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
JULY/AUGUST 1999
THANKS
Please accept thanks for the news item in the May Mission entitled "Work to Halt Executions." Your handling of this dilemma has been and remains encouraging. We wish you good health and peace.
K. Bandell
Norwalk
DON'T BE INTIMIDATED
Reading the letters to the editor in your newspaper often leaves me feeling guilty. So many of the letters to the editor tend to criticize and condemn the important work you are doing for the unborn and the Roman Catholic Church while people like me are too lazy to write and tell you how blessed we are to have the information that you disseminate. We who are persecuted for our faith in God, spiritually raped by false teachings, and stand in the cold as defenders of the unborn and the true Roman Catholic Church are continuously inspired and encouraged by your courage to print the truth.
I've personally heard you accused of lies, of collaborating with a pornographer, and I know personally that it is they who are lying and collaborating with the culture of death. When they try to smear you, they ar smearing themselves. Although you have to have extremely big shoulders to carry the accusations, I would like to say that these are the times that your courage guides my courage to rise to a higher level.
Many of us who read your newspaper are ordinary people struggling and suffering for the salvation of our souls as Roman Catholics. We are doing whatever we can in our limited capacity to promote life for the unborn, to attend a Mass that is instituted to worship Christ, and to evangelize His way wherever we can; yet we recognize that we are riding in the back of the bus.
Do we get tired? Do we want to give up? Do we feel that liturgical abuses are leading us to contemplate leaving the church of good times and entertainment? I would have to answer, "yes," to all of the above questions. Some of us have become nomads wandering the desert in search of a real Catholic church. Do we find one? No. Sitting among an "assembly" of individual Christs who are joyfully standing and swaying during the musical consecration and serving and receiving communion with their significant others disgust me. Am I judgmental? Am I self righteous? I suppose so.
What shall we do? Shall we join hands and sing as we move to the front of the bus? No! We get out and walk, we crawl on our knees, we pray the rosary that never leaves our pocket and we send a zillion thanks to the Mission for exposing the rotten apples wherever they appear. Don't be intimidated and I will pray harder that you will keep up what God has called you do to as I pray harder that I, too, will keep up the work that He has called me to do.
Frances Hodge
Los Angeles
WHAT AGENDA?
Several articles in the May 1999 issue refer to the "homosexual agenda." Might I ask just what this agenda is?
Having worked and ministered with many homosexual persons, I am at a loss to see that all of them somehow have a common agenda. It is really a mistake to think of all gays and lesbians forming a community with a common set of goals.
There are, in fact, many gay and lesbian communities. These communities and individual homosexual persons all have different expectations and goals -- agendas, if you wish, but I am not aware of some grand "homosexual agenda."
I point this out to you because it is important for us to see homosexual persons and individuals rather than as members of some amorphous and dangerous group perceived as pushing its agenda on society. To refer to the "homosexual agenda" can lead to very unfortunate stereotyping, prejudice and lack of understanding of persons with this orientation since it lumps together into one neat cohort individuals with very different values, styles of life, and beliefs.
I don't think that we would speak of a "black agenda" or an "Hispanic agenda" or a "Catholic agenda." Granted that members of those groups might have some concerns in common, but we are insightful enough to realize that all blacks, Hispanics and Catholics do not think alike or share in some lockstep fashion to common agendas.
Rev. Jerome Stack, C.PP.S
Norwalk
Editor's Note: The term "homosexual agenda" refers to an advocacy which seeks the cultural, political, and legal validation in society of homosexuality and of homosexual relationships as natural and good. That there are movements in government, the schools, in the media, etc. which work for this end is undeniable. I admit that there are, perhaps, many homosexuals who do not subscribe to the "homosexual agenda," or actively engage in activities to promote it. That homosexuals are individual persons against whom there should be no prejudice and "lack of understanding" is also undeniable, and a stance promoted within the pages of the Mission.
TO FISHER ON FISHER
This is not in any way a criticism of your paper. It relates only to a letter from Kenneth Fisher (See Letters, May issue) who suggests that if those who criticize you "because you appear to be attacking their hierarchy...are sincere in their desire to defend the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith" they should ask themselves: "Had I lived during the so-called Reformation in England, would I have supported Cardinal Wolsey, or...the canonized martyr bishop, St. John Fisher?"
I find this puzzling. First, isn't the hierarchy yours as well as "theirs?" Second, in what regard are your critics being asked whether they would support Wolsey or Bishop Fisher? I assume it concerns "the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith? and that the reference is intended to pertain specifically to Henry VIII's claim that he was supreme head of the Catholic Church in England. Bishop Fisher explicitly denied Henry's right to the title and to royal control of the Church, both of which were established by law. Legally, that was treason, so he was beheaded on June 22, 1535.
Fisher was a man of the highest reputation and his death grieved both the general public and his fellow churchmen. "Yet," as one noted English historian expresses it, "with few exceptions, the whole body of the English clergy, regular and secular, abjured [the pope's] authority." I don't condone this, but I think it's important to note that such a general repudiation of the pope was possible in 16th century England because the prestige of the papacy and of the Church and clergy in general was at such a low ebb.
As to Wolsey, he was not immediately involved in the events that led directly to the English schism because he had died just before that. Those events began in December 1530 when Henry took his first positive steps toward schism, acting through parliament. By laws passed in this parliament, Henry first sought to pressure Pope Clement VII to grant his divorce (really annulment) suit which had been recalled to Rome in July 1529 after an abortive trial in England by Cardinals Campeggio and Wolsey, acting as deputies specially commissioned by the pope. When Henry's attempt to pressure the pope failed, the king and his parliament pressed on and within four years the English schism was complete.
Meanwhile, on November 4, 1530, Wolsey had been arrested on what were probably fabricated charges of treason and had died November 29 on his way to trial. Unlike Bishop Fisher, Wolsey was not a saintly person (who of us is?) but he was an orthodox Catholic. The autocratic methods he used in England's ecclesiastical affairs were, it is true, a contributing factor in the schism, but so, too, was Clement VII's failure to use his papal prerogative in Wolsey's defense. It was that Clement who authorized Thomas Cranmer's consecration as archbishop of Canterbury despite advance warnings from Queen Catherine and Charles V's ambassador in England.
The lesson for all of us, laity and clergy alike, is to realize that even those in the highest offices of Church as well as state can make egregious errors, sometimes with the best intentions. As Jesus said to his sleepy disciples: "Watch and pray...the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matt. 26: 41).
Equally important, he also said: "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Obviously that doesn't mean we won't make mistakes. We have, but they have not been mortal errors and when we recognize them we can correct them. And if, in correcting them we also make other mistakes, we can be sure that they, too, can be corrected in the future. The words of Jesus are comforting to us both as individuals and as members of his Church.
Felix Doherty
Bellflower
AN EXAMINATION WILL SUFFICE
Sandra Guzman's story, "Archdiocese, Diocese Issue Home School Guidelines" (May Mission) reports only the latest in a long series of triumphs of bureaucratic procedure over results. The bishops are unquestionably the guardians and primary teachers of the faith, but our Lord's commission to them never assured them of final authority on matters of pedagogy. Indeed, I never heard of a bishop claiming he was blessed with such authority.
Even the ancients knew that it is of the essence of bureaucracy to accrete power. Procedure is the means.
The bishops could save much money and hassle if they could simply publish an examination and administer it to each child who is presented for the sacraments. The parishes would, of course, offer classes for those who felt the need for them. But the examination, not the procedure, would be the "price of admission." If this modus operandi is good enough for great universities, it should be good enough for the bureaucrats.
Richard J. Kulda
Orange
KEEP UP THE FIGHT, BUT BE CAUTIOUS
Your dialogue with Sean Owen ["Not Just Nit-Picking," June Mission] is a pretty ugly fight, but you went through the mill with courage. Owen's comments are so non-Catholic it is surprising you were able to maintain the exchange. Keep up the good fight. Keep up the positive attitude, and always refer to dependable sources. Be cautious dealing with these detractors of the truth, for as we associate with heresy, we run the risk of taking it into us.
Remember that Satan is perfectly satisfied to promote even the sacraments, so long as those receiving a sacrament take a drop of his poison along with it.
Owen said, "The cardinal's purpose [is] to establish the church as an essential means of salvation." I see two errors here. First, the Church was established by Jesus Christ, and cannot be established by any one else. Second, but most important, the Church is not, nor can it ever be "an" essential means of salvation. The Church is the essential means of salvation. No other means exists, as Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, and Jesus did not establish any other means, only the Church.
Your returning to the theme of the cardinal's indiscretion in using "Body and Blood," or "consecrated bread" and "consecrated wine" is quite commendable. You would not let it rest, nor should you have. We must all follow your good example of defending these very crucial concepts in defense of the one, true Faith! We, obviously, can't wait for our cardinal to defend the truth.
Theological precision is, indeed, important. Your cases in point are real eye-openers. "The very Faith" is indeed at stake! Precision from our teachers is our God-given right, and precision in their teaching is their God-ordained duty!
Please be careful, also, when you use such phrases as "tradition develops." You are setting foot into the same ambiguity and obfuscation in which the cardinal is wont to dabble. Tradition does, objectively speaking, not develop at all. Tradition is what the apostles heard coming out of the mouth of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Tradition defines the doctrines of the Faith. Doctrine today is the same as doctrine was then, and always will be. Doctrine does not grow, it merely becomes more understandable for us. Nor does Tradition grow, but merely becomes more tangible, more comprehensible, more part of our life's breath and our body's blood surging through our veins.
Brian De La Torre
Granada Hills
Editor's note: My choice of words, "Tradition develops," was unhappy. Indeed, the Tradition received from Christ through the Apostles does not develop, but our understanding of it does. This understanding and the transmission of that understanding I would call "doctrine." Doctrine develops, though any subsequent development thereof may not contradict, but must harmonize with, what has gone before it.
MORE THANKS
I thank you, thank you, thank you for the article about "Gather Faithfully Together." Thank God there are still some of us who don't need to use footnotes. Keep up the good work!
Eleanor
(received by e-mail)
KNOWS HORSE HAY WHEN HE SEES IT
The e-mail exchange between yourself and "Sean Irwin" is most interesting. All the theological hair-splitting aside, Mahony and his ilk have been presiding over the destruction of the Church since 1965. This effort by the good Archbishop is merely the latest in the long list of atrocities that have laid waste to our once-mighty Church.
While I am no "theologian" (may they perish in oblivion) I do recognize hay that has already been through the horse. Mahony may be building a (little needed) cathedral, but he is destroying the reason for it. Our heretical Protestant opponents delight in the likes of Mahony and bishops like him. They rob Catholics of their Faith and send them into the arms of Protestant sects. Restore the Traditional (Latin) Mass, return Catholics to the Faith of their Fathers.
Dave Jones
(received by e-mail)