LETTERS
2006 LETTERS
September/October
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
June 2006
IT'S NOT THEIR LAND
The Mission seems to take the side of the people who are farming land that does not belong to them ["We Have to Throw Them Off," April 2006.]
Mr. Horowitz owns the land. He paid for it and presumably is paying property taxes on it and thus educating their kids. With ownership comes control. He has a right to use his own land.
In order to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, and in order to obey the commandment to not steal, the farmers need to return the land to him to whom it belongs. And the Mission ought to point that out to them.
Joe O'Brien, Panorama City
Editor replies: I admit a certain preference for the feeble footholds of the poor and powerless over against the economic interests of rich landowners. I admit a predilection for gardens over warehouses, especially in ugly urban landscapes, and when the beneficiaries of the warehouses don't have to look at them day in and day out. (I don't think Mr. Horowitz lives in South Central.) It seems to me that the poor in the city should have something to relieve the bleakness of their surroundings. Beauty, after all, is important, and not just for the rich.
But more to Mr. O'Brien's point. Mr. Horowitz, indeed, owns the land. And it appears he obtained it by a collusion with city government in violation of the Los Angeles city charter. If so, does he then have a moral right to it? But let's assume he has, at least, a legal right to it. The South Central farmers have been working that land, with city permission (they were not squatters), for over a decade. By all accounts, they have come to depend upon its produce for a decent part of their livelihood. The farming, it seems, has contributed to the social good of the people in the area -- fostering a community spirit, intergenerational solidarity (and thus tradition), and self-reliance. The land, in other words, has, it seems, been an important and irreplaceable access into essential elements of the common good for people who, otherwise, have very few options. And this is all to be lost so a wealthy man can become wealthier through a warehouse.
Mr. Horowitz owns the land. He has a legal claim on the land because he purchased it; but the farmers have a moral claim on it because they have worked it, transforming it from a barren city lot to a fertile field, impressing upon it the image of their persons. (I think here of Rerurm Novarum, where Leo XIII writes of man appropriating "that part of physical nature to himself which he has cultivated," impressing on it "as it were, a kind of image of his person, so that it must be altogether just that he should possess that part as his very own and that no one in any way should be permitted to violate his right.") The farmers have a moral claim on it because, if reports be true, it has become an important part of the common good of their community. Mr. Horowitz does not have the moral right to jeopardize this for the sake of gain. He does not have the moral right to do what he wishes with his property, if that use does not respect the good of those around him; any use he makes of it has to accord with the existing, common good of the community in which he bought it. The common good stands above the private good of one man or investment company.
So, maybe, Mr. Horowitz should have done with it and realize that he did not buy himself a mere investment property. He bought himself a farm. Given the bleakness of Los Angeles, one can only wish there were more such farms.
NO ANTICIPATORY DREAD
At what point will one see the writing on the wall? The hierarchy of Orange and Los Angeles do not care about what the magisterium teaches, the popes have said, or even dogma. Why try to fight any longer? There are traditional churches that would welcome devout, sincere Catholics and which provide the true Mass with no innovations -- orders to stand, nonsense about "tradition for seven years" (Mahony's flimsy and specious reason for using non-precious chalices for communion), pro-gay diatribes, etc.
Mary Tripoli [in "Canonically, It's Gobbledygook," May Mission], said, "the laity has the right to sound doctrine and sound liturgy." One won't find either at any Novus Ordo Mass where the bishop is pro-homosexual, gives lip service to being pro-life, spends the people's money on monstrous "cathedrals," moves the tabernacle out of its central position to side chapels or nooks, hobnobs with anti-Catholic celebrities, encourages liturgical dancing, discourages or disallows communion on the tongue, and allows any number of aberrations when he says Mass.
I fought the fight for years at my parish (St Elisabeth in Van Nuys, where I was head of the altar servers, an extraordinary minister, head of the lectors, and on the liturgy committee) to no avail. My faith compelled me at last to find solace in the Mass of Tradition. I now attend Mass with no anticipatory dread of wondering what abuses will occur this week, dreading the homily, or speculating if I will be able to receive communion (due to the celebrant's making up his own version of the consecratory prayers). It's wonderful!
Tesa Becica, Van Nuys
Editor replies: One certainly can sympathize with Miss Becica's choice. But if the "traditional churches" she speaks of are independent, with priests without faculties, attending these is not without problems. Some of these churches or chapels do not recognize the reigning pontiff. Others, while recognizing the current pope, often harbor a schismatic spirit, which can eat away at one's fidelity to the See of Rome. And, since the priests do not have faculties from the local ordinary, it is at least highly questionable that they can offer a valid absolution in confession, and they have no authority to witness a marriage. Marriages witnessed by such priests are invalid, since they do not represent the Church.
But I, for one, find it hard to criticize those who flee to traditional chapels (though there are sometimes other options, such Eastern rite churches.) Fault more squarely lies with those prelates who, through negligence or advocacy, tolerate or promote illicit and irreverent celebrations of the Mass, heterodoxy, and moral aberration.
ABORTION REDUCES VIOLENT CRIME
Please take my name off of your mailing list. I am sick and tired of your propaganda showing up monthly on my doorstep. The clincher is your including the "Parents' Right to Know" petitions. By trying to get this into law, you are endangering the lives of many teenagers with bright futures ahead of them. It will do nothing to reduce the amount of unwanted teen pregnancies and will lead to more unwanted children that will be neglected by their parent/s. This in turn will lead to higher crime rates, as these unwanted children grow into adults. Roe v. Wade is the major reason that violent crime has gone down in the last decade and a half. Let's take care of our current population first!
Daniel Haas, Santa Monica
Editor replies: I didn't know Roe v. Wade has led to crime reduction. Perhaps in a future letter, Mr. Haas will favor us with the evidence for such an assertion. Then, maybe, we can better appreciate Mr. Haas' prescription for fighting violent crime and other problems, which, in sum, is this: the unwanted children! Kill them all!" I wonder if he would say the same for the homeless. After all, nobody seems to want them, either.