________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Unjust and uncharitable
Like most of your readers in England, I deplore the article “Changes at Party Headquarters” which appeared in your July, 2000 issue. The statement that under Cardinal Hume “the church’s administration was governed by his personal whim,” I hold to be unjust and uncharitable. One has only to read his books to be assured that he was a man of prayer and believed that those who were ordained and appointed to lead any part of Christ’s flock would be guided by grace. It is natural, alas, that those whose ambitions are disappointed should ascribe their frustration to bad qualities in the leader who has decided.
In this whole diatribe Peter Shaughnessy specifies only one example of a mistaken decision by Cardinal Hume, his protection of Sister Lavinia Byrne. The rest is innuendo.
I am glad that Mr. Shaughnessy welcomes the appointment of Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor to Westminster, but let him disappoint or frustrate any hopeful person, and the likes of Mr. Shaughnessy will promptly change their tune. In his article O’Shaughnessy states that Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor had been groomed for the Westminster post, but is careful not to say who groomed him.
What I write in no way implies lack of confidence in our new archbishop. He, of course, will seek and receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We all have a duty to pray for that guidance to be granted to him.
—Mary A. Lynch
London, England
Peter Shaughnessy’s report was certainly opinionated, and many (although by no means “most”) of our English readers disagreed with his opinions. But we do not believe that it is “unjust and uncharitable” to raise questions about a prelate’s administrative style.
—The Editor
Accurate and balanced?
I have read the less than favorable commentary on Cardinal Hume. I just wonder: do those who knew the Cardinal recognize the person as described in Peter Shaughnessy’s article, and how accurate and balanced it is?
I realize that Shaughnessy’s views do not conform to everyone’s perceptions, but if everyone had the same view, life would be dull. By the same token, having great admiration for Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor, I wonder if he is entitled to all the adulation accorded to him in the light of recent disclosures.
—John Donnelly
Dublin, Ireland
The “recent disclosures” in question involve the way Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor, in a previous episcopal assignment, handled the case of a priest who had been accused of pedophilia. As our correspondent suggests, those disclosures raise legitimate questions about the administrative record of the new archbishop as well.
—The Editor
In defense of Cardinal Hume
I write with some concern about Peter Shaughnessy’s article “Changes at Party Headquarters.” He obviously contacted the usual complainers in his Diocese of Westminster, but how many other priests of the diocese did he contact?
I declare an interest. Cardinal Hume was my bishop and my friend for twenty-three years. He ordained me a priest twenty years ago, and from 1988 until 1994 I had the honor of serving as his private secretary. The cardinal as portrayed in the article is not the person that I lived and worked with, respected, and admired. The man I knew was not autocratic, though he was certainly prepared to make decisions when required. Obviously not all of his decisions enjoyed universal popularity.
On just one point of fact, I must point out an inaccuracy, especially as your writer makes so much of it. While the Cardinal was a monk at Ampleforth, he served as a teacher, a housemaster, and then from 1963 as Abbot. He was never headmaster. It seems to me that when details such as this, which are in the public forum, are researched in such a perfunctory manner, it does rather undermine the rest of the article.
The whole story of Cardinal Hume’s years at Westminster will only be revealed when the documents and archives are published. Until then De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
—Rev. U.G. Brady
Middlesex, England
For the record, the article never did identify Cardinal Hume as headmaster of Ampleforth. Peter Shaughnessy characterized the late cardinal as displaying the temperment of “an irascible headmaster.” That characterization may be disputed, but it cannot be dismissed as an inaccuracy.
—The Editor
From whence future priests?
Peter Shaughnessy in his article regarding Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor, in your July 2000 issue, gave a list of the “kinds of candidates” the Archbishop regarded as unsuitable for the priesthood, which included “homosexuals.”
The problem with that is that, according to two articles in the April 24, 1999 issue of the English Tablet, “a disproportionate number of homosexuals are being recruited into our (English) seminaries.” This is a claim made by a Tablet correspondent who writes under the name of Pastor Ignotus. He further claimed that he “knew of one seminary where, two years ago, sixty percent of the students identified themselves as ‘gay.’”
The other article was by Annabel Miller who stated that “One criticism often made of the current seminary intake is that it is largely homosexual, and the resulting ethos of the seminary causes the heterosexuals to leave.” With the result that, as a report to the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in 1994 by Father David Smith made clear, “the image of the seminary is compromised.”
So from where is our new archbishop of Westminster to draw his future priests? Perhaps he could allow the Priestly Society of St. Peter to, at last, enter his Archdiocese and help him out.
—Phil Allen
Bristol, England
If in fact the seminaries are driving out heterosexual candidates, the solution surely is to reform those seminaries, rather than simply to seek candidates elsewhere.
—The Editor
Focus on
Argentina’s First Lady?
I have been reading Catholic World Report for several years and sincerely feel that this is a unique source of information on Catholic life in the United States and the world. Congratulations for your good editorship.
I read with special interest, in the July 2000 issue, the article entitled “Shifting Winds: Is Argentina Lost to the Pro-Life Cause?” I’m originally from Argentina and read all the news about the country with extreme interest. I would say that the author of this article, Alejandro Bermudez, described the situation in the country vis-à-vis the question of abortion and pro-life with precision. I have a problem, however, with the last line of the paragraph where there is a reference to Miss Liliana Chiernajovsky, the wife of Argentina’s new vice president, Carlos Alvarez, concerning her attitude toward abortion. I wonder why only one person has been singled out in the article. Is it for political or religious reasons? This is an important distinction in a country where nearly a hundred people died in the explosion at the Jewish Community Center and the profanation of Jewish cemeteries is common.
—Rabbi Leon Klenicki
New York, New York
Chiernajovsky was the single person mentioned because she occupies a position of singular influence.
—The Editor
Chance or design?
Your article in the July, 2000 issue, “A New Scientific Revolution” raises problems for me, a Catholic biological scientist. Like most biologists I am convinced of the essential truth of Darwinian evolutionary theory. This need not conflict with our belief in an intelligent creator. He created natural selection and “chance” mutations as his mechanism for the evolution of species including man. He could plan and foresee this result. So what’s the problem? “Chance” provides an open window for God to intervene undetected.
—Douglas Darcy Kent, England
“Chance” can be used as an explanation for many things. But isn’t it a goal of science to provide logical explanations for natural phenomena, and thereby gradually to whittle down the scope of what we attribute to chance?
—The Editor
Philosophers paved way for science
I was much impressed, and like many others, I predict, vastly pleased by the space you gave to the new argument of science for the existence of God using the existence and complexity of molecular biology findings.
I think that, in justice, we should keep in mind that Catholics, and others ignorant of modern science, were there first. As philosophers they did not begin with the Bible but with pure reason. They pointed to the evidence of design and stressed that design is a product of non-materialistic thinking and therefore points to a mind. Since design is so extensive and compliant, it supposes a mind that must be infinite. So there’s God.
Ours is the heyday of science and we may rejoice in this new approach of scientists to the question of God’s existence. But it remains that in justice we take into account that philosophers “got there first.” I admire your work.
—Rev. James P. Kelleher
Naples, Florida
Intelligent design and creationism
Had Pope John Paul II used the likes of Dean Kenyon (“A New Scientific Revolution,” July 2000) he would not have issued his 1996 statement that evolution is “more than just a theory.” Once evolution—with “survival of the fittest” and much suffering and death—is accepted as a proven fact it is easy to dispense with a God directing the process. Supporters of intelligent design and creationists appropriately have mutual respect. In looking for Of Pandas and People (Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon), it is not surprising to find it in the catalog of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) along with Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and books by Philip E. Johnson. That section of the catalog did include a statement that some material contains theological and/or scientific material with which readers might not agree.
Although a Catholic, having a Ph.D. in Biopsychology, and an M.D., I am more inclined to favor the creationists’ young earth model. Science cannot prove (as in the law of gravity) either evolution or creation or their variant models to be correct. But one can compare the scientific data with models; for instance, the second law of thermodynamics and the lack of transitional fossil forms are consistent with creationism but not evolution.
The ICR grants M.S. degrees and is involved in both research and evaluations. They also maintain a museum in San Diego County where the creationist and evolutionary models are compared. A book should be published this year by the RATE group which will address the obviously relevant topic of radioisotopes and the age of the earth. Perhaps it is time for Pope John Paul II to get advice from intelligent design and creationist scientists.
—Frank Grabarits
San Diego, California
It is important to note that while Pope John Paul said that evolution is “more than just a theory,” he did not indicate support for the Darwinian explanation for the process of evolution.
—The Editor
Letters Policy
The Catholic World Report encourages readers to contribute their own reflections, either responding to editorial material or reflecting on world affairs. CWR reserves the right to edit letters for publication.
Letters are limited to 400 words, and must include the writer’s name and address.
Please send letters to: Box 1608, So. Lancaster, MA 01561.
Back to Catholic World Report - October 2000 - Table of Contents
Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page