|
T h e A p o l o g i s t ’ s E y e
Third Secret Startles Rad Trads
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 7-8
 July 2000 
|
|
|
On May 13, 2000, Pope John Paul II flummoxed the many Catholic radical traditionalists who have been demanding the release of the "third secret" of Fatima and criticizing the Holy See for not doing so.
At the Pope’s behest, Angelo Cardinal Sodano explained the message at the beatification ceremony of Francisco and Jacinta Marto in Fatima, Portugal. The third secret concerned the assault on the Church and Christendom by "atheist systems" (Communism), the many martyrs of the twentieth century, and an assassination attempt made on the Pope in 1981.
The Cardinal indicated that the actual text of the third secret, with commentary by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would be released soon. Then we’ll be able to more clearly see which of the pundits who speculated about it were on track and which were off.
Even now, however, we can see how previous events fit together. The secret’s content explains Sr. Lucia’s remark a few years ago that it was meant principally for the Pope: It concerned an attempt on his life. It’s also clear now why it wasn’t released in 1960: You wouldn’t want to release it until after the attempt was made, lest it invite assassins and thus be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a genuine one. It also explains why John Paul II so closely connected his survival of the assassination attempt with Our Lady of Fatima.
Will radical traditionalists be satisfied by the release of the secret? Don’t bet on it. Psychological studies have shown that when fringe groups have their beliefs contradicted by the actual turn of events, their immediate response is to cling to the belief system even more ardently. Expect "rad trads" to go gunning—no pun intended—for the CDF's commentary on the secret and conclude that Rome has still not done the right thing.
—James Akin
Saint Martin Luther King, Jr.?
There was some consternation last January, when the U.S. bishops submitted to Rome the names of nearly two dozen Americans who had died as twentieth-century "witnesses to the faith," that among them was Martin Luther King, Jr. "Is the Catholic Church declaring Dr. King a saint?" was the gist of several inquiries to Catholic Answers in the wake of the announcement.
The answer, of course, is "no." The Vatican wished only to honor those of whatever faith who gave their lives in the service of Christ. In an ecumenical service held in the Coliseum in Rome on May 7, Pope John Paul II honored 12,692 such witnesses from around the world.
Fr. Daniel Ols, an official from the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, pointed out in the week before the ceremony that the word "martyr" properly refers to those who have been beatified or canonized. But this papacy’s willingness to reach out beyond traditional gestures—be it official recognition of non-Catholics who have died for their belief in God or apologies for the past sins of Catholics against Jews—is bound to cause confusion.
—Tim Ryland
Catholics Already Believe that Christ Is the Door
Focus on the Family is known for its attempts to minister to all Christians—Catholics included—in a way that is open and respectful of their beliefs. But in the April 2000 issue of Focus on the Family magazine, a short piece titled "Extending the Good News to Italy" explains, "By some estimates, at least 30 million people this year will visit Rome on a spiritual pilgrimage. . . . They will line up to walk through the holy doors in the four major basilicas in Rome, a tradition started in 1500 by Pope Alexander VI. Many believe this must be done to receive remission of sins.
"In partnership with Focus on the Family, Italy for Christ will be distributing materials to these pilgrims with the message that Christ is the Door any day of the year."
Though Catholics are not mentioned as the target of this evangelization, it’s clear that’s who Focus on the Family is after. Several of our readers who saw this item were upset by it.
It is obvious the author of this anonymous piece doesn’t understand the faith of Catholics. The Church does not teach that one must pass through holy doors in Rome that are open only once every 25 years in order to be forgiven one’s sins. (There would be a lot of awfully guilty Catholics wandering around for a quarter-century at a time.) Indeed, obtaining the Jubilee indulgence presupposes that the guilt of one’s sins has been remitted through previous confession.
Catholics already believe that Christ is the Door, just as he said (John 10:9). But the Focus on the Family author has portrayed his group’s efforts as an attempt to hijack the Jubilee celebrations in Rome for an evangelistic agenda that is contrary to the faith of Catholics.
For an organization dedicated to strengthening the family and respecting the religious beliefs of all Christians, this was an unwise move. We hope Focus on the Family’s effort in Italy doesn’t match the subversive angle put on it in their magazine. And we hope this organization—which does marvelous work—will in the future act more in accord with its own best intentions.
—Tim Ryland
The Reverential Attack
"Why Did He Die?"—the cover story of the April 24, 2000 issue of U.S. News & World Report about Jesus’ crucifixion—is an example of a new mass-media genre that could be called the "reverential attack." This genre has been popping up in television documentaries on PBS, A&E, and the History Channel. It’s also made the rounds in the major weekly newsmagazines.
The reverential attack is a variation on the old bait-and-switch sales tactic: The piece—whether written or on video—is laced with religious imagery. It opens and closes with inspirational prose that speaks about how meaningful a particular religious faith or story is to a great many people and how it has changed the world. This is the reverential part. It’s also the "bait" to get people to read or watch.
Then comes the "switch": The attack comes in the middle of the work, where it is suggested that, despite the great meaning the subject of the piece has for many people, there is now controversy about it. Several "experts" attack the traditional view of the subject. These experts are always liberal. (When the Gospels are under discussion, these experts are often drawn from the radical group the Jesus Seminar.)
A few disagreeing experts are also given coverage. However, they get to speak only after the view has already been attacked. They do not get as much time. And they are often only slightly less liberal than the first group of experts. But they fulfill the journalistic requirement for "balanced" coverage.
I think the reverential attack genre is a product of several things. First, the media knows that controversy sells. Second, its members know that many people are very religious, so religion sells. What better way to get viewers and readers, then, than by starting a religious controversy? They contrive then to fan a controversy into flame by focusing attention on the most radical extremists on the subject.
One might ask, Why don’t they tap the power of religious interest to sell things by doing positive stories about religion, like they did in the old days? Today’s reporters are largely of a different social class than their readers—a point made in the very pages of U.S. News & World Report by John Leo, the magazine’s conservative columnist—and frequently hold true religiosity in disdain. Too often they want to attack religion. They want to undermine the faith of their viewers and readers and turn their audience into intellectual copies of themselves. Too often they have the worst of intentions.
—James Akin
Forced to Stand in Witness to Life
On May 8, the day of the funeral Mass of "one of the great bishops and cardinals of modern times" (the Holy Father’s words), the following email and question were forwarded to me:
"During today’s Mass of Christian burial for John Cardinal O’Connor, Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston was giving the homily. He emphasized O’Connor’s unswerving defense of life, ‘from the moment of conception to the point of natural death.’
"Then something remarkable happened. People started clapping. And they clapped and clapped and clapped. The television cameras focused on the President and Mrs. Clinton, Vice President and Mrs. Gore, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and New York governor George Pataki, all vocally and ardently ‘pro-choice’ politicians. During the clapping, these people sat on their hands, looking on impassively.
"But then a miracle happened. The people in the cathedral started standing and clapping (the clapping had now reached a minute in length). And with everyone standing and clapping to witness their solidarity with O’Connor’s support for all human life regardless of its state, these politicians felt compelled to come to their feet, too. They still didn’t clap, but they had to stand in support, as it were, of life. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that’s pretty cool."
And the question:
"What effect does a strong, public witness for the sanctity of life in all forms have on politicians whose actions are dictated by expediency at best, immorality at worst?"
That it is difficult to know. What I do know is the effect such a witness had on my life. Half of my four-and-a-half-year journey to the Church was spent upstate New York, during which time I subscribed to Catholic New York, O’Connor’s diocesan paper. I wanted to get a sense of how Catholics think and of how a Catholic bishop leads the flock entrusted to his care.
While I felt compelled to look into the claims of the Church, I was prone to distrust things Catholic, including Catholic priests. But the witness of this bishop was such that I longed for the Church to be true. More, I longed to be a part, to be in submission to such beauty and respect for the human person, indeed, for all of life, as preached by this outstanding shepherd in his weekly homilies and column.
On one Sunday in the summer of 1994, I squeezed into the last pew of an overflowing church in Hyde Park, New York, to hear the visiting Cardinal. Strength, confidence, and compassion shone through him as he spoke of the Church he loved, of the dignity life, and of the gift of the religious life. He asked who among the parishioners that day wished to give their lives to God as a priest, a brother, a sister. I almost exploded inside. Interiorly I screamed, " I do! But I’m not Catholic!" Though I could not yet fathom being Catholic, I wanted what I heard in him, and I wanted what I saw in him.
Why did the politicians at his funeral Mass stand in union with the overwhelming ovation given in recognition of Cardinal O’Connor’s unswerving defense of life? Mrs. Clinton clarified later that their standing did not indicate agreement with his views but respect for the parishioners and the Church at that moment. I have no reason to doubt her statement.
Are the policies against life advocated by these six individuals evil? Yes. Is the taking of life for any reason, at any stage, evil? Yes. If we know that, it is by the grace of God. If we act on what we know, it is also by the grace of God.
Shame on the Clinton administration for the horrors it has wrought. God alone knows the depth of ignorance and motive of each individual who will be accountable to him for what they have done and failed to do.
But the greater shame and accountability is ours, who have received the grace of God in greater measure and yet continue to put such men into office. "The Catholic vote," Raymond Flynn, U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, told the New York Times on May 9,"is one of the largest, if not one of the most important, swing votes today." What will we say when we stand before God having voted for the economy rather than for life?
—Rosalind Moss
|
