|
L e t t e r s
Those Who Bowdlerize
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 5
 May 1999 
|
|
|
Oh, if only those who bowdlerize hymnals and the Bible really did respond to "the wetted finger in the air" ("Up Front," February 1999).
A Roper poll published in the March 1997 Catholic World Report revealed that sixty-nine percent of American Catholics oppose "inclusive" language (forty-seven percent "strongly oppose" it), while only twenty-one percent support it (and only nine percent "strongly support" it). The Vatican has banned the use of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the revised Psalms of the New American Bible in the liturgy and catechesis on the grounds that these Bibles are too bowdlerized.
Don Schenk
Allentown, Pennsylvania
Editor's reply:
In writing of liturgical music publishers responding to the "wetted finger in the air," I was referring only to the wind blowing from the Land of the Professional Liturgists, which tends to move counter to the jetstream coming from the Land of the Pewsitters. For more on the Vatican's concerns with the NRSV and NAB Bibles, see "Balancing Act," page 28.
Refuge From Balloons, Butterflies, And Clowns
Your article "Wretched Excess" ("Up Front," February 1999) makes excellent points. The so-called liturgical experts don't realize how foolish their gender-bender lingo sounds. You are also correct in saying that most contemporary church music is banal.
Some of us here in the central coast of California have been blessed with St. Anne Byzantine Catholic Church in San Luis Obispo where we have found refuge from the balloons, butterflies, clowns, and inclusive language of our local parishes. At St. Anne we have found beauty, reverence, incense, and-thank God-no inclusive language. Over ninety percent of the parishioners are, like us, Catholics of the western, Roman rite who could no longer tolerate the suffering that liturgical "experts" have forced on countless Catholics across this nation.
Constantino N. Santos
Atascadero, California
Degrees of What?
Regarding Jan Wakelin's "Quick Questions" response on marriage and divorce (March 1999): I suspect many readers are unfamiliar with the meaning of "degrees of consanguinity" and would not understand how it invalidated the marriage.
Rich Ryan
Ramona, California
Jan Wakelin replies:
"Consanguinity" refers to a blood relationship in a person's direct or indirect lineage. Direct lineage includes relationships such as grandparents, parents, and children. Indirect lineage includes those who share a common ancestor, such as siblings or first and second cousins. If you refer to Leviticus 18 you will see many of these types of relationships mentioned. A marriage to any of the mentioned relations was illegal. Therefore, if someone entered into such a marriage, it would be considered invalid. This is one interpretation of the exception Christ refers to in Matthew 19:9.
Hard To Feel Bad For Russell Ford
The article by Russell Ford about his prison ministry and Catholic conversions ("Special Sons of the Mother of God," February 1999) was very interesting. It is hard to feel bad for him and his religious persecutions in jail when he does not tell us what he and the other "murderers, rapists, burglars, robbers, and drug dealers" are doing to make amends to their victims. Maybe you could ask him to contribute a piece on reparations to the victims and their families.
Joe Oka
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky
Work Preceded The Fall
I would like to question James Guzek's position that there was no work for man prior to the Fall. In his article "From Sabbath to Sunday" (February 1999), Mr. Guzek states ". . . in Eden God provided everything needed for the happiness of Adam and Eve, and there was no work for them to do. Work entered into the world only as a part of the curse of sin"; and then he quotes Genesis 3:17-19.
Prior to the Fall, in Genesis 2:5 and 2:15, the word abad is used for "till": ". . . and there was no man to till the soil" (Gen. 2:5), and "the Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden to till and keep it" (Gen. 2:15). The word abad is also used in the Old Testament to designate work-for example, the work we are to rest from on the Sabbath (Ex. 34:21) and even strenuous work (Ex. 5:18).
After the Fall, in Genesis 3:17-18, God curses the ground with thistles and thorns and speaks of Adam's work "in sorrow" (KJV) and in "sweat" (verse 19). But God placed Adam in the garden "to till and keep it," so work didn't arrive at the Fall; it just became difficult.
Pope John Paul II doesn't seem to consider work part of the curse of the fall, either. In the greeting of his encyclical Laborem Exercens, issued on Sept. 14, 1981, he writes: "Man is made to be in the visible universe and image and likeness of God himself, and he is placed in it in order to subdue the earth. From the beginning therefore he is called to work. Work is one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of creatures whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time by work occupying his existence on earth. Thus work bears a particular mark of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a community of persons. And this mark decides its interior characteristics; in a sense it constitutes its very nature."
Work, therefore, is something we do as a reflection of God the creator. Since he worked to create the universe and us, our work can and should be a reflection of him in all ways.
Matthew D. Watkins
Baltimore, Maryland
Error Always Contradicts Itself
While reading Fr. Ray Ryland's wonderful article, "Wonderful Leo" (February 1999), I realized that error, given enough time, never fails to contradict itself. Whatever reasons Easterners give for denying the supremacy of the pope must not contradict any further teaching. To say no bishop can exercise authority over another bishop, because to do so is to exercise authority over Jesus Christ, makes no sense if one later says that it was sometimes necessary and useful for a bishop to do so. Not only is it never necessary or useful to exercise authority over Jesus Christ, it is not possible under any circumstance, and certainly not for the sake of any politeness or political correctness.
Martin Petrencik
Represa, California
Facts Is Facts
Your excellent article "Catholics Can't Think For Themselves" (February 1999) made several good points. I would like to add two more.
The first is that looking to an authority for "the answers" is nothing unusual. If I want to learn about mathematics, I will go to an authority on mathematics and accept the answers he gives. If I want to learn about history, I will go to an authority on history and accept the answers he gives. And if I want to learn about God, I will go to the Catholic Church and accept the answers she gives. I can certainly examine the answers to see if they are consistent and if they appear reasonable, but as a layman, I cannot claim to know better than the authority.
The second point is that people who say "I don't want my opinions handed to me on a silver platter" are confusing opinions with facts. The church's teachings on faith and morality are fact: Certain things are right and certain things are wrong, and no amount of opinionating will change matters. Given the facts as the church teaches them, I can then form my opinions on various subjects. But saying that the church gives me my opinions is like saying that the multiplication table gives me my opinions.
John F. Fay
Mary Esther, Florida
Not Angels, Not Mary, Not A Few Saints
I enjoyed reading James E. Tynen's article, "Catholics Can't Think for Themselves" (February 1999) But I'd like to comment on the statement, "[The truths of the Catholic Church] are so profound and rich that perhaps only a few saints fully comprehend them on this earth." No being created by God could ever even come close to "fully comprehending" the truths of the Catholic Church-not angels, not Mary, not "a few saints." Only God fully comprehends these truths because he is truth itself. A few sentences later, Mr. Tynen affirms this by saying, "Some [of the Church's teachings] are so full of wonders that in this life we can only begin to plumb them."
Joseph Field
Warrenton, Virginia
The Trinity In The Old Testament
I was dismayed to see such a great magazine fall short in its ability to respond to Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the Trinity ("Quick Questions," February 1999). The statement that the Old Testament does not contain any concise picture of the Trinity is absurd. Our best glimpse into this mystery of the faith is contained not in the New Testament but in Genesis.
It is noon and Abraham is sitting by the entrance to his tent (Gen. 18: 1). Suddenly "three men" appear to Abraham, and he throws himself at the feet of "the Lord." He greets all three, not with the salutation "Sirs," but with the singular "Sir." And though all three address themselves to Abraham, all are referred to here as "the Lord." Abraham begs the Lord to stay to "bathe your feet and then rest yourselves under the tree." The response, though coming from all three at once, is one voice: "'Very well,' they replied, 'do as you have said.'"
In this chapter Yahweh is continually referred to as "them" and "they." It was no doubt an early answer to the chosen peoples' perplexing question of how Yahweh (singular) and Elohim (plural) could refer to the same being.
The writer of Genesis does not understand how the "One God" could actually be a plural personage, and his use of words reflects this. He refers to Yahweh as either "men" or "angels," though of course God is neither. In addition, God identifies himself as all three of the beings: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave, that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me" (Gen. 18:20-21). Two of the three then continue on to Sodom (Gen. 19:1) while one, who is also still referred to as "the Lord," remains behind. Who cannot see that Yahweh is all three?
Craig Turner
Burke, Vikrginia
What's With The Sixty-Year-Old Vocation Story?
Since I enjoy vocation stories, I read the "The Last Waltz" (February 1999) with great interest. However, this is the only vocation story of this type that I ever recall encountering in the pages of This Rock in the many years I have read it. I am concerned that you would choose to illustrate this unique subject with a story set in the 1930s from a defunct magazine. This is likely to encourage the belief that today the religious life is all but gone and that there are few, if any, vibrant, orthodox orders. I have encountered this belief among Catholics, and I personally have known the dismay it brings to an aspirant. If vocations are to be encouraged, young people need to know that such a glorious giving of oneself can still be done and is being done today.
In response to a girl who thought, as I once had, that good, growing religious orders are all but non-existent, I began compiling a list of the strong orders of sisters. I have found over thirty orders so far. While looking for orders of sisters I found so many orthodox orders of priests and brothers that I have since compiled information on over twenty of them. These are solidly orthodox and growing orders, many founded after Vatican II. A good example of the orders of sisters is the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, a teaching order started in 1997, living under the Dominican Rule. The novices and postulants of this order are young, most entering in their teens or early twenties, and they radiate joy, peace, and love for God and the religious life.
Of course, vocation stories like "The Last Waltz" are an encouragement to vocations no matter what time period they were written in. But that benefit would be increased by drawing attention to the growth of orthodox orders today.
Rosemary Shannon (age 17)
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Not Self-Absorbed
Please, please, please ignore the advice of an anonymous reader ("Letters," February 1999) who dislikes Leslie Ryland's column, "Raising Saints." While I can certainly empathize with the reader's trials, I for one greatly enjoy reading Mrs. Ryland's thoughts on daily life as a Catholic mom. It is not "self-absorbed" to seek holiness for yourself and your family.
I practically danced when she wrote about limiting/eliminating television. The only person I know personally who would not think that outrageous is a Fundamentalist. I would throw my television out, but I made the mistake of reading an article in This Rock on biblical submission of wives to husbands.
Dawn Beutner
Arlington, Virginia
Antennae Attuned To Error
I almost fell off my chair when I read Kevin Orlin Johnson's article ("The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses," January 1999). He cites Liturgical Training Publications in Chicago as a resource for correct liturgical practice.
We in this archdiocese have long associated LTP with promoting liturgical abuse. While a lot of their stuff is okay, whenever some bulletin quote or flier comes from them we automatically put up our antennae in order to weed out the usual instances of error.
Did Dr. Johnson read this book?
Georgia Montana
Stickney, Illinois
Editor's reply:
Dr. Johnson didn't cite Liturgical Training Publications as a "resource for correct liturgical practice." He cited a single volume, The Liturgy Documents: A Parish Resource, published by LTP, as a book that "includes many kinds of regulations in a single volume." As you acknowledge, even suspect publishing houses put out reliable books, especially if, as in this case, they are books merely containing norms issued by the Church.
Free Subscriptions Are Not Going Unappreciated
Thank you for my free subscription. I find This Rock an indispensable tool for studying and learning more and more of this great faith of ours.
I lend out copies to my fellow Catholic inmates. I was able to help a friend convert to the Catholic Church by using articles from your magazine. He was grossly misinformed about what Catholics really believe, and reading This Rock helped clear things up for him.
He is now a devout Catholic. All this was done in prison. I find this very encouraging.
I know it is expensive to give out free subscriptions. Please do not feel it is a burden. This Rock is helping many Catholic and non-Catholic inmates. Giving free subscriptions to inmates who cannot afford them otherwise is a very kind and honorable act, and it is not going unappreciated.
Edward A. Newa
Springfield, South Dakota
What Doesn't Belong In This Rock
I am a novice with the Western U.S. province of the Order of Preachers and have noticed a downward trend in your otherwise fine publication. The most recent examples are "The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses" (January 1999) and "The Last Waltz" (February 1999). These articles and those like them, all containing valuable information, do not relate directly to apologetics or evangelization, which is the explicit focus of This Rock.
It is important to keep to that focus to serve your readership with the information they need; to maintain the quality of the magazine; and to avoid the "intramural Catholic-bashing" that some readers justly fear. I count at least five letters in the last two issues raising this concern, though they seem more concerned about whether the articles should be written at all than whether they should appear in your publication. The concern about personal "criteria of Catholicism" has rightly been raised-not because we shouldn't be discussing the objective criteria and our personal application of them but because that discussion does not belong in This Rock. The concern about writing, acting, and thinking in charity also has justly been raised, inasmuch as occasionally an article comes across as lacking in that virtue. "The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses" comes to mind, as well as occasional "Dragnet" pieces, but these are isolated cases I trust you do all you can to avoid.
The point is that apologetics and evangelization are activities directed toward those who do not share our conviction about the truth of Catholicism. For example, some of our brethren in ministry have expressed a concern about the "slant" of your magazine, to which our house of formation subscribes. Articles such as those listed above, because they appear out of their proper context, have given my brothers the impression that the whole magazine promotes an unhealthy ecumenism based on a lack of respect for non-Catholics.
I know this is not true, but even the semblance of scandal must be avoided, which is difficult without a strong focus on respectful ecumenism and evangelization based in love for others and recognition that error is often due to ignorance of truth rather than to malice. Other magazines have as their focus liturgical or internal doctrinal/pastoral issues. There is no need for your magazine to expand into territory that is being well covered.
Br Robert King
Oakland, CA
Visions In Abundance-From Satan
I have been reading with great interest the feedback on Kevin Orlin Johnson's article, "The Ten Most Common Misconceptions about Apparitions" (October 1998). As a parish priest this is something I experience as a very real pastoral difficulty.
I cannot understand why anybody would defend any apparition. It is clearly outside the realm of ordinary Catholic living. As Roman Catholics we are called to live to a heroic degree the virtues of faith, hope, and love. To live this life we have been given the sacraments, the scriptures, sacred Tradition, and so on. All other devotions-especially those received through the private revelations of others-are useful insofar as they assist an individual in living the virtues.
The reason God grants private revelations to some people is precisely to assist them in living out these virtues more perfectly. They may inspire us onlookers and encourage us to live holier lives, but they still belong to the original recipient as a means of drawing him closer to Christ. To attach ourselves to the private revelations of even the saints is to do the opposite of what the saints themselves did. We must consider how the saints talked about such matters only under obedience and with great displeasure. Poor Sister Lucia does not hide her exasperation every time she is compelled to speak of Fatima. St. Theresa of Avila is also fond of reminding her readers that she is not really pleased with having to write down her experiences.
The Church never declared that Mary appeared to three children at Fatima. That was the children's claim. The Church only ruled that the events of Fatima were of supernatural origin, and this conclusion was drawn from the way in which the children lived the virtues of faith, hope, and love; and the messages were free of doctrinal error. To defend Fatima or any other apparition as an article of faith is foreign to the mind of the Church.
Regarding the conversions that are credited to these sites: Apparitions are not the cause of grace. Sacraments are. Those who are sincerely seeking Christ will find him. If an apparition inspires one's hope and creates a longing for Christ, it will be satisfied by the Holy Eucharist and a good confession. Mary is the mediatrix of all grace, and her role in our conversion is no less significant in our own parish church than it would be at Fatima or Medjugorje.
Also, any conversion can be an emotionally charged experience. But the fact remains that the experience must translate into a profound moral conversion if it is to be considered authentic, demonstrable by a life of faith, hope, and love.
Consider how God delivered Israel. Passing dry through the Red Sea was an occasion of intense rejoicing, but the Israelites were immediately led into the desert to be taught the rigors of faith. They did not stand and gaze at the sea, nor did they return in pilgrimages. The experience was branded in their memory and memorialized, but only as a means of strengthening their hope by calling to mind the "mighty deeds of God." This is the normal and proper use of the faculty of our memory subordinated to the virtue of hope.
The problem of disobedience that surrounds many alleged apparition sites is the most bothersome of all. Why do people insist on a ruling from Rome? Rome gives authority on the matter to the local bishop and respects his decision. The only time Rome is going to get involved is if a particular site begins to take on a universal quality, such as is the case with Medjugorje.
Concerning Medjugorje, the Vatican's official paper, L'Osservatore Romano, published a joint statement by Cardinal Kuharic (president of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference) and then Bishop Zanic of the diocese of Mostar that said, "It is not permissible to organize pilgrimages and other manifestations motivated by the supernatural character attributed to the facts of Medjugorje." Seeking the judgment of the Holy See in light of the enduring opinion of the local bishop of Medjugorje boarders on a form of ultramontanism.
In my parish I have two traveling Pilgrim Virgin statues that are part of a Fatima home visitation program. I support it completely. The materials provided with the program are top-notch catechetical tools for teaching about an authentic way of Catholic living that includes an accurate depiction of Mary's role in the Church.
I count on Mary a lot. She is a far superior evangelist than I can ever hope to be, and this program is bearing its initial fruit. The statue is gorgeous, the materials are quite fine, and lives are being changed because people are going to confession more often and participating at Mass more deeply.
I do not imagine that my letter will change anyone's mind and may in fact raise more objections. I would not be surprised if I was tagged a "bad priest" for not believing in apparitions. If you are someone who is attached to the idea of apparitions, consider the consequences: John of the Cross indicates that those who love visions will get them and in abundance-from Satan. If you refuse to live in the darkness and obscurity of faith in complete obedience to your religious superior, what guarantee do you have that you will not be deceived by the Antichrist when he appears, who will have the power to work great prodigies in the sight of all?
Fr. Kevin Christofferson
Miles City, Montana
Extremes Need To Be Avoided
Regarding Kevin Orlin Johnson ("The Ten Most Common Misconceptions about Apparitions," October 1998), I think he could have handled the issue a little better. As a pastor of souls, I think two extremes need to be avoided. The first is those Catholics who refuse to believe in any Marian apparition, even those apparitions approved by the Church. On the other hand, there are those Catholics who believe in every reported Marian apparition. Their lives revolve around Marian apparitions, and they continue to believe in Marian apparitions even though the Church has rejected these so-called apparitions.
We often forget that, in every authentic Marian apparition, the Blessed Virgin always calls her children to obey the bishops. If any report of a Marian apparition leads Catholics to disobey the spiritual direction of the bishops, then it is a false apparition, no matter how many conversions have taken place.
But I have to disagree with Dr. Johnson when he says, "People living full sacramental lives day to day don't need these extraordinary reminders." If these so-called "extraordinary reminders" have their origin in God, then I assume God thinks we need these "extraordinary reminders" once in a while. True, we already have the essentials for salvation, the sacraments and the Magisterium. But it is my experience from working with people that these so-called "extraordinary reminders" are useful in sparking the flame of faith, hope, and love in people's hearts.
Please advise your readers to get themselves a copy of Father Rene Laurentin's The Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary Today (Veritas Publications, 1991). This is by far the best book I've found on Marian apparitions. The author, a Marian theologian, is faithful to the Magisterium
Fr. Raul Diaz
Porterville, California
Beans' Reply Instead Of Klemm's
I read with interest Karl Keating's final observation to the many letters concerning holding hands at the Our Father: "I calls 'em as I sees 'em."
In the early 1930s, Bill Klemm was one of the better major league baseball umpires. A reporter asked him how he decided whether a pitch was a ball or a strike. He replied: "I calls 'em as I sees 'em." Another umpire of note at that time, "Beans" Reardon, was asked the same question. He replied: "I calls 'em as they is!"
All this is to say: You really should have used Beans' reply instead of Klemm's.
John V. Quinn
Wheaton, Maryland
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
