| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters
from our readers
Healing depends on faith
Editor: The article by Father David Delich, O.P., on the sacrament of the anointing of the sick (October 1996) gives some needed teaching on the current use and abuse of, and failure to provide, this sacrament. Undoubtedly some will disagree with Father's criticism of the practice found in some places of anointing all who are about to undergo surgery or all residents of nursing homes (see CCC 1515).
The statement that "no official Church document . . . mentions healing as one of the effects of this sacrament" is incorrect. The Council of Florence (1438-45), citing James 5:14f, includes as an effect healing of the body if this is beneficial. The Roman Catechism's sublime teaching on the sacrament seconds the Council of Florence, noting that "if in our days the sick obtain this [healing] effect less frequently, this is to be attributed, not to any defect of the Sacrament, but rather to the weaker faith of a great part of those who are anointed . . . , or by whom it is administered; for the Evangelist bears witness that the Lord wrought not many miracles among His own, because of their unbelief" (Matt. 13:58).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also clearly states that a possible effect of the sacrament is physical healing (1512 and 1520).
Inez Fitzgerald Storck
Greenbelt, Md.
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
Bishop Sheen on TV
Editor: I was very happy to read Fr. Rawley Myers's letter in your October issue (p. 5). I too never heard exclamations of, "Don't you love the way he flounces his cape?" or, "Don't his stark, piercing eyes hypnotize you when he stares to emphasize a point?"
Even now, I remember some point he made in his TV sermons. I benefitted from them tremendously. America was spiritually impoverished at that time. Bishop Sheen was an inspiration and always had good points to make. I'm not interested in whether or not everything he said was original. He was out there sharing his knowledge, his beliefs and the Word of God. Yes, some of his books were redundant. So what? They were out there for the public to buy and to profit from. I believe he gave most of the money from his books to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith.
With regard to his theatrics, I have heard many criticisms from Catholics and non-Catholics. At times I also got a bit uncomfortable, but that was a small price to pay for the tremendous spiritual advantages to be gained from his TV sermons. I thank God for his faith, for his love of God and the Church and the sheep he tried so hard to lead to the Good Shepherd. I'm sure God is rewarding him abundantly.
In more recent times, we read criticism of Bishop Sheen's style in such books as Frank and Maisie by Wilfred Ward. A few years ago, Carolyn See, who was a writer for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a few lines saying that she and her friends used to laugh at and make fun of Bishop Sheen on TV because of his style. His critics have yet to do as much for humanity as he did.
Eleanor Lyons
Granada Hills, Calif.
Licit use of contraceptives
by nuns in danger of rape
Editor: John Grabowski, in his November 1996 article on Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae, opines that licit use of contraceptives by women religious in danger of rape, and by other rape victims, suggests that contraceptive use is not intrinsically evil. But these examples show no such thing. The use of contraceptives in such circumstances is not really contraception. The natural law forbids us to separate, by our own act and will, the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse. A woman about to be raped does not will either the unitive or the procreative aspect. For her to use some mechanical or chemical barrier to the man's sperm is no different from her attempting to physically push him away. It is a simple act of repelling him. It is not contraception as forbidden by the natural moral law and ratified by Magisterial teaching.
Thomas Storck
Greenbelt, Md.
Getting serious about dialogue
Editor: At my first meeting of the local Ministerial Alliance I made the point that we have to do more than merely pray together. Our goal is some day to share the same faith and the same Eucharist.
Most major Protestant communions had observers at Vatican Council II. After the council, Roman Catholics were to stress Sacred Scripture and the Protestants the Greek and Latin Fathers of the first 700 years of the Church. Well, we Catholics have emphasized Sacred Scripture. In fact, many mainline Protestants are using our lectionary. However, where is their stress on the Greek and Latin Fathers and Doctors of the early Church? They seem not to be doing this. Can we allow them to let this slide?
Before there were any Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Presbyterians or Methodists, we shared the same Tradition. Why are they now not complying? Until they do, I shall consider them to be intellectually dishonest.
We must do more than pray and fill sandbags together. Together we must get serious about study and dialogue.
Fr. Alvin L. Herber, C.PP.S.
Cameron, Mo.
The Pope does not condemn
capital punishment
Editors: Pope John Paul II did not condemn capital punishment in the encyclical "The Gospel of Life" as reported in many newspapers and magazines. The word "condemn" is not mentioned in reference to the death penalty in the encyclical, nor is public authority forbidden to use the death penalty when there is no other way to defend society.
The encyclical maintains the right to self defense to protect one's life. And public authority has the right and duty to protect the lives of citizens against an aggressor. And "unfortunately," the encyclical states, "it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life." It is in this context when speaking of punishment to redress the disorder caused by an offender that the encyclical states the following:
"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity; in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
"In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."
It is therefore clear that there is no condemnation of the death penalty, but rather that it be used only in absolute necessity. And it should not be used at all-if bloodless means are sufficient to protect society.
But note the word "if." It is posing a question. Are bloodless means sufficient to provide the safety of people in America today? Apparently a majority of American people say no. They do not feel safe. Instead, they are arming themselves with guns for protection. They want more legislation to stop crime. They want the death penalty-at least on the books-as a threat to criminals for cold-blooded murder.
The answer lies with the people. And public authority must respond to the people.
Father L. Linnebur
Clonmel, Kans.
We are not windsocks blowing
in the cultural breeze
Editor: Your article on Church authority (HPR, October 1996, K. D. Whitehead) brought back my experience going through RCIA a few years ago (1992-93). The class was taught by one of those who would consider himself (by virtue of his education) one of the "knowledge class." He made it plain that he thought the Church's decision regarding ordination was just a matter of outmoded custom that would change in time. I was equally convinced that the pattern for priestly office was established by Jesus, who as God, knew what he was doing. Far from being culture-bound, or unthinkingly conforming to custom, Jesus' every act and word revealed something of the Father to Jewish minds convinced they knew exactly what God required of them.
There was nothing thoughtless that came from the Mind who had created all there is, there was nothing untrue from Truth himself, there was nothing unjust from the Author of natural law. As creatures, dependent on his mercy and generosity for our existence, our response should be one of gratitude and humility. What I see all too often, however, is ingratitude or indifference to the Giving God, and appalling arrogance from those who believe they know better than God how his Church should operate.
Having seen what happened to my former church (Episcopal) when it embraced modernism, I am especially grateful to the Lord for keeping his promise to the Church he founded. He has indeed never left her, having sent the Spirit to guide her through the age until his return. The fidelity and obedience of the Holy Father is inspiring. Firmly, gently, and humbly he says to those who agitate for change and "progress" and modernization in the matter of ordination, "we have no authority to alter this."
K. D. Whitehead, be not dismayed. There are many in the Catholic Church who are not windsocks blowing in the cultural breeze. God has been gracious to us in John Paul II, and we trust he will never stop caring for what he has made.
Sandra Worth
Austin, Tex.
We need more apologists
Editor: Congratulations are in order for K. D. Whitehead and the courageous article on the authority of the Church (October 1996).
The blind are leading the blind (none so blind as those who will not see) and as a consequence are deceiving even some of the elect and leading them into the slough of doctrinal syncretism and wobbly principles.
Mr. Whitehead mentions Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., a peritus at Vatican II. In 1986 this great scholar published Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità, Il Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II (Libreria Editrice Vaticana). The dedicated reader will enjoy plowing through 926 pages of very well researched and precise arguments. A stern scolding for ecclesiastical authorities appeared in NCR on December 15, 1995. Whitehead says correctly that Küng does not deny that the Church teaches infallibly that contraception is intrinsically evil. However, he continues, "for Hans Küng, as for most of the modern world, the Church's 'infallible teaching in Humanae Vitae is quite patently wrong.'" Fr. Lio brings out that the first chapter of Infallible? A Question is titled "Infallible Magisterium?" Küng could not resist dragging up the "musty old objection" (as Fr. John A. McHugh, O.P., used to tell us in class) of Galileo as a barrier to infallibility. As though Paul V obliged the whole Church to accept a scientific theory that was not proven incorrect until 1839. Faith or morals? Not so, writes Fr. Lio, with tons of background. Pope John Paul II (may he live a hundred years!) drummed Küng out of the ranks of Catholic theologians. What did he think of Fr. Lio's massive tome? The Holy Father sent him a photograph of himself and in his own handwriting thanked him: "To the Rev. Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., with grateful heart for the homage of 'Humanae Vitae e infallibilità' and with lively appreciation for the sentiments of sincere adhesion to the Magisterium of the Church, which has always guided your research and teaching. I grant you from my heart a special Apostolic Blessing, a token of continued heavenly assistance for fervent perseverance in love for the truth and in serving souls." From the Vatican, 31 July, 1986.
May our Lord raise up more apologists like K. D. Whitehead and Father Lio.
Fr. Denis O'Brien, M.M.
Dallas, Tex.