Volume > Issue > Letter to the Editor: May 1993

May 1993

A Neighbor Across the Fence

Assuming the verity of Edwin Fussell’s article on Henry James’s “literary Cathol­icizing” (Jan.-Feb. 1993), I consider his categorizing Willa Cather with James unwarranted. Her Death Comes for the Archbishop and Shadows on the Rock derive from the wellspring of an unabashed interest in religious history. Her brushes with Ca­tholicism elsewhere — Bohe­mian, Irish, French — simply reflect a broad Midwestern neighborliness. Like the late Vida Dutton Scudder, who explored the Franciscan adven­ture and the spirituality of Catherine of Siena, Cather was, at least in her New York years, a devout Anglo-Catholic.

Msgr. Francis Schmitt

St. Aloysius Church

West Point, Nebraska

Who 'Gnos'?

Regarding John S. McDon­ald’s guest column, “A Jeffer­sonian Catholicism?” (Jan.-Feb. 1993): Is it possible that Mc­Donald, in claiming to spot signs of gnosticism in the Catholic Church in the U.S., is himself an example of a form of gnosticism? He seems to “gno” that when an assembly stands for the Eucharistic Prayer it is because of some theological or pastoral aberra­tion. He “gnos” that when “the dignity of the Christian as redeemed in Christ” is eagerly affirmed it is because “we” have difficulty accepting the fact that “all have sinned.” He even “gnos” what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said, “there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.”

I am pastor of a parish with some 1,400 households with all the responsibilities and excitement that entails. If gnosticism is a threat to the Catholic Church in America, then I am willing to confront it to the best of my ability — but not at the behest of an inside agitator with such an unimpor­tant ax to grind. McDonald’s self-indulgent (albeit well-writ­ten) column was nothing more than a shallow exercise in peevishness.

Fr. Joseph A. Fata

St. Luke's Catholic Church

Youngstown, Ohio

Clarifying Vatican II

I have nearly finished reading a book which I judge to be a milestone in my intel­lectual life (assuming that the next marker will not be my gravestone!). The author is John F. Kobler, a priest of the Passionist Order who spent about 12 years exclusively studying the Second Vatican Council and its background. The book is Vatican II: Theopha­ny and the Phenomenon of Man, published in 1991 by Peter Lang.

Thanks to this book, the purpose and meaning of Vati­can II are now clear to me, in a way which explains why I have felt, until now, somewhat confused about it. No doubt the book is too old for you to review now, but it really ought to be brought to your readers’ attention — if they have any faith that God Himself contin­ues to come to mankind’s rescue through Church coun­cils.

Dom Julian Stead

Portsmouth Abbey

Portsmouth, Rhode Island

Coercion By Any Other Name

I look forward to Robert Bellah’s essays in the NOR because of the clarity and common sense with which he writes. But I was surprised by the obscurity and inconsistency in his latest article, “Out­rageous Thoughts on War and Peace” (March 1993).

What, precisely, is the “logic of peace” Bellah pro­poses? He vaguely describes it as “leadership through exam­ple and persuasion, not coer­cion” and as “the active pur­suit of right relations among human beings.” How are we actively to pursue right rela­tions without coercion?

Bellah wants to put “enormous pressure” on na­tions to end nuclear testing. What is the difference between “enormous pressure” and coer­cion, and how is this distin­guished from “war thinking”? He also likes a U.N. peace­keeping force “with teeth.” What is the point of teeth but coercion? Why does the contemplated use of military force by the U.N. qualify as peace thinking, but any use of U.S. military power qualify as war thinking? The U.S. is supposed to become a “leader in creating an effective international consensus that war is an unacceptable instrument of policy.” How is this consensus to be effective? How will Bellah convince Saddam Hus­sein and the Serbs that war is unacceptable?

David M. Tye

Annunciation Society

Woburn, Massachusetts

Let's Be Responsible - Take I

Mark W. Roche does a nice job of finding “Incon­sistencies in the Abortion De­bate” in his article of that title in the March 1993 issue. But in do­ing so he seems to have pro­duced one of his own when he wrote, “It is especially ironic that the rhetoric of protest which surfaces in the pro-choice position — affirmation of the rights of the disenfranchised — is not extended beyond the self to one of its most worthy and fragile objects: Our responsibil­ities toward future generations are ignored.”

Children who are born into the world unwanted, un­loved, undernourished, and uncared for point to the gross­est conceivable irresponsibility. It is precisely responsibility toward future generations that is the point.

Henry J. Schultz

Saugus, California

Let's Be Responsible - Take II

Mark W. Roche, in his ar­ticle “Inconsistencies in the Abortion Debate” (March 1993), considers it inconsistent for prolifers to be uninterested in universal health insurance, state-funded assistance for poor mothers, substantial social as­sistance, etc. I would suggest that Roche call a spade a spade, and acknowledge that he has introduced his liberal ideology into, and thereby diluted, the tragedy of abortion.

Universal health insurance has nothing to do with wheth­er one knows abortion is mur­der. Being the Chief of Derma­tology at our “charity hos­pital,” I would argue vehe­mently that the notion of universal health insurance is nothing more than a smokescreen invented and used by the media to cover up personal irresponsibility in our society. The patients in our “charity” system receive health care that is astoundingly excellent and complete, thereby rendering pointless the socio-political interventions suggested by Roche.

Instead, Roche should have suggested that individual responsibility again be made a priority, not to the disdain of the concept of “Love Thy Neighbor” but to enforce self-reliance. To maintain the lower socio-economic strata by re­peated swollen handouts is to maintain the status quo. A pearl is born of irritation; the heart is strengthened by stress and exercise.

Patrick R. Carrington, M.D.

Shreveport, Louisiana


I have subscribed to the NOR for a year, after seeing your ad in The Nation claiming the NOR is a magazine based on the idea that there is no conflict between faith and intel­lect.

As someone new to the Catholic Church, I was eager to see how Catholic intel­lectuals deal with issues of faith and dogma, and the public and religious issues of our day.

I have been disappointed and will not be renewing my subscription. I think your mag­azine would be better de­scribed as devotional literature written by people with ad­vanced degrees. I found an anti-intellectual spirit in much of what I read. And I also found a sarcastic and “them-­against-us” attitude toward people, both inside and out­side the Church, who do not follow orthodox lines.

You seem to believe that all Catholics support the Church’s “no abortion ever” stance; where I expected to read thoughtful articles about the problems with the theo­logical basis for the Church’s position, I found nothing. So too with the ordination of women. Your review of Eu­nuchs for the Kingdom of God, a scholarly book despite its polemical tone, dismissed the book for its stridency and ignored the serious issues it raised about sexist distortions in Church teachings.

But I also found the NOR troubling in how it dealt with questions of faith and dogma. I found many of the articles had a “holier-than-thou” tone re­flecting the author’s proud devotion to the old ways, to the pope, to a literal interpreta­tion of Transubstantiation (for example). Since most of Church dogma was developed during the Middle Ages, when our understanding of the universe and matter was dif­ferent from what it is today, is it too much to think that an intellectual Catholic review might address these questions? I find many of the formula­tions in Catholic dogma too literal and reflective of the epistemology of an earlier era. The NOR seems to take the line that anyone who feels this way is a heretic. I find this a strange attitude in a publica­tion that touts itself as “intellectual.”

Anne Pilsbury

Brooklyn, New York

'Prolife' Not Accurate

In his article in the March 1993 issue, “Inconsistencies in the Abortion Debate,” Mark W. Roche bashes our nation’s media for referring to “anti-abortionists” when the correct term is, he feels, “prolifers.” But the terminology he prefers would be quite inaccurate.

For example, he admits that many opponents of abort­ion irrationally favor capital punishment. Why wouldn’t he disqualify these people from using the term “prolife”? Roche makes no reference to those “prolifers” who support the unrestrained traffic in, and proliferation of, guns and ammunition in a nation that has consistently witnessed the highest per capital murder rates among industrial socie­ties. The “prolife” title is clear­ly not warranted here.

The trouble with the “prolife” term is not so much with its inconsistencies as with its inaccuracy.

Michael J. Zavacky

Shippensburg, Pennsylvania

Celebrating the Conception of Jesus

Mark P. Shea, in his article “Examining a Manichaean Ap­proach to Abortion” (April 1993), rightly points to the fundamen­tal importance of the conception of Jesus for the Christian understanding that life begins at conception.

Before King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I banned caroling except at Christmas, it was the custom to sing carols throughout the year. Especially in the spring near Annuncia­tion time it was the custom to go a-caroling. Costumed mummers went from house to house singing joyous Annunci­ation carols.

On Annunciation day, March 25, exactly nine months before Christmas, Christians traditionally observe both the announcement of the Incarna­tion and the conception of Christ. But in our times we remember the former but have more or less forgotten the latter. Shouldn’t we remember more vividly that Jesus began His human life at His concep­tion, nine months before His birth? Even though He was God, He chose to begin His life at conception. By becoming man in this way, He showed us that not only are the lives of born babies valuable, but also the lives of babies from the moment of their conception.

Although no imperious monarch prevents us from doing so, we no longer sing carols on Christ’s conception day. If we had continued to understand the meaning of this day, and had continued to sing out our belief that Christ’s human life began at concep­tion, perhaps legal abortion would not have gained the foothold it has today. Can it be that we will have to celebrate March 25 again in order to get rid of abortion?

Helen Dietz

Oak Park, Illinois

You May Also Enjoy

Whoop-dee-do: A Catholic Bishop on MTV

The Diocese of Providence must be desperate again; it's gone back to advertising on the salacious rock music network.

A New Approach for the Prolife Movement

Let's form an environmental group with a novel approach to prolife goals. Let it be known as Project EARTH, or Extend Animal Rights to Humans.

New Oxford Notes: June 2000

Lame Excuse... "It's a Dog's Life"?... Idiocy Undisturbed... Some Are More Diverse Than Others... The Chickens Come Home to Roost... Clerical Privilege: Back With a Vengeance?... An Apology for the Crucifixion?