From Robert H. Keyserlingk, PhD. re various issues in the Catholic Church.

I look forward to my copy of Catholic Insight as one of the very few journals discussing real religious news.

Often you seem to be walking through your committed readers' open doors in your solid articles on Catholic morals and belief; useful support for the committed. On the other hand, your real-time coverage and documentation about Cardinal Ambrozic's decision to exclude Fr. Somerville from the Church because of his position on the Mass and his subsequent decision to move to the excommunicated Lefebvre movement, was unique. It gave a welcome peek behind the episcopal screen and was full of important lessons for Catholics. Robert Eady's letter about the Novus Ordo Mass (November 2004) spoke for many of us on the disillusioned 'right' and led me to the following comments.

Perhaps I do not have enough real information about the internal operation of the Church. But Cardinal Ambrozic--himself once a bright hope for more conservative Catholics like me--appears to be willing to use his authority to discipline someone like Fr. Somerville on the 'right', while overlooking the myriad deformations spawned by priests and others on the 'left'. Included in this latter group are those who experiment ruthlessly with the sacraments or merely ignore others like confession, and hold positions clearly contrary to tradition and papal exhortations. This is a question of discipline, a question of willingness or ability to exercise real leadership.

The distressing doctrinal and ritualistic drift has forced many traditional or moderate Catholics to lose hope in their leaders. Why have the Pope and bishops been unable to enforce a stop to the sometimes deep deviations from Catholic doctrine and action on the 'left'? How often has any one of us heard sermons on papal letters regarding doctrine and ritual? Why are the so-called reformers left in place to confuse the rest of us? Why are priests, bureaucrats or catechetical teachers permitted to operate within Church structures at the same time as they disavow solid Catholic beliefs and rituals? Don't our leaders care anymore? Will the drift not inevitably turn us into low church wobblies?

These are vital questions, not only for confused or disappointed Catholics like myself, but also for our children, who no longer see the Church as all that different from the other service clubs.

Labelle, QC

Editor:

In certain circumstances a bishop must act by force of canon law, while in other circumstances he may rely on God's grace to bring about improvements.

In August 2004, Cardinal Ambrozic suspended Fr. Stephen Somerville for--among other things--denying the validity of the English vernacular Mass. In March 2004, the same Cardinal suspended Fr. Tim Ryan, S.F.M., for rejecting the Church's teaching on (homo) sexuality. Some people interpret this as punishing one on the Right, another on the Left. But right and left have no meaning in the Church.

In reality, both acts were of the same nature, namely, a formal dissent from orthodox teaching by priests, one by ignoring repeated warnings sent him by the Chancery, the other by signing an affidavit (a public statement made under oath) supporting homogamy, (i.e. same-sex "marriage"). (see C.I. editorial, April, 2004). As their superior, the Archbishop had no choice but to act.

The Church is far more reluctant to act against dissent by the laity and, in fact, only rarely does so. However, when a particular kind of dissent on a grave disciplinary issue begins to take on the form of public and systematic resistance on the part of many, then the Church must rethink her approach. Today, this is the case with Catholic politicians who publicly--by, act or declaration--endorse abortion, euthanasia, homogamy, etc. In the recent 2004 election in the U.S. this had led to a debate among bishops about safeguarding the sanctity of Holy Communion, with a dozen or more bishops actually prohibiting such politicians--and other like-minded faithful--from receiving it. Other bishops have opposed this action. Most remained silent. Ultimately, a consensus must be formed what to do it for no other reason than to prevent disbelief or cynicism among the faithful.

Readers will be aware that Catholic Insight supports episcopal action now, not ten or twenty years from now. Whether this will come about in Canada is a question not angry impatience but of prayer, and the steadfast pursuit of the truth. Readers will also know that the sanctity of Holy Communion is threatened by more people than only dissenting politicians. That's why the Holy Father has declared 2004-2005 to be the Year of the Eucharist to emphasize once more the sacredness of the sacrament and the need of all faithful to prepare themselves properly.

From Father Bob Bedard, C.C

A reading of Robert Eady's recent letter on the liturgy persuades me that he's heading down a very predictable path. There are, I believe, a few distinct steps along the way:

A rather strident criticism of the mess too many parishes have made of the Novus Ordo Mass along with lavish praise for the traditional Tridentine liturgy;

Placing the blame for the above on Vatican II;

Taking issue with other statements of said council such as the one on Ecumenism;

Increasingly heavy judgements of Pope John Paul II for different moves of his, including his kissing the Koran, his spokesman's statement on the right of the Jewish people to continue to seek the Messiah, the two inter-faith prayer gatherings at Assisi and his perceived reluctance to discipline dissident clergy;

Sympathy for Archbishop Lefebvre's schismatic Society of St. Pius X and for those who move in that direction, e.g. Father Stephen Somerville;

Coming to the "sede vacantis" conclusion, the belief that the See of Peter is empty and that we haven't had a valid pope for some years.

I don't know how far down the path Mr. Eady has travelled to this point, but, because I generally admire his vigorous defence of Catholic truth (Editor: in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper), I pray he'll put the brakes on soon.

I stand, I presume, with Fr. de Valk, that there is no future in cutting ourselves off from the authority of the Pope. It isn't in God's plan and portends disaster for those who do so.

I am puzzled, though, by your agreement that the three questions he asks (re the Koran, the Jews, the Novus Ordo change from "many" to "all") are "good questions." The question concerning the wording change has already been answered clearly by the competent Vatican authority. The first two are at worst mistakes in judgment. My humble opinion is that his questions are quite irrelevant.

All Catholics who are committed to supporting the authentic Magisterium of the Church need in our day to stand together behind Pope John Paul II.

Ottawa, ON

Editor:

This concludes the Somerville/Eady correspondence in our magazine.