|
L e t t e r s
Optimism Is Not Hope
|
This Rock
Volume 15, Number 9
 November 2004 
|
|
|
In the climate of doom that characterizes our era, Joanna Bogle is to be commended for reminding us that the reasons for joy and gratitude are many ("Polyanna Wins," September 2004). I, however, take exception to her using the word optimism. In common parlance it has the connotation of a natural disposition that sees the glass as half full while the pessimist sees it as half empty.
Optimism is characterized by a buoyancy that minimizes defeats and often is linked to a healthy temperament. As G. K. Chesterton put it, the optimist views everybody as good except the pessimist.
Bogle’s message would be more powerful if she had clearly (and not only tacitly) distinguished between the natural virtue of optimism and the supernatural virtue of hope. My dying husband said to me: "The situation in the Church is so grave that only fools can be optimistic; but I have hope." Hope is the Christian virtue par excellence. Its motto is "from natural defeat to supernatural victory." Calvary is not the word; it is the Resurrection.
—Alice von Hildebrand
New Rochelle, New York
The True "Glad Game"
While I agree with the principle of Joanna Bogle’s column that we should be optimistic Catholics ("Pollyanna Wins," September 2004), I must disagree with her approach of seeking out favorable circumstances about which to celebrate.
Certainly we should rejoice whenever we see God at work and take joy in the fruits that this produces, but this must not be the source of our hope. Rather, our hope must be in the person of Jesus Christ himself, because every other hope will ultimately disappoint. While I cannot see into the future, I feel confident in making some prophecies about it:
- Many Catholic publishers using the new forms of media eventually will become more interested in the technology itself and not its content.
- Many younger Catholics will become disenchanted and grow into lukewarm—or even dissident—Catholics.
- Many of the new movements either will fade away or will begin to degenerate into loopy movements that reflect the current trends instead of the true faith.
- The swift communications of the twenty-first century will bring us far more news about the evils and wickedness of the world than of virtue and holiness.
I believe in the "glad game" only because I believe in Jesus. Any time you put your faith in people (or any temporal things), you will be disappointed. It’s only when you put your faith in Jesus, realizing that he is sovereign and that he will triumph, and you can maintain that faith in spite of the circumstances you see around you that you can know true joy and peace.
—John Switzer
via the Internet
Surprised and Disturbed
Thank you for informing us that over 90 percent of American bishops are failing to forbid pro-abort politicians from receiving the Eucharist ("Catholic But," September 2004) despite the Vatican’s clear instruction that they must do so. This episcopal inaction is unfathomable. We will continue to have "Catholic Buts" in the pews as long as we have them in the episcopacy. I wrote to encourage our bishop to forbid pro-abort politicians from receiving the Eucharist. So far, the only response I’ve gotten is an article in our diocesan paper that alleges that it’s okay for Catholics to vote for pro-aborts so long as the vote is cast for other reasons. Has any Vatican statement on voters’ duties already closed this dissenters’ loophole?
Moving on to the September issue of This Rock, James Kidd’s statement that "the Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist" (Letters, September 2004) surprised and disturbed me. Kidd had to respond briefly, but without further explanation, a statement of that sort is dangerous in our under-catechized environment. It could be taken to mean that "the Church teaches that Jesus isn’t physically present in the Eucharist," which could further imply only a spiritual presence, as some Protestants believe.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the whole Christ—body, blood, soul, and divinity—is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist (cf. CCC 1374). Don’t "body" and "substantially present" (present in substance) mean that Christ’s resurrected, glorified body is present in the Eucharist in whatever substance it is made of? Kidd seems to be assuming that only a pre-resurrection body can be regarded as "physical" or "physically present" and that a glorified body cannot be so regarded, but how does anyone know? Does the Church say that Jesus is "substantially present" instead of "physically present" only because no one knows what his glorified body is made of and whether it is physical enough to be regarded as "physically present"?
The Year of the Eucharist, which began in October, is a perfect time for some good in-depth articles on eucharistic theology. Many of us need better explanations of not only what the Church teaches but why.
—Deloris Gross
Turtle Lake, Wisconsin
Editor’s reply:
In response to your first question, this is not a "dissenters’ loophole" but a recent memorandum by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger that was circulated confidentially to the U.S. bishops. In it he said, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." (See "Explaining Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons" on page xx for an in-depth analysis.)
As for your second question, the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist speaks to the essence or ultimate reality that underlies all outward appearances.
The Church has articulated the doctrine of transubstantiation with great care. In Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI says, "To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. . . . [After the consecration] nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical ‘reality,’ corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place" (MF 46).
Merely Coincidental?
In the September 2004 edition of This Rock, two historical Jewish facts are discussed: First, "Since the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, animal sacrifices in Judaism for the most part have ended" (p. 47). Second, the Hebrew canon does not include any books after the birth of Christ (p. 22). Has any theological significance been attached to either of these facts?
As to the first item, is it merely coincidental that shortly after Christ’s perfect sacrifice, the Jews quit the practice of animal sacrifices? In the Judeo-Christian tradition, has there been any other sacrifice but the Eucharist since A.D. 70?
As to the second item, how can the Jews ever close the canon of Scripture until the promised Savior has arrived? Did God quit speaking to the Jews after the last book in the Hebrew Bible? Quit sending prophets? Again, is it merely coincidental that the Hebrew Bible apparently closed before Jesus arrived?
—Michael Minnis
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Jesus As the Center
I want to comment on "Wives Be Subject to Your Husbands" (July-August 2004).
It seems to me that our society certainly has things mixed up. Wives want their husbands to be like them, and husbands want their wives to be more like them.
How can this ever work? If each saw the other in the proper light—each seeing the other as an equal but submitting lovingly to the others needs—what a wonderful blessing marriage would be. The only way to do this is to come together with Jesus as the center, seeing how he loved each apostle (his Church) and told them to love one another as he has loved them. The only way that marriage truly can work as God intended is by focusing first on the light of Christ.
—Larry Jauch
Palatine, Illinois
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
