A lesson in orthodoxy. (Letters).

IN THE MAY COVER STORY ("A TURN IN THE RIGHT DIRECtion?" by Bob Smietana), Father Paul Hansen, C.Ss.R. facetiously said, "This crowd knows the mind of God. There is a revelation--there is a direct line to God, and they have it." Ironically, in attempting to identify our mentality, Hansen has put his finger on that which we reject.

I don't have an exclusive line to God. Neither is it the exclusive possession of the new orthodox. Nevertheless, there is a revelation. Yes, it is a direct line to God, and although he scoffs, Hansen is welcome to it. The direct line is twofold: both scripture and tradition, both guided by God the Holy Spirit.

To protect his followers from error, God came to earth--himself--to teach us his will. Was Jesus intentionally letting them misunderstand? Was he just wasting his breath by teaching? Or, per haps, he was revealing his plan for salvation--the exact details--and letting his followers make a personal decision to accept or reject him along with his doctrine.

This is what we "fundamentalists" espouse: taking to heart the beliefs that generations of our Christian foremothers and forefathers preserved for us in a community. Many of them died for defending these doctrines. Christ did provide a teaching authority for his church and placed the authority within a community to be held accountable. When people reject this, we are left with 30,000 competing Christian denominations currently operating across the globe.

Because I don't presume to personally have a direct line to the mind of God, I prefer to accept God's Word as it's been handed down from generation to generation of Christians in direct succession from the first disciples.

If there's no ultimate truth about God and man, or simply no access to it, the rational response would be to stop seeking, to stop believing. Is unbelief what Jesus thought was worth dying for?

Paul Donnelly 

Ann Arbor, Mich.

Very interesting article on the growing fundamentalism, particularlyamong the young, in the Catholic Church. As I see it, we older, more liberal Catholics were brought up in a more stringent, fundamentalist time. We knew and accepted all that those old hard-boiled pastors, the sisters in the schools, and our parents taught us. In fact, we have not rejected most of it. The most important "fundamentals"--our belief in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the great mysteries of our faith--form the heart and core of our being.

But we have learned a little more theology, a little more church history, and have had a little more experience of life, so that we know that we cannot blindly follow whatever we are told. Many young people were not given that firm foundation, so they are looking for it now.

Eventually, they may see things in perspective. It has been said, obviously stretching a point, that nobody worships God--Protestants worship the Bible and Catholics worship our church. As we get older and hopefully wiser, we learn to use both the Bible and the church in our search for God.

Lucy Fuchs

Brandon, Fla.

I find it interesting that some who are progressive allow themselves to be labeled, or even label themselves, as "unorthodox." For instance, Stephen Soucy identified himself as a progressive in the article but was quoted as saying: "In the late 1980s, St. Thomas was a pretty unorthodox place.... A lot of folks who really felt they didn't fit into the Catholic Church were welcome."

Well, isn't that the point? Isn't that what Jesus did when he proclaimed the love of God to all those that the religious leaders of his time marginalized? Isn't that his mission today? And since the answer is yes, isn't that "orthodox"?

Ted Wickenhauser

Omaha, Neb.

Although I did not appreciate the "One Way" illustration on the cover of your May issue, I did find Smietana's article quite interesting and instructive. I believe that the currently pervasively present "R" words of retrieving and reclaiming (replacing reforming and renewing) the basics of Catholic tradition attest to an existential reality.

The Holy Spirit is ever guiding and teaching--and surely seems to be at the heart of the thousands of people (young and old) who seek to be "intentionally orthodox." C. S. Lewis would probably say that we've had enough of the "smudge and blur" that has characterized the past 40 years.

This is not a matter of the trendy-or the mushiness of subjectivism--but a matter of faith in Jesus the Christ, who promised to be with his church until the end of time.

Sister Sheila Galligan, I.H.M.

Immaculata, Penn.

It's a breath of fresh air to read of a movement within the church heading in the right (correct) direction--a movement that will lead to authentic Vatican II renewal.

I must, however, disagree with Father Hansen, who claims that those of us who are attracted to "the truth" are drawn out of fear. The attraction is rather out of a desire to be faithful.

Perhaps our young are seeing through the absolute folly of the majority of those in my generation who rejected papal infallibility only to replace it with individual infallibility.

After all, today's youth (who seem to be quite drawn to Pope John Paul II) grew up in a wasteland of moral relativity populated by contracepting Catholics whose rate of promiscuity, divorce, and abortion paralleled that of the rest of society. Our youth have grown up immersed in the consequences of contraceptive mentality.

The good news in the movement of our youth to embrace the "truth" is that, unlike many of their parents, they'll know that the call to follow our conscience is predicated on the need for that conscience to be properly formed-formed to the mind of God.

In so doing they will actually read such church documents as Humanae Vitae and The Gospel of Life. And there they will discover what escaped my "enlightened" generation: the blueprint for building a true "culture of life."

John Ryan 

Ballwin, Mo.