| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Letters
A vicious attack?
We were very surprised and even appalled to see the attack on the papacy of the last century in Catholic World Report. Our work with the poor was featured in your pages last December in the Second Spring section.
In the context of a review of the new book Salt of the Earth: Christianity and the Catholic Church at the end of the Millennium ("A Realist's Vision," November 1997) the reviewer, Tom Bethell, added his own views, which had absolutely nothing to do with Cardinal Ratzinger's reflections. Bethell said, "It is a joy in itself to read his recollections here, which contrast favorably with the invidious socialist spirit of so many of the social encyclicals from the past hundred years."
If there were ever a more vicious attack on the last seven popes, we have not seen it, except maybe in the National Catholic Reporter and the writings of Father Richard McBrien. By publishing this kind of misinformation you may be guaranteeing the loss of the working class to the Church (such a concern of popes of this century) and continuing with the Novakian tradition of denigrating any effort to even mention the issue of the rights of workers in an age of the global economy when they are paid as slaves from six to fifty cents per hour.
Both Pope John Paul II, especially on his visit to Poland this summer, and Cardinal Ratzinger, have spoken very strongly about this kind of abuse of persons in the free market economy. Cardinal Ratzinger's comments published in the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera on March 30, 1997, and widely distributed in diocesan newspapers, say exactly the opposite of what your reviewer said. Commenting that an innate selfishness always makes welcoming refugees difficult, he emphasized that today this has been aggravated by the dominant ideology of the free-market system, given free reign after the fall of Communism. He continued, "The collapse of Communism, however, did not confirm the goodness of capitalism in all its forms. On the contrary, today we see that even capitalism does not resolve the problems of humanity, and that we must find new forms in which the free market is combined with a sense of people's responsibility to each other." The cardinal said a new model is needed to transform "pure, cruel law of the market into a structure of cooperation and sharing between rich and poor."
We need to remember the old catechisms from the Council of Trent, which insist that depriving a man of his wages is one of the sins that cries to heaven for vengeance.
For the above comments to appear in your magazine, which purports to support the magisterium, was astonishing and appeared to be so non-Catholic. It must have been an oversight to allow such personal distrust and almost hatred of a century of popes to appear in your pages.
We have great admiration for the thought of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. One would hope that in future issues it will be presented fairly and truthfully in Catholic World Report.
Mark and Louise Zwick
Houston Catholic Worker
Houston, Texas
Since the book in question was published by Ignatius Press, which also publishes this magazine, CWR took pains to find a reviewer who could not be accused of favoritism. We asked Tom Bethell to review the book--which is in essence an extended interview with Cardinal Ratzinger--because we knew his review would be thoughtful, but not predictable. Naturally we expected him to offer some of his own reflections on both the book and the state of the Catholic Church, since a reviewer who does not offer his own thoughts is cheating the readers. And since he himself writes frequently about economics, we were not surprised that Bethell delivered his own blunt remarks on that subject. But let us keep those remarks in the proper context.
While faithful Catholics are called to give their assent to the ordinary teachings of the magisterium, including the teachings on social issues, that assent need not extend to include an acceptance of a given pope's understanding of economic affairs. The Church speaks with authority on issues involving faith and morals; on specific economic questions, she is, alas, quite obviously fallible.
Did Bethell's statement imply a dissatisfaction with the Vatican's grasp of economic policies and principles, or a (far more serious) rejection of some magisterial teachings? As the letters that follow attest, many of our readers were anxious to address that question, and frankly we welcome that debate. But anyone who sees Bethell's respectful review of the Ratzinger book as an unusually "vicious" attack on the papacy or the magisterium, or suggest that conservatives within the Church are as hostile to John Paul II as liberals, cannot have been paying much attention to recent debates within the Church. -- The Editor
Foundations of social teaching
Thanks to Tom Bethell for alerting us to the recent book on Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and for giving an excellent review. I wish to comment on a parenthetical remark. Bethell says he hopes "for an end to Vatican reminders on labor unions, income distribution...and other such distractingly non-religious matters." I never knew the papal encyclicals were simply "Vatican reminders."
I fear that Bethell's view on the social doctrine of the Catholic Church reflects the view of far too many Catholics. In my own experience I can report that after eight years of Catholic schools, four in college and four in theology, the closest I came to study of the social doctrine was a course in economics. I do not recall that in four years of theology the great social encyclical, Rerum Novarum, was ever discussed in any detail. It was only because of a course I taught in a Catholic high school that I became aware of the Church's social doctrine.
There are some "distractingly" religious reminders in the Bible of our social obligations. Consider Jas. 5:1-4: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you...Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts." After referring to this passage the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2434, goes on to say, "In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account." Then the Catechism quotes from Vatican II: "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good" (Guadium et Spes 67,2). Then follows a remark that is especially irksome to employers who like to set the wage and then say to the prospective employee, "take it or leave it." This is not acceptable says the Catechism, 2435: "Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages." Unfortunately we in our Catholic institutions too often take the "take it or leave it" attitude.
These comments are in no way meant to disparage the fine review. If Bethell went through Catholic schools, he, like me, probably was never exposed to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. Another great Catholic figure, William Buckley, Jr., probably learned his "catechism" well but, as witnessed by his opposition to some of the Church's social doctrine, I doubt that catechism taught anything about the subject. And it seems to me Buckley too opposes it because he believes the social doctrine to be part of some "distractingly non-religious matters."
Rev. Mark McGovern
Fairbank, Iowa
Frightful symmetry
Tom Bethell's gratuitous attack on Catholic social doctrine illustrates the perfect symmetry between dissenters on the Left and dissenters on the Right. The former category cannot abide orthodox sexual morality and doctrine; the latter cannot stand applying the Gospel to the pursuit of Mammon, or considering Mammon's impact on culture. Bethell sounds like Michael Novak, who has made a career of patronizing the Pope's sharp criticisms of American-style capitalism. No doubt Bethell writes from conviction. All the same, a right-wing cafeteria Catholic is still a cafeteria Catholic, even if social doctrine is not de fide.
Perhaps if we were all to face those parts of Catholic doctrine which we find inconvenient (either Humanae Vitae or the social encyclicals), we might make more progress as a Church, and the world might take us more seriously.
Robin Bernhoft
Everett, Washington
Unprecedented lack of guilt
The US bishops' pastoral message "Always Our Children" and reactions to it (see Dossier, November 1997) have highlighted a unique difficulty in the Church's teaching on matters of sexual conduct, which is the increasingly clear divergence between what the Church teaches and how its [sic] members live.
The official teaching of the Church condemns not only homosexual activity but also pre-marital sex and the use by married couples of artificial contraception. We all know people whom we love and respect who do these things. Modern research, including findings published earlier this year in Catholic World Report show that a large majority of church-going Catholics do not endorse these teachings or feel bound by them.
There have always been people who have failed to live up to the Church's teaching on a particular subject but have been conscious in so doing of doing wrong. What is unprecedented about the current situation is that the practicing homosexual, the engaged couple who have sexual intercourse, or the married couple who use contraceptives do so with no sense of wrong doing and do not feel that it diminishes their status as Catholics. That a majority of churchgoers should think in this way has never happened before.
Could it be that we are about to see a significant shift in the Church's attitude toward sexual matters led, not by the bishops, but by the "sensus fidelium?" This could lead to a recognition that these are essentially private matters or even a questioning as to whether some of these issues are properly speaking moral questions at all?
The danger for the Church is that if it [sic] continues to put forward as official teaching something which conflicts with human experience and which is rejected by a clear majority of its [sic] own members the Church's own authority is diminished. As a result, on issues about which the Church may have something vital to say such as abortion or the importance of stable families for the care of children, the Church will not be heard.
It could be that "Always Our Children" is a first step toward a recognition of the new sensus fidelium and a welcome step back from a situation which would see the Church's important moral teachings marginalized.
Ian D. Graham
Newcastle upon Tyne
England
It is perfectly valid to invoke the sensus fidelium as evidence for or against a proposed doctrine, provided that one realizes that sensus fidelium refers to an opinion held by faithful Catholics "always and everywhere." Did the faithful of the first 19 Christian centuries think of contraception, fornication, and homosexuality as harmless matters? Or are we to believe that the popular consensus of the late 20th century--the era which has given us Boy George and Dr. Ruth as popular icons--represents a wisdom which trumps the testimony of previous generations? And as an afterthought, when a Christian examines his conscience, does he distinguish between a "private matter" and a "moral question?" -- The Editor
Where is the evidence?
As an orthodox Catholic and doctoral student in psychology specializing in behavioral genetics, I would like to point out several misconceptions contained in Gerard van den Aardweg's article ("Dubious Psychology," November 1997).
First, van den Aardweg's assertion that "there is not a shred of solid evidence of....an inherited predisposition" toward a homosexual orientation is absurd. Although the question is not resolved, there is quite a bit of evidence that genetic differences between people are in part responsible for differences in their sexual orientations. Van den Aardweg apparently believes all of this data to be the product of "militant homosexual authors" and therefore invalid.
Van den Aardweg's denial that homosexuality may have a strong biological or genetic component may stem from his belief that this precludes the operation of psychological factors. This is not at all true. Biological/genetic predispositions often act through psychological pathways by making certain persons more susceptible to certain environmental (i.e., "psychological") events than others. For example, a poor father/son relationship is often put forward as a psychological cause of homosexuality, but it is obvious that not every boy who fails to identify with his father becomes a homosexual, and this may be because of genetically-driven differences in predispositions.
Another misconception is that the malleability of homosexuality means that its etiology can not be genetic or biological. But in truth, even if the etiology of homosexuality were completely genetic, this would tell us nothing about its malleability. A homosexual orientation need not be exclusively the product of "learning" in order for it to be changed successfully. The Catechism's claim that the "psychological etiology" of homosexuality "remains largely unexplained" simply does not imply, as Van den Aardweg suggests, a "fatalism with respect to homosexual orientation." There is simply no logical connection between the two.
Catholic authors should be pointing out the inherent independence of "genetic influence" on homosexuality and its morality and/or malleability rather than expending so much effort in an ill-fated attempt to distort (or deny) the extant scientific evidence.
Finally, as to the consensus regarding "psychological" factors as unassailably paramount in the etiology of homosexuality, I can only say that in my opinion such a consensus does not exist. and that this is due to a lack of evidence rather than any "homosexualist" conspiracy.
Jeremy M. Beer
Austin, Texas
Since we do not have the expertise to comment on the latest psychological research, we can only point out that there is a large and critical distinction between claiming that the available evidence proves Van den Aardweg's approach to be wrong, and citing the evidence which proves it wrong. -- The Editor.
A more prudent approach
Dr. van den Aardweg dismisses claims that the etiology of homosexuality is physical. There is a logical flaw in Van den Aardweg's approach. His argument implicitly is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That is to say, because his particular therapy is so often successful, it must be based on something that is very close to the truth, if not the whole truth, on the subject.
Van den Aardweg, in practice, rejects the approach of Elizabeth Moberly. Dr. Moberly concentrates her attentions on early childhood development, and the question of a damaged relationship between the child and the same-sex parent. This is Freudian old hat, according to Van den Aardweg. At best Van den Aardweg would assign a secondary role to a damaged early childhood relationship with the same-sex parent.
Father Benedict J. Groeschel is not a ranting liberal. In conversation, June 1997, he was much more open to the notion that homosexuality is part nature, part nurture. Child psychologist, Father Paul Andrews, SJ, in a recent book, Changing Children, reports remarkable success in treating early childhood cross-dressing, another gender identity problem. A young boy was jealous of the attention lavished on his new-born sister. His father cured him by giving him due attention.
A big weakness I see in Van den Aardweg's approach is in relation to his assertions on the role of lack of acceptance by peers. They are frankly incredible. Basically he appears to be saying that if you are not good at baseball or American football in the US, or soccer (or indeed Gaelic games here), there is a good chance you'll turn out to be homosexual. How manly in public appearance is the average European professional soccer player--or American wrestler, for that matter?
What if homosexuality were shown convincingly to be innate? What does it matter if most therapists find it to be incurable? Why should that play into the hands of the homosexual lobby? Why should it change the Church's teaching one whit? Schizophrenia is now understood by most to be innate. Cystic fibrosis, at present, is practically incurable. The Church is better advised to proceed with caution, especially when dealing with "soft" sciences like psychology.
Sèames de Barra
Dublin
Ireland
One caution on Irish history
Kieron Wood is to be commended for his thorough and incisive synopsis of Irish history ("Peace at Last?" November 1997). His otherwise excellent article, however, contains an unfortunate paragraph which could lend an unwarranted credibility to the spurious charge of "values discrimination" which is so often made now by liberal and Unionist critics of the Irish Republic.
Wood mentions that following independence, Ireland legislated against divorce and contraception and gave a special position to the Catholic Church in its constitution. He then goes on to state that most Protestants left the new state--the implication being that the former was the proximate cause of the latter.
The reality is actually the reverse. The largest exodus of Protestants from the 26 counties occurred after the independence of the Irish Free State in 1921, when the British garrison, police, and civil administration departed. The first prohibitions against divorce and contraceptives were enacted in 1925 and 1929 respectively.
Nor were these measures particularly sectarian. Anglicans opposed birth control until the Lambeth Conference of 1930, and Anglican opinion split on the divorce issue in 1925.
Eamon De Valera's constitution was ratified fifteen years after independence, and extended explicit legal recognition to the major Protestant and Jewish bodies in Ireland. Rather than establish Catholicism as the state religion, it merely recognized the Catholic Church as the guardian of the faith of the great majority of Irish people--a simple statement of fact in a country which was 93 percent Catholic.
C.J. Doyle
Roxbury, Massachusetts
Omissions from the (future) encyclical
I must say I was a little disappointed at the choice Diogenes made of excerpts from Pope Pius XV's 2033 encyclical Tertio Millennio Adveniente. How about these:
I apologize to members of my flock who are suffering in any way because those who were ordained to teach preferred to dialogue; those who were ordained to pray, preferred to entertain; those who were ordained to guide, preferred to question.
I apologize to all those whose grandparents and parents became involved in Satanic cults through their student years, while bishops and clergy turned a blind eye, oblivious to their priestly prerogatives in the combat against the devil and his minions, wrestling instead with useless and inconsequential political statements at endless meetings. May the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord now release you from the bondages that you have inherited.
I apologize to the victims of sexual education. To all those who, as school children, lost their innocence, thus losing their joy of life, their sense of wonder, and most tragically, their baptismal grace. Instead of revealing to them the treasures of the saints and the glories of the angels, we allowed--nay mandated--that they be exposed to the intimacies of the adult body, and even the base passions of a fallen humanity. May the Immaculate Conception now obtain for those living, the grace of purity and peace, and for those already departed, relief from the flames of purgatory.
I apologize that, while taking a stand for the unborn child, we neglected the far less glamorous stand for chastity, the lack of which kills the life of the soul, threatening to keep it from ever being born into Heaven. May Saints Peter and Paul intercede for us, that we may be inflamed with a zeal for souls, preferring to be despised and rejected rather than omit the uncomfortable truth.
I apologize to Christendom, nay, to all humanity, for our permitting that the fountain and source of life of the Church--the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass--be at first manipulated and contorted, and the gradually further distorted by a local "enculturations," so that now to be Catholic means as many different customs, liturgies and even creeds as there are nations and ethnic communities. We regret that instead of drawing the eyes and hearts of the flock to the Eternal, we obfuscated their vision and mind with the confusion of the ever-changing. May the saints and angels with whom we no longer worship in unison, obtain for us the humility to admit our error, turn back, and return to where we had left.
I apologize, above all, to my God. May He have mercy on us.
Cristina Borges
Irondale, Alabama
Correcting a correspondent, I
Edward Carmichael was right to surmise (Letters, November 1997) that Princess Diana did not "soar straight up to heaven." Not only did I not "fall headlong" into this trap, I did not fall into it at all! Her tragic life and sudden, unprepared death were an excellent occasion for highlighting the mission of my principal subject, St. Therese. In picturing the latter assisting this beleaguered soul through her purgatory, I was attempting to bring out the quality of the new Doctor's zeal for reaching out--not to the converted, but to those most in need. Several days after I finished the piece, just as Mother Teresa died, I discovered that Diana had been in the habit of lighting candles in front of the saint's shrine in the Carmelite church near Kensington Palace. I suspect that it may have been Mother Teresa who pointed the princess in this direction. We could discuss the state of Diana's soul until the cows come home; what remains certain is that the contribution of the two Teresas figures strongly on the plus side of the princess's balance sheet. Would that we were all filled with the same Christ-like charity as these two women: what showers of roses might not result!
Leonie Caldecott
Centre for Faith and Culture
Oxford
Correcting a correspondent, II
I was appalled to read a letter, published in response to my earlier letter, concerning the British general election, which misrepresented what I actually wrote. I do not believe that the Blair government is a new moral force for Britain, rather it is a breath of fresh air after 18 years of Conservative Government, who denied a basic minimum wage, and I believe robbed the laborer of his wage, which is a grave sin in Catholic theology.
I do not agree with abortion, but all the parties are anti-life. There was no greater promoter of contraception than the last government. Indeed the recent Conservative conference showed that they are now deserting traditional moral values, and pandering to the Gay lobby. It was significant that it was the retired Chief Rabbi who spoke out and not the Cardinal. As I stated in my last letter, we should not place our faith in politicians, and the answer is to witness to Catholic truth; the only hope for humankind.
Robert Ian Williams
Wrexham, England
Speaking for the enemy
"The quasi-indissoluble wedding" between the American bishops and "learned societies" which are hostile to the teachings of the Church, described by Msgr. George Kelly (Essay, November 1997), is long overdue for an annulment.
The process could begin with the words of Blessed Josemaria Escrivá: "To serve as a loudspeaker for the enemy is the height of idiocy. And if the enemy is an enemy of God, it's a great sin. That's why, in the professional field, I'll never praise the knowledge of those who use it as a rostrum for attacking the Church."
Carolyn Lee
Perrine, Florida
Tongue in cheek?
The essay by Msgr. Wrenn and K.D. Whitehead (October 1997) was extremely informative. The overview of events, actions and inactions over nearly thirty years is indeed a helpful update. And, yes, it is important the bishops are now asking for "corrections" in "some" religious and catechetical material.
However, some questions, in addition to those posed by the authors, seem appropriate. Where have the bishops been? What "cues," if any, did the official hierarchy give the catechetical establishment in the United States? Cardinal Mahony is reported to have told the Holy Father, "They (the pew-sitters, I suppose) won't listen to us." Obviously, the bishops weren't "cueing" the establishment and haven't been listening to "them." Do all of our bishops concur in the findings of this "official committee?" Or have most of the bishops been blind-sided (depending on their points of view) as is reported to have been the case with the pastoral message "Always Our Children," where many bishops are alleged to have been unaware of its preparation? Can the US bishops honestly plead ignorance of the problems? Or, in the alternative, attempt to explain away their failure to come to grips with the deficiencies by suggesting criticism of contemporary religious education was "intemperate?" Golly, I hope their feelings weren't hurt.
The authors suggest that at times the criticism has become a bit intemperate. So what. It is well known that sometimes it takes a 2-by-4 to get a donkey's attention.
The little niceties: "...the committee is to be vigorously applauded;...we can only be grateful;...and the bishop-critics, to their credit; We can only rejoice and be grateful..." did nothing (for me) to enhance the impact of this presentation.
This is a very serious, extremely well done essay and will be rewarding to all who have the opportunity to read it. The authors are to be applauded. Nonetheless, I sense an underlying tongue in cheek, for which I am grateful.
William T. Hayes
Pisgah Forest, North Carolina