| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters from our readers
Mutual subjection of spouses
Editor: In his letter in the May HPR, Fr. Anthony Zimmerman stated that husbands should obey their wives (while wives should also still obey their husbands), basing this assertion on Pope John Paul II’s teaching in Mulieris Dignitatem that “in marriage there is a mutual ‘subjection of the spouses, out of reverence for Christ,’ not just that of the wife to the husband.”
Fr. Zimmerman makes the error of holding only one meaning for the word “subjection,” considering it always equivalent to “obedience” in the context of the Catholic teaching on proper relationships within marriage. He also errs in assuming that “subjection” applies to the area of authority in the family. His position cannot be admitted, because of the teaching in previous popes’ encyclicals on the subject, the teaching in the Scriptures themselves concerning marriage, and the inherent requirements of any institution involving people (whether it be the state, the Church, or a marriage).
St. Peter indeed uses the word “subject” in the sense of “obey” when he instructs the wife to be subject to her husband (1 Pet.3:1). In the previous paragraph St. Peter uses the same word in telling servants to be subject to their masters. It is clear from this context that he uses the word “subject” to mean “obey.” He tells husbands to dwell considerately with their wives and to pay honor to them. He does not so much as even hint that husbands should be subject to their wives in the sense of obeying them.
St. Paul, to the extent that he instructs husbands and wives to “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph. 5:21), is clearly not telling them to mutually obey one another. For one thing, obedience by its nature is hierarchical. (Recall the centurion who explained how he obeyed his superior officers and had men under his own command.) It is a kind of logical circularity to propose that two people could obey each other. Also, nowhere do the Scriptures suggest that husbands and wives should mutually obey each other; indeed, they emphasize that the man is head of his wife even as Christ is head of the Church (see 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23).
In Eph. 5:25-33 St. Paul appears to explain one aspect of what may be properly meant by the concept of a husband subjecting himself to his wife. Instead of living for his own selfish ends, the husband is to imitate Christ: the husband is to love his wife “[j]ust as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her. . . .” As understood in this sense, “subjection” of course does not mean “obedience.” In addition, 1 Cor. 7:4 also expounds an element of mutual subjection (the marriage debt).
Every institution must have a functional chain of authority, or it will not itself be able to function. This of course includes the family, the basic unit of society. If man and wife must obey each other (an oxymoronic concept if there ever was one), who is in charge? How are disagreements resolved? Who should the children obey when the parents disagree?
I think it was Dr. Scott Hahn who pointed out that God rebuked Adam not only for disobeying God’s command but also for listening to his wife (Gen. 3:17). The meaning of “listening” here (according to Dr. Hahn) is that Adam yielded his own proper leadership role to his wife. Doing so was contrary to the order God gave to the human family even before sin clouded the picture. Adam offended God not only by disobeying God but also, it could be said, by obeying Eve. When God meted out the punishments, he did not oblige Adam to obey Eve, for that would have institutionalized sin.
To speak frankly, I think it is gravely dangerous to suggest that a Catholic man has a moral obligation to obey his wife, or that Pope John Paul II teaches such a thing. No pope has ever taught that a man owes obedience to his wife in the area of authority in the family. The word Pope John Paul II uses is “subjection.” He does not use this word in the context of authority in the family. Moreover in the context he does use this word, he can not mean “obedience”—which is why he has not used the word “obedience.”
The family today is dying from lack of male leadership. This is certainly no secret. To make men obedient to their wives in the context of authority in the family would destroy the family, and society too.
David Gaetano
Salisbury, Md.
Mary and coredemption
Editor: Mr. McCarthy’s concern regarding new Marian dogmas (June 2000) shows the need to define one’s terms. The word “redemption” comes from the Latin “redemere,” to buy back. The ransom Our Blessed Lord paid to buy us back was his life and death: the ransom Our Lady paid was identical, the Child of her womb, of whom she could truly say, “This is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” Our Lady’s fiat, “Be it done unto me according to thy word,” extended not only to the Incarnation but also to the prophetic words of Simeon, “A sword shall pierce your soul.” Just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, so Our Blessed Lady, a daughter of Abraham, offered her Child as a ransom to free us from death and sin. The word “coredemption” does not in any way mean that Our Lady was equal to her Son: neither does it mean that she offered a “parallel redemption.” Of course it is subordinate to, and totally dependent on that of her divine Son, but is the same ransom, of infinite value. Jesus offered himself in sacrifice; Our Lady offered Jesus.
St. Pius X in his encyclical “Ad Diem Illum” wrote as follows:
Mary, as St. Bernard rightly observes, is “the channel” or the neck which unites the Body to the Head and through which the Head sends power and a strength into the Body. “For she is the neck of our Head, through which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Body.” This should make it clear that we are certainly very far from attributing to the Virgin the power of producing supernatural grace. Only God can do that.
She suffered so much together with Him that, if it had been possible, she would have been more than willing to bear all the torments that her Son suffered. Through this community of suffering and intention between Christ and Mary, “She merited to become in a most noble manner the Reparatrix of the fallen world”. As a result of this, she is the Dispenser of all the gifts that Jesus acquired for us by His death and Blood.
The passages from Pope John Paul II quoted by Mr. McCarthy do not therefore in any way contradict the possible definition of Coredemption as a dogma of faith.
Rev. Edwin Gordon
Gloucestershire, England
Clarifying an idea
Editor: I think that Mr. Robert McCarthy has misunderstood the significance of the Holy Father’s 12th January “reflections” on Marian Coredemption (June 2000).
Other statements the Holy Father has made on this subject indicate that he is far from unfavorable to the idea. Indeed he has been criticized in certain circles for appearing to promote it. Seen in this context, his January 12th reflections look more like an attempt to answer his critics than approval of their position. Explaining what an idea does not mean is different from rejecting the idea as such. It is rather a matter of clarifying it.
As I understand the situation, while the Holy Father has not used the words “coredemption” or “Coredemptrix” in any solemn official pronouncement like an encyclical, he has used them in talks and addresses on at least six other occasions. The passages can be found on pages 103-123 of Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma, Vol. III (Queenship Publishing Co., P.O. Box 220, Goleta, CA 93116).
And here is what he said at the general audience of April 9, 1997:
The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavor to spread by prayer and sacrifice. Mary instead co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in the grace of salvation for all humanity.
The Wanderer for April 13th carries a report on a Mariological congress in England in February this year, in which the author describes what the proponents of a new definition actually are and are not saying and endeavors to answer the usual objections. If anyone is interested, I shall be happy to send him a copy (address: P.T., The Lodge, Cley, Holt, Norfolk, England, NR 25, 7RJ).
I suggest that we should see this question as a matter of truth, not in terms of being on the right, left or center. Either Our Lady was or she was not Coredemptrix in the sense proposed. There were opponents of the Immaculate Conception, even holy ones. Was the Church wrong not to take a “middle path?”
Philip Trower
Norfolk, England
The Holy Innocents
and baptism of desire
Editor: With respect to the article “Do Aborted Babies Go to Heaven?” (July 2000) Brian Graebe mentions that “The Innocent are true martyrs not because of any decision on their part, but rather because of the conscious choice made by Herod to deny the Kingship of Christ.” Although the reader is led to believe that this definition suffices for the writer’s criteria of martyrdom by which one kills out of pure hatred for Christ, it is more in line with Msgr. John McCarthy’s criteria whereby one kills due to some “Satanic influence.” If Herod knew of Christ, it was more than likely in a purely mortal sense, since the Jews expected an earthly King. Hence, Herod’s desire to kill Jesus was probably motivated, if in fact it can be determined definitively, not from any hatred for a particular person, but from the fear of Herod losing his own kingdom.
It is also a leap in logic to conclude that the words found in the Introit of the Mass of the Holy Innocents, i.e., “confessed, not by speaking, but by dying” and the words found in the Catechism (598) “death for the sake of the faith” necessitate that for aborted infants to be saved there must exist in the conscious intention of the murderer a direct hatred of Christ. Why, for example, can’t someone, deprived of the ability to reason, be saved by dying for the sake of the faith in an indirect way? And how would this diminish the “exalted glory in which the martyrs share”? Are there not many “mansions” in God’s Kingdom? Can there not also be many doors to Martyrdom? Nevertheless, as Pope John Paul II affirms in The Gospel of Life, “At the root of every act of violence against one’s neighbor there is a concession to the thinking of the evil one, the one who was a murderer from the beginning.” In this sense all aborted infants may qualify for “Companion Martyrs to the Holy Innocents.”
Another rather dubious claim by Graebe is “that only adults are capable of the baptism of desire” is a teaching of the Catholic Church. What the Catechism affirms is that “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. (Catechism 1260). Hence even those with very little or no apparent understanding, i.e., unborn infants, mentally handicapped, etc., may be saved by their innate desire (which may suffice for understanding in such cases) for God. As the Pope affirms in Evangelium Vitae (35): “Because he is made by God and bears within himself an indelible imprint of God, man is naturally drawn to God.” Also, as Henri de Lubac states in The Mystery of the Supernatural: “a good and just God could hardly frustrate me, unless I, through my own fault, turn away from him by choice. The infinite importance of the desire implanted in me by my Creator is what constitutes the infinite importance of the drama of human existence. . . . My finality, which is expressed by this desire, is inscribed upon my very being as it has been put into this universe by God. And, by God’s will, I now have no other genuine end . . . except that of ‘seeing God.’ “ Is it not possible that those deprived of reason are already under the influence of baptism by desire?
Certainly the door is not closed on inquiry with respect to the status of those souls of persons (not just aborted infants) who die before reaching the age of reason. In fact in theological circles there is growing evidence which suggests that a declaration in this regard, without undermining the reality of original sin or the necessity of infant baptism, is not impossible.
Notwithstanding, the purpose of theology is not to create limits that don’t exist but rather it is the activity of faith seeking understanding. “And Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.’ Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I will never forget you” (Isa. 49: 14-15).
Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Problems for Darwinism
Editor: My apologies to HPR for taking up more space in discussing evolution. Dr. Sippo (HPR, July 2000) sees fit to characterize Darwinian skeptics as a) having poor imaginations, b) not listening in class, c) not having read the relevant literature, etc. These are not acceptable comments to make to those of us who have serious reservations about Darwinian macroevolution. The last time I looked I had an M.S. from the U. of Chicago and a Ph.D. from UCLA, both in chemistry.
Dr. Sippo slides from microevolution (changes which can occur within a species) to macroevolution (how one species morphs into another) by stating that “all evolutionary changes are microevolutionary changes.” If this statement were true, it would make Darwinian macroevolution easy to accept.
Unfortunately, nature is very perverse. Once a species appears, nature does everything it can to protect that species. It is a law (at least I am not aware of any violations) of nature that when two different species mate and have offspring the offspring are always sterile. This is best exemplified by mating horses and donkeys, the resulting mules are always sterile. This law gives us the tremendous species diversity we see in nature. If it did not apply, I’m not certain what our plant and animal kingdom would look like. By the way, the law does not apply to microevolution since changes within a species are acceptable.
For the 140 plus years since Darwin published his On the Origin of Species eminent paleontologists have examined the fossil record. The data show that new species appear very abruptly in the fossil record. Evidence for transition species is sparse at best. This does not really fit Darwinian thesis that evolution occurs slowly with time. To overcome this dilemma Gould has proposed “punctuated equilibrium.” This theory holds that evolution occurs mainly as a result of periods of stress followed by periods of inactivity. Ten million years has been suggested as an acceptable time for new species evolution to occur. Ten million years is not long by geological standards and yet short enough where intermediate species would be rare. As it happens, the accumulation of new data is making the ten million years inconveniently long for some species. Obviously, with a shorter time the evolutionary event looks more and more miraculous (a term deplored by Dr. Sippo).
Dr. Sippo admits that Darwinism cannot, per se, be used as an argument for the origin of life. Unfortunately, the National Association of Biology Teachers holds that the entire history of life is “an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process.” This is basic Darwinism and is taught in all schools that teach evolution.
Theories have been proposed for the origin of life. Those that I have seen have critics who are not Creationists. The main problem appears to be that the time available for formation of a protein or nucleotide that can reproduce itself is insufficient on the geological scale. Maybe this dilemma will resolve itself as more data accumulate; however, for the present it is a problem for Darwinism.
When DNA first appeared on the scene, it was felt the DNA analysis would verify Darwinism. For this purpose the protein cytochrome C was used (general DNA cannot be used since that blueprint is unique for individual humans let alone for other plants and animals). Cytochrome C is ubiquitous in nature. All plants and animals have the protein since it is necessary for the production of cellular energy. Upon analysis the amino acid sequence showed that primates and humans are indeed closely related. However, the data for more expanded series is not so good. A striking example is the evidence for bacterial cytochrome C that shows it to be equally related to mammals, fish, amphibians, moths, and yeast. This data is not consistent with Darwinism. It was expected that the bacteria should be much more closely related to moths than to mammals.
Dr. Sippo curtly dismisses the question of avian lung development. Reptiles have a structure similar to human lungs but much more primitive. Air is taken into the lung, oxygen and carbon dioxide exchanged and spent air removed via exhaling through the same duct as the inlet air. In the avian lung fresh air comes in, passes through capillaries where oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange, and the spent air exhales via a separate duct. The two types of lungs are not at all similar. In spite of Dr. Sippo’s assertion that “several scientific theories” have been proposed to explain how the two lungs might have evolved from each other, I would guess that a topologist (one who studies properties of surfaces) would have an interesting time trying to go from a reptile to an avian lung in small steps without doing lethal violence to the intermediate species.
What I find sad about Dr. Sippo’s commentary on Behe’s “irreducibly complex” systems is that he denigrates Behe’s character without criticizing his science. Behe’s work on the “irreducibly complex” human immune system requires an answer to the following question. Why should nature spend time and energy to build a useless 14-step system? Only when the 15th step is added does the system provide survival benefits.
I would like to make a few comments about evolution of modern humans. Modern humans, from the fossil record and DNA data, appeared about 200,000 years ago, first in Africa then fairly quickly in the rest of the world. Neanderthals first appeared about 3 million years ago. Earlier humanoids are at least 6 million years old. It was at first thought that Neanderthals were the evolutionary parents to modern humans. Recent DNA shows that Neanderthals are at best cousins to modern humans, the implication is that modern humans evolved from a more primitive species. Doesn’t this cause a Darwinian dilemma since modern humans have appeared very abruptly in much less time than normally required for species evolution? The normal Darwinian explanation given is that a very favorable mutation occurred. But isn’t this event very unlikely by Darwinian standards? The event comes very close to the “magic” that Dr. Sippo abhors.
As a Catholic and a secular scientist I accept the facts of evolution. What bothers me is the “spin” being put on these facts. At the moment I cannot accept Darwinism as the complete explanation for the facts of evolution. I think that Darwinism is an interesting hypothesis quite some distance yet from being a good theory. Until that happens I suggest that high school and college courses dealing with evolution present Darwinism as an hypothesis not a closed issue worthy of dogmatic assertion.
Herman J. Baumgartner
Houston, Texas
A brief note on home schooling
Editor: Father Joseph C. Taphorn has written a generally well-argued article, “Home Schooling and Sacraments for Children” (HPR, August-September 2000). Since Father will soon be embarking on the pursuit of a degree in canon law, the following remarks are offered not as criticism but as encouragement to complete a well-begun in the scholarly dissertation he will eventually be writing.
In the title on Catholic education, the Code of Canon Law mentions parents in canons 793, 796, 797, 798 and 799. In his exposition of the “assistance from canon law,” however, Father includes only canon 793 §1. With competence he will acquire at the pontifical university, he will be able to close up this lacuna in his commentary on the relevant canons in the code’s chapter on schools. There are, moreover, many other canons that involve parents, among which eight need to be included for the additional light they offer on the topic.
In the chapter on education, canon 796 §1 starts by stressing the great importance of schools in general and of parental input individually and collectively. Canon 796 §2 emphasizes teachers’ obligation to cooperate closely with parents who might entrust their children to them and to listen to them willingly; parents may also set up associations, which teachers are to value highly.
Canon 797 endows parents with the right to enjoy true freedom in the choice of schools, not the choice between school or home schooling. This canon really is not an endorsement of home schooling but a call to the State to acknowledge the right to the free choice of schools and to support that right with financial aid.
This finds verification in canon 798, which obliges parents to entrust their children to a school that provides a Catholic education. The canon states a general obligation, per se binding all parents. If in individual cases this is not possible, parents are to see to it that due religious and moral education is provided outside of a school. Here the principles on physical and moral impossibility need to be applied.
This canon neither authorizes parents to make a judgment on the suitability of a school to provide a fully Catholic education nor provides an option to substitute home schooling. The law imposes a reasonably limited obligation, and excuse from the law depends on ecclesiastical authority (cf. can. 85).
Canon 212 also comes into play here. While §1 calls for “Christian obedience” to the diocesan bishop, §2 gives the faithful the right to reveal to him their concerns about spiritual matters and even their desires. According to §3, those who are gifted by God with truly special qualifications may be under obligation reverently to offer their opinion on a topic within their competence.
Canon 799 seems to continue the topic of State intervention, placing on the faithful the obligation to strive for educational legislation that makes provision in the State’s religious and moral education that respects their parents’ consciences.
My conclusion starts with canon 799 and the fact that Catholic parents are the primary educators of their own children in all matters, civil as well as religious. However, they necessarily live in society, ecclesiastical as well as civil, and, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they share in the common human obligation to help make this world, including the local community, a better place to inhabit. An application of this is to dissatisfied parents; they should observe the principle of subsidiarity and first lay their concerns before the local authorities before taking recourse to the diocese. If the expression of one’s desire in the matter does not receive the desired answer, this suggests that God’s will is expressed in the Catechism citation: work to improve your Catholic school.
In the background of my approach to this matter is a fine, very conscientious and highly competent home schooler couple, residing in a borderline area, whom I have known closely from before their marriage. I consider myself fortunate that my current relationship is purely friendly and can give them the benefit of doubt until I attain a state of absolutely certainty. However, at this point in my reflections, it does not seem to me that the code, which reproduces the will of the Supreme Pontiff, gives authorization to choose home schooling over Catholic school education, except in cases of the physical absence of a Catholic school. There are borderline cases, of course—areas in which some Catholics avail themselves of a somewhat distant Catholic school while others do not. But the perception of distance varies, for example, according to one’s zeal for Catholic education. Should perceived borderline cases be exempt from seeking authoritative guidance in their choice?
These are my personal thoughts. What is your opinion?
Msgr. Clarence J. Hettinger
Peoria, Illinois
Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents December 2000