letters from our readers

Brava, Doctor Toolin!

Editor: Dr. Cynthia Toolin’s article (August/ September 2001) gave thorough statistical support to a truth that should be, but apparently isn’t, intuitively obvious to the Church’s hierarchy and clergy: The Church today needs reform, not “renewal.” Dr. Toolin’s numbers demonstrate that current efforts are renewing only a mass of old heresies, that our “springtime” has become our deepest winter since Arianism. Brava, Doctor Toolin!

That said, I’d like to add two points with which Dr. Toolin would probably agree, although she stated neither.

First, all “What Catholics believe” surveys suffer a common flaw: They assume one can remain Catholic while disagreeing with the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. Not so. Church membership doesn’t depend solely on the payment of dues (tithes). It requires acceptance of all Church teachings. Thus, the studies Dr. Toolin cited reflect the beliefs, not of Catholics only, but of the broader group of people who claim to be Catholic. This doesn’t invalidate the results. In fact, it makes them more frightening because it points out how few of the claimants are truly Catholic.

(Nota bene: We must distinguish between belief and practice. If we all lived the Faith perfectly, Catholic Churches wouldn’t need confessionals. We all sin. But we can remain Catholic even while sinning as long as we accept the Church’s teachings. One who says “This is wrong but I’m going to do it anyhow” sins, but remains Catholic. One who says, “I’m going to do this, therefore it cannot be wrong!” both sins and becomes a heretic.)

Second, Church reform must be top-down. Granted, we need more great saints at every level, as we’ve had in previous reforms (St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius Loyola, and so on). But previous reforms have also had reforming Popes to motivate and guide them. We need a reforming Pope. JPII has done marvelous PR work throughout the world. He has poured out more sound documents than perhaps any previous pope. But his overly kind nature seems to balk at enforcement. We need a pope who stays in Rome and reasserts papal authority, especially relative to bishops and religious superiors. When a bishop anywhere in the world says, “I’m not the Pope’s branch manager!” we need a pope who will act very quickly to turn that into a statement of fact. When a national council of bishops anywhere in the world stalls the implementation of a mandated and badly needed reform (for example, Ex Corde Ecclesiae), we need a pope who will disband or re-staff that council of bishops. And so on.

So much for my two points. If I may, I’ll add what may seem like a nit. Dr. Toolin, like so many brilliant and well-educated Catholic writers today, used the term “invincible ignorance” when she clearly meant “inculpable ignorance.” Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome, normally because the sufferer lacks adequate mental capacity. Inculpable ignorance carries no moral guilt. English derived the words “vincible” and “invincible” from the Latin verb vincere, to conquer. It derived the words “culpable” and “inculpable” from the Latin verb culpare, to blame. All invincible (unconquerable due to insufficient capacity) ignorance is necessarily also inculpable (unblamable). Vincible ignorance may be culpable or inculpable, depending on the opportunities the person has had to overcome it.

Perhaps an example will help. Today, the clergy suffers widespread ignorance of the official language of the Church, namely Latin. Bypassing (with great difficulty) an analogy with the Tower of Babel and any suggestion that this ignorance constitutes a form of clerical illiteracy, I’ll describe it in the vincible/ invincible, culpable/inculpable framework. Priests who don’t currently know Latin are certainly not invincibly ignorant. Given the motivation and opportunity, they have the mental capacity to learn that language, thus “conquer” their ignorance. So they are vincibly ignorant. What about culpability? Those who were taught little or no Latin in the seminary bear no blame and are therefore inculpably ignorant. Those who were properly taught but have let their knowledge atrophy may or may not suffer culpable ignorance, depending on the motivation and opportunities provided by their bishops or religious superiors. What about the culpability of bishops and religious superiors? That depends on how serious the Church’s current Tower of Babel condition really is, how important a Latin-literate clergy is to the Church’s mission.

James B. Spencer of Wichita, Kansas

The sensitivity of children

Editor: In his article Father Michael P. Orsi points out that a lighted candle in the wedding ceremony is out of place. I think it is beautiful. Marriage includes three persons: a man, a woman and Christ. Without Christ the marriage is incomplete. Since the lighted candle stands for the Light of Christ, why not include him in the marriage ceremony?

The same goes for the blessing of children too young to receive Christ in Holy Communion. The blessing signifies that they too share in Jesus’ love at the moment he is present in a special way to grownups and children alike. In our parish is a little boy of 5 that was once overlooked by our priest. He was devastated. I said to his mother: “Go back and have Father bless him.” The little boy grabbed his mother’s hand and dragged her back into the Church. He goes to church especially for the blessing.

What do we know about the sensitivity of children! What do we know about Jesus’ joy to see a family of 7, a baby among them, eagerly come to him, all together, to be enveloped by his open arms!

Marian Ettema of Shawnigan Lake, B.C., Canada

The Harry Potter books

Editor: Thank you for Dr. Moore’s article on fantasy and the occult in children’s literature (June 2001). It illustrates perfectly the prevalent mindset that parents cannot make informed judgments on their children’s reading material without consulting experts on literary structure, diction, and linguistic principles. Nevertheless, I’m sure there is still a role for common sense.

The Harry Potter books are very popular fantasy books that present occult practices—practices specifically condemned in the Catholic Catechism—in an appealing way, albeit in a make-believe setting. Would people be as quick to encourage youngsters to read the books if they presented incest, abortion or slavery—practices also condemned in the Catechism—in an appealing way, albeit in a make-believe setting? I doubt it, even if they also excelled as “social satire.”

Mrs. Elizabeth A. Wittman of Manassas, Va.

Silence from the pulpit

Editor: In “Contraception Distorts Sexuality” (HPR, July 2001), Steve Kellmeyer joins with many others in lamenting the lack of preaching on Humanae Vitae and on the sin and destructive effects of contraception. The only really concrete reason he offers for this is that “. . . few pastors are willing to address the topic from the ambo for fear of a backlash.” No doubt that’s a valid statement at this point in the Church’s history. But I suggest there would be no large “backlash” now, nor widespread disregard of the Church’s (infallible) teaching of the evil of contraception, had the doctrine been preached consistently and often from the beginning.

Recently I came across information which may provide a good clue as to why the doctrine was not so preached. In the first chapter of his book A Crisis of Saints, Father George Rutler writes briefly about Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae and its publication in 1968. Father Rutler first says this was an example of the grace of state at work, since Paul VI as pope was prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching other than he did. But, he claims, it may be argued that in the human order no authoritative papal teaching has been so badly implemented as this one. Father Rutler refers to the advertising of an ambiguously qualified advisory committee and to confusion about the encyclical’s authoritative nature from the day of its release. Most tellingly, he points out the “astonishing fact” that the Holy Father did not mention this encyclical again for ten years, and that indeed he issued no further encyclicals after it and shrank from indicated disciplines in its behalf. Father Rutler expresses the opinion that history will not be able to overlook the human shortcoming.

If it is true that Paul VI gave no public support to his teaching Humanae Vitae during those ten years he lived after issuing it—and I do think Father Rutler can be trusted to tell the truth—this lack of papal example and leadership in such an important and controversial matter could well have been a substantial factor contributing to the silence from the parish pulpit on that same matter these last thirty-three years.

Paul R Davidson, Ph. D. of Front Royal, Virginia

Hell’s last sacrament

Editor: In the July issue, Fr. Dennis F. Voss wrote expressing some disagreements with my article “Euthanasia: Hell’s Last Sacrament,” published in the March issue. Father somehow misperceives the thrust of my article, and ascribes to me a condemnation of all Advance Directives: “Mr. Cetrulo seems to put Advance Directives in the same bag with euthanasia.”

In fact, what I did say, several times in my article, was that “. . . a Pro-Life Living Will is necessary. . .” and that “The only way to avoid this canned, boilerplate death-inducing scheme is to have an alternative Pro-Life document.” I spelled out in detail the history of the pro-death genesis and application of the initial Living Will movement, which deprives patients not only of medical care, but also of human care, including the simple furnishing of food and water, resulting in an excruciatingly violent death.

I then set forth the Catholic principles, from the Catholic Catechism itself and other Catholic sources, which I have incorporated into the documents which I use, articulating a Pro-Life philosophy in an Advance Medical Directive, and in Powers of Attorney, both Durable and Springing. The same concerns, and the same principles, articulated in my article, and in my documents, have found expression in publications and documents prepared by well-respected Pro-Life organizations such as Judie Brown’s American Life League, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555, which has prepared and published what it calls a “Loving Will” and also by the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, P.O. Box 760, Steubenville, OH 43952, in its “Protective Medical Decisions Document.” They point out the necessity for such a Pro-Life document because “The Living Will was formulated in 1967 by the Euthanasia Educational Council to gradually shape public acceptance of euthanasia. The idea of the Living Will caught on rapidly, thanks in large part to its promotion by Abigail Van Buren (“Dear Abby”) who is a member of the Advisory Board of the euthanasia organization. A Living Will takes rights and control from its signer and gives decision-making authority to a physician (who may not even know the patient). It also gives the physician complete immunity from civil or criminal liability.”

All of these Pro-Life organizations, who have been closely connected to the recent developments in the legislatures, the courts, and the medical care system, have been actively advocating the public education and adoption of Pro-Life Advance Directives, so that our aged and infirm population do not face, when they are produced at the door of the hospital or nursing home, with these “designer death-formulated documents,” pushed through the legislatures by the same people who gave us abortion on demand.

Robert C. Cetrulo, J.D. of Covington, Ky.

The North American College

Editor: The article published in the July HPR entitled, “What is Romanita?” caught my attention. Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that I spent five years at the North American College in Rome. As I read the article however, I began to wonder just exactly what was its point, and I am not sure that I have yet discovered it. I am even more puzzled as to why you published it.

You introduce the article by saying that you think readers will find it charming. I know that in several instances you are mistaken. I do not know what Fr. Russell E. Smith’s point could have been, except to get in a little barb against those whom he thinks consider him to be inadequately trained. The lack of a point to his article might be a better place to start.

I can only say this with all sincerity: I am proud to be an alumnus of the North American College. I think that I was very well trained there. If there is a spirit of pride among her alumni, it is likely to be from the strong bonds formed while away from home. If there is a priest who does not think that his classmates are some of the best priests he knows, then that says a lot about his alma mater. I am proud of NAC and her traditions. And the North American College has trained a great number of priests who do wonderful things for the Church, not thinking that they are better than anyone else.

I am disappointed in your publication of this article and will not renew my HPR subscription.

Rev. Peter Harman of Springfield, Ill.

Nobody needs a “Living Will”

Editor: I am responding to Rev. Dennis F. Voss’s letter concerning the “Living Will” and other advance directives (July 2001). Having been involved in the pro-life movement since 1970, I read the published agenda of the euthanasia organization and the strategies to bring about legalized euthanasia. One of their aims was to change, via the legislature, the definition of death. The other was to gain acceptance of the “Living Will.” Just as the demand for killing embryonic humans is being escalated today, so the demand for the legalization of “Living Wills” was vigorously promoted in the 1980s. Just as we are not given all the facts today, we were not given all the facts then.

One major hidden fact is that patients do not need a legal document to refuse treatment. We know that relatives suffer but the patient’s treatment should not depend on relatives discomfort. A local physician who treated emphysema patients was often told to withhold treatment which required tubes and machines. The treatment did look like torture. However when the patient walked out of the hospital two weeks later both he and the relatives were happy that treatment had been continued.

There is no such thing as a perfect “Living Will.” One endorsed by the Pennsylvania Catholic Bishops uses fuzzy terms as “ethically extraordinary” and “reasonable hope of benefit.” The “attending physician” may be seeing the patient for the first time yet he is given the authorization to determine that the patient lacks “sufficient capacity to make or communicate decisions” about his health care.

“Living Wills” are generally made when the patient is well and healthy. In the Bishop’s document, if the patient changes his mind he must make an oral or written request or he must notify others and destroy the document. And if the “attending physician has determined that he lacks “sufficient capacity to make or communicate decisions” then the document becomes a death will.

Do Catholics really need to have control over everything, even death? How much is the demand for such control based on the desire for no suffering? How many times does a patient feel obliged to defer treatment because of cost to the relatives? We need to rethink the value of suffering as well as its mitigation. Hospice is fine but nobody needs a “Living Will” to enter Hospice.

And nobody needs a “Living Will” to refuse treatment he does not want.