LETTERS November 2003
ODE TO SCHISM? Your reply to my letter about the ex-priests' activities (see "Rubbish, If Not Blasphemy," Letters, October Mission) is really fascinating. What do you mean by "independent Catholic churches"? Independent from whom? From the local bishop, or from the Pope? How can a church be independent and still be a part of the Catholic Church? Where did you find this definition? Certainly not in the Tradition. But the rest of your note has several more pearls: "Why do Latinos attend those churches ... some reasons are unworthy." So there are then some WORTHY reasons for leaving the Church! It's a news for me. "Latinos long for traditional worship and devotions, and when other groups offer these, they flock to them." Which worship and devotions? Do the "independents" use Latin and Tridentine rubrics? That is the only thing that comes to my mind, because you did not mention a single issue. "I would hope that the Catholic clergy would learn something, etc." You deny that your article is promoting those phoney churches; but if this is not a promotion, what is it then? Certainly not an Ode to a Grecian Urn. First of all I am not talking against other denominations and creeds, but against the ex-priests. I don't see what could I learn from them except not to do what they did. The Church is Peter, not Iscariot. Dixi et salvavi animam meam. Father Vlatko Poljicak Pomona Editor's reply: In using the phrase "independent Catholic churches," I used more-or-less common parlance, for lack of better terminology. What I referred to were those churches which call themselves Catholic, seem to have apostolic succession, but are not in union with Rome. As such, of course, they are not truly Catholic. No, there are no worthy reasons to leave the Church; but there are worthy desires -- such as the desire for traditional liturgy, for traditional devotions, a sense of the sacred -- that may be the means by which one is drawn to a schismatic/heretical group. Too many celebrations of the Mass in parishes are conducted as if there were no mystery, no transcendent. The liturgy has been subjected to a leveling that seeks to turn the sacred into a metaphor for the profane. This tendency is seen, as well, in theology and catechetics; witness the Los Angeles archdiocese's religious education congress. Now, such nonsense can, and often is, a scandal to the faithful. Does it justify their leaving the Church? Of course not. But, woe to him by whom scandal comes. Perhaps my previous answer to Father Poljicak was unclear. What Catholic priests, including Cardinal Roger Mahony, can learn from is not the infidelity of schismatic priests (after all, there are enough unfaithful priests in the bosom of the Catholic Church itself); rather, priests and bishops can learn from is the reason or reasons Catholics, Latino and otherwise, flock to schismatic churches. It is much easier to condemn such that do (and I am not saying they do not need condemnation); it is harder to discern the causes for which they do what they do. I know Catholics who go to chapels of the Society of St. Pius X and of the Society of St. Pius V because the worship in their diocesan parishes is like a circus and because the catechetical instruction offered is sub-Protestant. Do I say they are right in doing what they do? No. But I do say that if bishops and priests would conform parochial worship to tradition and once again teach the fullness of the Catholic faith, they would go far to stem the defections. This is what I meant when I said that the clergy needs to look to its own house before it condemns others. Si faciatis, animas vestras servetis.
SPEAK OUT AGAINST CONTRACEPTION The Church needs to be as willing to speak out against abortion as against homosexuality. John Calvin, I believe, said sodomy would be the end result of contraception. If his prophecy has come true, the intervening step was abortion. Royce Dunn, America's Life Chain founder, in his statement against contraception, cited its abiding connection with abortion as a principle reason for standing against contraception. Another reason cited by pro-life activists is that prescription contraceptives are abortifacients. Some Protestant theologians (certain Lutherans and, perhaps, others) never went along with the acceptance of contraception that began in the 1930s, spearheaded by the Lambeth Conference of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Thirty some years later, Pope Paul VI definitively rejected contraception in his encyclical, Humanæ Vitæ. The formation of such organizations as Protestants Against Birth Control and Catholics for A Free Choice has mooted and trumped doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics. The more activist the church membership in the pro-life movement, regardless of denomination, the more likely it is that they will oppose contraception. Historically, the legalization of abortion was foisted upon the country by zealot lawyers who resorted to unethical tactics. Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the Roe v. Wade case, and Sandra Cano, the "Jane Doe" of the Doe v. Bolton case, are now both pro-life spokespersons. Regardless of whether church members want to get into all of the above, the Church needs to speak up against the immorality of abortion from the standpoint of the harm suffered by both the women and the children. There are speakers who will speak out about the harm to women based upon their own experiences. The very least the Church can do is publicize the local or national pregnancy help line phone numbers. "How can there be peace when war is being waged against the fruit of the womb?" Mother Teresa asked. The nation -- and especially the Church -- need to acknowledge that God alone is Lord of Life, from natural conception through natural death. Jesus said: "I came that they may have life, and have it to the full," and "anyone who welcomes a little child in my name welcomes me." Lila Cuajunco Torrance
TOP
|