|
L e t t e r s
Deeply Disturbed
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 12
 December 2000 
|
|
|
The cover of your October 2000 issue disturbs me deeply ("Fatima—The ‘Third Secret’ Explained"). I do not accept Fatima as genuine, and I find it inexcusable for you to include articles on this subject in a journal promoting good apologetics. Stick to convincing the unchurched, the heretical, and the schismatics.
Private revelations like Our Lady of Fatima, the Sacred Heart nine first Fridays, the various scapular devotions, Our Lady of Bayside, etc.—not to mention the "visions" in Yugoslavia—are not part of divine revelation and therefore optional for Catholics.
I am very devoted to our Lady. When I was ordained in 1946, I dedicated my priesthood to her. For over sixty years I have prayed her holy rosary (15 decades) daily. I pray the Miraculous Medal novena daily. I have been profoundly moved by Guadalupe and Lourdes, having visited both places several times. But even these devotions, which I obviously accept, should not be part of This Rock.
If you people want to promote such things, found a journal for that purpose. Let This Rock stick to what it has done superbly in the past: defend our faith and spread it in this pagan country of ours.
Fr. Robert Carson
De Pere, Wisconsin
James Akin’s reply:
When a private revelation such as Fatima that has been approved by ecclesiastical authority becomes a topic of controversy or confusion, I consider it an appropriate topic for an apologist. This is even more the case with Fatima, since many Catholics are confused or anxious due to the erroneous claims made about it by certain extremist groups.
When a subject—such as private revelations—is nonessential to the faith, it is incumbent on the apologist to indicate that. Indeed, he may find a significant part of his task is helping individuals who have become over-invested in the subject "cool off."
It is also important to distinguish those private revelations that have been approved by the Church—such as Fatima and Lourdes—from those that have not been approved and those—such as Bayside—that have been condemned. The faithful need to be aware of these distinctions, as well as the overall place of private revelations in Catholic theology. Which is no doubt why Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a commentary in the Holy See’s booklet The Message of Fatima. If it was appropriate for him to treat the subject, we feel it was appropriate for This Rock as well.
Bad
I am a faithful friend of your publication, and I thank you for all I have learned from it. But I must comment on your recent cover format ("Fatima—The ‘Third Secret’ Explained," October 2000). Bad, bad, bad. I couldn’t tell if it was Watchtower or Jack Chick propaganda. Remember the beauty of our Church is partly from tradition and reverence that makes us more pleasing to God.
Lorene Sanchez
Yucaipa, California
Fr. Gruner Is Right, You Are Wrong
Before condemning Fr. Nicholas Gruner ("Apologist’s Eye," September 2000), James Akin would do well to read his arguments with an open mind.
Our Blessed Mother promised that if Russia was consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, Russia would be converted, and there would be a period of peace in the world. If the consecration of Russia done in 1984 was according to her specifications, why sixteen years later has it not been converted? And where is the peace in the world?
The so-called fall of Communism cannot be equated with conversion. Russia today is a miserable country filled more and more with the immorality of the West. When Our Lady appeared at Tepeyac, the Indians were converted en masse. It didn’t take sixteen years for it to happen. Our Blessed Mother doesn’t lie!
So, Mr. Akins, I challenge you to let go of your biases and look at the facts. Then pray the message of Fatima will be accepted and spread throughout the world and that the pope—and the bishops in union with him—will consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart as she requested.
Sr. Imelda Kaufman, O.S.F.
El Paso, Texas
James Akin's reply:
With due respect to Sr. Kaufman, I have read the arguments of Fr. Gruner and his movement with an open mind and have found them without merit. On many key points they rely on unsubstantiated, unsourced, or unverifiable press accounts, and they exhibit a set of preconceived ideas that are being forced upon those statements that are verifiable.
I would love to see Russia convert to the Catholic faith and would be delighted if that is promised by Fatima. But I must acknowledge, as explained in my article, that the Portuguese word converterá, translated as "will convert," does not require conversion to the Catholic faith. It can indicate simply turning from a course of destructive behavior.
This is a likely interpretation here. In the second secret, Our Lady explains: "If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the holy father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated." If we ask ourselves the question "Converted from doing what?" the answer immediately offers itself: from all the other things named in the passage. This is the sense given to the conversion of Russia by John Paul II in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
Further, Sr. Lucia herself has stated that the consecration has been done as Mary wished. This was confirmed by her in the 1980s, a decade in which it is known that she still received revelations from Our Lady.
Christ Was Publicly Portrayed as Crucified
The article by Mary Beth Kremski ("Hope of the Human Race," October 2000) presented persuasive reasons and scriptural citations for displaying a crucifix in preference to a bare cross. But the one scriptural pericope that refers to the use of a crucifix (or a depiction of it) in the apostolic age of the Church was not cited in her article. It is the one passage that would most convincingly support her thesis, namely, Galatians 3:1: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?"
In the same issue, James Akin’s commentary on the new General Introduction to the Roman Missal ("Apologist’s Eye") provides liturgical reinforcement of this thesis. It affirms that "the bare crosses and crosses with the resurrected Christ that have proliferated over the last quarter century are not to be used as altar [or processional] crosses."
Fr. John H. Hampsch, C.M.F.
Los Angeles, California
The Truth Is Less Sinister
In "‘Glorious and Immortal’ Pius IX" ("Apologist’s Eye," October 2000) you briefly note the case of Edgardo Mortara, "who ran the risk of dying for having been secretly baptized by an acquaintance." I think the truth is less sinister; perhaps "was secretly baptized by an acquaintance when in danger of dying." In view of the controversy, a full discussion would be appreciated.
Joseph G. Kelly
Fountain Valley, California
Editor’s reply:
You’re right. We relied on a July 20, 2000 dispatch from the Zenit news agency in Rome, which stated the facts incorrectly. For those who missed the item, Mortara was a Jewish boy who was involved in an international uproar during the pontificate of Pius IX. Let him tell the story in his own words, taken from his testimony for the beatification of Pius IX:
"I was born to Jewish parents. At the age of about sixteen months, I was taken by a serious illness. . . . The doctor, who is now dead, I believe, classified my case as ‘most serious.’ When the maid, Anna Morisi, a good Christian girl of sixteen or eighteen years, . . . heard about the danger, she decided to baptize me. In the moment when my mother had left me alone in the cradle, she came up with a bit of water and baptized me by sprinkling, pronouncing the sacramental formula. . . .
"The facts were kept absolutely secret by Morisi, who was surprised by my rapid recovery. Six years later, one of my younger brothers, named Aristide, fell gravely ill. When Morisi was asked by a friend to baptize the child ‘in extremis,’ she refused to do so, giving as a reason the fact that I had lived on after baptism, and thus the secret was revealed.
"When the news of my baptism became known to the ordinary ecclesiastical authority, this body determined that the case was too serious to be in their competence and referred it directly to the Roman Curia. Thus as a result of the process (and I don’t know of another), the Holy Father, through a Roman congregation, charged [Gaetano] Feletti [president of the tribunal of the Holy Inquisition of Bologna] to separate me from my family. This took place, with the aid of civil authorities, that is, the officers of the Inquisition, on June 24, 1858. The officers took me to Rome and presented me to His Holiness Pius IX, who received me with great kindness and declared himself my adoptive father, which he really was, even taking care of my education and securing my future" (from Positio super Introductione Causae, published in Italian in 1954).
Pius IX was charged with anti-Semitism because of the incident. But Edgardo Mortara said at the close of his witness for the pope’s beatification, "I am firmly convinced, not only by the deposition I have given but by the entire life of my august protector and father, that the Servant of God is a saint."
You Are the Lite of the World
I don’t like the way you talk about "some" (always unnamed) Traditionalists ("Apologist’s Eye," September 2000). Your tone often bristles with hostility toward conservative or Traditionalist Catholics. I suspect it is because the bureaucracy you camp with is liberal and Protestant-minded. You represent the "Catholic lite" crowd. No more mailings, please.
Joe Browne
Abilene, Texas
How to Represent the Unrepresentable
You state in "Quick Questions (July/August 2000) that "we see many pictures of angels as humans with wings, but that isn’t found in the Bible." I’m afraid you’ve made a slight error. I refer you to Exodus 25:20 as well as 1 Kings 6:23–28 and 2 Chronicles 3:10–13. I’m sure you will correct this slight oversight, and I would like to thank you for your fine publication.
Patrick Rogers
Front Royal, Virginia
Editor’s reply:
The passages you refer to all describe statues of cherubim, an order of angels. Even when God instructs man how to build likenesses of angels (as in the passage from Exodus), it does not follow that this is how angels actually appear. The dilemma is how to represent the unrepresentable. God realizes that men must conceptualize incorporeal beings such as angels—and indeed God himself—in corporeal terms. This is why he probably doesn’t object to representations of himself as a wise, bearded old man, as in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel frescoes, even though we know this is nothing like his true appearance.
Amorphous
I am not happy at all with the so-called nicer format of This Rock. It has a washed-out effect, and there’s little artistic definition from one section to another. Too often even the artwork is pale, pastel, and lacking in definition. Whoever is designing it or responsible for the format suggests a dreamy, amorphous attitude.
The former format was much more inviting to the eye.
Edward J. Kasouf
Alexandria, Virginia
Cold
Not a problem, just an observation: While the new graphic style of This Rock is elegant and beautiful (and very well designed and laid out), it also feels a bit cold and antiseptic.
It is hard to articulate, exactly; but the graphic style doesn’t seem to reflect the sense that what you’re reading is Catholic. I feel that the graphics and some of the photos and spot drawings would be equally at home in a magazine about trends in psychology. The increased use of color is also quite welcome, but a little more warmth might be useful.
My guess is that This Rock is the premier Catholic magazine at the moment. I just want your graphic style to support the same message as your content, which is always enjoyable.
Chris Otsuki
Burbank, California
Wispy
I love your magazine. One request: Could you use a heavier font? The "wispy" one you use is hard to read.
Yes, I wear glasses.
Fr. William Young
Rio Rancho, New Mexico
Bananas
Reading This Rock has increased my faith very much. However, the new print is driving me bananas. I am eighty-eight years old and the new print strains my eyesight.
Please go back to the old print.
Fred Steinkirchner
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Editor’s reply:
We think the problems with readability lie in the density ink rather than the font itself or the size of the type. Too often the pages have been printed without enough ink. We are working to correct the problem and hope the results will be soon apparent.
Friendly
The redesigned magazine is much better! Everything about it appears more friendly whilst retaining the quality of articles. The July/August issue is by far the best one I have ever read.
Maybe it’s because I’m a Brit, but in the past I found the tone of This Rock to be slightly patronizing. This seems to have disappeared and with the new format there appears to be a new spirit. Long may it last!
Simon Mills
London, England
|
Catholic Answers
