| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters from our readers
Condomistic intercourse
Editor: Perhaps I ought to be writing to Msgr. Smith on this subject, but I thought that the readership should hear my comments. I take issue with the comments of Msgr. Smith and to those of Jesuit Fathers Fuller and Keenan on the subject of “condomistic intercourse” (HPR, June 2002).
Msgr. Smith answered Fuller and Keenan but not as I would. His last paragraph is certainly correct and well deserved by his adversaries.
The essential argument pertains to what both finis operis and finis operantis mean. The former means the end (goal) of the work (action), and the latter means the end (goal) of the worker (acting agent). In the case of intercourse using a condom, the end is certainly not protection from AIDS et al., but mere pleasure; the same can be said for the acting agent—purely pleasure.
Sex is made for procreation—making babies, more humans—for God! The pleasure is there as with any other healthy normal human drive, appetite, urge; if it hurts to perform, then we ought to consult a physician. Of course, the pleasure enhances the union of the couple and strengthens the bond of matrimony, a secondary motive for the pleasure.
Marriage has two equal purposes according to the teachings of the Magisterium, but sex has only one—procreation. Therefore, sex for pleasure only is nonsense. Fuller and Keenan are full of baloney, to say the least! To be a Catholic is difficult; to follow Jesus, the Christ, the Anointed One, is difficult—it is the narrow way. Let us remind Catholics of that fact and urge them on with prayer.
John C. Morris, M.D. - Orinda, Calif.
Catholic interpretation of 9/11
Editor: Thank you for your editorial “September 11 & the Bible (April 2002). It is a rare, exceptional and altogether correct Catholic interpretation of the causes of and remedies for 9/11, and stands in marked contrast to Fr. Smith’s comments on the attack in the same issue. Here, as in his 3/2002 column on President Bush’s stem cell decision, one senses a GOP version of Catholicism, a jaundiced view which is especially evident vis-à-vis the Democrats in many documents of the USCCB since Vatican II.
Patrick Andretta - Mineola, N.Y.
A new ecclesiology?
Editor: Occasionally I have come across assertions that since Vatican II we have a new ecclesiology. Indeed, one of my students who went on for the priesthood had hardly got to the seminary when he had the cheek to write and tell me that my ecclesiology was out of date. The thinking behind this, I fancy, stems from Karl Rahner.
Well, it seems obvious to me that we can no more change the Church’s ecclesiology than we can change her Christology—and surely her Christology is hedged about with too many anathemas to admit of change. You cannot have one DNA in a person’s head and another DNA in his body. And there is no way we can separate Christ from his Church.
If there are any HPR readers who reckon that we do have a new ecclesiology, I would much like to read their arguments in favor of it. You can contact me at: hstsj@catholic.org.
Hugh S. Thwaites, S.J. - London, England
Chance vs. Divine Creation
Editor: Reference is made to the letter by Dr. Sippo, “In Defense of Evolution” (HPR, May 2001).
Any discussion of Evolution should begin at the beginning of life, otherwise it is nonsense. Dr. Sippo did not do this.
In Human Destiny (1947), Lecomte du Nouy says the time required to form one simple molecule in a material volume equal to that of the Earth is about 10251 years. Yet the age of the Earth is said to be only about 109 years.
As for elementary molecules of living organisms, du Nouy tells us that an imaginary simplified protein molecule, in which the chemical elements are limited to just two species—whereas, there is always a minimum of four (C, H, N, O plus Cu, Fe, S, etc.)—the probability of forming by chance alone is 2 x 10-321. The volume of chemical elements necessary for this to happen would be a sphere with a radius of 1082 light years. This is incomparably greater than the radius of Einstein’s fanciful universe which is only 2 x 106 light years. (Any probability as small as 10—40 would be an impossibility.)
So it is scientifically impossible to account, not only for the simplest phenomena pertaining to life, but for the greatly less complex physical universe, without denying Probability Theory, which is known for certainty. Neither life nor the stars and planets can be explained by chance (evolution).
Dr. Sippo says: “I find no evidence for a supernatural design of the human body. Consequently I find no place in the science classroom for Magical Creation.” But since he ignores Probability Theory, he is left with nothing but the Magic of DNA. Perhaps there is, after all, something to be said for Divine Creation.
Michael Sotor - Encino, Calif.
Women and procreation
Editor: My thanks to HPR for publishing the letter of Velma McLelland in your May 2002 issue, in which Ms. McLelland responded to David Lang’s article, “The Gnostic Resurgence: Why Matter Matters.” In her letter, Ms. McLelland not only set the record straight biologically speaking, but she backed up her points with scripture references and sound theological reasoning.
The tunnel vision of David Lang and others who continue after so many years to reiterate the woman-as-empty-void concept of human procreation is truly amazing. I wonder if they could have slept through all of ninth grade biology; are so insecure in their manhood that they experience the reproductive power of women as threatening. What other reason could there be for the ludicrous verbal gyrations and contortions by which they strive to suppress awareness of the truth?
I suspect the answer lies in Ms. McLelland’s statement that such men find “the exclusion of women so desperately important that reason, matter and sacrament must be sacrificed to it.”
Suzanne Johnson - El Monte, Calif.
Private prisons
Editor: I write to you from prison in Colorado in regard to “A Prison Evangelist Answers the Bishops” by Russell L. Ford (August-September 2001). I have read Mr. Ford’s articles in various Catholic publications for some years and the time has come to add my voice to his. I agree with much of what he says, but not all.
Mr. Ford calls for a more active role for the Church in counseling victims of crime, helping them to deal with the damage done to their lives. He is absolutely right. No social service agency or secular organization can effectively address these issues because of the overriding spiritual and moral aspects involved, which state and non-religious organizations simply will not, and cannot touch. He is also dead-on in identifying offenders and their families as victims, along with the actual victim(s) and his or her family members. The term victimless crime is an oxymoron.
To address the fundamental causes of crime, and its destructive effects, Mr. Ford calls for a radical and powerful evangelization of authentic (meaning Catholic) Christian morality and the Gospel. Quite right! Some will ask how this can be done in a secular (quasi-multireligious) society. To this I respond: What better place? Catholics need to stop tip-toeing around, trying not to upset anyone, and begin assertively, publicly propounding a Catholic world view and morality: an authentic Christian understanding of the person, and a bold apologetic for the true faith of Jesus Christ. Having been whipped with the scornful lash of “Catholic Triumphalism,” the Church—especially in the USA —has become too timid, lest she offend anyone. She must charitably, but boldly, find her voice and, as a whole, fully sing out the truth, as only she knows it: not timidly or apologetically, but with the enthusiasm and joy that belongs by right to the true messenger of Almighty God. The Catholic Church is not a church only for Catholics; it is for the whole world—whether the world knows it or not.
Mr. Ford calls for eight points of action: national and diocesan offices for prison evangelization, ministry to victims, preventative evangelization of youth and those outside the Church, and a radical reform in education and homiletics to revitalize these instructional institutions and, where necessary, to bring them back to orthodox Catholicism. To all these ideas: Bravo! The Archdiocese of Denver has recently hired a full-time layman to head up an office to coordinate prison ministries in Northern Colorado. Other bishops are acting too; and we thank them, while encouraging them to do more. Mr. Ford calls for active Church involvement (not just individual lay persons, but the Church) in the rehabilitation of prisoners through really effective treatment programs in prisons; and establishment of transitional help for released inmates in the form of halfway houses, with job training and placement programs in a spirit-building environment.
To this I would add, private, Catholic penitentiaries. In Texas, Indiana and other places, private “non-denominational” Christian prisons are operated by religious organizations; and the states send inmates, who volunteer, to these facilities. When George W. Bush was Governor of Texas he supported this program, so we have our foot in the national door. These true penitentiaries, with an authentic Christian morality, a correct understanding of the human person and a mission of healing, not just housing, hold out much hope.
Private prisons can be self-supporting; indeed, secular, private prisons operate at a profit on the contract funds sent to them with each prisoner by the state. And some of the current religious, private prisons get state funds. But, even if government money was rejected, a prison could support itself by growing and raising much of its own food and earning income by providing salable goods and services in the same way religious communities have done for almost two thousand years.
My thanks go to Mr. Ford for the many good ideas and thoughts in his article. Thanks also to the USCCB for its attention to this matter. With 280 million people in the U.S., and more than two million of them in prison, nearly one percent of our population is in prison. Now is the time to act.
James Blum - Sterling, Colo.
Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents October 2002