| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NFP and "serious reasons"
Editor: I was, of course, most interested to read Leon J. Suprenant, Jr.'s response to my letter on NFP printed in your May issue. I would not dispute much of what he writes. There is, however, I think, an inherent contradiction in his first stating that I am correct in rejecting attempts to "objectify" the words "serious reasons" and his own submission that a couple must seek the assistance of a spiritual director in deciding whether they may use those methods of family planning with which our Creator endowed us.
Neither Pope Paul in Humanae Vitae, nor any subsequent Pope in any further statement, has ever suggested that a couple must seek the help of a spiritual director in reaching a decision that the Encyclical declares is their own, to be made in right conscience. They may if they so wish, of course, seek such assistance, but as Paul VI well realized only they themselves know the full facts of their situation-no spiritual director does or can.
It bears remembering that, answering what was perhaps the first question ever raised about natural methods, as far back as 1853 the Sacred Penitentiary told the Bishop of Amiens, France, that couples using NFP "are not to be disturbed." Section 10 of Humanae Vitae quotes "physical, economic, psychological, and social" reasons for its use, which Pius XII in 1951 told the Italian midwives could sometimes be needed "throughout marriage."
No one denies, of course, that those who "prudently and generously decide to have a large family" (HV 10) merit God's blessings and our admiration, but many who would love to emulate them are painfully aware that they cannot, and must follow a different path.
Kenneth Platt
South Croydon, Surrey, U.K.
Can a family be planned?
Editor: Anytime the family planning subject arises, my head spins with many thoughts.
Anyone who has read St. Thomas Aquinas's works on the origin of the human soul knows that if God doesn't create a human soul for our little baby, we could be married forever and never have a child.
Since no one but God knows what tomorrow brings, how can anyone be expected to plan a family?
Because marital love involves human beings, don't calendars, thermometers, etc., really spoil the spontaneity and romance? How do absence, fatigue, illness, etc., fit into the efficient family planning routine?
I always remember a lady friend who elatedly informed me that she had permission from her confessor to practice rhythm. What I knew that she did not know is that her husband was practicing rhythm with her but visiting a mistress to care for his needs.
Some friends of ours bought a beautiful, big colonial home because they wanted a large family. The doctors could never find anything wrong with them, yet they never had a child. How can we plan something that we cannot control?
One day a thoughtless guest told my mother that she had too many children. Mother kept her cool, smiled at us and asked him, "Which one is too many?"
Some things are better left to God's Divine Providence because he is the only one with the knowledge, love and power to control them.
Mrs. Lucette Brien Alix
Windham, N.H.
Grace as gift
Editor: Homiletic and Pastoral Review is as Catholic as the Pope himself. So you can imagine my confusion at the homily "Proper Perspective" appearing in your October issue.
The paragraph on page 42 entitled "Salvation is an unmerited gift from God" sounds mighty like it could have been written by Martin Luther. It seems to me one thing to say that human effort, of itself, can never merit salvation, and quite another to say "we simply cannot earn salvation" as though human effort, in cooperation with God's enabling grace was not an absolutely imperative element in the process of sanctification. Does the sentence "All we have to do is accept the Gift; to open our hearts to his grace, turn from our sin, and begin to lead the new life to which he has called us" sufficiently unsay what is previously said to render his previous thought orthodox? I don't know. At the very least the position on salvation expressed in this piece is ambiguous. And the references 1023-1029 of the New Catechism make clear to me that man's cooperation with God's grace is essential, not just the acceptance of God's grace.
I hope I'm not sounding picky here. But I am a layman who is about fed-up with Lutherian-sounding ambiguities appearing in our diocesan paper. I'm not a theologian, only a relatively well-informed layman. Unless my sensus fidelium is weak, however, the statements in "Proper Perspective" are in much need of explanation and correction.
I hope you will understand my complaint. I have the greatest admiration and trust in HPR. But the faithful these days are so confused by the trash that comes from our "progressive" clergy. HPR is generally a model of logic and clarity and I certainly didn't get that impression from the sermon I'm criticizing.
God bless you and I look forward to reading your issues to follow with perfect equanimity.
Don Schuster
Altamont, Ill.
Liturgists should be helpful
Editor: Instead of distorting Scripture to meet the demands of the feminists, why do our liturgists not busy themselves with something which is not only not destructive but helpful to all?
Let them prepare really good indexes for our liturgical books. After fifty years in the priesthood I still find the present indexes difficult to use. As an example, take volume I of "The Liturgy of the Hours." Try to find the page numbers for Christmas, The Holy Family, The Mother of God, etc. If you persevere until you come to the second last line of "Contents" on page 7 you will find that the listing for the "Alphabetical Index of Celebrations" is on page 1713.
Let the liturgists give us an index such as can be found in any good textbook today. That would be one form of modernism that would be most welcome.
Msgr. George R. Demuth
Scranton, Pa.
Acting in persona Christi
Editor: I would like to make a couple of observations relative to K.D. Whitehead's timely article, "The Brave New Church Without Priests" (HPR 12-95).
As Mr. Whitehead points out, "the priest acts in persona Christi"-and that is the essential difference between the Catholic Church and "all other societies which arrogate to themselves the name of Church" (Trent Catechism). It is in persona Christi that the Catholic priest summons Our Lord to the altar ("This is My Body"); it is in persona Christi that the priest absolves sins; it is in persona Christi that the priest daily offers the Sacrifice of Calvary. Clearly, therefore, it follows that a "priestless" Church is a Christless Church.
Mr. Whitehead also writes: ". . . it is quite true that the priest at Mass does speak of 'our sacrifice'." Yes, it is quite true. But is it properly so? The I.C.E.L. translation of the liturgy does have the priest saying (at the "prayer over the gifts"), "Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God . . . ." However, the original text of the liturgy which Pope Paul VI promulgated reads, at this point: "Orate fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem." (Pray, brethren: that my sacrifice and yours may become acceptable . . ., etc.)
In the "Declaration on the Meaning of Translations of Sacramental Formulae" (S.C.D.F., Instauratio Liturgica, 25 January, 1974), we are instructed that, ". . . a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula . . . must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text."
And Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical, Dominicae Cenae, tells us explicitly:
The sacrificial value is expressed . . . by the words with which the priest concludes the presentation of the gifts, asking the faithful to pray "that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father." These words are binding, since they express the character of the entire Eucharistic Liturgy and the fullness of its divine and ecclesial content." (emphasis added)
So-what's going on here? This magazine is a forum in which (thank God) good, orthodox priests expound and explain the True Faith. Will someone here please tell me what I am supposed to conclude from all of the foregoing? As it is, I am drawn inexorably to the following text.
In The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society (Forum Press, Cork-1945) Rev. Denis Fahey wrote:
We must distinguish between the end Satan had in view in the Crucifixion of Our Lord, and the end he now has in view in directing and provoking attacks on those who celebrate Mass and those who assist thereat . . . . St. Thomas (Aquinas) writes: "If the demons had been perfectly certain that Our Lord was the Son of God, and had known in advance what the effect of His Passion and Death would be, they would never have got the Lord of Glory crucified." But they are quite well aware of the meaning of the Mass. All their efforts are directed towards preventing its celebration, by exterminating the priesthood, and towards thwarting its effects, by limiting it to the role of a rite bereft of significance for man's social life, political and economic. If Satan cannot succeed in completely doing away with the one acceptable act of worship, he will strive to restrict it to the minds and hearts of as few individuals as possible. One has only to look at the world to see how far he has succeeded since the French Revolution.
And now, over fifty years later, what can one add to that, but a fervent "AMEN!"
Charles L. Grove
Reedsport, Oreg.
Making converts in prison
Editor: I find it difficult to describe, but I want to tell you how much I enjoyed, and how greatly I was inspired by the January 1996 article "Making Converts in Prison," by Russell L. Ford. Mr. Ford writes so plainly and so well, and it is quite evident that his spirituality is the driving force in his life, and only God himself knows how because of him so many other individuals have been helped. Everyday I remember in my Morning Offering all prisoners wherever they may be for theirs is a special cross of suffering, I am sure. Where so many others in today's world rant and rave and think they are doing right, others like the author carry on and help those around them with love and understanding, and with emphasizing the good rather than the evil which exists in the world. May the Holy Spirit continue to enlighten and aid Mr. Ford and all like him who labor in this very special apostolate.
Nicholas Falco
Bronx, N.Y.
Hungry for the truth
Editor: In the past the Redemptorists were well-known for their "hellfire and damnation" homilies at missions, novenas, etc. I have heard and read that today's priests are fearful they may lose sizeable numbers if they are "too negative." I recall the Church was crowded with men for a whole week; and, likewise for women, as these Redemptorists preached. Want to get the attention of the "bored" teenagers? Just talk in vivid terms about serious sin and its consequences.
Much of modern Protestantism is characterized by an accommodation to whatever is most comfortable, e.g., divorce and remarriage, contraception, homosexual unions, abortion, etc. What once was right or wrong is camouflaged in rationalizations and "updating." Have we not fallen into the same pattern in more subtle matters? How often are we encouraged to confess frequently? By implication sin is not that important. But we do hear, "God loves you so much, you are so special to this all-forgiving God." His justice is mentioned only in the Scripture and the liturgy. In this environment what is to deter the young adult contemplating sex or living together before marriage. He has never heard of the occasions of sin so what restrains him in the back seat of his 1980 Chevy?
One study says 73% of married Catholics practice contraception, yet this serious offense is seldom mentioned in homilies, and I have never heard from the pulpit an explanation of why it is wrong. Natural family planning, an acceptable, moral alternative for many couples, gets little or no notice.
Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, are hungry for the truth. Half truths coupled with omissions equal lies. I plead with our priests to present the whole truth, not only that which is palatable. Christ did.
Henry R. Evans
Omaha, Nebr.