Letters

As president of William H. Sadlier, Inc., publisher of catechetical texts for children and young people ages 3 through 17, I read with great interest the essay "Teaching a Different Faith" by Rev. Msgr. Michael J. Wren and Kenneth D. Whitehead in the October 1997 issue of Catholic World Report.

We have voluntarily submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee to Oversee the Use of the Catechism our catechetical program Coming to Faith, grades K-6 for Catholic schools and for parish schools of religion, and our brand new program for adolescents Faith and Witness. In all we have submitted more than 9,000 pages to the Ad Hoc Committee and all of these programs have been found to be in conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We are very proud of this achievement. We have found the bishops on the Ad Hoc Committee to be very affirming and helpful throughout the review process and we are grateful for their commendation of our catechetical publishing efforts.

My brother Frank Sadlier Dinger, chairman of the board, and I have accordingly made it a policy that we will not continue to sell any previously published Coming to Faith program texts or guides that do not fulfill the requirements of the Ad Hoc Committee. This decision was made even though it meant considerable financial sacrifice on our part.

We wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion of Msgr. Wrenn and Mr. Whitehead that all catechetical programs should be reviewed by the Committee. We have welcomed the bishops' involvement with us and with our catechetical work and certainly would hope that those publishers who have not yet undergone the voluntary submission of their textbooks to the Ad Hoc Committee also will do so; we trust they will find the process to be rewarding for them and reassuring to Catholic families everywhere that their children are being taught the authentic Catholic faith.

William Sadlier Dinger

President, William H. Sadlier, Inc.

New York, New York

How great it was to read the essay, "Teaching a Different Faith." In it, the problems of modern religious education were laid explicitly on the line. I have sent copies of the article to two of my sisters: one who was CCD director in her parish, and the other, a nun, who has absorbed the thinking of the "new" theologians.

After Vatican II, when our children were in school, my husband and I were on a committee to evaluate religion books. The committee's conclusion was that most series had taken a wrong turn. Our concerns were overruled and the "modern" books were hailed as more relevant to youth in the cultural setting at that time.

Now that the bishops' report has underscored the deficiencies in catechetical texts, it seems that the concerns of our committee were well founded. My only question is: why did it take the bishops so long to recognize the problem and to start to correct it?

Thank you for publishing the essay on this long-overdue report. I wish it would be required reading for every pastor and CCD director.

Frances E. Laurent

Westmoreland, New Hampshire

Msgr. Wrenn and Mr. Whitehead are to be congratulated on their painstaking analysis of the current state of catechetics in the United States. As non-American readers of CWR will be acutely aware, this problem is widespread throughout the English-speaking world.

But why do the authors not follow their analysis to its logical conclusion? So, the responsibility for all the doctrinal deficiencies in catechetics rests with the "current catechetical establishment" and not with our bishops? Really? Why the hesitancy in laying the blame where it is rightly due? In the authors' own words, "anyone trained in the authentic Catholic faith, if he bothered to examine these religious texts, ...could have correctly deduced that they indeed represented a variant version of the faith."

So we can infer from this essay that our bishops are: not part of the catechetical establishment; not responsible for the actions of their own bureaucracies; not bothering to examine these texts; not trained in the authentic Catholic faith; or not possessed of "the will nor the courage" to insist on authentic texts. This last, I suspect, is closest to the truth: they do not have the will. Why not? If it is not lack of courage it can only be--let us not dissemble--acceptance of the variant version of the faith.

As for the suggestion that criticism has at times been "a bit intemperate," Catholic parents have every right to be angry when they discover that the "Catholic" schools to which they have entrusted their children (as exhorted by the Church) have undermined the very faith for which they were sent.

What is surprising is that parents have not been more "intemperate" considering that the eternal welfare of their children is being jeopardized. However, as I can vouch, parents who dare to raise these issues in a public forum are likely to find that the reaction from the local ordinary is strong support of his educational bureaucracy, a glowing report of how much better "Catholic" schools are than state schools, followed by a scathing attack on the integrity and motives of the parents concerned.

The unkindest cut is for parents to be told that the catechesis of their children is their responsibility not that of "Catholic" schools. And this, after many such parents are themselves understandably ignorant of the faith, being recent victims of the "educational bureaucracy!" Is it any wonder that more and more parents are resorting to home schooling?

David V. Selby

Blenheim

New Zealand

Once again, CWR is to be congratulated not only for disseminating important news and information concerning Catholic life but also for highlighting some of the fundamental problems which need to be addressed. The excellent and timely essay on catechetical texts by Msgr. Michael Wrenn and Kenneth Whitehead is an important contribution in the world-wide debate on the quality and content of Catholic catechesis.

Apart from the erroneous and misleading catechetical material being produced, the essay highlighted the world-wide problem of many Catholics not really knowing their faith, not being able to give the reason for the hope they have within them. In the field of ecumenical activity, this lack of knowledge has had a serious effect on the progress of the search for visible Church unity. There is clear evidence from the "Churches Together in England" ecumenical initiative, that despite the progress being made at the "experts" level, the majority of Catholics at the local (parish) level do not have the desire to work for Christian unity. This lack of desire is seen as a direct result of their own lack of knowledge of the unifying character of the Christian faith. This indifference to the need for working and praying for visible Church unity is born out of lack of understanding of and commitment to the essential truths of the Christian faith. It is a sobering fact which is not only a major challenge to the ecumenical movement but to those responsible for the catechetical programs in dioceses and parishes.

On the 12th of May 1997, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, at a lecture given at the University of Glamorgan, Wales, commented on this serious problem: "All the churches have to struggle with indifference or complacency among their members in respect of their ecumenical commitment... Many of those who lack enthusiasm for the ecumenical cause do so simply because this has not been part of their Christian formation."

In the following month, the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales issued a statement on the response of the Catholics to the "Called to Be One" ecumenical initiative. In this document they highlighted this lack of understanding which the Catholic participants themselves identified as a major stumbling block. "However," they continued, "the 'Called to be One' process has also shown that many ecumenically active Catholics feel they have insufficient depth of understanding of ecumenical theological questions. They spoke of lacking knowledge or confidence to explain Catholic teaching to other Christians. 'Called to be One' has underlined for us the urgent need for adult education about Catholic teaching and about ecumenical questions."

The effects of non-existent, erroneous, and inadequate catechesis are far reaching for the evangelizing mission of the Church, for "In the final analysis, catechesis is necessary both for the maturation of the faith of Christians and for their witness in the world," wrote John Paul II in Catechesi Tradendae. What kind of witnesses to Christ are we if we are not fed with the authentic truths of God's revelation of himself in the person and works of his son?

It is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, born out of the great council of Vatican II, which, in providing a synthesis of Catholic doctrine, is the authentic source for catechesis, a point of reference for all other local catechisms--as Pope John Paul put it, "a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." The reason for our hope is there. The duty of our bishops, priests, and catechists is clear, in making sure that all Catholics are given the opportunity to come to know those truths and become true disciples of Christ.

Brian E. Pointer

Chichester, West Sussex

England

In reference to your essay, "Teaching a Different Faith," it is really frightening to see what is available as teaching aids from producers of religious texts.

This past summer I volunteered to teach a high-school level CCD class ,as I was concerned about the direction in which the Church seemed to be drifting. I started by calling the directors of religious education in the area and asked what they were using, and could find nothing better than what was already in use. I then went to our diocese's department of Catholic education came home with an armload of catalogs from various printers of catechetical texts, and found upon reading them that, as your essay reported, there was an excessive emphasis on personal identity and self respect, as if these were the primary "sources" of morality. The texts seemed to be all about selfism--about "me," with nothing about "we."

I finally called an area church which has Latin Masses, thinking they probably would have something I could use. They gave me the name of a youth magazine they were using and I ordered it, sight unseen. When it arrived it didn't take long to find out that it was just more of the same. There wasn't time to find something else so I tried and on the first night the comments were, "we don't like it;" "it doesn't say anything."

We are now using, the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Tour of the Summa, St. Augustine, The Catholic Answers Book, and interesting stories in the news. The students are also working on a class project of reviewing the youth magazine, saying what they don't like about it, and making recommendations on how to "fix it." When finished, the findings will be sent to the publishers with their comments.

Parents expect their children to receive a proper religious education,not some New Age mush, when they send them to religious schools. For the most part they haven't any idea what those teachers are teaching.

Jerome Kavaney

Fairchild, Wisconsin

Unfortunately in your October 1997 {"Letters") issue you got the facts wrong again.

Drummond never denied, and indeed wrote to you, that he knew of Andrew Walter's discussions with an attorney who wrote to St. Mary's Seminary seeking a refund of Walter's tuition. Through his attorney, Walter made the astonishing claim that he had been diagnoses with bestiality (sexual attraction to animals) and necrophilia (sexual attraction to dead bodies). We did not inquire about Walter's possible interest in children, sheep, or corpses. In fact, Drummond told your "reporter" that he would welcome a lawsuit so that Walter could make his incredible statements under oath. In a deposition, Walter would have felt more salt in his wounds than he ever thought possible. Shrewdly, he did not put himself in a position where he would actually have to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. It remains a fact that no attorney has ever contacted Drummond or The New Life Center on behalf of Walter or any other seminarian.

In our discussion this spring with the licensing authorities, neither Andrew Walter nor his evaluation report was ever brought up. You have a copy of the board's letter of determination reaffirming the license-exempt status of the New Life Center. You will not find any reference to or statement of findings about Andrew Walter or his report in that letter. Your erroneous assertion that "the professional licensing board in Virginia is now investigating that report" was a surprise to us and denied by the board.

As an employee of a non-profit organization, Drummond is exempt from licensure in Virginia. By statute, notwithstanding your erroneous assertion to the contrary, Drummond is free to do evaluations in the state as long as he seeks peer review from a Virginia psychologist; something any competent professional does routinely. The New Life Center employees a consultant duly licensed in Virginia for that purpose. All requirements of the licensing statutes are met.

In expressing your contempt for The New Life Center, would you be kind enough to retort with opinion, or the more likely innuendo, so that we do not have to write again to correct misstatement of fact.

Thomas B. Drummond

President, The New Life Center

The Plains, Virginia

Our contempt for the New Life Center--which grows with each new letter from Dr. Drummond--is prompted in large part by the persistence with which the organization's president first makes misleading statements, and then criticizes others--inaccurately--for misstating the facts. To take only the most obvious example, in the letter published in our October issue Drummond wrote: "No lawyer has ever contacted Drummond on Andrew Walter's behalf." That statement may be technically true, and we did not dispute it. But since any normal reader would quite naturally infer that Drummond was unaware of a lawyer's complaint--since indeed it it difficult to understand why anyone who write such a sentence except in order to encourage that inference--we pointed out that Drummond had acknowledged that he knew Andrew Walter had contacted a lawyer Our response was entirely true to the facts. Our original story, "Salt for their Wounds" (February 1997) was also accurate, and once again we stand by our original reporting. - The Editor

"Is Anyone Annulment Proof?" (Last Word, October 1997) hit the nail right on the head. Let's hope and pray that the bishops will read it and start recognizing that they opened Pandora's Box.

In ancient Israel, as in other countries in the days of Moses, the experience of marriage did not mirror the pattern of peaceful harmony; the situation was probably no different from what we are encountering today in the United States. Because of the tragic consequences of human sinfulness and the disruption of tranquility, the law of Moses permitted divorce and remarriage, even though the prophet bewailed men's infidelity and declared that God hates divorce. Now my archdiocese has a note in our parish bulletin urging anyone who is interested in an annulment to contact the office for accommodations.

This trend toward easy divorce started among the celebrities in Hollywood and those in similar notorious positions throughout the United States. On the civil level now, we have no-fault divorce: a disaster. On a de facto basis our Church officials have accepted the trend to reinstate what Christ abolished.

Even good orthodox Catholics are questioning the judgement of our bishops in the United States. Our people have accepted contraception, now annulment. What's next? Are we Catholics counter-cultural?

Joseph Jackson

Murray Hill, New Jersey

I was intrigued to note that four of the five letters you printed from England in your October edition were concerned with homosexual issues.

In point of fact things have changed considerably over here on the homosexual front since last July. At the annual general meeting of Quest--the oldest, and probably largest, of United Kingdom's Catholic homosexual groups--there was an uproar when a resolution was advanced to the effect that in the future the group would uphold Catholic teaching. The resolution was withdrawn without a vote being taken, and the chairman and secretary felt obliged to resign. The Archbishop of Birmingham, who spoke at the close of the event, refused to allow the Catholic press to have a copy of his remarks.

During the same month, the founder and chairman of "Catholic AIDS Link" withdrew from that organization after calls from its membership that it participate in the London Gay Pride Celebrations.

Those who resigned from "Quest" and "Catholic AIDS Link" did not do so because they accept the Church's teaching on homosexuality, but because they do not want to be seen as being opposed to it. Now that what they saw as the acceptable facade of homosexuality has been rejected by these two organizations, it is going to be most interesting to see our bishops' reaction.

J. Joseph Warner

London, England

In the October issue, Léonie Caldecott speaks of St. Thérèse as having "harrowed hell." Surely this comes of inaccurate memory of a traditional phrase. It was Christ who harrowed hell when his soul descended to release the souls of the just and lead them to heaven. The verb is a form of "harry"--the metaphor is that of a border raid from which the raider returns with spoils. It is to be feared that many Catholics nowadays find not just the phrase but the dogma no longer familiar. Indeed, a false dogma goes around that after death Chrit's sould endured the pains of hell. But the pains of the damned are pains of a frustrated evil will, and Christ's will never was evil.

Peter Lynch

Cambridge, England

I am a little bit confused concerning your report on Nepal ("World Watch," October 1997). You mentioned that the US Agency for International Development is base for some operation which is carried out by the Adventist Development and Relief Agency. Are the Adventists you refer to Seventh-Day Adventists? Seventh-Day Adventists don't preach Christianity, for they are not a Christian religion. And if they are entrusted with government money, where is the separation of church and state? Please enlighten me.

John J. Alpar,

Amarillo, Texas