| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article defines real problem
Editor: Normally, I would hope "A Lived Faith" (HPR, April 1996) was cleverly contrived by James Hitchcock. But I can't be certain; what many post conciliar "Catholics" say and do credibly confirms that false application of Vatican II has reinvented the Tower of Babel. An interpreter is sometimes needed even to converse with them. Encounters with people amazingly like the parishioner in this article remind me of a paraphrase of Franz Werfel's conclusion in The Song of Bernadette: If a person believes in the authority of the Church, no explanation is necessary. If not, no explanation is possible.
After 30 years of the corrosive effects of "The spirit of Vatican II," it is too late to close the open windows that allowed the smoke of Satan to enter the sanctuary. Who cares about blame any more, the question is: Is it too late to regain the pre-conciliar spiritual faith so we can start on the de facto renewal envisioned by the council?
This article clearly defines the real problem. How long do we wait before the bishops and pastors like Jack lose their credibility and are no longer in good standing in the Church so something can be done to prevent the next generation from becoming their victims?
As an antithesis to this article, I heartily recommend "Forming a Catholic Conscience" in the same issue that clearly emphasizes the well- balanced content of your fine publication.
Keep lighting those torches.
Bob Rowland
Irving, Tex.
A serious mistake
Editor: I think publishing "A Lived Faith" by James Hitchcock in the April issue was a serious mistake. A weak Catholic seeing that would lose his faith. As you well said, it almost made me cry. If a prospective convert saw that, I'm afraid it would stop him in his tracks. I hope another article like that never appears again in HPR.
Fr. Paul Thomas
Patton, Pa.
Hilarious interview
Editor: One usually sends a Letter to the Editor either to complain or to make some weighty distinction of fact or theory. Unfortunately, one writes less often to compliment an author or praise a point of view.
I cannot imagine what "one straw too many" prompted Professor James Hitchcock to write "A Lived Faith" (HPR, April 1996), but blessed be that straw and his dry, acerbic, witty-faithful-pen.
The "interview" was hilarious, to be sure, but it was depressingly typical of the "mind set" (the phrase assumes that the minds of erstwhile believers at some point were engaged) of clergy and "faithful"-aided and abetted by many bishops and theologians-who systematically have drained or vacated every compartment of the depositum fidei since Vatican II.
One thing is clear. We cannot go on as we have since 1964. At some point the "teachings" of the "pastoral" Vatican II must be re-examined in the light of ongoing pre-conciliar tradition: to clarify and correct, in precise, doctrinal language what it is that the Church really teaches.
Like the proverbial Roi sans habillements, someone must begin to ask before the sensus Catholicus is irretrievably gone, just what does the Church believe and teach?
Fr. Charles C. Fiore, F.S.S.P.
Lodi, Wis.
High, low and broad church?
Editor: Last year, at a local parish, a Trappist guest lecturer, armed with the usual videotapes, gave much the same New Age message as that contained in Father John Raub's new book, Who Told You That You Were Naked?, ably reviewed by Mary Schneider in your March issue.
The day will soon come and, indeed, may have already arrived, when we Catholics, like our Anglican brethren, will be informally divided into High, Low, and Broad church categories. I pray that the Holy Spirit and our bishops will spare us this unhappy fate.
Kenneth Lynn
Pompano Beach, Fla.
Let the Pope appoint
major religious superiors
Editor: "All religious orders have the tendency to go soft, to go lax and to become corrupt," said a zealous priest to Father Baker thirty years ago (Editorial, January 1996). They ought to be dissolved automatically after 100 years, he continued. Fr. Baker admits that this highlights a problem. Where is the basic weakness?
There are structural weaknesses: 1) The pope appoints bishops, but not major religious superiors. He only confirms them in office. To refuse a confirmation would be a prickly business.
2) Bishops make an ad limina visit to the pope every five years, to give a face to face accounting of their administration. Major religious superiors do not. They need to give no accounting of rebellious teachings in their universities, of sterilization done in their hospitals, of opposition to Humanae Vitae in their widely circulated publications, of consequentialist moral theology being taught in their seminaries. Religious orders are island kingdoms to which pope and bishop pay polite social visits, but which they administrate only inadequately. Some are harbor pirates running wild on the high seas.
Major religious superiors, in turn, are weak toward their own energetic members; they are weak because the firm hand of Peter does not strengthen their administration; does not steady their hand on the tiller. To be elected, superiors depend not on appointment by the pope, but on the popular vote of their members. The majority who elect them may be relatively inexperienced in matters of great ecclesial importance; some might be the kind who would vote for Clinton even though he promotes abortion.
Yet some of these haphazardly elected major religious superiors have influence which pales that of local ordinary bishops. Their members serve not in one diocese but in many, nationally, internationally. They govern universities which educate the elite body of Catholics who in turn create leading currents of opinion among the faithful. They staff seminaries which educate or mis-educate the future parish priests and bishops, who will in turn catechize the children, who will ordain future priests. Their magazines tell an immense readership whether the Catechism is right or wrong, whether the pope speaks fallibly or infallibly on contraception and women's ordination.
That pope who will bring religious orders more functionally into the structure of the Church, is the one who will prevent their "tendency to go soft with the years." The Rock on which the pope stands does not dissolve into sand every 100 years. Let the pope appoint major religious superiors; let him receive an accounting from them every five years; through the Apostolic Nuncio, for example. Give Peter the keys to their administration; it is he who is the Rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail; who binds on earth what is bound in heaven.
Rev. Anthony Zimmerman
Nagoya, Japan
The wellspring of evil
Editor: How long before we realize that contraception is one of the biggest con games ever? It castrates the male and makes the female barren, perverting the very essence of what it is to be a human being. Vasectomies, tubal ligations are self-mutilation, the things we once reserved to animals.
A woman put it best when she said, "Men want abortion (contraception) so we can be just like rental cars: use us, bring us in and clean us out, and we're ready to use again."
It is the evil wellspring of fornication, sodomy, attendant STD's, adultery, divorce, spousal and child abuse, the feminization of poverty and all the Clintons, Packwoods and Simpsons of our society.
William J. Quinn
West Chester, Pa.
The mystery of sexuality
Editor: I hope that Mr. John Young's article, "God and the Male Sex" (HPR, February 1996) will be the beginning of more widespread discussion and exposition on the wonderful differences between males and females. The Holy Father initiated the discussion in this decade through his document, On the Dignity of Women. The Church (that is, all of us) should continue to explore the mystery of sexuality to understand the unique role of men. Mr. Young's article is an excellent start. Some of the pro-feminist arguments cited by Mr. Young-such as Christ having to assume male form because of the culture of the time, or that "God is Mother as much as Father"-ultimately deny the Free Will of God. "God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:26). We must remember that he didn't have to do it that way! He could have chosen to make us asexual, hermaphroditic, or transsexual. He even left us a few species of animal life with each of these sexual modes to remind us that sexuality was his choice in creation. That he made that choice is a profound mystery, not the chance of evolution. That mystery is further evident in his shepherding of the people of Israel, with its male priesthood-when most Mediterranean cultures had priestesses. Since God does nothing without Reason, we should try to understand that profound reasoning, and rejoice in his creation.
Christopher T. Mayer
Elizabethtown, Ky.
Undermining Catholic faith
Editor: It was with great interest that I read Father Arthur B. Calkins's article on "Mary's Spiritual Maternity." A great deal of that interest stems from the fact that as an undergraduate at Amherst College in the late 1970s, I took a New Testament course offered by Dr. Karl P. Donfried, who was a visiting professor from Smith College. At that time, to my recall, Dr. Donfried had just completed with Father Raymond Brown, the text entitled Peter and the New Testament and was just completing the text entitled Mary and the New Testament to which Father Calkins refers in the course of his article. During one of the classes, Dr. Donfried (in the context of a discussion of the Virgin Birth) stated that he had been assured by Father Brown that "even most Catholic scripture scholars no longer believe in the Immaculate Conception." Aside from Dr. Donfried's confusion regarding the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth (one wonders how honest and penetrating the dialogue between him and Father Brown had been or exactly how catholic Father Brown was in his discussions with Dr. Donfried), it has always been a point of reference for myself when reading Father Brown's multiple statements that even though he might not believe that the New Testament gives support to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, Father Brown still personally believes in it. Such a position both ignores the analogy of faith as well as for myself undermines Father Brown's personal credibility. I thought it would be of some interest for your readers to share this and it is offered from that perspective.
Charles P. Prezzia, M.D.
Holland, Ohio