The Bible Answer Man Comes Close
James Akin may be too pessimistic in his belief that “”there’s not much utility in debating the Immaculate Conception . . . with Protestants. They have not accepted the theological principles that would let them see the basis for these doctrines”” (“”Debating 101,”” July-August 2002). I’ve twice observed the contrary in a very unlikely venue: “”The Bible Answer Man”” radio call-in program moderated by Hank Hanegraff, which I used to listen to occasionally in the early nineties during my evening commute.
Twice I heard callers debate how Jesus could possibly be without sin, as stated in Hebrews 4:15, when half his ancestry was human rather than divine. They reasoned that since his human ancestry, or human parentage (they carefully avoided the term mother), was descended from Adam and Eve, Jesus would of necessity have inherited their fallen nature and been subject to sin. Mr. Hanegraff admitted that he could not explain it. To his credit, he excluded various plausible-sounding possibilities, such as Jesus’ sin having been removed at his baptism, reasoning correctly that Jesus could not have been without sin if he had inherited a fallen human nature. He and his callers concluded both times that the question could not be resolved.
They were obviously close to deducing the Immaculate Conception from first principles alone: Since Jesus was without sin, his “”human parent”” (mother) had to be without sin also. I expected Mr. Hanegraff or his callers any moment to remember the angel Gabriel’s salute to Mary-“”Hail Full-of-Grace””-and draw the obvious conclusion. (Mr. Hanegraff, moreover, who is a real biblical scholar, would have known the underlying Greek, “” Chaire Kecharitomene“”-more literally “”Rejoice, Woman-Transformed-by-Grace.””)
Not long afterward the program became somewhat anti-Catholic (occasioned more by the questions the callers asked than any underlying animus, in my opinion), and I quit listening. But I suspect intelligent thoughtful Protestants like Mr. Hanegraff can be appealed to by intelligent, thoughtful arguments, with who knows what results. Look at Scott Hahn.
Mike Johns
Silver Spring, Maryland
Noble Vacation
There seems to be concern among some friends of Catholic Answers about the justification for hosting an apologetics cruise (“”Calming the Waters,”” July-August 2002). These concerns are understandable, but perhaps looking at the situation in this light will help: Millions of faithful, sincere Catholics go on pilgrimages around the world to religious sites and shrines every year. Many of these trips are even more expensive than the cruise packages being offered. Sometimes pilgrims will save and sacrifice for several years in order to make such a journey.
Sure, that hard-earned money could be used in many more practical ways than a trip to Rome, Medjugorje, San Giovanni Rotondo, Lourdes, or so on. However, spending money on a venture of this nature is usually considered noble because it is done in an effort to seek God, draw closer to him, and strengthen one’s faith. If such motives justify a trip to Europe, shouldn’t these same motives also make going on a Catholic Answers apologetics cruise a noble way to vacation?
Emily Benson
Bethel, Ohio
Oh Well, Too Bad
It was surprising to find a two-page article dedicated to a donor being unhappy with the Catholic Answers apologetics cruise (“”Calming the Waters,”” July-August 2002). You cannot rightly deduce that because Catholic Answers is on the cruise ship the lucky (lucky enough to have the money) individuals who participate will become better apologists, more active in evangelization, more willing to contribute their wealth to Catholic needs, et cetera.
It is poor logic to compare someone complaining about the fund-raising activities of your apostolate to someone who stews in the back of the audience, convinced your approach to presenting the faith is wrong. Do you lump everyone with a complaint into a category of, oh well, too bad?
Please cancel my subscription.
Rodney Dean Beason
Knoxville, Tennessee
Fr. Landry’s Words Reassured Me
First, I’d like to thank Fr. Roger Landry for the article “”A Crisis of Saints”” (May-June 2002) and of course your magazine for publishing it. It is without a doubt the best and truest response that we Catholics should follow with regard to the current crisis in the Catholic Church in America and, indeed, any crisis in our lives.
I never lost my faith and always have known that Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, but I must admit to being worried and losing sleep over the current scandals because I so love his Church-similar to worrying over a sick loved one. It has been painful to watch it all unfold and feel so helpless that all I could do was pray. Prayer is no small thing, but it’s perhaps human nature to want to do whatever we can to help those we love and to hurt right alongside them.
Fr. Landry’s words reassured me that there is more that I can do: We must strive to be holy, to live as God intends us to, to be that light shining before others, to always have faith and to pray. I will try to do all these things, and now my heart is no longer as troubled.
Paul Darcy
Boise, Idaho
Where Do We Think Priests and Bishops Come From?
It has been painful to confront the reality of the Church’s abuse scandals (“”A Crisis of Saints,”” May-June 2002). However, as with any scandal, now that it is out in the open, there is a real opportunity for healing to occur.
Though many of the lay groups that are forming to address this issue call themselves “”faithful,”” the majority of the laity over the past several decades has been anything but faithful. I would suggest that a good place to start addressing our own scandals would be our widespread unfaithfulness to the Church’s teachings. And our collective disobedience has been most prominent in—of all areas—sexual morality. Does anyone really believe it’s just a coincidence that after thirty or forty years of thumbing our noses at the teaching authority of the Church in this regard we find the Church mired in a sex scandal? Where in the world do we think these priests and bishops came from anyway? The Church didn’t raise them-we did! They came out of our families.
I believe that it’s well past time that we put down our rocks, get on our knees, and undertake our own purification in this regard.
John Ryan
Ballwin, Missouri
Bitterness
I just finished reading “”What I Learned from U.S. Catholic Magazine”” (May-June 2002). I can see it hasn’t changed in 29 years.
The sight of the headline sparked bitterness in me. When I was dating my now-husband, we disagreed on how we should conduct ourselves. I asked my confessor for some help. He gave me a copy of U.S. Catholic, saying it was the latest Catholic thinking. I don’t know if the priest actually read the article he recommended or not, because it did not measure up to what he had told me. The article gave absolutely terrible, sinful advice and “”teaching.”” It told me I was being selfish if I did not do what-as I could see later-was clearly sinful behavior. I have suffered much for trying not to be “”selfish.””
Every now and then I try to pray a prayer of forgiveness for the people at U.S. Catholic because they’ve done me so much harm (and, I’m sure, harm to others). Thank you for exposing the dangers of this magazine. Hopefully others will be saved from the suffering caused by the twisted ideas that U.S. Catholic evidently still espouses.
Name withheld by request
A This Rock Forbidden Book Index?
Normally This Rock has excellent, informative articles. Unfortunately, “”What I Learned from U.S. Catholic Magazine”” by Philip Blosser (May-June 2002) wasn’t one of them.
I subscribed to U.S. Catholic by mistake. I subscribed to every Catholic periodical that was brought to my attention, expecting to test them all over one year and then to renew only the best ones. (Don’t worry; This Rock is definitely on my keeper list!) You didn’t need to waste six pages to tell your readers that U.S. Catholic serves the liberal Catholic agenda. What Blosser learned from U.S. Catholic is nothing more than the standard liberal Catholic position, available for inspection just about everywhere, including your average American Catholic priest, politician, educator, liturgical expert, et cetera.
Your readers would be better served if you simply supplied a list of “”not recommended”” periodicals, books, and authors so that we could avoid wasting money on unorthodox material. You would thus save room to print more of your usual excellent articles, which help us real Catholics combat this plague.
As for my own subscription to U.S. Catholic, I have no intention of renewing it. But I am, as is Blosser, finding it useful in understanding the liberal Catholic mindset. I also enjoy writing corrective letters with every issue, which they sometimes deign to publish. If my letters can get just a single person in their mailroom thinking, then my subscription fee won’t be a waste.
Gabrielle LeBlanc
San Jose, California
Underground Devotion
You were pretty hard on the person who wanted to bury a statue of St. Joseph to help sell his house (“”Quick Questions,”” Oct.-Nov.-Dec. 2001). He may be misguided in his zeal, but he did not commit a sin against the First Commandment. (If he had buried an amulet, that would be a sin.)
Likewise, there are no officially recognized devotions in the Church except maybe the rosary and the scapular. Popular devotions grow organically; if they flourish, they flourish. The Church prevents only those that are harmful.
When I have dealt with the “”buried St. Joseph statue”” question in the past, I have suggested making some other devotion or pledge, such as a novena. The act of burying a statue is also something someone might do as an intentional sacrilege, a way of demeaning something religious, so it is a confusing devotion at best. Saying a novena could never be confused with an act of sacrilege.
Brian Black
Ada, Michigan