|
L e t t e r s
Tin Ears and Flat Feet
|
This Rock
Volume 12, Number 3
 March 2001 
|
|
|
In his article about Marian prayers and devotion ("Under the Influence of Love," January 2001), Mark Shea tells us that many Protestants read such works with "tin ears" and take a "flat-footed" approach to them. Mr. Shea, instead of defending our Catholic saints against such interpretations, joins in with his own tin ear and flat feet. He calls the Marian prayers and writings of some of our greatest saints "extreme and—strictly speaking—inaccurate statements."
Mr. Shea compares the writings of the saints to various secular poets who were writing about mere human love. Poets are free to write that their lovers are like kumquats if the mood so takes them. The holy writers who expounded on the ineffable mysteries of divine love were not free to use such inaccurate language to describe the glories of Mary. When they wrote that she is "our only hope" they were not being "effusive," they were being deeply theological. Understood within the context of her fiat, she is our only hope. This truth can only be understood within the full context of God’s plan of salvation. To his credit, Mr. Shea finally did get around to saying so, but to my mind it was too little too late.
Saints like Alphonsus de Liguori and Louis Marie de Montfort plumbed the depths of Scripture in meditating on the meaning of Mary. Their writings about her are trustworthy, both theologically and devotionally. Mr. Shea is free to think otherwise, but I am disappointed that This Rock would publish such opinions as if they were unarguably true.
Kathleen M. Gavlas, T. O. Carm.
Anoka, Minnesota
Author’s reply:
I thank you for your thoughtful response to my piece. I reiterate what I wrote originally—that, "strictly speaking," Mary is not our "only hope." No mere human can be, however great she is, for no mere human can be an agent of grace apart from the source of grace, the Blessed Trinity. My point is precisely that poetic shorthand often leaves such elaborate theological explanations unspoken with the assumption that the reader will connect the dots. When they do not—as routinely happens when Christians from non-Marian traditions read Catholic devotional poetry—they make the mistake of assuming that Catholics are saying all sorts of things they are not actually saying (as that Mary is a goddess or the divine source of grace rather than a creaturely agent of grace).
I do not think Alphonsus Liguori and Louis de Montfort are untrustworthy. But, like the far greater St. Paul, their writings are prone to misinterpretation if we do not know what we are doing. There are things even in Paul (such as his frustrated rhetorical swipe at the circumcision preachers—wishing they would go the whole way and castrate themselves [Gal. 5:12]) that are rejected as authentic Catholic moral teaching yet that in no way impugn Paul’s trustworthiness.
Indeed, the same can be said of our Lord. His recommendation to cut off and cast away body parts that lead us into sin is a classic bit of poetic license that has been badly misunderstood at times, even by such worthies as Origen. It does not follow that in pointing out that Jesus was not being strictly literal we are calling him an untrustworthy teacher.
Examine the Fruits
I am disappointed in This Rock for publishing such a one-sided article about the Marian Movement of Priests ("The Marian Movement of Priests: Is It Safe for Faithful Catholics?" January 2001). Much of what you have printed is the author’s personal conclusions about how the MMP was presented to her and is written in a very negative manner.
I suggest that we examine the fruits of the MMP—priests consecrating themselves to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the faithful coming together to pray the holy rosary. I am not sure how much stock I put into the locutions (private revelation) of Fr. Gobbi, but I do not think that if they were of Satan that they would be asking for the continual consecration of us all to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. For a balanced approach to Fr. Gobbi’s book, you might try reading the preface.
Doug Pearson
Immaculate Heart Radio
Reno, Nevada
What I Don’t Understand I Will not Condemn
We just read your article regarding the MMP ("The Marian Movement of Priests: Is It Safe for Faithful Catholics?" January 2001). We are so sorry that you decided to run this article without much research. We are sorry for you because you are now responsible for all the thousands of rosaries that will no longer be prayed because of your article.
Pope John Paul II celebrates a private Mass with Fr. Gobbi every year and has many times blessed this movement. Have you forgotten that a doctor of the Church (Aquinas) said that our Lady was not immaculately conceived? Have you forgotten that there is much that we do not understand when private revelation is given to us? Isaiah talks about the new heavens and the new earth. The Church Fathers talk about the "third coming." Just because we don’t understand all that has been disclosed, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.
You can quote the message regarding the year 2000 to me thousands of times, but what I don’t understand I will not condemn. This movement has brought unity to thousands of priests, cardinals, bishops, and laity—unity of prayer, not of disunity of casting doubt.
Your magazine will fall, but the MMP will not because it is Our Mother’s movement, and it consists of prayers, penance, frequent confession, Communion, and the virtue of humility. It does not cast doubt and pull down. It builds up and does not look for sensationalism to keep it alive.
Gloria
Via the Internet
What Does That Mean?
The article about the Marian Movement of Priests ("The Marian Movement of Priests: Is It Safe for Faithful Catholics?" January 2001) raises more questions than it answers. The author’s criticism is based almost entirely on the mistaken notion that Fr. Gobbi claimed that Christ will have come to reign, in a literal sense, for a thousand years starting in the year 2000.
If Fr. Gobbi claims that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary would occur and that Christ would come to reign in glory, what does that mean? Christ currently reigns on earth in his Church, in the Eucharist, and in us individually. In fact, Christ promised that he would be with us until the end of time in this sense, Perhaps at this point in time some critical mass of believers has finally come to accept Christ and his Mother as primary intercessor.
Perhaps Fr. Gobbi should be forgiven for the use of some mistaken terminology. The events he describes don’t necessarily constitute a Second Coming. Fr. Gobbi and others have spoken of an illumination of souls where each individual sees himself as God does. Some of the saints have already described this as having happened to them. In her diary, St. Faustina Kowalska was horrified by what the light of God revealed in herself.
What Fr. Gobbi and others speak of is private revelation. We shouldn’t expect that their ideas and their means of communicating them are flawless. After all, the Church condemned the writings of Sr. Faustina until Pope John Paul II promoted the Divine Mercy and finally canonized her.
Felix Gorney
Fishers, Indiana
Concerned and Confused
The article by Mary Beth Kremski ("The Marian Movement of Priests: Is It Safe for Faithful Catholics?" January 2001), which throws a big question mark on the movement, seems to be in conflict with the answer given at ewtn.com in its frequently asked questions section. The answer there is very positive toward the movement. I am concerned and confused. Could you please help clarify where the magisterium stands on the movement?
Renata Kraft
Via the Internet
Author’s reply:
Discernment is needed especially when error comes mixed with truth. The positive elements of the MMP mentioned in the article, such as the consecration to Mary, are bound to produce good fruit. But there are other "trees" growing in the movement whose good fruits are questionable. Fr. Gobbi’s detailed explanation of what he means by the coming of Jesus in glory is at odds with Church doctrine. And the MMP, far from seeing this as mistake to be corrected, is actively promoting his explanation.
As Catholics we can—and should—be devoted to Mary and to her rosary. We can love Fr. Gobbi. But if something he teaches conflicts with Church teaching, for the good of souls and love of the truth we must defend the teaching of the magisterium. Who could fault this? The Church will eventually decide the final status of the movement. Meanwhile, we all have a responsibility to cling to the truth we already know and to help others do the same.
The EWTN answer in the "frequently asked questions" section of its web site focuses on the positive aspects of the MMP, which we acknowledge exist. There is no mention of Fr. Gobbi’s problematic explanation of the Second Coming. Also, part of EWTN’s answer seems to conflict with what the MMP has said regarding how Fr. Gobbi's locutions are to be judged. The EWTN theologian writes that the approval process involves "the authentication of mysticism [which] usually takes place during a canonization process," i.e., after the person’s death. This is different, he says, than judging a phenomenon like an apparition which has "a discrete beginning and end" and which can be investigated by the Church upon its conclusion. But the MMP does speak of a discrete beginning and end to Fr. Gobbi's locutions, saying "now that the messages have ceased, a thorough investigation must be undertaken by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith."
I have great gratitude and respect for EWTN, but the opinion cited above does not equal a Church decision, and it’s possible a couple important points may have been overlooked.
We Need Good Shepherds
Thank you for your article on the MMP ("The Marian Movement of Priests: Is It Safe for Faithful Catholics?" January 2001). It expressed some of my own concerns regarding devotion to Mary. I personally have rediscovered her and believe in my heart that through her intercession I was healed from several adversities. I try to go to rosary before the Blessed Sacrament one night a week at our church, joining others in a group called the Blue Army.
Fr. Gobbi (head of the MMP) is a priest of the Catholic Church. His book was given an imprimatur, the Church’s "seal of approval." To believe that all the sheep have the ability to distinguish between technical personal explanations and doctrines is terribly naive. We need good shepherds. Whoever gave the imprimatur to that book, and others like them, contribute to falsehood and lead people astray, albeit unintentionally.
That is why I found your article so welcome. You have at least spoken out and have attempted to educate the sheep. Thank goodness for the Catechism of the Catholic Church and stewards like you.
May I add something about my relationship to Mary? I began the rosary attendance to get some help for me personally. Something happened that first evening. I found myself lost in the sorrowful mysteries, forgot my problems, and felt something of the intense suffering of our Mother. I began to love her and her Son more, to see more, to understand more. I forgot to pray for "myself." Mary has led me closer to the truth of the mystery of faith. I treasure this extension of faith as a gift.
Joyce Jerome
Oswego, Illinois
Horrible Writing
I just received my first issue of This Rock. Kindly cancel my subscription and enter a credit card refund of the price I paid.
This magazine is horribly written. I just started the first article ("Historical Dishonesty," January 2001), and on page ten the author tells of something a "Pacelli" wrote. He does not even mention just who this Pacelli is. Then, in reading the letters, someone is writing about a pope we never had, Pope John XXIV.
I’ll stick to the Catholic publications I’ve been receiving for years. At least I can understand them.
Peter Mosiondz Jr.
Clementon, New Jersey
Editor’s reply:
"Pacelli" is Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII, but the first time he was mentioned he should have been identified as such. The reference to Pope John XXIV was to a fictional character in the popular dispensationalist Left Behind series of novels. If you hadn’t read the article it was responding to, it may have confused you. All the more reason to read a few issues of any new magazine to get into the flow of its editorial content.
Homosexuality Is an Enormous Cross to Bear
I am writing in response to the article "Changing Sexual Orientation" ("Sound Bites," January 2001). I am a practicing Catholic of the variety usually referred to as traditionalist (I attend the Tridentine liturgy) and a non-practicing homosexual. I hesitate to use the term "non-practicing homosexual" because it suggests that homosexuality is something that can be turned on or off at will. I use the term because by it most non-homosexuals understand that one means a homosexual who is either celibate or who engages in sexual relations with persons of the opposite sex despite his inclinations. I am unmarried and therefore celibate.
I have often heard about organizations, usually Christian, that have been established to "cure" men or women of homosexuality, but I have always been skeptical of heterosexuals pretending to know what homosexuality is and how to conquer it. In the NARTH study cited in the article, 880 homosexuals were given some manner of therapy, the result of which was that thirty-five percent of the participants claimed to be "exclusively or almost exclusively" heterosexual and over fifty percent had made "significant improvement." The article goes on to interpret these results as proof that a third were cured.
But the fact remains that they only claimed to be cured. I have experienced in my past sexual encounters with several men who insisted that despite their actions they were completely heterosexual. So it seems the results of this program could mean that one-third of the participants are cured or that one-third are in denial. Let us also keep in mind that "almost exclusively heterosexual" is another way of saying "bisexual." One can only guess as to what the experience was of those who showed "significant improvement."
Despite my lack of satisfaction with such "scientific" conclusions, I value sincerely the attempts of these psychologists and psychiatrists to understand the subject much more than I do the lack of effort exhibited by many Catholics who speak of homosexuality as a "lifestyle" that one has "chosen." Remarks of that type betray a dismaying ignorance of the subject. Who would make a conscious decision to embrace such an affliction? I certainly didn’t.
I urge Catholic leaders to make a greater effort to understand what homosexuals really experience before they make unenlightened attempts to combat a problem they have not properly identified. In the meantime, the important thing for Catholic men and women struggling homosexuality to remember is that, as Fr. Benedict Groeschel recently pointed out in another Catholic magazine, a person’s homosexuality is in no way an impediment to salvation. It is an enormous cross to bear and, as such, an extraordinary path to great rewards in the next life. Those of us who, by faithfully carrying this cross, are denied the opportunity to fall in love with another person in this life can be assured of a very special place in the heart of the one Man we were allowed to fall in love with.
Jay (last name withheld by request)
Buffalo, New York
Michaelus?
In the December "Quick Questions" an attempt is made to render the words "Holy Michael" into Latin as "Sanctus Michaelus." Your Sanctus for holy is unexceptionable—as is your magazine in general, I might add—but surely the Latin nominative of the name Michael is simply Michael. I feel your pain.
Michael Kelly
Eugene, Oregon
|
