Letters

I read with interest the article "An American Lament" by Philip Lawler, and the reference made to our nation's foreign policy.

Almost every year the Pope John Center sponsors an international meeting of bishops in Dallas, Texas. During the course of our most recent meeting, the bishops present from Mexico and the other Latin American bishops held a meeting of their own after one of our sessions. I was the only bishops present from the United States.

The Latin American bishops were extremely upset with the United States because of our foreign policy with respect to contraceptives. As a nation we are exporting contraceptives to the countries of Latin America. Of course, many of these contraceptives are effective because they cause abortion.

However, there is another serious problem. Some abortifacient medicines are very damaging to the health of the mother. Because of this, these abortifacients cannot be sold in the United States. But they are sold and promoted by us in Latin America. They are causing serious health problems especially to great numbers of women who live in poverty.

I can tell you that in that gathering of bishops I was ashamed to be an American.

Most Reverend Donald W. Montrose

Diocese of Stockton, California

We read with interest your article entitled "Salt For Their Wounds" (February 1997). After receiving letters and phone calls from dioceses, religious communities, and former residents, our Board of Directors has asked me to clarify for your readers some of the inaccuracies of the article. St. John Vianney Hospital, sponsored by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, has expertise in providing care and treatment to ministers of the Catholic Church in accordance with highest ethical standards and Catholic values.

St. John Vianney Hospital is licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Standards of Care are reviewed once per year. In addition, we are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations and have recently received an Accreditation with Commendation award.

All professional staff members who are primary psychotherapists are board certified psychiatrists and licensed doctoral level psychologists. All psychologists and psychiatrists are credentialed. This process is current, credentialing is reviewed and granted every two years.

We make every effort to keep each resident informed about the nature and length of treatment. Every thirty days each individual is afforded the opportunity to participate in the development of their treatment plan. They see their treatment plan, sign a copy of it, and receive a copy of the same if they request one. Patient respect [sic], their rights, as well as responsibilities for their treatment are basic principles of our programs.

Patients/residents throughout the course of treatment have full opportunity to voice their concerns regarding treatment as well as the environment of care. Satisfaction surveys and interviews at the time of discharge also help us to continually improve the quality of care.

We believe the article did not accurately describe either our treatment programs or the results of patient satisfaction surveys. We request that you publish this letter in your next edition.

Louis D. Horvath

Catholic Health Care Services

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

In the January issue of Catholic World Report, the article by Donna Steichen about the November, 1996 Chicago Call to Action conference ["Professional Dissenters vs. Believing Catholics"] mentioned the claim of one CTA speaker, Maria Mejia of Catholics for a Free Choice's Mexican office, that Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia of Chiapas, Mexico has "close ties" with her group. I wrote to Bishop Ruiz-Garcia in April, asking about Mejia's claim and sending information in English and Spanish about CFFC (in case he had been misled regarding the group's goals and Catholicity]. In his April 16 response, Bishop Ruiz Garcia stated that Mejia's claim is false, and he expressed great concern that those who read or heard her statement be made aware of this fact.

The bishop said he is not aware of having met Mejia, adding, "possibly she knows of me, but we haven't spoken directly with her and much less endorsed her work." He noted (successful} efforts several years ago by himself and the two other bishops of Chiapas to fight proposed legalization of abortion in that state. Bishop Ruiz Garcia requested that I write to the president of the Mexican bishops' conference about the matter, "so that the conference can put together a more meaningful refutation."

Lesley Payne

San Diego, California

Your presentation on "The Untouchable Issue" in the April issue was as balanced a report on the situation in the Holy Land as I have encountered in recent years.

Only one section did I find incorrect in its terminology: where your writer reported "the troops retaliated with volleys of rubber bullets." Such terminology is factually incorrect. A Bethlehem woman wounded by two of these "rubber bullets" gave me one of them. It consists of a metal ball as large as a 45-caliber slug, with a thin covering of rubber; it is a lethal missile.

I have been amazed how, over all the years that our television network reporters have covered the Holy Land, not one of them (to my knowledge) has felt it necessary to reveal to the American people the deception foisted upon their viewers by their continued use of the terms "rubber bullets" and "plastic bullets." This massive deception needs to be revealed, but to date not one national news agency has been willing to touch the issue.

Msgr. Elmo L. Romagosa

Harvey, Louisiana

"No one... is obliged to believe in the apparitions at Lourdes or Fatima," says Bishop Girolamo Grillo of Civitavecchia, Italy, in reference to reports about a miraculous Marian statue in his diocese. ("Leaning Toward a Conclusion," April 1997). This is the approach which theologians have traditionally taken, and it is perfectly reasonable for a man such as Bishop Grillo to follow the received opinion.

Now, to be precise we must agree that no one is obliged to give to the messages and facts of Lourdes and Fatima the same assent that he gives to that which is contained in the deposit of faith. In fact, it is not allowed to give the assent of the theological virtue of faith to anything other than that which has been proposed for belief by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

But therefore we are obliged not to give any assent of any kind? It does not follow.

For one thing, we are told in sacred scripture: "Despise not prophecy. Rather, test all things and hold fast to that which is good" (I Thess. 5:20). There seems to be a command here to adhere somehow to prophecies which have been authentically discerned.

The natural law also directs us not to be stupid. If almighty God, who is not and cannot be a liar, attests to a message by incontrovertible miracles, and by exact prophecies of future, free human acts, then there is at least an obligation to give some kind of at least human assent to such messages. As a corroboration of this at the supernatural level, we should remember that the First Vatican Council defined that a message from God can be known to be credible because of miracles and prophecies.

It is often stated in connection with our subject matter that bishops have only judged the approved apparitions to be free of errors in faith and morals and thus, in that respect, safe. But this minimalism does not respect the facts. Bishops have judged (not infallibly of course) that the events were real and supernatural in origin, and not just not heretical.

Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to distance itself from the minimalist approach by speaking of "so-called private revelations" as if it were dissatisfied with the inherited terminology, which is inadequate to deal with such public prophecy as that of Fatima. "The message of Fatima is addressed to every human being," said Pope John Paul II. The Catechism also notes that these revelations can "contain an authentic call from Christ or His saints." Since when are we free to disregard an authentic call from Christ?

Although the position we have put forward is in some way avant garde, it was developed by the late Joseph de Sainte Marie, OCD, professor of the Teresianum in Rome. It deserves consideration.

Rev. Paul J. McDonald

Port Colborne, Ontario

Canada

Your April Dossier entitled "Africa in Flames" gives the impression that the murderous fighting there during the past several years, which can only be accurately described as genocidal, is caused by something amounts to the leftovers of Western imperialism. Is it possible that your correspondents--some of whom are African themselves, and have a reason to deflect attention from the problems that are springing from their own continent--are working with a model that is outdated, and blaming a cause that it no longer part of the picture?

Genocide is a hideous crime. In this case--or perhaps I should say in these cases, since there are several different conflicts involved--genocide is the culmination of a long history of violence between different African tribes. Europeans did not create those conflicts, and while it may be true that some abrupt decisions by European colonial rulers made things worse, by placing boundaries in the wrong places so as to intensify tribal rivalries, still it is no longer credible to say that today the Europeans are fanning the flames. Realistically speaking, do Westerners today have any interest in the fights between Hutus and Tutsis? How many people in Europe or North America would have a preference of any kind between those two groups?

The West is not blameless for the poverty and squalor that Africa is suffering today, to say nothing of the political roller-coaster that continent is riding. But hasn't the time come for Africa and Africans to take responsibility for their own problems, without pointing a finger of blame toward the West?

Peter Scheurer

Newark, New Jersey

The Church, like Julius Caesar's Gaul, is divided into three parts. The first, which consists of the blessed in Heaven, is the Church Triumphant. The second, which consists of the souls in Purgatory, is the Church Suffering. The third, which consists of the faithful on earth, has traditionally been called the Church Militant. One might wonder if a more appropriate term for the Church in the Western world at present might not be the Church Wimpy. According to the concise Oxford Dictionary, the adjective is colloquial, and means "feeble" or "ineffectual."

James Hitchcock, in his article on Cardinal Bernardin in your February issue, pointed out that Cardinals Mundelein and Spellman in their days were Catholic leaders whom secular leaders had to take seriously. It is not so now. When eight cardinals protested to President Clinton about his veto on the bill banning partial-birth abortions, he took no notice of their protest.

When Clinton offered the Medal of Freedom to Cardinal Bernardin, he accepted it. Had he offered it to Cardinal Spellman, it is unlikely that Spellman would have done so.

Since the Council, national hierarchies have failed to demand obedience to the divine law forbidding contraception, or register a vigorous protest at the legalization of abortion and divorce. Some have allowed themselves to be dictated to by liturgists who have, to put it mildly, a very imperfect grasp of the faith, and by radical feminists who have been demanding the use of so-called "inclusive" language as an essential element in their campaign to abolish the hierarchy, which they contend is only the ecclesiastical version of the hated "patriarchy."

We can but pray that God may once more bless His Church with bishops in the mold of Athanasius, Basil, and Ambrose, who in their day bravely withstood the pestilential wave of Arianism.

G.H. Duggin, SM

Silverstream, New Zealand

Philip Lawler's Special Report: "Issues That Divide" (April 1997) made me turn to Luke 18:8, "But yet the Son of Man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"

When I first read the poll as it appeared in the Adoremus Bulletin, I was quite shocked to discover that 57 percent of Catholics wanted the Church to change its stance on contraception and abortion.

For some strange reason I found it almost comforting to read the area of the special report titled: "A failure of catechesis." And I do agree with the statement that "...younger Catholics, and those who pursue higher education, are likely to drift away from the teaching of the Church." The reason: they are strongly influenced by an overall feminist trend, most notably in academic life--in the colleges and universities, including Catholic schools.

As a retired college professor, I can attest to the above in secular institutions, where a good number of professors "put down" the Catholic Church in their lectures, and the lecture need not have anything to do with the Church.

Finally, for those old enough to remember, the feminist movement took root with and is still led by NOW (National Organization of Women), which does preach abortion, contraception, homosexuality, ordination of women, and so on. And they greatly influence Catholic Feminism. They are firmly against Catholic Christianity: the Lord Jesus is their number one enemy.

Allen O'Donnell, SFO

Wayne, Nebraska

You deserve high praise for your significant and far-sighted article, "Issues That Divide."

Please give us more of the same! How about an article on the supposed fidelity of the diocesan Catholic press to the official teachings and positions of the teaching magisterium of the Church? As I understand it, the diocesan Catholic paper is maintained by the imposed parish contributions with the understanding that it reflects the official teachings of the Catholic Church and is a medium for communications of the Bishop to his people.

But is this completely true? In our diocesan paper (in the midwestern United States) there is not the faintest idea communicated that it should support the official teachings of the Church (for instance on the ordination of women). I remember sending in an article summarizing a scholar's arguments for the position of the Church. It was not even acknowledged. But letters were presented in abundance that attacked the Church's position!

And when Father McBrien seemingly denied the dogma of Original Sin because the Church now de-emphasizes Limbo (and so there could be heaven without baptism), my letter was ignored. Of course there are occasional pious protestations that readers should be heard from (meaning feminists, apparently).So is a diocesan paper supposed to be Catholic, and does that mean that it supports the official teachings of the Church? What is the record for the country in this matter?

Your article "Issues That Divide" has a significant sentence from Cardinal Ratzinger that is relevant, saying that Catholics who support an erroneous doctrine (that is, knowingly and deliberately) are outside the faith because "they support erroneous doctrine which is incompatible with the faith." So then perhaps you could consider a study on the catholicity expected of a diocesan paper dependent on support by the faithful and with resultant obligations to them, and supposedly intended to represent the bishop and the Catholic Church?

Rev. James P. Kelleher

Naples, Florida