________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Editor’s Note

Most readers will not receive their copy of this December issue of CWR until early in the month, when the deadline for the January issue will already be upon us. Consequently, in order to give readers ample opportunity to express themselves—even when the magazine reaches them a bit later than usual—we ordinarily print Letters to the Editor two months after the appearance of the article to which they are responding. Thus, for example, Letters in reaction to this December issue would normally appear in our February issue.

The early responses to our November issue have already made it clear that our cover story, “The Gay Priest Problem,” has touched off an unusually heavy and lively correspondence. However, since the letters are still coming in, and more can safely be expected, we are going to hold to our normal practice, and save all those letters for a special section in our February issue.

Freudian instruction?

Thank you for Father Pokorsky’s article “Saving the Roman Rite” (October 2000). May I be permitted, though, to make a complaint about the General Instructions for the Roman Missal (GIRM)? Apparently throughout, it uses the expression “the Eucharistic bread” to refer to the sacred host, the Body of Christ, after the Consecration.

We are in what Father Pokorsky properly calls “an era of disbelief in the Real Presence.” Surely then, to reinforce that belief, the GIRM should use the expression “sacred host” or even “Body of Christ.” The term “Eucharistic bread” savors of the Protestant.

Once the host is consecrated, it is no longer “bread;” it is the Body of Christ, and our Roman documents should say so without ambiguity or equivocation. Is there a Freudian slip here somewhere?

—Doris Martyr
Attadale, Western Australia

Charity vs. welfare

Let me make a point regarding your Essay, “How Catholic Charities Lost Its Soul” (October 2000). The difference between the welfare state and true Christian charity is the difference between force and freedom.

“Government is force,” said Churchill. The socialist role of the government in the welfare state follows the principles of forced economic redistribution; the role of the state is to force money from one citizen to another. This is not Christian charity.

True Christian charity is the free giving of one’s time, resources, or life to aid those less able to help themselves. True Christian charity accepts responsibility, personally and voluntarily, to help others in need. True Christian charity is a product of love and compassion for the Body of Christ. “Freely we have received; freely we give.” Those who turn to force to achieve their goals are often those least able to conceive of true charity in themselves or in others.

—Iain Foulds
Combermere, Ontario

Submission and harmony

I am surprised and saddened by the proposal of Ireland’s Catholic bishops to drop seven New Testament texts from the Lectionary (World Watch, October 2000). The bishops feel that the readings contribute to domestic violence. I have two observations to make after studying those readings. First, some of the readings refer to customs of dress in the earliest Christian centuries and common sense recognizes modern-day changes in custom.

Second, and more important, all reference to submission by the wife to the authority of her husband is always preceded or followed by the awesome responsibility of men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. In other words, as Christ laid down his life for the Church so too must men be willing to lay down their lives for their wives.

Men must be imitators of Christ; if they do so, submission by their wives would be an act of love, not a yoke upon their necks. God had a perfect plan. It is only when both men and women fail to live in harmony with God’s plan that evil takes over. Therefore the domestic violence in Ireland or any other place is not a result of what Scripture says, but a result of not living the message in Scripture to love one another.

—Shereen Doughty
Snohomish, Washington

Protestant replicas

It seems a bit ironic that elements of the American hierarchy are willing to spend millions of scarce dollars morphing Roman Catholic cathedrals into muted Protestant replicas (“Renovating or Ruining the Cathedrals?” October 2000). This happens at a time when from a historic perspective the Protestant Reformation appears to have entered into a terminal stage, characterized by near-empty churches throughout Western Europe, fierce theological disputes, and a steady decline in attendance here in the United States. Why one would want to mimic a religious movement that has spun off 25,000 different denominations—that are now approaching an endgame—is beyond me.

My only advice to the parishioners of these cathedrals is to organize and withhold financial contributions until the misguided reconfigurations are halted.

—Michael Kranyak
Clifton, New Jersey

Defending the cathedral

Generally speaking, I agree with your author’s views on the problems arising from several cathedral renovation projects around the country. However, as a member of St. James Cathedral parish in Seattle I must take issue with the criticism of the 1994 renovation of the cathedral and specifically the quote from a certain Catherine Ross of Bellevue, Washington. I have no idea who she is or what her credentials are to make the comments she did, but as a St. James parishioner for the past five years I can personally attest that her remarks about the “protestantizing” of the interior are way off base—in fact, incomprehensible.

Just how “Reformation-era Protestant” can a church look that has a large processional crucifix placed near the stone altar; a beautiful Mary chapel adorned with a very fine medieval Madonna-and-child statue from Germany and dozens of lighted tapers lining the walls; a beautiful statue of Mary on one transept wall facing a large statue of Christ on the opposite wall; several statues of saints lining the walls of the nave with vigil lights; and a very handsome Blessed Sacrament chapel and tabernacle within sight of the nave and transepts? Furthermore, we have one of the country’s best choirs, beautiful and dignified liturgies, and music taken from 15 centuries of Catholic musical heritage. Every Sunday in October and May the choir sings one of the classic Ave Marias at the end of the 10 am Mass. Just how Protestant does that sound? In fact, the cathedral parish has proven a great attraction to many young people, including non-Catholics. We average 40-50 adult converts a year plus 15-20 converts among children.

—Arnold J. Conrad
Seattle, Washington

Not only cathedrals

When I first received the October issue of CWR, I spent several confused moments trying to discern what strange sort of motif your graphic artist had chosen for the cover. Finally I realized that it was not a graphic design, but a photo taken at the World Youth Day celebration. The photo shows the Pope holding hands with several young people, underneath what I eventually recognized as a strange, stylized depiction of the crucified (or is it resurrected?) Christ.

Later, when I had time to read the whole magazine, I found myself in agreement with Michael Rose when he argued that our cathedrals should not be “renovated” so that they conform to the distorted sensibilities of our era. Then I flipped back to the cover, and realized that cathedrals are not the only places where the modernists do their artistic damage.

Someone chose that representation of Christ to be displayed so prominently at World Youth Day. Maybe some people find it beautiful; I know that my tastes are not infallible. But it would be a very good thing if World Youth Day helped make young Catholics acquainted with their religious and cultural heritage. Whatever you can say about the artwork displayed on your cover, it was not representative of the Catholic tradition.

—Karen P. Andersen
Port Huron, Michigan

Defending Catholic Charities

I am deeply saddened that Catholic World Report chose to reprint the Brian Anderson attack on Catholic Charities (“How Catholic Charities Lost Its Soul,” October 2000) from the City Journal. As I indicated in my letter to that journal’s editor, Anderson visited only 2 of 1,400 locally governed Catholic Charities agencies in the United States, guided by more than 8,000 local board members and responsible to local bishops. Each is unique and inspiring in many ways.

The author’s visit to a few sites of a single agency was only a thinly veiled subterfuge. Anderson’s attack was really an effort to challenge public policy positions taken by Catholic Charities USA, which I head. When I responded that the positions that we took were in keeping with Catholic social teaching and consistent with those of the US bishops, Anderson responded that the bishops were “with notable exceptions, a reflexively left-wing group for decades now.”

Republishing Anderson’s article spreads and multiplies the damage to more than 300,000 people (52,000 staff and 280,000 volunteers) who, in the name of the Church, daily carry the burden of helping Christ among 8 million of the poor, afflicted, pregnant, immigrant, disabled, and elderly who come to us for help each year. Your action only adds to their daily suffering with the least among us.

—Fred Kammer, SJ
Washington, DC

There was nothing “thinly veiled” about Brian Anderson’s Essay; he offered a broad, forthright critique of the fundamental policy decisions adopted by Catholic Charities. If there is any “subterfuge” here, it lies in Father Kammer’s effort to create the misleading impression that this well documented critique of his organization and its public activities was based only on visits to a few individual agencies. Are the current policies of Catholic Charities the only ones compatible with Catholic social teaching? Is it possible that the agency’s political efforts are actually aggravating the problems of the poor? These were the serious questions raised in Anderson’s Essay. It is regrettable that, rather than responding to such reasoned criticism, Father Kammer chooses to mischaracterize the nature of Anderson’s article and the evidence he presents. —The Editor

Historical correction

I enjoy your magazine and read every issue from cover to cover. Please let me point out a small error in your current (October) issue. An item in “World Watch” reads in part: “Pius IX was a controversial pontiff because of his political role when the Italian republic was formed.” I think you mean “when the kingdom of Italy was formed.” The Italian republic was not formed until after World War II.

—Kevin J. Kelly
Landing, New Jersey

Back to Catholic World Report - December 2000 - Table of Contents

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page