Erroneous Statements?
I write in reference to an article by James Hitchcock in the November 2002 issue of your magazine (“The Imperative of Courtesy”). You purport that This Rock is a Catholic, orthodox publication, and yet you print erroneous statements against the ordained teachers of the Church.
For example, Mr. Hitchcock has asserted in his article, “With one exception—John Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—the bishops have never elected a president who strongly supports the authority of the Vatican.” Such a biased, unfounded statement indicts the American bishops and their elected leaders for the past forty years.
With reference to Mr. Hitchcock’s reference to myself: “Bishop Trautman has consistently found himself outvoted by his fellow bishops on liturgical matters, yet he continues to champion the agenda of the liturgical bureaucracy,” may I point out the facts—namely, that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Revised Lectionary and Sacramentary projects which I presented on behalf of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy. More than the two-thirds canonical vote was received in support of the work done by the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy. These are facts.
This Rock should be ashamed of the extremism and erroneous statements in Mr. Hitchock’s article. An apology is in order.
Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, STD, SSL
Erie, Pennsylvania
James Hitchcock replies: About ten years ago Bishop Trautman, as chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, presented the bishops with a translation of the Lectionary of the Mass that incorporated “inclusive language.” The bishops approved the translation. However, the Holy See disapproved some features of it, and it was modified by a committee made up of American bishops and representatives of the Holy See. This modified translation was then accepted by the bishops as a whole. The translation will now be reviewed by another joint committee, and at the bishops’ meeting last November Bishop Trautman again strongly criticized this Lectionary, which was revised and approved by the bishops.
Most American bishops accept Liturgiam Authenticam, the Holy See’s decree governing liturgy. Almost alone among his brethren, Bishop Trautman strongly and publicly criticizes the document, regarding it as unwarranted interference by the Holy See with the authority of the bishops. He charges that recent Vatican documents “call us back to a liturgy and a theology before Vatican II”—an allegation few of his fellow bishops endorse.
Space does not permit a survey of the history of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I reiterate the example I cited in my article: Archbishop John R. Quinn of San Francisco, California, after his retirement became a vocal critic of the exercise of the papal office, criticisms summed up in his book The Reform of the Papacy.
What Were These Canon Lawyers Thinking?
Your Q&A on the sexual abuse scandal that is rocking the Church was superb, as was James Hitchcock’s perceptive analysis of why the U.S. bishops have been reluctant to come to grips with the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood. At the very least, the bishops should withdraw “Always Our Children” for a major rewrite.
Until you reported it, I was not aware that the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law permitted the ordination of homosexuals. What in the name of God were these canon lawyers thinking? Did they not foresee the consequences of their actions? There in a nutshell you have the root of the problem that is plaguing the Church today. And unless canon law is changed, the problem will only get worse.
F. Douglas Kneibert
Sedalia, Missouri
Editor’s reply: In May 2002, Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, responded by letter to a bishop who had written asking if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies. Noting that priestly ordination of “homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent,” the cardinal’s brief missive concluded: “A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.”
The letter was not made public until it was published in the November-December issue of Notitiae, the bulletin of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. How this ban will square with governing canon law is not yet clear.
Intellectual Cheese Grater
My wife recently attended a seminar from which she obtained a copy of This Rock. Wow, what a disappointment to read your intellectually challenged Q&A on the priest scandal. Really sad to think that you are that backward in your thinking, and that is coupled with the misrepresentation of the facts.
Just one example: You cite .53 percent as the national average of priests accused. No, this is the percentage of priests dismissed. There are many more accused who have not been dismissed.
The heart of the problem lies with our inability to admit that the bishops were clearly wrong if they did not remove priests from active ministry when they were made aware of the problem. Yeah, they were given advice from professionals. Who are you kidding? We are not IBM, we are the Catholic Church, and the bishops knew this was wrong and did not act in the manner that they should have.
There is no gray area. This is black and white when assessing the evil and sinfulness of these predators. We as Church sinned, and we need to openly admit it. Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, Massachusetts, finally admitted that he knew and still transferred priests. Gee, what a revelation.
On a final note, I cannot believe that you would even suggest that it is a homosexual problem. Why don’t we remove all the black or Hispanic priests since they may have a tendency to womanize? If you are celibate, then it does not matter what your orientation is.
I would love the opportunity to shred you intellectually, but then my energy would be wasted. I will pray that God will forgive you for misleading so many of the faithful.
John Brady
Trenton, New Jersey
Editor’s reply: As we stated in the article you reference, there is no way to arrive at precise statistics regarding the priestly abuse problem. We did not state that .53 percent of the priests nationally have been “accused”; the number represents the percentage of priests “who had been dismissed or had resigned by the time the bishops met last June.” It is likely that number is inflated, since, as we said, “it is not at all clear that all the dismissals and resignations were due to abuse.” Are there “many more accused who have not been dismissed”? It seems likely in the currently charged atmosphere that most priests who have been accused have either been dismissed or have resigned. And, as we saw tragically in Boston late last year, not all accused priests are guilty. Even if all the accused priests still in ministry were included, the percentage of problem priests as a whole would still be miniscule.
As for the “heart of problem,” we do not disagree with you: Our article stated, “Unquestionably the bishops made mistakes.” It was in the context of explaining that the media frequently painted the bishops actions in the worst light possible that we pointed out that in many instances the bishops were following the advice of psychological “experts.”
Because of fallen human nature, there have always been and always will be a small number of priests who commit heterosexual sin. Our statement that the current scandal is a homosexual one is based on the incontrovertible evidence that the huge majority of the priests involved are accused of sexual molestation of adolescent males, not females. You would be hard-pressed to find statistical support for your statement (tongue-in-cheek, we hope, but nevertheless hopelessly insensitive) that “black or Hispanic priests . . . may have a tendency to womanize.”
Please don’t ever think, should the opportunity arise, that it would be a waste of energy to shred us intellectually.
Whom to Honor—Jesus or My Parents?
Mark P. Shea’s “Of Closed Communion and Japanese Restaurants” in your November 2002 issue was inviting, charming, and well-written. Unfortunately, it also hits close to home. I can tell Mr. Shea of at least two living souls who felt hurt by closed Communion: my parents.
When I joined the Catholic Church and subsequently became engaged, the issue of communion was a sore spot. You see, I am a former Episcopalian, and my father is an Episcopalian priest. I was raised “high-church,” and my parents continue to believe the traditional Episcopal faith to be “Catholic,” with all the sacraments valid.
When my fiancé and I decided we could do no less than have Jesus present in the sacrament of holy Communion at our wedding, the celebrant could not allow my parents to receive because my father would be obviously a priest by the wearing of his clerics. My refusal to abandon the idea of not having Communion at our wedding caused very hurt feelings, but I felt that I had to choose whom to honor the most, Jesus or my parents.
This is not to say I regret the choice we made; only that there are folks out there who consider closed Communion hurtful. I still pray for my parents to be rid of their hurt and for them to come home to the place their Lord has been calling them all these years—the Catholic faith.
Marcie Impastato
Houston, Texas
Cries of Outrage
Mark Shea has never met my family members or friends and has not heard the cries of outrage from Protestants over being excluded from communion in the Roman Catholic church (“Of Closed Communion and Japanese Restaurants,” November 2002). His relatives accept, as do I, the examples he gives. My friends and family do not. My sister splutters each time we attend a Catholic Mass, and one of my friends practically broke our friendship when I mentioned that I thought Protestants who take communion in a Catholic church were rude. (I had made the statement not knowing that she does so unless the priest announces that one should not.)
Why are my friends and family members so different? I think part of their reaction is due to their feeling that a Christian is a Christian, and therefore all should be welcome to Communion. (That is the thought of my sister and my irate friend.) Another part is that they know many Catholics who believe that their separated brothers and sisters should not be excluded. Many priests accept Protestants, either by silence or by statement, taking communion.
The dissidents may have helped create the problem, but it does exist. Non-Catholic Christians are hurt and angered by the policy. If Mr. Shea wants proof, I can direct him to my sister or my friend Connie as well as others.
Name withheld
via the Internet
If She Needs a Press Agent . . .
As a senior citizen and cradle Catholic, I really enjoy convert stories. Reading Sarah Del Castillo’s article “Bundled Up Close to Our Lady’s Heart” (“Damascus Road,” November 2002) gave me a warm, comfortable feeling. It’s my guess that this talented young woman with the open, friendly writing style and the wonderful gift of faith will be heard from in the future. The Holy Spirit will surely see to that. My wife and I intend to circulate Sarah’s article in our parish.
Joseph Costa
Murrieta, California
Light in the Canadian Tunnel
Regarding “From the Vibrant Faith Department” (“The Apologists Eye,” October, 2002): Msgr. Schonenbach’s response to free condoms being handed out by the reform group Challenge the Church at World Youth Day in Toronto this past summer may not have been so surprising to Catholic Canadians who have had to endure such nonsense from our shepherds for a very long time now. After all, back in 1968, the response of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to Humanae Vitae was to issue their infamous Winnipeg Statement, which in effect stated that a Catholic couple’s decision regarding contraception was a matter of personal choice.
Some shining examples of change in the leadership of the Canadian Catholic Church are in the wind, most notably with Archbishop Adam Exner of Vancouver, British Columbia, and Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic, Archbishop of Toronto. And last fall, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, Ontario, made national headlines when he stood behind the decision of Fr. John Maes, parish priest of St. Patrick’s in Medicine Hat, Alberta, who refused to conduct a Catholic marriage ceremony for a woman who is an unrepentant representative of Planned Parenthood and who has reportedly since left the Church altogether.
We Canadian Catholics may have seen some dark days since Vatican II, but the light now appears to be shining at the end of the tunnel.
Jim Verreault
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Felix Culpa
The statement by Felix Gorney that “the eye of a needle” (Matt. 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25) means a postern door in Jerusalem (“Money Is Only a Tool,” “Letters,” October 2002), is something of an urban legend in biblical exegesis. It is unanimously rejected by the Jerome Biblical Commentary scholars, for example.
Rightly Gorney says, “Taken literally this means that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven.” That is, of course, just how the apostles took it, and we have our Lord’s answer: “With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Jerome Colburn
Champaign, Illinois
Isn’t It Nice to Finally Meet Your Angel?
After I read “Useless Without Christ” the reveiew of No Wonder They Call It the Real Presence: Lives Changed by Christ in Eucharistic Adoration by David Pearson (December 2002), I just had to write about an experience I had.
I was in charge of eucharistic adoration at my parish. One day I asked one of my fellow parishioners if she knew how to find out the name of one’s guardian angel. She said to pray in adoration, and God would let me know my angel’s name. I prayed each Saturday for several weeks. Among my many prayers and inner conversations I would say, “Jesus, if you want me to know my guardian angel’s name, please tell me.”
One Saturday before benediction a man entered the chapel. He was at least six feet tall and had clear blue-green eyes and long, wavy blonde hair. He knelt down in front of the Blessed Sacrament with his long arms outstretched toward heaven and stared to pray the most beautiful prayers to our Lord. Everyone at adoration always prayed in silence, and we were in awe of this stranger. The prayers of adoration and love for Jesus were inspiring to all of us, especially to me.
After benediction, everyone started to leave and, as I always did, I greeted our guests. I walked up to the blonde man, inroduced myself, and gave him the schedule of our weekly visits with Jesus. When I was finished, he bent down to look into my eyes, and as he shook my hand he said, “My name is Edward. Isn’t it nice to finally meet your angel?” I stood watching him walk away down behind the side of the church. I turned away for a second, and when I looked back he was gone. I have not seen him again.
Jesus answers even the smallest of prayers.
Lisa Ladrido
Graham, Washington