Multi-Culti Convert
I am writing to tell you how much I enjoy the Catholic Answers web site. It is very, very informative. I have printed out everything you have offered because I am a “baby” Catholic (I converted last year) and am eager to learn everything I can about the Church, not only for myself but for the children I plan to have someday, who will definitely be raised in the faith.
I come from a multi-cultural and -religious background. I was born in Tokyo forty years ago, the daughter of a Japanese woman (raised in the Shinto religion of Japan, though not practicing) and an American serviceman of English, German, and Dutch descent. He is a Methodist. I was raised by my adoptive father (stepfather), whose parents are Polish-Russian Jews. I grew up in San Diego and moved to Los Angeles fifteen years ago. My mother and stepfather became Mormons twenty-one years ago but left that church after eighteen months. My stepfather has substance abuse problems and, not surprisingly, the Mormon Church leaders did not approve of his drinking and drugs and told him to shape up or ship out.
I started attending the Foursquare Church, a Pentecostal denomination, six years ago. After five years I had become dissatisfied, feeling something was missing, and knew I reached the end of the road. When I met my RCIA teacher at Sacred Heart parish in Covina (a community thirty miles east of downtown Los Angeles), he told me who had led me to the Catholic Church. I called Sacred Heart’s rectory on December 8, met my RCIA teacher on December 12, and my birthday is three days after that of the Blessed Mother. She wasn’t subtle, let me tell you!
During this time, I started working for a large law firm, which I discovered to be filled with Catholics. They felt compelled to hand me pamphlets, books, magazines, and booklets about the Church, even though they were unaware I was in the RCIA program.
My office was two blocks away from Our Lady Chapel, a small church in the middle of downtown Los Angeles. The church has a gift shop, and the employee, a retired bank executive, turned out to live just a few miles from me. He taught a religion class in his parish to junior high and high school students, and he became my unofficial teacher, giving me copies of the materials he used in class and answering the numerous questions I had for him.
When I asked my RCIA sponsor which saint’s name I should take, she suggested Catherine of Siena, the patron saint of Italy, unaware that I have always had a deep love of the Italian people and culture. (I am studying Italian at UCLA Extension.) My unofficial teacher gave me a sterling silver pendant of St. Catherine shortly after I entered the Church. It is around my neck twenty-four hours a day.
As much as I loved my former church, my true spiritual home is the Catholic Church. There is such a comfort and peace—a feeling of having come home. My former pastors were very supportive of my decision and said I was always welcome to visit their respective churches.
What I learned in the Foursquare Church proved valuable, as I was able to complete the RCIA program in just three-and-a-half months. Unfortunately, many members of my former church did not share this sentiment of keeping the welcome mat out, and they no longer talk to me. They consider me a lost soul. That hurts. My RCIA teachers warned me this would happen, but it is still painful.
Despite being turned away by some people, I do not regret my decision to become a Catholic. I live in a neighborhood where there is no shortage of churches, but I felt no desire to attend any of them. One day I submitted my resignation to the Foursquare Church, and the next day I called Sacred Heart. It’s no accident that my house is literally around the corner from my parish. I had planned on renting another home, but it fell through, and I moved into the one I live in now.
As I look back on the events that brought me to the Catholic Church, it is clear I have been guided. I was fortunate to be given the exposure to other faiths and cultures, as it has made me more tolerant and open-minded. But all along, I had been led to my spiritual home, even if it took me years to find it.
Thanks again for your web site. I realize the study of Catholicism takes a lifetime, but I want to learn as much as I can, and any information along those is lines is greatly appreciated and welcomed.
Miki Osep
Via the Internet
Helping the Brothers
I would like to thank you for the gift of the apologetic tracts and the subscription to This Rock. The tracts are being put to good use in our Tuesday night fellowship.
Starting with the material in a tract, each brother gives a presentation on one aspect. This has injected new life into our group. When we first started, some were reluctant to become involved. Now the first question out of their mouths is “What are we covering tonight?” Not only does this help each of us learn more about our faith, but it helps build confidence for the brother who must research and present the topic. This Rock does cause a bit of a problem for me, though, as people line up to read each issue even before I receive it. But that is the type of problem we all like to see. Thanks from all the Catholic brothers here at Kinross Correctional Facility.
Philip Simmons
Kincheloe, Michigan
Bitter, Hateful, Vindictive, Insulting
It occurred to me, as I read self-described Feeneyite Thomas O’Connor’s letter (April 1998), that he is as much an anti-Catholic as are professional Protestant anti-Catholics. Orthodox Catholicism, which you spread, is the perfect target for all who cannot abide by the truth, whether they are Modernist or Traditionalist, whether in or out of the Church. Sadly, Dr. O’Connor’s “spirit” is typical of anti-Catholicism. Many tend to be very unchristian—bitter, hateful, vindictive, insulting. The true Spirit is one of charity, gentleness, and peace, which I think you demonstrated simply by not issuing a response to the man. “You shall know them by their fruits.”
Maureen Martin
Farmington, Maine
Misguided Contempt
Enclosed you will find my response to Dr. O’Connor’s uncharitable letter to the staff of This Rock. I could not help but comment on this one since I have been particularly interested in this growing rift within our Church between “Traditionalists” and “conservatives.” I feel that people who long for the pre-Vatican II Church have some legitimate concerns but should realize that, even if certain things change temporarily for the worse, our faith cannot be defeated.
Nevertheless, you seem to be a victim of misguided contempt from within the fold. I know you are capable of defending yourself and your apostolate, but I couldn’t resist the invitation for comment. Who knows? Perhaps he will see the errors of his ways and repent.
David A. Vaughn
Monroe, Washington
Editor’s reply: For readers who may have forgotten, in Dr. O’Connor’s bilious letter he said, among other things, that he hoped I would “burn to the point of disappearing in a mound of ashes.” Then he asked me to kiss a usually-covered part of his anatomy. I concluded—I hope not too hastily—that he likely would not consider himself a fan of my work. Oh, well. Win some, lose some. Perhaps he is one of those who believes that there is no enemy to the right, just as dissentient Catholics on the left operate as if there were no enemy further to the left. When you adopt a fringe position, wherever it may be, it’s difficult to find fault with those who are fringier still.
If you dissent against the Church’s moral teaching and think contraception is just fine, you probably will find yourself having difficulty opposing those who say that abortion is permissible. If you don’t believe in papal infallibility, you likely will ease into a position of rejecting authority in other forms—for instance, you probably won’t bother to pay attention to what your local bishop commands. If this attitude is found among those at one end of the spectrum, we should expect to find it at the other. Dr. O’Connor seems to justify the expectation. He brooks no criticism of those Traditionalists (a distinct minority, by the way) who have adopted ideas incompatible with the teaching of the magisterium. (As a self-described Feeneyite, Dr. O’Connor has adopted an incompatible idea himself.) He seems to interpret any criticism of any Traditionalist as criticism of them all—a logical fallacy.
Nearly every Traditionalist I know is a solid, orthodox Catholic, with no tendency at all to go over the edge. But I know a few who have set themselves up as mini-popes, exactly what dissidents on the left do.
Over the last three years or so I have received several dozen letters as vitriolic as Dr. O’Connor’s. Nearly all of them have come from Feeneyites, from people who reject Vatican II, or from those who believe the vernacular Mass is invalid even when said according to the rubrics. Fewer have come from “progressive” Catholics and from anti-Catholic Fundamentalists. The latter may send in strongly-worded letters (understandable, since they think the whole of Catholicism is a big mistake), but I don’t recall ever receiving from a Fundamentalist a letter questioning my parentage, mental faculties, or good intentions—and certainly never one that might be labeled “crude.”
Why do letters of that sort come chiefly from people who pride themselves on holding to what they perceive to be Catholic orthodoxy? That I can’t explain. Ironically, the chief undercutters of the Traditionalist movement end up being—kooky Traditionalists. The mainstream Traditionalist movement is right about so much (about nearly everything, one is tempted to say), but it is plagued with a few malcontents whose understanding of doctrine and liturgy is proportionate to their docility and sweet-temperedness. For the sake of the “reform of the reform,” I hope other Traditionalists are able to put the kibosh on such folks.
See a Shrink, Ma’am
I was surprised to find an article like “That Celibate Bachelor Was Right!” (April 1998) in your usually stellar magazine. The author, Rachel Fay, portrays men as boorish beasts whose intellects and consciences are governed by the level of testosterone in their bodies. I take great exception to her remarks. I imagine that any sentient woman would take exception to her portrayal of the fairer sex as powerless doormats subject to the impulses of such beasts. I think Mrs. Fay has a lot of emotional issues that would be best dealt with professionally.
I hope you will print this letter so that your readers can be informed that one doesn’t have to be a fanatic or off-balance to find good reasons to choose NFP. My wife and I use NFP because it is an effective means of exercising our stewardship responsibility to regulate the growth of our family. And because it is completely natural. No drugs or devices. We like that. Never mind the sound moral and theological foundations for its use.
Robert J. Simone
Tampa, Florida
Editor’s reply: You seem to have confused Rachel Fay’s article with an article you read elsewhere. Your characterization of it simply doesn’t fit—and your characterization of her is unfair. You might want to consider leaving psychoanalysis to professionals.
Remedying Self-Inflicted Evil
When I studied moral theology years ago, I thought I had learned that when one repents of a sin committed, essential to the repentance is the undoing of or reparation for any evil inflicted which can be rectified. With this in mind, I am puzzled by what Rachel Fay writes. She speaks of her husband having had a vasectomy. When the two of them were later rethinking what had been done, she writes, “Every priest we talked to correctly said that we were not obligated to undo what we had done.”
Having once inflicted the injustice on his body contrary to the Fifth Commandment, what is the reasoning behind the suggestion that, although repentant, he did not have any obligation to practice justice and undo the evil?
Rev. David Wechter
Houston, Minnesota
Editor’s reply: There may have been an imprecision in the editing of the article so that the moral principle was not stated clearly enough. There is no obligation to attempt to reverse a vasectomy (or other form of self-mutilation) if such surgery has no reasonable expectation of success or if it takes extraordinary means to effect. Many vasectomies cannot be reversed, even by the most skilled surgeons. In the case of Mrs. Fay’s husband, reversal was possible, and he underwent the operation, as the article made clear.
Uncontainable
Just as “faith without works is dead,” so too is holy Scripture without Tradition. Scripture tells us that our Lord was brought up in Nazareth to fulfill what was said of him, that he would be a Nazarean. Yet that prophecy appears nowhere in Scripture. It was a tradition and one of sufficient merit that our Lord conformed his life to it.
Jesus Christ gave his disciples the commission to preach and teach, not to write. The only book our Lord demanded be written was Revelation, and Luther didn’t think that Revelation was inspired! Christ himself wrote only one thing that we know of. Scripture says he was writing with his finger in the dirt while the adulteress was being accused. Yet we have no idea what he was writing because no one bothered passing it on. So much for sola scriptura! It wasn’t that what he wrote was unimportant. It was rather, as John wrote, that our Lord said and did so much that the world itself couldn’t contain it.
The Gospels, the epistles, Acts—these were all just short highlights of our Lord’s life and teachings. They were never meant to be complete. Nor could they be. Often, as in the epistles, their main purpose was to correct some error which had arisen, just as throughout history new dogmas have been proclaimed because errors had arisen that made it necessary that long-held traditions be more clearly enunciated. “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death,” for example, arose of necessity out of an error in the early Church that Jesus the God and Jesus the Man were two separate beings. As so often, it was his Mother who set things right.
Richard L. B. Thomas
Los Angeles, California
Editor’s reply: Your reference to Nestorianism reminds me that that ancient heresy still can be found today, though in most cases only implicitly. Modern Christians who cringe at the title “Mother of God” (because they mistakenly think it implies Mary existed before the Second Person) find themselves calling her, as Nestorius did, the “Mother of Christ.” This sounds innocent, but it has implications, the chief being the devaluation of our Lord. The irony is that, by attempting to “protect” him from a “usurpation” by Mary, his “defenders” end up misconstruing the Hypostatic Union—another example of good intentions going awry.
Tuning Out
I have heard your radio program a few times, and I have only one thing to say about it. I am not a Catholic, and I am so glad I am not after hearing your broadcast. I don’t intend to listen to it again. Your teaching is full of errors. I am not ashamed to give you my name and address, and I’ll pray for your to come to know the truth.
Ethel Langevin
Springfield, Massachusetts
Blame the Priests
When I read your appeal letter about Mike the Catholic caller who talked with Hank Hanegraaff on “The Bible Answer Man,” I wondered why he had not gone to a priest in his parish. Perhaps he is a cultural Catholic and doesn’t regularly attend church. Maybe he was afraid to approach a priest for any number of reasons. His statement “Can I be a Christian in the Catholic Church?” seems absolutely stupid to me. He hasn’t the slightest idea of the basics of the faith.
No wonder! The bishops in the U.S. haven’t taught their priests (there are notable exceptions) to talk to the people about Church teachings. If you were to give the Mikes of this world – and even the people who go to church regularly on Sundays – a test on the basics of their faith, they would fail miserably.
Many priests walk around totally oblivious that their parishioners are suffering from severe spiritual anemia. Still others have forgotten that their prime mission is to “feed my sheep.” In feeding the sheep adequately, they save souls, including their own. Unless the clergy make a conscious effort to teach the people where they can find material to learn more about their faith, how can the laity evangelize? How then do you get the clergy to do their job and feed the sheep?
I’m not anti-clerical but my respect for many who hold the priestly office is nil. Evaluated by corporate-world standards, they would be unemployed.
Tom Barron
Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Editor’s reply: Many Catholics will sympathize with your frustrations. I have come across any number of priests who seem to have either no interest in passing the faith to their flocks or, if an interest, no capacity to do so. But we don’t want to lose proportion here. For every priest as you describe there are others who succeed in passing along the faith – perhaps not quite in the way you or I might prefer to see, but well enough. Let’s give them due credit.