Letters to the Editor.

From Nicolaas J. Soullie re Etienne Gilson

I enjoyed reading the two articles on the history of philosophy and Catholicism in Canada on Etienne Gilson (Jan./Feb., 2000) by Fr. Kennedy, and on Jacques Maritain (March, 2000) by Fr. Lawrence Dewan, O.P. In the September 2000 issue, Fr. Kennedy responded to a reader's request for some suggestions about where the "uninitiated" could start in an attempt to familiarize themselves with the Gilsonian Opus. I think his answer can be expanded.

Gilson was an unequalled master of historical research into the philosophical thought of the Middle Ages--best exemplified in his magisterial study History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, first published in English by Sheed & Ward in 1954. Other historical monographs are outstanding. (Gilson almost always and everywhere exemplifies lucid prose): The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine, The Philosophy of St. Bonaventure, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Mystical Theology of St. Bernard, Dante and Philosophy, Heloise and Abelard.

In the area of philosophy proper, his significant contributions include Being and Some Philosophers, Elements of Christian Philosophy, Christian Philosophy, and the later works From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, and Linguistics and Philosophy. He also found time to write some very good books on the Arts--Painting And Reality, Forms and Substances in the Arts, and Choir of Muses.

Finally, one of the best reflections upon the difficult question of the relationship between Catholic theology, philosophy, and the world of secular learning can be found in The Philosopher And Theology (published in 1962).

Interested readers can find almost all these books very easily through the used bookstore network in North America. The best place to begin a search is the "Net"--and readers will find that all the abandoned fruits from Catholic libraries are available to them.

Mission, B.C.

From Joy Nicholson re liturgy

I'm writing regarding Fr. Somerville's article "Vatican ices ICEL" (March 2000). It gives me an opportunity to verbalize a few thoughts on the feminization of the NRSV Scripture and on the changes made in it to promote the current emphasis on community.

Oh, to have the word MAN restored to Scripture as in the RSV, and the terribly limited word mortal deleted and saved for its usual adjectival function; and singular pronouns restored, along with their connotation of intimacy in one's individual relationship to God! (Cf. N 14:21, 23 (RSV and NRS), and throughout the Psalms, beginning with the very first one.)

It has amazed me that feminist ideology has so easily set aside the Truths of Revelation in fundamental ways. I think, for instance, of the plaints for inclusive language which are used to justify changes in Scripture that are simply not necessary.

For Scripture is already inclusive in the deepest sense. It is God's Love letter to every single person--men and women alike--in the whole family of man. It is a consistent thread throughout Scripture that when God speaks to one person, man or woman, He speaks for the good of all. When He calls one person-as Abram for instance--it is a call also to Sarai and to the whole infant community, without whom Abraham could not possibly fulfil his destiny as our father in faith.

Surely thoughts and intentions are as uniquely individualized as fingerprints. But pluralizing pronouns allows one to avoid individual responsibility.

Editor: For more on inclusive language, see the article in November, 2000, pp.30-32.

More from Colin Burke on capitalism

Joseph Campbell may have accepted too readily (Letters, July/Aug. p. 5) my "rechristening" (Letters, June) of capitalism as "wealthism" (as opposed to "familyism.") For "wealthism" as I define it, assumes not only that wealth is always necessary for a good life--which requires rejection of wealth more often than we like to admit, and rejection also of many ways of getting wealth--but also that wealth is normally sufficient for that. And it usually assumes that the production of wealth is always good.

We must in our production of wealth serve God's glory, or plain moral goodness. If rather we aim first at getting wealth and only later putting it to good use--or letting others put it to bad use, since we may be unable to forestall that--not only are we not preparing properly to serve God or moral goodness, but we are effecting an alternative to that.

Wealth is always a good thing only in the physical sense, and the replacing of moral by physical good is the most popular kind of sin. When it does not serve moral good, the production of wealth as physical good is not a palliation of, but rather aggravates, the moral failure, just as a murderer's remaining physically alive is an aggravation, and not a palliation, of his soul's being mortally in sin. It is evil from which God may draw greater good but it cannot be good except in a purely physical sense....Capitalism doesn't produce wealth because families need it, but favours families so far as they foster wealth; it refrains from considering any further purposes of economic activity, because defining purposes would limit production.

Capitalists don't care about life, not even economic life; they just want as much wealth, of as many kinds, as they can get. That is why capitalism always insists that economic thought is a kind of mental colony ruled only from afar by ethical reflection, rather than a living branch of social morality.

Port au Port, Nfld.

From Edward King re capitalism

I think Joseph Campbell made a couple of valuable points in his reply to my letter in the October issue, upon which I would like to comment.

The question of philosophy is crucial as he notes. This has been insisted upon by all the modern popes from Pius IX onwards and by Catholic scholars such as Gilson, Maritain, Dawson and others. The following passage from Christopher Dawson in Religion and the Modern State (1935) expresses this point well, I think:

"Liberal Capitalism and Marxian Socialism, both in their own way typical products of the nineteenth century, are neither of them really suited to the altered conditions of the new age. Both of them were serious attempts to face the economic problems of an industrial society, the one from the point of view of the bourgeoisie, the other from that of the proletariat; but both were vitiated by a bias towards materialism which rendered them unbalanced and morally unsatisfying. We need a political philosophy that is more Catholic and more humane--one which does not exclude or depreciate the non-economic functions and values, but which treats man as a free moral personality, the creature of God and the maker of his own destiny" 43.

Campbell's second point about capitalism not having to be the servant of false philosophies and ideologies is also true. One has only to study, for example, the commercial capitalism of the Italian maritime republics such as Venice, Genoa, and Pisa from the 14th to the 16th centuries, or the cities of the Hanseatic League during roughly the same period, to see capitalism as part of a wider Catholic culture. Compare Henry Ford and Bill Gates with the great Doges of Venice or Lorenzo de Medici and one will see the difference.

Kanata, ON

From Virginia Miller re Science text

I read with great interest the article in the August 2000 issue about grade one science ("What's to be done about high school science," pp. 30-31) My daughter is entering grade nine and is using "Science power nine."

Immediately I checked it out. Not only were the two pages mentioned in the article causes for concern, but the entire first unit needs to be looked at.

I have been in touch with the school teacher, who cannot give me any answers now but is checking things out.

Thanks for alerting me and please follow up. I will from my end.

Milverton, ON

From Joseph Campbell: religion No; morality Yes

We Canadians often seem unable to distinguish between religion and morality. As a result, we tend to confuse the issues that arise when candidates of faith seek political office. The contest for leadership of the Canadian Alliance illustrated our confusion.

Stockwell Day, who won the leadership, is reported to have said that he will adhere to his social values, but he will not impose them. He added that the religion of some will not become the law for others.

Mr. Day's party, of course, is open to citizens' initiatives and referenda on social values, which concern moral issues like abortion and gay rights. Although morality can never be decided by vote, any more than truth can, referenda could lead to legislation aimed at protecting the unborn and supporting families. This is particularly so, since key Canadian Alliance politicians are personally pro-life and pro-family.

Nevertheless, Mr. Day concedes too much. He is, of course, right when he insists that the state not impose religion. The state is secular. But it is not, nor should it be, amoral. The state, in fact, cannot help but impose morality. It does so when it legislates about life and death, sex differences and sexuality, marriage and family, crime and punishment, equality and justice, war and peace, among other matters.

So Mr. Day should not hesitate to impose conservative social values if the people of Canada make him Prime Minister. The Liberals, the red Tories and the NDP impose their social values whenever the opportunity arises. Why shouldn't social conservatives and populists be allowed to impose theirs?

We, of course, are unlikely to think about religion when left-leaning parties make the rules. Unlike Stockwell Day, leftist politicians who are religious tend to keep their faith to themselves. Consequently, when they impose values, our confusion about religion and morality is less likely to come to the fore.

There is such a thing as public morality and it has profound private implications. The Liberal version of this moral code protects endangered animal species but not unborn humans; devalues marital commitment through no-fault divorce and the extension of spousal benefits to common-law and same-sex partners; upholds human rights commissions that force public officials and private operatives to violate their consciences; safeguards property rights in the sale of grain in some parts of the country but not in others; and engages in reverse discrimination based on race and sex.

If the Canadian Alliance has a better vision of public morality, it should proudly defend it, and if elected impose it. Supporters of this party should expect no less.

Saskatoon, SK

From Robert A. Jason re government family policy

As a man happily married to the same wonderful woman for 40 years and blessed with wonderful children and grandchildren, I believe passionately in the traditional family, the backbone of civilizations throughout history.

Here are some heartening facts: Gallup Poll of Feb. 4, 1989 reveals that a whopping 94% of Canadians want "more emphasis on traditional family ties"; Gallup, Aug. 30, 1990: 91% of Canadians believe in God; a national poll in Homemakers magazine, March, 1992: 78% of Canadian women feel family to be more important than a career; Gallup, June 20, 1988: 75% of Canadians reject abortion on demand.

The National Foundation for Family Research & Education (NFFRE) released a study this month indicating the feelings of Canadians on modern family life. 75% of the people interviewed said, "Family life today is in crisis". 96% saw "too little family time" as a "serious" source of stress. 82% blamed the federal tax policies for treating traditional families unfairly. 79% believed that child care subsidies should go directly to parents, who would then choose the arrangement they deemed best for their children. 91% said that "ideally" parental care for their infant and preschool children was far superior to day care.

Sadly, the powerful radical feminist lobby seems to exercise an undue influence on Liberal policy.

Hedy Fry, a radical feminist in Chretien's cabinet, is in charge of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC), and an aggressive supporter of militant feminist and lesbian causes. Our Liberal government provides obscenely huge grants to NAC. In 1997 the feminists received an astounding $17.1 million of our tax dollars. At the same time, the largest organization of women in Canada who espouse traditional family values and who represent the majority of women in Canada, called REAL Women, a measly $6,000. Liberals call this fair play? Equality? Tolerance?

Wait a minute! The story is not finished REAL Women received that princely sum of $6,000 only after years of requesting. Finally, they got so fed up that they decided to play a game with the government. They sent in an application for funds under a fictitious name of "Lesbian Mothers of Canada". Presto! The government responded immediately with a warm letter of welcome, complete with all the necessary papers.

Fonthill, ON

From Lisa Anglin re P.E. Trudeau

It was rather unfortunate that a notable priest eulogized Pierre Elliot Trudeau, in public and on television. The priest said he believed Trudeau "did his best".

According to the Cathechism of the Church (No. 1683), we are all unborn babies being carried sacramentally in the womb of our mother, the church, until Death delivers us into the Father's hands.... How did Trudeau treat his fellow unborn babies (i.e., all of us from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death)? Knowing the answer, we surely must bow our heads in sorrow and beg for mercy, not eulogize a man whose sins were so public, devastating, and lethal.

Toronto, ON

From Name Withheld re pro-life charities

In the September issue of C.I., Lisa Anglin and D.T. Smigelski ask very important questions as to what charities pro-life Catholics, or others, may support, with a clear conscience. It is almost impossible to find charitable organizations that do not compromise the teachings of the Catholic Church in their work with youth and families.

May I suggest the Marguerite Bourgeoys Family Centre as an organization well worth supporting? All donations are tax-deductible.

The work of the organization is based on the Creighton Model Systems founded by Dr. Thomas Hilgers in response to the Holy Father's call to Catholic scientists in Humanae vitae to serve the cause of marriage and the family. Dr. Hilgers has completed a term with the Pontifical Institute for the Family in Rome and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science. He has received funding for the Pope Paul VI Institute directly from Pope John Paul II.

Marguerite Bourgeoys Family Centre provides a broad range of health care for women. Infertility, PMS, miscarriage, evaluation and treatment of hormonal imbalance, prevention of premature delivery, evaluation and treatment of ovarian cysts are all dealt with without compromising the conscience of the client, the provider, or the financial supporter.

In Toronto seven new Practitioner Interns have been added to the staff of Marguerite Bourgeoys Family Centre in order to provide for the expanding need. Donations may be sent to Marguerite Bourgeoys Family Centre, 628 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, ON M4K 1R3 - Phone [phone].

Toronto, ON.

Editor's P.S. -- There are many more agencies which fit the requirements, such as, for example, "Second Chance" and "AID to Women" in Toronto; the St. Vincent de Paul offices throughout Canada; new lay movements of one kind or another, some of which we will he featuring in our pages in the coming months.