Letters

NOTHING NEW?

Each month I wait to read Philip F. Lawler's insightful 
editorials and articles in Catholic World Report. But I thought 
he missed the boat somewhat in the February Report. In an 
otherwise excellent editorial Lawler says that the Pontifical 
Council for the Family's Human Sexuality: The Truth and Meaning 
contains nothing new.

In no other document from the Holy See have I seen such strong 
emphasis on the right and duty of parents to see to the education 
of their children in human sexuality. Except for "serious reasons 
of physical or moral incapacity," the parents cannot delegate 
this task and duty to others. In no other document I know are 
parents bluntly urged to remove their children if there is talk 
about safe/safer sex and immoral birth control in the classroom. 
In no other document have I seen spelled out the human 
development we know as the "latency period," although this term 
is not used. In no other document has it been said that the signs 
of fertility may be taught in late adolescence (knocking out a 
widely used sex education program). In no other document of its 
kind is contraception condemned so often in different words. In 
no other document has it been so clearly pointed out how talk 
about safe/safer sex, anti-life themes, and questions about 
childrens' and parents' intimacies are immoral invasions of 
personal privacy.

The sex ed lobby/industry has grown so phenomenally because of 
demand, a demand created by the unleashing of the "sex 
revolution." International Planned Parenthood has found sex ed 
its most effective weapon in propagating its anti-life/family 
poison. Sex ed is the cheapest and most effective device for the 
greedy pharmaceutical industry. These programs sell 
contraceptives/abortifacients to ever younger groups; their 
promotion of a promiscuous lifestyle; assume ever greater sales 
of medicines because of the spread of STDs, and ever more copious 
grants for research to its laboratories which investigate new 
remedies for the new incurable diseases of which AIDS is the only 
one. And remember what the then President of Planned Parenthood 
Dr. Alan Guttmacher told his adherents after the infamous Roe v 
Wade decision when they asked him whether the battle for 
abortio-on-request was now finally won. Said Guttmacher, "We have 
won a splendid victory but the enemy though vanquished is not 
liquidated... Don't discharge your troops. The answer to winning 
the battle for elective abortion once and for all is sex 
education." 

Human Sexuality was the fruit of more than five years of effort 
involving multiple people of varied backgrounds and countries; 
the document was the result of the very many complaints of 
parents from all over the world, and particularly from the U.S. 
Given the pervasive sex mess and the erotic culture of death, 
parents, teachers, clergymen, religious and all Catholic adults 
 can read this extraordinary tool to fight pernicious sex ed with 
great profit. However, the real threat and danger is that the sex 
promoters in our Catholic schools will ignore this powerful 
document which, again, good and disenfranchised parents can now 
use to dismantle offensive, explicit, graphic sex instruction 
often diffused throughout the curriculum.

Perhaps I'm being picky and over-reacting to Lawler's good piece. 
But the fact that the hierarchies of Canada, the United States, 
and other countries, as well as the liberal Catholic press, have 
so far pointedly ignored The Truth and Meaning of Human 
Sexuality would indicate that there is more than "nothing new" 
therein.

Rev. Paul Marx, OSB
Gaithersburg, Maryland

Since we rarely disagree with Father Marx, we are relieved by the 
realization that in this case our argument involves a question of 
emphasis, not substance. He is unquestionably right, insofar as 
the language of Truth and Meaning  is clear,  specific, 
unambiguous, and emphatic. Still we insist--and we suspect he 
would acknowledge--that the essential content of Truth and 
Meaning could not have come as a surprise to anyone who had read 
previous Vatican documents carefully. The urgent tone was new; 
the fundamental message was not. - The Editor.

DUCKING THE QUESTION?

Reading your excellent review of the papal document, The Truth 
and Meaning of Human Sexuality, which was produced by the 
Pontifical Council for the Family, you concluded the review with 
the following:

"What should parents do, if they find themselves locked in an 
argument with Catholic school teachers, or local pastors, about 
the content of classroom (sex-ed) programs?" You proceeded to 
write that "Truth and meaning does not dodge the question.

The truth of the matter is, however, that the question is 
dodged!

Now for an editor who is writing the most insightful editorials 
within all of the Catholic publications which I read, I cannot 
imagine you dodging such a critical question. Therefore, I would 
be curious to know: who lifted the answer from your review?

Emil J. Bodart
Merion Station, Pennsylvania

No, we did not duck the question--nor did the Vatican. Truth and 
Meaning leaves absolutely no doubt: If parents do not approve of 
the sex-education programs offered in parochial schools, it is 
the parents--not the principals, and not the pastors--whose 
judgment should prevail. That, at least, is the clear teaching of 
 the Catholic Church; whether that teaching is honored in any 
given parish or parochial school is a different question. -- The 
Editor.


THE END OF THE OXFORD MOVEMENT

I was intrigued to read the "Apologia" of one of the last of the 
"Anglo-Catholics" in the February issue.

It brought home to me the extent to which the "Anglo-Catholic" 
position rested upon a false reading of history. How was it that 
this party within the Protestant Church of England survived until 
1994, when the ordination of women issue killed it off?

For the Venerable John Henry Newman, the "Oxford Movement" ended 
in 1845. It is significant that Brian Brindley makes hardly any 
mention of him, and none at all of the Catholic Martyrs.  How 
anyone with an open mind can read Lingard, Cobbett, Newman, 
Gasquet, Belloc, Chesterton, Knox, and more recently Duffy, and 
still believe that the Church of England was an unbroken 
continuation of the medieval Church, has long been 
incomprehensible to me. The thousands of Catholics who suffered 
persecution for their faith in the two centuries after Henry VIII 
certainly made no such error.

The fact is that those who followed Pusey, Keble, and others in 
perpetuating the Anglo-Catholic myth kept countless good 
Anglicans from accepting what Father Ian Kerr calls "the 
Ffullness of Christianity." It has taken a century and a half for 
this myth to die. My own experience after forty years in the 
Church is that the majority of those outside do not really want 
unity, despite lip service to the "ecumenical movement," and they 
have only a shadowy notion of what faith is.

May I recommend to anyone who still believes what Mr. Brindley 
believed until 1994, a concentrated course in the novels of R.H. 
Benson, plus Aidan Nichols' study of the history of Anglican 
theology: "The Panther and the Hind."

Martin A.A. Blake
Glastonbury, Somerset
England


A WHIFF OF SULFUR

Russell Shaw ("A Whiff of Sulfur," February 1996) is peeved at me 
for writing what he calls "a fairly nasty piece about Opus Dei." 
As he mentions, this is the second time he has chosen to 
acknowledge my article, which appeared in the New Republic. This 
is, also, the second time he has failed to engage my arguments. 
He mistakenly implies that I criticized Opus Dei for its 
ascetical practices; I did no such thing. I did write that their 
spirituality was heretical, specifically Pelagian, and not very 
 profound. His only innovation in your pages is that he has 
decided to vent his anger on the bookstore/cafe that I manage. 
Personally, being attacked by an Opus Dei member is a matter of 
indifference, but I cannot permit anyone to cast slurs at my 
customers.

Shaw writes that the bookstore/cafe "is the sort of establishment 
that attracts a polymorphously raffish clientele, of the kind 
with whom your grandmother and mine probably would not feel 
entirely comfortable."

Raffish?!? Pray, sirs, whom does he mean? Secretary of the 
Treasury Robert Rubin? Poet Maya Angelou? Trumpet virtuoso Wynton 
Marsalis? Presidential advisor George Stephanopoulos? 
Choreographer Twyla Tharp?

I do not suppose Shaw is speaking of the Most Rev. James 
Sullivan, Bishop of Fargo. Nor the Most Rev. Francis Stafford, 
Archbishop of Denver. Perhaps he meant to refer to the Most Rev. 
Roberto Gonzalez, OFM, Coadjutor Bishop of Corpus Christi, though 
I must say I found the bishop charming and am happy to report 
that he enjoyed thoroughly his Mushroom Sesame Salad. That's 
right, Mr. Shaw, raffish customers of mine, one and all.

Also, I was not previously aware that "polymorphous" was a 
derisive term, at least not in our Church. If Shaw intended a 
Freudian innuendo, I should like a citation to magisterial 
teaching that endorses Freud's hallucinations as worthy 
replacements for sound Christian anthropology. In its strict 
definition, polymorphous is precisely what the membership of our 
Church is. His use of that word in that way--he directs the word 
to persons not doctrines--is telling: the exclusivity it bespeaks 
provides us all with yet another reason to dislike Opus Dei. His 
lack of humor makes it a hat-trick.

For the record, the name of the establishment in question is 
Kramerbooks & Afterwards Cafe. Should Russell Shaw care to drop 
by, I should be happy to buy him a drink and add him to my list 
of raffish clientele.

Michael Sean Winters
Washington, DC

Mr. Winter indulges in an orgy of name-dropping, and then accuses 
Russell Shaw of "exclusivity." A passing reference to his 
clientele provokes three angry paragraphs of rebuttal, and then 
accuses Shaw of lacking a sense of humor. We are confused.

Of course we are grateful to Mr. Winters for informing us that 
Opus Dei is heretical--although his judgment obviously conflicts 
with that of the Holy Father. We had often heard about a 
"parallel magisterium," but we had never expected to find it 
behind the counter of Kramerbooks. -- The Editor.

DANGERS OF FLIPPANCY
 
Russell Shaw had a base hit with his comments "A Whiff of 
Sulfur." The flippancy, of course, is a symptom of a deeper 
malaise, but the devil knows how to get a good deal of mileage 
out of it. St. Francis DeSales devotes some coIntroduction to 
the Devout Life. mments to the evil done by this flippancy, about 
holy things, in his According to this doctor of the Church, 
double entendre and flippancy concerning holy things are in the 
same class; they have the ability to penetrate into the memory, 
doing spiritual harm; the saint said that they can be easily 
retained, and recycled by the imagination.

The habit of flippancy and ridicule is not unheard of in clerical 
circles. Customs of a simple and pious nature are fair game. What 
was once just an attempt to be amusing, has degenerated into 
viciousness, and our enemies, both seen and unseen, are using it.

When stage plays and movies were first made, on religious 
subjects, they were usually respectful, now, of course, they are 
often vicious. We used to get a laugh out of what the world 
looked on as our exaggerations, especially in the area of sexual 
morals; who is laughing now? Screwtape, to be sure.

One other comment: the National Catholic Reporter has turned 
flippancy, for the sake of ridicule of Church authority, into an 
art form. This journal is often found in seminary libraries, 
parish book racks, and religious houses.

Thomas Norton
Dillwyn, Virginia

FORGETTING THE CHILDREN?

In his first address to the United Nations, Pope John Paul II 
voiced a priceless warning: "The most frequent pitfall in human 
activities is the possibility of losing sight, while performing 
them, of the clearest truths, the most elementary principles." 
Many years earlier, G.K. Chesterton, moved by his deep awareness 
of the uncommon character of the "common man," said essentially 
the same thing: "Some things are too important to be left to 
experts."

The eminent jurist Monsignor Cormac Burke has written in your 
January 1996 issue a response to "Polonaise's" article in a 
previous issue. The monsignor is out to defend his position that 
marriage has "two equal (my emphasis) and interrelated ends." His 
defense replaces children with "procreativity," on the ground 
that not every couple can have children.
It still remains that the end of procreation is offspring, and 
the openness to new life of Humanae Vitae fame which does not 
result in offspring merely indicates some disorder, however 
innocently contracted. The good monsignor's inattention to the 
child leads him to overlook another clear truth and elementary 
principle, this one in his own field, namely, that laws exist to 
correct, if not obviate disorders--not rest on them.
 
Joseph Thompson
Toronto, Ontario
Canada

RECONCILATION, NOT DIVORCE

I read Mgr. Burke's article in response to Polonaise with 
interest; I was impressed by his insights. However it is a fact 
that in spite of his protestation that Canon Law on marriage is 
not "lax," and does not open the doors to a flood of annulments, 
there has been a flood of annulments in the last few years. In 
the same way, one could say, easy consensual civil divorce, 
enshrined in legality, has had the same effect. Similarly, 
legalized abortion and availability of artificial contraceptives, 
in particular from practicing Catholics, in the case of the 
latter, have provided overwhelming temptations, as well as grave 
scandal.

In Australia, annulment is not considered until civil divorce has 
been obtained, so the annulment process is somewhat weighted 
toward the subjectivity of the plaintiffs, and there is not much 
apparent attempt at objectivity and reconciliation. Msgr. Burke 
has made very valid observations, and I would like to see the 
annulment process oriented towards reconciliation, particularly 
in the majority of cases, where selfish interests are dominant.

Dr. Tim Coyle
Cairns
Australia

THE PRO-LIFE MEDICAL OPTION

If prescription "contraceptives" acted solely to prevent 
conception, that is, the union of sperm and egg, the Order of St. 
Francis Healthcare System's "compromise" to allow physicians to 
write such prescriptions ("Playing in Peoria," February 1996) 
might seem possible.

Such "contraceptives" as low-dose and mini-birth control pills, 
Depo-Provera, and Norplant, instead of preventing the union of 
sperm and egg (contraception), act to prevent implantation of the 
fertilized egg--the tiny new human being; that is, they cause 
what we know to be a very early abortion.

When science served the good of the human being rather than the 
ideology of a certain few, conception was properly said to be the 
beginning of pregnancy. Not long after abortion was legalized, 
however, the American Medical Association re-defined the 
beginning of pregnancy as implantation. For this reason you will 
be vehemently contradicted by pro-abortionists if you call these 
"contraceptives" abortifacients, even though that is what they 
are. As in other arguments, it is most important to define your 
terms.

 Can the order of St. Francis Healthcare System justify paying in 
tiny human lives for its continued existence? I don't think so.

I suggest instead that this Order boldly proclaim their pro-life 
beliefs and operation as the Hawthorne Dominicans do regarding 
euthanasia:  Euthanasia NO; Life YES!"

Pro-life women desperately want pro-life doctors and nurses to 
care for them. We will never find that care at hospitals and 
health services which call themselves "Catholic" but then play 
semantic games to disguise their complicity in the death of the 
preborn. No wonder they have a hard time surviving!

Marie Dietz
North Troy, Vermont

While we wholeheartedly embrace your point, we would also add 
that contraception itself is a grave evil, even if abortifacients 
are not involved. It would be a mistake for Catholics, in their 
understandable drive to stop abortion, to ease their opposition 
to those forms of contraception which "only" destroy the 
integrity of the marital act. -- The Editor.

THE PERMANENT DIACONATE

Father William J. Kiefer ("Letters,"February 1996) cannot 
substantiate the claim that the permanent diaconate was not 
"instituted" after Vatican II, but "reinstated." Leaving aside 
the Council's dogmatic constitution on the Church, and also the 
acts of Pope Paul VI, some pre-conciliar texts take up the 
subject.

The 1908 Encyclopedia says on the subject:

	But the great distinction between the diaconate in the early 
ages and that of the present day lay probably in this, that 
in primitive times the diaconate was commonly regarded, 
possibly on account of the knowledge of music that it 
demanded, as a state that was permanent and final. A man 
remained a simple deacon all his life. Nowadays, except in 
the rarest cases (the cardinal-deacons sometimes continue 
permanently as mere deacons) the diaconate is simply a state 
on the road to the priesthood.
	
The 1917 Canon Law states that tonsure and orders can be 
conferred only on men seeking the priesthood. But even this 
foresaw a rare permanent diaconate:

	Should one who is ordained refuse to receive higher orders, 
he can neither be forced by the Bishop to receive them nor 
be forbidden the exercise of orders already received...
	
The 1917 Code applies only to the Latin rites. In the East, the 
practice has been otherwise.

 	ii. In the Eastern churches, especially the Byzantine, many 
deacons never proceed to the priesthood but assist as 
curates in the parishes; such is called a "deacon of 
office."
	
Pope Pius XII spoke of a permanent diaconate. On October 5, 1957, 
he said:

	We know that thought is being given at present to the 
introduction of a diaconate conceived as an ecclesiastical 
office independent of the priesthood. Today, at least, the 
idea is not yet ready for application. Should it someday 
become so, what we have just said would still hold true and 
this diaconate would take its place with the priesthood in 
the distinctions we have just drawn.
	
A permanent diaconate is well documented. Father Kiefer's letter 
seems to confuse the issue of permanency with celibacy. In the 
Western Church, those in orders were exhorted--and in most later 
centuries bound--to celibacy. Yet this is a disciplinary matter, 
not a doctrinal one. Today, all unmarried candidates for the 
diaconate, whether permanent or transitional, must accept 
celibacy:

	Canon 1037 - A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is 
not married, and likewise a candidate for the priesthood, is 
not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless he has, 
in the prescribed rite, publicly before God and the Church 
undertaken the obligation of celibacy, or unless he has 
taken perpetual vows in a religious institute.
	
Moreover, "in accordance with the traditional discipline of the 
Church, a married deacon who has lost his wife cannot enter a new 
marriage." This is a form of celibacy undertaken with the 
permanent diaconate.

To the Congregation for the Clergy on November 30, 1995, Pope 
John Paul II said: "...You intend to prepare a document 
concerning the life and ministry of the permanent deacon, similar 
to that for priests ..." The Pope added:

	What is specific to the life and ministry of deacons could 
be summarized in a single word: fidelity is, first of all, 
an invitation carefully to promote throughout the Church a 
sincere respect for the theological, liturgical and 
canonical identity proper to the sacrament conferred on 
deacons, as well as for the demands required by the 
ministerial functions which, in virtue of receiving Holy 
Orders, are assigned to them in the particular Churches ... 
By virtue of the sacrament received, an indelible spiritual 
character is impressed upon him, which marks the deacon 
permanently and precisely as a minister of Christ. 
Consequently he is no longer a layman nor can he return to 
the lay state in the strict sense (cf. Catechism of the 
Catholic Church, 1583).
 
Father Kiefer asked: "Just what are these modern-day permanent 
deacons? Where did they come from? What are they supposed to do?" 
Let us thank our Lady, queen of the clergy, that the Pope will 
soon answer Father Kiefer.

James Scheer
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

A SENSE OF HUMOR

Thank you for the great articles on Christian humor ("Second 
Spring," December 1995). Humor is our snorkel and fins in this 
valley of tears. The talent and great sense of fun of P.G. 
Wodehouse is worthy of tribute. However, his humor blossoms in an 
imaginary world, a hothouse untouched by human suffering. The 
Christian sense of humor thrives in the midst of life's hardships 
and trials. This marvelous joy is found in the life of every 
saint. Your collection of articles on Christian humor will be 
complete when you include one on the wit and wisdom of the 
saints, who were able, through humor, to put the troubles of 
their times into perspective.

This brings me to a story I heard a long time ago from a Salesian 
about a newly ordained, self-important priest. He decided that 
his first conversion would be that of an infamous enemy of the 
Church. This man was lying on his deathbed in a local hospital, 
unable, because of his illness, to leave his bed or speak a word. 
In spite of his condition, he refused to see any clergy and so 
when the young priest came in, he was furious. However, being 
speechless, he was at a loss to deal with the situation as he 
would have liked. The priest walked right up to the bed and 
launched into a sermon designed to dazzle the lost sheep the 
great light of a superior intelligence.

Moments later, the old man's expression became perplexed, and it 
was clear that he was longing to communicate with the priest. 
Soon he was motioning frantically for the paper and pencil beside 
his bed. The priest was please with the progress he was making 
and without interrupting his discourse, he leisurely gave the man 
pad and pencil. By this time, panic and terror were written all 
over the old man's features as he scribbled a few words and then fell 
dead upon the pillow.

At this, the priest was alone with his thoughts. His eloquence 
and learning were more impressive than he had imagined! Yes, he 
was God's gift to the Church. Then he picked up the note and 
read: "You are standing on my air hose."

There are many Catholics in the United States who feel the pinch 
on the air hose these days, thanks to the enthusiasm of ICEL and 
many other forces in the Church. However riddled with confusion, 
error and evil these times are, we are here by God's design. God 
will raise up saints for this century, from this century ... 
 that's the good news. The bad news, or rather, the challenging 
news, is that we must strive to be those saints. So take a deep 
breath, everyone!

Mary L. Myers
Manassas, Virginia

REVERSE RACISM?

I was disappointed with the prejudice that resounded in the 
article, "Father Clements Speaks Out" (January, 1996).

I am white, I believe O.J. Simpson is not guilty, and the idea 
that blacks are rejoicing over the death of two whites never 
entered my mind. Conversely, I've heard many black people say 
they believe O.J. is guilty. I work with blacks, several of my 
neighbors are black, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

I cannot bring myself to understand how Father Clements could 
have such a barbaric opinion of us, so as to believe that whites 
huddle together and berate blacks. Additional, Father Clements is 
full of himself when he equates "the country as a whole." His 
further comment, "blacks don't have any power over white lives" 
is unfortunate because it's this mind-set that fuels the "who 
should be in control mentality" for low-class blacks and whites. 
But if it makes him happy, the bishop of my diocese is black, 
deeply respected and revered. How's that for black power, Father 
Cements?

If Father Clements dislikes whites so much, maybe he should 
change his ministry to a white community and ask for God's 
guidance in dealing with his defect. I believe Father Clements 
wouldn't find any of those "white" monsters who seem to haunt him 
now. Instead he would find that whites would not view him as a 
"black liberal" coming to a white community to preach is own 
brand of liberalism.

Linda Severin
O'Fallon, Illinois



James Hitchcock, in his article "Catholicism and Modernity: A 
Time for Decision," (December 1995) gave us an instance of the 
Council's pastoral failure to offer pastoral guidance on the 
sensitive issue of birth control after Pope John XXIII took the 
discussion of the subject off the conciliar floor.

Christopher Derrick in his book Honest Love and Human Life has 
quoted Bishop B.C. Butler, an auxiliary of the Archdiocese of 
Westminster, England, a man of the highest intelligence and by no 
means blindly "conservative" as saying that "by the last session, 
in 1965, the conciliar fathers were sanctioning almost any 
progressive document which the theologians cared to put before 
them."
 
So it looks as if Pope John's move was truly providential.

G.H. Duggan, S.M.
Silverstream
New Zealand