A Great Step Forward
I am writing to tell you how impressed I am with the new format of This Rock. I received my July/August 2000 copy yesterday and have been barely able to put it down.
I have been a subscriber for a year and have always enjoyed the magazine, but this new layout is a great improvement. It is much more appealing to the eye, is still (maybe even more so) chock-full of information, and is easier to read from cover to cover. I was hooked from the moment I saw the eye-catching cover. The addition of color and artwork is a great step forward.
I greatly enjoyed the retooled sections such as “The Apologist’s Eye” and “Brass Tacks” as well as the new “Sound Bites” and “Step by Step.” I am happily awaiting the next issue.
—Kendra Dowlatshahi
Johnson City, Tennessee
Thumbs-Up On The Redesign
I just received the July/August 2000 issue and I love it. The content is always super but the changes made in the physical presentation are great. Everything is clear and sharp and so much easier to read.
—Marty O’Connor
East Greenville, Pennsylvania
Mrs. Jones Doesn’t Think So
I have been reading This Rock since it was just a newsletter called Catholic Answers. I just finished reading the July/August 2000 issue. I was amazed at the new professional look. Bravo!
One quibble: too many pictures of Rev. Alex Jones on pages 27–31.
—Mary J. Vilim
Aurora, Illinois
Disaster
I am a long-time friend of your publication and have never even thought of a complaint. I was just simply pleased with your product. I knew it had to end sometime.
Your July/August 2000 format is a disaster. The standard items obviously haven’t disappeared, but they don’t look the same and they don’t look as well. Sorry, I just don’t like it.
—James J. Devine, Jr.
Oneida, New York
They Admitted Their Article Was Wrong
I have been a long-time supporter of Focus on the Family and was upset when I read the “Extending the Good News to Italy” piece. I was happy that someone else had noticed it (“Apologist’s Eye,” July/August 2000).
I immediately sent Focus on the Family information on the Jubilee year, pilgrimages, what the Catechism says, and so forth. I received a carefully worded letter of apology from them. They agreed that Catholics and Protestants might differ about our beliefs about indulgences and so forth, but they admitted that their article was wrong. I was told that it was pointed out to [Focus on the Family president] Dr. James Dobson and that he was upset about what they had printed and implied. Dr. Dobson always speaks very highly about the Catholic Church and its stance on social, life, and other issues.
However, they never printed a clarification or a retraction, which was disappointing to me.
—Ron Piaskowski
Ashland, Ohio
Close Encounters Of The Salvific Kind
I want to congratulate Fr. Ray Ryland for his article (“Why Is It a Mortal Sin to Miss Mass?” July/August 2000). The Pope brings out that the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are one Mass. So, if you’re not present for the readings . . .
About baptizing aliens (“Quick Questions,” July/August 2000): A long, long time ago, when I was a seminarian at Maryknoll, our super-erudite Scripture scholar and theologian told us that if there are beings on other planets they would not be partakers in the Lord’s plan of salvation. Our Lord became truly man and died for men and women. We cannot say that there was a betrayal like the Fall on any other planet.
Fr. Denis O’Brien, M.M.
Dallas, Texas
Editor’s reply: We can’t? If there are beings on another planet, I don’t think we can say anything about them with any certainty.
How About “Radical Heretics”?
Your attempts to clarify the difference between “traditionalists” and “radical traditionalists” left me puzzled (“Letters,” May/June 2000). The problem is not that these groups exist and are quite different. The problem is that magazines such as yours attempt to clarify the distinctions between them with two terms that are quite similar. In reality, “traditionalist” and “radical traditionalist” are used interchangeably by current Catholic culture, and therefore your attempts to separate the two are for the most part futile.
When James Akin writes his update on the reaction of “rad trads” to the third secret of Fatima (“Apologist’s Eye,” July/August 2000), he does so with an arrogance that comes with his great ability to pigeonhole every fringe group. In fact, these terms segregate both groups even further from orthodox Catholic culture.
If Mr. Akin and Catholic Answers are attempting to clarify the difference between “traditionalists” and “radical traditionalists,” why not use terms that more clearly define who is heretical and who is not—like “heretics” and “Catholics”?
—William Heyer
South Bend, Indiana
Whatever—It Still Tasted Yucky
Regarding the soap little Ralphie used to wash out his mouth in the movie A Christmas Story (“Soap Out that Mouth!” July/August 2000): It was Lifebuoy, not Ivory.
—Mark E. Hingsbergen
Hamilton, Ohio
Editor’s reply: Arrgh. Twenty lashes for every one of the sluggards slaving away in our fact-checking dungeon.
Not By Wine Alone
In the “Quick Questions” section of the May/June 2000 issue, a questioner asked whether a sick person who was unable to consume solid food was allowed to receive Communion by only the Sacred Blood. That question was answered correctly: yes. Unfortunately, the answer went beyond the question by adding “and so may anyone.”
On the contrary, canon 925 of the Code of Canon Law Annotated states, “Holy Communion is to be given under the species of bread alone or, in accordance with liturgical laws, under both species or in case of necessity, even under the species of wine alone” (emphasis added). The annotation for canon 925 is even more forceful: ” As an exception, in case of necessity, Communion may be taken under the species of wine only” (emphasis added).
Consequently, receiving Communion under the species of wine only is allowed in exceptional circumstances only and is not available to “anyone” any time, as stated in your magazine.
—John E. Hennelly
Alpharetta, Georgia
Editor’s reply: Canon 925 deals with giving Communion, not receiving it. Nothing in canon law prevents one from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ under the species of wine alone. Remember, the annotation you quote is commentary and does not carry any canonical force.
How Many Books In The Bible?
In your May/June 2000 issue, is there a glaring error in the article “A Deeper Interest in Scripture” (“Classic Apologetics”), or have I been mistaken for many years? The author says, “Holy Scripture . . . is made up of 72 books.” My understanding is that the Old Testament has 46 books in the Catholic Bible and thus the Bible as a whole has 76 books.
—Mike Naylor
Evanston, Wyoming
Editor’s reply: Actually, there are 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament for a total of 73.
Upsetting Witnesses
I recently defended receiving Christ’s Body and Blood to an ex-Catholic Jehovah’s Witness who came to our door. I had just read in This Rock about the Body and Blood and quoted your arguments. The lady who was with the ex-Catholic man kept saying, “She’s right” as she thumbed through her Bible to find the passages I was referring to. He got upset.
A few weeks later, the same woman returned with someone else. I asked her what happened to the other man. She said he left the Jehovah’s Witnesses to go to “another church.” I hope he went back to a Catholic one.
—Kathy White
Iselin, New Jersey
A Cry For Help
Yesterday I was at my mother’s house and was happy to see that she had received the latest copy of This Rock, since we had encouraged her to subscribe. However, I was overcome with jealousy when I realized that recently I had not been receiving my copies of your magazine.
I asked my mother for her copy and she replied, “You can have my This Rock magazine when you return all the Fulton Sheen books you swiped from me.”
This places me in a peculiar situation. I don’t want to part with my Fulton Sheen books, which I stole fair and square from Mom. I hope you can forward my any back copies since the “Apocalypse Not” issue (January 2000) and double-check your mailing list. Hopefully, this situation can be resolved quickly lest I be tempted to steal again.
—William W. Gorman
Barstow, Maryland
Editor’s reply: In order to help Mr. Gorman avoid the near occasion of sin, his subscription problem was resolved immediately.