Shepherd My Sheep
In his discussion of the second of Jesus’ three commands to Peter, “Tend my sheep” (John 21:16), Fr. Ray Ryland wrote, “The word translated as ‘tend’ (poimaine) means ‘to direct’ or ‘to superintend’—in other words, ‘to govern’” (“No Salvation Outside the Church,” December 2005). A more explicit meaning for poimaine is “to tend as a shepherd” and is expressed succinctly by the verb “to shepherd,” a truly biblical term. Examples of the use of this verb in the Septuagint include 1 Chronicles 11:2 (“You [David] will shepherd my people Israel”), Psalm 23:1 (“The Lord shepherds me”; see also Psalm 78:71), and Micah 5:4 (“He [the Messiah] will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord”). Matthew 2:6 echoes this prophecy of Micah (“For out of you shall come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel”). Finally, with the so-called “Good Shepherd discourse” (John 10:1–18) as context for John’s own use of the verb, the command to Peter to “shepherd my sheep” is an especially profound one, coming as it does from the Good Shepherd himself. The commonly used but less-explicit synonyms mentioned by Fr. Ryland fail to communicate this.
Thomas E. Cayton
Los Alamos, New Mexico
Rite On!
Bravo! Thanks to Carl Olson for “The Rite Not to Be Roman” in the January issue of This Rock. While working on a pastoral ministry degree, I have read extensively on the subject, but this is the most concise account. It will be very helpful when explaining the differences between East and West. Great job! Keep up the good work.
Bill Thurman
Shawnee, Oklahoma
A Pat on the Back
Congrats to James Kidd for his article in the January issue on the five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. I am new to any sort of philosophy and was captivated by his explanations. I also want to say how much I like the new design. I especially look forward to the monthly installments of Damascus Road (fascinating story on Hui Lui’s conversion) and Truth Be Told. Thanks again for producing a magazine that resounds with the beauty of being Catholic!
Cheryl Smith
Tempe, Arizona
Ain’t Buyin’ It
The more I read Fr. Robert Johansen’s article “Why Doesn’t the Pope Do Something about ‘Bad’ Bishops?” (February 2006), the angrier I became. Fr. Johansen, with all due respect, I ain’t buyin’ it.
You soft pedal episcopal misconduct when you use phrases such as “People wouldn’t say that a father who lets the house get run down or who doesn’t effectively discipline his children should be removed from his family,” as if that analogy is in any way comparable to the damage done to Holy Mother Church’s faithful by dissident bishops since the end of Vatican II. Where have you been?
In the February 2006 issue of First Things, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes about “The Truce of 1968,” in which Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, then archbishop of Washington, D.C., attempted to “discipline those who had openly rejected” the teaching of Humanae Vitae.
According to John Paul II biographer George Weigel, “Rome pulled the rug out from under” Cardinal O’Boyle and allowed dissidents to continue without repenting their disobedience. The rest is sorrowful history. Rome could act to curb an archbishop then but not now. How come?
Phillip J. Chesser
Crossville, Tennessee
Is the Tide Turning?
It was disappointing that you devoted space, and your cover, to part of what Fr. Robert Johansen himself describes as the “unrelenting torrent of [his] opinions,” in this case on the bishops (“Why Doesn’t the Pope Do Something about ‘Bad’ Bishops?” February 2006).
Although but a young pastor, “Father Rob” has an ecclesial, albeit clericalist, future. His approach to the problem of problematic bishops fits in well with the current episcopal stalling strategy: Don’t do something; just stand there, because “the tide is beginning to turn.” This approximates the condescending facet of clericalism and fails to note a few facts. For example, while some bishops have indeed departed from their positions of power, those on the very long list of pedophile-shuffling bishops, which appeared in the Dallas Morning News in 2002, are mostly still in place. Numerous pro-abortion “Catholic” congressmen (three being disgracefully conspicuous in the recent Supreme Court hearings) continue unabashed and uncorrected by their under-the-desk bishops.
The process by which these episcopal mediocrities are selected and appointed appears to be both esoteric and haphazard, and it badly needs reform (see George Weigel’s book God’s Choice, p. 247).
Fr. Johansen (the name sounds Viking) takes the King Canute story to the next level: Canute ordered the tide to turn; Johansen actually sees it turning.
We mere laity have to be hopeful, of course.
Charles Molineaux
Arlington, Virginia
Cut It Off!
I disagree with Fr. Robert Johansen’s analysis wholly in the article “Why Doesn’t the Pope Do Something about Bad Bishops?” (February 2006). Jesus said that if your arm causes you to sin, cut it off. Honestly, the matter of people’s salvation is at stake! The damage these men cause far outweighs the risk of the Church appearing “uncharitable” or the danger of “schism.” The gates of hell may not be able to prevail, but they are surely pressing in, and nothing is being done about it.
Elaine Veatch Morley
Houston, Texas
Schism, Heresy, and the SSPX
If a lie is repeated enough times, people will believe it. This seems to be your approach to the Society of St. Pius X (Kenneth Whitehead, “They Just Won’t Go Away,” February 2006). There has not been any attempt in the SSPX to establish a separate church. Where is the schism? The SSPX acknowledges the primacy of the pope and teaches everything the Church taught for the last two millennia. Where is the heresy? The SSPX practices far more charity toward its opponents than Rome practices toward the SSPX.
Weston J. Zach
Silverton, Oregon
Kenneth Whitehead replies: The SSPX may acknowledge the primacy of the pope in words, but it rejects the pope’s jurisdiction in practice. Pope John Paul II was prepared to give the SSPX legitimacy and to allow the Tridentine Mass as, in effect, another Roman “rite,” if Archbishop Lefebvre would only refrain from ordaining any new bishops and acknowledge the legitimacy and decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The archbishop refused and was excommunicated after he ordained four bishops. The SSPX continues to reject Vatican II; thus it is not true that it “teaches everything the Church taught for the last two millennia.” One of the things the Church has taught during that long period is that the formal acts and decisions of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and are binding upon the faithful. The ancient Arians made evident their schism and heresy when they refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. SSPXers today make evident the same thing when they reject the teachings and decisions of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, Vatican II.
Non-Catholic Martyrs?
In the Quick Questions section of the February 2006 issue, a question was asked about the canonization of non-Catholics. The answer was that there aren’t any to date. I may be mistaken, but I thought I read many years ago that there was a slaughter in Africa of many tribespeople for converting to Christianity, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, and although no individuals were named, all were declared by the Church to be martyrs.
Douglass A. Robinson
Levittown, NewYork
Editor’s reply: Perhaps you are thinking of St. Charles Lwanga and companions of Uganda. While those killed in the persecutions included Anglicans who are informally understood to be Christian martyrs, only St. Charles and the other known Catholics were canonized by the Church.
Everybody Sing, Now
I had to chuckle when, reading Cherie Peacock’s intro to the February 2006 issue, there was a reference to the “Cum Ba Yah” crowd. Everybody who made it through the ‘60s knows that the song title and chief refrain was “Kumbaya.” Despite my usual pickiness about spelling, I can take this evidence of a younger generation of Catholics’ unfamiliarity with the word only to be an unmitigated sign of hope.
Jim Goethe
Wichita, Kansas
A Triple, But Not a Home Run
I’d like to expand on two important points that were missed in Edward Sri’s otherwise excellent article on the rosary (“The Scandal of the Decades,” March 2006). First, he begins by stating that “for many non-Catholics, the rosary can be quite perplexing.” The sad truth is that it is just as perplexing for many Catholics. In many of our parishes and Catholic schools, there is little if any focus on the rosary, let alone education on this very deep and moving prayer form.
The second point is that Sri fails to connect the rosary with the salvation story. All familiar with the rosary know that behind each decade is a mystery of the life of Christ. We reflect on these mysteries while praying the rosary and enter into a fuller understanding of the reason and meaning of Christ’s life here on earth. By reflecting on the joyful mysteries (Christ’s conception, incarnation, and youth), the luminous mysteries (his active ministry and proclamation of the Truth), the sorrowful mysteries (Christ’s passion and death on the cross), and the glorious mysteries (his Resurrection and Ascension), we then enter into the full blossoming of what the rosary really means: It is truly Christ-centric.
I think adding these points can help both non- and ill-formed Catholics and turn his solid triple into a home run.
Daniel Plazek
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Correction: There was a typographical error on page 20 of the March issue. The sentence that reads, “Finally, only women can be ordained priests” obviously should have read, “Finally, only men can be ordained priests.” The editor apologizes for any confusion but does not accept responsibility for any attempted ordinations.