Letters to the Editor.

Editor's note--In the May issue a News in Brief story was covered up with opaque paper. The story contained some inaccuracies which could not be corrected because the magazine had been printed though not yet mailed. The May item has been replaced by our editorial on page 3.

From the Cistercians in Asmara-Eritrea

We, Cistercians of Asmara-Eritrea, publish a Catholic monthly bulletin in the local language. The title of the bulletin is Berhan which means light.

It would be great for us if you could manage to send us a copy of your issues in the future. As our income is meagre, we rely on your generous move to receive Catholic Insight regularly.

God bless you and your work.

Fr. Ghirmai Abraha

Editor: We are happy to oblige.

From the Archdiocese of Ottawa re "New model Church in Ottawa"

Fr. Alphonse de Valk's comment on Archbishop Marcel Gervais's decision to appoint lay coordinators of pastoral activities (C.I, March 2001) is quite revealing in many ways, and brings up a few questions of its own.

First of all, one wonders why Fr. De Valk didn't contact the Archdiocese of Ottawa offices rather than be content to base his comments on an item in the Ottawa Citizen and other secondhand sources. He then could have consulted the official diocesan decree on the matter issued by the Archbishop in December 2000, and a copy of one of the four official appointments. (Copy of both documents attached.) Then he might have avoided quoting the Archbishop's words out of context or from hearsay, to conclude what was "implied" by his decisions. It might have been journalistically more professional to seek out the Archbishop's real intentions.

Second, the diocesan "model" is not a creation of an archbishop, be he a cardinal (cf. other comment on "New concept of the Church" in Los Angeles: A critique, by Paul Kokoski), but an application of Canon 517 [ss] 2, which reads: "If the diocesan bishop should decide that due to a dearth of priests a participation in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish is to be entrusted to a deacon or to some other person who is not a priest or to a community of persons, he is to appoint some priest endowed with the powers and faculties of a pastor to supervise the pastoral care." [1] Furthermore, the first paragraph of the same Canon 517 provides for the appointment of a "Moderator Priest" in such circumstances. [2]

The Canon has been highly and aptly documented in a study sponsored by the Canon Law Society of America, in a report entitled: Pastoral Care in Parishes Without a Pastor, applications of Canon 517, [ss] 2. This too also served as a base for the Ottawa decree and ensuing appointments.

Third, concerning the writings of one particular pastor in a given parish, the Archbishop might have reminded the editor of C.I. of a reality of which he is quite aware; namely, that pastors do not necessarily consult with their superiors before expressing their views in their parish bulletin. Furthermore, even if notified of certain improprieties privately, they do not readily share such notifications with their congregations. What would a bishop do? Dismiss the pastor, thereby causing an even greater shortage of priests?

As for the proper placing of the Blessed Sacrament, the diocesan decree on this matter (also to be read carefully) conforms with the Official Vatican guidelines and was approved by the Holy Father himself.

Fourth, if it is surprising to some that deacons were not appointed instead of lay persons, perhaps a review of the meaning and scope of the permanent diaconate would be useful in this regard.

Fifth, as for lay leaders administering baptism, solemnizing marriage and presiding at burials, there is room for such mandates when necessity prevails. As a matter of fact, this proviso in two of the four appointments is granted strictly in case of necessity, and on a case by case basis. (As to the Canon Law basis of these appointments, please refer to the enclosed document: Specimen-- Coordonnateur des activites paroissiales.)

Finally, it is interesting to note that Fr. De Valk's remarks seem to be in line with an association such as Corpus, insofar as having priests (whether old or ailing) celebrate Mass at all costs, and in any fashion or form. Of course, according to Corpus, reinstating former priests to ministry or ordaining married men would be the grand solution. But most of these who were relieved of their official priestly status have aged along with those who stayed.

Archbishop Gervais certainly prays for vocations to the priesthood as do the faithful of both language sectors of our diocese. Whether they will be forthcoming depends on how the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is answered by the young men of the present generation. In the meantime, there is nothing inadequate in thinking that the same Spirit is beckoning our Church to involve more faithful in building a Catholic community with the resources available.

Fraternally yours,

Pastoral Service (Secteur francophone)

Gerard Brunelle, Deacon

1 For a thorough consideration of this Canon and some practical applications, cf.: Cusack, Barbara Anne, and Sullivan, Therese Guerin, SP, Pastoral Care in Parishes Without a Pastor, Applications of Canon 517, [ss] 2, (C) 1995 by The Canon Law Society of America. The French version is entitled: La charge pastorale d'une paroisse sans cure; translated and adapted by Michel Theriault, 1998, Wilson Lafleur Ltee, Montreal.

2 Where circumstances so require, the pastoral care of a parish, or of a number of parishes together, can be entrusted to several priests jointly, but with the stipulation that one of the priests is to be the moderator of the pastoral care to be exercised. This moderator is to direct the joint action and to be responsible for it to the bishop (CIC, 517, [ss] 1).

Editor: I would like to thank Deacon Gerard Brunelle for his response on behalf of the Archdiocese. However, in all honesty, I cannot say that the letter answers my concerns about what the Archbishop means with "consumer model," "liberating" his priests, and whether a church is a "house of God" or an "assembly hall."

From Camille Goutier on New Concept of Church

The thoughts expressed in your two articles by Fr. de Valk and Paul Kokoski did not surprise me (March, 2001) because we can see the effects of these ideas in all of our churches today, but it was nevertheless interesting to receive a clear description of it to encourage an officially recognized "lay ecclesial ministry," and to enforce a new "empowerment of the laity."

Will this lead to democratically electing our own diocesan administrators? We could thus get rid of modernthinking bishops and cardinals who in this new concept of the Church are no longer needed!

Jousard, AB

From name withheld

I just finished reading the March issue, and couldn't agree more with your article about the "new model" of the Church that some bishops seem to be pushing. We have been putting up with similar humbug Out west. So much clerical hand-wringing (by order of the chancery offices) over the priest "shortages", and saying how we're just going to have to "adapt" (i.e., administer the sacraments to each other as lay people); all the while you hear things behind the scenes like the refusal to accept priests from other countries (or even other provinces, such as the Companions of the Cross). It's all politics, and we're sick to death of it.

I live in a "one-church" prairie town, which you described in your article, and there is virtually never a reason to attend a lay service. There is always a Mass within 20-40 minutes' drive, which is nothing for prairie people (we willingly drive hundreds of miles on weekends for shopping, sports, and cultural events). Yet you are ridiculed (even by the clergy) if you try to attend Mass each weekend. It's called "following the priest around." Some people say you are "destroying the community" if you go to mass elsewhere, instead of attending lay service at your parish. Yet they don't say a word about breaking up the community to those Catholics who are gone virtually every weekend of the year to sports tournaments.

On a diocesan level, there is far too much time and energy put into "lay formation" programs, and not one ounce of the same going to promote new vocations to the priesthood. Preach Humanae vitae from the pulpit? Unheard of. People here have been brainwashed to believe that we need not work for, pray for, or foster vocations from our families, because the "priest shortage" is God's will. I truly believe the situation has become so bad that many lay people would not accept a priest (especially an orthodox one) even if he was dropped into our midst from on high.

Like the Holy Father, I would prefer that we all be united in Truth. However, many lay people (and clergy) stubbornly persist in their disobedience and dissent. Is it time to draw a line in the sand between the ''Roman'' and "Canadian" churches? Why don't our shepherds choose? Either get in line with the Holy Father's new evangelization, or declare their true colours from the pulpit (i.e., we want to break with Rome and form our own "Canadian Church"). Then the remnant of Canadian Roman Catholics could get on with the business of evangelizing the world.

Home on the prairies

From Hugh McDonald re "Models for the Church" (April)

Not being a regular reader, I happened across "Models for the Church" by Rev. Robert Bedard, c.c. The main point of the article was that lay people should be led to play a greater role in evangelization. However, I was struck by the use of the past tense in the following quoted sentences, referring to the supposedly obsolete model of the Church (I will put the past tense in capitals.)

"...The important thing was to make the sacraments as available as possible. It was as though they were able to work automatically and, as long as people received them often enough, all would be well. Ex opere operato was pretty well our battle cry. If one wanted to grow in one's faith, he was advised to receive the Sacraments more often. If one was alienated from the Church, he was said to be away from the Sacraments, and the solution to this situation for him was to get back to church. If he would simply do this, his chances for salvation were once again deemed to be promising. ...Of course, all of this providing of the Sacraments was something only a priest could do."

When this is coupled with the introductory paragraph, where we are told that "we are being directed to" a new model of the Church "by the highest authority of the Church (Vatican II)", one suspects that this new model is supposed to minimize the role of the sacraments, recommend less frequent reception of the Sacraments, or supply the Sacraments through those who have not been ordained. It has been a while since I read the documents of Vatican II, but I garnered no such impression of any such approach to the Sacraments.

Niagara Falls, ON

From Rev. Paul J. McDonald

"Models for the Church" (C.I., April) seems in need of clarification.

1) Let there be no doubt that the worthy celebration of and participation in the Sacraments truly is the greatest thing in the Church, and the greatest and most essential priestly work, since the Sacraments are "God's masterpieces", divine actions, ex opere operato, or better, ex opere Christi.

Before the Council, this strong emphasis was not mistaken. It was part of an integral catechesis which is very much lacking today. It included the teaching that one needed proper dispositions. Truly, to fall away from the Sacraments is to fall away from Christ.

2) After the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hearing confessions is a priest's most divine work, even if it is not his only work. We need long hours of confessions restored not curtailed. In the pre-conciliar era, penitents were rushed, it is alleged. Perhaps. But the teaching was in place that the priest is responsible for the person whose confession he is hearing at that moment, and not for the people standing in line (St. Alphonsus).

3) The version of lay "ministry" put forward in the article is not that of the Council. It spoke of lay apostolate, not the ambiguous "ministry". Vatican II, if I am not mistaken, applies the word "minister" only to clerics. The Holy See has complained and warned us about this ambiguous use of the word. The ambiguity lies in the fact that ministry can be performed by a "servant" which of course applies to all the Faithful. But the word "ministry" also carries a notion of representative authority, of being sent, and this can only apply in a limited way to the laity. It is the apostles who were sent in the fullest sense, and thus their successors, the bishops, and the cooperators of the bishops, the priests.

The Church as such has no proper mission in the political order, but the lay person, in conformity with the Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel, must strive in his own name, and not that of the Church as such, to build a Christian civilization or Christendom. It is for the laity to enter into and bring divine truth to culture, politics, the arts, etc. This is the layman's essential and proper task. It is not for the clergy.

In carrying out this essential task the lay person, if he is obedient to the truth proclaimed by the Magisterium, is free and autonomous. He is not the long arm of the Pope or the bishop in the temporal order. Thus it is a gross error, even a grave one, to say as Fr. B. does, that "the lay persons' ministry makes no sense unless it is done in concert with and directed by the pastor". Of course if he is acting in the name of the Church, he must be cooperative and obedient. But that is the point: acting in the name of the Church is an extraordinary thing for a lay person to be doing. It is not his proper task.

Dear editor, would you really want, for example, all Catholic pro-lifers (an excellent lay apostolate) to operate only under obedience to their bishops? Not only would this be contrary to Catholic doctrine, it would be an utter disaster! To conceive of the primary task of the priest as coordinator of lay "ministries" is, then, a distortion.

4) "The Council's way is the only way". First of all, the article is not in line with the Council's teaching. Secondly, since none of the teachings of Vatican II are definitive they should not be absolutized in this way. And the disciplinary decisions are per se revocable at any time.

St. Elizabeth's Church Wainfleet, ON

Father Bedard responds

Father Paul McDonald has read far more into my humble essay than I had intended, and, in fact, has misunderstood its main thrust. First of all, we all know that by virtue of their Baptism, lay people have a divine mandate to witness to the truth of the gospel in "the world," places of work, school, recreation, etc. I wasn't writing about that.

The main burden of my contribution was that the pastor cannot do everything himself. The number of the ordained is way down and the job description of the priest in our day is right off the map. If he tries to do it all, he will either become very frustrated or burn out in the attempt. Many sensitive tasks must be taken on by parishioners--things like teaching RCIA, visiting the sick, running youth programs, door-to-door evangelization, etc.

Strenuous objection is made to my use of the word "ministry" in regard to lay people. Fine. Let's use another word. How about "service"? Those who do such service would then be called "servants". And yes, such servants must act in concert with their pastors. Surely that's only common sense.

The Sacraments are indeed of divine origin and precious resources for us. And yes, integral catechesis is needed to encourage proper dispositions (ex opere operantis). But, if said dispositions are not present, the powerful graces of the Sacraments do not enter the soul. I would submit that was largely the case in pre-Vatican days, to say nothing of today.

My "restored model" in no way suggests less frequent reception of the Sacraments nor the giving of such by the non-ordained as Mr Hugh McDonald avers. A rereading of the essay would confirm that quickly, I'm sure. We (the CCs) have long hours of Confessions in our parishes and never use general absolution.

The job of a pastor in our day is gigantic. He needs lots of help. That's why I see it as necessity that he operate as head of a team and be the coordinator of services.

From J.E. & F. Charbonneau re Catholic charities

For many years we have been deterred from sending money to charities claiming to give help to impoverished families in distant parts of the world. We are held back by the fear that our support might be directed toward antilife programs.

Edmonton, AB

Editor: See our Jan/Feb 2001 issue, p. 16 for an article on Canadian Food for Children, a Catholic organization which sends food and other resources to help the poor of the world. You can write the them at CFC, 40 King George's Rd., Toronto, ON, M8X 1L3. Their warehouse is located at 1258 Lakeshore Rd. E., Mississauga, ON. Many parishes and Catholic schools help CFC as a group effort. The organization consists entirely of volunteers. An upcoming C.I issue will profile Dr. Simone, the founder.

From Elizabeth Duncan re Palestine (April)

The maps on plans for a Palestinian homeland were not large enough, unless you recommend a magnifying glass when reading the article on page ten.

Also, in a news report in another publication (if accurate), it states that the nearest Arab countries to Israel have closed their borders to Arab immigrants, the better to retain the pressure on Israel. If this is so, perhaps more thought should be given to the impasse.

Combermere, ON

From Dr. Patricia Rooke re CCODP quitting World March

The performance of the CCODP and a number of Canadian bishops concerning the World March of Women has been dismaying on a number of counts, the major one being that they failed abysmally to understand the nature and agenda of the radical feminist groups that organized and led the March. With some notable exceptions, including Archbishop Adam Exner, OMI, there seemed to be a total lack of discernment in supporting this event.

In particular, the egregious response of some bishops to criticism about the support for the March denigrated the honesty and intelligence of the critics as well as playing havoc in the CWL, the leaders of which were at odds on this matter with many of its members. The leaders were able to cite the bishops as reason for disregarding the objections of many members.

Perhaps the Catholic bishops of Canada owe an apology to those who insisted that abortion was a crucial demand of the March. Perhaps too the CCODP might start examining more carefully certain Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) programs with which it co-operates and which also operate under the euphemism "women's health."

Moreover, it is ironic that it took a newly elected president of the United States, George W. Bush, to alert Canadian bishops to the objections raised by feminist groups in his country and ours when he indicated that his federal programs would no longer support international aid promoting abortion. American bishops were not embarrassed by this change in policy, as they had not supported the March.

I have a modest suggestion to make to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in order to avoid a repetition of such embarrassment. They could take a leaf from the Vatican and bring together a committee of Canadian Catholic women who are knowledgeable about feminist organizations and philosophies, Canadian and international, to advise them on such issues in the future.

Many women who have worked in academic settings, on community projects, or with NGOs on the international stage, have a wealth of personal experience and theoretical knowledge which alerts them to the logical consequences of theory to practice within feminist discourse and circles.

The delegation the Vatican sends to international conferences on women and development (e.g., Cairo, Stockholm, Nairobi, Beijing), (Editor: and the pro-life NGOs from various countries) are made up of people who understand the settings in which they are working and the groups with which they will come in contact. What the bishops need is a similar "made-in-Canada" consultative committee composed of strong Catholic lay women from academia, the media, law, helping professions, medicine, journalism, NGOs, and all levels of politics, who have had experience with radical feminist organizations--their agendas, tactics, and strategies--and who can advise the bishops in situations such as that involving the World March of Women.

It is not realistic to expect bishops to be knowledgeable about such organizations. Their gender and religious authority ("patriarchy," according to feminists) put them at a disadvantage in trying to understand and gather information about the diverse women's/feminist organizations and their wide range of interests, several, but by no means all, of which are antithetical to Catholic teaching.

This committee could also be used to educate lay Catholic women so that they might become more familiar with these radical agendas and able to exercise critical judgement about different feminist causes.

From my own experience, abortion is the litmus test of many feminist organizations, no matter how moderate they appear to be in other areas.

The kind of Catholic women I have in mind generally have considerable experience in encountering these women individually and in their organizations. We cannot afford another debacle such as this, which divided Catholic women and which, I can only assume, was based on naivete on the part of both the bishops and the CCODP.

Victoria, BC

Editor: see also News in Brief Canada, under "Island Magisterium."

From Stephen Gray on the CCODP doing it again

Re: the article "Churches call for more neighbourly economy," BC Catholic, April 23, 2001. It states in this article that "The Canadian Organization for Development and Peace has budgeted $140,000 for the parallel summit and other anti-globalization efforts."

In the Toronto Star on April 14,2001, page A27, the headline read "Snub to Catholic Church sparks a row." The article states, "organizers of the People's Summit refused to allow Msgr. Paul Couture, Archbishop of Quebec, to speak at the Tuesday rally." The article goes on to say, "Couture would not be welcome as a keynote speaker at the opening because of the Catholic's Church's position on such issues as abortion and religious schooling."

One wonders why Development and Peace continues to associate with these radicals? Have they learned nothing from the "World March of Women?" And why would any bishop wish to speak to or support this so-called "People's Summit" with its hidden agenda.

Chilliwack, BC