| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters
from our readers
Out of the mouths of infants
Editor: In reading Fr. Frank Pavone's January 1996 article, "Preaching to Children about Abortion," I was reminded of an incident which occurred some time back in the mid-1980s while a small group of pro-lifers were picketing a local abortion-providing hospital early one morning.
As we were getting ready to end our morning picket of the facility, a young school girl, perhaps aged 6 or 7, happened to pass by and stopped to read one of our signs. We soon found ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to answer the young girl's inquiry as to what an "abortion" was. With tactful sensitivity, one of our members tried to explain that an abortion was when a doctor kills a baby while it is still in the mother's "tummy." In a reply reminiscent of both Ps. 8 and Matt. 21:16 ("Out of the mouths of infants and nurslings you have brought forth praise . . .") the young girl simply looked at us and said, "But that's God's child!"
How is it that what seems so clear to a young child can be so difficult to grasp for so many adults of our "enlightened" society?
Mark Kahabka
Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada
Contraception is the number
one enemy of marriages today
Editor: Father Clarence Hettinger's "The End of the Annulment Explosion" (July 1996) augurs well for improvement in the operation of marriage courts. How can it be, he chides gently, that couples are obviously capable of marriage on the wedding day, but routinely become incapable retroactively? God, who arranged marriage for humans in general, must have equipped them in general to succeed in the permanent commitment. Fr. Hettinger's warm, wise, and pastoral article does HPR immense credit.
He alludes to four early warning signs of marital failure, "criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling." Indeed, couples have to work through these obstacles and so prevent a terminal "stonewalling." Has it not been so from the time of Adam and Eve?
What is the new problem today? Let's face the monster down. Have priests and lay instructors acquired the insight that today's marriage stonewall mason is contraception? By contracepting a man tramples with filthy boots on the delicate self-awareness of his woman. She normally carries her nose high, aware of her dignity as an incredibly unique and gold-filigreed image of God. The insensitive husband makes light of her deeply cherished assets. The woman responds by scorning the man who sins with her. Who trades off his inheritance for a cheap mess of pottage. Mutual masturbation breeds mutual contempt. The bedroom begins to reek of sulphur. No wonder they both opt finally to leave. But hopping into another bedroom to befoul that also with sinful actions is going to be a second disappointment.
The Lord has a superb plan for marriage. He made it durable, to fit all cultures from Adam and Eve until the angels blow their trumpets. Let the word go forth: "NO CONTRACEPTION, PLEASE!" Christ discarded his calm but once in the Gospels: when he picked up a whip of rope and swished it about to drive merchants out of the temple. He kicked over the tables and coins clattered on stone floor. He upset cages as frightened doves took off with whistling wings. He takes fire when sin is commercialized. Today he says: "Get these condoms and pills and sterilizing knives out of the bedroom! How dare you turn my temple into a bordello?"
We know the answer: Divorce is rare among users of natural methods. They usually learn to be yoked together without cracking each other's heads by stonewalling. Pastors, instructors, set your jaws firmly like Isaiah, like Jeremiah. Tell the whole truth. Your people deserve to hear the entire Gospel, including the hard parts. Contraception is the number one enemy of marriages today. Help clean this (d)evil out of the Church.
Fr. Anthony Zimmerman
Nagoya, Japan
The problem is not easy
Editor: Francis X. Wrenn's good comment (August-September 1996) on my essay and others in the March 1996 issue of HPR about the need for an "authority pope" and not just a "teaching pope" again touches upon a widespread wonderment about why what this great Pope teaches is not received at the diocesan or local levels. Surely, it is unfair for us to expect John Paul II to be and do everything, as if he were the local bishop. He has done so much. No one is like him in the modern world. The Church has not really seen his likes, perhaps ever. In the area of authority, including his own, the Pope has instinctively preferred to proceed by persuasion and reason, as he should. We cannot blame him if he believes the rhetoric about modern man and modern Church being so modern and mature that they can follow reason, with no exercise of authority. However, the Pope has referred to Original Sin enough in recent years to understand where the problem also lies.
One would think that all that bishops and superiors had to do was to go out and imitate what the Pope does almost every Sunday-teach, insist, be kind, exhort, and yes, rule. It is not wholly true to say that John Paul II has not ruled, I think. In the long run, it is probably very important that he cleared the air intellectually so that any of us, if we wanted to, could find out on our own what the Church teaches in spite of our pastors when they neither practice nor teach with the Church.
John Paul II does presume intelligent laymen like Mr. Wrenn who can also read and understand what the Church teaches. The laity more and more, when they note doctrinal and moral deviations, need to exercise the mechanisms of address to local bishops made available in the Code of Canon Law, and when that does not work, to proceed to higher authorities in the Church. In certain instances and in certain countries, the Holy Father, no matter who he is, cannot practically act without an informed public opinion in the Church that knows that what is being presented locally is wrong or disordered. There is real danger of schism, if not worse, in many areas, probably not excluding our own country. We ought not to look to the Pope to do everything, I think, until we have done at least something.
I suspect it would be well for Father Baker himself, a man to whom I like to give assignments, to explain in detail just how a layman, priest, or religious goes about properly informing the bishop or the Holy See of obvious local problems. The public scandals that we see in the press surely were known by someone early enough for proper exercise of authority before they happened, had they only been known. On the other hand, I do know of a case where a layman wrote to his local bishop about a serious problem, only to have the letter sent by the bishop to the man causing the problem. The bishop himself did nothing. Yes, I know there are crank letters; the problem is not easy.
James V. Schall, S.J.
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.
Plain Jane-for real?
Editor: Hurray for Betty Whittman's letter on "Plain Jane"! Being a mere male in this politically correct, but utterly befuddled society I was afraid to comment negatively on one of the few articles in HPR not necessarily by women, but on women.
In all honesty I thought I had flipped when I read the article in your August/September 1994 issue. It smacks of yellow journalism at its very worst. The photograph, too, was an insult to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Material of this kind belongs in the weekly papers such as the National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout counter. "Plain Jane," indeed! She could have posed for any woman's magazine cover or strutted on any dress designer's ramp at a fashion show.
Where did such an inappropriate article originate? Did someone from the Council of Churches beside you on Riverside Drive slip in some night and insert it just before the press started rolling? Or are there some liberal seminarians somewhere having a good laugh at putting one over on you? Or did one of the more outré women's lib groups in the sisterhood gain access to your computer? It has to be one or the other.
Not to worry! All magazine editors have similar problems. On the whole the magazine is first class. However, it has been preaching common sense, with which a great many people agree, for years. What really would be useful, at this stage, are more guidelines for implementation of the causes you so justly espouse, e.g., "How to Handle your Intransigent Baby Boomer Pastor without Actually Bopping Him."
Matthew J. Delany
Albany, N.Y.
Today's annulment mentality
Editor: A few comments on Fr. Hettinger's article on annulments (July 1996). I too am convinced that the marriage bond exists in most of the annulments granted by our tribunals. As a layman I came to this conclusion years ago, and the evidence since then has only deepened my conviction. If I assumed the tribunals are correct in most of their judgments then my only conclusion would be that no one is married, and God has given us an institution (and Sacrament) that cannot be entered into by man. Fr. uses various studies from which to draw his conclusions, but the laity can arrive at the same conclusions simply by observing what the parish priests are saying and doing, by what members of the tribunals are saying and writing, and by talking to the recipients of annulments.
What evidence is out there? My experiences are undoubtedly common throughout the U.S. The clergy in our parishes state that anyone in a bad 2nd marriage can get an annulment and have their new marriage "blessed." Tribunal members have publicly stated that they grant all annulments. Both the clergy and the tribunal judges state that annulments do not mean a marriage was never in existence, but just that some flaw existed that kept the marriage from being valid. These same people write that the Church should just let marriages "die" instead of granting annulments. I read articles by the clergy defending annulments, where they state that the Church will never allow "outright" divorce. Tribunals preparing to hear a case, in informing the couple of their right to apply instead to the diocese of their marriage, have also informed them that while they would probably be turned down in this diocese, the other diocese would most likely (and did) grant the annulment. In addition to all the above, there seems to be little correlation between impediments for annulments and impediments to witnessing marriages, even by members of tribunals.
One commonly cited example of a "de facto" annulment, in writings by tribunal members and parish priests, is the case of a woman lacking complete free consent simply because she is pregnant at the time of the marriage. If one accepts this as true, then you wonder why the tribunals and clergy are not putting out an effort to get all these invalid marriages validated today. A friend received a call from the priest who ten years earlier had witnessed their marriage. Informing him his marriage was invalid, he advised him to go to his pastor and exchange the vows again so they could receive the sacramental graces. If this priest was trying to help the couples receive the graces of the sacrament, the tribunal members and parish clergy should also be anxious to do the same.
Is it any wonder why we have an annulment mentality today? Consistency in the treatment of the question of valid marriages seems totally lacking. There is a real need for a forthright discussion of annulments today. The idea that any failed marriage was really invalid does the institution of the family great harm. An annulment mentality, like a divorce mentality, at the time vows are exchanged will invalidate the marriage, and deprive the couple of the sacrament.
Where I disagree with Fr. Hettinger is in his conclusion that we must be very careful not to disturb the members of the tribunals since they act in good faith. Before we truly have no valid marriages, something must be done to change the mentality of the tribunal members. Whether people are divorced, or their marriages are annulled, the same damage to the children, the family and society exists.
Paul Pilon
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Adopting a frozen embryo
Editor: As an active pro-lifer, I found the August-September 1996 "Adoption of a Frozen Embryo" article very timely and informative. I was not convinced by Geoffrey Surtees reasons; in fact, I was quite alarmed that some pro-lifer with not quite enough theology background would take that article as justification for such an "adoption."
I have more confidence in Msgr. Smith's observations. What I see lacking in the discussion is the effects such an "adoption" would have on the bonding between husband and wife who participated. I see artificial insemination as "infidelity to the marriage bond" and wonder if this type of "adoption" would also be considered "infidelity to the marriage bond." Only the husband is allowed access to that "secret garden of the womb." I would love to read what Donald DeMarco, who has written about "bonding," would think of such a procedure.
I saw the movie about the fertility doctor who used his own sperm to inseminate infertile women. What struck me about that movie was that one woman who discovered the doctor was the father of her child said she felt that she had been "raped." What can be the feelings of a husband who allows his wife to be raped by both a man and a woman (the originators of the sperm and egg).
The Church does not approve any artificial insemination. I sense the same reasons can apply to artificially placing any embryo into the womb. These are all attacks on the dignity of the womb and the marriage act.
Martyrs have died for the truth. And the truth about the marriage bond is that it is holy. Defending the truth can be more important than defending life.
Joanne Laird
Wilmington, Del.
Classroom sex-ed
Editor: Just a note to thank you for publishing the excellent article by Father Schaefer on classroom sex education (March 1995). Though he cites extensively and verbatim from Magisterial sources it would not surprise me if some still charge his argument with "not being in tune with the changes in the world".
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes a clear reference to this whole issue in the following passage: "Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."
Teachers talking openly about intimate things which even husband and wife conceal (for love of God and modesty) serves to open the door to promiscuity and experimentation among the children, and tragically, between the children and the teachers as well. It is no coincidence that lawsuits against clergy, religious and lay teachers are on the rise with sex-ed all through the parochial school system.
There can be no restoration of the Catholic Church, that is Jesus Christ, until classroom sex-ed and all its variants that deface the figure of Our Redeemer and King are permanently eliminated from our schools. Again . . . Thank you for a great article.
Douglas Valenzuela
Miami, Florida