|
L e t t e r s
The Silence of Bishops
|
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 5
 May-June 2003 
|
|
|
In the interview with Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua ("You Must Reach the Mind to Touch the Heart," March 2003), you quote him as saying: "The bishops of the United States have said that it is unconscionable that any Catholic would knowingly vote for a pro-abortion candidate [unless the alternative is a candidate who is even more vigorously anti-life]."
I take strong exception to that statement—not because the bishops shouldn’t say it, but because they in fact haven’t said it. In January I wrote to my bishop about the situation with our pro-abortion, Catholic governor and received this response: "The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops has advised the bishops of our country not to engage in public disputes with Catholic officials who support a ‘pro-choice’ position on abortion. As a strategy, the bishops’ conference thought that public disputations with specific Catholic public officials who favor abortion would be counterproductive and make matters worse."
As a strategy, this approach has been a disaster, but the failure is more profound than a simple mistake in judgment: It is a failure to live according to those things we profess to believe. The Catechism says, "Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion" (CCC 1385). What was the response of the other bishops when Bishop William Weigand confronted California governor Gray Davis and said that, because of his public support for abortion, he should not receive communion? Silence.
It is impossible to believe that the promotion of abortion by prominent Catholic politicians does not lead other Catholics to accept it also. "Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil" (CCC 2285). What of the bishops’ responsibility for the souls of those politicians who commit scandal and of those who are led to sin because of it? Silence.
Finally, doesn’t this apply to the bishops: "We have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them . . . by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so" (CCC 1868)? Catholics support pro-abortion politicians at the same rate as the population in general. This is the direct result of the bishops’ failure to do what Cardinal Bevilacqua claimed: council Catholics not to support politicians who support abortion. As important as it is to pray that our politicians will change their positions, it is even more important to pray that our bishops will start articulating theirs.
John M. Cabaniss
Raleigh, North Carolina
Weigand, Yay! Davis, Nay!
I’m not a media maven by any means; I probably pay no more attention to the secular and religious media as the next person. But after Bishop William Wiegand’s laudatory public candor regarding the imperiled Catholic status of California’s pro-abort governor, Gray Davis ("Apologist’s Eye," March 2003), I was dismayed at the resounding silence from his fellow bishops.
It was a perfect occasion for the bishops to rally ’round the flag as it were and reclaim their teaching capacity as the spiritual leaders of U.S. Catholics. I’m not aware of any other bishop, even orthodox ones, who publicly supported Bishop Wiegand’s courage.
What a sad state we have reached in this country when the laity has to beg for strong moral leadership—and even then we don’t get it. Pious platitudes from the pulpit or in pastoral letters tend to fall on deaf ears. We Catholics who are swimming in the culture need specific, real-world advice on how to apply our faith.
Please, Bishop Wiegand, don’t be discouraged by the cowardice of those around you! And for you Californians reading this, log onto recallgraydavis.com to learn how we can rid ourselves of one of the most condescending, incompetent pseudo-Catholics ever to hold public office.
Alice Jackle
Rancho Margarita, California
Supposed Excommunication
I cannot express how disappointed I am with your scholarship in regards to the supposed "excommunication" of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ("Holier Than Thou," April 2003). I would like to quote an expert in Catholic theology, the late Fr. Malachi Martin. He wrote, "In the spiritual reality of the Church, neither Marcel Lefebvre nor his bishops and priests nor the people who frequent the SSPX chapels suffered, or suffer, excommunication. History will record that the attempt to impose such an excommunication was invalid and illicit."
In addition, I would like to point out an error by the author, Brian O’Neel. Fr. Donald Sanhorn is not a member of the SPPX; he is a sedevacantist. SSPX are not sedevacantists and have denounced sedevacantism.
In addition, St. Joseph House in Armada, Michigan, is not an SSPX seminary. The only SSPX seminary in the United States is St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Minnesota.
I would also like to ask a question: why do you reject the legitimacy of SSPX? They are everything and stand for what the Catholic Church was before the errors of Vatican II. The post-Vatican II Church has lost all tradition and, as a result of the errors, has been in free-fall.
Return to tradition!
Jasen Wallace
Allegan, Michigan
Editor’s reply:
We reject the legitimacy of the SSPX because the Vatican rejects it.
What Christ Said on the Subject
Kenneth Howell’s "Aren’t We Saved by Faith Alone?" ("Brass Tacks," March 2003) was good as far as it went. But did it go far enough?
In the same issue, Alberto Ferreiro noted that "Evangelicalism, and historic Protestantism in general, is heavily Pauline. . . . Paul comes first, and he is the lens through which the Gospels and all else in the New Testament are read. . . . Informed Catholics, on the other hand, read Paul through the lens of the Gospels, not the other way around" ("Catholics, Evangelicals, and Augustine’s Confessions").
We do, and we should. When reading Paul or James or Peter, we are reading the inspired writings of apostles. But in reading the Gospels, we are reading the actual words of Christ. Shouldn’t that make a difference?
I find it strange that an effort to prepare Catholics to deal with the question of faith versus works fails even to mention what Christ said on the subject. Indeed, I wonder how anyone can read Christ’s words in Matthew 25:31–46 and conclude that it is possible to attain salvation by faith alone.
In apologetics—and in our faith lives—the Gospels should always have primacy. In apologetics also—and in our faith lives—the Gospels should always have primacy, followed (rather than being led) by the epistles.
Thomas J. Cuny
Alexandria, Virginia
Good News from the ‘Cancel My Subscription’ Front
I grow weary with published letters of dissatisfaction with This Rock. In my view, yours is the best Catholic magazine available, whose writers are instructive, well-informed, poignant, and extremely charitable to its critics.
My hope for its critics is God’s peace and that they may consider rechanneling their criticism to the mainstream media in a world that is so full of sin, moral decay, and self-righteousness.
Keep us the good work, and may our Lord continue to bless you as you evangelize and bring the good news to God’s people. I have no intention of canceling our subscription.
Robert G’Sell
Lake St. Louis, Missouri
Even a Newcomer Could Understand
I received a copy of your magazine through a Catholic Bible study teacher/mentor. The articles and columns in your March 2003 issue captivated me. Being new to the faith, and in fact struggling to define my faith, I was drawn to "Step by Step" and "Quick Questions." They were both written in such a way that even a newcomer could understand and grasp the message.
This magazine urges me to think, moves me to look up passages, and drives me to share its information with others—quite an accomplishment, since I usually shy away from any "organized religion" material. I will be sure to pass along this and any further issues I receive to my sisters here at the Ohio Reformatory for Women.
God bless you, and please keep up the outstanding and informative articles.
Kelly Young
Marysville, Ohio
Pray for a New World Order
Pray that Pope John Paul II is successful in bringing Christianity into the new European Union’s constitution ("Apologist’s Eye," March 2003). In a collapsing world order it could be a turning point in the history of nations.
Consider these possibilities:
1. Pluralistic nations adopting moral norms.
2. Permitting God and religion to become a vital part of government.
3. A restructured United Nations affirming that human dignity and personal freedom are rooted in God and his law.
It is time to acknowledge that secular constitutions are hostile to Christianity and geared for moral decline. Most needed in the new millennium are Christian constitutions that are rooted in God and in moral truth.
George Koenig
Marysville, Ohio
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
