|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
GERMANY'S PRESIDENT IS "HORRIFIED"
CULTURAL DECLINE REVISITED
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
Veronica Lueken died in 1995, but her false apparition did not die with her.
The organization she founded, Our Lady of the Roses, is still
turning out newsletters from its headquarters in Bayside, New York, even
though Lueken's apparition was condemned by successive bishops of
Brooklyn.
Perhaps the goofiest thing she ever said was that the Virgin Mary told
her that test-tube babies don't have souls. Good grief, even plants and
animals have souls! (Their souls are material principles, not spirits,
and their souls die when the plants and animals die. Human souls are
spirits and so can't die.)
If test-tube babies don't have souls, then they aren't alive. But we
know they are alive because they grow. Therefore they have souls--and
therefore Veronica Lueken's Virgin Mary didn't know what she was talking
about. But the real Virgin Mary certainly does know what she is talking
about and would not have made such a blunder.
Conclusion: Lueken was a fraud. Secondary conclusion: Her followers, of
whom there are still many, were hornswoggled.
HERR PRESIDENT, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
German President Johannes Rau said that he was "horrified" to learn that
Bishop Reinhard Marx of Trier suspended a priest who knowingly gave
Communion to Protestants during Mass at an ecumenical gathering. Fr.
Gotthold Hasenhuettl said he felt no remorse for what he had done, even
though he knew it was contrary to Church directives.
Rau attended the gathering and said that this was "a disciplining that
I, as a Christian, cannot understand." Perhaps he can understand it in
terms of politics: His political party, like all political parties,
disciplines members who violate the fundamental directives of the
organization. Nothing wrong in that, since membership in a party should
suggest an acceptance of the party line.
If Rau can see that, why can't he see that a church should be free to
discipline its members?
Oh, yeah, now I get it: He does see it, except that he doesn't think the
privilege should apply to the Catholic Church.
Of course.
MORE ON OUR CULTURAL DECLINE
Last week's E-Letter on the decline of Christian culture generated much
response, mostly positive but partly not.
Hal Fletcher said, "Your recent newsletter was beautifully honest
regarding your intentions."
Readers will recall that I was not shy about claiming that the only way
out of our cultural malaise is to make the world Catholic. That seems
logical to me, since what we're talking about is revitalizing a culture
that arose from and within Catholicism. If you want to get the one back,
you have to promote the other.
Helen Hennessy said, "This E-letter struck a deep chord in me. Somehow
it is easier to go on with my small part knowing that you are out there
in the front lines believing, hoping, trying to make a difference."
Thanks, but there are innumerable people doing far more than I could
hope to do. I get more credit than I deserve because I write for public
consumption. Writing is not the same as accomplishing, you know. Most
writers (I do not exempt myself from the charge) never end up doing
anything socially useful.
G. Edward Deery asks, "I sometimes wonder how much of the decline in
Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Reformation? ... I think
that so much of what is wrong in society is rooted in the concepts of
sola scriptura and sola fide."
I think you're on to something here, Mr. Deery. We know that sola
scriptura and sola fide were wrong turns theologically and therefore
intellectually, so it follows that they could not have been culturally
helpful.
But I have seen our cultural decline traced at least as far back as
Medieval nominalism (this by Richard Weaver [1910-1963], an American
rhetorician and philosopher). Just where one marks the start of the
decline (800 years ago, 500 years ago, a week ago Thursday?) is less
important than acknowledging that there has been a decline and that we
really ought to try to do something to reverse it.
Scott Duncan disagrees with a key element of my thesis: "Christian
culture and Christ may be dead from where you're standing and in many
other so-called Christian circles ... but he's alive and well in my life
and the brothers and sisters that my wife and I live, hang, work, and
fellowship with. I don't believe the revival of Christian culture has
anything to do with Catholicism. It has to do with one passing on the
truth and reality of the power and the life of Christ that has
transformed each of us in our own daily lives."
I hope I am not being ungenerous in saying that on the one hand Mr.
Duncan missed the point, and on the other hand he is wrong.
I did not claim that Christ is not "alive and well" in many lives, but
that is irrelevant to my argument. A Christian culture is not merely an
agglomeration of individuals who happen to be Christian. It is the whole
of society being infused with the Christian faith, in art, literature,
architecture, leisure, labor, everywhere.
The other point is that Christian culture arose out of Catholicism, and
there's no getting around that. Had there been no Catholicism, we would
be living in a culture based on ancient paganism. One can imagine
Christian culture without Protestantism (after all, such a culture
existed before 1517) but not one without Catholicism, for the simple
reason that Catholicism was the basis of Christian culture.
Two more comments ...
Unsolicited words from Terry Gleason, who seems to be a man never given
to hyperbole: "I found this letter to be brilliant." (Feel free to write
me more often, Mr. Gleason.)
Lastly, Candy Pyatt said she agreed with my analysis and felt
comfortable sharing it with others: "I've reached an age and time in my
life where I don't care that maybe I might be made fun of for my
convictions."
Welcome to middle age, Mrs. Pyatt.
|
|
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up