| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| letters from our readers The shortage of vocations is linked to contraception Editor: In our parish on weekdays our parochial vicar lets those in attendance state private intentions and nearly always there’s a petition for an increase in vocations to the priesthood. In my mind, there’s no mystery that there’s a shortage; there’s a shortage of children from which to choose. If we look at the size of the modern family, we’ll see that where the Catholic family in earlier times numbered in the double digits now they usually number in twos or threes. The law of averages says there should be that shortage. I personally believe we can attribute much of the shortage to the
two predominant evils of our day: contraception and abortion. Statistics tell us that
about 80% of Catholic couples practice contraception. Doesn’t it stand to reason that
God should hold back his generosity in such stinginess on the part of the present
generation? There will always be those who will ask: To whom shall we go? Our Catholic faith has the fullness of truth. If parents aren’t generous enough to increase and multiply and fill the earth, could it be that God holds back his generosity? Didn’t he say that much when he said: “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven”? Isn’t it a bit presumptuous to expect generosity from God to a selfish, greedy generation? Perhaps he sees a close similarity between our anti-family campaign and that of Herod. Didn’t he firmly state that “Whatsoever you do to the least of these, my brethren that you do unto me”? Perhaps he takes it all personally. Let me suggest a remedy for the present crisis: Let our pastors have the courage to stand up and speak the mind of the Church in condemning the selfish practice of contraception, for the insult to the Creator that I think it is and don’t let them say: It can’t be done in these times. It can and it must. The ratio between wages and expenses are no worse now but quite possibly more favorable than when there were large Catholic families. It’s the attitude that is different. In our day there’s much richness in spirit; they have to have all the latest gadgets and forget about children, with the excuse: We can’t afford a large family. Let our pastors imitate Jesus and only re-emphasize the truth when people walk away. There’s the old saying: “The truth will set you free.” Perhaps the truth about good and evil, no matter what the cost, would free us of the present dilemma. It’s worth a try! James Ziegler On the way to extinction Editor: In your October editorial you pointed out that the disintegration of the women’s religious communities in the United States was caused by changes that can be traced to the influence of about ten change-oriented nuns. There is, it seems to me, cause for alarm in the fact that, a few years ago, the Superior General of a famous religious order, addressing a group of nuns, demanded “adaptation on a grand scale, extending to attitudes, structures, and tradition.” This, he said, means “changing our mentality, our attitudes, the idea we have of God, of ourselves, of other people, of the reality and the structures of religious life.” It does seem that a directive of this kind could cause the order concerned to join all the others on the way to extinction. Rev. G. H. Duggan, S.M. Mass is not a joyful event Editor: Mass is not a joyful event. Trying to make it be a joyful occasion is the cause of much confusion and abuse in the liturgy. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a social ceremony done by an assembly of joyful people in order to remind themselves of something Christ did a long time ago. Holy Mass is not principally an activity done by the assembled congregation. Holy Mass is an action done by Christ using the priest’s words and actions as instruments. The Mass is—IS—the Crucifixion and Sacrifice on the Cross. Christ does not make a new Sacrifice at Mass. He does not repeat another time at Mass his Sacrifice on the Cross. Christ makes present for us at Mass in our day the one and same Sacrifice of himself, the one-time event, which he accomplished once and for all two thousand years ago. That is the formal dogma of the Church. So, when we are at the Holy Mass we are at the foot of the Cross. At the foot of the Cross with Jesus sacrificing himself in death, we are not at a joyful event; our attention should not be to greet the other people there and chat with them, to clap our approval, to sing childish songs in order to “fully and actively participate” in the event that is going on. At the Cross our attention should be on the fact that Christ is dying before our very eyes and the reason he is dying is because of our sins. Thus, our “full and active participation” is to fully and actively feel in the depths of our soul remorse for those sins and to say meaningfully: “Lord, I am sorry. Forgive me. Oh Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.” The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the heart-rending Calvary, which is not an occasion of joy. One cannot be joyful when he is saying “I’m sorry; forgive me” to someone who is dying. After Christ’s sacrifice which redeemed us, and after his founding of the Church, Christ communicates that redeeming grace to us through the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, marriage, etc. Thus, the nature of these sacraments makes them to be joyful occasions for joyfully realizing that one has become redeemed. The Sacrament of Penance-Reconciliation is an especially joyful occasion for one can leap for joy upon having his sins forgiven. Joyful fellowship is also appropriate outside the church or in the parish hall after Mass. But prior to transmitting these joyful graces through the Church throughout the centuries, the graces were obtained by the Crucifixion, Sacrifice, and Death on the Cross. It is THAT sacrifice, that prior sacrifice, which we are witnessing when we are at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Because they are redeemed, the Christian people are a joyful people—joyful everywhere EXCEPT AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS. William P. Sellari A priest analyzes femininity Editor: I just finished reading the November issue of HPR. I thought all the articles were very good, but the last one I read, “Mary Reveals True Femininity” by Fr. Dwight P. Campbell was excellent! I think it is interesting that such an incisive analysis of the feminine role in society was made by a priest, who quoted extensively from another priest, Pope John Paul II. I would say that it is probably one of the fruits of consecrated celibacy—allowing the priest to step back from personal involvement and think about an issue, assisted by the grace of Holy Orders, of course. Congratulations to Fr. Campbell. We would like all young women to be educated in these truths to counteract some of the heavy feminist pressure they receive from all sides. For a start, I will send the article to my niece. Gertrude H. Best The Church and evolution Editor: Mr. Wilders’s article deploring the Pope’s ignorance with respect to evolution theory (HPR, October 1997) cannot pass unremarked. Some of the writer’s gratuitous claims must be as gratuitously denied—as, for instance, that “non-subscribers to this [evolutionist] faith are ‘ipso facto’ excluded from the [Pontifical] Academy,” or that “thousands of scientists are now exposing the weaknesses of evolution theory.” Such exaggerations undermine credibility. In asserting that “Pius XII felt obliged to bow to the intellectual climate” and, still more egregiously, that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences—“official organ for advising the Church of what is happening in the world of science”—is leading “the Church to believe the theory of evolution to be an established fact,” Mr. Wilders undermines the reliability of the very magisterium which he would uphold. The Church does not have an “official” position at all, on science as such. The Church is concerned with the Transcendent, while modern science almost by definition is not. Yet the Church is surely most competent to decide which, among the tentative or partial conclusions of science, are compatible with her own teaching—which is not to say that she passes judgment on those conclusions as scientific. Finally, it should be observed that simply to call evolution “more than a hypothesis” (plus qu’une hypothèse) is not, according to the universally accepted canons of scientific usage, to accord it the status of fact. It is to regard it as a “theory”—a model, of recognized explanatory value but perhaps far from final verification. Stanley Grove |