Uniformly Brilliant
I was disappointed last year when you discontinued the “Step by Step” column. Although it didn’t live up to its name—i.e., it was usually a collection of objections to a tenet of the faith that didn’t follow a logical, step-by-step pattern—the replies to the individual objections were good.
Its latest incarnation (“How Can a Priest Forgive Sins,” January 2003) overcomes this objection and is uniformly brilliant. The responses of the “Catholic” are straightforward and true, and the words the author puts into the mouth of the “objector” are thoughtful. (Too often in these types of made-up dialogues, the person representing the opposing point of view is nothing but a straw man that an intelligent person holding the same views—in this case, a Protestant—would find insulting. For a cringing example, see Jeffrey L. Morrow’s “In the Crosshairs of the Canon,” This Rock, December 2000.)
“Step by Step” now flows in the way a normal conversation would and will be most helpful in practical application. I can only hope it’s not going away again.
James Cochone
Mountain View, California
Editor’s reply: The new “Step by Step” author, Dr. Kenneth J. Howell, is a convert, director of the Newman Center at the University of Illinois, and author several books about the Catholic faith. Don’t worry, James, he has been contracted to write “Step by Step” through 2003 and (we hope) long beyond that . . . although, after your letter, we may need to pay him more.
Science and Religion Can’t Contradict Each Other
I just read the “Brass Tacks” column in the January 2003 issue (“The Six Days of Creation”) and appreciated it very much. I have a B.S. in zoology and (gulp) actually believe in evolution (as a method used by God, not as a Godless natural process). I have known for a long time that the Church allows this view, but I did not know that my belief—that the “days” in Genesis are symbolic—was closer to the Church’s “official” position than the majority “literal days” view.
In my view, science and theology are complementary studies: One tells us about the natural world, the other about the supernatural. The scientific method is not equipped to say one whit about the supernatural world, though many scientists act as if it is a substitute for religion. And theology is not equipped to say much about the details of the natural world, though it is not as mute as science is about the supernatural. Science, done properly, and religion, done faithfully, can never contradict each other, because both are from God, who can never contradict himself. Apparent contradictions come from imperfect understanding.
Catholic Answers has helped greatly both me and my husband in our formation in the Catholic faith. Please continue your good work.
Robyn Broyles
Lakewood, Colorado
Orthodox Islam Is Oppressive, Intolerant, and Violent
I found Fr. Brian W. Harrison’s article “Muslims and the One True God” (January 2003) troublesome and incomplete. Fr. Harrison’s conclusion is correct: “The nature of Islam is more that of a heresy—an offshoot of Christianity and Judaism that retains the basic monotheistic concept of the one true Creator God.” Having said that, it must be emphasized that Islam is not just some benign heresy that one can ignore and be safely tolerant of. It is an extremely dangerous belief system that needs to be vehemently resisted.
Orthodox Islam (the radical version of “peaceful” Islam) is an oppressive, intolerant, and violent religion. The statements in the Qur’an that encourage bloody aggression against infidels (that’s us) are more than merely symbolic and are unacceptable in any civilized religion and culture. It is the leader of any movement that sets the standard for the truth and behavior of that particular belief system, and Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a terrorist and a butcher. Throughout history Islam has been spread mostly by coercion than by conversion.
I am afraid that Fr. Harrison’s article, while helpful as far as it goes, is incomplete by not emphasizing the dangers of Islam. Ultimately his article feeds the “let’s all gather around the campfire and hold hands and sing Kumbaya” attitude that is so pervasive in some areas of our Catholic Church.
Islam may worship the “one true God,” but Muslims are not our separated or misguided brethren. Islam is a powerful enemy of orthodox Christianity and needs to be strongly and aggressively resisted, as should be any and all heresies. This should be emphasized at every opportunity, and therein lies the troublesomeness and incompleteness of Fr. Harrison’s article.
Don Young
Lexington, Minnesota
Fr. Harrison’s Argument Is Unpersuasive
Fr. Brian W. Harrison’s article “Muslims and the One True God” (January 2003) seeks to address the question of whether Muslims worship the one true God even though they deny his trinitarian character. Fr. Harrison believes that Muslims do indeed worship the one true God.
An examination of the object of one’s worship raises ontological, epistemological, and moral issues. The ontological issue is straightforward: Just what is the referent or object of our worship, and what are the attributes of the referent? Since it is difficult to identify an object without spelling out some minimal set of attributes, Fr. Harrison must and does define a minimal set of essential attributes of the one true God.
Fr. Harrison appeals to passages in Romans 1 in which the Paul says that God is eternal and omnipotent. So there we have it. If the referent or object of your worship is eternal and omnipotent and one, then you do indeed worship the one true God. But this is to say no more than that there is only one supreme and eternal creator of the universe, a view held by all monotheists that I know. If so, then all monotheists worship the one true God.
A Christian should prefer to point to the incarnate God, Jesus Christ, and ask simply, “Do you worship him?” After all, being incarnate is a characteristic of God of Christianity and a most relevant one. Fr. Harrison seems to recognize this because he restricts (for purposes of his argument) the qualifying attributes of the one, true God to those attributes accessible to unaided human reason and strongly implies that the divinity of Christ is a function of supernatural revelation.
This distinction between natural and supernatural reason raises epistemological and moral questions regarding just how we know God. Fr. Harrison offers the analogy of two individuals who view the same television channel using two different TV sets, one that functions properly and one that affords a hazy reception. Both individuals see the same anchorperson, yet one (the Muslim) sees a somewhat distorted image.
One could conclude from this analogy that the TV sets represent our human cognitive apparatus, and thus it is only our cognitive ability, and not our hearts or our wills, that allows us to see God clearly. Notwithstanding the degree of clarity, the Muslim does know the one true God. Pressed by his critics, Fr. Harrison interprets the analogy such that the sets represent worldviews, and the Muslim worldview is shaped by the Koran and Islamic culture.
Fr. Harrison’s argument is unpersuasive. Consider the monotheist Jewish culture. When Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, many Jews believed in him, and others departed to plot his death. When Jesus himself was raised from the dead, many Jews believed in him, and others rejected him. When Jesus told the story of the rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham, did he not say that we have Moses and the prophets and that if we do not believe Moses and the prophets neither will we believe even though a man is raised from the dead?
So it seems that even two people who share a common worldview can view the same event clearly and come to different conclusions. In the process of knowing or thinking or judging there is indeed an essential moral element.
We may conclude that in some semantic way Muslims worship the eternal, omnipotent God (can there be any other?). We may also conclude that Muslims do not worship the incarnate God and that this lack of worship is as much moral as it is cognitive.
Thomas Stevens
Roswell, Georgia
Fuels the Flames of Doubt
As a reader of This Rock far more than a year, I have appreciated deeply the work you have done to make apologetics more accessible to the average Catholic. Your magazine fills a very evident void in the Church. So it was with deep disappointment that I read the article by James Hitchcock titled “The Imperative of Courtesy” (November 2002).
Hitchcock’s attack on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does nothing positive for the aspiring apologist, but rather fuels the flames of doubt that come from the extreme right and left. References to “orthodox” bishops imply that we have unorthodox bishops. But the vast majority of bishops currently serving America (and the world, for that matter) were chosen by Pope John Paul II himself.
Hitchcock’s contention that, as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Wilton Gregory “has primacy in some sense over [Francis] Cardinal George” is preposterous. I’m sure it was cause for a friendly laugh between the two of them.
The point of “The Imperative of Courtesy” is that if a bishop disagrees with the national conference, he would not stand up and say so “because most bishops feel constrained not to speak against a statement made in their name.” Unfortunately, such a constraint is felt on a more individual basis. The “imperative of courtesy” was certainly maintained as bishops allowed their colleagues who perpetuated the abuse scandal to continue ministry without even a word of reproach.
On the other hand, when Joseph Cardinal Bernardin tried to bring the Church together through the Common Ground Initiative, several of his fellow cardinals and bishops instantly and publicly rebuked him and the plan. They saw no need for positive (and orthodox) bridges to be built.
If I wanted to read articles critical of the Church, the bishops, or the USCCB, I would read the National Catholic Reporter or The Wanderer. It just isn’t what I am looking for in This Rock.
Rev. Paul G. Seaman
Country Club Hills, Illinois
Orthodoxy Is Not “Newsworthy”
Regarding “The Imperative of Courtesy” (November 2002): Perhaps bishops who honor the Holy Father and accept conservative Catholicism are speaking out, but no one is able to listen.
As a publicist for a parochial school, I’ve found out quickly that good news regarding Catholics (like grants, awards, and scholarships to our school) are not “newsworthy” to area television news crews or newspaper reporters.
Maybe no one publicizes the conservative views of bishops because they lack scandal.
Rosanne Williams
Howard, Pennsylvania
This Rock Is For Me
Just a few lines to commend you for your excellent publication. The articles are relevant, intelligent, well informed, and, above all, faithful to the magisterium.
I heard of your magazine on EWTN and was curious about it, but now I am convinced that this one is for me. Someone left copies of it in the back of my church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I would like to subscribe.
Frank Cappelli
Secular Discalced Carmelite
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Appreciated
First, I would like you to know how much your work in apologetics is appreciated by those of us struggling to defend our faith. Your magazine has been an invaluable tool in gaining the knowledge needed to practice apologetics. I began reading it again recently after an absence of five or so years, and it has been a humbling experience. As you probably know, the more you know about the Catholic faith, the more you realize that it is unfathomable, limitless in its depth and scope.
I was honored 25 ago to have met Fr. John Hardon on a private retreat I was making just before I got married. He invited me to attend classes he was teaching, and I gladly accepted. I didn’t know anything about Fr. Hardon at the time, but after six years of classes with him I can tell you that he was an extraordinary man and priest.
The reason I mention him is to bring up two of the things he told us in those classes. Everyone in your life God has put there for a reason, and the more you know, the more you will be held accountable for. These are sayings that I keep in mind as I attempt to defend my faith; they help keep one humble and focused. We may not know the impact of what we say to people will have in this life—unless, as I’ve found from experience, you mess up. It seems God is good at showing me when and how I’ve messed up.
I have one request: Perhaps in the future you could focus some articles on how to defend our faith to the priests in our parishes, especially when it comes to liturgical abuses. I took on my pastor a number of years ago, with the help of canon lawyers and Vatican II documents. To make a long story short, it did little good, and I am now in a parish that is faithful to the magisterium of the Church.
Anyway, people like me need you and your fine publication. I will keep you in my prayers and ask that you keep all of us out there “fighting the good fight” in yours.
Yvette Mader
Lake Zurich, Illinois
Any Priest
In response to your reply to Christopher Roy Einer’s letter suggesting that “problem” priests be made prison chaplains (“Letters,” November 2002):
While I certainly understand your desire to keep those who dissent from Church teachings from ministry, please consider that for the vast majority of the “criminally incarcerated” there is no priest and, consequently, no sacraments. To be blunt, any priest—even one convicted of molesting children—is better than no priest at all.
John Marshall Young
Wynne Farm State Penitentiary
Huntsville, Texas