Letters to the Editor.

From Gerry Maingot re Winnipeg Statement 

As a subscriber for some time now, I congratulate you for your bold, honest and outspoken defence of our Catholic faith. In an age of compromise that waters down our beliefs, of ambivalence and "politically correct" language, all of which have led to much confusion and disobedience on the part of the faithful and of some members of the hierarchy, your magazine has truly earned the title of "Fidei defensor"....

In your September 1999 issue, there appears a letter from Father J. H. Gillis re Humanae vitae. He states that, "Under the leadership of Archbishop Adam Exner, then their Metropolitan, the bishops of the province of Manitoba publicly disassociated themselves from that Winnipeg Statement."

I would be most grateful if I could obtain a copy of this letter, statement, or document which contains this information. I have been following the "Winnipeg Statement Affair" since reading about it in Catholic Insight and I feel your position to be 'right on.' Would you be able to assist me?

Langley, BC

Editor: "Publicly disassociated" is perhaps too strong a term. In 1988 the Manitoba bishops issued a statement emphasizing the aspect of Natural Family Planning, basing it on Humanae vitae, thus bypassing the Winnipeg Statement. But there was no repudiation of the Statement by name or direct reference.

From Hugh Ballantyne

An important connection should be drawn between two items in the September issue of Catholic Insight.

In News in Brief we are informed that a national conference of bishops cannot publish a statement on faith or morals unless (a) their vote is unanimous, or (b) the statement receives prior consent from the Vatican.

In Letters to the Editor Father Gillis informs us that the Winnipeg Statement was not unanimous. Furthermore, the 1998 decision in Niagara Falls (of all places!) that the bishops would not revise the Winnipeg Statement was also not unanimous.

Two conclusions seems to follow. First, under the law prevailing today the Winnipeg Statement could not even have been issued. Second, the secretariat of the CCCB should now desist from its continuing endorsement of that statement.

Fergus, ON

From Brother J.B. Darcy, C.F.C., re vanishing religious life

I read with interest the review by Fr. Kennedy of the book Women in the Vanishing Cloister (September '99).

I agree with everything that was said there regarding the decline of religious Congregations--of men as well as women. It does seem to me, however, that both the book and the review dealt with the symptoms of the decline and that the real cause goes much deeper, namely to a loss of belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

If, as the Vatican Council asserted, the Eucharist is both the source and summit of the religious life, it is obvious that once this belief is lost, religious life must also disappear. The attitudes of those Sisters interviewed simply describe various stages of disintegration. Vows lose their meaning, religious remain as long as this seems to their own advantage, and they have no qualms about leaving when the situation changes.

It would have been interesting if Ms. Ebaugh had questioned the Sisters about their prayer life and their belief in the Eucharist. I believe she would have found it a very depressing picture.

As for those communities which are thriving, I believe it is because they have maintained the centrality of the Eucharist in their community and personal lives.

St. John's, NF

Re Cardinal Hume From Daphne McLeod

A friend has sent me the article in memory of the late Cardinal Hume (RIP) in your September issue, suggesting I send any comments to you. My first reaction is that, except for the first two paragraphs, it is full of inaccuracies needed to make the late Cardinal fit the picture being imposed on us by the media, the establishment, etc.

He was undoubtedly very popular with a lot of people who have no time for the Church and its teachings, which, sadly, is most of the people in this country. Non-Catholics had no problem with anything he said and neither did liberal Catholics, as the droolings in Basil Hume: by his friends show. Here we have dissenters from Humanae vitae like Clifford Longley and the editor of The Tablet, John Wilkins, who do not have a good word for the Holy Father, praising Cardinal Hume to the skies. The radical feminist nun Sister Lavinia Byrne, whose book Women at the Altar was condemned by the Vatican, boasts that Cardinal Hume "told Rome to back off," and Archbishop Rembert Weakland describes how he and Cardinal Hume worked together over the years. So, yes he was popular, but I don't know that it was greatly to his credit.

But speaking out on moral issues such as women priests, contraception, and homosexuality would obviously have damaged this popularity, so his statements were more ambiguous than "crystal clear." Shortly before his illness, when asked at a public meeting if the Church would ever allow women priests, he replied that he had not brought his crystal ball with him. He was praised for his honesty!

On contraception, like his brother bishops, his silence was deafening, and he allowed the homosexual organization QUEST to be listed in the National Catholic Directory as having "ecclesiastical approval" for years and years although it was made abundantly clear to him that it contradicted Church teaching by promoting homosexual activity and was therefore bound to lead young people seriously astray. Eventually, last year, after a long and strenuous campaign which culminated in having recourse to Rome, QUEST was removed. The radical feminist organizations Catholic Women's Network and St. Joan's International Alliance are still in.

The statistics recently published by the National Catholic Directory show that the numbers at Mass have halved; converts, far from increasing, dropped alarmingly (in spite of the Anglicans unhappy about female ordinations); and over 90 per cent of Catholic school leavers lapsed before or on leaving school during the Cardinal's tenure of office. It was pointed out to him that the religious textbooks used in his schools were not true to The Catechism of the Catholic Church and that where bishops have taken action on this in Australia and America youngsters stayed in the Church; but, like the other bishops in England and Wales, he failed to take any action. Neither did he do anything to protect the children entrusted to his care from dangerous and explicit lessons on sex.

There may be very good reasons for this and we must not judge, but neither should we falsify facts. All we can do us pray for Cardinal Hume's immortal soul and storm heaven asking for a strong and faithful Archbishop to replace him.

Chairwoman

Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice 

Surrey, England

Name withheld

Paula Adamick in her article in the September issue "In Memory of Cardinal Hume" paints a rosy picture of the late Cardinal, his legacy, and the state of the Church in the UK. There is another point of view... of a Church in a dismal state for which much of the blame must be assigned to the late Primate. The hierarchy in the United Kingdom, like that of our own country with a few exceptions, is presiding over the auto-demolition of the Church. For details of the situation in the UK, readers who have Internet access should go to: www.christianorder.com and read the editorials as well as Michael McGrade's essay "On the Westminster Succession and the Fear of God" and his review/article "Basil Hume: By His Friends".

St. John's, NF

From Patricia McKeever

I read Paula Adamick's article on Cardinal Hume with amazement. She seems to have swallowed the populist image of the "saintly" Cardinal Hume, hook, line, and sinker. A quite different picture emerges when we remove Miss Adamick's rose-coloured spectacles.

In defending the Cardinal against the charge that he presided over the destruction of the Catholic Church in this country, Paula Adamick states that she has no experience of "empty pews... in either the liberal or conservative churches of London." May I point out, in passing, that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are political terms: they have no place in religious language. A Catholic is either faithful or unfaithful to Christ's teaching. "Liberal" in this context is simply a euphemism for a disobedient Catholic. No orthodox Catholic journal should use these terms except with inverted commas.

To return to Miss Adamick's denial that the Church in England under Cardinal Hume has declined dramatically, the statistics cited in the National Catholic Directory speak for themselves--at least two bishops (Portsmouth and Hexham, and Newcastle dioceses) are on public record admitting that there will be no Catholic Church left in their dioceses within thirty years. All other dioceses are in similar critical state, as the statistics reveal.

While it is true that Cardinal Hume had the entry for the homosexual group QUEST removed from the National Catholic Directory, he did so reluctantly and only after a lengthy campaign of letter writing by Catholics working under the auspices of the orthodox organization Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice--who continue to be refused permission to have their details advertised in the Catholic Directory for England and Wales. Yet Cardinal Hume ignored calls to remove the dissident feminist group Catholic Women's Network who openly work for women's ordination and who admit that more than half their membership is made up of lapsed Catholics, while a significant number of Anglican priestesses are listed as members. So this dissident group is listed in the Catholic Directory while orthodox groups are banned: a state of affairs which Cardinal Hume defended.

In the space of a letter, it is not possible to adequately respond to all the misinformation gushing out from Miss Adamick's article which read, really, more like a sermon to be delivered at a canonization ceremony. However, the following admission from Cardinal Hume's own lips which she quoted really says it all, especially when we recall that this was said in discussion about liturgical abuse--abuse of the worship of Almighty God: "I agree. I agree (that the new liturgies are part of the problem)"--yet he defended "Rave Masses" for young people held in his diocese in charged, disco atmosphere, even when presented with irrefutable evidence that the Blessed Sacrament was, literally, trodden underfoot. He added, "In roughly half the churches I visit, the liturgy is not up to scratch, and in some, it is frankly deplorable. But for me to say anything would offend people so gravely that it would do more harm than good."

Cardinal Hume preferred to permit offence to God rather than carry out his obligations as a bishop--to defend and teach the Catholic faith as it has come to us from the Apostles, not to tolerate, and even promote, the new religion which the dissenters insist on thrusting upon us.

Miss Adamick's friendly (to say the least) appraisal of Cardinal Hume rests largely on what she considers to be his diplomatic skills; the world loved him, she argues, so that is what matters. Well, Pontius Pilate is the "patron saint" of diplomats and Christ himself warned that the world would not love His followers but would hate them. So, those who take it upon themselves to canonize Cardinal Hume would be well advised to think again. That Cardinal Hume was, indeed, a worldly prelate is beyond dispute: one quality newspaper reported with reliable documentation that he regularly paid just under [pound]900 for his shoes. Doesn't quite tally with the holy and humble monk image, does it? Cardinal Hume was, himself, a dissenter and not just from his monkish vow of poverty but from much Catholic teaching, for example, from Humanae vitae. That is well documented and Paula Adamick does no one (including the Cardinal, who may well need our prayers) any favours by pretending that he was a saint!

P.S. There is ample evidence that Cardinal Hume dissented from Humanae vitae. For example, at the 1980 Synod in Rome, while he acknowledged that "some have no difficulty in accepting the total prohibition of artificial means of contraception....and (through living by Humanae vitae) have discovered new riches in their married lives," he went on to say that "Others cannot accept the total prohibition of the use of artificial means of contraception, where circumstances seem to make this necessary, or even desirable" (emphasis mine).

He spoke about the experience of married people as a fons theologiae from which the Church can draw to develop its understanding of marriage, but he did not focus on those faithful couples, to whom he referred in passing (see above), but on those who refused to accept the Church's teaching. This was a feature of anything he wrote (which I have read, certainly) on the subject of birth control. Also, in 1982, again, well known fact, he instructed the Pope not to condemn contraception during his visit to England (the fact that the Pope obeyed this disobedient prelate is a major part of the problem, of course). Cardinal Hume has publicly supported the high profile dissenter Dr. Jack Dominian who believes that it is his mission to teach the Church about contraception! I could go on and on. So, there is no doubt about it that Cardinal Hume dissented from Humanae vitae--evidence, sadly, abounds.

Stockton-on-Tees,

England

Paula Adamick responds:

What I am most struck by in the above letters is their anger. Who cares how much Cardinal Hume paid for his shoes? What matters is how he represented the Catholic Church. From these letters, I must assume that because Cardinal Hume's judgment did not always jibe with the expectations of certain readers, he should then be damned as a remiss cleric who let down God and the Church he professed to love.

The fact is this is a difficult world we live in, one full of error, propaganda, and violence. In my opinion, it is to Cardinal Hume's credit that he navigated it so well and with such grace. In his judgment, it was often wiser to be silent than speak out in situations where to do so would only inflame the passions and anger of those who can't begin to understand the Church's position in areas of faith and morals simply because they have never bothered to investigate it.

As before Pilate, Christ Himself remained silent.

As for allegations that the Cardinal encouraged "Rave Masses" and stood idly by as the Eucharist was trodden underfoot, I know nothing of such incidents. I do know, however, that sacriligeous excesses occur around the world and that Britain is not immune. But the idea that Cardinal Hume would somehow look on and smile benevolently at such an incident I find preposterous.

It is true that he was popular, which is no crime. So was Jesus.

While Cardinal Hume shouldered a huge responsibility, salvation remains an individual matter. Each of us is free to embrace or reject Christ. No Cardinal, however garrulous or mute, can force a single person to believe or disbelieve anything he or she doesn't want to. As for his choice of friends, of which he had many, Hume must not be judged any more than Mother Teresa who had a few controversial friends as well. Must we always assume that such associations work to rebellion and rot rather than renewal?

Rather than criticising the Cardinal for his choice of shoes, I suggest these esteemed readers try walking in them.

Editor's postscript: In "News in Brief' (p. 23) we publish a few statistics indicating the serious decline in Catholic practice (see under England).

From L. Schroeder-McTighe re Trumpet

I was truly sorry to learn of the demise of The Trumpet as I looked forward to receiving and reading it. I very much appreciated Mark and Kathleen Toth's loyalty to our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and their devotion to the Magisterium of Our Holy Mother, the Church.

I thank you for the complimentary copy of Catholic Insight, May 1999, Volume VII, No. 4, which I read from cover to cover. Please find enclosed my subscription and cheque in the amount of $25.00.

May God continue to bless you and all those involved in the publication of Catholic Insight and may you continue to keep those of us who are struggling in these times informed of the truth.

I keep you in my prayers--please pray for me.

Regina, SK

From Diane Watts re fascism

The Catholic Insight news report "Catholics and fascism" (Sept. '99, pp. 26-27) counters yet another accusation that the Catholic Church is sympathetic to fascism.

Feminist Betty Friedan (formerly Bettye Goldstein) was influenced by her socialist professor Dorothy Wolff Douglas who identified Nazis with "traditionalism" which she said "placed children at the centre of family lives, celebrated motherhood, and opposed women working outside the house". This may explain Friedan's feminist struggle against the family in favour of women's liberation through paid work. The Church's support of motherhood and family may link the Catholic religion with fascism in the minds of anti-Catholic religious illiterates.

Friedan's recently revealed Stalinist-Marxist background does not make her immune to fascist ideas. French historian Alain Besancon points out that Bolshevism and Nazism are "fraternal twins". The feminist support for abortion as liberation brings them awfully close to the fascist extermination of "non-persons".

What communism and fascism also have in common is state supremacy over Church, family, and morality. We should be mindful of this as our parliament and courts legislate immorality.

As for the Catholic Church's supposed endorsing of fascism, columnist Anne O'Hare McCormick, in a 1926 New York Times article, wrote that the Osservatore Romano was "immune from the general censorship". She stated, "The Osservatore prints nothing not approved by the Papal Secretary of State--and prints only protests against the abuses and restrictions of Fascism" (Vatican Journal, 1957, p. 30). The Church's independence from state interference has served her well.

The best defence we have against totalitarianism, whether Communist or fascist, modernist or driven by moral corruption, is adherence to truly Catholic thought, which alone can remain untainted by the world.

National President

Women for Life, Faith and Family

Ottawa, ON

David Dooley's comment: With her letter, Mrs. Watts included xeroxed pages of Daniel Horowtiz's recent book Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique (University of Massachusetts Press, 1998). In the middle of a lecture on women under Nazi rule, Horowitz writes, Professor Dorothy Douglas observed that in Germany there was a conscious ideological effort to convince women that, despite their intellectual aspirations, they were instinctual beings who belonged in the home; in contrast, women in the USSR, she said, enjoyed equality of opportunity. "With youthful enthusiasm characteristic of many in her generation," Horowitz writes, "Goldstein [Friedan] sympathetically responded to the Marxist criticism of capitalism that Douglas offered."

Friedan opposed America's entry into the war against Hitler because Stalin told her that it was just an inter-imperialist fracas. She has always claimed that she was a typical suburban housewife until she began working on her ground-breaking book, The Feminine Mystique. In fact, she had been a political activist and propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the book's publication. So Horowitz's book is very enlightening.

More liturgical changes are coming

If the Liturgical Committee of the Canadian bishops has its way, the liturgical confusion in Canada will enter a new phase. In early September we received the following letter from Prince George, quickly followed by letters from elsewhere.

Editor

Letter 1 (name withheld)

In August, 1999, parishioners in Prince George were told about a "Pilot Project" for "the Revised Canadian Sacramentary." The Sacramentary is the Missal on the altar. The latter is presently in Rome awaiting approval, which may well take over one year. On September 9, approximately 30 people attended a workshop which took us through some of the proposed changes.

Here are some examples:

* The Confiteor becomes only 1 of 6 options for the Introductory Rite. For example, it can be replaced by a totally new Litany of Praise.

* Similarly, additional options are being looked at for the General Intercessions and, of course, people are wondering what these options are going to be.

* More seriously, we were told that there would also be "minor" changes to the age-old Creed, and again, are left wondering what these will be.

* At the Offertory, the gifts are to be brought directly to the altar. The reason why the priest is bypassed was not explained. We are accustomed to having the gifts presented to the priest in his role of Persona Christi.

* In the Prayer over the gifts "His name" has been replaced with "God's name" and "all His Church" replaced by "all the Church." Reasons for these changes, we were told, are to "lessen the stress on male language for God."

* There is mention of using one bread for communion, so we are now wondering how big this loaf is going to be. One woman shared with me that, having attended a wedding Mass where there was an inadequate number of communicants, they had to receive several times each to consume the entire loaf. Needless to say, this brought about silliness and a lack of piety in the assembly. Are we about to be visited with this type of situation on a regular basis?

* Again, in the Preface, there is another proposed change: "It is right to give Him thanks and praise" is changed to "It is right to give our thanks and praise," once again, apparently, to remove the male pronoun in reference to God.

* Even the proposed "Our Father" has new terminology. "Save us from the time of trial..." replaces "And lead us not into temptation." Why the change?

* Three options are proposed for the Invitation to Communion. Specifically, options B & C do not really seem to capture the meaning of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass. And why do we need so many options? Option B refers to the Lamb of God as an "it." Is the use of the pronoun "it" acceptable in this context in reference to. "The Lamb of God?" Again we see in option C the de-masculinization of the "Father" by the awkward sentence: "God's holy gift. for God's holy people."

* In a previous communication on the "pilot project" a parishioner had been informed that everyone must stand during Holy Communion until the last person has received the Host. In some parishes, people are encouraged to sing during this time, making a private thanksgiving impossible.

* Posture at the time of Consecration was not addressed. In our Prince George Diocese we have been encouraged to stand during the Consecration for some years, except for a few parishes which remain faithful to the instructions of the GIRM, the liturgical instruction for the Universal Church.

In general, the reaction of the group was not favourable. Past and present lack of obedience by priests in following the instructions in the current Canadian Sacramentary approved by Rome has bred mistrust in many of the faithful. About half of the attendants at the workshop expressed distrust and opposition to these changes.

We hope that none of them will be imposed on the faithful prior to approval by the Apostolic See. Pilot studies are just that and nothing more.

Prince George, B.C.

From Elsa Morrison

I heard from a friend that there is a new Sacramentary in two parishes here on Vancouver Island, namely in St. Joseph's, in Victoria, and in Christ the King, in Courtney. It is said to have been approved by Rome.

Could you send us some information about this. Apparently, it substitutes "God" wherever the masculine reference to "His" is used, yet Pope John Paul II recently reiterated that the title "God the Father" must be maintained and not weakened.

Victoria, B.C.

From John Pare

Attached are a couple of parish announcements here in Edmonton concerning a so-called pilot study of changes/reforms in the Liturgy of the Mass. One is from St. Theresa's and the other from St. Joseph's Cathedral. Last Sunday, September 12, parishioners at St. Theresa's were told that this "pilot" was being conducted in various churches around Canada; that "there have been no changes in the lectionary for 30 years" but that "the Vatican has now asked for changes"; and that "a proposed new lectionary has been submitted by the CCCB (the Canadian Bishops) to the Vatican for approval" as well. Some of the changes we will see are as follows:

1) In the Apostles' Creed "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" will be changed to "conceived by the Holy Spirit."

2) Gifts will be brought directly to the altar where the priest will present them immediately to God.

3) No public prayer (such as the Rosary) will be permitted during the period one half hour before, or one half hour after the start/conclusion of the Mass.

4) Other changes will be gradually introduced.

A number of us are concerned that this "pilot" may only add to confusion and division in the Church in Canada--but, if it has the blessing of the Holy Father, we will rally fully behind it.

Any clarification you can give on this will be greatly appreciated. I posed this concern to the CCCB but have received no response.

Edmonton, AB

Father Stephen Somerville comments:

By a small but sudden spate of letters from readers in B.C. and Alberta, we learn of a pilot project from Ottawa for the "new Canadian Sacramentary," that is, the Altar Missal. The project is floating various changes and additions in the Mass. Curiously, we learn at the same time by a Vatican news item that a new master edition of the Roman Missal has been printed in September of this year. Is Ottawa trying to upstage Rome? Does the National Office of Liturgy wish to distract us Canadian Catholics from the new official missal of the Universal Church?

In February of 1997, the bishops of Canada received a draft copy of a new missal (Sacramentary) for Canada. Catholic Insight was dismayed because this draft was so "unCatholic." It contained huge quantities of prayers not selected or composed by the Vatican, and copious "pastoral notes" from the Canadian National Office of Liturgy on how to celebrate Mass. In our June 1997 issue, we published an open letter to the bishops, warning them of the threat to Catholic liturgy inherent in this overgrown Canadian project.

Now we see that the novelties being proposed in the Western Canada 1999 missal pilot project are nearly all exactly as were contained in the 1997 draft to the bishops. Most, if not all, of those will certainly not be in the new Vatican edition. Why, then, are we Catholics in Canada being invited to dally with them? Are they intended to lessen our respect for Catholic rites, and to tickle our taste for Canadian rites?

Some specific comments on the proposed changes:

The new line in the Our Father: "Save us from the time of trial," was proposed years ago by the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC) for ecumenical use. Those words are not what Jesus said in Mt 6:13, and moreover, to change the Lord's Prayer in the present time of religious confusion would be simply harmful.

The six options for the Penitential Rite are an excess. Five are not penitential, and are called "introductory". Sin, of course, is being de-emphasized. Likewise excessive are the three introductions to Holy Communion. Our Catholic liturgy has been hurt by far too many options and choices.

The change back to "conceived by the Holy Spirit" in the Creed (deleting "the power of") is welcome, and more faithful to the Latin and to the Gospel.

Masculine pronouns for God are being deleted (by pressure of feminist ideology) and are derided as "male language". This is false. Some language is masculine (or feminine) in its gender. But words are not "male" or "female", because they are devoid of sex. So is God. He is masculine, but not male.

It is to be hoped that the Western Missal Pilot Project will be quietly dropped.

Editor: Please write your bishops with your views. If you have additional information, write us as well.