God’s Spokesman (Self-Appointed)
As a Protestant, I am thunderstruck with righteous anger at the testimony of Deborah Danielski in the December 1997 issue. It simply astounds me that such religious buffoonery can be printed. I refer specifically to the crux of her argument which led her to the “truth” of Catholicism, that being the alleged words of Mary which “opened my eyes and restored my faith.” Here they are: “I have come to tell you that God exists and that he loves you.”
Apparently, neither Ms. Danielski nor the editor who allowed this drivel to be foisted upon the readers care one whit about what God has to say about sending people back from the dead as a prooftext for his existence. The parable in Luke 16 speaks volumes against such notions! There we read that “if they believed not Moses and the prophets (the Bible!), neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” The Lord even adds a cherry to Ms. Danielski’s unbelievable sundae when we are informed in Romans 19-20 that what may be known of God, as far as his existence goes, is abundantly verified simply by the things that are made, so that men are without excuse.
Once again, Catholicism proves itself hostile to the clear teachings of Holy Writ, which sadly never seem to satisfy the Catholic soul that is bent on receiving further messages from heaven. Thus, “because they have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thess. 2:11). Consequently, Ms. Danielski has indeed heard from God. Only not in the way she thinks.
Dominic LoMochio
Via the Internet
Editor’s reply: You are “thunderstruck.” You feel “righteous anger.” The conversion story we printed “astounds” you. You think it is “buffoonery.” It is “drivel.” It is “unbelievable.” Stripping away all your hyperbole, your complaint is that you don’t believe private revelations are possible, and it seems you even deny that a prompting of the Holy Spirit might be interpreted by the recipient as a locution from a saint acting as an intermediary. (God can speak to us directly or through an agent.) Your scriptural citations are inapt, and your argument has been dealt with repeatedly, in these pages and in my book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. You might profit from a little relaxed reading of the other (Catholic) side.
Poor Use of Analogy
I subscribed to This Rock six months ago to develop a greater understanding of my brethren in the Catholic Church. Though I am an Evangelical Christian and Protestant, I have found myself in the position of a Catholic apologist on numerous occasions. Your magazine provides a plentiful and authoritative source of information to assist me in my efforts.
In this context, I would appreciate your consideration of my following comments. Mark P. Shea’s article “Brother Darwin’s Gospel Hour” (January 1988) paralleling the theory of evolution and what he calls Fundamentalists’ “view of Christian history that reads as a kind of Darwinian myth” is an intellectually poor use of analogy. Specifically, certain processes do not occur in all instances. The examples are too numerous to mention in this letter. His efforts to link the theory of evolution to what he phrases the “evolutionary line . . . of true Christianity” are insulting and pejorative to many Christians (Protestant and Catholic) who believe creation science is a valid representation of the origin of man. Also it provides more “red meat” for Catholics who are looking for any excuse to regard with contempt their fellow Christians (the article makes it appear that only Fundamentalists believe in creation science).
Ken Calhoun
Portland, Oregon
Editor’s reply: Creation Science (usually capitalized by its promoters) is an almost exclusively Fundamentalist thing. Over the years I don’t think I’ve received information on more than half a dozen Catholics who subscribe to the position, which is to be distinguished from the traditional Catholic belief in creation. Many Catholics reject evolution in all or most or that term’s senses, without subscribing to Creation Science per se. Creation Science is built upon an individualistic interpretation of Scripture. It nowhere relies on magisterial interpretation — understandably enough, since it is a Protestant construct.
Lazy, Proud, and PC
I thought Mark P. Shea’s article was good in certain respects when describing some of the traditional ways in which Fundamentalist Protestants behave. But he also fell into a few major blunders when he tried to assert that creation science is wrong. At least six times he used terms like “stupendously wrongheaded,” “bad science,” and “daffy science.” Mr. Shea will some day have to eat those words, as a result of his intellectual laziness toward the researching of the subject of evolution.
I think we Catholics sometimes think that those Protestant biblical creationists can’t possibly be right because they don’t have the fullness of Christ’s truth in doctrine. Well, it is true that they don’t have the fullness of Christ’s truth, but some or most of us Catholics have become intellectually lazy, proud, or politically correct cowards when it comes to digging for the truth about evolution. The Creationists are being vindicated by the latest scientific findings, while our Catholic hierarchy is telling us it’s OK to believe in and teach evolution.
Phil Drietz
Delhi, Minnesota
Editor’s reply: You are correct to note that someone who doesn’t have the fullness of faith nevertheless may be right on some other matter, with most Catholics being wrong. But that’s irrelevant to the argument Mark P. Shea was making. He said that Fundamentalists believe that a kind of “survival of the fittest” is at work within Christianity itself — only the “fittest” (best) congregations or denominations survive. He spotted an irony, and in the process of explaining it he gave as his opinion that what goes by Creation Science isn’t rigorously scientific. That isn’t to say Shea believes in evolution (I gather he doesn’t). It just means he thinks some opponents of evolution are using poor arguments.
My First Non Placet
Mr. Shea’s article is perhaps the only occasion for me that I ever disagreed with This Rock, but only on one aspect. I do agree that Protestant churches’ only true unity is a unity against the Roman Church that is based on fear and not love, and one cannot help but wonder what they would have done to each other by now without the Roman Church to united against. However, where is the solid evidence that the world is millions of years old. Well, there is none, no solid evidence at all, just speculation that in no way is conclusive. That is why the Holy Father’s statement cannot be commented on by either side, because the statement never says what the evidence is that supports evolution. Any debate must start with that evidence. Also, any supposed evidence in favor of evolution can be opposed by stronger evidence against it.
George E. Scanlon
West Roxbury, Massachusetts
Editor’s reply: Mark P. Shea didn’t argue for any particular age for the earth, nor did he try to defend or elucidate the Holy Father’s comments to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Such things weren’t the focus of his article. One thing his article did accomplish, though, was to elicit a large number of letters and e-mail messages. Some were too lengthy to pare down for this column (as do most publications, we prefer to receive letters no longer than two hundred words), and anyway there have been too many to print. One thing has become evident to us: Each time we publish an article that mentions evolution, either at length or in a passing phrase, folks write in saying that we should have printed the kind of all-encompassing broadside that they would have written. You can mention Mary in an article without having people complain that you didn’t list and explain every Marian doctrine, no matter how obscure, but it seems you can’t publish anything shorter than a book on evolution without displeasing a fair number of readers. So be it, I’m afraid. The apostle Paul recommended that we be all things to all men. No doubt he was prescient enough to know that, for most of us, that is a goal to be aimed at but not one likely to be reached. Similarly for magazines and the articles they contain. It would be convenient if every article on every subject covered every possible ramification (an editor’s dream!), but that’s not how the world of publishing is.
Happy Deaths
I don’t watch much television, so I’ve never seen “Nothing Sacred” or “Ellen.” But after reading descriptions of their content in This Rock and The New Oxford Review, I decided to contribute to these programs’ most timely demise.
When I sent some Mass petitions to two different monasteries, I included the following: “The conversion to Catholicism of all those associated in any way with ‘Nothing Sacred’ or ‘Ellen.'” The Mass is the perfect prayer and the most powerful prayer in the Catholic Church. I hope that many of your readers and other concerned Catholics will have Masses said for the same petition.
Next on the agenda: PBS’s eloquently English but politically correct “Brother Cadfael.”
Stephen L. Rosa
Nashville, Tennessee
Editor’s reply: “Nothing Sacred” and “Ellen” flopped in the ratings and are now off the air. No word yet on the conversion of the actors or production crews.
The Pope’s Twentieth
Pardon this uninvited letter from a total stranger in a distant land to mention a fact of which you are no doubt aware, viz., that our Holy Father will celebrate the twentieth anniversary of his election as our Pope on October 16. Would it not be wonderful if you could encourage all friends of Catholic Answers to have a Mass celebrated in their own parishes on that day for the intentions of John Paul II? We all know how much our Holy Father does for us — is not this a marvelous opportunity for each one of us to do something lovely for him?
Patrick Ryan
Croydon, England
Party Line
“God is no Republican.” That’s what I want to see on the cover of your next issue. The values of the Democratic Party are far closer to those of the Catholic Church than are those of other factions. How dare you make such a statement on the cover of a Catholic magazine! Please dissociate me with your organization, and you may put my copies of your sheet in the waste basket. That’s where I would put them. I am a member of the National Democratic Committee.
Marilyn Hartman
Denver, Colorado
Editor’s reply: You have provided a fine, almost stereotypical, example of a knee-jerk reaction. You heatedly object to a blurb on the cover of our February 1998 issue: “God is no democrat.” The blurb was an enticement to read an article called “Teaching with Authority.” The writer, Anthony Seton, noted that the Catholic Church is a divine institution. Tenets of the faith are not subject to a democratic vote because they rest on a higher authority. Catholics are not free to pick and choose. To be a faithful Catholic is to accept all that God has revealed-no exceptions allowed. In my formulation (I wrote the cover blurb), God is a monarch, not a democrat (note the small “d”). He isn’t elected to his office. Nowhere in the article was there any mention of political parties, either Democratic or Republican. But you, seeing the word “democrat” on the cover, instantly assumed the article was an attack on the party in which you have invested so much of your identity. It is plain that you did not read any part of the article. You probably didn’t even make it to the contents page, where the description of the article would have exposed the error of your assumption. Your letter is testimony to the narrowmindedness that comes when people allow their lives to be ruled by parochial political considerations rather than by the faith.
Down Under Distress
As you can see from my address, I am from Australia. I can’t begin to tell you how happy I am that I have discovered your magazine, and, although it’s a lot more expensive to have magazines sent from overseas, it is well worth it.
We have good Catholic magazines here, for example, Fidelity and AD 2000, but my particular interest for the last nine years has been apologetics, and This Rock provides that need and uplifts my faith. We here in Australia are experiencing the same problems within the Church as you are in the States, but sometimes we hear too much negativity, and it’s so wonderful to read positive articles.
I know there is a schism in the Church in the United States, but it is not publicly accepted yet, and I truly believe that will happen with the fifth Marian dogma is proclaimed. Your letters-to-the-editor department fills me with hope that not all is lost; there are many good, orthodox Catholics in America.
We Catholics need to have answers to the constant criticism of the Catholic Church. Only this week I have been verbally attacked by someone I love and my own sister (a lapsed Catholic). Their hatred of the Church was so intense. The satanic attacks have only made me stronger in the faith. I have been told I am in the minority, that there has to be something seriously wrong with me, that other Catholics don’t behave like me. My daily Mass and prayerful vigil outside an abortion clinic each month bring out such anger and hatred. That God he has blessed me with many friends who are fanatical for Christ and his Church. I know I would go mad if I didn’t have their support and love.
Please pray for us. In the year 2002 Sydney will host the Gay Olympics. We apparently have the most homosexuals and lesbians in the world, I am ashamed to say. God help us.
Dorothy Shaw
Lilyfield, Australia
Odd and Uncharitable?
The February 1998 issue carried a review of Edward N. Peters’ 100 Answers to Your Questions on Annulments. I disagree with James Akin’s odd and uncharitable remark about Sheila Rausch Kennedy. He says she had no Catholic faith to shatter, since she’s Episcopalian. Is he implying that belief in the permanence and fidelity of marriage is an esoteric Catholic belief that should never be shared by others? Does he look favorably on Joe Kennedy’s request that she lie so he could obtain an annulment?
Marie Wolf
Prosser, Washington
James Akin responds: I felt it my duty as a reviewer to mention Sheila Rausch Kennedy’s book since it is currently the best known book on annulments, though it is far inferior to Peters’ book. Readers should know that if they want an accurate treatment of the subject of annulments, they should go to Peters, not Rausch Kennedy.
Any book bearing the title Shattered Faith that purports to expose something in the Catholic Church is bound to be thought by an average reader to be the story of how some Catholic’s faith was shattered. Because of the book’s odd title, I felt a duty to point out to the reader that Rausch Kennedy is not a Catholic. She did not have Catholic faith — that is, faith in the authority and teachings of the Catholic Church — and so did not have this faith shattered.
Far from implying that the permanence of marriage is something that should be shared only with Catholics, I think Christ’s teaching on the permanence of marriage should be spread, which is why I have written on that subject in various places. Neither would I support any effort to get Rausch Kennedy to lie in order to facilitate an annulment. I was simply trying to inform the reader of her religious affiliation, since the title of her book could cause confusion.
Frankly, one wonders about Rausch Kennedy’s prudence in marriage. While the breakup she suffered is a personal tragedy that should not be minimized, one is tempted to think, “Why are you acting so surprised? Is it startling that another Kennedy marriage ends in divorce? Given the family’s history of infidelity and widely-aired dissident views on Catholic doctrine, is it really a shocking and outrageous thought that one of them may not have given valid matrimonial consent?”
Not the Magic Kingdom
I am a convert to Roman Catholicism from Protestant Fundamentalism. In 1989 I was baptized, conditionally, at 47 years old. I thought to find some stability and theological soundness in the Catholic Church, only to be discouraged by such nonsense as I never encountered in Protestantism. On one occasion the priest that baptized me wore Mickey Mouse ears to celebrate a “Halloween Mass.” I nearly drifted back into Protestantism to find people who were serious about the things of God, but, after reading your materials and other traditional Catholic literature, I have taken heart and hope to stay in the true Church of Christ.
Richard R. Davis
No Address Given