|
L e t t e r s
AFEARED OF WOMEN?
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 12
 December 1994 
|
|
|
Your article "Time to Go Home,
Ladies" and interview with Bishop Charles Chaput (October
1994) were cute. Apparently, you feel threatened by the
advances women have made in the past 30 years. We suggest
you chill out a little so you won't panic when you see what
our daughters do in the next 30 years. Get a grip, men!
Your shrill question, "What part of 'never' don't you
understand, ladies?" should have been, "What part of 'never'
don't you accept, ladies?" The answer is, the same part
that Joan of Arc didn't accept even while cowardly churchmen
were plotting her death. Was it St. Joan or Galileo who
said, "She who laughs last laughs best?"
The Maryvine Community
Stella Chavez
Alice Delgado
Mary Ann Folino
Paula Hartman
Susan Johnson
Ignacia Moreno
Alhambra, California
Editor's reply:
It wasn't St. Joan, who,
contrary to feminist myth, didn't.aspire to be a priest, and
it wasn't Galileo, who, contrary to historical myth, never
said sotto voce, "And yet it moves!"
Besides, why are you so concerned about who
laughs last? It won't be you, since women won't be ordained;
it won't be us--we won't be laughing at you but will be
grieving for you because you've staked your future on an
impossibility. Who has the heart to laugh at people destined
to frustration and bitterness?
You are making the common error of judging
the Church by the world's standards--in this case,
twentieth-century American political and social standards.
You have things backward. The world should be judged by the
standards of the Christian faith.
Absolutely, positively
ARE you sure that no woman was
ordained rather than no group of women? Why was the plural used in October's "Dragnet"?
You said, "There is no evidence that any women ever
were ordained as deacons, priests, or bishops in the early
Church--no evidence at all There would have been no doubt
left in my mind if you had said, "There is no evidence that any woman ever was ordained . . ."
Roland A. LeClerc
Cheshire, Connecticut
Editor's reply:
Achtung! Please pay close attention. Here's the final word: No female human
being, no non-male hominid person, no woman, alone or in a
group, by herself or with others, individually or
collectively, then or now, in ancient times or modern times,
anytime, anywhere, anyplace, anyhow, has been ordained as a
deacon, priest, bishop, or anything else.
Objective disorder
THE male-only priesthood is an
objective disorder in the sacramental life of the Church.
The priestly ordination of women is not just a feminist
issue. It is a vital issue for the entire Church, both men
and women. In fact, as a man, I believe in my heart that
such development will benefit the men of the Church even
more than the women.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a pathetic rationalization of the male-only priesthood. On the other hand, it is a
recognition of the importance of this issue for the
extension of the kingdom into the third millennium. It is
also an invitation to keep seeking the truth with charity
and a challenge not to be afraid. If we believe that Christ
is really present in the Eucharistic bread and wine, which
are gender-neutral, how can we say that he cannot be
vicariously present in an ordained woman?
The priestly ordination of women has nothing to do with
seeking ecclesiastical power or advocating radical feminism.
It has everything to do with priestly service for the
greater glory of God and the greater good of souls.
Luis T. Gutierrez
Gaithersburg, Maryland
Editor's reply:
Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis isn't "pathetic" in the least--on the contrary, it's one of those "great day in the morning!"
documents --and it's not a "rationalization." It's a clear restatement of a perennial truth. What it isn't is an invitation to keep up a discussion of this issue. Quite the
opposite. It's an invitation to conform your mind and will
to those of the Church and to cease agitating for something
that won't (because it can't) happen.
By the way, before you say anything more
about the theology of the priesthood, you should get
straight your theology of the Eucharist. Christ is not
"really present in the Eucharistic bread and wine," for
the simple reason that, after the consecration, there is no
bread or wine remaining.
The position you seem to espouse is
consubstantiation, which says that Christ is present "with"
the bread and wine, which do not themselves change. But the
Catholic position is transubstantiation, which says that
Christ replaces the bread and wine, leaving none of their
substance but only their appearances.
If you can't get this right, what makes you
think that what you "believe in [your] heart" is any more
correct theologically?
Santa = Satan
I DEMAND you remove my name from your mailing list. I have no support for the so-called pope.
Jesus said call no man your father; that is what the word
"pope" means. Further, I have no support for the Catholic
Church and her cohorts. Yahweh plainly tells us the seventh
day is the sabbath, not the Antichrist's. The Catholic
Church keeps pagan holidays like Christ-mass. Notice Santa =
Satan [when rearranged].
It was the Catholic Church that holds some responsibility
for World War I and World War II. Both the Catholic Church
and Germany will start World War III. To try and force me to
keep the pope's pagan Sunday you'll have to put me to death.
Sunday is the mark of the beast. The war in Bosnia--Catholics
started that, forcing Muslims to keep Sunday. Shame on you!
We, the U.S.A., are Israel. Notice: JerUSAlem. That proves
we're Israel, not the state of Israel.
Chuck Bullard
Pembroke, North Carolina
Luther vs. sola scriptura
MARTIN Luther is by far the best
source illustrating the falsehood of sola scriptura. He
initially said anyone could interpret Scripture, "even the
humble miller's maid, nay by a child of nine." Later, when
other private interpreters came along, the Bible became "a
heresy book."
When private interpretation became widespread, Luther stated
in 1525, "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are
heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism;
another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there
is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach
that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There
is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies
anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Ghost, and he
himself a prophet."
As to the effect of private interpretation of Scripture and
casting off of the Catholic Church, Luther wrote, "Now we
see the people becoming more infamous, more avaricious, more
unmerciful, more unchaste, and in every way worse than they
were under Popery."
Michael A. Carr
Osage Beach, Missouri
Akin to lunacy?
NEVER in all my life have I read such
a vainly laborious attempt to justify indulgences than the
lunacy manufactured by James Akin in your November 1994
issue. No greater slap in the face to God Almighty could be
conceived than to suggest that even though our sins have
been forgiven, we must still undergo the temporal punishment
due because of them.
I weep for you people that you can hold the words of popes,
councils, and catechisms dearer to your heart than the
awe-inspiring truth of Isaiah chapter 53 (which, I noticed,
was strangely absent from this "primer on punishment"): "He
hath borne our griefs, he was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our inequities; the
chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes
we are healed. And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of
us all."
The parable of Matthew 22 of the man being thrown out of the
wedding because he didn't have on a wedding garment but came
instead in his own clothes describes the fate of every
Catholic who believes the "garments of salvation" provided
to us by God are insufficient. Let me assure you that your
own "clothes" (punishments to any degree) will not earn you
a millimeter of credence in God's eyes.
Jamie Thayer
Ahwatukee, Arizona
Campbellite no more
I USED to believe in deja vu, but,
after reading the November issue of This Rock, I've had
to reconsider my position. Specifically, I am referring to
the little spot you did in "Dragnet" on the 1994 Tridentine
Rite Conference in Hyannis, Massachusetts.
I am a recent convert to the Catholic faith from the
Church(es) of Christ (the Stone-Campbell Restoration
Movement, also known as the "Campbellites"). I espoused the
tenets of the movement for nearly a decade, during the
latter half of which I also served as a minister. Having
been raised a Protestant, I was enchanted with the
Stone-Campbell Movement's "Restoration Plea" to be
"Christian and Christians only," to "call Bible things by
Bible names," to "speak where the Bible speaks, and be
silent where the Bible is silent." Finally, I had found the
secret to experiencing Christianity in its pristine
purity--or so I thought.
What I thought was the answer to the denominational chaos of
the Protestant Reformation turned out to be no answer at
all. The great "unity movement" of the nineteenth century
was itself woefully fragmented and fraught with divisions.
It seems that in the great crusade to restore the New
Testament church, there is the absence of a final authority
to determine when the task has, in fact, been accomplished.
Instead, each particular faction eventually adopts a pattern
whereby the brethren to the left of the center are dubbed
"liberals" and those to the right "extremist." (It's
interesting to note that almost everyone in the Church(es)
of Christ considers himself to be a "conservative.") The
result: The Church(es) of Christ, instead of one, unified
Church of Christ.
Enter the extreme Catholic Traditionalists. Dismayed by the
rise of Modernism, outraged by what they consider to be a
betrayal of the faith, they too embark on a great crusade to
restore the pristine purity of the faith, and, in the
process, are in danger of throwing out the baby with the
bath water.
Please don't misunderstand me. Latin Masses are fine. Altar
rails do serve a purpose. Communion in the hand has its
drawback. However, absolutely none of these touches upon the
deposit of faith. The first Christians said Mass in Aramaic
and Greek. The early Church did not have buildings, much
less altar rails. History bears testimony to the validity of
Communion in the hand. Therefore, to employ these
particulars in a fashion that makes them identifying marks
of the true Church is, in itself, ludicrous.
Unlike the Stone-Campbell Movement, faithful Catholics do
have an objective authority by which they can judge matters
of faith and morals. That authority is found in the Word of
God as understood in the light of sacred Tradition and the
magisterium of the Church.
Look, if the Council Fathers of Vatican II compromised the
faith, then how can one be sure that such has not occurred
throughout the entire history of the Church--in which case
the Traditionalist would find himself in the bizarre
position of defending a tradition that was, in itself, an
adulteration of a previous generation's tradition?
As Catholics, we know that such is not the case, for the
indefectibility of the Church rests not upon the wisdom of
men, but on the faithfulness of Christ. Therefore, I urge
Catholics who are e.asperated in the face of "developments"
perpetrated (falsely) in the name of Vatican II to cling
ever more closely to Christ and his Church. Lent no support
to dissenters, and don't separate yourself from the unity of
the faith as found in the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic
Church.
Bruce Sullivan
Hardyville, Kentucky
Rightful praise
I HAVE not found one issue to be less
than excellent. Each has been filled with a variety of
interesting (and some very profound) topics. Yet, the
magazine is always written in language that is easily
understood and in a style that is most enjoyable. Whether
one is a Roman Catholic who wants to learn more about the
faith or someone who wants to gain better insight into what
Catholics really believe, This Rock is an indispensable
resource. We believe that this is true regardless of one's
particular preference for the Mass. Well done, good and
faithful servants of Holy Mother Church.
Vince Cortese
Traditional Mass Society
San Juan Capistrano, California
Protected by papal book
I WANTED to let you know something
fun. I was just in my local Christian bookstore, and on the
theology shelf I found How Close Are We? by anti-Catholic
Dave Hunt. Right next to it was Crossing the Threshold of
Hope by the Holy Father. Then another book--and guess what
was next? What Catholics Really Believe--Setting the Record
Straight by Karl Keating! Quite a line-up, wouldn't you
say?
Tami Palladino
San Carlos, California
Father knows best
TO your Cheers and Sneers collection
of letters, I'd like to add one to the Cheers side of the
scoreboard. I think it's obvious to any well-versed reader
of current material in English dealing with apologetics that
This Rock is clearly unsurpassed. The elegant glossy
format, the clear and incisive journalistic style, the
thoroughly-research material, the unassailable truths that
impact the reader like thunderbolts--all these reflect an
appealing professionalism that makes this periodical a
champion of orthodoxy and a redoubtable foe of heterodoxy in
a truth-starved world.
Your team of writers has courageously fulfilled, in an
admirable way, the biblical injunction "to join the struggle
in defense of the faith, the faith which God entrusted to
his people once and for all" (Jude 3).
Before filing each issue as reference material, I pray a
priestly blessing on it, that it will maximally redound to
God's glory and the welfare of souls. (Kudos can be
prayerful, can't they?)
Rev. John H. Hampsch, C.M.F.
Claretian Tape Ministry
Los Angeles, California
A-Hunting he will go
I HAVE read James Akins' two-part
review of Dave Hunt's new book, A Woman Rides the Beast
(September and October 1994). Hey, I'm pretty excited--the
books looks really good! Dave Hunt is a fine writer of books
such as Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist and The
Seduction of Christianity.
The points of contention between people like Dave and me and
your church and you are boiled down to two points: (1) Dave
Hunt and I believe that an individual can know and be known
by Jesus Christ. (2) While the Mass may be as beautiful a
ceremony as one can imagine, it does not and cannot take the
place of a one-on-one with the Lord himself.
Jesus Christ is the center of my life. I am known by him by
name, personally. Ours is no theoretical, hypothetical
exercise in ritual, but an alive and real relationship with
a real God. Next time have someone who understands the
underlying issues review Dave Hunt's books.
Douglas Brown
Lebanon, Pennsylvania
Editor's reply:
You say your position is
distinguished from the Catholic in that you believe that you
"can know and be known by Jesus Christ." What makes you
think Catholics don't believe this? Seems as though you
haven't done your homework. (If you really want to know
what is meant by knowing and being known by God, read
Aquinas's Summa Theologiae!)
You also say that Catholics substitute the
Mass for a "one-on-one with the Lord himself." But
Catholics already have the same "personal relationship"
you have with Christ, and they have something you don't
have--that intimate union expressed through Communion, where
they take into themselves at Mass his actual body, blood,
soul, and divinity.
Been there, done that
IN response to the 18-year-old
homosexual male ("Letters," October 1994), I would like to
say, "Lock up your library and throw away the key!" He can
read and intellectualize God, but finding God is only
through prayer. All teens and young adults search for their
identity, and some search for God. Most are confused, as I
was, but giving in to a sinful existence, he will find out,
is not going to be the happiness he is searching for. He
think he has made a final choice, but his letter shows he is
still asking for an answer. God loves us all, because he
made each of us with love. Search for him with your heart
and not just with your mind. Each day pray, "Please let me
know, love, and serve you. Help me." He will not desert you.
Trust me--I was there.
Karen L. Kupris
Newport, Pennsylvania
|
Catholic Answers
