July-August 2001

Stunned

I have only just recovered from being stunned by your Editor’s Note on page 8 of the May issue — where you acknowledge your error in using the phrase “consecrated bread and wine,” apologize for having used it, and resolve never to use it again.

I never in my life thought that any journalist ever admitted to making mistakes. What’s the world coming to? Indeed, I wonder if anyone knows how to check to see if the edges of Hell have begun to freeze.

With every good wish.

The Most Rev. Thomas G. Doran
Bishop of Rockford
Rockford, Illinois




New Oxford Witch-Hunt

This is not a letter for publication, unless you want to publish it, which I doubt.

I am totally with you in loving orthodoxy and hating and fearing heresy. But I am anguished and appalled that you have misunderstood and attacked two (and perhaps three) of the best warriors on our side, introducing exactly that kind of “civil war” division into the ranks of Christ’s warriors that the Antichrist loves the most, playing into the strategy of our Enemy.

Your attack on Richard John Neuhaus regarding Hell (“If Everyone Is Saved…” by Dale Vree, Jan.) was simply wrong — stupidly and inexcusably wrong. Now, in “Folks, Here Are Your Orders” (New Oxford Notes, April), you attack Stratford Caldecott for similarly nondocumented heresies. I’d also defend Hans Urs von Balthasar, who inspired both, though I don’t know Balthasar well and never met him.

Good grief, what has happened to the NOR? Did you catch the Wanderer Disease of crotchety old nastiness? What utterly faithful lover of Christ will you misunderstand next Mother Teresa for being too liberal? Stop, before you lose all your intelligent readers! Fr. Neuhaus and Strat are totally orthodox. You did not prove your case; you misrepresented both very badly and unfairly!

The NOR has published such great stuff, and continues to do so — e.g., Michael Pakaluk’s masterful answer to the gay agenda (April). It’s imperative that you don’t scuttle your ship by witch-hunting.

Prof. Peter Kreeft
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts




THE EDITOR REPLIES:

If you read our pieces on Neuhaus and Caldecott carefully, you know that neither piece was about Balthasar himself. Both pieces were about self-styled admirers of Balthasar. But since you mention Balthasar, it’s worth recalling what you wrote in your Handbook of Christian Apologetics: “Universalism was believed, or at least strongly suggested, by a number of otherwise very orthodox Christians, for example, Julian of Norwich, George MacDonald and Hans Urs von Balthasar. But it seems clearly contradicted by Jesus’ frequent teachings about hell’s reality.” But now you say you’d “defend” Balthasar. That’s curious.

You say the NOR attacked both Neuhaus and Caldecott for “nondocumented heresies.” That phrase of yours is somewhat puzzling, but we gather that you mean the NOR accused both of heresy without substantiation.

But the NOR didn’t even use the word “heresy” in its pieces about Neuhaus and Caldecott. As for Neuhaus, the NOR said that his views would “strip” the orthodox Catholic cause “of any ultimate significance.” As for Caldecott, the NOR said that what he wrote was “goofy.”

“Nondocumented”? In our piece on Neuhaus, his words were extensively and repeatedly quoted. And probably half of our piece about Caldecott quoted his words.

You say the NOR “misrepresented” Neuhaus and Caldecott. But you give no specifics.

You wish to assure us that “Fr. Neuhaus and Strat are totally orthodox.” Whether or not that is so, we are unable to take your word for it that they are beyond reproach, for, in your chapter on Hell in your Handbook of Christian Apologetics, you endorse the virtual annihilationism of Anglican C.S. Lewis, whose words you quote as follows: “Burn a log, and you have gases, heat and ash. To have been a log means now being those three things. If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?… What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man; it is ‘remains.’” Michael Pakaluk, whom you praise, reviewed your book in the May 1995 NOR and said about your endorsement of Lewis’s bizarre views, “This is not the orthodox Christian view….”

Indeed, you go on to say in your Handbook: “We probably should not think of the damned in hell as persons…. What is in hell is not a person any more, just as the ashes of a burned painting are not a painting any more. It was a painting, and the damned were persons.”

You summarized your views in one sentence in the National Catholic Register (Nov. 22, 1992): “In hell you make an eternal ash of yourself.” That’s cute, but we can’t imagine that that would put the fear of God into any immoral atheist for that’s pretty much what he expects. He’s made his wager, he’s had his fun, and in his view he comes out ahead. While you affirm the existence of something called Hell, we agree with Pakaluk that you “empty” it of its “content.”

You say in your letter that the NOR “attacked two…of the best warriors on our side” and that we are therefore “playing into the strategy of our Enemy.” Well, since you mention the Enemy: It is our opinion that the Enemy would be quite pleased with the gobbledygook Caldecott wrote and delighted with Neuhaus’s ruminations on behalf of a Hell devoid of human occupants (it’s been said that the Enemy’s cleverest wile is to convince men that he doesn’t exist; so imagine how thrilled he’d be to hear Christians asserting that no one goes to Hell!).

Caldecott’s article on evangelization pooh-poohed the prolife cause. Our article on Neuhaus was a response to his prior attack on the NOR. We trust you have already written Caldecott and Neuhaus, rebuking them for, as you put it, “introducing…’civil war’ division into the ranks of Christ’s warriors.”




The Bible Names People Who Are in Hell

In his letter (May), Jarlath Whalen quotes Richard John Neuhaus as saying in his book Death on a Friday Afternoon that “the Church has never definitively said who, if anyone, is in hell.” Well, the Bible, which the Church gave us, does identify Korah, Dathan, and Abiram by name as being in Hell: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Say to the congregation, Get away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.’ Then Moses rose and…. said to the congregation…. ‘Hereby you shall know that…. if these men die the common death of all men…then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol [Hell], then you shall know that these men have despised the Lord.’ And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split asunder; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households…. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished…” (Num. 16:23-33; RSV-Catholic Edition).

Istvan Varkonyi
New York, New York




You’re Jealous

Regarding your May editorial: You state that you were “appalled” and “horrified” when you read Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’s book supporting universal salvation. That someone who dies in mortal sin does not go to hell obviously makes you jealous — you don’t want to share heaven with everyone.

Christ died on the cross for the sins of everyone. Billions of men, women, and children have died to date. At the time of death, some had few sins, some an average amount of sins, some many sins, and some were tremendous sinners (Hitler, Stalin, serial rapists and murderers). Some asked for mercy, some didn’t.

God is with each and every one of us at all times during our lives. We are told that we have a guardian angel with us throughout our fives.

The hereafter is not a (“place,” since we are spirits and take up no space as we know it. Therefore hell does not exist. “Hell” was probably a word designed to frighten people, to keep them in line. Christians could be controlled by a religious hierarchy through fear. The hierarchy was harsh and demanding.

The just God issues the penalty for our sins. The merciful God offers hope to all. If God loves everyone, why would He forbid anyone from being with the all-loving God forever? Universal salvation must be true.

We find out our punishment for our sins at the time of death. After our punishment is completed, the merciful God takes us to our loving God to be with Him for all eternity.

Don Hopson
Cincinnati, Ohio




Why Would Satan Bother?

Regarding the controversy over Fr. Neuhaus and universal salvation in recent issues: I believe that there are souls who want no part of love in this life or the next. Some commit suicide or murder with their last breath just to prove that God has no power over them. (Some like the idea of cremating their bodies, oddly thinking that God will not be able to get them.) These people love hate and hate love, which seems to be a pretty good definition of the sin against the Holy Spirit. They get what they want — to spend eternity without love.

I would like to offer a Scripture passage that hasn’t been mentioned. Christ says: “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I am not the one to condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world, but to save it Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words already has his judge, namely, the word I have spoken — it is that which will condemn him on the last day” (Jn. 12:47-48). That should explain to Neuhaus how God can come to redeem us and still we might jump into Hell.

And there is another thing to consider: Since Satan opposed God and was able to convince the other fallen angels to follow him in his rebellion, then he probably could convince some of us — vastly inferior both intellectually and in our knowledge about God — to follow him.

Moreover, Satan surely knows God’s ways and purposes better than we men do. If Satan knows that no one will wind up in Hell, why would he bother to try to consume souls? Why wouldn’t he just give up?

Pete Goedicke
Houston, Texas




Deconstructing Neuhaus

Having read and pondered Fr. Neuhaus’s Death on a Friday Afternoon, as well as your article on it by Dale Vree (Jan.), as well as the follow-up letters (March and May), and the comments on the subject in the May and June issues, I am inclined to think that perhaps the deconstructionists are on to something when they suggest that it is the reader, not the author, who clothes a text with meaning. It seems that Vree and I read different books.

Vree insists, repeatedly, that Fr. Neuhaus promotes universalism — the belief that all will be saved. At the risk of proof-texting, he in fact denies that he is doing so (pp. 50, 67, 68). He is not promoting the proposition that all will be saved, but encouraging us to hope that God’s grace will make it so.

It is also remarkable that you give little attention to the book’s genre. Fr. Neuhaus does not offer here a work of fundamental dogmatic theology. Rather, the book is a meditation on the Seven Last Words. Good Friday, of all days of the year, is most especially the day to reflect on the depth and breadth of God’s mercy. No matter what there may be in anyone’s past the merits of the Holy Cross are enough to heal that past. As Fr. Neuhaus notes — and, probably, we all have perceived — sometimes there are those who seem to get lost again and again, and who seem to “decline to take the way home” (p. 225). But we know by faith that it is always possible that a soul as black as tar may become as white as snow. That is what it means to say that “absolutely nobody is beyond the loving reach of the Cross” (ibid.). How can it be contrary to authentic Catholic belief to hope that this possibility may become true for all? Might not charity demand this hope?

Finally, the hope that all may be saved is what gives me grounds to hope that I may be saved. Whatever inferences I may reasonably (or unreasonably) draw about anyone else, I cannot know whether that person is actually guilty of a mortal sin. I may know that the person has done something gravely evil. But I cannot know that the person did so freely, with full knowledge and full consent. But I do know, with certainty, that I have done gravely evil things with full knowledge and full consent. If all may be saved, then I may be saved.

Michael J. Sheridan, O.C.D.S.
Helena, Montana




DALE VREE REPLIES:

Fr. Neuhaus says on pages 50, 67, and 68 that we “cannot know” if all will be saved. I acknowledged that on page 28 of my article (Jan.). I also said that in these early pages of his book he “approaches the question” of universalism “cautiously.” But as the book progresses, these and other hedges gradually fall away. As I said, “He hems and haws, but finally answers yes, all are saved” (P. 28).

As for the line on page 225 of the book (“decline to take the way home”), I address that in my reply to Janet Holl Madigan in this issue. In the reply I also show how Neuhaus’s “hope” for universal salvation becomes an affirmation of universal salvation as such.

It has never been explained to me why writing a book of meditations allows one to take liberty with Catholic teaching. Indeed, Neuhaus alluded to such an allowance in his curt comment on his book in First Things (March 2001, P. 79). Still, in his Preface to his book, Neuhaus said that the book “is not entirely meditative, however. Arguments are also advanced, and there is some vigorous wrestling with traditional doctrine…” (p. A). Wrestling indeed! Our dictionaries show that “to wrestle” admits of various shades of meaning, the common one being an adversarial relationship with something or someone. Just so!

You may, if you wish, hope that all men be saved. But merely “hoping” that all are saved won’t save a single soul.

Which is why I find your last paragraph so troubling. You say that the hope that all are saved gives you hope that you will be saved. If you are depending on the salvation of everyone else to save you, your hope is very flimsy, to say the least. You say you “have done gravely evil things with full knowledge and full consent” (don’t be so vain as to think you’re the only one!). Well, if you have done those things, for Heaven’s sake repair to the Confessional, receive Christ’s absolution, and resolve never to do those things again. That’s how — and that’s supremely how — “a soul as black as tar” becomes “as white as snow.”




“Loving God, Mother of All”

Apropos of your April editorial on the hostile takeover of the (authentically Catholic) St. Ignatius Institute by the Jesuits’ University of San Francisco: My husband and I were in New York City in May. We attended Mass at St. Francis Xavier, the Jesuit church where I was baptized in 1943. Since I hadn’t been there since my Baptism, I was looking forward to it tremendously.

Since childhood I had been led to believe that the Jesuits were to the priesthood what the Marines are to the armed services — the best, the brightest, etc. But something has changed!

The Mass at St. Francis Xavier has left me reeling. The congregation was led in singing a “Gloria” whose words were in the bulletin. It began as follows: “Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s people on earth. Loving God, mother of all, Almighty God, creator…” (italics added). Note the striking contrast to the words of the Gloria as printed in the Missal: “Glory to God in the highest! Peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father…” (italics added).

Then there was a Baptism. Several women processed in, bearing jugs of water which they dumped into the font A woman led the ceremony, although the priest did bestow the sacrament The word “sin” was never mentioned. The baby was “welcomed into the community” ad nauseam, and the renewal of baptismal promises did not mention Satan, much less renounce his works and pomp. There were some vague references to being “washed clean” by the water, but it was never said from what. Afterwards, a woman marched around the church with a piece of greenery, sprinkling the congregation with holy water.

The congregation (except for us) stood for the entire Eucharistic Prayer.

Holy Communion was made of cubes of brown, chewy, leavened-and-flavored bread arranged in a basket. When I approached the priest and looked into it, I felt a split second of panic. Since I was receiving on the tongue, the priest chose a piece of the Host he had used at the Consecration — thank God! I’m not sure I could have received the other. No one (else) genuflected, bowed, or made the sign of the cross when receiving.

There were couples of apparently “gay” men all over the congregation, and two announcements in the bulletin about meetings for “gays” and lesbians of the parish.

I am so upset. How am I to react to all this? God forgive me, but I am so repelled.

Mrs. John R. Moore
Virginia Beach, Virginia




Public Education: A Disaster for Blacks

I am an African American, and was astonished by what the article “Alliance Promotes Vouchers” (USA Today, May 7) reported. It seems at long last for African Americans there is a light that promises us an opportunity to achieve meaningful freedom.

That fight is the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO). It is my understanding that BAEO is trying to achieve a goal that is equal to, if not surpassing in importance, the beneficial effect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. BAEO would like to provide to African American families the opportunity to meaningfully participate in and positively shape the American experience. By supporting school-voucher programs, BAEO is working to see that African American children gain ready access to a viable educational experience and thus not be left behind or continually subjected to an artificially contrived culture, developed in most part by those who make up this country’s “cultural Left.” That contrived culture in effect shouts to African American parents and children, “you are foul-mouthed, obscene, stupid buffoons, incapable of learning anything that has resulted from a successful and productive civilization.”

Incredible as it may be, BAEO appears to be the only significant African American organization that comprehends the frightening fact that we African Americans, after four to five hundred years on American soil, stiff do not correctly speak or correctly write the English language.

Are you shaking your head in amazement? Wait! There is more. Consider that during this same four-to-five-hundred-year time period (and right under the noses of those African Americans living at the time) the various immigrant groups who have come to America’s shores have seen their children grow up and learn to correctly speak and write English. Even as I write this letter, immigrants from around the world are arriving in America, and we can rest assured that the children of the new immigrants will grow up and correctly speak and write English. On the other hand, most African American adults and children will, I fear, still be awkwardly shuffling, stumbling, and mumbling about he-be and she-be. Add this to the nasty mix: Virtually every significant African American leader and/or organization (save BAEO) seems to be blissfully unconcerned about the above history and the present sorry state of affairs. Organizations and individuals such as the N.A.A.C.P., the National Urban League, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, et al. still “do not get it.” Instead, these organizations and individuals continue to do the bidding of their new masters, the cultural Left, and have grown obscenely self-satisfied.

Here’s a thought: What if they do indeed “get it”? Suppose it is their fear of losing the financial and media support of the cultural Left that has deadened their minds and kept “black leadership” supping at their new masters’ garbage trough.

The BAEO should ready itself for a full frontal assault as well as a back-stabbing attack from America’s “black leaders.” Count on it! The “black leadership,” morally deadened and blinded by its arrogance and avarice, will continue to defend the country’s inner-city public schools. The black leadership will refuse to acknowledge that, from the mid-1960s to date, funding for public education has increased upward, upward, and further upward, yet during the same time student test scores have plummeted downward, downward, and further downward. The black leadership seems intent on ignoring the fact that students in minority neighborhoods at Catholic schools routinely outperform those at public schools — and at half the cost!

The black leadership’s answer to this set of circumstances is to raise its collective head from the garbage trough and burp in unison, “feed me.” Yes, they ask for still more money for their ailing, failing public schools.

Making their actions and statements practically unforgiveable is the manner in which they haughtily ignore or brush aside the anguish of those African Americans who ache and plead for the opportunity to provide their children with a good, decent education. Catholic schools have been called “the greatest single engine of upward mobility for inner-city youth” (see the Catholic League’s Catalyst, May 2001). Yet the black leadership is too busy burping at the garbage trough to ask, “Why do our masters so ruthlessly disapprove of educational options for inner-city children?”

I propose that it is because the cultural Left has a mind-numbing fear of African Americans having access to the Judeo-Christian ethic! The cultural Left would prefer to keep the African American isolated and trapped in the inner-city sewers that they pass off as schools.

Here’s a hand and a prayer for BAEO. May God bless the work they do.

Carl L. Francis
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania




“Catholic Christians”: A Redundant Term

A term I tire of hearing is “Catholic Christians” (and I’m glad the NOR doesn’t use it). Never does one hear the term “Lutheran Christians” or “Baptist Christians” or “Methodist Christians” or the like. Only when referring to Catholics is such a locution used — as some sort of confirmation that, yes, Catholics are Christians too. When a Catholic uses the term “Catholic Christians,” he signals that he fails to understand that to be Catholic & to be Christian, and that that has been so from the earliest times of the Church. We Catholics do not need to be reassured that we are Christians.

Moreover, it’s nauseating to hear Catholics — especially priests — use the term “Catholic Christians,” for it implies that the multitude of Christian faiths are all equally fine, whereas any orthodox Catholic must know that they’re not.

James L. Cardinal
Minnetonka, Minnesota




Protestant Communion Services Are Valid Too

I am one of the few subscribers to your magazine who happens to be a Protestant (Presbyterian). I would like your readers to know that in the Protestant branch of Christianity the Sacrament of Holy Communion is just as valid as in the Catholic Church. It is the sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Your assertions of what the requirements allegedly are for the Sacrament to be valid (“Diversity Trumps the Eucharistic Christ,” New Oxford Notes, April) are nothing more than a transparent attempt to place your style of worship above those of others. The reality is that when Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior perform a Communion service, Christ Himself becomes present in the elements used for the Communion. His holy Presence is not physical in nature, rather it is psychological. Our Lord’s Presence exists as a psychological reality in the minds of the communicants, regardless of what church or denomination may be performing the Communion service.

The God I worship is a lot more powerful than any church, and His power is not limited by those who would attempt to monopolize Him for their own gain.

Michael P. Ricca
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania




The Body of Christ: Real Even to the Nonbeliever

In response to John J. Opre’s question (letter, May) about whether a person who receives the sacred Host from a Catholic priest but does not believe that it is the Body of Christ receives His Body, or just bread: The Catechism states that “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” (no. 1377). Moreover, number 1128 states that “‘the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God,’” that it acts “ex opere operato (literally: ‘by the very fact of the action’s being performed’)….” It follows that the unbelieving recipient receives the Body of Christ whether he believes it to be that or not.

The Church holds, however, that the benefits of Communion (as opposed to its nature) depend on the beliefs of the recipient: “the fruits of the sacraments…depend on the disposition of the one who receives them” (no. 1128). The sacraments “confer the grace that they signify,” but only if they are “celebrated worthily in faith” (no. 1127). Therefore, although Opre’s unbelieving recipient receives the Body of Christ, he receives no sacramental graces or benefits.

Alfred Thomas
Salem, Oregon




Just A Straw Man

Seldom have I seen so many words used to make such a small point as in John Hodge’s letter (March) attacking the Intelligent Design (ID) scientists.

Let’s see if I’ve got the idea. Hodge is a Catholic and a “believer” in Darwinian evolutionary theories. (He won’t like me to say that but that’s how I read him.) He is also a defender of the idea that science must stand on its own feet apart from theology. He devotes many words to this notion — too many. Nobody disputes it.

Hodge is aware that many “scientific” believers in Darwinian theory misuse those ideas in support of scientific materialism — i.e., atheism. But he is made very uncomfortable when a group of credentialed scientists (ID folks) dare question Darwinianism on scientific grounds.

How to deal with this problem? Presto! Set up a straw man for “scientific” destruction. ID folks are just simple-minded “creationists,” similar to amateurs in any other field! That takes care of them for Mr. Hodge. That, and slipping in a few phony “scientific facts,” such as the idea that fossil evidence supports Darwinian theory. He doesn’t see that his own attempt to divorce his “science” from human reasoning is his own dogma. His silly answer to his students that he thinks the Big Bang happened, but that he doesn’t “believe” in it, illustrates that. I feel bad for those students. That’s not science, it’s semantics.

The trouble is, that straw man is not what ID folks are at all. They are scientists and others who question the scientific reliability of Darwinian scientific materialism, and perforce the materialism of many supporters of Darwinian evolution who, on examination, prove to be not so open-minded themselves. ID people are not “creationists” or “materialists.” They know that evolutionary theories can be squared with belief in Intelligent Design. They are looking at the evidence. They say it’s dubious and that Intelligent Design is a more satisfactory scientific answer to the puzzle of the universe. That’s all. Keep working on it, Mr. Hodge. I’m sure that Benjamin Wiker’s piece in the same issue as your letter made you even angrier.

Albert Doyle
Sanibel, Florida




What “Just Punishments”?

In my early school years I was taught the Act of Contrition for Confession. Could the lack of confessions in recent years be due to a common revised version now being taught and used? Compare the original with the revised. The original follows:

“Oh, my God, I am most heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.”

Following is a common revised version:

“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you, and I detest all my sins because of your just punishments, but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.”

Note that the reference to “the loss of heaven and the pains of hell” is missing from the new version. If no concern is shown for the loss of heaven and the pains of hell (what does “just punishments” mean?), the revised Act of Contrition may be one more reason why weak Catholics neglect the opportunity for the graces that can flow from the sacrament

Ralph Piaskowski
Sun City, Arizona




A Non-Catholic Supports Excommunication

As a non-Catholic subscriber, I think Catholics (and Protestants) should excommunicate those members who are pro-abortion, especially those celebrities and politicians who so piously use God’s name and claim faith in Him yet support or advocate abortion. Stiff, excommunication is the last resort, when all other calls to repentance are ignored. It’s sad the churches don’t practice proper discipline of errant members today. St. Paul sets an example of church discipline: “Drive out the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:13).

When we excommunicate fellow church members, let it be done with sorrow. We know God doesn’t want anyone to perish, but He is also a Holy God who doesn’t wink at evil. We don’t want our fellow Christians to perish either, but we also must remember we’re to be conformed to Christ and not the world. Are we Christians more concerned with pleasing God than man?

The Church should threaten to excommunicate and carry out that threat when needed, and, most importantly, be merciful and consistent. Merciful, because God may cause a change of mind and heart in an excommunicated church member. Consistent, to let church members know that abortion is a heinous sin, and aiding, abetting, and advocating it is going to bring about serious consequences that will be carried out!

Mary De Young
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin




Tanning TAN’s Hide

I read with much interest the article by Mitchell Kalpakgian on St. Catherine Labouré and the Miraculous Medal (June), wherein he discussed a biography of the saint published by TAN Books.

Your readers might be interested to know that thanks to the !X#@*! Clinton Administration and its hostility to anything religious, TAN Books is in danger of being run out of business due to an impossibly high IRS judgment against TAN.

TAN has only asked for help from current customers. I am acting on my own to inform your readers of their plight. The only way for them to dig their way out of this mess is for more people to purchase books from them, thereby keeping them financially solvent.

To find out about the marvelous Catholic books they offer, visit their Web site at www.tanbooks.com or call them at 800-437-5876.

Marie Wagenaar
Middletown, Delaware




Joyce Kilmer Fans…

Thank you for your insightful review of my book, Joyce Kilmer. A Literary Biography (June). Since the book is not available in bookstores, readers who wish to order it should visit www.write-fit comm.com, where an order form is available.

John E. Covell
Brunswick, Georgia




Two Corrections

I noticed two errors in my article “Let’s Abolish Most Catholic Colleges & Universities” (June). The first is on page 20, which gives the title of Richard Bernstein’s book as Dictionary of Virtue. The accurate title (which was correctly cited in the manuscript) is Dictatorship of Virtue.

The second error is in the introductory sentence to the long quotation from Alasdair MacIntyre on page 27. It states that MacIntyre is describing Catholic colleges, whereas, in fact he is simply describing his conception of the ideal university. This is my error.

Marian E. Crowe
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana



Back to July-August 2001 Issue