Letters to the Editor.

From Rita Curley re October issue

Your October '99 Catholic Insight was magnificent. The MaterCare article helped me to understand the work of Dr. Robert Walley (the CWL explanation was too brief in its booklet). Joseph Woodward on Jason Kenny and the United Alternative was great. Then there was Ian Hunter's article! These articles lift up the spirit. Congratulations!

Ottawa, ON

From Lise Anglin: Cardinal Hume once more

A discussion in the Letters section of the November issue raised the question of popularity.

Three letter writers were unanimous in their assessment that the late Cardinal Hume was popular. Two said this very popularity betokened something amiss since Christ promised his followers persecution and hatred. The third said that, on the contrary, the Cardinal's popularity was Christ-like (Paula Adamick: "It is true that he was popular.... So was Jesus.")

In fact, the concept of popularity, like the concept of "fun," is totally irrelevant to the spiritual life. They are both replaced by the joy of the Holy Spirit.

St. John of the Cross had served the good Lord Jesus for years, amidst horrendous persecution from his fellow monks, when he was rewarded with a vision. Our Lord congratulated him for his faithfulness and told him to ask for a reward. John replied, "Please, Lord, that I may suffer and be despised."

Toronto, ON

From Father Brendan McCarthy re various issues

The criticism leveled at the late Cardinal Hume (Letters, pp. 4-6) is not without some base in reality. After all, when the Cardinal told his fellow bishops at a Synod that he had a message from God and "She told him...." Well, that's enough.

What worries me most as a priest and a historian is the sangfroid attitude of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission and its theological peregrinations over the past twenty odd years or so. With all due respect to the Holy Father and his oft-expressed desire for unity, may I ask how we can negotiate unity with a group calling itself a church which was the offspring of an adulterous king, the creature of a stagemanaged parliament, and perpetuated in fact by linkage to a monarchy which can tolerate any form of religion except the Catholic Church.

The English are a strange lot. They have a "Church" which tries to reflect every moral or immoral wind which blows. At present the debate over the "ordination" of women bishops is providing an influx of disgruntled Anglican clergy into the Catholic Church. Others are said to be in secret negotiation with Cardinal Cassidy who is acting on behalf of the Vatican. Can we not wonder then where we stand in this country with every effort, real and ridiculous, being made by our bishops falling over themselves to confirm any manifestation of feminism which comes down the road?

The November issue of Catholic Insight ("More liturgical changes are coming," Letters, pp.7-8) brought another sorry story of the inexplicable attitude of the Canadian hierarchy. I am firmly convinced that this body cannot enforce changes in the Liturgy, either in form or language, and compel a priest to observe such changes. I, for one, am not going to become a mere messenger for the CCCB's modernistic ideas.

Parish of Sts. Joseph & Patrick, Port Union, NF

From A. Q. Thurston re Vatican Council II

Regarding Fr. Malachi Martin's views on Vatican II (October, p. 25, and December letters), it is not what the Council stated but that the Council occurred at the time when the progressives were pushing for change.

Also the Vatican could have been much more vigorous in promoting what the Council actually states when it was badly needed.

Abbotsford, BC

From Joan E. Rogers re Winnipeg Statement 

Thank you for publishing Hugh Ballantyne's letter in your November issue. According to the July 23, 1998, Letter Apostolos Suos, the Winnipeg Statement is null and void because it did not attain unanimous approval. It retains this status until it receives recognition by the Apostolic See in accord with Canon 451.

Catholic Insight's articles by Casey Ahern clarify responsibilities of the laity as defined by Vatican II's document Gaudium et spes. It might help the laity to have direct access to the papal letters mentioned here. Would Catholic Insight be so kind as to publish the address for a source of these documents?

With reference to the December issue letter from Harriet McEachen and editorial notes (page 6), one might reflect upon the continued use of the NRSV Bible translation in Canadian Masses. In 1994 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled that the NRSV cannot be used for Catholic Masses. Yet, the NRSV is the only translation in use for Canadian Masses to this day. How can this be?

Edmonton, AB

Editor: Vatican documents appear in the weekly English language paper, the L'Osservatore Romano. This, however, is very expensive ($155.00 U.S. per year). A more affordable source is the bimonthly (every two months) The Pope Speaks. It is published by Our Sunday Visitor, 200 Noll Plaza, Huntington, IN, 46750, USA. Subscription is $20.00 U.S. per year.

From J. Brian Taylor re Joanna Manning

Kathline Nitsch's informative review of Joanna Manning's book (Nov. '99) begins by noting the inappropriateness of the title and turning its question back on the author herself. Pius XI, in the encyclical letter Casti connubii, gave us one of the fundamental criteria by which the true followers of Christ may recognize one another:

"[I]t is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things which touch upon faith and morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."

By this criterion, the answers to both questions are self-evident. In conclusion, the reader is offered the suggestion that Manning might feel more at home in some other church. The problem really is that Manning will never feel at home in any place where her thinking is at odds with her conscience in relation to her baptismal vows. Even the simplest of catechisms tells that there are six ways of sinning against the Holy Spirit: presumption, despair, resisting the known truth, envy of another's spiritual good, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence. If Manning is truly interested in justice, peace, and creation, she will ultimately have to face the fact that while love makes the world go 'round, sin makes it go flat. Toronto, ON

From Joseph Maker re sex education

Following on the plausible claptrap concerning sex education in the classroom by the self-styled experts, let us hear what a customer has to say about their futile indoctrination.

A 14-year-old schoolboy in Sheffield, England, whose 12-year-old girlfriend was three months pregnant, stated: "It is the school's responsibility, showing us videos of men and women naked. After all, we are just children. We were told about how babies were made, but I was just interested in the sex part."

Those would-be educators seem completely ignorant of the relationship between theory and practice. "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise...."

Ladner, BC

More liturgical changes? From Helen Saindon

Thank you to Catholic Insight for the November issue.

When I attended both workshops at St. Mary and Immaculate Conception Church in Prince George, the question was asked whether or not this "Pilot Project" was approved by Rome. I do not recall a direct response, only that this was part of the process awaiting approval from Rome for the New Revised Sacramentary. We have not yet seen any correspondence from Rome confirming same.

I hope and pray that the faithful in Canada will remain obedient to the true teachings of our Catholic Church.

Prince George, BC

Editor: It is called a "pilot" project because it is experimental, therefore not approved as yet. Experimentation was supposed to end on December 31, 1999.

From Mrs. Anne Gallant: church now community centre

A letter from Prince George (CI, November '99) prompted me to report on the program in our parish in St. George's Diocese, NF. We have RENEWAL, that is, a new innovation each week.

I am sorry to say that I am increasingly pessimistic. Our "pilot" Sacramentary has been in use in our parish since September 1999. There are many deletions, many changes, and we wonder by whose authority?

We received the order to stand five years ago. Today the order is to stand from the prayer over the gifts until the last person has received Communion. This novelty will guarantee unity, we are told. So unity at Communion means everyone is standing, walking, and singing, until the last person has received. Then all sit with a sigh, glad it's over. There is no time for or thought of thanksgiving.

Contrary to what the Church and the Catechism teach, we have general absolution in our church in Stephenville twice a year, during Lent and Advent. People are never told that individual confession is necessary in the case of serious sin. Many, perhaps most, people now believe that it is impossible to commit a serious sin. However, there is a positive note here: we do have individual confession for the small remnant who still believe in the necessity of reconciliation.

Those who remember a High Latin Mass and once upon a time heard a choir sing the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei must surely suffer acute nostalgia. There is absolutely no correlation between choir and Mass. But that is RENEWAL. Altar and Sacrifice have been replaced; instead we now have table and meal.

Why is the Glory to God prayer deemed inappropriate today? It, as well as the Confiteor at the beginning of Mass, seems to have been lost in the latest shuffle.

Finally, the clatter and chatter that precedes every Sunday celebration is deplorable. The "hospitality committee" meet and greet everyone out loud, while the choir practises and rehearses out loud. The sounds are akin to those of a hen roost that has been invaded by a weasel. The House of God has been turned into a community centre.

It is truly depressing to witness the demise of the Catholic Church in Canada.

Stephenville, NF

From Mrs. Yvonne Dienesch re liturgical abuses

Re "More Liturgical changes are coming" (Nov, 1999), I would like to focus on the terrible abuses that are occurring with increasing frequency with regard to the Precious Blood of Jesus.

Really, it's just a further step in the use of so-called "extraordinary" Eucharistic lay ministers, who are actually as ordinary as the common fly. It appears that one of the main reasons that Holy Communion is being given out more and more under both species, is to get more lay people involved.

During a recent mission in Pembroke diocese, November 16, 1999, there were no less than eight Eucharistic lay ministers to assist the two priests in distributing Holy Communion under both species. Though the church was full, it is very small. This is a vibrant parish with an excellent pastor, and this incident came about through the influence of a visiting priest, a Father Lou Cerulli from Montreal. This way of dealing with the Blessed Sacrament has now been accepted by nearly everyone.

Recently, three cases have come to my attention of Eucharistic Ministers (in this case all female) spilling the Precious Blood. A friend was present at St. Joseph's Church, Chatham (London diocese), on two separate occasions during the past few months when the Precious Blood was spilled onto the floor by two different women, the first time soaking into the carpet; the second time on a hard floor. Apparently little or no concern was shown either time, other than by my friend.

I was informed by a reliable source (who was present), that on November 7th, at St. Thomas More Church in Millbrook, ON (Peterborough diocese), a Eucharistic lay minister spilled the Precious Blood all over her blouse. Again with no concern shown. Where is the great safeguarding and care of the Blessed Sacrament?

Of course, this 'need' for more lay ministers of the Eucharist so people can receive under both species is simply the next step from lay people helping themselves to the Tabernacle, while the priest stands idly at the altar.

This past summer, in a small country church in Pembroke diocese, I saw a visiting priest from Windsor place the Precious Blood on the altar, telling the people to "help yourselves." Of course, I was present on quite a few occasions at St. Agnes Church, Chatham, where a priest did likewise--except he used a small table. The innovations become increasingly bolder.

Whenever we hear about those surveys concerning the small number of Catholics who still believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, I am amazed that anyone can still wonder why!

From our former parishes of St. Ignatius, Bothwell, and St. Charles Garnier (mission church), Glencoe, in the London diocese, the August 1, 1999, bulletin states: "Sister Loretta Manzara, the outgoing Director of Liturgy, convinced the Bishop that, from First Holy Communion on, the faithful should also receive the Eucharist from the Cup. Since the Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist receives from the Cup, the acolytes should also. Parents should decide if they want their own son or daughter to receive from the Cup."

Where are we going? What will be next?

There are several dangers here, most importantly leading to a loss of belief in the Real Presence, but also catering to the vanity of the lay ministers, and undermining the ordained priesthood.

Another disturbing thing that has come out of all this irreverent handling of the Divinity by unconsecrated hands is the fact that many young men who may feel a call to the priesthood are frightened off or disillusioned by all the lay people (especially women) running around the altar and sanctuary, and particularly concerning the Blessed Sacrament.

After a series of recent abuses in a certain church, I heard this opinion expressed by some who might make fine priests. Is our "shortage of priests" selfinflicted? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? A young man can no longer enter a Catholic church and see how very special the ordained priesthood is.

One young seminarian, while teaching Catechism in the U.S., did a rethink on Holy Communion under both species, when he suddenly realized that the young students believed they were receiving only the Body in the Sacred Host, and only the Precious Blood under the appearance of wine, the very error condemned by the Council of Trent when it said no to Holy Communion under both species to dispel the confusion caused.

I believe that if the Blessed Sacrament was again safeguarded with the utmost reverence (yes, as in those "Pre-Vatican II" precautions), we would have plenty of priests and sisters again.

Was anyone listening when Pope Paul VI in 1969 sent his letter Memoriale Domini to the bishops of the world, stating, "This method, receiving on the tongue, must be retained"?

The Faith will be restored with reverence surrounding the Blessed Sacrament, or not at all. The innovations and novelties haven't worked--let's just try the basic Catholic Faith in all its richness, mystery, and transcendental beauty.

Eganville, ON

Re Cardinal Ambrozic's letter (Dec '99, P. 8-9):

From Richard Hudon

Like the editor, I would accept paragraph 1 in its entirety.

As to paragraph 2, I find it weak and flawed; the terminology used needs work. I would bolster the first paragraph's wording and rewrite the second as: "The long-term consequences of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in M v. H are not difficult to predict (read the Old Testament events that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah). The decision is not based on philosophical, theological, and biological premises. The Court adopts an approach that will serve to undermine the Church's traditional understanding of marriage and family, and the nature of spousal and conjugal relationships."

Similarly, I would rewrite the third paragraph thus: "The teaching of the Church has been that homosexuality, male and female, is an aberrant and immoral lifestyle. Homosexuals must be treated with the compassion that charity demands while keeping in mind that their immortal soul is on the threshold of perdition. Discrimination in their regard is necessary and justifiable as part of our efforts to bring them to recognize the immense peril of their temporal and supernatural being. The sanctity of marriage must not be desecrated by any concessions to the current deviant, secular society."

As for paragraph 4, there is nothing that can be salvaged therein. I would replace the whole with: "In seeking to prevent unjustifiable discrimination against homosexuals, the Court has overstepped the bounds of its authority and has created an 'anti-law' which must be reversed by Parliament and rejected by society."

In paragraph 5, His Eminence should have stopped at the first comma, as follows: "The time has come for legislation that fully protects the traditional understanding of family and marriage. Anything more is superfluous and can too easily lead to derogation from the magisterium."

Similarly, paragraph 6 should have stopped at the first comma: "It is hoped that in coming to grips with the decision of the Court in M v. H the Government of Ontario will reassert the primacy of the traditional understanding of marriage and family."

Ottawa, ON

From M. Miller

No. 5 in Cardinal Ambrozic's letter could have ended after "individuals", and thus omitted the words "involved in nontraditional domestic relationships" etc.; or his Eminence could have added that it would be nice if a child caring for one or both elderly parents were to receive the parental pension after the latter's death until the caregiver dies also.

Once governments legislate, as did the Ontario government in this matter, they need not be surprised at pressure to legislate "the licence to violate all the commandments" under the guise of sympathy for those addicted to one or other type of intrinsically disordered behaviour.

Sudhury, ON

From Kevin McNiff

With respect to the question about the Cardinal's position on same-sex benefits, evidently His Eminence doesn't appear to have one. What his right hand vaguely supports (the "traditional understanding of marriage"), the left hand clearly undermines.

All one can say is that the Cardinal, most of his fellow bishops, and our Catholic politicians are consistent: whether they talk about artificial contraception, sex education, abortion, or other matters, it is always "Well, I don't personally agree, but...."

Toronto, ON

From Blanche Mary Lepinskie

In Cardinal Ambrozic's circular on same-sex benefits, it seems to me we're again bang up against false compassion vs. true, and just discrimination vs. unjust.

Deja vu! How reminiscent this is of the response to Humanae vitae by the Canadian bishops (the Winnipeg Statement) and its counterpart by American bishops in the U.S. In both cases, the message was: "We stand 100 per cent behind our Holy Father BUT...there is this matter of the supremacy of conscience, etc." How the "faithful" did latch on to that "BUT" in both countries. Like the fatal flaws in Shakespearean tragedy, the fallout ever since has been utterly tragic.

Please God, with all due respect to a wonderful prelate, Cardinal Ambrozic will jump off the fence and back onto the "ground" of true compassion, thus annihilating this "BUT."

Combermere, ON

From Paul Kokoski

With respect to traditional and nontraditional relationships, apparently, in order to maintain and protect the Catholic position, the Cardinal feels that "the time has come" for two laws which will express the rights of both. Unfortunately, while his proposal may appear to be the lesser of two evils, it does create a double standard. As we all know, there is only one objective standard for God, and I thank all the martyrs who had the faith to give their lives defending it.

Hamilton, ON

From Brian Moccia

I too am puzzled and baffled by the Cardinal's circular letter. Thank you for taking an interest in it and breaking it down into conveniently identifiable segments/paragraphs.

The Cardinal seems to be suggesting that Catholics need not vigorously resist the homosexual community's agenda of seeking legitimacy for their immoral lifestyle. Rather, Catholics should try to deflect/ignore the specific sexual morality aspect of this issue and its effects on the sanctity of marriage, by consciously transforming it into a type of social-justice, economic-morality issue.

I would add that radical departures from clear and unambiguous Catholic understanding and teaching concerning the nature and identity of the nuclear family, such as the ideas suggested in the Cardinal's letter, serve only to blur and tamper with the foundational concept of the nuclear family.

I fail to see why Cardinal Ambrozic felt compelled to release this letter/statement. In my discussions with Catholics from various parishes around Toronto, there seems to be a consensus of opinion that in the matter of M v. H, Cardinal Ambrozic would have been better off having said nothing at all. That way, he would have saved us all the trouble of having to sort out the weeds/errors from the wheat/truth.

Mississauga, ON