| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Letters
Not in this diocese
Thank you for your recent letter and the copy of the pre-publication story concerning the results of the survey on inclusive language translations.
While I do not question the response of the 1,000 respondents, in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, with over 1.3 million Catholics, there is significant support for inclusive language translations and the work of ICEL.
Bishop John R. McGann
Rockville Centre, New York
The purpose of a random survey is to appraise public opinion with more accuracy than is allowed by an anecdotal approach. The results of the Roper poll indicate that if another 1,000 Catholics were surveyed--or even if all American Catholics were surveyed--the results would fall within a few percentage points of those produced by our poll. Thus unless the opinions of Catholics in Rockville Center differ markedly from those of Catholics elsewhere in the country, we can confidently predict that a scientific survey would find very little popular support for inclusive-language translations there. - The Editor
Cafeteria Catholics
The point of your cover story "Catholics Reject Inclusive Language" (March 1997) is quite true, but they also reject the Church teachings on abortion, contraception, women priests, etc.
Obviously, the Church has not been doing well in its teaching as Christ commanded. As I read through the article on the CWR poll, I was put in mind of the Jews as they wandered through the desert for forty years. They had to know that God was in charge, and that God wanted them to accept his teachings, still they managed to make the golden idol--and they grumbled the whole way.
That seems to be what the Church is up against now: if it's true that 62 percent strongly believe in the Blessed Sacrament, but still reject the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, etc.--are they not ready to build a golden idol?
While Catholics should be "in" the world but not "of" the world, the CWR poll indicates that the majority of Catholics wish to be both in and of the world, and reject major Catholic teachings. Still, they want to call themselves Catholics.
Allen O'Donnell, SFO
Wayne, Nebraska
Questions poll's validity
Lawler mildly rebukes those Catholics who attend Mass thrice or fewer times per month as being "lax." Indeed, if they have no legitimate reasons for missing Mass, have they not sinned mortally? And does not their habitual non-attendance suggest a virtually complete indifference to the faith, its dogmas and disciplines? Why do we--in a context of "dialogue"--concern ourselves with what these non-practical Catholics "think/believe?" The fact that 44 percent of those polled are of this category skewers all results in my opinion. (I am disinclined to perform the equations/ratios required to validate them!)
Still, one's curiosity is piqued by the fact that this mish-mash of professed Catholics believe in Christ's true presence in the Eucharist at a level twice that of Catholic communicants as elicited in a poll done just two years ago. Of the latter group--you should remember--only one-third so believed. The rest teetered among consubstantiation, symbolism, and other variations. Why this large discrepancy? Can we realistically ascribe the change to intensive catechesis? Which is more reliable?
Incidentally, I am solidly opposed to the use of "inclusive language" and would limit the use of vernacular as originally authorized by Vatican II; but, I do not feel the results of this poll vindicate these or any other "preference" in any significant way.
John F. McQueeny
Lenexa, Kansas
It is true that many of the professed Catholics surveyed held positions that are at variance with Church teachings, and many seem to have separated themselves from the Church. Nevertheless their answers are important, insofar as they undercut the argument that by introducing new translations, the Church might entice lapsed Catholics back into the fold. Also, it is extremely important to notice that the rejection of inclusive-language translations is strongest among those Catholics who are both active and orthodox.
As for the discrepancy between the Roper survey and an older Gallup poll regarding the Eucharist, the remarkable difference can be traced--as in most such cases--to a difference in the wording of the question. The CWR/Roper survey asked whether respondents whether they agreed with the statement: "The bread and wine used in Mass are actually transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ." (The Gallup poll asked respondents to choose among several more nuanced statements.) While it may be possible to accept our general statement, and still stray from orthodox Catholic belief on more specific theological issues, it is refreshing to know that most Catholics still hold to the basic premise of the Real Presence. In short, the evidence provided by our poll on this point was incomplete, but encouraging. - The Editor
Frightening picture
What a frightening picture your special report presents about the American Church. To reject the use of inclusive language is certainly a wonderful thing to do. But when I read the statistics on the other issues, I am devastated.
For instance, "abortion is never justified:" only 26 percent agreed strongly and ten percent agreed mildly; those who were in disagreement were 63 percent. "Women cannot be ordained into the priesthood" (that is after the Holy Father made it very clear that it can never happen): only 34 percent agreed, the rest disagreed. What is even to the core of the faith, that "the Bread and Wine used in Mass are actually transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ:" 82 agreed, the rest disagreed. And the question of priorities is even more depressing.
I think the Church has an enormous task ahead of her to reverse the decline.
John J. Alpar, M.D
Amarillo, Texas
Contradiction in beliefs?
I found the results of the poll to be disappointing but hardly surprising. One can only be thankful that truth is not subject to plebiscite.
There is a point about which I am somewhat puzzled. On page 45 in the box labeled "Catholic Belief and Practice" it is noted that 59 percent mildly or strongly disagree with the statement, "Abortion is never justified."
Yet, on page 47, 48 percent think that the Church should "take an active role in the public fight against abortion." This would seem to indicate that there is a minimum of a 7 percent overlap--at least 7 percent of the respondents disagree with the Church's position on abortion and also think that the Church should "take an active role..."
I suppose there may be some who think that abortion could sometimes be justified and that the Church should also oppose abortion, but somehow I don't see that position applying to more than a very few individuals.
David N. LaFontaine
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Actually, the dozens of surveys of American attitudes regarding abortion have produced results consistent with those of the Roper poll. Most Americans disapprove of abortion, but also disapprove of laws that would outlaw the practice. Applied to the moral realm, that attitude could explain the overlap which you detected. - The Editor
Not really Catholics
As with any poll that supposedly measures the opinions of Catholics, this one has one major flaw. Many of those questioned for this poll are not Catholic.
Does the first line of the article not read, "...surveyed 1,000 Catholic Americans, asking them a series of questions...?" The response to question #5 (Which of the following categories best describes how often you generally attend Mass?) points out who is Catholic and who are not. According to the responses only 56 percent of those questioned are Catholic. How can you consider yourself Catholic if you do not go to Mass at least once a week? Thus, 44 percent of the respondents are not Catholic. "Predictably, Catholics who frequent the sacraments regularly are more likely to accept the teachings of the Church." Is that because those that frequent the sacraments are Catholic?
The Catholic Church does not offer a menu system of beliefs. Does the Fifth Commandment say, "Thou shall not kill?" Or does it say abortion is acceptable? Does the Fourth Commandment say, "Honor your father and your mother?" Or does it say that euthanasia is acceptable? Will Jesus judge us on whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed strangers, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, and visited prisoners? Or will he judge us for how well we answered opinion polls? Does it say in the Letter of James, "My brothers, what good is it to profess faith without practicing it?" Or does it say to do your own thing?
Thomas L. Barth
Eagle River, Alaska
There is such a thing as a wayward Catholic--or, if you prefer, a bad Catholic. In fact there is no other kind; that is why we have the sacrament of Penance. We readily agree that many Catholics are not practicing their faith properly, but we are reluctant to write them out of the Church. - The Editor
Pray louder
If your Roper Poll (CWR, March 1997) of 1,000 Catholics, where only 26 percent of the polled "strongly embraced the Church's unequivocal pro-life position" is fairly indicative of reality, perhaps the pro-life Catholics who pray the rosary near abortion clinics ought to pray near their diocesan chanceries instead.
If they pray "loud" enough maybe, just maybe, many Most Reverend Fathers will hear them and do their duty to God and the flocks he has given them, by condemning abortion in plain, persistent, and effective language.
R.J. Silberberg
McLean, Virginia
Significant liturgical changes
I am surprised by your comment in Catholic World Report (March 1997) that there have been no significant changes in the liturgy during the past ten years. I am also surprised by your implication that the 48 percent of those who responded to the survey by saying that they have noticed changes in the liturgy within the past ten years, only imagined such changes.
The responses of those who have noticed changes and of those who have not are equally misleading. No useful conclusions can be drawn from these responses, unless those who responded that they have noticed changes indicated what type of changes they have noticed. Those who have not noticed any changes are either unaware of the changes, or the changes were not implemented in their parishes.
Certainly, when almost half of the respondents stated that they have noticed changes, they must have noticed something "different" in the liturgy. The question is "What have they noticed?"
Well, let's take a look at some of the changes within the past ten years--yes, official, approved changes which in my opinion are significant.
1. Introduction of a new "Eucharistic Prayer for Masses for Various Needs and Occasions" (1996) In affect, this means an addition of several new Eucharistic prayers. I am sure that the people who attend weekday Masses regularly have noticed "something new" when they heard this prayer for the first time.
2. "Sacramentary Supplement" (1994) which includes propers for the saints added to the calendar since 1985, and texts for new "rites" including "Proclamation of Birth of Christ," "Proclamation of Date of Easter on Epiphany," and others. While these "rites" are old, they have not been used for the past thirty years, or so. The "Proclamation of Birth of Christ" is new insofar as the Mass is concerned. (Previously, this rite was part of Matins.)
3. "Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary" (1992). This constitutes a "Marian" Sacramentary. It contains 46(!) Mass formulas and 50(!) Prefaces. Is this not a significant change?
4. "Book of Blessings" (1989). Believe it or not, there are parishes that do use this book on occasions, celebrating certain blessing during the Mass. The celebration of blessings during the Mass is something new. True, the Roman Ritual did contain many blessings, but how many parishes used the Roman Ritual within the past thirty years?
5. The "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults" (1988) While this rite was introduced more than ten years ago, many parishes are introducing it whenever the need rises. Therefore, the people see--and are likely to see--more changes in the Mass whenever the RCIA is introduced in their parish.
6. "Circular Letter Concerning the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts" (1988) While the primary concern of this document is the proper celebration of the Easter Feasts, it contains suggestions for other celebrations, i.e., the celebration of the first Sunday of Lent, the Vigil of Pentecost, etc. Certainly, what is suggested differs from the "standard" celebration. Is this an "official" document?--To my way of thinking it is.
These are some examples of changes in the liturgy which have been approved "by the Church" within the past ten years--and they are not insignificant. (Not all of them have been implemented in all the parishes.) To say that there have been no official changes, is false. I am interested in seeing what conclusions will be drawn from the survey regarding the question of "noticed changes."
John F. Krasnicki
Brooklyn, New York
Perhaps we should have been more precise in explaining that there have been no significant changes which would be visible to members of the congregation at an ordinary Sunday Mass. For a typical Catholic, we suspect, the changes you cite would be far less visible than the informal changes which have been made in their parishes over the past ten years. - The Editor
Corrections for the hierarchy
The Special Report in the February issue, "Cardinal Bernardin's Legacy," is a superb and revelatory analysis of how the late Archbishop exercised his episcopal authority. The photo showing Chicago priests, in their bizarre and horrid vestments, "praying over their cardinal," is an appropriate reflection of the agenda this prelate had in mind for the American Catholic Church. James Hitchcock is to be congratulated for his insightful report, and the editors of Catholic World Report are to be applauded for having the courage to print it. Bravo!
I would like to see Hitchcock prepare similar profiles of other bishops and cardinals, such as Cardinal Roger Mahoney (Los Angeles), Archbishops Rembert Weakland (Milwaukee), Stanley Pilarczyk (Cincinnati), and Bishops Thomas Gumbleton (Detroit), Raymond Lucker (New Ulm), Walter Sullivan (Richmond), and Howard Hubbard (Albany), to name but a few. Call this "bishop bashing," if you will, but the faithful have a right to know the truth about their shepherds. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "Fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore, even prelates ought to be corrected." And, as Pope Leo XIII wrote, "The first law of history is not to dare to utter falsehood; the second, not to fear to speak the truth."
As in the days of the Arian heresy (and the situation in the Church today is every bit as serious), it is the bishops who are leading the attack against the orthodox understanding of the Faith that has come down to us from the Apostles. Their sometimes manifest contempt for traditional devotions, as well as their penchant for the novel and the bizarre, suggest a lack of serious commitment to fulfill their solemn duty to pass the faith on to their successors exactly as they received it, and their enthusiasm for constant change in the translations of liturgical and biblical texts, with the de rigeur emphases on inclusive language and "dynamic equivalence," is evidence of an agenda-in-progress that the faithful have every reason to be concerned about. Furthermore, it should be realized by all that the true measure of the orthodoxy of any bishop is determined not just by what he himself teaches, but by what he permits to be taught in his diocese. Thus the erosion of doctrine that takes place under a bishop need not be the result of his own instigation or connivance (though it usually is), but can take place just as destructively through his negligence or (worse) knowing tolerance. This principle applies to liturgical practices as well. It is indeed a sad situation when a devout layman's principal anxiety in matters of faith is directed not toward threats from the outside, but towards what is coming next from his own bishop, or from the NCCB.
David H. Aldeborgh
Poughkeepsie, New York
The work of a pamphleteer
Few articles that have ever appeared in the Catholic press have matched in sadness that of James Hitchcock's "Cardinal Bernardin's Legacy," in your February issue. It is regrettable that a person with his academic credentials should have indulged in the deliberate distortions, unsupported interpretations, and factual errors that this effort represents.
Hitchcock does a disserve to the traditional Catholicism for which he speaks by the straw-man arguments he sets ablaze in his wordy diatribe. He helpfully inscribed a warning signature, like that on a symphony, of the character of themes that follow, by writing that the Cardinal "died in early December." Cardinal Bernardin died on November 14, 1996. This is not ancient history so we may suppose that this error is the equivalent of a warning label about the inaccuracy of the argumentation that is to follow.
We may put aside his incorrect summaries of positions held by me and other Catholic scholars such as Richard McBrien and Andrew Greeley. These errors, presented under the guise of supportive documentation, are made only to bolster Hitchcock's crass thesis that the late Archbishop of Chicago was a dangerous prelate who favored liberalism and attacked Church teaching and discipline. These assertions go unproven for a simple reason. They are as false and as far from truth as Hitchcock's notion of the month in which the cardinal died.
What, then, can explain this wilful and lengthy tirade against the life and work of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin? Hitchcock is too intelligent and too well trained to have authored this from the viewpoint of a scholar informed by his intellect. It is the work of a pamphleteer, of a man jettisoning his own objectivity in order to give vent to his emotions. Hitchcock dislikes Cardinal Bernardin and, from an examination of his article, apparently hates or disowns the work of Vatican Council II.
Hitchcock knows better but fails to honor his own intellect and training in his hurry to put down a man whose greatness and goodness are too much for him to accept. What is it, we may ask, about Cardinal Bernardin's orthodoxy and holiness that so threatens this historian? Does he not realize that his intemperate essay argues the need for the cardinal's last initiative, the Common Ground project? Hitchcock has made a sacrilege of history to satisfy his eagerness to express his anger that it has passed him by. That is what makes his article unutterably sad and turns it from an insupportable attack on Cardinal Bernardin into a poignant revelation about Hitchcock himself.
Eugene C. Kennedy
Chicago, Illinois
Once again, our critic complains of multiple errors and inaccuracies, without producing one example of any instance in which Hitchcock's account was incorrect. (The mistake regarding the month of Cardinal Bernardin's death--which, alas, was due to the editor's sloppiness--does not affect the accuracy of our author's thesis.) James Hitchcock has written extensively--in CWR and elsewhere--about the enormous gap between the actual teachings of Vatican II and the misrepresentation of the Council by people such as our correspondent. Unless Dr. Kennedy can answer those charges, and/or provide evidence of some factual error in Hitchcock's article, we shall cannot take this protest seriously. - The Editor
Be more aggressive
It was with immense interest that I read James Hitchcock's article, "Cardinal Bernardin's Legacy." I found it most enlightening, and somehow felt vindicated for being an orthodox Catholic.
As an eight year convert to our holy and ancient faith, I find Catholicism the most exciting lived experience in human existence. I felt this brief exposé on the late cardinal's treachery proved how truly exciting Catholicism is, as anything less would be so terribly unworthy of betrayal.
Later, after several hours' reflection on what Hitchcock had written, I became angry. This justifiable anger spawns several questions. Why did these things not come to the fore when Bernardin was actively trying to destroy our Church? Why do fine Catholic periodicals like CWR avoid reporting such theological and ecclesiastical governance atrocities to mobilize the people against them when such reporting could halt or mitigate the effects of efforts by the Bernardins of the so-called American Church? Why is no one actively going after the "Bernardin Boys"--those bishops Cardinal Bernardin placed in positions to continue the destruction after his death?
Much space in CWR has been devoted to Bernardin's "Common Ground Project." You have been highly critical of this initiative, and justly so, as it is merely a platform that will likely be used to formalize the schism in America! Why, though, have you seemingly dropped the ball on this issue by not hounding Bernardin's hand-picked successor, Archbishop Oscar Hugh Lipscomb of Mobile? Archbishop Lipscomb, the new chairman of the Common Group Project, is probably the most dangerous of all Bernardin's disciples.
I implore you to actively go after Archbishop Lipscomb and the Common Ground project. Mobilize the lay faithful to take militant positions against both to stop them. If this is not done a new and worse Bernardin will emerge from the heart of Dixie.
Russell L. Ford
Mobile, Alabama
Although it is a pleasant change to be accused of insufficiently critical reporting, CWR is dedicated to providing readers with full and accurate coverage of the Common Ground project and any similar issues which divide the Catholic faithful. - The Editor
A movement building?
I hesitate to write this letter in fear of being compared to the marvelous series of letters to the editor in the March 1997 issue.
I experienced a tingling up and down my spine at the sheer thought of so many eloquent writers expressing the same thoughts about the present state of affairs in the Church as do I. There seems to be a groundswell of opposition to the current liberal and indeed heretical leaders and naysayers in the universal Church and in particular the so called American Church.
The salvation of our souls and the souls of all those who are oblivious to the insidious provision of Christianity taking place today are at stake in this daily tug of war. Forward the revolution!
Gerald W. Cain
Oaks, Pennsylvania
Dishonesty at the Vatican
If Father John Smith's report ("When Secrecy Backfires," March 1997) is accurate, then Vatican spokesmen are guilty of more than having "poor public relations instincts" regarding the Pope's health. By denying that the Pope was ill when they knew in fact he was, Joaquin Navarro-Valls and others in the Vatican were, quite simply, lying. And, even worse, the Pope must be aware that they were and are lying and apparently has not admonished them. Please, say it isn't so.
Catherine W. Short
Atherton, California
Regrettably, the lesson to be drawn from Father Smith's story is that, at the very least, Vatican officials have deliberately been stingy with the facts--as if the full disclosure of the truth would not serve interests of the Church. Such an attitude is, we believe, at odds with the Christian faith. - The Editor
A fateful question on capital punishment
It would be a bad mistake for Rome to include the quote from Pope John Paul's encyclical Evangelium Vitae, regarding capital punishment, in the official Latin version of the new Catechism. Doing so will only draw attention to an embarrassing mistake and confuse the faithful.
The problem is that, whenever one aspect of the truth is so emphasized that other aspects are ignored or denied, the result is a distortion of the truth. That is the basis of most arguments and all religious heresies. It is also the basis of Pope John Paul's mistake in Evangelium Vitae, regarding capital punishment.
In Evangelim Vitae, Pope John Paul so emphasized the value of human life (certainly a worthy aspect of the truth) that he categorically rejected all capital punishment, except for an extremely rare possibility of "absolute necessity" to protect the common good of society. But then he turns around and says that the principles of the Church's traditional teaching on capital punishment, already set forth in the Catechism, remain valid.
As the papal theologian, Father Georges Cottier, OP, rightly observed, this amounts to saying that capital punishment is valid in principle, but not valid in practice. That, of course, is a contradiction, for the principles Pope John Paul refers to are the principles the Church has traditionally approved and taught for 2,000 years governing the practice of capital punishment. It logically follows that, if the principles are valid, then the practice of capital punishment according to those principles is valid also. But of course this conflicts with Pope John Paul's total rejection of capital punishment in Evangelium Vitae.
Cardinal Ratzinger called this a "new teaching." However, both he and Father Cottier should be honest enough to admit that "the emperor has no clothes on," instead of rationalizing a mistake they could or should have prevented before Evangelium Vitae was published. Otherwise, we have to say the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years in approving capital punishment. However, this "new teaching" is not only contrary to tradition, but to holy scripture and the sensus fidelium (polls show that 80 percent of Catholics approve of capital punishment) as well. Thus it contravenes the three major sources the Church appeals to in authenticating Catholic doctrine.
It would be better, therefore, not to draw attention to this mistake in Evangelium Vitae by including it in the new Catechism. It would only make things worse. Better to "clarify" Evangelium Vitae and remove references to it from editions of the Catechism already approved.
Rev. Timothy Michell, OCSO
Lafayette, Oregon
Recommended reading
Stratford Caldcott's "On Transplanting Heads" quite rightly quotes C.S. Lewis as foreseeing the "destructralization" he describes, but Lewis did an even better job of prediction in the third novel of his Ransom Trilogy, That Hideous Strength.
As I recalled reading it many years ago I felt a chill, for it too begins the story with a severed head! Rereading it yesterday I found that the "hum-drum scenes and persons" of what he calls "the traditional fairy tale" of his first two chapters is equally chilling an prophetic, for what transpires in them is so glaringly being reenacted today in some many of our colleges and universities.
I urge anyone impressed by Caldecott's piece to seek out and read at least the first two chapters of Lewis' book. (The "unconventional" fairy tale that follows is very good reading too.)
John T. Hanson
Westminster, Maryland
Augustine's real successor
Your article about St. Augustine of Canterbury in the March issue of Catholic World Report amazes me. The Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury is not the successor of St. Augustine. This honor belongs to Cardinal Hume, Archbishop of Westminster. Dr. Carey is the successor of the first Protestant "Archbishop," Matthew Parker, a layman wearing "Catholic clothes." Both Celts and Saxons were converted to the true faith by Catholic missionaries in communion with the Holy See of St. Peter.
Eric Simpson
Kent, England
An Orthodox ecumenist
The report in your March issue concerning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church canonizing Peter Mohyla, the 17th Century Metropolitan of Kiev, was quite interesting. Without entering into the merits of the canonization, it can be recalled that in a remarkable proposal (his 1645 "Proposal of Union") Mohyla clearly acknowledged his own acceptance of the divine primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church, while observing that the legitimate rights of the Eastern patriarchates be respected by the West:
... We confess openly, in virtue of the principles and basic foundations of the Church of God that our own (Byzantine) rite distinguishes us from the Roman, but that we have communion in one and the same faith. We are not able to deny that the Blessed Apostle Peter has been, as we profess in the hymns of our Church, the Prince of the Apostles and that his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, hold in perpetuity the supreme authority in the Church of God.
It is remarkable how much Mohyla anticipated by three centuries the wise counsels set forth in Vatican II's "Decree on Ecumenism."
James Likoudis
Montour Falls, New York
Correction
Due to a typist's confusion of two separate letters, a phrase was added to a letter from Donald Hook, inaccurately identifying him as a former Episcopalian priest. Professor Hook was, and is, a layman.