| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters from our readers
Why Mary didn’t tell Joseph
Editor: Contrary to Father Orchard’s view, I think Mary did not tell Joseph about her miraculous conception. “Knowing that Mary would not tell a lie, Joseph could have accepted the news as the truth” [about the Incarnation] writes Fr. Orchard (HPR, Nov. 2001). Maybe, but I think not. Humanly he would want to believe her. But faith in the Incarnation required more than human credibility.
Mary could not empower Joseph to believe in the Incarnation. Only God could do that. Peter, for example, received this gift from God:
(Jesus) said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven (Matt. 16:15-17).
Mary was flesh and blood. She was not the “Father who is in heaven.”
Elizabeth believed in the Incarnation by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by a word from Mary. Filled with the Holy Spirit Elizabeth exclaimed: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
Angels, sent by God, revealed the good news to the shepherds: “To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11.)
Jesus told the apostles that flesh alone avails nothing for genuine belief in him:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words in that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63).
Jesus did not tempt God by jumping off the roof of the temple at the devil’s suggestion (Matt. 4:5-7). Should Mary manipulate Joseph into a situation of wanting to believe her, while lacking faith given from on high? Should she presume to tempt God?
Nay, Mary knew the ways of God. Her pace was always one step behind the lead of the Holy Spirit, never ahead of it. She knew it was now God’s turn to act. And act he did as she had confidently expected.
But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:20-21).
With that Joseph could now believe in the Incarnation. He could rise and serve as the foster father of Jesus by a mandate given to him directly by the Lord.
Fr. Anthony Zimmerman - Nagoya, Japan
Lay ministers affect the fatherhood of priests
Editor: Sister Prudence Allen’s article, “Freedom and the Fatherhood of Priests” (January 2002), rightly observes that the devaluation of fatherhood in our contemporary society (through, for example, contraception and the reduction of the male to a “bio-chemical donor”) undermines the idea of the Catholic priest as a “father” in the order of grace. The sacramental life of the Church is where the priest’s spiritual fatherhood is most manifest. As Sister points out: “In the Person of Christ, the priest sacramentally brings children to birth through Baptism, and he provides for them through the Word and Eucharist.”
Since Vatican Council II, but especially since Pope Paul VI’s 1972 decree Ministeria Quaedam, the visible link between the Eucharist and the priesthood has disintegrated. Truth be told, the majority of practicing Latin-rite Catholics now receive Holy Communion from the hands of laypersons functioning as “extraordinary ministers.” Proponents of the assumption of sacred functions by the laity express confidence that such was the will of the Council, which endorsed the Liturgical Movement’s goal of recovering a more corporate sense of worship. However, official liturgical documents treat the lay administration of sacraments as anything but normative.
The elimination of the unique bond between the sacramental and pastoral roles of the priest is, I strongly believe. every bit as contraindicative and detrimental to the concept of priestly fatherhood as is the contraceptive mentality or the ordination of women. Father James McLucas’s analogy to marriage provides substantive insights:
The possession of an exclusive bodily prerogative with one’s spouse is primary; in fact there exists no greater convergence between the Divine Law and the instincts of even fallen human nature than on this point. Violate this pact, and one risks murderous rage. If a celibate priest, however, reacts with even the slightest resentment towards the loss of what was his corporeal exclusivity [with the eucharistic Body of Christ] within his Sacrament of Holy Orders, he is considered a candidate for psychological evaluation. (“The Emasculation of the Priesthood,” The Latin Mass magazine [Spring 1998], pp. 14-23, at 17).
In other words, the spiritual fatherhood of the Catholic priest—which is to say, the fruitfulness of his celibate love—is directly (though not exclusively) related to the dispensation of sacramental grace. The denial of this truth (if not in theory then at least in practice) can only play havoc with the priest’s psychology. The unique relationship between priesthood and Eucharist has traditionally supported the compatibility of the priest’s celibacy with a healthy masculine nature, assisting the priest in “sublimating his natural desire for exclusivity with another in marriage, and [preserving] his orientation toward his spiritual espousal to the Church and his spiritual fatherhood” (McLucas, p. 22). One may counter that Father McLucas overstates the co-inherence of maleness, celibacy and office. But I am certain that, with the link between function and ontology now weakened through the introduction of lay pastoral administrators, lay Eucharistic ministers and Communion in the hand, the value of priestly celibacy and the notion of spiritual paternity are obscured.
Rev. Thomas M. Kocik - Hyannis, Mass.
Medjugorje defended
Editor: With deference to Mr. Donal Anthony Foley’s academic background and reasoned arguments, I was troubled by some of his inferences and deductions concerning recent Marian apparitions . . . something “like damning with faint praise.” To me there is a laudable conservatism that “tests all things” whose aim is to preserve and promote the truth. Then there is a deleterious conservatism that tends to “squelch the spirit” for whatever reason: timidity, prejudice, pedantry, vested-interest. The latter brand of conservatism sometimes calls to question God’s wisdom and ability to do now what he did in the past (the power to intervene in a prophetic and miraculous manner in human affairs).
A further troubling aspect, I noted, was the gratuitous, non-sequitur, inadequate linkage intimated in certain comparisons such as the indiscriminate, broad sweep of coupling, e.g., Neceda and Bayside (both condemned) with Garabandal and Medjugorje (still being discerned by the Church). Also, the over-emphasis on the negative judgment of a Bishop Zanic (whose jurisdiction over the Medjugorje matter was abrogated by Rome). And not a word of mention on the legion of bishops and priests in good standing who have visited Medjugorje and returned, reporting favorably on their experiences.
Maybe overlooked are the instances in which bishops have pronounced negatively on certain prophecies and events (lest we forget St. Joan of Arc) and their judgments have been countermanded by subsequent investigations of higher Church authority.
A rule of thumb that may have been superficially considered: “by their fruits you will know them.” How anyone can declare or suggest the fruits of Medjugorje—twenty million pilgrims, the exhaustive testing of the seers, the fidelity to the Church and its teachings, the countless conversions, the daily Masses, the innumerable confessions, the fasting, forgiveness, prayer, witness and healings be attributed to Satan or hallucination or human machination! In the face of such overwhelming evidence, more than an abrupt dismissal is needed.
Even good people can yield to the fear of change that may threaten certain securities. Truth is infinite and it must be properly discerned, but it cannot be boxed in.
Fr. Phil Elmer, S.C.J. - Houston, Tex.
Evolution and the Magisterium
Editor: Dozens of readers of HPR probably cheered when they read Dr. Sippo’s suggestion that we “agree to disagree” (January 2002, p. 7). And while I do agree with that one suggestion, I certainly disagree with almost everything else in his letter. But rather than respond to his petty, personal attacks on me, I propose we end our exchange with a careful consideration of the relevant Magisterial teachings, and a quick look at how Dr. Sippo has distorted, ignored, or rejected them.
Earlier Church rulings concentrated on the origin of Adam and Eve; later ones dealt more explicitly with the theory (or hypothesis) of evolution. In his 1880 encyclical Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII declared:
We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth . . . God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man s side. . . .
Three decades later, the Pontifical Biblical Commission studied the “First Three Chapters of Genesis” and considered:
Whether . . . we may call into question the literal and historical meaning . . . of facts narrated in these chapters . . . the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from man. . . .
The PBC ruled: “In the negative” (June 30, 1909). Earlier, in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, Pope St. Pius X had made these rulings of the PBC binding on all Catholics. Another three decades later, these Church teachings were reaffirmed by Pius XII, and then incorporated into Humani Generis. In that great encyclical, Pius XII spoke of “the dogmas of faith” and appended a footnote, “citation 11,” which referred to his Allocution of November 30, 1941. Thus Humani Generis declares the following to be “dogmas of faith”:
Only from man can there come another man. . . .
(Dall ‘uomo soltanto poteva venire un altro uomo. . . .)
(The first woman) also came from him . . . because from him she was formed. . . .
(viene pure da lui . . . perche da lui e statta tratta)Now how did Dr. Sippo respond when these Magisterial rulings were pointed out? (December 1996). He rejected the earlier rulings (“this remains an open question”; Mar 1999), and claimed the latter did not exist! (“Papal teaching . . . from Pius XII . . . (is) without any reference to the origin of the first woman.”)
Why would Dr. Sippo deliberately delete citation 11 when he quoted from Humani Generis, and earlier deny its very existence? Perhaps because of its significance in rejecting evolution. As Fr. Hardon explained, Pius XII affirmed “the impossibility that the first man could have been the son of an animal. . . .”
Both Pius XII and Paul VI made specific references to evolution. As noted in my letter of Oct 2001, Pope Paul VI stated that:
. . . even the theory of “evolutionism” . . . will not seem acceptable to you . . . where it does not regard as decisively important for the fate of mankind the disobedience of Adam . . . (which caused him to) lose the holiness and justice in which he was created. (July 11, 1966)
When it was pointed out to Dr. Sippo that the Darwinian process does not conform to this requirement of Paul VI, he responded: “I see no need for any such thing. . . . No naturalistic explanation is necessary” (Mar 1999). Now (January 2002) he describes this as submission “to Magisterial authority.” As we shall see again below, Dr. Sippo seems to confuse “rejection” of the Magisterium with “submission” to the Magisterium.
Dealing with Humani Generis is more complex for two reasons: that encyclical treats evolution at some length; and evolutionists have distorted its meaning since the day it was issued.
In his letter (January 2002), Dr. Sippo quotes two sentences from Humani Generis but he omits (1) what preceded them; (2) the crucial citation 11; (3) the extremely relevant sentence which followed; and (4) the subsequent statements on the historicity of Genesis. Due to the limitations of space, we can consider only the two sentences quoted and the one which follows it.
The first sentence of paragraph 36 is very explicit about what the Church does allow: ONLY “research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields (science and theology).” The second sentence places certain restrictions upon those involved in these discussions. And Pius XII follows this with a stern warning:
Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved . . . and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution. . . .
It is quite obvious that Dr. Sippo has disregarded these requirements of Pius XII and “rashly transgressed” the limits set down by the Magisterium. First, Dr. Sippo has gone far beyond “discussions” and has propagandized for evolution in letter after letter (January 1998, March 1999, July 2000, May 2001). Second, he has insisted over and over that evolution has been proven, and even that “Darwin’s theory . . . is no longer in question.” Even the October 22, 1996 statement of John Paul II notes the Church teaching that evolution “should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine.” Thirdly, Dr. Sippo has ignored the call of Pius XII for “moderation and caution” since the evolutionary hypothesis may possibly involve “conjectural opinions (which) are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God” (par 35). This can be seen in his omission of citation 11 and rejection of the rulings of Leo XIII and Pius X.
But Dr. Sippo has complained that I have “insulted” him. It is quite possible, of course, that those who hold erroneous opinions are “insulted” by the truth. And that those who try to disregard the Magisterium are “insulted” when someone points this out openly. Or perhaps Dr. Sippo, MD, MPH, FACPM, LFIBA, ET AL, is “insulted” by the fact that someone who (he thinks) has “no understanding” and no “expertise to comment intelligently” continues to state the facts.
Rather than “apologize” to Dr. Sippo, permit me to pose a question: is it possible that the Creator, the Author of all life, might have been “insulted” by Dr. Sippo’s claims that there is “no evidence for a supernatural design of the human body” (May 2001), and “we don’t know where life came from” (July 2000)? I hope not. But, as Pius XII warned:
. . . errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our Sons who are deceived . . . by false science” (Humani Generis).
Joseph H. Gehringer - Manahawkin, N.J.
Catholic medical ethics
Editor: Richard Neuhaus’s 1986 book, The Naked Public Square warned against a notion of “separation of Church and State” that effectively gagged Christians in public discourse by requiring them to pretend their religious convictions are irrelevant in order to participate in public policy formulation. Rather than being an expression of non-confessional “democracy,” this state of affairs has effectively disenfranchised most believing Christians from shaping America’s dimension by demanding they leave their convictions in the cloakroom.
Although Neuhaus’s book did not specifically deal with bioethics, George Graham’s May 2001 HPR article (“Bioethics: An Orphan Discipline”) points out the impoverishment of contemporary medical ethical discourse through the systematic exclusion of perspectives derived from religious traditions. In contemporary bioethics advocates of various strains of utilitarianism versus Kantianism denude America’s forests to spew out tomes whose philosophical underpinnings find faint reflection in the principles that really guide most Americans. The paradox, of course, is that while the Catholic medical ethics tradition is treated as if it did not exist, contemporary secular bioethics cannot even meet the demands of the discipline’s own name: although supposedly the ethics of bioV, most of its “mainstream” practitioners maintain a studied agnosticism about when life begins.
The U.S. Supreme Court must share its blame for this state-of-affairs. Its First Amendment jurisprudence coupled with Roe v. Wade’s dismissal of the Hippocratic tradition of medical ethics (because, in conjunction with Christianity, it suppressed the free abortion regime in the pagan Roman Empire) created the climate for secularized bioethics. But many Catholic “theologians” must also shoulder responsibility: by promoting their theologies of dissent, they undermined ecclesiastical credibility in advancing the long tradition of Catholic medical ethics.
A robust revival of the Catholic medical moral tradition coupled with a vigorous refusal to “play by the rules” stacked against those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition would be a welcome relief to the lethal orthodoxies of establishment bioethics.
John M. Grondelski - Seton Hall University, South Orange N.J.
Two forms of the Roman Rite
Editor: In his review of The Liturgy Betrayed, by Denis Crouan (January 2002), Rev. Richard M. Nardone questions the attempt to distinguish between the different forms of the Roman Rite. His statement, that “there is no such thing as a Tridentine rite or a Mass of Pius V,” may be technically accurate, but it does not reflect the current liturgical situation.
Noting an attempt to distinguish the “traditional” Roman rite from the “new” one, Rev. Nardone argues, “But Pope John Paul II has defended the reform of the liturgy as ‘strictly traditional.’” That same pope, however, granted an Indult for the use of the 1962 Roman Missal, and issued a Motu proprio encouraging its wide and generous application. Both documents clearly and consistently distinguish that missal from the current missal. By legitimizing the use of a prior missal, the pope acknowledged the existence of two forms of the Roman Rite, and made it possible for both forms to coexist. The theological implications he has left to theologians to work out over time.
Meanwhile, the practical implications are being worked out by priests and people, “attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition,” exercising “their rightful aspirations” (Ecclesia Dei). It may be, as Rev. Nardone says, that “some people have turned in despair to the so-called Tridentine Mass.” I would suggest that many people have turned in joy to that Mass, including myself. In either case, the turning is from one form of worship to another. No minimizing of the textual or rubrical differences between the two forms of the Roman Rite, such as Rev. Nardone provides, can capture the pastoral and spiritual riches that distinguish the two in the minds of a growing number of Catholics—a situation duly noted by this, our most pastoral and spiritual of popes.
Richard Rice - Alexandria, Va.
Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents April 2002