letters from our readers

Reliability and Fr. Brown

Editor: I have been wanting to write since a friend sent me a copy of Frederick Marks’s article “ The Reliability of the Bible” (HPR of last December). But I procrastinated. Now comes your advertising brochure. But I got your address from the Jesuit Directory.
    I’m sure HPR does a lot of good; anything by Fr. Frank Pavone, for instance, has to be of very high quality.
    But the Marks article is another matter entirely. It is, in a word, disgraceful—the more so in that it fuels the bonfire being lit by well-meaning but misguided souls under the good name of Father Raymond Brown. Marks makes it painfully obvious he is out of his element in trying to handle questions of biblical scholarship.
    Just one example to make my point. Marks claims that Brown misinterprets the PBC Instructio (which he can’t even call by the right name) which, he says, teaches that “little time elapsed between Jesus’ Resurrection and initial attempts ‘to compile a narrative’—in other words, it happened ‘soon’” (p. 26). Dr. Marks is thus ignorant of the central teaching of the Instructio, namely that each of the three phases of the gospel formation occupied roughly a generation. The “soon” which so intrigues him is clearly in Phase Three. Thus he does Brown an injustice—one of many in a short article. It is unlikely that Ray Brown, after forty years of rigorous biblical scholarship, would misread Roman documents.
    It is worth noting that virtually all criticism of Ray Brown and his work comes from those outside the field of exegesis. (Nor has he suffered any rebuke from Rome, as have Hans Küng and Charles Curran.) His colleagues universally hold him in highest esteem. Two popes named him to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Isn’t it time we got the message?
Rev. Philip M. Stark
Providence, R.I.

No conflict

Editor: I am writing to you concerning your editorial in the February 1999 issue entitled “Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Adults.”
    I am a missionary priest who has spent 27 years in Ghana. I appreciate your attack on the idea of evolution without the help of a Creator.
    However, in general I was disappointed with the article as I don’t think it does justice either to the theory of evolution or to Holy Scripture.
    I believe there is no conflict between true science and true religion, as both have their ultimate source in the one true God.
    It seems to me that you feel obliged to stick to a strictly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, Chapters 1 to 3, and this obliges you to condemn outright any theory (or evidence) of the evolution of human beings from lower beings. But more and more evidence is being discovered which validates the theory of evolution.
    No scientist has ever said that a bee changes into a fly or an otter into a fish. The changes are much more gradual than this. If this is your understanding of evolution, then it is no wonder that you don’t want to hear talk of evolution.
    Most scientists are not atheists. They do their work following scientific methods, and are not bombarding us with evolutionary propaganda.
    I am not an expert in either evolution or scripture, but I see no conflict between a true understanding of both.
    Father Bill Curran
Wa, U.W.R., Ghana

Quite underwhelming

Editor: It would be easy to refute much of the presentation, content and superficial way in which Matthew C. Abbott dealt with his subject entitled, “Schismatic Traditionalists” in the March 1999 issue.
    However, it is with the actual introductory phrase itself, “The angry traditionalist fringe . . .” that I wish to take exception to. Does Mr. Abbott have the right to tarnish all who profess traditional views with the words “angry” and “fringe”? I must protest that he is indeed taking a very big liberty. His use of such words conveys an offensive slur on all who hold dear and treasure a classical Catholic theology.
    Mr. Abbott would do well to quickly reacquaint himself with H. Belloc who had no doubt that “The people who are in the tradition of Europe, who have behind them the whole momentum of civilization, who have humor and common sense as the products of Faith, ought to approach their contradictors as inferiors.”
    In conclusion it must be pointed out that both the tone and the tenor of the article were of such non-depth that it can best be described as “quite underwhelming.”
Frederick John Herriott
Dalkey, Ireland

On converting one’s
non-Catholic spouse

Editor: I was shocked and offended when I read Reverend Michael P. Orsi’s statements regarding interfaith marriages, “An Uncommon Policy Regarding Marriages,” (HPR, May 1999)! I know that my husband and I were chosen by God for each other, and he did not convert to Catholicism until after the birth of our third child, when he was 42 years old. My husband’s conversion experience didn’t end at the Easter Vigil, it had just begun! He was not raised with all of the teachings and traditions of the Catholic faith, but we are both willing disciples, prepared to learn and grow together, and to share the faith with our children.
    Each year, our parish congregation of 200 families welcomes 4-6 candidates or catechumens into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil. Many times, these individuals are the spouses of active Catholics. What a wonderful witness to evangelization, a ministry to which Pope John Paul II consistently calls each one of us! Instead of promoting the idea of Catholic to Catholic marriages as the “acceptable norm,” perhaps the Church should focus its efforts on assisting Catholics in the evangelization of one’s betrothed or one’s spouse. The Pastor and the RCIA director at our parish always offer guidance and support to couples who struggle to work through the difficulties of interfaith marriages—they are honest and open about Church teaching, they pray with and for these couples, and most importantly, I believe that they trust the Holy Spirit to lead these persons to conversion.
    Because I grew up in a Catholic environment and remained active in the Church throughout my young adult life, I dated Catholic men. But I believe that God chose me to be an instrument of conversion in my husband’s life, and I was called to marry a non-Catholic. This is not a statement of conceit or pride, but an admission that I recognize the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians. My husband and I celebrated the Sacrament of Matrimony at our wedding—it was a graced moment in our lives, and I remember my vows as if I stated them yesterday. We have been married ten years and have four beautiful children as the gifts of this union. I must emphatically add now that my husband has been a source of tremendous conversion for me also—his love for me and our children, and his devotion to us often brings me to my knees in humility.
    My husband and I are committed to our family—we have no intentions of attempting to break our sacred union. Please, don’t refer to us as the exception. That would be a statement of hopelessness, and we are a Church which anticipates a future full of the light and love of Christ.
Mary Ruth Jones
Sautee, Georgia

The root idea of sacrifice

Editor: I thank you for Fr. Thomas M. Kocik’s article “Priestly Identity Crisis” in the April 1999 issue of HPR. It was balanced, faithful to the Tradition and open to various approaches within the Church. I am particularly pleased with his use of Bishop Sheen’s Those Mysterious Priests. We have reached a point in the present where the practice of “victimhood” has degenerated to mean only those who are victimized allegedly through no fault of their own, oftentimes leading to the whining we hear in the media by those who don’t get their way.
    When it comes to the Kingdom of God, his Church and especially the priesthood, victimhood is of the essence, because the priesthood of the Catholic Church is so intimately tied to the very Person of the Priest-Victim, Jesus Christ our Lord. I would like to suggest, however, that because we have seen such a fall in the definition of the word “victim,” we should, as Fr. Kocik states, focus more on the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice as not only the process or “stepping stones” but also as continuing cause of the priestly office. In this way we avoid the dichotomy implied in the question tossed about here and there of whether it is the Church that makes the Eucharist or the Eucharist that makes the Church. The relationship is so entwined, that to distinguish is to dangerously approach radically altering the meaning of the priesthood.
    When we approach the priesthood as sacrifice, or to use another similar word, “offering,” then we also can find ourselves dealing with the married and celibate priest in a balanced way. In Corpus Christi, E.L. Mascall, commenting on Canon Eugene Masure’s The Christian Sacrifice, writes, “The root idea of sacrifice, therefore, is not death (though the death of the victim may indeed be necessary when sacrifice is offered in a fallen world), still less is it destruction, but transformation —the transformation, by the divine acceptance, of a gift offered by man in homage to God.” When the response to the call to Holy Orders is viewed as an offering to God in love and obedience, then there is no room for the implied “better than thou” positions of those opposed to mandatory celibacy and the defenders of celibacy. Both matrimony and celibacy are transformed in the voluntary offering of personal life in the priesthood. The belief that celibacy involves sacrifice and marriage does not is simply as ludicrous as those who say that a celibate priest knows nothing about love because he is not married. They are both sacrifices that are especially transformed in the Mystery of Holy Orders because they are both sanctified “by the divine acceptance.”
    Of course this has nothing to do with the cheap modern definition of “victim.” A priest offers his life voluntarily, out of love for the Son, in obedience to the Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Although at times painful and confusing, it is summed up and embraced by the Crucified and Resurrected Christ in the glory of the Holy Eucharist.
Fr. Miguel Grave de Peralta
St. Ignatios of Antioch
Melkite Greek-Catholic Church
Augusta, Ga.

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review August/September 1999 Table of Contents

Back to Catholic information Center on Internets Main Periodical Page