Shall the Twain Meet?
After reading your February 1992 issue on Peter’s primacy, I must let you know that this question is still very much in dispute between Catholics and Orthodox, not to mention the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) churches. I assume you are aware of these churches. If not, do your homework, please. Your layman-ish, cursory, and superficial Roman/Western viewpoint is integralist, ultramontanist, and unilateral.
Bernie Gatzke
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Editor’s reply: I don’t get it. The article titled “Peter’s Primacy” was our monthly department “The Fathers Know Best,” which consists of quotations from early Catholic writers. In this particular issue were eleven quotations, five of them from Eastern writers (one each from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ephraim and two from Cyril of Jerusalem) and six from Western writers (one from Tertullian and five from Cyprian). These fellows were clerics, some even bishops, so why are you calling their words “layman-ish”? Maybe you have difficulty accepting that all Catholics, Western and Eastern, accept the primacy of the pope. On this point Eastern Catholic theology is no different from Western. If it were, Eastern Catholics wouldn’t be Catholics. Remember, the Eastern bishops at Vatican II reaffirmed all the traditional beliefs about the papacy, including papal supremacy and infallibility. If you have a gripe, please take it up with them.
The “Enemies”: My Children
I was seriously considering dropping my subscription or having it sent to someone who couldn’t afford it. It’s not that I don’t like it–rather, I liked it too much. I was afraid I was getting that smug, holier-than-thou feeling. I was arming myself with all these weapons (the articles and information in the magazine), ready to wage war on the poor, misinformed, hapless Fundamentalists and Mormons I happened to come across. By golly, I was going to have lots of snappy comebacks to all their “righteous” Scripture quoting–until I realized these “enemies” were my own children and friends, and I don’t want to fight with them. But since I saw the light, I realized that I still want to know all I can about our faith, and so I really do want you to continue to send me This Rock.
Gladys L. Rybicki
Broadview Heights, Ohio
American Exports
The Church in South Africa is and has been for a long time mired in chaos. Socio-political involvement and the consequent lack of doctrinal formation and proper catechetics has forced droves of Catholics out of the Church. The assault by Fundamentalists has thus found willing ears amongst “illiterate” Catholics. This bunch is quite large and draws much inspiration from their American counterparts.
Bernard Tuffin
Cape Town, South Africa
Post Hoc, Improper Hoc
Was your organization established in response to the [Evangelical] apologetics organization called “The Bible Answer Man”? They broadcast on the radio and are located in Southern California too. I think it is a fantastic idea if you debated them. Has this ever been done or even considered?
Mary L. Cardillo
Beverly, Massachusetts
Editor’s reply: When Catholic Answers was incorporated in 1982 we weren’t familiar with the Christian Research Institute, which produces “The Bible Answer Man” program. We since have offered to debate CRI’s “Catholic expert” or other staff members, but no interest has been shown on CRI’s part. That might have something to do with that “research” organization having in its library (when we looked there a while back) only half a shelf (literally) of books about the Catholic faith. As a comparison, Catholic Answers has whole bookcases about positions CRI espouses.
Not Funny
I thought your cartoon on the pit bull being thrown at a Jehovah’s Witness [April 1992] was inappropriate for your otherwise wonderful magazine. Hopefully, your readers will be more sensitive to the Witnesses’ neeed for conversion to the true faith of Jesus Christ.
Pat Way
Wells, Michigan
Editor’s reply: The cartoon by Jeff Harris was a commentary on the frustration many Catholics feel at the persistence of missionaries who come to their doors. It was not directly about the Jehovah’s Witnesses per se and was not intended as a put-down of them. We like Jeff’s style of humor–it reminds us of Gary Larson’s “The Far Side”–but we know some readers have different tastes. De gustibus non disputandum est.
By the way, we wish to make it clear that we do not recommend throwing dogs at missionaries. It scares the dogs.
Bland Not Bland
I’m a regular subscriber and a firm supporter of your magazine and the work of Catholic Answers. I was a little disappointed with your response to the letter from Susan Johnson [“Letters,” April 1992] about the beautifully written article by Nancy M. Cross that affirms the Catholic Church’s consistent teaching on the relationship between husband and wife in Christian marriage [“Authority in the Family,” January 1992].
Ms. Johnson is contentious and demeaning of Mrs. Cross, while at the same time clearly showing her secular orientation to the subject and a definite feminist tone. In the age of neomodernism and religious feminism, the Church (most of the bishops and priests in the U.S.) has backed away from supporting the male role and function in Catholic marriage. Feminists have cowed bishops into redefining the husband/wife relationship in feminist terms. Is it any wonder that men are walking away from duty and responsibility toward marriage and children?
As a Catholic layman I head up the RCIA program in my parish. It is difficult to talk with young men and women relative to Catholic marriage when there is no contemporary authority willing to articulate the Church’s consistent teaching as beautifully expressed by St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians, chapter 5.
Nancy Cox’s article was the best thing I’ve seen written on the subject in several years, and then you go and disavow any agreement or responsibility for its content. If people like you duck the feminists, who will stand up to them?
Jack Bland
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey
Editor’s reply: Please read again my reply to Susan Johnson. I answered her charge that we deliberately “chose a woman” to cover this topic (untrue; Mrs. Cross’s article came unsolicited) and her implication that we keep women writers out of This Rock (also untrue). I acknowledged that few women seem interested in public apologetics, and I wondered why.