The evolution debate

Editor: A distinction routinely neglected in the creation-evolution discussion, but one of crucial relevance, is that (paradoxically enough) between creation and evolution (i.e., evolution as a scientific theory, not as a philosophical paradigm). The former is directly a matter of sacred theology, the latter directly a matter of natural science (and only indirectly a matter of theology-as is the case with any other scientific theory, e.g., one concerning the origin of the universe, or the life of the embryo). The addresses of Popes Pius XII and, very recently, John Paul II, to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences have this distinction clearly in view.

To posit debate in terms of "creation versus evolution," as some HPR authors have done, is to play right into the hands of those who have arrogated, in the name of atheistic philosophy, the evolutionary perspective all to themselves; it is to enshrine a spurious dichotomy. If scientific evolution theory is proved to be wrong it will be not theology, but natural science itself, which does this.

Mr. Butel's article in the November HPR acknowledges the above distinction but fails to do justice to another one, which is hardly less important for continuation of the evolution debate. This is the distinction, familiar to all students of scientific method, between falsification and verification. The likelihood that evolution theory cannot ever be verified (though it remains ever susceptible of falsification, in whole or in part) does not mean that there is no good reason for giving it consideration. In no branch of modern science, evolution theory included, do we achieve better than a successive approximation to truth. But this certainly does not entail that any part of science ought to be disparaged in its own right, still less reduced (or elevated) to the status of mere philosophy. Leave it to those who would embrace an atheistic agenda to perpetrate that folly

Stanley Grove
Thomas Aquinas College
Santa Paula, Calif.

Now the Vatican must act

Editor: I'm sure every orthodox priest has been asked by concerned Catholics, "When is the Church going to do something about dissenting teachers/theologians/ priests/ bishops?" Or questions to that effect. The stock answer has been that the Church is looking at the whole picture, not just a particular person or area; or perhaps a greater difficulty would arise if disciplinary action were taken against a particular individual. I've given answers like those myself-often-and each time I have to hold myself back from saying that I agree with the complaints 100%. But now I really believe that the Vatican cannot possibly refrain from direct action.

A few weeks ago, a "New Ways Ministry" conference was held in Pittsburgh. In attendance and taking leadership roles were several bishops and clergy, along with every feminist and dissident group you could think of. What was promoted and glorified there was absolute defiance of the teachings of the Church, the teachings of Christ, and the Natural Law. The bishop of Pittsburgh knew well in advance what was going to take place, and did nothing to stop it. You can bet that if there were a convention pointing out the intrinsic evils of homosexual activity and contraception, it would have been stopped immediately as being divisive. The fact that the bishop of Rochester and the auxiliary bishop of Detroit openly encouraged gays and lesbians to rejoice in their lifestyles and to be unashamed of them cries out for immediate action from the highest authority.

The American Catholic is tired of reading very pious treatment of these issues in our orthodox Catholic periodicals, which thank God are relentless in pursuing the truth. What he is looking for is some action; and there is none to be found. Where is the outcry of our cardinals and bishops condemning such conferences as the one held in Pittsburgh, and the recent "Call to Action" fiasco in Detroit? Oh, yes, there have been a few brave souls like Bishop Bruskewitz, but no solidarity among our "leaders." All of our cardinals can parade over to Rome on behalf of the almost childish issue of inclusive language, but no such uniformity is displayed in the face of blatant defiance of the Magisterium and the laws of God and Church.

Never were the words "qui tacet consentire" more in evidence. If our bishops think that showing solidarity with their erring brothers is more important than the common good of their various flocks, then they are more spineless than I thought. Every one of them should be on the phone to the Vatican demanding immediate action against the offending bishops and theologians, and publish in their diocesan papers just why they made such a demand. Their people deserve to have their Faith protected, and to know that their bishop is a true teacher of the doctrines of the Church.

Rev. Thomas W. Prior, C.M.
Vincentian Residence
Queens, N.Y.

Pallbearers of a dead ritual

Editor: Two articles in your March issue left me amused: "Rethinking Communion in the Hand" and "A Theology of the Sanctuary." The latter wants to put the tabernacle back on the altar. O for the days of the fiery conservatives-Fenton, Francis Connell and others who anathematized all who dared to question the traditions of the solid past. These pallid sophomores can't even approach the admittedly towering intellects of the maginot line theology of the past.

Tabernacle on the altar . . . or near it? This leaves us with the anomaly of having your back to the tabernacle when celebrating Mass. Did the author ever go into one of the hundreds of churches which have a rich chapel for adoration and private devotions?

Communion on the tongue. This is Liturgy 101. Where has Jude Huntz been in his 26 years of absorbing the message of Jesus in terms of freedom and choice? It must be news to Cardinals O'Connor, Law and Hickey that Communion in the hand is heretical.

The matter is trivial-let the dead bury the dead. These two issues are dead. Your young authors must be content to be pallbearers of a dead ritual. If only they would let go and let God reign and enjoy life and a renewed liturgy. It must be very frustrating to set oneself up to control change.

Rev. Rian Clancy, C.P.
Immaculate Conception Monastery
Chicago, Ill.

"Plain Jane" again

Editor: Your article a few years ago by Fr. Joseph C. Frisch entitled "Plain Jane" was inspiring (August-September 1994). I preached a sermon on it once and the large congregation also thought it was inspiring. The article made me think very deeply about my priestly call to great holiness. What moved me very much were her words: ". . . so that every breath I take, every beat of my heart, every thought I entertain, every image I have in my imagination, every word I utter, and every movement of my body will be offered to Him as an act of love."

We need more articles like it to stir us to greater intimacy with Jesus and to total dedication to our wonderful vocation. Would that we could hear similar words from the mouths and hearts of priests! Thanks for your wonderful magazine.

Fr. Adrian Head
Burra, Australia

Psychological testing offends
rights of seminarians

Editor: Reading the recent article by Dr. Fraunces on the use of "psychological testing" in the selection of seminarians brought back recollections of my own testing in the mid-1970s.

I was in my early 20s at the time, and applied for entrance in the diocesan program. As part of the lengthy application process, I was told that I had to have psychological testing.

On the appointed day, I remember being quite nervous because I didn't know what to expect: how invasive this thing was going to be, or what weight this would have in the application process. I remember hoping that maybe this would be a "cool" experience; not a very serious part of the application process; nothing to worry about. It was not a cool experience.

By far, the worst part of the testing was the many intimate questions about my sexual past (I was clearly expected to have one). Suffice it to say the questioning was very invasive. Much time was spent on this part of the test. Another thing I remember is constantly lying to the psychologist about my "sexual history," and other very personal questions; not because I thought I was abnormal, but because I didn't think that he had any right to question me or know about such things. I deliberately gave him false information at every turn because I grew to detest his questions, and intensely wanted him not to know me! I think he knew I was being dishonest.

The psychologist clearly saw how uncomfortable I was in all this. He did nothing to try to make me feel more at ease. I actually thought that maybe it was part of the test to discover how much I "could take."

Surprise, surprise . . . in spite of all this, I was accepted into the program. When I shared my experience with the other young seminarians I was comforted to discover that they unanimously felt the same way: it was the most awful experience; an assault on our dignity as persons.

Psychological testing, at best, cannot do what it pretends to do; at worst, it is fraudulent and an act of violence. At the very least, all prospective candidates to the holy priesthood should be clearly warned, in advance, about the nature of the questioning before they submit to the "test." Candidates should be allowed, without prejudice, in conscience, to opt out of this part of the application process.

I wonder how many fine young men resist applying to the seminary because of the requirement of "psychological testing."

Gerald Massey
Philadelphia, Pa.

When patience becomes weakness

Editor: I enjoyed the excellent article by K. D. Whitehead in the March issue. It sheds a ray of hope upon the bleak picture of confusion in the modern American Catholic landscape. There has been so much toleration of dissent here in the last 30 years, and many good Catholic theologians, not to mention lay people, have been uncertain as to how to react to it. Personally, I have had one guide-the official teaching of the Church as expressed by the statements of the Holy Father. When any noted "theologian" differed from these statements, I knew he was at least mistaken, if not malicious.

But now, increasingly, scholars have been seeing the shallowness and falsity of the dissenting views. It was good to see that Fr. Avery Dulles, S.J., has agreed that the ordination of women to the priesthood is now definitely ruled out by Pope John Paul II's letter, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." The tide seems to be turning, even though liberal journals like America and Commonweal and National Catholic Reporter are clinging stubbornly to a fictional "right to dissent" even further.

The dark side of the picture is that Fr. Avery Dulles and others by their exhortations to still more patience with dissent are merely prolonging the "confusion and uncertainty of these past years." That kind of patience should no longer be considered patience but weakness and neglect of a shepherd's duty, especially the shepherds of the Church here in America.

Mr. Whitehead has said what so needs to be said, namely, "that the leadership of the Church has a responsibility to demonstrate that the Church is serious about what she teaches; this urgently needs to be done for the sake of the 'little ones' in the Church, confused by dissent, if for no other reason. Otherwise many people are going to go on not taking what the Church teaches seriously, as, unhappily, seems to be only too widely and obviously the case today."

Father James E. Haran
Cattaraugus, N.Y.

Pope Pius XII did not
approve theistic evolution

Editor: Dr. Zeiger's article, "John Paul II and evolution" (April 1997) presented a concise analysis of the dangers of theistic evolution. Its conclusions, however, would have been greatly strengthened had the most relevant magisterial document on evolution, Humani Generis, been quoted directly. In that encyclical, Pope Pius XII made no distinction between materialistic evolution and theistic evolution. Rather, he listed evolution, per se, as among the "false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundation of Catholic doctrine." And he ordered bishops "to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools . . . or in writings of any kind."

It is frequently claimed that Pius XII permitted Catholics to accept theistic evolution. A reading of Humani Generis will show that such a claim is without foundation. Quite to the contrary, Pius XII warned that any Catholic who accepts evolution as "proved by the facts" is "rashly transgress[ing]" the only liberty granted by the Church: to discuss the question within very specific limits.

The true position of Pius XII is almost certainly reflected in the article which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano on June 3, 1950-just two months before the issuance of Humani Generis. It stated: "we cannot conceal our profound sorrow at perceiving that . . . the theory of evolution . . . has found tardy supporters in men who boast of their filial devotion to the Apostolic Roman Church."

Joseph H. Gehringer
Manahawkin, N.J.

Accent the positive

Editor: Many Catholics are so intent on criticizing evil they have no time to promote the good. The saints were just the opposite. Yes, they told of the evil of their day, but they were like St. Vincent de Paul: when they saw poverty they did something about it. Today other people do seem to be more positive. For instance in our city is Focus on the Family. This year it is 20 years old with a budget of $110 million dollars because it concentrates on family values. During this same 20 years I have put out a little magazine Star and in 20 years it has hardly grown at all. It is positive, encouraging, giving hope to the elderly and shut-ins and to families. Call a meeting to denounce pornography and the hall will be full; call a meeting to promote a Catholic magazine of inspiration and only you and the janitor will be there.

A second example. Our Catholic high school has put together a pamphlet for teens; in it St. John the Apostle tells about Jesus and how after he met him he could not leave him. Our youth are reading it because it is brief, different, direct and not preachy. It could help many other teens in these difficult days, but how do you get other teens to know about it? If we are to introduce the young to Jesus, connect them to Christ, we must do more than condemn the evil in the world.

Fr. Rawley Myers
22 W. Kiowa
Colorado Springs, Colo. 80903

Anointed hands

Editor: Jude Huntz offers a valuable defense of traditional Eucharistic practice in his article "Rethinking Communion in the hand" (March 1997). A few points in his article require clarification, however. Mr. Huntz writes that "even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly." Whatever may have been, and still be, the common faithful's belief concerning consecrated hands for consecrated things (e.g., Sacred Species, vessels, etc.), it is a misconception which has led some overzealous souls even to refuse Holy Communion from a deacon. As the words accompanying the anointing of the hands in the traditional ordination rite make clear, a priest's hands are anointed not for touching the Eucharist, but for blessing and the offering of sacrifice: "Ut quodcumque benedixerint benedicantur: et quaecumque consecraverint, consecrentur et sanctificentur." Anointed hands have never been considered a requisite for touching the Eucharist, as seen from the ancient practice of deacons distributing Holy Communion, a practice approved-at least under certain circumstances-by the Council of Nicea (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, I, 610-614), the Rituale Romanum of 1614 (title IV, chapter 2, #10), and the 1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 845, 2). The traditional absolute requirement for touching the Eucharist was diaconal ordination, not anointed hands.

A second problem lies in thinking that certain references in antiquity to the finality of the Eucharist actually refer to the method of reception. St. Leo the Great's comment "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith" is most likely not a reference to reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, but to the simple fact that the Eucharist is eaten.

The Church has consistently forbidden anyone but the celebrant at Mass to communicate himself, but I think that some misunderstand certain references to this prohibition as referring to Communion in the hand. For instance, one who communicates himself from the ciborium outside of necessity (which seems to me the concern expressed by St. Basil in letter #93) is not on a par with one who receives Communion from a priest or deacon, whether on the tongue or on the hand. What the Church has always required is that one receive the Sacrament from another.

I commend the author for the fine work he has done. Many Catholics are beginning to see that the introduction of Communion in the hand has not really increased Eucharistic devotion. Whatever the practice of the early Church may have been, Communion on the tongue was a legitimate development worth retaining. But let us strive to advocate and defend this practice with an ever fuller understanding of history and tradition.

Fr. Dennis Duvelius, F.S.S.P.
Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary
Elmhurst, Pa.