The report from the Holy Land that appeared in your January issue (“Facing a Christmas Crisis”) made a reference to “the recurring image” of a poster that showed “a small child clutching a stone, facing an Israeli tank.” I was disappointed that this picture, which your reporters compared to the famous shot of the Chinese freedom-fighter in Tiananmen Square, was not published with the article. I have not seen the picture anywhere else. Is it available?

—Philip T. Tierney
Barrington, Rhode Island

The photograph in question did not reach us in time for publication in our January issue. We are happy to provide it herewith.

—The Editor

Forgotten Christian brothers

Your front cover picture and query, “Is the Christian Presence Disappearing from the Holy Land?” (December 2000) —with Israeli Jewish soldiers eyeing Palestinian Muslims at prayer—is an immense consolation to those of us laboring to help Palestinian Catholics/ Christians in the Holy Land. It is an uphill battle, but your rather in-depth coverage and the accurate reporting by Nicholas Jubber and Michael Hurst (which also appears in the January 2001 issue) is quite remarkable for a monthly Catholic periodical. Such coverage alone is, in my opinion, an act of ecclesial charity and solidarity by letting Christians in the West know that the suffering members of the mystical Body of Christ need our support. Keep the coverage coming!

—Father Alex Kratz, OFM
Southfield, Michigan

Concerned about sanctity

I just read the article, “The Gay Priest Problem,” in your November issue. I appreciate your candor and your direct style. I hope that many bishops, vocation directors, and seminary officials will also read it and reflect on this sad reality. As a diocesan priest, I am very concerned about the sanctity of the priesthood.

When I was in the seminary (St. Meinrad’s in Indiana), the thesis was that one’s orientation was not important, but that all were called to holiness and celibacy. There is some truth to that notion. I am a heterosexual man and I know that I must maintain professional and pastoral boundaries with all, especially with women. Temptations will come, but through a life of grace one can live a chaste life. What greatly concerns me—and you address this in your article—is the gay priests who do not believe, teach, or live the Church’s teaching on sexuality. In some cases they even ridicule it. This is very troubling. How can one disregard the Church’s teaching and be a shepherd of souls?

I am also troubled by the general laxity of the bishops. I know that confrontation is not a pleasurable activity for most, but there is certainly a need for some correction. As a pastor, my position requires some pastoral challenge. In some ways, the gay priests are like the problem teenagers who were never disciplined and never learned respect. Their emphasis is on self and self-satisfaction, which is quite contrary to the witness of our Savior and the martyrs of the Church. We are in need of bishops who have pastoral zeal, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, or St. Polycarp, or St. Cyprian, or St. Ambrose. I agree with you that it is disappointing to hear nothing but the glowing praise for someone like Father Thom Savage, while nothing is mentioned about his unfortunate shortcomings and sinful behavior. I pray that priests will seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

—Father Mark S. Lawlor
Jefferson, North Carolina

A disciple of St. Paul

Congratulations to Father Paul Shaughnessy for an objective, direct, and well documented essay. In these days where “PC” Catholics have gone “AWOL” and liberal Catholics see it as their duty to reform (destroy) the Church on behalf of the adversary, it’s a real joy to read this essay that calls things by their proper name, exposes some of the main characters responsible for this problem, and lays the blame squarely where it belongs. Father Shaughnessy has shown himself to be a true disciple of Paul when it comes to confronting and denouncing Church problems. He knows full well that by his actions he has become a lightning rod for the attacks of the adversary and bring to full light the extent of this corrosive problem. I’m certain his essay will become a catalyst for its eventual solution.

Again congratulations to Father Shaughnessy for choosing to acknowledge Jesus before men (cf. Mt 10, 32) rather than allowing himself to be seduced by the snares of this world.

—Manuel Perez
El Paso Texas

Destroying what is Catholic

The article by Father Paul Shaughnessy on homosexuals in the priesthood is an outstanding discussion of this tragic problem. Father Shaughnessy is to be commended for his courage, and for the clarity and honesty of his analysis. An institution has become corrupt, he says, “when its guiding spirit mysteriously shifts away from the morally intrepid few, and with that shift the institution becomes more interested in protecting itself against outside critics than in tackling the problem members who subvert its mission.” This description evidently applies, with breathtaking accuracy, to the Church today.

Homosexuality in the priesthood is one (and perhaps the most serious) of the scourge of problems which afflicts the Church today: the trashing of the traditional rite, the cries for married priests and woman priestesses, the destruction of traditional church interiors in the name of “restoration,” the mass defection of Catholics from the practice of their faith, the decimation of the religious orders and the priesthood, the abandonment of the religious habit (by both priests and religious), and so on. The basic approach exemplified by Father Shaughnessy’s article may well be applicable to other problems in the Church.

One cannot help but suspect that the suppression of the traditional Mass—what St. Pius X called the “indispensable font”—was the crucial initial disaster. As a convert I am struck that there has been a powerful and successful effort to “protestantize” the Catholic Church. A dialogue liturgy in the vernacular, married clergy, women clergy, clerical roles for the laity: all these things appear to work in Protestantism, and one should not criticize their acceptance there. But Catholicism is completely different—not another “denomination”—and all of these innovations appear to have a nearly lethal effect on the practice of the Catholic faith.

—Sanborn F. Philp
Pittsfield, Massachusetts

A caution: Father Shaughnessy did not suggest that the Church is corrupt; he argued that the American episcopate has become corrupt."

—The Editor

Editor’s note
Because my editorials from both the December and January issues focused on the same topic—the pro-life cause on the American political scene—we have here combined letters written in response to both editorials.

Master the media

It was good that you wrote what you did in your editorial (“Back in the Saddle,” December 2000). It was good it was published in a reputable journal such as yours. We should more often have the facts as you expressed them honestly in your own situation. There is something we need urgently to hear in the US: money and power (influence) talk. We have the equivalent of a propaganda ministry in the mass media. So a person in your situation has to be utterly pragmatic and realistic in facing the public. We need to connect with the money and power of good people to get across a message such as you had. It’s too bad that people with your aspirations don’t seem to understand that, in this very materialistic world in which we live. You honestly stated that you “never” issued a public statement that did not allude to the abortion issue; you sought no endorsement except that of the state’s largest pro-life organization. Political astuteness is necessary.

We have gone too far from our original domestic aspirations of the 18th century. We have lost our moral compass. The actions of President Bill Clinton are nothing more than the epitome of the social manifestations of our time: lying, concupiscence, dysfunctional family life, violence, profanity, etc. Remember what George Washington said in his Farewell Address: if we want to be a strong country, it must be moral. Later he added that religion and morality are inseparable.

What is the remedy? We Catholic Americans need to be involved, and not hidden in a closet. We need to be involved directly in the media, newspapers, news journals, television, and so forth if we are to extend the good news of Jesus.

—Joseph Jackson
Murray Hill, New Jersey

Editorial pabulum

Your December editorial regarding the Catholic pro-abortion vote was on target. Your backpedaling in the January issue was mush. If this is your example of moral courage under fire, then you have the answer to the Catholic pro-abortion vote. Your response was a political, not a reform, statement.

If, as you say, the December editorial should not be read as addressing the “hierarchy,” “bishop,” “priest,” or “clergy,” then who is left? As a matter of fairness, ought not “religious” and “laity” also be included in your exclusion from criticism so that the pabulum “all” offends no one? What the reform does not need is more pabulum.

An axiom in business is that when “all” have responsibility, then no one has responsibility. The first moral responsibility is to teach. When God made his covenant with Abraham, God began by teaching the need for moral perfection. The reform cannot succeed until the teaching is engaged.

Abortion first is a moral, then a political issue, in that order. The teaching office on the moral law rests with the bishops. The application of the law into society rests with the laity. Moral teaching must precede social action. When the clergy don’t teach, the laity don’t learn. The moral confusion regarding abortion did not begin with Roe v. Wade but with the wholesale rejection of Humanae Vitae by moral theologians, followed by weak bishops and confused clergy.

When is the last time, as an adult, that you heard a good homily or a diocesan teaching on Humanae Vitae or the evils of contraception or the moral argument on how contraception leads to abortion?

The popes, from Leo XIII to John Paul II, have been laying out an impeccable moral blueprint for a deep moral re-ordering of society. The encyclicals stress, as have Pope John Paul’s numerous messages in his pastoral trips throughout the world, the urgency of implementing the social principles into social infrastructures. If the social doctrine is so urgent—and it is!—why isn’t it being taught?

The responsibility for teaching belongs to the Church. The responsibility for implementation belongs to the laity. A hundred years later, the local churches are still silent, and laity are still ignorant.

The pabulum “all” won’t cut it. The local churches have not taught and the laity have not learned. The proof is in the fruit of the tree. The election of 2000 was the fruit of a failure to teach faithfully both the moral and the social law.

If you plan to respond in the manner that you did with David V. Shelby’s letter on St. Thomas More, please don’t. You missed his point entirely. More died for the very specific principle that the pope is the head of Christendom, not kings. I have read no commentary, except here, that he went to the guillotine [sic] because King Henry VIII was not sufficiently dedicated to the Gospel. Your lame response to defend your position belittles a good magazine and Christian humility. We all goof occasionally. It’s part of our human condition. A good response is to acknowledge the error forthrightly and thank the messenger.

—James P. Martin
(no return address)

Since a “lame” response would be so unwelcome to James Martin, let me answer plainly. His letter is a farrago of nonsense.

My January editorial did not exclude bishops and priests from the scope of my criticism. I merely made the point that I was not criticizing only the clergy. That, it seems, is the point that offends Mr. Martin.

The essential thrust of my January editorial was that every adult Catholic should ask himself what he has done to stop abortion. (Is that suggestion so abstract as to constitute “pabulum?” Aren’t the Ten Commandments equally abstract—until they are applied to an individual’s rigorous examination of his own conscience?) And if he answers that question by saying that “the bishops” have not done enough, then he has shirked his own moral responsibility.

CWR has criticized the American bishops on many grounds (including the failure to promote Humanae Vitae). But the suggestion that the bishops have been silent on the abortion issue is simply untenable. The bishops, both as individuals and as a group, have issued literally scores of statements condemning abortion. Everyone knows where the Church stands on this issue.

Yes, absolutely, bishops and priests could and should do more to underline the gravity of this problem. (Again, my December editorial applies to all Catholics, bishops and priests included.) But if bishops are guilty of failure to act decisively—and I shall not absolve them—they are no more culpable than laymen who do nothing to fight the abortion culture, but seek to justify their inaction by blaming someone else.

And by the way, if St. Thomas More died for upholding the abstract principle that the pope is the head of Christendom, then he was not a martyr. On what possible basis could a rational man choose to die for that principle, except out of love for the Church, founded on the Word of God: that is, the Gospel?

—The Editor

Self-interested voters

The state of the American culture does indeed mirror the state of the Catholic Church. Catholics don’t believe the same things, so it follows that they have no unifying or galvanizing political issues. Action follows belief.

A large segment of the Catholic population is mired in selfishness. As a bloc, older Catholics might be concerned with life on a spiritual level, but Social Security and the fear of losing benefits sent them to the polls. The abortion issue had nothing to offer them since they are past child-bearing.

Middle-aged Catholics might be comfortable with the status quo and don’t seem particularly interested in saving the culture. As long as they feel they are good people, why should they have to prove it? (“I’m OK, you’re OK; leave me alone.”) Anyway, by voting for Gore, they are “helping” all the diverse groups in his litany of victims. In addition, many believe it is incorrect to be a “one-issue” voter, right?

Younger Catholics—the newest voters—have always had abortion as a legal option. Most have never clearly heard the Church’s teaching on it. (How many catechists talk about the Didache?) These young adults are reaping the benefits of the “spirit” of Vatican II, which replaced actual religious education for many. They were likely catechized by ill prepared catechists, or by those who teach from a skewed philosophy that soft-pedaled most moral doctrine.

Yes, if all Catholics knew and believed what the Church teaches, we would not be in this fix—either spiritually or politically.

—Mary K. Hazen
Champaign, Illinois

A Jewish court takes action

Like editor Philip Lawler, I was disappointed that so many Catholics chose the pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage Democratic candidates.

It should not escape us that on October 18, an Orthodox Jewish Torah Court in New York City excommunicated Senator Joseph Lieberman from Orthodox Judaism based on his support of abortion and same-sex marriage. The mass media were quiet about that.

How long will the Catholic hierarchy stand by and let the likes of Sen. Ted Kennedy, a nominal Catholic, flaunt the moral teachings of the Catholic Church? Although Kennedy has excommunicated himself in all probability, a formal Church excommunication would serve as a wake-up call to Catholics, reminding them that there are indeed penalties—right here on earth—for following this path and supporting evil.

—Daniel J. Barton
Fayetteville, North Carolina

For the record we should point out that the action by the Torah Court did not have any effect on Senator Lieberman’s own congregation. If a Catholic bishop announced the excommunication of a nominally Catholic politician, the impact would be much more dramatic.

—The Editor

A picture worth 1,000 words The final point in your campaign-report editorial was exactly right: We cannot expect reform in society at large until we achieve reform within our Church.

The New York Times’ picture image of New York’s new Archbishop grinning among four pro-abortion politicians (Giuliani, Clinton, Bush, and Gore) at the Al Smith Dinner, during the campaign season, was appalling evidence of this. And the publication of that image to the whole of society was not redeemed by his plaintive letter, read to the tiny minority from parish pulpits.

Your editorials are a tonic to the besieged, as indeed was your Massachusetts campaign effort—even to a New Yorker. It’s a joy to have you back.

—John J. Johnston, Jr.
North Salem, New York

Different Catholic voters have made different judgments (as illustrated by the two letters that follow) regarding the depth of President Bush’s commitment to the pro-life cause. These are judgments based on political analysis rather than on moral principle, and it is wrong to suggest that Catholics are obligated to accept any particular prudential judgment. Still, it is an exaggeration to say that Bush is “pro-abortion.”

— The Editor

Criticized for holding to principle

Your December editorial about your pro-life stand in the 2000 elections moved me very deeply. The January editorial (“The Center Cannot Hold”) has moved me to write this letter to you. As a family we have belonged to the New York state Right to Life Party since its beginning days. This has not been for political reasons, but only to be able to choose candidates for election who are 100 percent pro-life. We have always believed that we had to do our best to make sure we were voting in conformity with our faith. Even if our candidate didn’t win the election, we looked at it as if we had still won in the sight of God because our votes were cast for the purpose of doing God’s will.

In the 2000 elections there were two pro-life candidates. New York’s Right to Life Party chose to support Pat Buchanan. Up to the time of this election, most of our friends had been voting for New York’s Right to Life Party. But the week before this election we started receiving phone calls from friends advising us not to waste our vote on Buchanan. We were told that if Gore got it, it would be our fault. We were amazed at how angry people got with us when we reaffirmed our stand with Buchanan. A priest friend whom we love very much became very angry with us and informed us that as Catholics we were obligated to vote for Bush. Needless to say, with what transpired after the election, people have continued to let us know their displeasure with us.

Your editorials came as a light in the darkness for us. You have helped us to hold fast to the truth in its fullness.

—Linda Johnson
Branchport, New York

Where are the bishops?

Your Catholic World Report does excellent work in enlightening your readers relative to events of great import on the Catholic scene. I find you consistently effective in pleading the cause of human life. Your work is an inspiration to me. However I do have a problem to lay at your threshold for consideration by your readers and it is this: Where are the Catholic bishops after the election of a pro-life presidential candidate?

Should Pat Robertson stand alone to speak for pro-life Christians? Not a peep has been heard thus far from the American hierarchy, who should be supporting the pro-life position of President Bush. For eight years we have listened to the mantra: “It’s for the children!” All the while the administration worked for their annihilation by supporting everything from chemical poisoning in the womb to activities at the threshold of infanticide. Now we are in the ghoulish business of the harvesting and sale of the body parts of the unborn for research (and, if truth be known, very likely the sale of the body parts of those already born). Can you help to put out the cry for immediate help from the hierarchy?

A final point: Is the American hierarchy not obliged to call to the attention of the Catholic electorate the dismal response their vote reflects in the defense of human life? Should they not underscore the personal shame one should feel in supporting pro-abortion candidates, who say: “I’m against it personally, but...” The betrayal of the superbly pro-life, pro-family, Philip F. Lawler by the Catholic voters in Massachusetts is scandalous. It becomes ever more clear what Jesus meant when he said: “You must choose between God and money!” In these financially good times far too many made the wrong choice.

Mary Ann Glendon’s recent address “On Christian Witness in America,” at the Congress of Catholic Laity, speaks more eloquently to the current problem than anything any member of our American hierarchy has said thus far on the subject of human life and America’s future, and that is very, very sad.

—William G. O’Brien
Dennis, Massachusetts

Please note that if the US bishops had supported the Bush campaign prior to the November elections, they could quite justifiably have been criticized by supporters of Pat Buchanan (among others). And again, while the bishops may be criticized for their actions or inaction in the realms of practical politics or Church discipline, it is more difficult to find fault with their public statements of opposition to abortion. (It is hardly a disgrace to be less eloquent than Mary Ann Glendon.)

— The Editor

Intolerant on abortion

If you had had unlimited financial resources, you would still have lost the election. You did nothing wrong except preach a message that 50 percent of present-day Catholics and the secular media are not interested in.

More than 50 percent of the Catholics in this country voted for an avowed abortion supporter, the “honorary chair” of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, simply because he is a Democrat. Present-day Democrats think it is the party their parents and grandparents voted for. It is not! It’s the party of big government—the government that thinks you aren’t smart enough to handle your own money; the government that will take care of you from cradle to grave, and decide if you should be born and when you should die.

Here in Wisconsin voters cast 5,000 more votes for Gore than Bush. Catholics voted 50 percent for Gore and 47 percent for Bush, which suggests that Wisconsin Catholics are Democrats first and Catholics second. I wonder what God thinks about that?

When you vote for a “pro-choice” candidate you are making yourself a party to abortion. The time will come when you will stand in front of God and have to defend that vote. When all the “nice” people are staring into the fiery pit, there will be no “recount!”

There is an old saying that being in a church house doesn’t make you a Christian, any more than being in a chicken house makes you a chicken. Am I being “judgmental?” Am I being intolerant? You bet I am, when it comes to Catholics supporting pro-choice candidates and a government that has removed itself from God.

—Jerome Kavaney
Fairchild, Wisconsin

Back to Catholic World Report - February 2001 - Table of Contents

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page