Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback

"Supercalifragilistic-Expialidocious"

“Supercalifragilistic-Expialidocious”

Two days ago I received my first issue (August 1993) of This Rock, which I had awaited with much excitement. I have been reading Chesterton, Lewis, and Sheen, but was curious what today’s Church offers in the form of Catholic apologetics. I liked much of what I read, but some of it struck me as quite wrong. I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised by the parts I disagreed with. I should have expected to find self-righteous and proud attitudes, as well as disdain for our separated brethren, in the cover story [ “Somos Catolicos: A Costa Rican Lesson”]. Still, I was disappointed.

Intellectual apologetics can and should be carried out with sincerity, simplicity, respect, and love. I find it childish, immature, and unprofessional to use sarcasm as much as This Rock does in its August issue. Sarcasm has its place, and our Lord used it himself once or twice. However, the Bible everywhere stresses sincerity as an ideal, and the mocking, sarcastic tone of many of the articles (particularly in the “Dragnet” section) turned me off.

Sincere apologetics should strive to make matters of faith and doctrine understandable and simple. In my opinion, using a “fifty-cent word” for its own sake is counter-productive, and it seemed that some contributors were excessively verbose. I understand that oftentimes uncommon and/or distinctive words best convey the author’s intent, and this letter shows that I am not afraid to use large words myself.

I also understand that This Rock is intentionally intellectually oriented. However, I am also conscious of the way “big words” affect many people, and when engaged in apologetics, I try to keep my language simple and concise. It takes more effort to simplify an essay or sermon, but for the hearts that are reached, it’s worth it.

A side note: I greatly enjoyed the feature article, “The Dead See Scrolls,” but the reference to “the Spirit of Vatican II” as the precursor of “a stream of claptrap” sounded irreverent. Maybe it was intended as a criticism of those Catholics who consider all change to be in “the Spirit of Vatican II,” but it didn’t come across that way.

I considered canceling my subscription. At this time, I would like my subscription to continue, for a few reasons: (1) I am optimistic enough to hope that future issues will be affected by my letter; (2) I am educated enough to realize the value of reading material I sometimes disagree with; (3) I am uneducated enough to know that I need to be exposed to material like that found in This Rock; (4) I trust God enough to believe that reading This Rock will help me grow. I thank you for your hard work, and I look forward to future issues. 

Dan Ward 
Clarkson University Potsdam, New York 

Editor’s reply: We try to appeal to a range of readers, from the theologically sophisticated to beginners. But you’re quite right, of course: We should eschew sesquipedalianisms–except, of course, when they’re just the right words. 


 

O Canadian, O Canadian!

 

I am a seminarian for the Brothers of the Holy Cross. I have read Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism and thought it was very good. Fr. John Hardon told me to send it to my mother, and it helped her conversion from Mormonism to Catholicism, despite a “born-again” Fundamentalist brother I have.

I was told you have a magazine by a friend at the Oratory in Toronto, yet I cannot seem to get it anywhere. My studies for the priesthood are at an outside university, therefore I am at their mercy for reading material. Our library here is small, with nothing concerning apologetics. Can you help? I do not have a lot of money. My mother sends me some every now and then, but not a set amount. If you have any books or magazines that I could get from you I’d be very thankful. I could make payments, but I don’t know how much or how regular. My studies cost a lot, so my money goes fast. At my university the faith is under constant attack and I think we need to be able to give a good defense for the Church and be proud of who we are and what we have. You are doing a good job. 

Benedict McGowan 
Chicago, Illinois 

Editor’s reply: We have sent Mr. McGowan a theological care package. 


 

PR needs TR

 

This letter serves two purposes. The first one is to thank you and your staff members for your love and dedication. You take the time to teach us the beautiful and wonderful truths found in the Catholic Church. I am learning so much, slowly but surely, from This Rock. (I’ve already sent my subscription for two years. We need a magazine like that in Puerto Rico–unfortunately, not all can read English.) I love the Church Jesus founded; I love his mother and I love his Vicar, and I say this sincerely. Thank you again! May God bless you and may the Holy Spirit continue to inspire you. 

Rosemary Perez Diaz
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico 


 

“Bet on It!”

 

Any child who goes to a good church where the word of God is taught and then reads your booklet Refuting the Attack on Mary would learn that you [the letter is addressed to “Mr. Mateo”] are a liar and a perverter of God’s word. You made a fool of yourself in this booklet. Anyone who reads the word of God knows that many of the things that the Catholic Church (the doomed Whore of Rome) teaches are lies.

All true Christians are Bible-believers, sir, minister of Satan. [The Church is] one of his many tools to damn souls to hell. I despise it and I will fight it as long as I live. Bet on it! Some of us are giving people the truth about your doomed, satanic, and bloody church. As a result we are hurting it badly. Praise the Lord!

You lie when you said Luther believed the lies about Mary all his life. When he got saved and became a true Christian he stopped believing the lies. You and all other rascals who pervert God’s word to prove your false doctrines will find hell very, very, very hot! Your Pope is a hell-bound Antichrist. I love Catholics; the proof is that I give them the true gospel of Jesus Christ so they can get saved and become true Christians.

Some of us saints will never! never! never! stop fighting it. Bet on it, Buster! 

James Lancaster 
Fayetteville, North Carolina 


 

FPs versus MPs 

 

In your September 1993 issue, the first letter defending altar girls also seems to be defending the ordination of women to the sacrificial priesthood. I am writing this letter to express thoughts which I have long had on this question. (Herein “FP” refers to persons promoting/defending female priests; “MP” refers to those defending the Church’s position on a male-only priesthood.)

I submit that there are two approaches which are not followed (at least I have never encountered them), one on each side.

I certainly accept the need to defend the Church’s teachings when they are called into question. However, in the present instance I suggest there ought to be a preliminary pro cess employed. There is an ancient axiom, initially in law but eventually expanded to everyday use, which states that “the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion–onus probandi incumbit ei qui asserit.” To my mind it is not the MPs who have the initial burden of proving why women cannot be priests; it is the FPs who have the burden of proving why women can be priests. When they fail in this, the MPs may offer their proofs.

A difficulty with the MPs quickly attempting to defend the Church’s position is that, if the FPs are not persuaded by their arguments, they can say, “See, you can’t prove that women can’t be priests, so they should be allowed to be ordained.” The wrong side is put on the defensive, and the FPs seem to “win” by default.

We are saying that they have the burden of proof. What, precisely, is it they have to prove? Obviously, they must establish the foundation on which they base their position. No one builds a house beginning with walls and roof; a foundation is laid first. The soundness of the structure depends to a great extent on the solidity of the foundation. Suasive arguments from sociology, psychology, emotion, culture, equal rights–arguments of the nature of “ought to be”–are the superstructure. They will have value only if they rest on a solid foundation; of themselves they are not doctrinal proofs.

What is the foundation needed to be established by the FPs? Simply that of physical possibility (I am not speaking of metaphysical or moral possibilities). No rational person ever attempts an endeavor without thinking that it is possible to achieve it! FPs, in arguing their position, evidently assume that it is possible.

But here the FPs are begging the question. The physical possibility of [women] being ordained to the sacrificial priesthood is far too important to simply be assumed. It requires explicit proof. If it cannot be proven, if the foundation cannot be laid, all other arguments, the superstructure, collapse for lack of support and do not even need refutation. If this matter has been treated in writing somewhere, I should be grateful for the references. 

Rev. David Webster 
Houston, Minnesota 


 

Aquinate Calvinism?

 

As I read James Akin’s excellent article, “A Tiptoe Through TULIP” [September 1993], it began to seem to me that the point might be lost on more than one well-meaning Catholic. The real and serious deficiencies of Calvinism loom so large that the attempt to find common ground can seem perverse. However, this attempt is essential to good apologetics, and this article is very successful in that regard.

In particular I suspect that Catholics of a Molinist persuasion may object to Mr. Akin’s comments on unconditional election and limited intent; however, they need to realize that the point is not that [belief in these] doctrines is not required by the Catholic faith, but simply that these doctrines are compatible with it. We should not require potential converts to drop all articles of faith which we happen to disagree with, but only those which the Church condemns.

A friend and I were involved in a debate with a Calvinist who made a big deal concerning unconditional election, a doctrine that I had always rejected, despite the fact that I was raised in a Calvinist church. When we learned that it was held by Thomas Aquinas and allowed by the Church, my friend said to me, “Who are we to make this a stumbling block for him?” Since then I have come to accept the doctrine, and, ironically, I am in a sense more “Calvinistic” as a non-dissenting Catholic than as a Calvinist! 

Steven D. Greydanus 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 


 

Bringing Hispanics Home 

 

I’ve been on the road, doing evangelization missions in Spanish in Texas and Panama. We get tremendous help from your magazine, by the way. Wish we had something like it in Spanish!

Evangelization among Hispanics, as I’m sure you realize, is a question of keeping them in the one true Church and trying to bring back those who have left us for one of the sects, which certainly are saturating Latin America.

Just one little example: We had a month-long mission in January 1993 in the town of Puerta Armuelles, Panama, a banana port of about 20,000. We just did a follow-up mission. Both were very successful, due mainly to the zealous work of the fifty or so lay missioners who labored with us. When I was pastor of the Catholic church in Armuelles in the 1960s it was the only church in town. Now there are 17 Pentecostal and Evangelical temples there!

One thing we find: Hispanics are hungry for God, religion, and community. When we conduct a mission and send our lay volunteers out in teams of two and three to knock on doors, people respond eagerly. All they need is that personal contact, and they will start attending Mass again or return to us from the sect they had joined.

Say a prayer for us. We do for you and your wonderful labors for the Lord and his Church, This Rock

Rev. John Kennedy, C.M. 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us