The Entire Gang Needs to Be Replaced
Thank you for the frank and much-needed annotated letter from Rome to the episcopal handlers of ICEL (“An Undue Autonomy,” April 2000). In the mid-1990s, I was privileged, along with a handful of other translator-theologians, to critique the proposed translations of the International Commission on English in Liturgy (ICEL). The results formed the basis of a number of generally unsuccessful interventions by some U.S. bishops at their annual meetings, interventions I believe triumphed even in failure by alerting the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to the troublesome translations ICEL was presenting.
Whether the ICEL translators were rushed (despite the several years they took) or miseducated or sloppy, or whether they had an unspoken agenda, the fact is that the meaning and sheer artistry of the Latin originals of the vast majority of prayers were trampled by the ICEL functionaries. Furthermore, my own theological analysis of their work demonstrated that there were Arian, semi-Arian, and Nestorian elements in the translations and highly suspicious ideas expressed in the unauthorized “original” prayers that were submitted to Rome.
There is no question that the entire gang needs to be replaced by translators and theologians who will show both respect for the ancient and awesome words of the Latin Rite and openness to their responsibility to the magisterium.
W. Patrick Cunninghan
San Antonio, Texas
ICEL’s Extraordinary Ramifications
Let’s pray that the Vatican really does straighten out ICEL (“An Undue Autonomy,” April 2000). If nothing else, these folks are guilty of gross incompetence. First, they remove the religious language from their translations of the Latin originals on the grounds that talk of that kind turns people off. Then they insert “inclusive language” on the grounds that the people demand it.
But a 1997 Roper poll published in Catholic World Report revealed that 69 percent of American Catholics oppose “inclusive language” (47 percent “strongly”), while only 21 percent support it (9 percent “strongly”).
The February 2000 Adoremus Bulletin quoted ICEL’s Dr. Ken Larsen, one of the two principal translators of the Sacramentary, as bragging, “I’ve been fortunate to be a part of a project that has quite extraordinary ramifications, historical and societal. . . . We have been very meticulous in keeping to the principle of inclusive language.”
So obviously, he doesn’t really believe he’s just giving the people what they want.
Don Schenk
Allentown, Pennsylvania
Worth the Price of My Annual Subscription
Mary Beth Kremski’s story “Who Has Ears to Hear?” (April 2000) hit the proverbial nail on the head. It answered many of the questions I have been pondering for years. Just this one article was worth the price of my annual subscription.
I believe Ms. Kremski’s article provided illumination for one of Bishop Fulton Sheen’s more famous quotes: “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. . . . The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded.”
Tom Fath
Lexington, Kentucky
Phenomenology Is Theologically Neutral
While agreeing with the thrust of Robert Sungenis’s defense of phenomenology as a legitimate and sometimes helpful alternative to Thomism (“Letters,” April 2000), let me offer a word of caution. I would not want readers to get the mistaken impression that phenomenology is a Christian or Catholic alternative to Thomism. While some phenomenologists—such as Edith Stein and Karol Wojtyla—have sought to work out their ideas within a Christian framework, many phenomenologists have been hostile toward religious faith.
It may be countered that the Aristotelianism presupposed by Aquinas was not Christian either. Yet Thomism is a Christian philosophy that makes use of Aristotelian concepts, while phenomenology is neither Christian nor anti-Christian. The results yielded by a phenomenological approach may be nearly as variable as the philosophers who work within it.
Philip Blosser
Hickory, North Carolina
He Is in Heaven and We Are Not
The good news for Sungenis is that Thomists don’t disagree with him as to the truth of the proposition that sex is an expression of love and happiness. And it seems of little consequence what Aquinas said or didn’t say on this matter, at least from Aquinas’s perspective. After all, he is in heaven and we are not.
However, this debate does illustrate an important point: It is difficult, if not impossible, to properly understand Thomas without an understanding of Aristotle. As grace is built upon nature, Aquinas’s teaching on the sacrament of marriage is built upon a philosophical understanding of friendship. Thus, philosophy is the handmaid of theology. One cannot pour one’s own meaning into the words used by Aquinas. To do so creates a straw man that is easily knocked down.
Nick Cammarota
Carmichael, California
The Writer Has No Clue
Robert Sungenis states, “Along with the Fathers and Humanae Vitae, I believe that sex without the intent of producing children is a perversion” (“Letters,” April 2000).
Where does that leave couples legitimately practicing natural family planning? How about couples having marital sex when the wife is already pregnant or when she is post-menopausal? To suggest that they must desire a child to result from their act of sex is ludicrous.
He writes also that “holy” married men don’t have sex with their wives to satisfy themselves but because they love their wives and want children to love. I would venture to say that there are many holy women who would dispute that statement. But then, no discussion of sex in publications related to the Church are ever from a married woman’s perspective, and so often it is clear that the writer has no clue.
Finally, Sungenis’s statement that “over half of the sins of the world are sex-related” may be true, but how in the world did he come up with that statistic?
Fran Novotny
Hill City, South Dakota
Not a Disciple of Scheler
Mr. Sugenis says, “John Paul II has his doctorate from Max Scheler, one of phenomenology’s most ardent spokesman” (“Letters,” April 2000). Actually, the Holy Father has two doctorates, and the one in question was finished in 1953, while Max Scheler died in 1928. A more serious error, however, is the implication that John Paul II is a follower of Scheler.
The Pope’s biographer George Weigel had this to say about John Paul’s dissertation on the phenomenology of Max Scheler: “The question Wojtyla posed in his habilitation thesis was whether Scheler (and by extension, the phenomenological method) could do for contemporary Christian philosophy and theology what Aristotle had done for Thomas Aquinas. The answer, for the young priest, essentially, was No” (Witness to Hope, 129).
As I read it, the Pope regards phenomenology as a valuable addition to Scholastic philosophy, not as a foundation for the theology for human sexuality, as Sungenis implied.
Patrick L. Cole
Bedford, Indiana
Mormons Are Patriots, Too
Regarding “Mr. President or Mr. God?” (“Dragnet,” March 2000): Since you made reference to the 1960 election, permit a brief rear view from one who lived through those days. Many of us young, Catholic Democrats who were active in Jack Kennedy’s presidential campaign were opposed to him speaking in Houston before the Ministerial Association. We believed that his going “cap in hand” as it were to explain to their satisfaction his relationship to the Catholic Church put the rest of us into a type of second-class citizenship.
If your basic premise is correct, then Orrin Hatch or any Mormon should never be trusted with any office in our nation’s government. I am sure you did not mean to say that. I do not accept the theology held by the Latter Day Saints church, but I also do not question Mormons’ love of and loyalty to this country of ours.
I was taken aback by the sarcastic tone of the piece. Come on, fellows, this was not up to your standards.
William A. Beattie
Glendora, California
Riled
Regarding the following passage from “Sacred Scripture Depends on Sacred Tradition” (March 2000): “The life of a human being works similarly. Once born, it learns to speak before it can write.” The article defers to political correctness in referring to human beings as “it” throughout the paragraph.
I am not an “it.” Not even an “It.” I am “he”; my wife is “she”; my children are “he” and “she.” We are made in the image and likeness of God. For political correctness, is God an “it”?
P.C. gets me riled.
Donald O. Krier
Costburg, Wisconsin
Editor’s reply: Take a deep breath, Donald. This instance probably stuck out because it is an anomaly that slipped by us in the editing process. Our normal convention is to use “he” and “his” in referring to individual humans when gender is unspecified (i.e., “Each student must use his own pencil”) and to use “man” or “mankind” when referring to the human race.