_____Letters__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

Reproaching the reproacher

The tone of Diogenes’ language in the “Last Word” column of your February issue (“Holding Bishops Accountable”), as he reproaches the American hierarchy, makes it hard to hear that we are all united in the one Body of Christ. Jesus did not found his Church on the model of an American “ordinary business corporation.” Neither was his reaction to the failures of his twelve apostles in regard to his teaching modeled after that of the Boston Globe.

Perhaps the words of the Eternal Father to the sainted Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Siena, who knew more deeply about Church abuse than most and felt passionately about it, need to be heard again. In her published Dialogue (“The Mystical Body of Holy Church,” 116) the Eternal Father tells her:

No one has excuse to say, “I am doing no harm . . . I am simply acting against the sins of evil pastors.” . . . To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me. For I have said and I say it again: No one is to touch my christs. It is my right to punish them, and no one else’s.

Set next to Diogenes’ words, the Gospels are clear about how deeply Jesus felt about children and clear too about the needed depth of our prayer. “Father, forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” The Blood of Jesus spilled in the fire of charity exceeds our deepest concept of power and remedy. I trust Diogenes believes this. I only wish he had said it.

—Father Luke Tancrell, OP - Columbus, Ohio

Diogenes replies: I wholeheartedly agree that the best response to this problem—and to any other problem—is prayer. As for the public response to the bishops’ action (or lack of action), I would happily be guided by the example of St. Catherine, who was far from silent in the face of episcopal misconduct. Maybe it bears mention that the correction of sinners is not a sign of disunity, nor a lack of charity. (In fact I hope and pray that our bishops come to that realization.) If other readers drew the inference that I wish for Church leaders to take their cues from the Boston Globe, or from the model of American corporate management, then I failed to convey my thoughts accurately. The Church has a much higher mission, and bishops should hold themselves to a much higher standard.

Another episcopal lapse

Your article on “Holding Bishops Accountable” for clerical pedophilia lists several other areas of their failure to deal with pressing problems. Not mentioned is probably their greatest failure: their silence and inaction about Hollywood and the media’s growing promotion of sexual immorality.

Movies, television, and magazines and novels are producing an immoral, sex-drenched culture which is an occasion of sin for young and old, while our bishops sit idly by, too timid or too unperceptive to do anything about it.

In view of the disastrous results of the perverse climate, such as illegitimacy (unmarried teenage pregnancy has doubled since 1960), abortion (40 percent of those teen pregnancies are aborted), divorce (increased almost 200 percent), acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as moral, and so on, the bishops’ failure to face up to this problem and lead Catholic people—almost a quarter of the nation—to combat and correct it must be recognized as the great pastoral scandal of our times. Of course, vocations to the priesthood and religious life can hardly flourish in such an immoral climate, and bishops need to look for no other cause.

Catholics must work and pray that our leaders, the bishops, make Christ their model and measure up to their grave responsibilities.

—Father Jerome F. Treacy, SJ - Clarkston, Michigan

The same situation abroad

When the February 2002 issue of Catholic World Report arrived, I was dealing with several urgent requests for help on problems of children’s sex education, religious textbooks, and other issues, and so I didn’t read it right away. But soon I started getting calls from various parts of England and Wales asking if I had read the back page of CWR. When I eventually read Diogenes’ article, I understood why everyone was so excited.

Although he was writing about America, Diogenes described exactly the problem we have with our bishops in this country. Here too, bishops who have failed to deal properly with pedophile priests also refuse to listen to worried parents’ concerns about explicit sex education, or to replace religious textbooks which teach a travesty of the faith.

Sadly, in this country we are even worse off than you are in America, because here there is not one diocesan bishop who insists the children in his care are taught the faith in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or that his schools follow the guidance given by the Vatican on sex education. So although now our secular media have exposed the scandal of bishops and pedophile priests, and our hierarchy have had to issue the Nolan Report, giving a code of practice to protect children, no one is doing anything to protect them from damaging and unsuitable sex education or from seriously flawed catechesis.

As Diogenes says, Rome urgently needs to re-examine the appointment procedure for bishops, and until they start getting it right, it seems no one can protect our children.

—Daphne McLeod, Chairman, Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice - Surrey, Great Britain

Demand episcopal action

I have a problem: The news every month in CWR is generally so distressing that I have to fight very hard not to lose my cheerfulness and optimism.

A wise teacher once told me that the condition of society is a reflection of the condition of the Church. And what is the condition of the Church? Look first at our bishops, in general. Can anyone any longer make excuses for their negligence, their lack of leadership? If they will not lead, it is overdue that they step aside and let someone take their place. Boston’s agony is not an isolated instance. We should wake up! It is all over the place, and I have no doubt the revelations of clerical deviancy will spread. While the sexual deviates (homosexuals, pedophiles, fornicators, and who knows what else) play their games, idiot liturgists get their bishops to destroy cathedrals and the patrimony of the people, and ask us for huge sums of money to do it. The bishops keep feminizing and watering down the language of our worship, the permanence of our marriages, the allegiance of the people to the Pope and the universal Church. Worst of all they oversee a system of religious instruction, marriage preparation, seminary training, university governance, and public discourse that puts the future very much in doubt.

As to politicians and academics who refuse to submit their puffed-up egos and careers to the absolutely clear teaching of the Church and the unequivocal consequences, why can’t one of our heroic cardinals simply state that any persons who deny the teaching of the Church on abortion have excommunicated themselves, and such persons cannot receive the Eucharist? The same is true of those who deny the unambiguous teaching on contraception, in vitro fertilization, and so on.

In the history of the Church there have been instances when the lay people rose up to demand action. There has also been at least one instance when nearly all of the bishops were, objectively speaking, heretics. Perhaps the Arians are back with a new twist and a vengeance. While the bishops refuse to rock boats and while they pander to those who are “dissidents,” for fear that they will leave (when in fact they have already left), our civilization loses more and more of its link to its origin, and unfettered “freedom” is substituted for whatever was true and abiding in our so-called “American dream.”

Let me get it off my chest: Effete bishops: lead or get out of the way. We no longer want the type of service you have been giving us. Knock heads together; dump the social deviates; straighten out your seminaries; take hold of your marriage courts; demand obedience to liturgical rubrics; take away the tabernacles and the Catholic designation from the schools that persist in rebellion; stop moving the furniture around and destroying our cultural heritage; help your people with the uncompromised teaching of the Church on faith and morals, and the implications of dissent. Wake up, do your job—or go, for heaven’s sake.

—Bernard M. Collins - Frederick, Maryland

Community role in choosing bishops?

Diogenes’ article on bishops’ accountability maintains that “Rome needs to look seriously at the whole episcopal selection process.” The comment is justified in the context of the treatment of clerical pedophilia, but raises broader questions connected with the preparation and selection of new bishops. The broadest question concerns the extent to which a diocese should be implicated as a whole in the choice of the person who as shepherd, father, and leader of his people should presumably be known and esteemed by them. This is obviously impossible if a bishop is presented to a diocese from outside, as is so often the case.

Why is it necessary, in ordinary circumstances, to choose someone unknown to the diocese as its new bishop? Obviously, there will be extraordinary occasions when this will be required. Equally obviously, the appointment of a new bishop will rest with those who have the responsibility of governing the Church and of ordaining men to the post. But is there any reason why, in the case of normal succession, the consultative voice of diocesan priests, consecrated persons, and lay people of the diocese should not play a vital part in the selection? The history of the Church shows that community involvement in the selection of successors to the apostles was a marked feature of ecclesial life.

The New Testament supplies evidence of the involvement of the community in the choice of a successor to Judas, just as later the community was actively engaged in the choice of deacons: “men of good repute, full of the spirit and of wisdom” who were then appointed by the apostles. Even the rules governing the community’s choice were clearly laid down (cf. 1 Tim 3: 1-10).

The Church followed this apostolic practice for well over a thousand years. It was a key principle, for example, in Gregory VII’s struggle for the Church’s freedom in the face of temporal interference in the choice of bishops. And in our day, when calls have been made for all the faithful to accept their own responsibility in the Church, it is difficult to see how the informed voice of local clergy and laity can remain unheard in the choice of their own bishop. There are clearly dangers in this process, but they cannot compare in the long and short run with those arising from the presence of what Diogenes calls “carefully cultivated candidates.”

—Denis Cleary - Durham, United Kingdom

Unwarranted criticism

I appreciated your coverage of Gregg Cunningham’s “Choice” campaign (“In Your Face!” February 2002), but consider his criticism of the US bishops misplaced.

I have been utilizing Cunningham’s excellent pro-life resources since 1996, and have also extensively studied the bishops’ statements on abortion and respect life issues over the last 30 years.

The pro-life movement has a range of supporters whose common goal is to save the lives of the unborn and foster respect for all life. In a sense, both Cunningham’s “in your face” approach and the bishops more subtle approach ultimately complement each other in the overall context of the pro-life movement. While many people may be put off by Cunningham’s approach, these same people may be more receptive to the bishops’ more pastoral approach. At the same time, there is a value in exposing the violent reality of abortion and the pro-choice mentality, and the shock value of pictures may be the only way to communicate this reality to the general public in a practical and convincing way.

Clearly, the bishops do not labor “under the misconception that to be effective you have to be liked,” as Cunningham contends. This is evident from the ongoing public criticism they receive from groups like “Catholics” for a Free Choice and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League whenever they courageously speak out on respect life issues, particularly abortion. Since abortion was legalized in 1973, no other group has been more articulate and consistent in their condemnation of abortion than the US bishops and the Catholic Church in general.

St. Francis of Assisi and St. Ignatius of Loyola had different approaches to spreading the same Gospel message. Similarly, those who share the same passion for spreading the Gospel of Life can utilize a variety of approaches in order to most effectively communicate the truth about abortion and ultimately end the killing of so many innocent lives.

—Mark H. Clarke, CMF - San Antonio, Texas

The US bishops have issued many fine statements on abortion and the sanctity of life, and their public posture has been consistent enough to ensure that they are not “liked” by the lobbyists of the abortion industry. But two legitimate questions remain. First, have the bishops and their representatives shown any indication that they encourage—or even tolerate—more aggressive approaches? Second, beyond issuing statements, what have the bishops done in terms of disciplinary action regarding prominent Catholics who support abortion? The following letter addresses that latter question.  —The Editor

Precedent for excommunication

The article by Brian O’Neel on excommunicating Catholic politicians who advocate abortion (“Just Punishment,” February 2002) failed to note that this type of Church action has ample precedent in our republic’s history. In the early 1960s a courageous Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated a layman, Leander Perez, who advocated segregation in Catholic schools. Perez folded, as did other politicians thinking in the same vein, and the moral issue of justice in school integration was upheld.

Contemporary bishops have failed to bell the cat and so it is epidemic that major Catholic politicians, mostly venal, have succumbed to the easy way out, supporting abortion.

It’s long overdue that these politicians be excommunicated. It is practically impossible for an orthodox Catholic to run for office because there’s another Catholic in the wings acceptable to his colleagues and their abortion agenda.

The article got lost in legalisms. The issue is clear; there in not a duel of catechisms in the Church, and politicians do not have the right to develop an alternative magisterium. Sadly the same issue exists in our educational institutions, and alternative magisteria have developed there also.

The issue is across the board: politics, education, liturgy, or priestly pedophilia. Are bishops going to lead the flock, or will lay Catholics continue to suffer with these serious challenges to their faith?

—Edward J. FitzPatrick- Blauvelt, New York

Selective orthodoxy?

I read with great interest the article by Brian O’Neel concerning sanctions such as excommunication or denial of the Eucharist for Catholic politicians who are publicly “pro-choice” in their views on legalized abortion. I have observed this growing trend over the past several years, of using the abortion issue to prevail upon Catholic voters to reject mainly Democratic liberals in favor of generally Republican conservative candidates. The article summed up with a quote from David Carlin suggesting “the problem isn’t Catholic politicians; it’s the Catholic voters.” Truthfully, it really is not that simple, and it is not accurate to blame the voters.

The reason that Catholics often vote for “pro-choice” candidates is that in addition to abortion, there are other political, social, and economic issues of great importance to them. Catholic voters are very concerned about social and racial injustice, the plight of the poor and disadvantaged, the shameful maldistribution of wealth and opportunities, the lack of universal health care for all Americans, and the protection of the rights and dignity of workers taking precedence over corporate profiteering and abuse.

Today I read that the Catholic and conservative US Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, publicly proposed that Roman Catholic judges who believe capital punishment is wrong should resign. He is quoted as saying, “in my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty is immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted laws and sabotaging the death penalty.” Justice Scalia holds this public opinion despite the Pope’s adamant opposition to capital punishment (Evangelium Vitae, 56). Killing of another human being, be it abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment, cannot be justified.

There appears to be more than a little hypocrisy involved here. Should we advocate excommunication for Justice Scalia, or deny him the Eucharist because his views on capital punishment are inconsistent with the current Church position? Or are these sanctions reserved only for “pro-choice” liberals? The problem is that in our bipartisan political system neither party ideology has evolved to embody all of the important Catholic values. Every vote turns out to be a compromise, and to use a single-issue “litmus test” to decide a particular vote invariably leads to choosing “the lesser of evils.” As Catholics we must search for, and promote candidates who truly represent Catholic values, rather than accept cynical partisan labels.

—Kurt J. Evans - Irving, Texas

There are several important points at issue here.

1. Voting does often entail compromises. But it is wrong to compromise on matters of absolute principle. (Sometimes, rather than choose the “lesser of evils,” the principled voter may find it necessary to abstain.) Abortion is a matter of absolute principle. It is nonsensical to suggest that a candidate’s “enlightened” view on health care (for all except the unborn) could outweigh the importance of his willingness to slaughter human beings.

2. Most political debates involve prudential judgments, on which good people might differ. We might agree to fight poverty and racial injustice, but disagree regarding to the best ways to do so. Since these are not disagreements on moral principle, Catholics are free to follow their own judgments. Only rarely does the Church appropriately step into the political fray to insist on a moral principle, such as the need to protect innocent human life.

3. The Church’s teaching on abortion is absolute, clear, and unchanging. The teaching on capital punishment is a very different matter. Pope John Paul himself clearly opposes the use of the death penalty under current circumstances, but he has never disputed the established teaching of the Catholic Church that the state has the right, in principle, to impose capital punishment. The Catechism of the Catholic Church leaves room (admittedly, not much room) for Catholics who still uphold that option.

4. And notice that Justice Scalia urges jurists to resign if they cannot in good conscience uphold established laws. He does not advocate judicial activism to extend the scope of capital punishment, nor does he encourage Catholic judges to flout Church teachings. In that respect too, his public stance is markedly different from that of politicians who, in open defiance of Church teaching, use their power to expand public access to legal abortion.

5. Still it is curious that Justice Scalia, who believes that judges should resign if they cannot enforce laws that they consider immoral, does not himself resign from a Court that has upheld the legality of abortion.  — The Editor

A priest’s duty

To vote for legislation which supports abortion is a grave sin because it concurs in the evil will of those who take the lives of innocent human beings. Voting for such legislation, moreover, is manifest, and the Catholic legislators who do so—despite the clear teaching of the Church—are obstinate in their sin. Since #915 of the Code of Canon Law imposes on the priest the obligation of not giving Communion to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin,” allowing such high-profile Senators as Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Patrick Leahy to receive the Eucharist is a clear violation of the priest’s sacred duty. These senators must first publicly repudiate their approval of abortion before they can be admitted to the sacred banquet.

—Father James Buckley, FSSP - Denton, Nebraska

Outdated scholarship

or a scholar who wrote on “The Moral Status of the Early Embryo” in Theological Studies, Carol (formerly Sister Carol) Tauer (“The Mind of a Catholic Moralist,” February 2002) seems astonishingly innocent of the developments in embryology over the past five centuries. Along with St. Augustine, she distinguishes between embryo inanimatus, not yet endowed with a soul (i.e. “quickened”) and later embryo animatus, having a soul.

She quotes Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that a “seed”—whether from a sheep, a man, or simply a grain of wheat—is merely a dead “thing” when it is planted. It later becomes live when the rain, a miracle from God, or some other cause “infuses” life (that is, a soul) into it and it begins to grow.

But this is 2002. Many people, even those lacking Carol Tauer’s education, no longer believe that before “quickening” the seed is simply an inanimate object, later to be brought to life. In 1656 Zacharias Janssen invented the microscope. In 1759 Kaspar Wolff proved that all organs arise from live, undifferentiated embryonic cells.

Can Tauer really be unaware of the remarkable discoveries in embryology in the 20th century? Perhaps her problem is to have read Justice Blackmun’s Roe v. Wade decision. In this decision Blackmun mentioned “quickening” 23 times. It is interesting that with Roe v. Wade the US Supreme Court, always so careful to protect the nation from “an establishment of religion,” in fact established ancient paganism as the legal foundation for current American law on abortion.

But Tauer is not entirely to blame. It’s time for the Church also to bring her vocabulary into the 21st century. There is no excuse for continuing to use vocabulary based on Aristotle’s primitive explanation of “quickening.” We should, however, continue to use Aristotle’s definition of the “soul” as the “life principle” of the body. This terminology was also accepted by Ss. Augustine and Aquinas.

Since we have life we have souls—as do animals, insects, and flowers. And that life—that is, the soul—is present from conception. The human zygote, the one-celled fertilized egg is alive; it has a soul. At the moment that the sperm and the egg of human persons unite, God and the couple co-create a living being, body and soul: a human person. At the moment of union, God endows the spiritual nature of this person, the life principle, with the gift of immortality. Therefore from the moment of conception every person will live forever, whether his body is destroyed as an embryo or after a long life on earth.

It is most important that we stop separating “person” and “soul,” as though a soul is something a person “has.” We don’t “have” souls; what we “have” is a body. Upon death we continue into our eternal life. Our body is buried and returns to dust.

—Joseph Collison, Director, Pro-Life Office - Diocese of Norwich - Norwich, Connecticut