Letters

BLESSED VIRGIN ISSUE

Dear Dr. McInerny:

Thank you for the issue of Catholic Dossier on the Blessed Virgin. It contained a discussion on the meaning of the Immaculate Conception. Recently, too, there have been discussions of opinions on the Assumption.

To me, the two facts go together, the latter a natural result of the former. Had they not sinned, would not Adam and Eve, and consequently the rest of us (who, perhaps, passed some determining test) have been assumed into Heaven?

Assumption is the planned natural event. With respect to humans, death and decay, Hell, Purgatory, Redemption, and a Final Judgment all result from Original Sin. Hence, Our Lady's Assumption is to be expected from her Immaculate Conception.

Please tell me if my view is incorrect.

Sincerely,

Brian F. Doolin

San Jose, California

Dear Editor:

With reference to page 46 of the May-June 1996 Catholic Dossier, vol. 2, no. 3, the first paragraph of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Hail Mary attributes "blessed art thou among women" to the angel. Luke 1:42 states that this was said by Elizabeth.

I trust this is a theological misstep you refer to in your Highlights. Finding it will always be one of my Highlights.

Yours truly,

John Raymond

Richardson, Texas

My daughter Elizabeth is an angel, hence the slip. However, in older translations, including the Douay-Rheims, the phrase is also attributed to the angel Gabriel.

- Ed.

THE POPE AND EXCOMMUNICATION

Dear Dr. McInerny:

First of all, let me congratulate you on and thank you for such an outstanding magazine! It's encouraging to see that there are still people in this increasingly secularized country of ours defending the orthodox Catholic Faith that has been handed on to us since apostolic times. I was thrilled to see that the July-August issue was a tribute to our Holy Father, John Paul II.

However, I was disappointed, to say the least, in James Hitchcock's assessment of His Holiness' performance record, if you will. I was surprised at Dr. Hitchcock's position on this matter, especially because I had found several of his previous articles both enlightened and enlightening. What would he have the Holy Father do? Excommunicate anyone who disagreed with the Church? While the thought is tempting, unfortunately excommunication doesn't carry the same weight that it did some years ago. Or, better yet, should the pope become pastor of each parish in America - or the world for that matter - himself? When it comes down to it, the Pope can only continue to teach the truth and hope and pray that the rest of us will use our free will to embrace it.

I thank the Lord every day for giving us such a wonderful leader, teacher, and ruler as the latest successor to Peter. I only pray that we will have him with us for many years to come. Again, thank you for your magazine, and may God continue to bless this ministry.

Sincerely in Christ,

Rodrigo J. Morales

Durham, North Carolina

SOME BACK ISSUES ARE AVAILABLE

Dear Dr. McInerny:

I received my first issue of Catholic Dossier the other day. I have already written P.O. Box 591120 in San Francisco asking if they have back copies for sale. Volume 2, number 4 is superbly done, and I just want to express my thanks to you for your initiative. The little side blurbs dealing with the content of the article are superb attention grabbers. If I am able to get back copies, I shall be using them for reference. Again, my thanks to you.

Gratefully,

Rev. John McMenamin, O.S.F.S.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

WHAT GOOD IS A DEAD KING?

Dear Dr. McInerny:

In his article "What Kind of Caesar?"(July-August 1996), Russell Hittinger states that the only reason Americans did not go so far as to execute King George III is that they could not lay their hands on him. I am wondering if a single scrap of evidence exists for this outrageous claim. What possible advantage would the colonists have gained from a dead king across the ocean? The purpose of the American revolution was to gain independence from the British government, not to overthrow it. Furthermore, I find Mr. Hittinger's implicit equating of our founding fathers with the murderous henchmen of the French Revolution odious.

I am fully aware that many people live in their own little worlds of moral relativism, and that these people might believe that any one revolution is equally as unjust as another, but it is disappointing to find these sentiments among your pages. But perhaps I should give Mr. Hittinger the benefit of the doubt and take his comments for nothing more than the reflexive American-bashing that we have come to know so well from our elite practitioners of higher education.

May God continue to bless you and your fine magazine.

Sincerely,

Glen Goodrich

Cypress, California