc.
Former professors include now Bishop George Niederauer of Salt Lake City, Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles, Bishop Ed Clark of Los Angeles, and Father David Windsor, rector of the seminary at Louvain, Belgium. Visiting speakers at the seminary during that time include: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH; Helen Alvare, formerly of the National Council of Catholic Bishops committee on family issues; Father Ladislas Orsy, S.J., a noted canon lawyer. The regular faculty was a mix of clergy and laity with the usual variety of personalities, some more likable, and some better teachers than others, one or two with mild ideological stances, but certainly no one whose teaching was heretical or who questioned basic faith, morality, or ecclesiology.
One of the first modules of formation I recall was celibacy module. We learned what chastity is, its value, how to live it. We learned that a very small percentage of people had a homosexual inclination that was so ingrained that they could not dominate it, but that all could live chastely. We had regular retreats, a two-month intensive period of spiritual formation. Intersem, a meeting with Jewish and Protestant seminarians, was sponsored to get a look toward other religions in their beliefs and worship.
Daily morning and evening prayer attendance was required. Attendance at the seminary Mass was required daily and on Sunday. Class attendance was required. Weekly meetings of the entire seminary at forum were required. The rector's talks were always a treat because of Monsignor Niederauer's gift of delivery of the spoken English language. He minced no words back then, telling us that if anyone identified as a "gay" he would not be ordained, although those with homosexual inclination were on track provided they lived celibately and professed Church teaching. We were warned of the dangers of certain situations which could jeopardize one's chastity, particularly in the seminary, very clearly and regularly by the rector.
Most of the classes were meaty enough; a very few left one to look beyond what was taught for more substance. A constant lament of mine was the volume of reading required for each course, so much so that Evelyn Wood herself probably would not have gotten through the semester. That reading was sound from texts and periodicals, Catholic in basics with presentations of other ways of thinking, but not presented on par with Catholic doctrine.
In general, the atmosphere was not clerical for seminarians. Clergy faculty dressed in clerics. Non-clergy were in semi formal attire for class. The faculty relationships with seminarians appeared to be appropriate during my time at St. John's.
My personal feeling was that in some ways the seminary was trying to strip the masculine spirit from some of us. If one was very agreeable, smiling, etc, going along with everything and saying yes, then that person seemed to breeze through. We certainly were not told to question everything. If one was questioning, challenging, constructively critical while still obedient, this was not welcomed in my memory of the experience. Of course this may be my personal problem and a family trait of not suffering fools well, as noted by Msgr. Niederauer and brought up to me by Bishop Brom. When Bishop Brom told me one day that all the faculty at St. John's did not vote for my advancement to ordination, I was delighted and responded, "Thank God, because in my opinion a few had no business being on a seminary faculty." (But a very few who did no real harm.)
Sister Kathy of recent articles was always pleasant to me in the few times we met, but had no power over my vocation since I was from San Diego and probably less of a voice under the then great vocations director for L.A., Fr. Joe Shea. Seminarians who were admitted to theology seemed to range from almost Catholic to the Council of Trent in their theology, some coming from Catholic schools, others from only CCD formation. That was all OK, because the seminary is the place of discernment and formation. Some really good guys left for marriage. Each one of us was changed. Of those sems I felt were almost Catholic, after their formation at St. John's under a not extremely traditionally leaning faculty, most now are very much concerned that they teach the truth of the faith, celebrate good liturgy, and live and preach the fullness of Catholic morality in love and compassion.
Nine years later, I still celebrate daily Mass whether at home or on vacation. I still pray the divine office. I make time for personal prayer. I prepare a homily for each daily and Sunday Mass. I visit my school. I form my catechists beyond the diocesan minimum. I continue to embrace chastity as the way of life not only for myself, but for others. I present fully and clearly the Catholic faith as I promised I would at my diaconate ordination and renewed in my two assignments as pastor. I celebrate liturgy a bit more traditionally, using chant and the sacramentals more often than some of the priests at St. John's might have done. I was taught in liturgy class to read the entire General Instruction for the Roman Missal (GIRM), and I try to follow it closely, along with the order of solemnities taught in liturgy studies at St. John's. I put my tabernacle in a very prominent and noble place to invite prayer, adoration, and worship outside the Mass. I run a Courage group to help those confused by the society and by practicing or promoting homosexualists in the church to live a chaste life and to grow in their sexuality. I have assisted in ecumenical work, Legion of Mary, natural family planning, with marriage encounter in Spanish.
I don't know what St.John's is doing now. But I feel it did me fairly well while I was there.
Father Rich Perozich, Pastor
Our Lady of the Sacred Heart
St. John's alumnus, 1992
A CORRUPT MARRIAGE
Christopher Zehnder's article revealing pastoral support of unions who despise Church values is a much-needed exposé on how Catholic clergy sold out fundamental values for a questionable economic return. (See "Payback Time," May 2001 Mission.)
Unions sink tens of millions of dollars in forced union dues, coerced out of unwilling people who want no affiliation with them, into campaigns of liberal Democrats, who then enact pro-union legislation. In its collectivist zeal which sees money as belonging not to the worker but to a large pot to be distributed as the government sees fit, the Church finds a kindred spirit in collectivist elites, while ignoring unions' forced taking of paychecks from workers and the violence, threats and intimidation against workers who want no part of union actions. The corrupt marriage between politicians, Catholic clergy and union machines has crushed the basic rights of contract, negotiation and paycheck protection the individual worker once had.
That unions force workers to hand over part of their paychecks to them and then spend that coerced money by putting in office liberal Democratic politicians opposed to individual and sacred values of union members does not phase leftist Church clergy. They long ago sold out their values in favor of secular economic redistribution plans and government control on social and economic issues. They march lockstep with unions' pro-illegal immigrant advocacy, which gets more workers under their umbrella through lawbreaking and by taking hard-earned dollars to promote causes with which workers' disagree.
Unfortunately, it is left to secular organizations, such as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, to fight in courts and the legislature against the unjust raiding of paychecks which unions are allowed to do. That the Church closes its eyes to this situation shows how acceptable organized bribery has become. Unions must be grateful for their useful idiot friends in the Church.
Caroline Miranda
North Hollywood
Editor's note: In my article I did not intend to attack closed shops or mandatory union dues as such. The former, I think, are necessary if unions are going to have any bargaining power, and the latter if they are going to function at all. Mandatory dues, like mandatory taxes, are just if the organizations to which they are paid work for the common good. Union dues which go to support immoral causes or candidates militate against the common good, and for this reason, and this reason alone, is their mandatory character unjust.
A MANGLING OF WORDS
I attempted to read your article, "Studied Ambiguity" (May 2001 Mission) -- I say, "attempted," because my confusion was so great I had to put it aside in frustration.
It is a sad commentary on the state of Catholic education today that you needed to define your vocabulary at the onset. Not only is your confusion about basic terminology apparent, but Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's and, God help us, rector Father Coleman's as well.
Chaste: not indulging in forbidden (by God) sexual activity. Celibate: UNMARRIED. Lust: selfish indulgence in sexual pleasure. This last term could have been used but was absent from your article and seems to have fallen into disuse today. Why?
Homosexuals are celibate, but unchaste, if they indulge their lust for same sex partners. Heterosexuals may be unchaste by indulging in lust, not only out of marriage but in it as well. I would go so far as to speculate that lust in marriage is a major factor in the destruction of the marital bond, one of the reasons why contraception is so harmful to the union.
One can forgive the Helen Gurley Browns of this world for their ignorance of terms and concepts used primarily by Catholics, but it is hard to overlook it in an "orthodox" Catholic publication.
It is my sincere hope that my criticism will be useful in your future writing. The erosion of our language is of deep concern to me. I hope you share my love of words and their importance and power.
Margaret Hernandez
Sumter Oaks
Editor: We do share your love of words. It is not that we do not understand the meaning of "chaste"; rather, we asked what Father Coleman meant by it when he rather belatedly added it to the phrase, "committed homosexual relationships." Our confusion was increased when he, at one point, equated "chaste" with "committed." For homosexuals, of course, chastity must mean celibacy -- abstention from genital acts; our point was that it was not clear from what Coleman said that he understood chastity for homosexuals in this way.
GUILTY TOO
Regarding the article in your May 2001 issue about the blasphemy of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the New Mexico museum, and also in Los Angeles [see News, "A Santa Monica Artist..." -- As if it isn't bad enough the museum displayed such a blasphemy for all to see, you had to print a picture of it for all Catholics who read your paper to see. In my humble opinion you are guilty, too.
Please take me off your mailing list.
Bernice A. Walde
Arcadia
GRATEFUL AND PLEASED
I want to thank you for sending your paper to me monthly. It is very much appreciated. I was grateful and pleased to read the article in the May issue concerning the closing of the abortion clinic in Cypress [see "Prayers in Chamber of Horrors," May 2001]. I lived in west Orange County (Cypress, Anaheim) and I knew a lady who used to go to the clinic on Saturday mornings with others and pray the rosary and distribute pro-life literature. The many prayers and efforts of those fine people have born great fruit, thanks be to God.
I enjoy your fine paper and, like you, I deplore the liturgical and theological anarchy that has been unleashed upon so many, especially in Mahony's domain. I would strongly encourage people to seek out Latin Masses and/or frequent the Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, etc., churches. I bet most people are not even aware of the Eastern Catholic churches in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Please make mention of these parishes in your paper so people will know about them.
Anthony J. Lucker
QUESTIONS FOR NICOLOSI
As a practicing heterosexual with a wife and three children, I was stunned to see seminary rector, Father Coleman, taken to task for what was described as "studied ambiguity" on the topic of homosexuality in the May 2001 lead story of the Los Angeles Mission see "Studied Ambiguity"]. Of particular interest was the article's heavy reliance on the opinions of Catholic psychologist Dr. Joseph Nicolosi who, in his commentary, labeled homosexuality a "developmental disorder." In order that all interested persons, Catholic, and non-Catholic alike, may become better educated about Dr. Nicolosi's work with male homosexuals, and its moral implications, perhaps he could answer some questions not addressed by the Mission's editors.
At the very threshold of any inquiry into repair, or cure, of the homosexual condition, it seems germane to inquire exactly how Dr. Nicolosi knows he has "cured" an individual unless that individual has demonstrated the ability to achieve orgasm with a woman? It's trite, but accurate, to say the proof is in the pudding. Without such empirical proof it would appear the treatment afforded by Dr. Nicolosi is experimental, at best, and disingenuous at worst.
The nature of proof in this area raises some interesting moral questions. Due to the fact that most homosexual men are single, does the performance of an orgasmic act outside of the marital state violate the sixth or ninth commandments? On the other hand, if the treatment involves Pavlovian self-stimulation, with or without orgasm, is that morally acceptable, even if one considers the totality of the circumstances? Is viewing erotic imagery, or entertaining explicit sexual thoughts, either for the purposes of determining affective states of opposite sex arousal, or to encourage a patient's focus on a different sexual orientation, morally permissible? If so, what are the limits on such activity? Is it moral to use sex surrogates in curing homosexuality?
In terms of completing a normative re-orientation, are homosexuals in reparative therapy directed, or encouraged, to seek opposite sex partners of their own? If so, how are they selected? Are they warned in advance of the predominant orientation of a potential partner? Is birth control encouraged during the performance of an act of sexual congress that takes place in the course of treatment? Does the absence of anti-STD forms of birth control jeopardize the health of the woman through potential exposure to HIV and AIDS since some STDs, and related illnesses such as Hepatitis B, linger undetected for years? What risk does the absence of anti-STD birth control pose to fetal offspring conceived by a recovering homosexual and his partner?
On the other hand, if birth control methods known to impede HIV and AIDS, such as condoms and/or spermicidal jellies, are used by Dr. Nicolosi's patients, is this violative of established Church law? Even if temporarily permissible, does the use of contraceptives during treatment serve to encourage their future use, even if no longer mandated by ethical or practical considerations? Given the deleterious effects of divorce on children, does Dr. Nicolosi recommend a period of time after marriage when birth control for other than disease-related concerns is advisable? Does failure to recommend contraception within patient marriages expose children of recovered homosexuals, who may relapse, to the potential trauma of single parenthood, confused sexual role modeling, and societal opprobrium? Is it inherently moral to place innocent third parties, especially children, in such a situation? How does Dr. Nicolosi deal with the issue of genetic predispositions in any offspring produced by unions undertaken by patients? Is the doctor sure he isn't perpetuating, if not magnifying, the very problem he seeks to cure?
Does Dr. Nicolosi encourage his patients to abstain from all sexual relations until after marriage? If his patients adhere to any such injunction, without proven orgasmic abilities with a member of the opposite sex, does this practice encourage divorce if the cure fails, or a patient relapses? Is it fair to a recovering homosexual's opposite-sex partner that marriage be undertaken prior to demonstrating a definitive and permanent change in sexual orientation through completion of an orgasmic act? Can any cure be deemed a success without the proven ability to perform such an act? How many acts are actually required to prove that the ability to have sexual congress with a woman is not an isolated event brought about by desperation or a desire to please the therapist? Why is reorientation preferred over traditional methods involving the encouragement of a chaste life? Are Dr. Nicolosi's success rates sufficiently high that his treatment outweighs the obvious human, and moral, risk inherent in such treatment?
As a practical matter, should a re-ordered homosexual marry at all, even with full spousal disclosure? Does a non-homosexual partner's informed consent to marriage with a recovered homosexual, with its inherent risk of relapse, extend to the union's offspring? Can the couple ethically bind their offspring, even if they agree between themselves that the risk is acceptable? Is there follow-up treatment, in case of relapses, for patient, wife, and/or children? In the event of failure of treatment, is the wife of a relapsed homosexual encouraged to remain in a non-connubial union in order to comply with Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? Would Dr. Nicolosi encourage parties in a marriage that suffers one partner's return to same sex orientation to seek an annulment or divorce?
In the event a homosexual marries, but relapses and stays in the union, does this place his wife at further risk for illness if the couple continues to have sexual relations, however infrequent? Does the possibility of relapse encourage the use of birth control in any such marriage? Does a failure of treatment after marriage serve to encourage the murder of abortion if a homosexual relapses after impregnating a spouse?
I respectfully ask Dr. Nicolosi to clarify these matters by detailing his treatment methodologies. Perhaps he would be kind enough to share his own personal statistics about success rates, including data on post-cure marriages, their duration, divorce rates, and pertinent details about offspring produced within marital unions. Dr. Nicolosi heavily publicizes one or two success stories, as he advances his practice. Do these cases tell the complete story? It, also, would be interesting to know how Dr. Nicolosi interprets recent studies that ostensibly prove a biological basis for the homosexual state, including one showing significant size differentials in the pineal glands of homosexuals and heterosexual males.
Once Dr. Nicolosi has answered these questions, it would be instructive for a qualified moral theologian, or Father Coleman, the subject of the Mission's harsh criticism, to be permitted an opportunity to comment on Dr. Nicolosi's protocols. As a self-proclaimed "Catholic psychologist," he should have nothing to fear from qualified, expert, inquiry into the moral ramifications of his work in light of Church teachings.
Michael Malak, Esq.
Northridge
ERRORS MUST BE JUDGED
Fine Catholic publications, like the Mission, have received many very uncharitable letters to the editor in which they have been accused of being "unkind," "uncharitable," "enemies of the Church," etc., ad nauseam. In defense of these great Catholic publications, I would like to quote three paragraphs that are very significant to the criticisms that have been expressed in the past and unfortunately will probably be expressed in the future.
"Lord strengthen us: We do not want to make pacts, to retreat, to compromise, to dilute, to permit that they deface the divine integrity of Thy doctrine on our lips. If a flood of unpopularity breaks upon us, may our prayers always be that from Sacred Scripture: 'I have chosen to be an object in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacle of sinners' (Ps. 83:11)."
"It must be observed that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even PUBLICLY," St. Thomas Aquinas.
And last but certainly not least: "Love for whoever errs must never bring about a compromise with love: errors must be amassed and judged. The love which the church has for man obliges her to tell man how and when his church is being denied, his good unrecognized, his dignity violated, his worth not adequately appreciated. With humility, but with great firmness you have to give witness to this great truth today," (Pope John Paul II, 1986).
Kenneth Fisher
Founder & Director, Concerned Roman Catholics of America
INCREDIBLY OFFENDED
Regarding your May 1998 "Roamin' Catholic" on St. Bernardine of Siena, Woodland Hills: I stumbled on to your website accidentally. What a bunch of condescending, self-important drivel. I am incredibly offended by the term "lectoresses" -- never heard of such a person, with or without a "power suit." Would a man in a blue pinstripe be described in such a manner? I have been present when the scripture has been proclaimed as described. There was no hint of a "performance." Charles Coulombe walked into our parish church with an agenda. His "reporting" was simply fulfilling that agenda.
Kathleen Cromar
(received via e-mail)
Editor's note: I'm sure Mr. Coulombe would describe a man's pinstripe suit as a power suit. He similarly described the garb of a lector in the October 1997 "Roamin' Catholic": "At the reading of the epistle (this Sunday, a reading from St. James'), the lector -- an older gentleman in a Palm Beach suit -- inserted 'and sisters,' both times the Apostle exhorted 'my brothers.'"
BEYOND TROUBLING
I read, with great delight and admiration, Monsignor John Sheridan's letter in your June issue. I thank him for saying it so precisely and more charitably than I ever could. The increasingly peculiar and vicious stance your paper is taking is beyond troubling. Peculiar is your prerogative, but the viciousness only adds to the peculiarity and, I will say, to ever lessening your credibility. The subjects you choose to "report" so often are deliberately mis-reported or with quasi-sarcastic remarks. Did anyone of your writers take and pass Journalism I? And please, as Father Sheridan asked, do let us know what you are all about -- or what you think you are about.
Barbara Kennedy
Venice
NOT OPPOSED TO RIGHT TO LIFE
In a learned article on capital punishment (First Things, April 2001), Avery Cardinal Dulles showed that the pope and the bishops are not teaching that the death penalty in itself violates the right to life. Rather, they have come to a "prudential conclusion" that under contemporary conditions it is no longer (or very rarely) justifiable because, on balance, "the evil effects outwith the good effects." But to say that the death penalty does more harm than good is not to say that it does no good at all. Thus we might hope that the execution of Timothy McVeigh, whatever its evil effects, will have some good ones as well.
What good might result? The Bible speaks of the death penalty's deterrent effect (Deut. 13:12; 19:20; 21:21). The Catechism of the Council of Trent states, respecting the fifth commandment, that that just use of the power to lethally punish the guilty is "an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder," since state-inflicted punishments "naturally tend" to the goal of the commandment -- "the preservation and security of life. by repressing outrage and violence." James Megivern (in The Death Penalty) accuses the Church of teaching here the "myth of deterrence;" but those who trust Church teaching might justifiably expect that the McVeigh execution will in some manner deter the kind of evil for which he is being punished.
Stephen Serra
Mission Viejo
DON'T WAIT FOR THE DARK AGES
The March 2001 issue on the priestless Church and St. John's seminary was so sad [see "It Was Us Against Them,"]. This same battle between liberals and conservatives is raging in all of the major Western religions. The liberals have won and captured the Episcopal Church. A lesbian Episcopal bishop would not even raise an eyebrow today.
My advice to those orthodox Catholic ex-seminarians is to continue their theological education somewhere else. There are Protestant, Jewish, and Eastern Orthodox universities and seminaries that would welcome them into their programs. These ex-seminarians could be experts in biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) or enter the huge and interesting field of biblical archaeology.
The opportunities for ex-seminarians in the many departments of religious studies in the state secular universities is growing every day. I think that the idea of sitting back and waiting for the Catholic seminaries to change or for the present archbishop to die and be replaced by a conservative from the Dark Ages of Europe is unwise. A holy vocation today may not have to include ordination within the next three years at St. John's.
Maybe things will change in the next few years when the present pope dies and one who is more conservative is elected. A large, highly theologically educated class of ex-seminarians will then be available for service in the restored Catholic Church. Then, again, the wait may be longer and these ex-seminarians will still have lived productive and meaningful theological lives.
Dr. Alan Albert Snow
Balboa Island