LETTERS
2002 LETTERS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
NOVEMBER 2002
KUMPEL'S WOUNDED FOOT
Why in the world would Robert Kumpel shoot himself in the foot by adding an opinion from some anonymous person in the article, "They Walk with the Devil" [September Mission]? I really resent my quote at the end of the article leading some people to believe I support his editorial comments.
In addition, the nurse at Providence Holy Cross who gave the name and directions to the abortion clinic did not say she was glad to do so, but said she felt obligated to do so.
Julie Ball,
Pregnancy Counseling Center,
Mission Hills
KUMPEL RESPONDS
I regret causing grief to any helpful source, especially one working in such a worthy endeavor as Julie Ball. Regardless, the "editorial" comments she wishes to disassociate herself from are from an source in Sacramento who has spent many years working to protect life and understands the motivations of legislators and prelates. I stand by their relevance to the story and, given the context of the final quote I used from her, hardly think any reader would take it as a support of the previous comments. With regard to the comments from the nurse at Holy Cross, I was never given a direct quote and used "would be glad to" as a figure of speech, since I was given the impression that the nurse in question had no reservations about offering the abortion referral.
NOT THE REAL ST. JOHN'S
In response to Father Saumell's letter of concern regarding St. John's Seminary ["Childish Accusations," September 2002 issue], the editor asked, "What then is the basis for Father Saumell's assertion of inaccuracy?" Permit me to address that question. Mr. Kumpel, in the first paragraph, seeks to find out "what is the character?...." of western seminaries and, in particular, St. John's. The impression is that the article will contain a realistic assessment of St. John's at the present time. He mentions, for instance, that local Catholics (no individuals are mentioned by name) wonder if St. John's seminary is (again, that reference to the present tense) a "Pink Palace." In order to answer this question about the present character which prevails at St. John's, he devotes a substantial part of his interview to Father Joe Baca.
Now, I entered the seminary with Father Joe Baca in 1982 and was with him until he was expelled in 1985. While I continued seminary studies, we kept in constant contact. Father Baca returned to St. John's theologate in 1986 and continued until his second expulsion in 1989. Father Baca then worked at various jobs in Orange County until his return to the seminary in 1996 (the article stated 1997). In 1996, he was only at St. John's theologate for one month before he was expelled for the third time.
It is indeed inaccurate to infer widespread, present, homosexual activity based upon the testimony of a person whose experience of life in the college seminary dates back 17 years and whose experience of life in the theologate dates back 13 years. Furthermore, Mr. Kumpel's repeated references to "St. John's" without making any distinction between the college seminary and the theologate (i.e. the post-graduate school of theology) is also inaccurate. The reader is not sure if Father Baca describes activity in the college or theologate, or both. In fact, the reader is not even informed that "St. John's" actually describes a large property on which are built two, distinct seminaries. Each seminary is a unique school and communal life with minimal interaction between the two. When I was in the college seminary, for instance, I never even knew the majority of the students who were in the school of theology. The reference which Father Baca makes to Father Persich is a reference to the college years.
Having been a classmate of Father Baca in the college seminary, I am shocked and surprised at his allegation that homosexuality was "openly tolerated." He possessed the same student handbook which I was given, in which there is a section titled "Disciplinary Penalties." There, it is stated, "Seminarians have an obligation to maintain a modest, respectable, and quiet atmosphere in the dorms at all times" (section G). Further down, it states where seminarians are not permitted to go when they are off the campus: "These places include theaters or places where condemned films are being shown, dance halls, single bars, or places where it would be unbecoming for a priest to be present" (section L). Again, further along, the Handbook states that students are liable to immediate dismissal for "immoral conduct in action, writing, or speech." And there was no confusion about the faculty's resolve on this matter. Father Baca himself was good friends with a young man from Ventura who was kicked out for homosexual behavior in our first year and who later died of AIDS. He would also remember a student from my diocese who was dismissed the day after homosexual activity was reported about him. And it was Father Baca himself who informed me during our third year that one of our classmates was being kicked out the day after the faculty found out that he had a female visitor in his room after visiting hours. Mind you, there was no evidence that immoral activity had taken place -- but on the mere appearance of impropriety the faculty took action. Father Baca will also remember that a video could not be shown in the recreation hall which had an "R" rating.
Father's statements in Mr. Kumpel's article simply don't square with the reality which he and I experienced while in the college. It was by no stretch of the imagination a "Pink Palace." I seriously doubt that Father Baca found rampant homosexuality in the theological school either. While I was studying theology at St. Patrick's in Menlo Park, Father Baca wrote me various letters. In these, he describes his experience at St. John's school of theology. I still have these letters in my possession, and in not one of them is there a concern about faculty tolerance of homosexuality.
Again, I want to clarify that we are speaking of the 1980's. Neither Father Baca nor I have the ability to present an accurate picture of either the college or theology campus at St. John's in its present-day reality. Simply put, neither of us have had true familiarity with those seminaries in over a decade. However, if I were to be asked about my experience of life at St. John's college during my time there, I would speak of an outstanding priest and lay faculty who were heroically patient with us. I would speak of a healthy sense of camaraderie amongst the students, many of whom forged such strong friendships that they still keep in contact to this day. I would speak of a liturgical life (Liturgy of the Hours and Mass) which was faithful to the rubrics for the most part. I recall that most priests sought to prepare students to be faithful to the Catholic Tradition, and to be service-oriented toward the people. The college seminary took in guys from wealthy and very poor families, seminarians who had great minds and those who struggled to make the grade, students who came from strong families and those who had come out of abuse situations and broken homes. There were all sorts of ethnic diversities. The vast majority of us entered right out of high school and still had a lot of smart-aleck in us -- chip on the shoulder stuff. Yet the priests and lay professors went above and beyond the call of duty to challenge us to set aside selfishness in order to become servants of the Church. From this motley crew, that seminary formed some of the finest priests I know.
Those elements of hard work on the part of the faculty should also get a mention. I understand why Father Baca would want to give the type of interview he gave. But to present that side alone and to fail to approach other students for a truly realistic assessment of college and theologate today, is, indeed, inaccurate (to say the least).
Father Angel Sotelo,
Director, San Clemente Mission
Bakersfield, California
Editor's note: If we have failed to approach other students or the administration of St. John's seminary, it has not been for lack of trying. The "other side" always refuses to speak to us. Initially, for this article, we were in contact with a student who, as of last year at least, was at St. John's. He was unwilling to be interviewed. He told me he would forward our request for interviews to the appropriate superior, but we never received a reply. Mr. Kumpel also called St. John's for comment, but his call was never returned.
Father Baca's was not the sole testimony in the article. "Father Smith," who did not contradict Baca's assertions, ameliorated their harshness somewhat by indicating that the faculty took action against homosexual activity when it was brought to their attention and that the seminary improved over time. But the fact that the seminary handbook has rules against certain behavior doesn't mean much if the rules are not assiduously applied. The fact, too, that seminary officials dismissed some students for homosexual behavior doesn't necessarily contradict Baca's and Smith's statements that the seminary was basically tolerant of homosexual activity; it could mean that they took action only when they had no other recourse. Which is the case? It is hard to say, since the priests Mr. Kumpel interviewed and Father Sotelo offer very different testimony as to the character of St. John's.
Father Sotelo's fulsome description of St. John's left out one element of praise: an account of the seminary's adherence to Catholic orthodoxy and tradition, particularly regarding clerical celibacy and sexual morality. Father Sotelo says that "most priests" at St. John's "sought to prepare students to be faithful to the Catholic Tradition" -- but is this to say that some priests did not? That the seminary tolerated priests who promoted infidelity to Catholic Tradition? Certainly, Father Sotelo would agree that orthodoxy is a sine qua non (though not the only requisite) for a college and theologate that trains men for service in the Church.
To infer current practice from past practice is not unreasonable. If someone has proven himself untrustworthy in the past, we are right to suspect him in the present -- especially if, in other areas, he has shown the same tendencies. In the case of St. John's, it is the same archbishop who oversees its life today as well as 17 years ago. This archbishop has, until recently, fostered a ministry to "gay and lesbian" Catholics which is of questionable orthodoxy, at best. He has, recently, stated that homosexuality is not the problem in the current molestation crisis and, presumably, is not incongruent with the priesthood. Certainly, St. John's may not espouse her ordinary's theological vagaries and may be, today, in every sense an orthodox seminary. We invite the testimony of anyone who has experience of current practice at St. John's to testify to the same in the pages of the Mission. Will anyone take us up on the offer?
MASS AT DENNY'S
I am a twenty-three year old Irish kid from a small factory city in the northeast. Time moves quite slowly here, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. Fortunately, our parishes have not "caught up" to yours in California. It is still possible to attend a Novus Ordo Mass and feel like a Catholic when you leave.
Last summer, I had the unfortunate experience of visiting the Los Angeles area. I would rather visit Afghanistan than visit Westlake Village again. Sadly, I attended Mass in a church that looked like a Denny's, was informed that genuflection was not permitted and was stared at during communion as though I had two heads. The experience was almost enough to drive me to the SSPX.
Thank you for your wonderful tour of Los Angeles churches. Sadly, I think they are the future of the American Church. I see even my hometown Masses becoming more and more like them. Ah, well, at least in Purgatory they have coffee and donuts.
Dominus Vobiscum
received via e-mail
BISHOP SHEEN A "SCREAMING QUEEN"?
So much of your "reporting" about the "homosexual crisis" in the church insists on reminding us of the high percentages of homosexual relationships between priests and teenage boys. Yet these articles consistently leave out an important adjective when referring to these cases. That adjective is "reported," as in "reported cases."
It's perfectly logical to assume that a seventeen-year-old girl is less likely to get sympathy, or even seek it, if she has an affair with a priest. In many countries such a relationship is not even illegal. Yet only God knows how much of this has gone on.
If we are to use pornography as a guide, there is a very large male population out there that fantasizes about "barely legal" females. I think we can safely assume that many of these dreamers are more interested in the youth of such teenage girls than they are in the legal boundary of eighteen. No doubt, many of these men are priests and bishops.
Therefore, I assume that your newspaper vigorously supports clerics who have such inclinations. Among other reasons, this is because I have read so much diatribe against those professionals who try to properly frame this recently hot issue as an ephebophile issue rather than a homosexual one. I also haven't read a peep about how these heterosexual ephebophiles should be barred from the seminaries or priesthood. Your paper also rings with an entirely false assumption that all homosexual priests are only interested in younger boys. Get real. If we are to use Christ's guidelines, only the materialistically greedy cannot enter the church. This was made very plain by several teachings of Christ. One of the most explicit ones can be found in Luke 14:33. I've read very little in your supposedly "Catholic" paper about this gravely important issue. I'm assuming this is because your paper is more "right-wing" than it is Catholic. Right-wingers are famous for their greed and concurrent dishonesty regarding it. They are also famous for bigotry, bigotry of the type that your paper shamelessly endorses against even chaste homosexuals.
Incidentally, did it ever occur to you that many saints and holy people had homosexual temptations? There's an old saying: "It takes one to know one." Most gay people I know believe our beloved and saintly Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was a "screaming queen," whether or not he ever acted out on any homosexual inclinations.
Tom Saltsman
received via e-mail
Editor's note: Mr. Saltsman criticizes us only for reporting what has been verified. Would he rather that we reported surmises? Certainly it is "logical" that clerics go after young girls -- in fact, if history is to be trusted, they certainly have been guilty of violating their vows in this fashion. Yet, according to the available evidence, the majority of clergy sex abuse cases today have involved young, post-pubescent boys and suggests homosexual ephebophilia. Mr. Saltsman may not like that, but that is what the available evidence suggests. It is possible that there are many more cases of sex abuse involving young girls, but the evidence to establish such a fact is not yet in. If it makes Mr. Saltsman feel better, we assert that all molesters, whether hetero- or homosexual, should be barred from the seminary. Yet, the current crisis seems of a more homosexual than heterosexual cast.
Mr. Saltsman's reading of the teachings of Jesus are exclusive, indeed. Certainly Our Lord condemned avarice (as did St. Paul, who called it the "root of all evil"); yet, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus, "what must I do to be saved," Our Lord did not simply reply, "obey the commandment, 'do not covet your neighbor's goods'"; rather, He said, "keep the commandments" -- which include prohibitions against lust as well as avarice. When Jesus spared the woman taken in adultery, He did not say, simply, "go in peace," but, "go and sin no more" (presumably referring to the mode in which she had been caught sinning.) St. Paul, too, taught that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor the evil-tongued, nor the greedy will possess the kingdom of God." As Catholics, we stand with Jesus and St. Paul (and we have published articles critical of avarice). What else does Mr. Saltsman expect us to do?