_____________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Lack of faith?

Your November editorial (“Free-Lance Liturgists”) is quite correct. It certainly should not be too much to ask that the Mass be celebrated according to the law, but it does seem to be a very difficult task for a great majority of the priests in this country. Our “law teachers” are apparently unable to follow the law themselves—even uncomplicated liturgical rubrics.

My daughter is a student at a university that describes itself as Catholic. When I read your editorial, I had just had a conversation with her wherein she expressed her irritation with the “liturgical presiders” who insist that the congregation stand during the Eucharistic Prayer, who refuse to genuflect after the consecration or when entering and leaving the church, and who allow lay preaching. Having been through 12 years of Catholic education in a diocese where liturgical abuse is frequently a badge of honor, none of what she reported was new or shocking to her or to me. Nevertheless, having to put up with the endless liturgical adolescence of so many priests still gets very, very old. But the question remains: Why is it so hard for so many of the clergy to follow the liturgical rules?

In large part I think that the answer is a lack of faith. As I observe the routine violation of the liturgical norms in various parishes and dioceses, it occurs to me that the priestly transgressors do not follow the rules because they no longer believe what they are doing. Any priest who can consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and then refuse to genuflect before the Real Presence, just does not believe what has taken place before his eyes.

If the priest no longer believes what is really happening in the Mass—if he no longer sees himself as a participant in the great miracle that the Mass really is—then it is just another happy, clappy, chitty-chatty support-group meeting, where he is the presiding facilitator—a church social with a few candles and robes; nothing transcendent, awesome, or universal. It is all very horizontal, banal, and turned in upon itself. It is separated from the universal worship of the Church. Consequently, following the rules is not important. The rules can easily be changes to accommodate the personal whims of the participants. The rules are not important because the event is not important.

—Robert J. Gieb
Fort Worth, Texas

Tendentious translation

I always await my copy of your magazine with anticipation of the good things it will contain. You do a fine job, and a much needed job.

May I comment—with a good many years of Latin under my belt—that “versus populum” does not mean “in opposition to the people” but only “toward the people.” (This is in reference to the editorial in your December 1999 issue, “Banned in Birmingham.”) The phrase connotes physical and not psychological direction.

All the best, and let’s face ad orientem.

—Rev. James P. Kelleher
Detroit, Michigan

Your translation is perfectly accurate, of course. We did not intend to put forward “in opposition to the people” as a serious effort to translate “versus populum.” On the contrary, we meant to suggest that it is easy to mistranslate a phrase in a way that will make that phrase sound more ominous than it is. In fact our bogus translation was much more plausible than the translation of “ad orientem” used by Bishop Foley. Whereas it is conceivable that someone unacquainted with Latin might render “versus” as “in opposition” (since the word carries that connotation in English) it is hard to believe any translator, with or without a background in Latin, would fail to understand that “ad orientem” means “toward the East.”

— The Editor

Population growth and media hype

Thank you for calling attention to the way in which the media distort the facts by mindlessly accepting the stories churned out by the population-control lobby.

In your report on population-control efforts in India (“One Billion and Counting,” November 1999), your correspondent shows how the family-planning crusade exacts a high cost, in terms of human dignity and personal freedom. But the right of a couple to bear children is, it seems, not one of those “human rights” that the major media outlets want to promote by heavy coverage.

It was also interesting to note—again thanks to your reporter—that the population-controllers manufactured the story that India’s population had reached one billion. Maybe it had, and maybe it hadn’t; but there were no statistics to back up all those news stories. When the population controllers decided that it was a convenient time to announce that the figure had been reached—because the timing was right for their publicity efforts—the media all went along. No one thought to question the statistics, until CWR came along. Thanks again for giving us at least a glimpse of the real story.

—Harold R. Chance
Springfield, Illinois

Suffering Eastern Churches

I was heartened to read Clarence Kelly’s letter (“Remember those who suffer”) in the November 1999 issue. According to this letter it looks as if the Vatican’s famous Ostpolitik is alive and well. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ukrainian-rite Catholics and other Eastern-rite Catholics are very familiar with the policy of certain factions in Rome who are willing to sacrifice their own loyal Catholics for some “greater” agenda. In the 1930s, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytysky was offered the Russian Patriarchate by the Soviet regime, if only he would renounce his allegiance to Rome. He chose to die a slow martyr’s death instead of renouncing his loyalty to the successor of St. Peter. He was followed by thousands of priests and nuns who died for their faith, causing Ukraine’s rivers to turn allegorically red with the blood of its martyrs.

When Cardinal Josef Slypyj arrived in Rome for Vatican II, thanks to Pope John XXIII, he exposed the duplicity of the Vatican’s Ostpolitik and was summarily castigated for doing so.

The present Pope has a difficult task. But politics remains politics. Byzantine Catholics in the Ukraine are encouraged by Rome not to press for the return of their churches, which had been taken over by the Orthodox during the Communist era. They are “advised” to build new churches while the Orthodox continue to occupy their churches. They are “advised” to suffer in silence while the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate negotiate the fate of Eastern Catholicism—without including Eastern Catholics in the negotiations.

Is it any wonder that the Orthodox churches look upon this pseudo-ecumenism with a cynical eye? Why should they rejoin a Church which treats her own members with such cynical disdain? Let us pity and pray for the loyal Chinese Catholics. They will need our prayers, for their greatest enemy may be within certain circles in the Vatican.

—Larissa M. Fontana
Potomac, Maryland

Cold War heroes

Thank you for the revealing interview with Judge William Clark (“The Pope and the President,” November 1999), which contained some fascinating insights on the Reagan White House. It was especially interesting to know that the US was prepared to intervene if Russia had invaded Poland to squash the Solidarity movement. But really your cover told the whole story, showing the Pope and Reagan together: the two great heroes of the Cold War.

—Donna Hernandez Martin
Miami, Florida

Words and meaning

Confucius once reportedly said that to improve the political health of a nation, words should be restored to their original meaning. After 35 years of ferment since Vatican II, this advice is surely relevant to the terminology of our Catholic religion today. In former times, theological words in the vernacular were securely tied to their counterparts in the universal, static Latin, and could not stray very far. Now we find that a lot of them have slipped their moorings and drifted into murky waters. It is not so much that they have changed their meanings but that they have been drained of their intensity, becoming anemic and above all, de-supernaturalized. Notice that words that have become flexible are useful tools for dissidents subtly to insinuate their agenda. Liturgical considerations aside, this alone is reason enough to preserve the Latin. Let us take a few examples:

• Love. This word, which can become so multifaceted, needs a special preservation order. St. John uses it at the center of his Gospel and to him it means simply the love of God. It does not mean the lesser loves of man and woman, friendship, or parent and child; and it certainly does not mean sexual attraction. Catholics tending to a liberal humanized religion would not agree, and would lump all these meanings together, thus creating the confusion that the Devil loves to work in.

• Compassion. This word is Number 1 on the popularity chart for dissidents who are perpetually trying to corner the market on this product. The term is very useful as a brick to throw at those hard men in the Vatican whose unbending control of doctrine and morals causes such “pain” to those “who cannot fully accept” it. At its deepest level, this noble virtue can only be exercised by those who have fully experienced their own weakness and utter dependency upon God, and can thus identify with the supernatural plight of others.

• Apostolate. When working in public service I was always ready to take on all comers in defense of my faith. An admiring priest said that this was a “great apostolate.” Surely this was an exaggeration. I was merely giving witness to “the hope that is in me.” An apostle is one who has the spiritual power actually to convert people.

• Ministry. Apparently a teenager strumming a guitar to a captive church audience is exercising a “music ministry.” Likewise those who sell religious-education books are said to have a ministry, along with those who distribute Communion. Isn’t that a bit strong? These good people—who may constitute the backbone of the parish—are more properly described as “giving a service.” Priests, parents, and teachers have ministries, in that they bear a heavy direct responsibility for the salvation of the souls in their care.

• Heretic. This word is on the bottom of the dissidents’ charts, and now lingering on in the language as a sort of “bogey word,” used to evoke the horrors of a past intolerant age. Traditionally it meant one who believes something that differs from official Church teaching. By a remarkable turnaround, what most people believe today is a mix-and-match set of opinions—that is to say, heresy! What was once abhorred is now admired.

Doubtless other readers will find other important words that, having been kicked around the marketplace for decades, now need cleaning and restoring to their original meaning.

—J. Allen
Torquay, England

Two cautions are necessary.

First, heresy is (as the Catechism teaches—#2089) “the obstinate post-baptismal denial” of Catholic teaching, “or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. . . .” It is possible that a well-meaning individual could, for want of information or understanding, believe something contrary to the teachings of the faith. That would be unfortunate, but it would not be heresy unless, after having been properly informed, he continued to hold the erroneous view.

Second, and more important, every baptized Christian has “the spiritual power actually to convert people,” and has been commissioned to do so.     

—The Editor

Letters Policy
The Catholic World Report encourages readers to contribute their own reflections, either responding to editorial material or reflecting on world affairs. CWR reserves the right to edit letters for publication.
Letters are limited to 400 words, and must include the writer’s name and address. Please send letters to:
Box 1608, So. Lancaster, MA 01561.

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet

Back to Catholic World Report January 2000 Table of Contents