|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
I WAS PARTLY RIGHT ABOUT JOHNNY HART
I ALWAYS HAVE BEEN RIGHT ABOUT CTA
LOOK WHO'S WRITING WHAT
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
The armistice that silenced the guns of World War I began at the
eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month--a poetic end to
an unpoetic war, arguably the most consequential war of the last
half-millennium.
Whenever November 11 rolls around, I think of it not as Veterans Day but
as Armistice Day because that is how the holiday started and because I
think there is a utility in keeping the Great War in mind. Besides, the
phrase "Armistice Day" has a nice ring to it. (Which reminds me of Msgr.
Ronald Knox's reference to the Protestant woman who loved to hear "the
blessed word Mesopotamia." It sounded so biblical to her.)
"B.C." REVISITED
In the October 14 E-Letter I speculated that Johnny Hart would get flak
for giving the prior day's edition of his comic strip "B.C." a Christian
motif. I haven't heard yet whether he has. He periodically puts his
faith in the mouths of his characters--something I like.
I also said I hoped he planned to issue a collection of his
Christian-related strips. It turns out that is in the works. According
to the web site of Creators Syndicate, Hart's religious-themed cartoons
will be gathered together in a book. See
http://www.creators.com/Comics_Shell.cfm?pg=bcwizfaq.html&comicname=bc
I speculated that Hart is an Evangelical. Turns out I was on the mark.
The web site includes an online store through which one can purchase
"B.C." T-shirts and mugs, most of which are even more overtly religious
than the daily cartoons.
CALLED TO INACTION
A cartoon of a different sort arrived the other day, a letter warning
that "those who would reverse the renewal started by the Second Vatican
Council are dictating current policies coming from the Vatican."
I certainly don't want the work of the Council to be undermined, so I
was curious: Just what is it that these underhanded folks are trying to
do? Here's the list:
1. They are "telling us how many times and when we should bow during
Mass."
2. They are "demanding politicians oppose any civil unions or adoption
for gays and lesbians."
3. They are "scolding Catholics for wanting to share Eucharist with
other believers."
Okay, but where are the bad parts? Oh, sorry--those are the bad parts! I
forgot I was reading a letter from Call to Action, which sees good as
bad and bad as good. It sees as good the following things:
1. "163 Milwaukee priests have ignited a nationwide demand for optional
celibacy."
2. "Priestly ministry should be open to married persons and to women."
3. "The people and clergy of a diocese should be consulted in the
selection of their bishops."
The letter invited me to join Call to Action. Thanks, but I'll take a
pass. Groucho Marx had a policy of not joining any club that would have
him as a member. I have a policy of not joining any group that engages
in self-extinction.
A NAME FROM THE PAST
In every issue of the "National Catholic Reporter" I can find something
that irks, and the easiest place is in the letters to the editor. I was
reading along and came across a letter that reminded me of what happened
at the Newman Center at my university. The Newman Center was staffed by
Paulist priests, and, over the course of my four years on campus, no
fewer than three of those priests left the priesthood to get married.
So, as I say, I was reading the letters to the editor in the "Reporter,"
and one caught my eye. The writer was commenting on an earlier letter
and said, "I, too, left the Roman Catholic priesthood."
He lauded the earlier letter for taking a stand "against the unbiblical
practice of celibacy." He said "the 'once a priest, always a priest'
philosophy" is hooey (apparently having forgotten that "you are a priest
forever, according to the order of Melchisedech"). He even went so far
as to say that the New Testament did not teach the existence of the
ministerial priesthood.
These are opinions shared by many readers of the "Reporter," and almost
all those readers are theologically liberal. But the letter writer is
not. He is at the other end of the spectrum. I know, because I know him.
He is Bart Brewer, whom I profiled in "Catholicism and Fundamentalism."
Brewer was ordained in 1957 and served for a few years as a Discalced
Carmelite priest. Then he left the Church, first becoming a Seventh-Day
Adventist, later becoming an independent Baptist. He founded an
anti-Catholic ministry called Mission to Catholics. And here he was,
jumping on an anti-priesthood bandwagon, even though the bandwagon was
full of people who would not give him the theological time of day.
Poor Bart. His ministry has fallen into inconsequentiality, and he has
fallen to making his points in a heterodox-Catholic publication. When
asked to name the Fundamentalist groups most active in combating
"Romanism," few Catholics or Fundamentalists mention Mission to
Catholics. Bart's group has disappeared from the radar screen.
When he goes, so will his small ministry. I'll miss it--and him. It and
he played a not insignificant role in my own development as an
apologist. The ill-considered tracts Bart distributed prompted me to do
early homework. I suppose it cannot make Bart happy to think that he can
take considerable credit for getting Catholic Answers off the ground.
There was a time he even sold "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" to his
audiences, presumably because a chapter in it was devoted to him. Then,
abruptly, he stopped selling the book, finally realizing that he
inadvertently was sending his listeners back into the clutches of
popery.
|
|
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up