| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters from our readers
Master of irony
Editor: Rev. Dr. Federico Serra-Lima, in his response to my critique of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, appears to have consulted some additional pages of my article that were neither written in the original, nor published in the pages of Homiletic. I regret that he concludes that I believe “C. S. Lewis is detrimental to Roman Catholics.”
I have studied and enjoyed Lewis’s writings ever since I first encountered his space trilogy in 1961, and agree with most commentators that he is one of the finest Christian apologists of any century. My article, however, cautioned pastors and catechists against an uncritical use of one of his works, Mere Christianity, as an introduction to Catholicism. I was careful to cite other authorities on Lewis’s underdeveloped ecclesiology. Lewis himself was loathe to characterize himself as a theologian, and, I suspect, would be horrified at some of the ways Mere Christianity has been abused in evangelical circles. He would, I suspect, chuckle at length at any description of that modest series of lectures as his “masterpiece of theology.” He was, after all, the acknowledged master of irony.
W. Patrick Cunningham
San Antonio, Tex.
On loving enemies
Editor: It is about 25 years since I have been subscribing to the HPR and reading the brilliant, convincing and elegant articles in which it presents the Faith and defends the culture of life. Among them I place as best the article “The Gloria Patri” by Roy Barkley in January 2000.
Why? Because it tackles the greatest burden Jesus has placed on us: to love our enemies and do good to those who oppress us. It is very hard when it relates to our personal enemies, but it can be managed. But how about those who do evil consistently, systematically and cleverly in the sense the psalmist says: “Do I not loath them that rise against thee?” How about a ruler (President?) who cleverly and successfully subverts the morality of a nation, who against the will of the legislature and public opinion blocks all attempts to stop even the most barbaric manner of killing the preborn? How about the media moguls who impose on their subordinates, twisting the language to distort the established meaning of words—like imposing the use of “pro-choice” for pro-abortion, of “anti-family planning” for pro-life, of “comatose” for unconscious, and so on ad infinitum. How about scientists or university teachers who, like Prof. Ehrlich of “population bomb” fame, teach and force by means of their position generations of the world elite to accept as “scientific truth” the assertion that the goal of human life is unrestricted sexual pleasure? How about “translators” who purposely falsify clear words of the Bible by distorting, manipulating or omitting unequivocal words or passages to change their sense according to their biases and agendas? Here, it is hard to separate the evil from the source of the evil, and the love of the sinner slips into tolerance of the evil he produces.
It is in this sense the psalmist writes “Do I not hate them who hate thee, O Lord? Do I not loath them that rise up against thee?” Obviously, his hate and loathing is not directed to persons, but to their hating the Lord and rising up against him, i.e., against evil actions and not their originators. A translator can easily explain it in an annotation, or without distorting the sense of the text by being more specific in the translation, such as “Do I not hate hating you, O Lord, do I not loath actions of rising up against you?” And the petition to the Lord “to slay the wicked” is better explained by calling on the Lord “to stop the actions of the wicked” or “to save the wicked from their wicked actions.” Such a petition can be an act of mercy. (It reminds me of a petition I heard on an evangelical radio station: A caller declared she is praying that the Lord remove Mr. Clinton from the Presidency and thus save him from continuing his sins.) In this way, the acts of hating sin and loving the sinner can be combined in fairness and justice and in the Christian spirit.
I thank Dr. Barkley to have given me the opportunity to clarify my
thinking on this subject which bothered me for long.
V. John Chalupa
Palatine, Ill.
Questions for
Darwinian macroevolution
Editor: Darwinism has been much discussed in HPR. I would like to continue the discussion.
Darwin’s theory of evolution applies without exception in the area of microevolution [i.e., the changes that occur within a species due to mutation or natural selection]. Good examples would be the varieties of dogs which man has made via natural selection from the domesticated wolf, or the antibiotic resistant bacteria, which have mutated over time.
The problem is that Darwin expanded his theory to include macroevolution. He simply stated that over an extended period of time one species could change into another via mutation, natural selection or both.
At the time [1859] the fossil record did not support such a conclusion. He argued that the fossil record was incomplete. After 140 years of continued searching, the fossil record still does not support Darwinian macroevolution [i.e., no fossils have been found which clearly show the evolutionary path from one species to another].
The following is a partial list of questions that have not been adequately addressed via gradual random process [i.e., Darwinian macroevolution]. How did feathers develop? How did the avian lung develop? How did life originate? How did the amazingly complex cells develop? Why doesn’t comparative biochemistry support Darwin? How did the irreducibly complex systems such as the immune system form?
When Darwinian macroevolution can offer explanations for these and a myriad of other questions, only then should Darwinism be accepted in our school systems with the dogmatic fervor that is now the case. Until then Darwinian microevolution should be accepted without question, but Darwinian macroevolution should be presented as a theory with a modicum of supporting evidence.
Please note that the evolution of man from lower primates via Darwinian macroevolution has not been covered. The questions in that area are just as profound.
Herman J. Baumgartner
Houston, Tex.
It is not Delphi, but
an evil perversion of it
Editor: The November 1999 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review carried an article about the Delphi procedure ("Check Your Brains at the Door," pp. 58-61). While the article described how something called Delphi is being used to force an artificial consensus on parishioners, I'd like to provide some additional information.
The Delphi Procedure was developed at the Rand Corporation in the 1950s. It was intended to extract opinion from a group of experts, using the benefits of committees, while avoiding some of their disadvantages. Delphi is currently in wide use for preparing forecasts of technology, and for gathering policy information. I have used Delphi for over 30 years. A detailed description of the procedure can be found in my textbook, Technological Forecasting for Decision Making.
Delphi, as developed at Rand, has three characteristics: anonymity, iteration with controlled feedback, and statistical response.
Anonymity means that none of the panel members know specifically what other panel members have responded to the questions. This is intended to prevent people being attacked personally for "extreme" positions, while also allowing people to change their positions without embarrassment.
Iteration means that the process consists of a sequence of written questionnaires. Persons on the panel are expected to answer each question, and to provide written statements supporting their positions. Controlled feedback means that the moderator screens out irrelevant or repeated statements, and provides the statements to all panel members on the next round of questionnaires. That is, if two or more panel members make the same statement in support of a position, it is included only once.
Statistical response means that the panel is not required to come to a consensus. The final result is a statistical description of the panel's position on each question. A typical description for a numerical estimate (e.g., in what year will a specified event occur?) would be the median year (half of the responses are greater and half are lesser) and the interquartile range (the "middle half" of the responses, with one-fourth on either side of that range.
Delphi is not intended to force a consensus, but is intended instead to identify just how much consensus there actually is among the panel members. That is why the final result is described statistically, as a "middle" and a range about that middle. Panel members are just as free to offer arguments (facts and logic) in support of their positions as they are in a face to face panel. However, the structure of Delphi eliminates harangues, the effects of dominant personalities, and the embarrassment someone might feel about publicly changing his position after reading someone else's arguments.
Can the moderator distort the panel results? Yes. Several experiments have shown that by including bogus information in the "feedback," panel members will respond to it just as they respond to valid information. This, however, merely shows that the panel members are interacting and are taking into account the information they receive. So long as the information provided is valid, this is what the sponsor of the Delphi really wants.
Delphi is a very useful and powerful tool for obtaining information from a committee, and doing so in an efficient manner. It has been used for over 40 years with considerable success. Unfortunately, the term "Delphi" is not copyrighted. It is possible for someone to use a process vaguely like Delphi and still call it Delphi. However, when people are confronted with the process described by Anderson and Crotty, they should be aware that what they are seeing is not Delphi as developed at Rand, but an evil perversion of it.
Joseph P. Martino
Sidney, Ohio
God’s plan for the family
Editor: Laurels for Fr. Rengers on his excellent article, “Wives, Obey Your Husbands.” Catholics have truly been deprived of this information over the past thirty or so years, due primarily to men (priests and bishops) not having the courage to preach the Good News when anyone used the word “male chauvinist.” Our sixty percent divorce rate is, in large part, due to our clergy’s lack of courage and/or understanding of God’s divine plan for the family.
Please continue with articles like this that can help families live
out their Catholic faith in a world that is anything but “family friendly.”
Gwen Gil
Franklin, La.
Prayer and perseverance
Editor: When all the hullabaloo about the new millennium quiets down and we find that we are just the same, it will still come down to this. When I was a boy the young assistant pastor in our parish told about how in the seminary once he was very discouraged. His grades weren’t good, his prayers seemed to be going nowhere, the weather was bad, all seemed bleak. He went to the old spiritual director and told him he was going to quit.
The old priest was a good listener and he sat there and listened to the long litany, this lengthy tale of woe. At the end the old man said, “See that prie-dieu over there in the corner?” The seminarian looked at the kneeling bench below a crucifix, and wondered what that had to do with anything. The old priest said, “I have worn out two of them and am trying to wear out this one. When you have worn out one prie-dieu come back and tell me you are going to quit.”
Fr. Rawley Myers
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Back to Catholic Information Center's Periodicals