|
L e t t e r s
Is a Future Pope Watching MTV?
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 4
 April 1999 
|
|
|
Several years ago I saw an amusing episode of "The Simpsons." Not having seen their neighbor's wife for several days, Bart and Homer convinced themselves that the neighbor had murdered her. This led to them to investigate until they clumsily set their neighbor's house ablaze. At this point the missing lady showed up.
"Where have you been, we thought you were dead!" exclaimed Homer.
"Why, I've been away at Bible camp learning to be more judgmental," was her reply.
I guess you've been to a few such Bible camps yourself. How else could you have come up with your idea for the "Up Front" feature in the January 1999 issue? I agree that much of MTV's programming is morally questionable at best; but equating advertising for priests on MTV with trolling for fish in a cesspool is being judgmental towards MTV's viewers.
Personally, I think it's a great idea. It's safe to assume that MTV viewers may be at a stage in life where they are looking for some direction. Why not present the priesthood as an option? Perhaps they'll think it's cool if it's advertised on MTV. Besides, didn't Jesus himself do a little trolling in a cesspool and come up with the great apostle Paul?
How do you know that a future pope isn't watching MTV right now? And if he is, does that make him a hopeless sinner whom we shouldn't even bother running the ad to?
Shame on you, Tim Ryland. I hope you retract some of your statements in your next issue.
Robert J. Simone
Tampa, Florida
A Superficial Peace
I am a reader of This Rock, but not a Roman Catholic. I am growing weary of the readers who write and complain that you attack other Catholics. They see the threat from those outside of the Roman Catholic communion to be the area needing your attention.
I do not agree with your theology, but I commend you for standing firm to the Church's truth and for policing the ranks. They may not be able to see the importance of truth over maintaining a superficial peace. They are therefore at risk of being blown to and fro by every wind of change that comes along. I can see from reading your magazine that many are already going astray, despite remaining within your church. I at least know that we share a love for the truth, even if we disagree.
Mark Stolzer
Fenton, Missouri
Catholic Evidence Guild Alive and Well
In the January 1999 issue of This Rock, you have an article entitled "And So I Evangelize" by Fr. Alfred Guthrie. He mentions the Catholic Evidence Guild and says, "Nowadays forums like these no longer exist."
Au contraire, mon frere. The Catholic Evidence Guild of London is still in Hyde Park. The Catholic Evidence Guild of New York does apologetics in Grand Central Station and Washington Square Park. Please make this correction in your magazine.
People who wish to contact the Guild in New York can write to the Catholic Evidence Guild, 6000 Riverdale Avenue, The Bronx, New York, 10471; or they can visit our web site: www.catholicevidence.org; or they can give me a call at 914-693-6746.
Lucy Tucker
New York
Minions of Mr. Chick
I understand Catholic Answers was out in force in St. Louis during the Pope's visit and was distributing literature defending the Catholic faith against certain Protestants who view a visit by the Pope as an opportunity to proselytize Catholics. I'm sad to report that not even a semi-ecumenical gathering such as the March for Life in Washington, D.C., on January 22 was immune from the nasty virus of bigotry.
A friend of mine was marching down Constitution Avenue when she was handed a Jack Chick tract entitled, "Why is Mary Crying?" The front of the tract is deceiving-a traditional portrait of Mary. It gets to its point quickly, insisting prayers to Mary are pagan in origin and downright idolatrous.
I suppose that the March for Life would seem like a bountiful harvest for some bigots because, even though Jews, Protestants, and even Muslims are represented, it remains an overwhelmingly Catholic event. Bishops, priests, and nuns are everywhere, and the sound of the rosary being prayed fills the air. Such public displays of Catholicism obviously annoy certain people.
The type of Catholics who attend the March for Life are Catholic to the core and would not be a receptive audience for those used to dealing with Catholics less dedicated to their faith. I'm sure the minions of Mr. Chick found that most unsettling.
Patrick A. Fegan
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Thrown in the Towel
In "The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses" (January 1999) Dr. Johnson should have qualified his remarks as applying to the Latin Rite. Blue Marian vestments, lack of genuflecting, and standing are proper in the Byzantine Rite.
Even in the Latin Rite I have observed a "second Mass" in a crowded auditorium with folding chairs where kneeling was impossible. I also remember empty holy water fonts during Lent in the 1940s and '50s. Nothing innovative or post-Vatican there.
I must very strongly object to his comments about parish-hopping. I have fought the good fight, including withdrawing our children from Catholic schools in 1968, and have thrown in the towel. While we're not parish-hoppers as such, we have not belonged to our territorial parish since then. Why would errant priests change when a large majority of their parishioners think everything is just fine?
Kenneth J. Bednar
San Antonio, Texas
Going Backward
I just attended my very first liturgy committee meeting and guess which issue I brought to the meeting? January 1999, or course. I read from Kevin Orlin Johnson's article about the ten most common liturgical abuses.
Everyone was interested in knowing what they were, of course, but no one was willing to admit that some of these abuses go on right here in our own parish, and certainly in our diocese. I was even accused of "going backwards" by reading such articles.
I look forward to many more liturgy committee meetings armed with great articles such as this one. Keep 'em coming!
Jeff Reser
Bucyrus, Ohio
Less Activism, More Charity
This Rock has dedicated a great deal of space to the topic of liturgical abuse. The general thesis seems to be the laity rising up, taking charge, and straightening out their parishes. For example, Dr. Johnson's article "The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses" (January 1999) says, "In and atmosphere of free-form liturgy, it's up to the laity to know the laws about texts, gestures, the sacred objects used, and the proper conduct of the Mass; to obey those laws; and to see that the clergy obeys them, too."
However, when the Magisterium makes a decree, it doesn't come to the door of each of the laity, and with good reason. Those decrees go to the bishops and then to the priests. Look at the writings of the Holy Father. Does he encourage the faithful to straighten out their priests? If he does address specific action from the laity on this issue, that's what we need to hear.
Of course the Pope calls us to live holy lives, and the liturgy is the center of that life. But when the Pope addresses the American bishops ad limina and in other documents, it is the pastoral duty of the bishops to decide the most appropriate manner in which to comply with directives of the Holy Father.
I am in no way arguing the accuracy of Dr. Johnson's position. I simply want to encourage This Rock to focus on writing more about the patience, charity, and long-suffering that goes with overcoming widespread liturgical abuses, and less time trying to turn us all into canon lawyers. Raising these issues
with our pastors, patiently sharing our concerns, and allowing the pastor to be the pastor of the flock is the job of lay people.
I agree this is an important issue, but it's also an issue that may bring about a great deal of unnecessary contention if it's not handled properly. The first casualty of a contentious dispute is often charity.
Don Karls
Billings, Montana
Editor's reply:
Charity and patience are certainly needed in dealing with liturgical abuses, and not everyone needs to be a canon lawyer. However, the faithful do have a right established by canon law to voice their concerns. The Code of Canon Law states:
"The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires, to the pastors of the Church. In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons" (CIC 212, paragraphs 2-3).
I Do Not Look to the Liturgy Police for Leadership
In "The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses," Mr. Johnson writes that the new Mass after Vatican II contributed to the decline in religious vocations. Fr. John Hardon attributes the decline in religious vocations to the "contraceptive mentality" in our secular society and in the Roman Catholic faith community.
Most Catholics are as familiar with the General Instruction on the Roman Missal as they are with Humanae Vitae-which on a scale of one to ten would probably be less than one. I look to the bishops of the United States, and diocesan ordinaries in particular, for leadership in liturgical correctness and moral guidance. I do not look to the "liturgy police" for such leadership. I marvel at how worked up they can get, as Mr. Johnson clearly demonstrates.
I am a deacon. Why aren't there more explicit instructions on what deacons do while assisting their parish priest at Mass? I follow the guidance in the Ceremonial of Bishops and the GIRM; the Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite is also helpful. But forget the notion of uniformity, except perhaps between deacons serving in the same parish who see the benefits of cooperating.
Like most institutional problems, liturgical abuses start at the top and filter down through a lack of obedience and a gradual erosion of discipline. Having served thirty years in the U.S. military I know that the private does not correct the general.
George A. Gaun
Sierra Vista, Arizona
Tithe the Mint and Dill and Cumin
I can assure you that I will no longer be involved in any way with Catholic Answers if you continue to run articles like the cover story in your January issue, "The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses." For one thing, this article simply isn't appropriate in an "apologetics and evangelization" magazine. It isn't up to you to deal with every problem you consider important. Leave this one to other organizations (who deal with it much better, I'm afraid.)
The crucial point "that the loss of structure in liturgy caused an erosion of faith" goes completely unsupported. I happen to believe it is the other way around: Going after these "liturgical abuses" is merely the legalist's way of "tithing the mint and dill and cumin while neglecting the weightier matters of the law."
Here in Steubenville there are many good and faithful priests who might (gasp!) leave the sanctuary to preach against, say, contraception. Or they inspire their congregation to evangelize by permitting a "reflection" after the homily by a knowledgeable convert to the Catholic faith. These men should be encouraged to continue their good work, not harassed by a bunch of legalists.
David Burton
Steubenville, Ohio
Evolution as Spiritual Aid
Hurray for Tom Gorman and his journey home ("Letters," January 1999)! His story brought this mom a lot of comfort and hope regarding the future for some of my children who are far away from the Church and Christ.
I'm sorry that he has trouble with evolution. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that if a person believes evolution is a natural process he must believe Darwin had the theory correct, lock, stock, and barrel. The mere fact that it is an acknowledged "theory" is evidence that nobody has all the answers regarding evolution. I can see mini-evolutions going on all over the place. Nothing simply pops into being fully developed. Consider how a human progresses from nothing more than a collection of cells. Consider the evolution of a thought, an idea, or the evolution of faith. Evolution means change and progression. It happens on minuscule and grandiose scales. Some progressions take seconds; others take eons.
Evolution gives me a grasp of the immensity of the eternity that faces me. It excites me that I am in the hands of a Creator whose perfecting work in me is an ongoing, active process. It inspires me to continue to uncover the myriad clues that will lead me to know more about him and thus infuse into me the desire to give him even greater glory and praise.
Mary Schindler
Tacoma, Washington
First Vatican Bank
It is a rare occasion for me to disagree with James Akin. But a disagreement on the interpretation of the book of Revelation ("Chapter & Verse," December 1998) is as common as a disagreement on politics.
In interpreting the book of Revelation one must draw on the Old and New Testaments that came first. An outside source cannot work for interpretation.
For instance, the number 666 could mean anything from an outside source. But if we use the book of Kings we see that King Solomon deposited 666 pounds of gold in the Temple. Where is the connection? Well, what Solomon did in essence was turn God's Temple into a bank.
Now look carefully at the wording of chapter thirteen of Revelation. It is the beast from the land that is obviously a man who has the number 666; the beast from the sea is obviously an empire. Note also that the word "soon" is used in 22:6 to tell us of the time when Jesus will return, and note at the time of the writing that the holy city is now the Christian community, no longer Jerusalem, with the Pope at the head. The title "bishop of Rome" is secondary to the title "vicar of Christ" simply because Jesus said, "You are Peter." What that means ultimately is that where the Pope is, there is the Church.
What this all means is that the pope may very well be forced to flee Rome. So the beast of the land, a man who's number is 666, must be an international banker who will take the place of the pope in the Vatican. He will turn the structure of the Catholic Church-that is, the holy city-into a bank, just as King Solomon did when he deposited the 666 pounds of gold in the Temple. And the Gentiles will trample the structure of the Catholic Church for three and a half years-but that's all right, because the Church is where the Pope is.
Note also that God's Church, the Catholic Church, is so very vital. Would God give us anything less than a progressive history of the Catholic Church in the book of Revelation?
George Scanlon
West Roxbury, MA
James Akin replies:
I appreciate your kind words and thoughtfulness, though I stand by my interpretation of the beast as Nero or another early Roman emperor.
The Old Testament passages telling that Solomon received 666 talents of gold each year (1 Kgs. 10:14, 2 Chron. 9:13) do not present this as in any way sinister. If anything, it's the opposite, showing his glory as a king. Further checking does not bear out the idea that this is the key to understanding the number in Revelation.
Read Revelation 13:18, which admonishes us, "Wisdom is needed here; one who understands can calculate the number of the beast, for it is a number that stands for a person. His number is six hundred and sixty-six."
John uses very direct language in Greek. Literally, he says that 666 "is the number of a man" ("stands for" is a contrivance of the translators). In a world where letters stood for numbers and everyone's name had a numerical value, there could be little mistaking what kind of number John meant. Interpreting 666 merely as an allusion to Solomon's annual revenue in gold is too direct. There's no calculating involved, but Revelation says there will be if we are to understand the number.
The interpretation of the beast as an international banker is difficult. Solomon was a king rather than a banker, and the Old Testament does not speak of him depositing his annual gold revenue in the Temple. Even if there were a parallel to Solomon, it would support the idea that the beast was a monarch rather than a banker.
We must also consider the timeframe the book establishes for itself. John tells his first-century readers that the events will happen soon-not "soon" relative to some future time frame near the Second Coming, but soon given when he was writing.
We might like Revelation to be a progressive history of the Catholic Church, but this does not fit the text.
So when we look for a first-century monarch who demanded worship, persecuted Christians, and has a name adding to 666, and when we find such an individual, it isn't a big leap to say, "This is whom John was talking about."
This Rock Offers Absurd Distortion of Catholicism
Regarding the January 1999 issue of This Rock: Where in the world did you get the silly exaggerations that "the pope is infallible when he teaches on issues of faith and morals" (page 29) and "the infallibility of the Roman pontiff [has] been declared [an] article of the Catholic faith" (page 34)? What leads zealous and supposedly informed Catholics to cling to and ferociously promote such absurd and destructive distortions of the Catholic faith?
The original Vatican Council defined that only when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra he is "possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals: and therefore such definitions . . . are irreformable of themselves." The Council simply did not define that the pope is infallible!
The historical fact is that the title of this chapter [of the Vatican documents] was changed from the originally proposed "On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff" to "On the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff." Cardinal Guidi explained the vital difference to the Council Fathers: "The assistance is a transient divine act, not a permanent quality. It produces no change in the person; it makes his act infallible, but not his person. Therefore the correct title of the chapter would be, not 'the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff' but 'the infallibility of his dogmatic definitions.'"
What constitutes an infallible ex cathedra definition by the Pope? According to the original Vatican Council, the requirements are neither more nor less than when the Roman Pontiff "exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians . . . defines with his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church . . . such definitions are irreformable of themselves."
Won't you please become a supporter of the defined Catholic faith in fact and not just in claim?
James Harris
San Diego, California
Editor's reply:
The Vatican I relatio on infallibility (a relatio is an official document prepared for council Fathers to clarify main points of proposed teaching) states: "The sentence 'The Roman pontiff is infallible' should not be treated as false, since Christ promised that infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete since the pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgment, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal" (Gasser and O'Connor,The Gift of Infallibility, 42; emphases added).
What Cardinal Guidi said is quite true, and the title correction he proposed was appropriate. After all, the council was preparing a formal theological document that would be the Church's definitive text for centuries, so it needed to avoid confusion at all costs. The relatio explains: "The reason for the admission of the suggested correction is this: The title 'On the infallibility of the Roman pontiff' when translated into other languages sometimes does not have its proper sense. For example, in German, this way of putting it is able to be confused with impeccability. Therefore, so that it may be immediately clear that we are not treating of the impeccability of the Roman pontiff but of his infallibility in teaching, let the chapter be entitled 'On the infallible magisterium of the Roman pontiff'" (The Gift of Infallibility, 56).
A little Vatican I trivia for your next cocktail party, Mr. Harris: The correction you discuss was proposed by Konrad Martin, then bishop of Paderborn, Germany. He had previously been a teacher of moral theology and had studied under Dollinger, the German theologian who ultimately left the Church in reaction to the definition of papal infallibility.
YOU MAY HAVE, BUT IT'S LOST ON US
There once was a fellow who told his employee to load a wagon with goods. The good fellow went about his job but noticed the load on the wagon was getting very heavy, so much so that the springs on the wagon began to compress very much. He then thought that the mule would not be able to pull the load. He said as much to his boss but was rebuffed as his boss said, "To hell with the mule; just load the wagon."
I hope I made my point.
Warren Lawson
Carriere, Mississippi
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
