|
B e t w e e n t h e L i n e s
What Does Father Mean?
By Karl Keating
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 4
 April 1994 
|
|
|
THE writers' adage has it that even a bad
review is better than no review. A critic may not like what has been
written, but his taking notice is a sign that the text has at least
some importance.
I'm pleased to say that nearly all the reviews of Pillar of
Fire, Pillar of Truth have been complimentary, but one "pan"
of the booklet has been sent to us. It was written by a priest, Rev.
Thomas D. Mahoney, the pastor of St. Ann Catholic Church in Cleveland
Heights, Ohio, and it appeared in a recent parish bulletin under the
title "From the Pastor's Desk."
I reproduce his commentary in full, not so much because it demands
a response (who outside the parish is likely ever to see it; who inside
the parish even now remembers it?), but because Fr. Mahoney's words
aptly illustrate the way orthodox publications can have a cloud cast
over them. Admittedly, I have a keen interest in his review because
its subject is a booklet I helped to write, yet I think I am able
to comment with a certain disinterestedness--but that's for you
to decide.
Paragraphs in italic type are by Fr. Mahoney. My comments appear in
roman type.
Recently, a brightly colored little booklet entitled
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth has appeared at the church
doors. It is not there with any official approbation, and no one has
ever come forward and accepted responsibility for it or asked permission
to distribute it.
The first thing Fr. Mahoney does is to cast suspicion
on the booklet, which has "appeared" in his parish without
"official approbation." This probably means that no one
asked him if the booklet could be distributed in the church racks,
but the word "official" suggests that a higher authority's
sanction must be obtained to display literature--not true, of
course.
The next phrase is one that might come from a prosecutor or a schoolmarm:
"no one has ever come forward and accepted responsibility for
it." You already know the writer has prejudged the matter. His
choice of words betrays his thinking.
Why not say instead, "No one has taken credit for putting the
booklet in the racks" or "It is unknown who placed the booklet
in the racks"? The former sentence has a slightly positive cast,
the latter has a neutral cast, while Fr. Mahoney's has a decidedly
negative cast.
Only with the issue of permission, I think, has Fr. Mahoney hit upon
a valid complaint. Permission should have been asked first--unless
the parish has a policy of allowing any non-offensive Catholic literature
to be displayed. A few parishes take this approach and have become
havens for second-hand literature.
I personally think that the booklet is not very endorsable
and it would be better not distributed. The reason being that as a
string of declarative sentences it is probably right, but when all
the sentences are put together, you are left with declaration, tone,
attitude, and questions about what has been left unsaid.
Is something wrong with declarative sentences? If
so, Fr. Mahoney--in an commentary constructed out of declarative
sentences--doesn't say. But at least he says that each sentence,
standing on its own, is "probably right"--a welcome
admission and nearly unavoidable, since Pillar of Fire, Pillar
of Truth deals only with simple, verifiable facts and principles,
most of which are taken straight from Scripture.
Then comes the curious part. Fr. Mahoney says that the whole is contrary
to the sum of the individual parts. The individual sentences are correct,
but when they are combined a cloud descends. You end up with "declaration"
(which is what you might expect from declarative sentences), "tone,
attitude" (code words--the "tone" or "attitude"
of the booklet is that truth exists and can be known with certainty),
"questions about what has been left unsaid."
This last phrase needs examination. Is he referring to things left
unsaid about the topics discussed in the booklet--the structure
of the Church, the marks by which it can be identified, the papacy
and episcopacy, the sacraments, Mary and the saints, salvation? If
so, then we must plead guilty.
In Catholicism and Fundamentalism I devoted 34 dense pages
to the papacy and admittedly gave only an overview. Pillar of
Fire, Pillar of Truth gives a little more than a page to the papacy--a
page that contains perhaps half as many words as does a page of my
book--so it's manifestly true that the booklet leaves much unsaid
on each topic.
But that's the right approach for an introductory work intended to
pique the interest of the reader, to get him interested in the Catholic
faith by highlighting a few of its major tenets. Do we complain about
a table of contents because it doesn't approach the length of the
main text?
I digress. It's likely that Fr. Mahoney isn't complaining that the
booklet doesn't say enough about the topics it addresses.
What he means is that he doesn't like the selection of topics.
This becomes clear later.
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth is fairly antagonistic
towards the "Bible churches" though it never defines which
churches are included in this grouping. Many non-Catholic children
who belong to Bible churches attend our school. A book like this does
nothing to foster healthy understanding or inter-faith discussion.
Its tone is also fairly anti-ecumenical and triumphalistic and both
of these attitudes have been rejected by the world-wide gathering
of bishops in union with the Holy Father during the Vatican Council.
Notice that Fr. Mahoney cites not one example of
antagonism toward other churches. The closest the booklet comes to
"antagonism" is to note that "many of the churches
to which door-to-door missionaries belong" (most missionaries
are Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses)
"began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries,"
and it says that only the Catholic Church even claims to have existed
since the first century. All this is factual, isn't it?
It's laudable that "many non-Catholic children who belong to
Bible churches" are enrolled in St. Ann's school. I hope Fr.
Mahoney is not so concerned about "upsetting" their parents
that his school has shelved a clear explication of the Catholic faith.
If it hasn't, then the booklet won't surprise anyone. If it
has, then the booklet might be the ideal vehicle through which
to teach the faith to the Catholic children (they need to know their
own faith if they're to live as Catholics), while at the same time
giving the non-Catholic children a view of Catholicism from the inside.
How can there be "healthy understanding or inter-faith discussion"
if Catholics can't explain their own faith and if non-Catholics, because
of a misplaced fear of offending them, have not had it presented
to them plainly? Ironically, the booklet's tone, which Fr. Mahoney
terms "fairly anti-ecumenical," has been praised by many
of our Protestant friends for being precisely the opposite--the
tone fosters authentic ecumenism by giving the facts about
Catholicism.
The thesis lacks a certain intellectual honesty because
it never presents the Church as "sinful community" as being
responsible for some of the problems in the area of credibility that
the Church has to face.
I don't know what prompted this outburst about the
Church being a "sinful community." Perhaps it was the section
on holiness as one of the four identifying marks of the Church. The
booklet shows why holiness is a signpost to the Church Jesus founded.
A few pages on it explains briefly the role of sin in our lives and
why Jesus gave us the gift of the sacrament of penance. This is an
upbeat view. Fr. Mahoney seems to desire a negative view.
Finally, the use of Scripture is only probative and
it is never used as a source of living faith or revelation of the
Father's love. The knowledge of Christ does not appear to be expected
to be relational but only observant. The Roman Catholic Church teaches
that concern for justice is a constitutive element of our faith; this
little pamphlet never mentions justice at all.
Does Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth use
Scripture in a "probative" manner? Of course. It uses Scripture
to prove what it is asserting. Since all 21 ecumenical councils
have done the same, and since Jesus quoted the Old Testament in a
"probative" manner to establish his credentials, we think
this use has a good pedigree.
Fr. Mahoney claims the booklet refers to rules, but not to a relationship
with God. Yet the third from the last section is titled "What
Is the Purpose of Life?" and begins with the old catechism answer
that God made us "to be happy with him forever in the next [world]."
That happy togetherness is precisely a relation, the beatific vision.
Then Fr. Mahoney notes that "concern for justice is a constitutive
element of our faith"--true, but it is hardly the only such
element. Hundreds of "constitutive elements" might have
been included in this short booklet, but then it wouldn't have been
short. It is instructive, I think, that Fr. Mahoney notes the lack
of a discussion of only one of the cardinal virtues. I wonder why
he did not complain that no mention is made of prudence, temperance,
and fortitude, especially in view of the fact that the virtue of justice,
unless reigned in by the other three, soon ceases to be a virtue at
all, as anyone who has had to deal with a person imprudently seeking
"justice" will attest.
In summation: This little booklet is a very narrow--and
probably in the end--a very unhealthy presentation of "the
Catholic Church and God's plan for you." More and more of this
literature floods church vestibules and is passed off on unsuspecting
Catholics who are honestly searching for a good compendium of Catholic
teaching. I think that the easy availability of this kind of stuff
is a good sign that all of us need to become more honestly and faithfully
conversant about what being a Catholic at the end of the 20th century
really demands. Just because something says "Catholic" on
it does not mean that "Catholic" is in it.
Is Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth "narrow"?
Admittedly it's limited in scope, and, given its purpose--a short
introduction to Catholicism for those confused by non-Catholics' questions--the
"narrowness" is proper. Would a short introduction to mathematics
for the uninitiated include chapters on differential equations, calculus,
and the theory of groups?
What about Fr. Mahoney's laudable concern for the mental and spiritual
health of his parishioners? Is the booklet carrying a contagion that
may hurt them? What else can be meant by the term "unhealthy"?
I can't avoid concluding that this is a catch-word, what the late
social philosopher Richard Weaver termed a "devil word."
Such words have no intrinsic meaning. Like expletives heard on street
corners, they convey nothing other than a general dislike. I have
always thought that traditional four-letter words are actually refuges
for people without the intelligence to insult others cleverly. The
term "unhealthy," when used in the way Fr. Mahoney uses
it, carries some of the same tone and, unfortunately, a bit of the
same baggage.
Then Fr. Mahoney says something I desperately wish were true: "More
and more of this literature floods church vestibules." If church
racks were filled with booklets like Pillar of Fire, Pillar of
Truth, the laity would be far better informed about their faith--something
greatly to be prayed and worked for.
The solution Fr. Mahoney proposes to the "flood" he finds
so dangerous (and that I, having visited hundreds of vestibules, find
so non-existent) is for Catholics "to become more honestly and
faithfully conversant about what being a Catholic at the end of the
20th century really demands." But how can they be "conversant"
if they don't know the rudiments of their faith? How can they converse
about something they hardly know and attend to largely out of habit?
You become conversant about a sport by studying up about it and, perhaps,
by participating in it actively. You don't become conversant through
an eighth sacrament, holy osmosis.
If Fr. Mahoney is saying, under all his words of complaint, that he
wants the folks in the pews to go out and engage in social justice
work, well, that's fine, even virtuous, but how can we expect them
to be so motivated if they can't answer intelligently the opening
question of the child's catechism: "Why did God make you?"
If they don't understand why God created them, it's unlikely
they will see Christ in their neighbors, and, if they don't know why
Christ died for them, they won't know why they might need to offer
themselves up as holocausts for the people next door.
Karl Keating is the editor of This Rock.
|
