| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters from our readers
The real Dr. Sippo
Editor:
Permit me to be among the first to defend Dr. Arthur Sippo against what appears to be a clever plot to discredit him. The most recent letter bearing his name (HPR, July 2000) is so completely atheistic in tone, so uncharitable towards those who believe that God is the Creator of all life, so scientifically and logically absurd, that it could not have been written by the real Dr. Sippo. Such a distorted view of reality could originate only from an imposter, a pseudo-Sippo.
The real Dr. Sippo would certainly know that “God . . . created each creature . . . spiritual and corporal . . . and finally the human” (Lateran Council IV). He would never have written that “we don’t know where life came from. It could have come from Outer Space or from volcanic vents in the ocean.” The idea that life came from outer space was promoted several decades ago by the atheistic Francis Crick as an alternate to belief in a Creator. Who else but a pseudo-Sippo would try to present such an absurd notion in the pages of HPR?
Would the real Dr. Sippo write such a lengthy letter about “life” without ever once mentioning Almighty God, the Creator and sustainer of all life? Would he completely exclude God, and reserve all power to “the Darwinian principle”?
The real Dr. Sippo must know that “God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product . . . of blind fate or chance” (CCC 295). And all Catholics realize that the universe has a design, a beauty, and a purpose which can help lead man to a recognition of the Divine Designer. Would anyone but an atheist, a pseudo-Sippo, devote an entire paragraph to derogatory remarks about a Catholic scientist for his efforts to lead scientists to recognize the Designer of the universe? It is understandable that the atheistic Darwinist Richard Dawkins recently expressed pleasure when he imagined “the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic creationists such as Michael Behe.” And that he followed with a reference to “the obscurantist, disingenuous doubletalk of the Roman Catholic Church.” But it is not understandable that the real Dr. Sippo would join this assault on Mr. Behe —with a series of personal and insulting remarks.
Certainly the real Dr. Sippo would have known that the fossils of a “dinosaur from China which have such feathers preserved,” have already been exposed as a hoax (Science News, January 15, 2000).
And the real Dr. Sippo would know that non-believing scientists are constantly proposing “theories” in an effort to discredit belief in the miracles in Sacred Scripture, in Church history, and those taking place at shrines today. And he would know that this is nothing but pseudo-science. As a result, he would never dismiss the possibility that such a structure as the avian lung was formed by the Creator simply because some “scientist” has proposed a “theory” to the contrary.
I, for one, find it difficult to believe that the real Dr. Sippo could have written a letter which flippantly dismisses acts of creation (whether actual or theoretical) as “magic” or “magical.” For that is the kind of language used by atheists wishing to ridicule Catholic dogmas such as transubstantiation. Nor can I believe he would deride Christians who believe in creation rather than evolution as “Pseudo-Creationists,” any more than I can imagine a Christian creationist calling him a Pseudo-Doctor.
Finally, could the real Dr. Sippo—or even his grandchildren (if he has any) be so naďve as to compare the cooperation between humans constructing a computer and the imagined “cooperation” between “primitive” cells? Could any rational adult—or child—actually believe that “cooperative colonies of cells pooled their genetic material so they could reproduce as a single unit”? And can any true Catholic believe that “A SIMILAR process led to the development of organisms LIKE US”? No wonder the Catechism says that “Catechesis on creation is of major importance.”
Joseph H. Gehringer
Manahawkin, N.J.
Infallible consciences
Editor: You say in your editorial in the April 2000 HPR that the Catholic Church has declined from a powerful cultural force to a marginalized impotent group that others trample on and ridicule. You say that you wish that you knew why this has occurred.
I think that an important part of the answer is that there used to be a point to the Church’s authority, her laws, and her strength. The point was emphasized that all of us are on a road leading either to a good place or a bad place. It was clear that those who made bad choices were heading for misery that they could not imagine, now and forever.
But now the only point is to follow our little ol’ infallible consciences wherever they lead us. The only time people make bad choices today is when they judge that others have made sinful choices. There are even priests who discourage those who (the Church teaches) are living in mortal sin from fearing that they may go to hell. Mortal sin, according to this thinking, is what you think it is; therefore it isn’t.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the killers at Columbine High School, seem to have been driven by this mentality. Klebold was quoted in Time magazine as saying that “It’s a half-hour before our Judgment Day . . . . just know I’m going to a better place than here.” Murder and suicide are not trips to a better place.
Maybe the Columbine tragedy will help those who have lost it to regain their sense of direction. I am thinking of those priests and bishops who avoid the bad news and only talk about the good news as if it applies to everyone. Unless, of course, they are willing to take our places on Judgment Day.
Sheryl Temaat
Monument, Colo.
Heads in the clouds
Editor: In the May 2000 issue of HPR in “letters from our readers,” Fr. Zimmerman made some outlandish statements concerning the relations between husbands and wives such, as “Husbands Obey Your Wives.” Father should know that the vast majority of husbands already obey their wives, not out of love, but out of frustration, one that often builds to the point of hatred. I would like for Father to quote one pope in the history of the Church that made the statement, “Husbands obey your wives.” It is also biblically unsound. Yet one can easily quote popes in just this last century that state a wife is supposed to lovingly obey her husband.
Pius XI (1922-1939) Encycl. Casti Connubii says, “This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, and the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commands in these words: let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.”
Pope Pius XI had this also to say: “The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim, the emancipation of woman has been or ought to be effected.” Wow, does this not seem as though Pope Pius XI is talking directly to Fr. Zimmerman? Did the Pope say, false teachers?
Pius XII (1939-1958) warned, “Christian wives and mothers, never be taken off guard by the desire to wield the scepter in the family.”
After reading Papal Documents and addresses to women starting with Pope Leo XIII (1880) one has to admit what Father stressed is in complete opposition to what these pontiffs believed. Our clergy would do well to read the arguments which support the headship of the father which has been taught by the Church for two thousand years. Our clergy seem to have their heads in the clouds because they just don’t seem to understand that the suffering the family is undergoing today is due, in large part, to the deterioration of sound teaching, as well as common sense.
I do believe in mutual subjection, but at the same time headship. Subjection meaning that both parents dedicate their lives to the needs of the family, and headship meaning that both parents live out the order that is needed for children to learn how to live in harmony with others. All this reinterpretation of Scripture is causing the faithful to say, “The hell with it all, why should I concern myself with what the Church teaches? What we are being told today will be considered cruel and unloving tomorrow.” Now is there any wonder that the divorce rate is at 60 percent, and the pews are emptying? After destroying the family and driving the people out of the Church, they have Come home for Christmas Drives. Their heads are in the clouds.
Liberals in the Church have done more harm to our women than all the rapists, woman haters and male chauvinists put together. They have stripped them of their femininity. Femininity is the gift God gave women that most enables them to be happy. It is something that must be guarded at all cost, for if the woman loses her femininity she loses her very self. Like the parents who spoil their children under the banner of love. So our liberals have destroyed many women under the banner of equality. They may be sincere, but the sad fact is, they just don’t know, and they don’t know that they don’t know, and many lives are being destroyed by their sincere yet destructive views.
George Gil
Franklin, La.
Loud and Clear!
Editor: God bless Father Jacek Stefanski! His article in the July 2000 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review, “Habits and Roman collars,” should be read by every priest and religious. It was a well balanced article that silenced the objections to wearing religious and priestly garb while, at the same time, avoiding fanaticism. I agree that lay people are turned off by priests and religious who do not publicly present themselves as set aside for the service of the Lord. As a convert to Roman Catholicism and now a religious seminarian, I simply cannot understand why a priest would choose not to wear priestly attire. I have also come to see that those religious communities that have a habit and/or clerical garb, and those dioceses where priests wear the Roman collar and/or a cassock are not lacking in vocations. Doesn’t this say something? It’s time to take a serious look at this issue, and it needs to be done loud and clear!
Brother Donald Calloway, MIC
Washington, D.C.
“Slash and burn” liturgists
Editor:
The thought-provoking article “God in a Box” (HPR, May 2000), in which Henry Hardinge Menzies suggests that beautiful, visible tabernacles are needed to increase our fellow Catholics’ respect for the Eucharist, brings to mind an analogy:
A method called “slash and burn” is sometimes used to clear jungle areas for primitive farming, especially in Third World countries. However, the temporary benefits of this method soon disappear, and in any event are outweighed by the long-term harm inflicted on the environment.
In a similar way, some of our “slash and burn” liturgists have, over the years, uprooted the faith of millions, despoiling a sacred environment by hacking away at all experiences of the transcendent, burning away religious reverence by downgrading and even hiding the Real Presence, and sowing seeds of indifferentism and relativism which cannot fail to bring forth a harvest of spiritually malnourished Catholics.
Over time a jungle may recover and reclaim its ravaged territory. We can only pray that the sacred liturgy of the Church will one day soon experience a similar renewal.
Rev. Joseph M. Esper
Redford, Mich.
Non-lethal punishment
Editor: I appreciated Carl Horst’s recent article on capital punishment (June 2000, HPR). He made a number of important points, including the fact that the Church has never considered capital punishment “intrinsically evil”; that many in the Church mistakenly argue that capital punishment is contrary to the teaching of the Church; and that many fail to make the proper distinctions between capital punishment and other life issues. In addition, he rightly emphasizes the value we must place on the protection of the general public from violent, criminal acts.
Yet I’m equally convinced that Horst’s article does not give adequate weight to the Church’s deepening understanding that non-lethal means of punishment are more in keeping with the good of society and the dignity of the human person.
Pope John Paul II identifies the issue of capital punishment as arising within the context of legitimate defense, and states the principle that resorts to capital punishment is moral only when it is necessary to protect society from an unjust aggressor. We may disagree on the application of this principle, but the Holy Father and our U.S. bishops clearly understand and teach that once a criminal is apprehended and incarcerated, the threat to the common good (i.e., the need for legitimate defense) is past, and it’s not necessary to proceed with an execution.
Much can be said on the state of the judicial and prison systems in the U.S., and the rampant violence that surrounds us. However, the Church says that the goals or ends of deterrence or the reduction of violent crimes (even if demonstrated) are not legitimate bases for imposing the death penalty. The action of executing a criminal must be good in itself, and it can’t be if society has other means of protecting itself from this particular criminal.
While the various life issues are distinct, they are indeed related. Our right to life is primarily rooted to our being created in the image and likeness of God. For this reason, our Holy Father affirms that “not even a murderer loses his personal dignity” (Evangelium Vitae, no. 8).
Leon J. Suprenant, Jr.
Steubenville, Ohio
Get the Creed right
Editor: “Dogma matters” says Fr. Kenneth Baker in his splendid editorial in your May 2000 issue. So also does accurate statement of the dogma.
The Nicene Creed we say in Australia each Sunday is both dogmatic and accurate. We say that “He (Christ) became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man.” You poor Americans have to utter a doctrinally inaccurate absurdity Sunday after Sunday. You say “He was BORN of the Virgin Mary and became man,” placing his “becoming man”—his Incarnation—AFTER his being born. Catholic truth and modern science teach that human life begins at conception, and Our Blessed Lord’s Incarnation took place at his conception, not after he was born, or even WHEN he was born.
Europe does not have this absurdity; in the original Latin, in all other languages we have investigated including English in the U.K., the Creed is said dogmatically and accurately. Only in U.S. on Sundays, and, most unfortunately, on page 49 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in Australia, does absurdity reign—Australia used U.S. printing plates for the Catechism. So far we have had no success in having it corrected—meanwhile we say the correct Creed.
“Let the Creed resound” says the Council of Toledo—but only if it is correct! Doubtless we all know what we mean, but what a pity the U.S.A. could not get such a simple fundamental dogma expressed correctly, as other countries and languages appear able to do.
John R. & Doris Martyr
Attadale, Western Australia
Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents October 2000