Letters to the editor.

From Aileen M. Sivell,

All issues of Catholic Insight are collectors' items but those of April and June '05 are dynamite! Such comprehensive, in-depth research into the triple threat to Church and Western civilization oozing from the contamination of Homosexism, Homogamy (SSM) and their "conduit' the Catholic (?) New Times, commands profuse thanks and the reward enclosed.

Burlington, ON

From Steven (Istvan) Szakaczki re Book Note

In the May, 2005, issue of the Catholic Insight Book Notes you promoted a Buddhist, partially New Age movement book, titled The Jewel Tree of Tibet by Robert Thurman.

If the Insight feels obligated to advertise this book, then it should be done with careful overview. Catholic Insight is a magazine for Catholics and should not advertise non-Catholic publications as "other solutions" for finding truth and happiness. Your Book Note promoted not only the principles of Buddhism, but also invites "... to help one attain the true goal of happiness through spiritual and philosophical teachings." Thurman, the author, "... provides a practical system intended for gaining deep and transforming insight of oneself and the world."

When Catholic Insight makes these statements, people, especially the so-called "confused Catholics", may think that this is a good "retreat" to find answers for their questions outside of the Church.

There are already thousands of Catholics who are influenced by the New Age movement, Zen Buddhism, and other eastern pagan concepts. So why follow Fr. Anthony de Mello, Fr. Matthew Fox or especially Thomas Merton and other gurus who are enemies of our Church?

We should all read the Pontifical Council for Culture's reflection on the "New Age." We do not need replacements for prayers or meditations. We have everything needed in our Catholic faith. Jesus Christ said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". And he is the bearer of the Water of Life.

Maynooth, ON

Editor: We apologize for the error. We are discontinuing book notes for non-Catholic books.

From Dominick Lobo re CNT et al

In the June CI Letters to the Editor, Patrick J. Sheahan disagrees with banning the Catholic New Times and prefers dialogue on the important issues facing the Church today. He also holds up Jesus and Pope John Paul II as examples of those who challenged and changed the status quo.

I do not believe that dialogue is the answer to the issues facing the Church because the Church is the body of Christ who is its head. And Jesus has provided the necessary guidance as to how the body should act so as to reach perfection required to enter through the narrow gates of Heaven....

[About women priests], a priest is a minister of God, and all three persons of the Trinity chose men. Yahweh called forth Aaron and his four sons to be "My priests" (Exodus 28:1). Jesus chose twelve men. And the Holy Spirit filled Judas' vacancy with Matthias.

[About marriage], God created two natures necessary for marriage.... Marriage is the sacramental union of these so different natures into 'one flesh' that closely mirrors Christ's own nature made up of His divine and human natures. And the power to procreate children from nothing reflects God's own creative power. Besides, Jesus blessed marriage with His first miracle. And Heaven will witness the marriage of Jesus with His bride, the Church Triumphant (Revelation 19:7 & 21:2).

Regarding the issues of birth control and lack of vocations, the Bible teaches that God commanded us to be "fruitful and multiply" and requires us to "ask the Harvest-master to send labourers into His vineyard."

The Catholic New Times reflects the views of those "Catholic" politicians who act in ways contrary to those set out by the Magisterium. As a brief subscriber, I came to realize that CNT was rooted in the incredible belief that Vatican II empowered the laity to be equal to the Magisterium. And under the banner "We are Church," the focus is on the body rather than Christ, the head of the Church. Dialogue would be useless. The result would be the same as with our separated brethren who read the one Bible and come up with so many denominations. What do "light and darkness have in common?"

Thornhill, ON.

From Joseph R. Jacobson

Much as I appreciated Patrick I. Sheahan's evident good will in his letter (C.L., June, 2005), I found his unnuanced affirmation of dissidence in the Church most unsettling. Following his logic, one would conclude that because one apostle was a Judas, all apostles should be treated as Judases.

Of course, dissent has its place in the Church, as Paul reluctantly discovered when he found it necessary to confront Peter (Galatians 1). But dissent, as a mind-set, is ruinous. It's what leads to the scandalous behaviour of clergy (and others) who value their "right" to dissent more than their holy vows, more even than the sacred trust committed to them.

The anguish of people like Mr. Sheahan over this is very real, and it leads to distortions of fact (as we saw in his letter). It seems to me that such people would be greatly blessed and encouraged by exposing themselves to the crucial role which holy obedience has always played in the faith and life of the great saints and mystics, all the way from St. Catherine of Siena (who was ever a more effective dissident than she?) to St. Faustina, St. Padre Pio, and even the beautiful "children" of Medjugorje, and many more.

In sum, dissidence is effective for God's purposes only when it is not a mind-set, only when it is a reluctant exception to a deep commitment to obedience (Luke 10:16), not simply a convenient way of sidestepping the uncomfortable clash between the values of the Gospel of God and the values of our society.

When the Church's members sidestep the call of her apostolic leaders to face up to that clash, it is those members who risk betraying God's Kingdom, not the leaders.

Bashaw, AB

From Larry Bennett

As I progressed (contentedly) through my latest (June, 2005) edition of Catholic Insight, Alphonse de Valk's wry comment about the media's confusion over the meaning of "theologian" and its misuse in describing feminist Joanne Manning, became even more poignant while reading Ian Hunter's column.

Mr. Hunter, like many of us, is at once cautious and in thrall to the magnificent mind of literary critic Harold Bloom.

However, I find it is Bloom as social critic that satisfies most, and especially his contention that, "Enterprise, self-reliance, and competition do not gladden the hearts of feminists, who are of the School of Resentment."

Surrey, B.C.

From Norman Lower re Archbishop Gervais and the Winnipeg Statement

I commend you for your editorial "Canada's last chance: Bishops letting us down" (C.I., July/August 2005, p. 3). I too, am concerned over Archbishop Marcel Gervais's statement concerning the reception of communion by Prime Minister Paul Martin:

"To me he is also a faithful member of my cathedral parish. He did not personally bring his party to adopt this policy [gay marriage legislation].... I do not think, at this time, his position merits refusing him communion" (Its Time Newspaper, June 25, 2005, p. 9, emphasis of Its Time).

Archbishop Gervais's perception is in conflict with the objective facts and with recent Vatican directives. Paul Martin, who has publicly claimed that he is a practising Catholic, has been the driving force behind Canada's same-sex marriage legislation. Is this not formal co-operation with intrinsic evil?

Even if he did not "personally bring his party to adopt this policy," Martin nevertheless ignored his grave obligation as a Catholic to personally oppose immoral legislation, as clearly explained by the Vatican. Furthermore he has come out politically in favour of Canada's current situation of abortion on demand. "Vatican officials have deemed such positions incongruous with Catholicism and thus [are] impediments to reception of Holy Communion" (Its Time).

According to paragraphs 5 and 6 of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's document "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion" (C.I., Sept 2004, p. 23), it is sufficiently clear that Paul Martin can, and should, be denied communion. Why, then, is Archbishop Gervais not being faithful to Vatican directives ? Why is he not exercising his legitimate authority, in the face of grave scandal, to bar Martin from communion?

I perceive in Archbishop Gervais's attitude a "Winnipeg Statement" kind of permissiveness. [The trouble lies] with the dissenting paragraph no. 26 of this 1968 statement by the Canadian bishops on Humanae vitae. Paragraph 26 can easily be invoked to "justify" Paul Martin's erroneous thinking and actions (I have added the square brackets):

"Counsellors may meet others [a politician who says he is a practising Catholic] who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father [but flouting it while in public office], find that because of particular circumstances [public opinion, pressure from constituents, career ambition], they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties [e.g., abandoning conscience to support immoral legislation].... They [Catholic politicians] may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses [emphasis mine] that course which seems right to them [to be in favour of abortion and same-sex marriage] does so in good conscience.... "

As long as the "Winnipeg Statement" remains in force, the Canadian bishops will continue to be hamstrung in their task as teachers and in the exercise of their legitimate authority.

Quebec QC

Editor: See also Msgr. Vincent Foy's article, "Fr. Michael Prieur and the Winnipeg Statement," C.I., September 2005, pp. 37-41

From W.T. Curran re Thomas More

I read with interest Mr. Loughran's recent article dealing with Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher. (C.I., July/August, 2005.)

I recall some years ago being shown a church in the city of Canterbury, England, where the head of Saint Thomas More is buried. I read an article written by the travel editor of the New York Times in which he stated that Saint Thomas is still listed on the legal rolls as a traitor. I wrote to Mr. Blair at Downing Street requesting that the name of Saint Thomas be removed from such records and received a reply later from the Home Office that no change in this status was envisaged.

The head of Saint Thomas was first placed on the entrance to "traitor's gate" at the Tower of London. I also remember Rochester Cathedral, Saint John Fisher's church. The locale was later used for some of the settings for the novels of Charles Dickens. Saint Thomas h Becket was ordained in Rochester Cathedral. I once wrote to the Thomas More Association of Catholic lawyers in Toronto to see if they could mount a campaign to have the status of Saint Thomas changed. Their only reply was to ask me for a donation for their association!

Ottawa, ON

From Jim Anderson re review of The Stoneholding

Thank you kindly for publishing David Beresford's review of The Stoneholding in the July/August issue of Catholic Insight. Mark Sebanc (my collaborator, and the principal creator of the work) and I are very pleased with the review, and even more so for its placement on the back cover of the magazine--prime periodical real-estate, to be sure.

We have recently been picked up by Sandhill Book Marketing as a distributor for The Stoneholding. The book is now available in Chapters stores throughout Canada, and we will be doing a number of signings in Chapters in central and southern Ontario.

We have been receiving more and more positive feedback on the novel; one notable instance is a review by Fr. Guy Trudel, c.s.b., Professor of Medieval Studies at the Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies and University of Toronto.

In your review, the publisher was mistakenly named "Stonesharp Press" when in fact it is called "Stoneharp Press." The book is now available throughout Canada. Visit their website: Http://www.stoneharp.com/reviews.ht ml

Again, thank you for your kindness in publishing the review.

Killaloe, ON

Camille Goutier re altar rails (C.I., June 2005)

The June article on altar rails (p.14) states: "Sadly there are many Catholics who no longer believe in the Real Presence. No doubt this has been due to the toning down, and in some cases the deletion of these and many other symbols and signs of adoration."

Further: "The decision to remove Communion rails seems to have been an initiative taken at local level to introduce architectural changes that were believed by those involved to be necessary to implement the liturgical reforms of the Council."

Still further: "Though modern liturgical theorists .... claim that their new theology reflects the mind of the Church, there has been no ecclesiastical document that sanctions its removal from churches."

If there were no ecclesiastical documents that sanctioned the removal from churches, who took the authority to implement all the changes in the New Mass? If it wasn't orders from Rome, or orders from the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, or orders from the local bishop, then why did all the priests in this country, like sheep, follow somebody's directive and go ahead with all the changes in the New Mass?

To you, Fr. de Valk, and to all the priests in this country, dig out of your files the document from your bishop, from the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, from the Vatican, that ordered all parishes to make all the changes to the Traditional Mass and turn it into the New Mass. Publish these documents to show that the changes actually are ordered by the Catholic Church.

Joussard, AB

Editor's reply: In paragraph four Mr. Goutier jumps from altar rails (the subject of the article) to "all the changes in the Mass."

Liturgical changes may be found in many documents issued by various authorities from 1965 onwards. The removal of the altar rails (in most but not in all churches), however, was initiated on the local level, mostly, it seems, as a consequence of receiving communion standing up rather than kneeling down. That, in turn, was the result of the new custom of receiving communion in the hand introduced first in Holland from where it spread to other North European and North American countries.

From Martin Lanigan

Yet again you preach error!

Marriage, as an institution handed clown by God, is not documented in the Bible. Genesis deals with the "creation myth", and your reading of Genesis is simply not supported by most serious biblical scholarship.

I would also point out that marriage was not a sacrament until the 12th century. Until then it was virtually ignored by the institutional church. Your entire thesis, that a 1950's notion of marriage was completely handed down by God in Genesis is absolute nonsense.

Marriage was, and is, a human construct. It has evolved and it will continue to evolve according to the needs and understandings of human society. Why do you blatantly preach error? Do you know better or are you shameless in your propaganda to "prove" a point?

Received by e-mail

Editor's reply:

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910, vol. 9, pp. 707-710, shows that it has always been believed that Marriage is a sacrament, and that this sacrament was instituted by Christ as an efficacious sign of the life of grace: "testimony to this effect is to be found from the earliest Christian times onward." St. Paul called marriage a sacrament (Eph. 5).

The word "sacrament," however, was for centuries applied to a great many things and was not defined until later. The validity and ritual requirements of marriage have been the concern of "the institutional church" through the centuries (pp.703-707).