|
L e t t e r s
“SUPERCALIFRAGILISTIC-EXPIALIDOCIOUS”
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 12
 December 1993 
|
|
|
TWO days ago I received my first issue (August
1993) of This Rock, which I had awaited with much excitement.
I have been reading Chesterton, Lewis, and Sheen, but was curious
what today's Church offers in the form of Catholic apologetics. I
liked much of what I read, but some of it struck me as quite wrong.
I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised by the parts I disagreed
with. I should have expected to find self-righteous and proud attitudes,
as well as disdain for our separated brethren, in the cover story
[ "Somos Catolicos: A Costa Rican Lesson" ]. Still,
I was disappointed.
Intellectual apologetics can and should be carried out with sincerity,
simplicity, respect, and love. I find it childish, immature, and unprofessional
to use sarcasm as much as This Rock does in its August issue.
Sarcasm has its place, and our Lord used it himself once or twice.
However, the Bible everywhere stresses sincerity as an ideal, and
the mocking, sarcastic tone of many of the articles (particularly
in the "Dragnet" section) turned me off.
Sincere apologetics should strive to make matters of faith and doctrine
understandable and simple. In my opinion, using a "fifty-cent
word" for its own sake is counter-productive, and it seemed that
some contributors were excessively verbose. I understand that oftentimes
uncommon and/or distinctive words best convey the author's intent,
and this letter shows that I am not afraid to use large words myself.
I also understand that This Rock is intentionally intellectually
oriented. However, I am also conscious of the way "big words"
affect many people, and when engaged in apologetics, I try to keep
my language simple and concise. It takes more effort to simplify an
essay or sermon, but for the hearts that are reached, it's worth it.
A side note: I greatly enjoyed the feature article, "The Dead
See Scrolls," but the reference to "the Spirit of Vatican
II" as the precursor of "a stream of claptrap" sounded
irreverent. Maybe it was intended as a criticism of those Catholics
who consider all change to be in "the Spirit of Vatican II,"
but it didn't come across that way.
I considered canceling my subscription. At this time, I would like
my subscription to continue, for a few reasons: (1) I am optimistic
enough to hope that future issues will be affected by my letter; (2)
I am educated enough to realize the value of reading material I sometimes
disagree with; (3) I am uneducated enough to know that I need to
be exposed to material like that found in This Rock; (4) I
trust God enough to believe that reading This Rock will help
me grow. I thank you for your hard work, and I look forward to future
issues.
Dan Ward
Clarkson University
Potsdam, New York
Editor’s reply:
We try to appeal to a range of readers,
from the theologically sophisticated to beginners. But you're quite
right, of course: We should eschew sesquipedalianisms--except,
of course, when they're just the right words.
O Canadian, O Canadian!
I AM a seminarian for the Brothers of the
Holy Cross. I have read Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism
and thought it was very good. Fr. John Hardon told me to send it to
my mother, and it helped her conversion from Mormonism to Catholicism,
despite a "born-again" Fundamentalist brother I have.
I was told you have a magazine by a friend at the Oratory in Toronto,
yet I cannot seem to get it anywhere. My studies for the priesthood
are at an outside university, therefore I am at their mercy for reading
material. Our library here is small, with nothing concerning apologetics.
Can you help? I do not have a lot of money. My mother sends me some
every now and then, but not a set amount. If you have any books or
magazines that I could get from you I'd be very thankful. I could
make payments, but I don't know how much or how regular. My studies
cost a lot, so my money goes fast. At my university the faith is under
constant attack and I think we need to be able to give a good defense
for the Church and be proud of who we are and what we have. You are
doing a good job.
Benedict McGowan
Chicago, Illinois
Editor’s reply:
We have sent Mr. McGowan a theological
care package.
PR needs TR
THIS letter serves two purposes. The first
one is to thank you and your staff members for your love and dedication.
You take the time to teach us the beautiful and wonderful truths found
in the Catholic Church. I am learning so much, slowly but surely,
from This Rock. (I've already sent my subscription for two
years. We need a magazine like that in Puerto Rico--unfortunately,
not all can read English.) I love the Church Jesus founded; I love
his mother and I love his Vicar, and I say this sincerely. Thank you
again! May God bless you and may the Holy Spirit continue to inspire
you.
Rosemary Perez Diaz
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
"Bet on it!"
ANY child who goes to a good church where
the word of God is taught and then reads your booklet Refuting
the Attack on Mary would learn that you [the letter is addressed
to "Mr. Mateo"] are a liar and a perverter of God's word.
You made a fool of yourself in this booklet. Anyone who reads the
word of God knows that many of the things that the Catholic Church
(the doomed Whore of Rome) teaches are lies.
All true Christians are Bible-believers, sir, minister of Satan. [The
Church is] one of his many tools to damn souls to hell. I despise
it and I will fight it as long as I live. Bet on it! Some of us are
giving people the truth about your doomed, satanic, and bloody church.
As a result we are hurting it badly. Praise the Lord!
You lie when you said Luther believed the lies about Mary all his
life. When he got saved and became a true Christian he stopped believing
the lies. You and all other rascals who pervert God's word to prove
your false doctrines will find hell very, very, very hot! Your Pope
is a hell-bound Antichrist. I love Catholics; the proof is that I
give them the true gospel of Jesus Christ so they can get saved and
become true Christians.
Some of us saints will never! never! never! stop fighting it. Bet
on it, Buster!
James Lancaster
Fayetteville, North Carolina
FPs versus MPs
IN your September 1993 issue, the first letter
defending altar girls also seems to be defending the ordination of
women to the sacrificial priesthood. I am writing this letter to express
thoughts which I have long had on this question. (Herein "FP"
refers to persons promoting/defending female priests; "MP"
refers to those defending the Church's position on a male-only priesthood.)
I submit that there are two approaches which are not followed (at
least I have never encountered them), one on each side.
I certainly accept the need to defend the Church's teachings when
they are called into question. However, in the present instance I
suggest there ought to be a preliminary pro cess employed. There is
an ancient axiom, initially in law but eventually expanded to everyday
use, which states that "the burden of proof lies with the person
making the assertion--onus probandi incumbit ei qui
asserit." To my mind it is not the MPs who have the initial
burden of proving why women cannot be priests; it is the FPs who have
the burden of proving why women can be priests. When they
fail in this, the MPs may offer their proofs.
A difficulty with the MPs quickly attempting to defend the Church's
position is that, if the FPs are not persuaded by their arguments,
they can say, "See, you can't prove that women can't be priests,
so they should be allowed to be ordained." The wrong
side is put on the defensive, and the FPs seem to "win" by
default.
We are saying that they have the burden of proof. What, precisely,
is it they have to prove? Obviously, they must establish the foundation
on which they base their position. No one builds a house beginning
with walls and roof; a foundation is laid first. The soundness of
the structure depends to a great extent on the solidity of the foundation.
Suasive arguments from sociology, psychology, emotion, culture, equal
rights--arguments of the nature of "ought to be"--are
the superstructure. They will have value only if they rest on a solid
foundation; of themselves they are not doctrinal proofs.
What is the foundation needed to be established by the FPs? Simply
that of physical possibility (I am not speaking of metaphysical or
moral possibilities). No rational person ever attempts an endeavor
without thinking that it is possible to achieve it! FPs, in arguing
their position, evidently assume that it is possible.
But here the FPs are begging the question. The physical possibility
of [women] being ordained to the sacrificial priesthood is far too
important to simply be assumed. It requires explicit proof. If it
cannot be proven, if the foundation cannot be laid, all other arguments,
the superstructure, collapse for lack of support and do not even need
refutation. If this matter has been treated in writing somewhere,
I should be grateful for the references.
Rev. David Webster
Houston, Minnesota
Aquinate Calvinism?
AS I read James Akin's excellent article,
"A Tiptoe Through TULIP" [September 1993], it began to seem
to me that the point might be lost on more than one well-meaning Catholic.
The real and serious deficiencies of Calvinism loom so large that
the attempt to find common ground can seem perverse. However, this
attempt is essential to good apologetics, and this article is very
successful in that regard.
In particular I suspect that Catholics of a Molinist persuasion may
object to Mr. Akin's comments on unconditional election and limited
intent; however, they need to realize that the point is not that [belief
in these] doctrines is not required by the Catholic faith, but simply
that these doctrines are compatible with it. We should not require
potential converts to drop all articles of faith which we happen to
disagree with, but only those which the Church condemns.
A friend and I were involved in a debate with a Calvinist who made
a big deal concerning unconditional election, a doctrine that I had
always rejected, despite the fact that I was raised in a Calvinist
church. When we learned that it was held by Thomas Aquinas and allowed
by the Church, my friend said to me, "Who are we to make this
a stumbling block for him?" Since then I have come to accept
the doctrine, and, ironically, I am in a sense more "Calvinistic"
as a non-dissenting Catholic than as a Calvinist!
Steven D. Greydanus
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Bringing Hispanics home
I'VE been on the road, doing evangelization
missions in Spanish in Texas and Panama. We get tremendous help from
your magazine, by the way. Wish we had something like it in Spanish!
Evangelization among Hispanics, as I'm sure you realize, is a question
of keeping them in the one true Church and trying to bring back those
who have left us for one of the sects, which certainly are saturating
Latin America.
Just one little example: We had a month-long mission in January 1993
in the town of Puerta Armuelles, Panama, a banana port of about 20,000.
We just did a follow-up mission. Both were very successful, due mainly
to the zealous work of the fifty or so lay missioners who labored
with us. When I was pastor of the Catholic church in Armuelles in
the 1960s it was the only church in town. Now there are 17 Pentecostal
and Evangelical temples there!
One thing we find: Hispanics are hungry for God, religion, and community.
When we conduct a mission and send our lay volunteers out in teams
of two and three to knock on doors, people respond eagerly. All they
need is that personal contact, and they will start attending Mass
again or return to us from the sect they had joined.
Say a prayer for us. We do for you and your wonderful labors for the
Lord and his Church, This Rock!
Rev. John Kennedy, C.M.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
