Anti-Semitic Heresy
As a fellow Hebrew Catholic I send my congratulations to Rosalind Moss (“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” October 2002) for her masterful demolition of “Reflections on Covenant and Mission.” There are two points that Rosalind was too charitable to make:
(1) The document is essentially anti-Semitic; i.e., let’s leave those unconverted Jews to the fate they deserve. (2) There is a term that succinctly summarizes the document’s theology: heresy.
I. Stephan Bloch
Beaumont, Texas
Hard to Say Those Three Little Words
I read Rosalind Moss’s excellent article (“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” October 2002) and wonder why the subject of the salvation of Jews or other non-Christian groups is a problem. My understanding is that there is no man who can pass a judgment on any person or group without presuming on the authority of God, who is the ultimate judge of us all.
As Christian Catholics, we believe that all salvation comes through and from Jesus. But we are not privy to God’s entire plan and should not ever make statements that place limits on an infinitely merciful God. I guess it’s just as hard for theologians (as well as scientists) to say, “I don’t know.”
Guy O’Buck
Atlanta, Georgia
No Gospel Expiration Date
Hats off to Rosalind Moss for her excellent article pointing out problems with the reflection of some bishops that Jews do not need evangelizing (“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” October 2002). The gospel, given first to the Jews and then to Gentiles, did not come with an expiration date.
How we wish the bishops had read carefully Romans 9, 10, and 11 before issuing such a feel-good analysis of who needs evangelizing and who doesn’t. Paul dealt directly with this issue nearly two millennia ago and came up with the opposite conclusion: “For if justification [before God] were through the law [of Moses], then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21).
Why was it necessary for the eternal creator God to become one like us, and to die horribly on the cross, if salvation were available by other means? Did Jesus Christ waste his time enduring the pain and penalty for our sins? If the bishops are correct, why didn’t Jesus simply tell us that all we had to do to be saved was become practicing Jews?
It seems the bishops place their findings on the fact that God has made a covenant with the chosen people—ignoring the fact that these same people had broken that covenant. God spoke through Jeremiah and told them, “Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord” (Jer. 31:31–32). The new and promised covenant is proclaimed whenever the bishops offer Mass: “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:27–28).
Let us all remember that this gospel, given once for all, is not subject to recall.
Fran and Dick Ganzer
Cleveland, Ohio
On Jews and Muslims
Ms. Moss’s commentary about the resolution of the American Catholic bishops, (“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” October 2002) was right on the mark. That Judaism as an instrument of salvation is insufficient—a fact taught by Paul and the Church Fathers—escapes the ken of many Catholic bishops who would rather be politically correct than theologically accurate. Once again the bishops get it all wrong.
The article “Islam, Peace, and Violence” (“Brass Tacks,” October 2002) only touches the main issue facing the Church and our country today. Islam is the enemy as it has been for 14 centuries. Our parish seeks to educate our parishioners and others about this, and I invite you to examine “Islam and the Church: Fourteen Centuries of Jihad” on our parish web site at www.byzantines.net/epiphany.
R. L. Schwind
Roswell, Georgia
Editor’s reply: “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” was issued by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops’ Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Committee in conjunction with the National Council of Synagogues (how’s that for a mouthful?) and has no ecclesial force. The document was not approved by the bishops as a whole, and it would be safe to say many if not most of them disagree with its thesis that Jews should not be evangelized. The previous two letters, though the authors make valid points, are illustrative of another problem with such documents: the assumption (even if it is only rhetorical) that the bishops themselves are to blame. They’re not.
Reject Jesus Now – What About in Heaven
I have just read Karl Keating’s great article “Bad Theology Disguised as Charity” (“Frontispiece,” October 2002). He writes, “The basic error in ‘Reflections on Covenant and Mission’ is this notion that the permanence of God’s covenant with the Jews implies that that they do not need Christ to be saved, that their covenant is sufficient and the Christian covenant is superfluous—for them. From this false premise comes the conclusion that, while it is proper to evangelize people of other faiths or of no faith, Jews need not—and should not—be evangelized because they have their own path to heaven, one that does not include Christ.”
I found myself wanting to add, “If, indeed, this is the case, then how do they propose to relate to Jesus in heaven, when they reject him now? Furthermore, what do they expect Jesus will have to say about this?”
Norman Flowers
Louisville, Kentucky
On Mills and Moss
Where has David Mills been lately (“The Church Domestic,” October 2002)? He writes, “It [the Church] knows that only in the regular reception of the body and blood of the Son of God will a man begin truly to be formed in God’s image and likeness.”
Would that it were so simple. With the priest scandal ongoing, some people would put this line to scorn.
Thank you for Rosalind Moss’s article “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem” (October 2002). It helped my sanity and faith.
Gene J. Glass
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Editor’s reply: In context, Mr. Mills’ statement did not mean receiving the Eucharist is sufficient cause for holiness. Undoubtedly even frequent communicants can fall into grave sin. What he meant was that, even of one leads an exemplary life, without the Eucharist one is stunted spiritually.
It Would Make Most Married People Blush
The rebuttal of Thomas Cahill in “Priest, Not Prophet” (“The Apologist’s Eye,” October 2002) was good, and I would offer another observation. A woman once questioned an old Italian priest, because of his celibate state, about his ability to counsel her regarding her marriage. He replied, “You know one marriage. I know sixty.”
To think a priest should be exempt from speaking on sexuality because of his celibate state is absurd. I can’t imagine anything about marriage and sexuality a priest hasn’t heard in the confessional. It would probably make most married people blush. If anything, priests are more objective in their counseling on sexuality by having refrained from sex.
In light of how prophetic Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae was 34 years ago, I would suggest we lay people analyze more deeply the writings of the Holy Fathers on sexuality and marriage. Pope John Paul’s II’s Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body are good documents to study, as they expand on many points of Humanae Vitae. Instead of allowing theologians to give us the popular culture lip service about these writings, let’s go to the source.
Paul Cihak
Corvallis, Oregon
Jack Chick’s Bad Tricks
Anne Burns’ article on Jack Chick (“Grave Errors,” October 2002) misses a key distortion of Scripture. One of the comic panels has the Lord saying to the condemned Catholic, “Wrong, John. Only the blood I shed on Calvary can cleanse sin” (my emphasis). And an insert panel reads: “…the blood of Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:17.”
The word only does not come from Scripture. Like Martin Luther’s famous “faith alone,” Jack Chick’s only is a human addition. Chick is adding to the word of God, and Proverbs 30:5–6 says, “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Revelation 22:18 says, “I warn every one who hears the words of prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”
It would seem to me that if anyone is in danger of ending up in that “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,” it would be those of Jack Chick’s ilk who add to the word of God.
Jim Reiter
Fairfield, California
Apologist, Heal Thyself
A friend gave me the September 2002 issue of This Rock. I am confused and concerned about the content. Mark Brumley’s article, “Are You ‘The Catholic Answer Man’?” concerns avoiding the sin of apologetical pride, but it seems every apologetical article in the issue is rife with such pride.
If I may define apologetical pride in my own words, it is the unwarranted belief that a viewpoint is the absolute truth and every conflicting viewpoint is absolutely false and representing a grave disorder. The articles by Karl Keating (“Hello? Is There Anybody Home?”) and Karen Edmisten (“Calvin’s Contraception Contradiction”) seem to take this prideful stance. Even Brumley’s article seems to discredit the value of conscientious objection.
To paraphrase Augustine, if we knew all about God he would not be God. There is much that is unknowable. The absolute truth is that we know the absolute truth about very little. It is pride of the highest order to assert that our viewpoint is the only allowable viewpoint (even when it is shared by the magisterium) and that dissenting opinions necessarily represent grave disorders. Such an assertion is to place ourselves above God. He alone will judge us.
J.C.G. Goelz
Pineville, Louisiana
Editor’s reply: Your definition of apologetical pride is deficient in two respects. (1) Belief in the absolute truth of defined revelation is not unwarranted—it is what God demands of us. (2) Belief in absolute truth does not mean that one thinks every conflicting viewpoint is absolutely false and represents a grave disorder. There is truth in most Protestant views; there is simply not the whole truth. You also seem to equate maintaining that something is true with being proud about it. In the articles you mention, the authors maintain that a certain viewpoint—namely, that of the Catholic Church—is true, which means necessarily that those with opposing views are wrong. This can—and must—be done without being prideful (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15). In doing so we do not place ourselves above God, who reveals these things as true; we place ourselves subservient to him. On the contrary, to hold a dissenting opinion to a truth shared by the magisterium is to place ourselves above God.
Discarded Priests Versus Problem Priests
Your October 2002 issue carried a letter from Christopher Roy Einer suggesting that priests “discarded” under the U.S. bishops’ new zero tolerance policy be appointed as prison chaplains. Your response—”Considering that most of the problem priests are homosexuals and likely dissent from Church teachings, they are the last people who should be ministering to inmates”—is valid if your premises are valid. Unfortunately, there is increasing evidence of the many flaws of the policy, flaws that could have been predicted of a policy that was designed as a public relations move first.
We are increasingly hearing about priests who, because of an indiscretion many years ago or an accusation that is presumptively false, are no longer considered fit for ministry, despite intervening years of faithful, obedient service.
In my own penal institution, a little less than a year ago we had the opportunity to go to confession and participate at the holy sacrifice of the Mass for the first time in two and a half years. And that was only because we found a priest willing to drive five hours to reach us, minister to us for three hours, then drive five hours home. He has returned thrice since (once every three months). Between his visits a lay minister from a parish 40 miles away brings us Holy Communion each Sunday and leads us in study sessions. We have written the local bishop numerous times, only to have him forward our letters to the local pastor who simply ignores them.
Given that visiting those in prison is one criterion Jesus promised will be used in our favor at the last judgment, allowing otherwise faithful priests who have been ejected from parish ministry because of a faulty policy seems like a wise and holy thing to do.
Peter G. Smith
Crowley County Correctional Facility
Olney Springs, Colorado
Editor’s reply: Christopher Roy Einer spoke of “priests who have committed sexual crimes” and “problem priests.” The scenario you sketch is much different. There was no indication Einer was talking about priests who committed “an indiscretion many years ago” with “intervening years of faithful, obedient service.” We would not disagree with you regarding priests unfairly punished by a faulty policy—a policy, by the way, the Vatican has rejected.
We’d Call It ‘Disparity of Smarts’
In your “The Apologist’s Eye” section of the October 2002 issue, you wrote concerning the marriage between a Catholic and a Wiccan, “From the Church’s perspective, it’s just another mixed marriage.”
This is incorrect. Paragraph 1633 of the Catechism defines a mixed marriage as between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person such as a Wiccan would be termed disparity of cult.
Carson Weber
Steubenville, Ohio
Editor’s reply: If the Wiccan were a baptized non-Catholic who subsequently adopted the hodgepodge of New Age ideas that is Wicca—as is likely—such a marriage would be a mixed marriage.
Rescued
I want to thank you and all those who help assemble and distribute This Rock. I have been incarcerated here in the California Department of Corrections in Avenal for close to three years. In that time your incredible publication has helped me grow closer to my Lord and my God Jesus Christ. It has also helped me answer many of my own questions about the faith as well as to defend it against attacks by overly zealous separated brethren and non-Christians. With your guidance I believe I allowed the Holy Spirit’s love to shine and with the grace of Jesus helped to glorify our heavenly Father.
I parole Thanksgiving Day and look forward to no longer needing to gratefully accept your prison ministry donations but being able to subscribe along with your other faithful readers. I no longer feel I was arrested—I know now I was rescued. I will keep the faith with a positive attitude of gratitude.
Marco A. Irigoyen
Avenal, California