'And other things Catholic' letters disturbing
One of the advantages of being a "senior alumnus" is
that you have time to think and explore issues unrelated to earning
money and making tuition payments. I just finished reading some
of the letters to the editor in the spring issue and was totally
amazed by some of the statements. First, I must inform Mr. Burke
that priestly celibacy does not date back to Christ or the apostles.
The concept started in the fourth century. In fact there is evidence
of correspondence between St. Augustine and a married bishop and
his wife, who was a daughter of another bishop. If Mr. Burke would
do some reading he would discover that the apostles ( including
Peter ) were married so there is no historical or scriptural basis
for priestly celibacy. Now Mr. Burke gets to "the church's
position on birth control". Before Pope Paul VI wrote Humane
Vitae in 1968 Pope John XXIII, his predecessor, had set up a Pontifical
Commission which included Catholic married women. The recommendations
of the Commission were never followed by the small group of elderly
celibate men who constitute the chief executive officers of the
Catholic Church. To argue that the only acceptable method of birth
control is the so called rhythm method destroys all expression
of spontaneous physical love between a man and a woman and more
practically it doesn't work. To hold a position that all intercourse
must be open to conception is akin to saying that all meals one
eats are solely eaten for sustenance. If this were true all people
would be thin and there would be no obese priests, bishops or
cardinals. The exclusion of women from the priesthood is based
on two erroneous concepts. The first is that the hierarchy considers
women to be inferior and this has its basis in pagan antiquity.
The second is ritual impurity which is based on Jewish temple
practice. If Mr. Burke would have done his homework he would have
found that Jesus did not exclude women but mixed with them ( even
prostitutes ) and had women disciples. If the church hierarchy
wants to use the apostles as an example for a male only priesthood
how come they don't use these same married apostles as an argument
for a non-celibate priesthood?
Now, lest Mr. Burke thinks that I am "picking" on him,
let's get to Mr. Boucher who graduated in 1986 and who talks about
"Magisterium" which is closely related to the erroneous
concept of "Papal Infallibility". The concept of Papal
Infallibility dated back to 1870: before that date popes were
as dumb as the rest of us. Pius IX ( who was the greatest disaster
in modern papal history ) lost his temporal power over the papal
states during the unification ( Risorgimento ) of Italy. To compensate
he had this decree of Papal Infallibility passed over great opposition
in the Vatican Council. Furthermore, if Mr. Boucher would familiarize
himself with history he would find the Pius IX, who was a temporal
leader at the time, in 1858 kidnapped a six year old Jewish boy
named Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish parents. It seems that when
the boy was an infant he became ill and a Catholic servant had
baptized him. The boy was subsequently raised by Pius IX and became
a Catholic priest. The justification for this dastardly act was
based on the baptism of Edgardo. This illustrates the character
of Pius IX, the author of Papal Infallibility.
I don't expect to ever see this letter published because it runs
contrary to the Vatican line, it is based on historical fact and
it refutes a lot of hogwash that Catholics have been "brainwashed"
with.
Arthur Armento '61
Hamburg, New Jersey
There is a clash between the secular and religious that arises
amongst the ashes of the Spring 2003 editorial letters. Some claim
the magazine needs to be more religious, support the Church's
teachings. Others disagree. But instead of talking strictly about
ideas, many of the letter writers begin to attack. They accuse
others of not being good Catholics, of being immoral, because
others have expressed different opinions. They question whether
others truly have the right faith. They criticize others for filling
the pages with words that speak against the Church, when in fact
their own words speak against the Church's members. Their words
become not so religious after all. We are the Body of Christ.
Look again at the reflections written in that issue's letters,
reflections of how we love or rather do not love one another.
Lisa Czlonka
via e-mail
I was dismayed by the negative letters under "And other things
Catholic" in the spring 2003 issue. Were there no other letters
received that reflected a more knowledgeable and thoughtful response
to the articles referred to? Personally I had to re-read the articles
bring attacked to see if the criticism were referring to the same
articles I had read. It was difficult balancing the rather vicious
attacks in the letters, particularly the one relating to Jim Muller
- one of the most deeply thoughtful and truly loyal Catholics
in the public domain.
It seems to me and many other Catholics I know that Muller and
the VOTF are "right on" with their objectives, particularly the
one about the need for structural change in the church and more
meaningful lay involvement as envisioned by the Second Vatican
Council. The sex abuse scandal and the cover-up revealed major
underlying structural flaws that were, and are, at the bottom
of the scandal and many other serious problems in the church -
the abuse of power of the hierarchy, lack of openness and accountability,
and the marginalization of the laity. The latter problem seems
to be identified with a certain group of our more "conservative"
clergy and lay people who, under the banner of "orthodoxy," would
lead us back to the days of pre-Vatican II. Thye (and those who
wrote many of the letters) do not seem to realize that the world
has changed dramatically and that the imperious Constantinian
structural governance model of the church was not ordained from
above and should, in the normal course of cultural development,
be a legitimate subject for serious examination and change without
threatening our core Catholic beliefs. This, I believe, is one
of the things that the VOTF is all about, and I for one am thankful
and grateful to Jim Muller and the VOTF for their courage and
witness in giving voice to the vital concerns of millions of Catholics
in this country and throughout the world.
Guy V.Prisco '53
via e-mail
Thanks for the excellent article on Jim Muller. He has been a
global peacemaker, has tried to be the same in Boston, and he
has my support that structural changes are a necessity for our
church to meet the definition of Vatican II as the People of God.
I was, however, severely disappointed with the previous letters
to the editor. They wer negative and theologically outdated. Loyalty
to the church demands criticism. Thomas Aquinas,Teilhard de Chardin,
Karl Rahner and others all advanced new ideas that sometimes were
met with church disapproval. Yet dissent fostered advancement
in scriptural interpretations, acceptanceof scientific theories
on evolution and the cosmos, promoted religious liberty and the
relationship betweeen church and state, encouraged ecumenical
understandings of savation and innumerable others. Change is a
necessity for human institutions and more democratic structures
will be beneficial to the church.
Hasn't Notre Dame changed its structure to invest the laity with
more authority and opened its admissions to women and minorities?
Let's have more articles on Vatican II openness of the church
in the modern world.
Charles E. Stimming '53
Indianapolis, Indiana
