| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Letters to The Editor
The "Angelic Twins"
Editor: HPR deserves the recognition and merits the gratitude of all the Catholics in the United States. Priests especially should be thankful for the quality of the magazine.
Fr. Baker has maintained the rigid standards of periodicals which explain our faith and exhort Catholics to remain faithful and true to the magisterium, "in spite of dungeon, fire and sword."
I suppose some regard the magazine as stodgy. A careful appraisal will dispel such a prejudice. Frs. John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., were two of my professors during my seminary years at Maryknoll (see November 1995, p. 80). They formed many loyal and learned missioners, including such champions as Danny McShane, who saved thousands of abandoned Chinese newborns, "Big Joe" Sweeney, who jumped at night from a Japanese ship that was going to take him to internment and swam back to his lepers in Korea, and Vincent T. Mallon, who was an inspiring example of theological orthodoxy.
As a footnote to history, permit me to include a memory or two of "Johnny" and "Cal." They were not robots. Once they published an article in HPR insinuating that the fire of hell might not be all that material. They were told by Rome to retract, which they did. After Humanum Genus was published, "Johnny" told us that he "didn't want to hear any more about it." They were a source of great consolation to mothers who lost their children by miscarriage or stillbirth. They were writers as well as busy pastors (they took turns at Hawthorne); they were consultors to the Holy See; they were dubbed the "Angelic Twins." They were also the soul of charity and understanding. I have heard "Cal" say more than once that when a grieving mother would consult him about the eternal fate of her child he would reply, "Try to live in such a way that you will some day be where your child is now." "Johnny" was universally regarded as a walking encyclopedia. He had all the answers. He was so smart he could explain theology simply-a rare gift. He tried to drum this truth into our heads, "Before you accept a philosophy, examine its consequences." He was smart. "Well, how smart was he?" Smart enough to die on Easter Sunday, 1950. It was my great privilege to help dig his grave at Maryknoll, where with his students, and with "Cal" he rests in God's Acre.
Let us give fervent thanks to the Sacred Heart for the editors he has raised up for the Homiletic & Pastoral Review.
Fr. Dennis O'Brien, M.M. Dallas, Tex.
Saintly confessor says, "I flay them!"
Editor: May the Lord give you his peace. The November issue of the HPR was a double treat, with the articles "Bellarmine, freedom and grace," and "Saint Leopold of Castlenovo." May I share a comment on each?
It was not the purpose of Father Batule's article on Bellarmine to give us a treatise on grace. However, it was refreshing for me to find four references to grace consistent with Trent as an objective reality intrinsic to the soul, which is commonly denied by contemporary gurus, including Leonardo Boff, Bernard Häring, Karl Rahner, and apparently the ICEL and the translators of the New American Bible.
My confrere, Father Rengers, gave us a fine presentation of the diminutive Croatian confessor, Saint Leopold. I was surprised, however, that he omitted examples of Leopold's pastoral theology on women's rights. God help any husband who might abuse his wife! One day a man in the habit of beating his wife came to Father Leopold for confession, but he didn't confess that sin. Father Leopold, whose voice was usually scarcely audible, roared at him: "You are a criminal!" Equally irate, the man demanded an apology. The priest retorted: "I apologize for nothing. I am telling you the truth in the name of God, and I repeat it-You are a criminal." This shock treatment worked, and the man made a proper confession.
This four-foot, five-inch runt of a confessor said about battered wives: "Many poor women are victims of their husbands. How I pity them. When I find their husbands in front of me, I put them with their backs to the wall and confront them with their responsibility." Playboys fared even worse. He prided himself on the therapy he meted out: "I flay them!"
Fr. John A. Schug, Cap.
Springfield, Mass.
Bellarmine on grace
Editor: In his interesting article "Bellarmine, freedom and grace" of the November 1995 issue, Fr. Robert Batule remarks (on p. 59) that in "Bellarmine's view, grace is not extrinsic to us and, consequently, it is not imputed to us. Rather, grace is inherent (gratia est inhaerente [sic]). It is natural (naturalis) and because of it, we are destined for eternity (aeternitas)." There are some anomalies here.
In the first place, Bellarmine would have said gratia est inhaerens (and not gratia est inhaerente), for a predicate adjective (inhaerens), which refers directly to the subject (gratia) through the verb est, must agree with it in case, number and gender. Nominative (gratia) does not agree with ablative (inhaerente).
But what is disturbing in the passage quoted is an ascription to Bellarmine of the view that grace "is natural"; which makes him sound more like a votary of la nouvelle théologie than a theology of the Counter Reformation. Batule gives no exact reference, but only a very broad one, book 2 (of the First Principal Controversy, itself a subdivision of the Third General Controversy, of volume 4 of the De controversiis Christianae fidei). That book has 17 chapters, but it is not necessary to read them all to find out Bellarmine's thought on grace; he makes his views quite explicit in book 1, chapter 1 of the Controversy referred to.
For Bellarmine, the word "grace" has three senses. The first is that it is natural. The Doctor holds this view to be heretical; "this understanding of grace," he declares, "does not do much for our discourse, nor are theologians-when they institute a discussion against the Pelagian heretics-in the habit of describing natural gifts by the word 'grace'. For the Pelagians did not deny grace as understood in this first sense, but rather endeavored by means of it to cover their heresies as with a cloak, when they would maintain that we are unable to do anything without grace, and by the word 'grace' they wanted to understand free will and other natural gifts of that kind . . . ."
The second sense conveys Bellarmine's understanding of grace: "Secondly, the grace of God is taken to mean only those divine benefits which, superadded to nature, are not necessary either to constitute or to conserve it; neither do they flow from it nor are they in any way owed to it" (Accipitur secundo gratia Dei pro solis illis beneficiis divinis, quae naturae superaddita, neque ad rei naturam constituendam, aut conservandam sunt necessaria, neque ex ipsa fluunt, aut ipsi quoquo modo debentur). Grace therefore, though inhering in nature, is distinct from and exterior to it, for if it were natural, it would be intrinsic to nature and derive its efficacy from it. Batule seems to agree with this reasoning when he notes that "Bellarmine held that the efficacy of grace is exterior to the will [one of the natural faculties] and that grace has a moral congruity which accommodates it to the circumstances" (p. 62). If there is any inconsistency between the statements "grace is not extrinsic to us" and "the efficacy of grace is exterior to the will," the inconsistency is not that of our Doctor of the Church but of his modern commentator.
José Pereira
Professor of Theology
Fordham University
Bronx, N.Y.
A different view of MRA
Editor: I write from England with reference to your review of Faith Abbot's book Acts of Faith, a Memoir. I read the book some time ago.
Her story is one of faith and pilgrimage, and I salute her. But her experience of MRA was some decades back, and in a particular setting. Mine is somewhat different.
My wife and I have worked "full-time" for MRA for 50 years and 39 years respectively, and continue to do so. We have been led to the Catholic Church this year from a previous Anglican (Episcopalian) practice. There is no incompatibility for us, nor for the very senior Catholic Churchmen in Europe with whom we have enjoyed a friendship over many years, in the course of our extensive international work. My own Catholic instruction has highlighted healing and bridge-building.
I would like to assure you that one of our close friends, Cardinal Franz König, for 20 years Archbishop of Vienna, often says to us, "MRA is a lay apostolate." Bishop Gordon Wheeler, formerly in charge of the Leeds Diocese, gave the address at the 50th Anniversary Celebration of MRA's launch in 1988. And years ago, respected Catholic theologian Karl Adam said, "MRA is not a sect but a seed."
It seems that the Spirit continues to blow where it listeth.
Gordon S. Wise
Maidenhead, Berks, England
Different views of feminism
Editor: In his article, "God Has No Daughters: Masculine Imagery in the Liturgy" (November 1995), Leon J. Podles denounces the feminization of the liturgy through the efforts of ICEL, the International Committee for English in the Liturgy. Feminism is evil, but Podles' ideas are reactionary, and lie at the far swing of the sexism pendulum. In fact, he uses many of the same tried and true feminist arguments to back his theories.
Podles begins by stating that the use of a "feminist salute" such as the term "sisters and brothers" rather than "brothers and sisters" identifies the preacher with the women rather than the men in attendance, and this grates "upon the ears of the male listeners," and contributes to the feminization of the Church. This is exactly the same complaint made 20 years ago by feminists who felt that such phrases reflected insensitivity to women in a male run church! Is Podles' argument more convincing because it is made by a man? Our priests and deacons should identify with Christ, not the men or women in the pews.
I agree with Podles that the use of the inclusive phrase "the God of Abraham and Sarah" is incorrect because it is not biblically accurate; but not, as Podles claims, because it is a threat to Abraham's significance, any more than the use of the "God of Abraham" threatens Sarah's prestige, as a feminist would see it. Abraham received the promise of salvation, Sarah received the fruit of the promise (Isaac). The God of Abraham is the God of revelation, who revealed himself to Abraham, and "God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones." Thus the emphasis is more on God, not Abraham, and while Abraham is our Father in Faith, Mary, not Sarah, is our Mother in Faith.
Podles is strangely silent on the subject of Mary, probably since his point that God has not daughters rings hollow when it inevitably leads to the conclusion that our Lady is a son of God!
Podles' view of masculinity is another obvious reaction to feminism. He declares that a man who tries to be masculine is "rejected, a scapegoat, pushed out into the wilderness to die, hunted by the forces of a kingdom." Thus, Christ's masculinity led him to the Cross, and, Podles claims, it is for this reason that we call God Father and not mother. What a sad distortion both of masculinity and Christ's redemptive death on the Cross! But doesn't it sound similar to the feminist sob song of abuse, neglect and nonfulfillment?
But worst of all was this call to arms: "Western Christianity already is almost universally perceived as feminine and therefore part of the world that men must reject to establish their separate identities as men." Just substitute "masculine" and "women" for "feminine" and "men" in that sentence and it reads like a feminist manifesto. I hope that Podles is not really ready to reject western Christianity!
This brings us to the heart of Podles' problem. He cannot fight the error of feminism with masculism, as 'ism's of this sort are, by definition, suited only to fight the fullness of truth, not each other.
Mary L. Myers
Manassas, Va.
More on the Real Presence
Editor: Your readers will, I am sure, be grateful to Fr. Regis Scanlon for pointing out so clearly (October 1995) that Rahner's theory of "transfinalization" and Schillebeeckx's theory of "transignification" contradict the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent that the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is brought about by transubstantiation.
It is clear from the final chapter of Rahner's book Spirit in the World that, like his mentor Martin Heidegger, he has adopted the Idealistic philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Any doubt on the point is removed by Fr. Scanlon's quotation from Hominization, in which Rahner contends that only the thinking subject is fully real, whereas bodily substances are real only in an imperfect sense. He disposes of the definition of Trent with the sophistical argument that the Council, following St. Thomas, speaks of the "substance" of bread, and we now know that bread is not one substance, but a mixture of substances. He then goes on to infer that we can interpret the definition as referring, not to the concrete reality of the bread which, as we now know, is manifold, but to the religious purpose for which the bread is being used. This is in accord with Kant's understanding of the term "substance." For Kant, it does not designate a reality outside the mind, but is simply what he calls an "a priori form of understanding," that is, an innate disposition of the mind which compels us to think of our sensory experiences of the unknowable "noumenon," in terms of "things" and "properties," even though there may be nothing in reality corresponding to these notions.
The theory of Schillebeeckx and Schoonenberg is not essentially different from Rahner's, and like his, it has its philosophical roots in the Idealism of Kant.
Unfortunately, Father Scanlon has adopted the Cartesian understanding of the term "speciebus manentibus" in the definition of the Council of Trent, as if the Council was speaking of a mental reality. He writes: "Species is not a thing which exists outside the mind, but an impression caused on our senses by the thing."
On the contrary, it is certain that the word species in the definition is equivalent to accidentia, that is, the real properties of the bread and wine. These are real, even though in the natural order they can exist only as sustained in existence by the substance to which they naturally belong. St. Thomas discusses in S.T., P. III, q. 77, the manner in which the accidents continue to exist after transubstantiation. There he teaches that they are not sustained in existence by any substantial subject, but by the accident of dimensive quantity.
Fr. Scanlon quotes in support of his view chapter 3 of St. Thomas' book On Being and Essence. However, it is clear that in this chapter St. Thomas is discussing the logical structure of the essence in composite substances. One of the components of this structure is species. This is a logical entity (ens rationis) which figures as one of the predicables in the famous Tree of Porphyry. St. Thomas holds, with Aristotle, that it is only the individual substance with its accidents, e.g., this black horse, that is real in the proper sense of the word. "The horse" or "horseness" or "blackness" are not real, although they have a basis in reality. Each is an "ens rationis cum fundamento in re."
To sum up, when the Council of Trent said that, after transubstantiation, the species remain, it was not speaking of a logical entity, but of the real properties of the bread and wine, from which we would be inclined to think that the substances also remain.
G.H. Duggan, S.M.
St. Patrick's College
Silverstream, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Two meanings of "species"
Editor: It was good to see Father Regis Scanlon's strong defense of the truth that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist (October 1995). Unfortunately, there is one error; and I think it should be pointed out, as it affects the meaning of the doctrine.
In his explanation of the statement that only the species of bread and wine remain after the Consecration, Fr. Scanlon denies the reality of the species, quoting St. Thomas, in his De Ente Et Essentia, as saying that species has being in the mind, but not outside the soul.
But St. Thomas is using the word species in a different sense in this passage. He is dealing with species as related to genus and specific difference. Only individuals have real existence; the species, as such, is only in the mind. We meet this or that man; we don't meet man in the abstract-that is, the species of man.
However, the word species as used in reference to the Eucharist means the appearances, the accidents, of bread and wine. But these are real. And they remain after the Consecration. As St. Thomas says: "It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the Consecration" (Summa Theol., III, 75, 5).
Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 383) classifies as certain the proposition that, "The Sacramental Accidents retain their physical reality after the change of the substance." The denial of this by Cartesian theologians in the 17th and 18th centuries was based on the error that there are no accidents really distinct from the substance.
Ott rightly maintains that the denial of real accidents remaining after the Consecration is incompatible with the statement of the Council of Trent that the species remain (session XIII, canon 2); with the teaching of Tradition; and with the concept of a Sacrament, "which demands an objective sign, if the Sacrament is not to become a merely apparent Sacrament" (Ott, op. cit.).
John Young
Eastwood, NSW, Australia confessor, Saint Leopold. I was surprised, however, that he omitted examples of Leopold's pastoral theology on women's rights. God help any husband who might abuse his wife! One day a man in the habit of beating his wife came to Father Leopold for confession, but he didn't confess that sin. Father Leopold, whose voice was usually scarcely audible, roared at him: "You are a criminal!" Equally irate, the man demanded an apology. The priest retorted: "I apologize for nothing. I am telling you the truth in the name of God, and I repeat it-You are a criminal." This shock treatment worked, and the man made a proper confession.
This four-foot, five-inch runt of a confessor said about battered wives: "Many poor women are victims of their husbands. How I pity them. When I find their husbands in front of me, I put them with their backs to the wall and confront them with their responsibility." Playboys fared even worse. He prided himself on the therapy he meted out: "I flay them!"
Fr. John A. Schug, Cap.
Springfield, Mass.