_Letters________________________

Editor’s Note
An exchange between Father Brian W. Harrison, OS, and our Publisher, Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, which appeared in the Letters column of our July issue, has touched off a flurry of comments and complaints from readers. Below we print several readers’ letters, together with the Publisher’s replies, and a second letter from Father Harrison. 

This entire controversy involves a column by Archbishop George Pell of Sydney (formerly of Melbourne), and published in Kairos, the publication of the Melbourne archdiocese in 1998. To help readers keep the issue in the proper context, we are reproducing the entirety of Archbishop Pell’s column. 

With this second exchange, we pronounce the subject closed—as far as CWR is concerned. 

Consistent Church teaching
CWR’s publisher defends Archbishop Pell’s view that the Scriptures “contain historical and scientific errors and misunderstandings,” claiming that this view is compatible with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 11. This view, he claims, is held by, “Many scholars of unquestioned orthodoxy.” But neither he nor any of these ostensibly orthodox scholars have explained how this view can be harmonized with the teachings of the Popes on biblical inerrancy.

In Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII stated that, 

. . . all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true . . . [A]ll the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings . . . are free from all error. 

In Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII wrote: “Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred, . . . This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.” This teaching was also affirmed by Popes St. Pius X and Benedict XV.

The teaching of the popes is consistent and clear, but the treatment of biblical inerrancy in Dei Verbum 11 contains an unfortunate ambiguity. In isolation from prior magisterial teaching it could be understood to limit inerrancy only to that truth which God intended for our salvation. But this reading contradicts the teaching of the popes who extended inspiration to “every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and thus no error can occur in the inspired text “ (Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus). Furthermore, as Father Harrison pointed out, this view is rendered impossible by the references to Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu in the official footnote in the Vatican II text which show that no break with prior Church teaching was intended.

If CWR’s publisher is correct then let us be candid; our opponents have been right all along and Vatican II did fundamentally change the Church’s perennial teaching, at least on this point. And if on this point, then why not on others? On the other hand, if we rightly decline to see a blatant contradiction between the text of Dei Verbum and prior magisterial teaching then it is Archbishop Pell, the publisher of CWR, and the “many scholars of [until now] unquestioned orthodoxy” who owe us a retraction of their espousal of a view that has been solemnly condemned by four popes and an ecumenical council.

—David Palm - Via email

Clear in the Council of Trent

I refer to Father Brian Harrison’s letter in your July edition, and in particular to the Publisher’s comments referring to the physical presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

My understanding is that Jesus is present “body, blood, soul, and divinity” in the Sacred Host, under the appearance of bread and wine. To me this is not ambiguous. For many years, up until recent times, Catholics did not have a problem with this dogma of Transubstantiation, whereas our separated brethren did. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states it quite clearly: 

This conversion, then, is so effected that the whole substance of the bread is changed by the power of God into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of His blood, and this without any change in our Lord Himself. He is neither begotten, nor changed, nor increased, but remains entire in His substance.

So why make a statement that is ambiguous—one that can be taken as the Protestant belief in the Eucharist?

Instead of giving Father Harrison a rap over the knuckles, you should be supporting him for correcting ambiguity and stating the traditional teaching of the Faith that has been handed down to us from the apostles.

—Philip Robinson of Holt, Australia

Understanding inerrancy

In the Letters section of your July issue, you responded to Father Brian Harrison and defended Archbishop Pell by quoting Dei Verbum, and commenting, “Many scholars of unquestioned orthodoxy consider that not all references in Scripture to history or natural phenomena are part of ‘that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation,’ intended.”

Although I agree with what I suspect both you and Archbishop Pell meant, I am concerned that both of your statements could be misunderstood or misused. Rationalist Scripture scholars seem to dismiss the possibility that in some cases God could use historical or scientific information in the Bible to reveal religious truth, and I fear that they could exploit Archbishop Pell’s statements, as well as yours, to propagate this mindset.

You added emphasis to the following portion of a quote from Dei Verbum: “. . . that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture.” I believe the part of Dei Verbum that should have been emphasized is closer to the beginning: “. . . all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” Although I may seem to quibble, I believe there are solid reasons to consider the inspired authors’ affirmations the most important and useful qualifier of inerrancy in Scripture.

The first considerations have to do with authority and continuity of teaching. As we have seen, the significance of the sacred authors’ affirmations is mentioned at the beginning of the key sentence that you quoted. Only after providing this teaching on affirmation do the Council fathers state that there are truths that God confided in an inerrant form to the Sacred Scriptures for the sake of our salvation. (This seems to imply the possibility that some statements in the Scriptures do not play an indispensable part in our salvation, which sounds completely plausible.) The Catechism of the Catholic Church (109-110) highlights the importance of understanding “what the human authors truly wanted to affirm” and “the sacred authors’ intention.” 

For more than a century, the Catholic Church has explicitly taught that the Scriptures have God as their author, and for that reason are free from error. As with all statements of the magisterium, this teaching is subject to the limits of human expression. Although it is true, it could probably have been expressed better. Regardless, I believe it is not hard to reconcile the Church’s traditional teaching with the description of inerrancy in Dei Verbum if we remember two things. First, a statement that is not asserted as a fact cannot be considered an error in the normal sense. In other words, no one can gainsay a statement that is not intended to describe reality. Second, what the inspired authors truly assert is inerrant. These two points enable us to describe a true, full inerrancy of Scripture, in continuity with the teachings of the Church. 

When Archbishop Pell referred to examples of Scriptural texts that do not describe historical or scientific reality, I suspect he had in mind only those texts the certain accuracy of which the inspired authors did not assert—if only because they were prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit. 

—William F. Clark of Emmitsburg, Maryland

Ambiguity in Dei Verbum

While I certainly do not question the orthodoxy of either Archbishop George Pell or Father Joseph Fessio, I have to side with Father Harrison’s letter in the July issue. He takes issue with Archbishop Pell’s statement that the Scriptures “contain historical and scientific errors and misunderstandings.” 

Defending Archbishop Pell, Father Fessio claims a restrictive interpretation for a sentence in Dei Verbum. Father William Most dealt with this exact interpretation in his book, Catholic Apologetics Today. He admits that the cited sentence in Dei Verbum could be ambiguous if the context is ignored. At issue is the wording that “books of Scripture . . . without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” If interpreted restrictively, this clause would mean that the only part of Scripture reliably free of error would be the part needed for salvation. If interpreted descriptively, it would mean all of Scripture is for our salvation and free of error. The context of the sentence includes footnote citations to documents of Vatican I, Leo XIII, and Pius XII, all of whom insisted that there is no error—not even scientific or historical error—in Scripture. Further, Pius XII called Vatican I a “solemn definition.”

—John E. Doyle of Dearborn Heights, Michigan

Father Harrison responds

According to your publisher, Father Joseph Fessio, I have misinterpreted Vatican II in claiming that the Council requires us to believe Sacred Scripture to be free from error in matters of history and science. Please allow me to respond.

Father Fessio cites (in a biased translation) the concluding clause of a sentence in Dei Verbum 11, which says that the Bible’s unerring truth is given “for the sake of our salvation.” Taken in isolation, this clause could be read as implying either 

(a) that all affirmations of the biblical authors are there for the sake of salvation, and are without error, or

(b) that not all of the said affirmations are necessarily there for the sake of our salvation, and so not all are necessarily without error.

Because of space limitations, I cited only the first clause of the sentence under discussion, since it clinches the case for option 

(a) as the correct interpretation. The first (dependent) clause reads: “Since, therefore, everything affirmed by the inspired authors must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit . . .” Now if, as Father Fessio supposes, the concluding section means 

(b) above, then, far from following logically from the preceding clause (as the syntax requires), it will implicitly contradict that clause, since the Holy Spirit cannot affirm error.

It will also contradict the clear teaching of all the Church Fathers and Doctors, as well as all five relevant papal encyclicals (Providentissimus, Pascendi, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and Humani Generis). But John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger have repeatedly insisted that Vatican II must be interpreted in harmony with, not in opposition to, tradition and the magisterium.

In chapter VI of my doctoral thesis, The Teachings of Pope Paul VI on Sacred Scriptures, I have deal exhaustively with this point, taking into account the textual history of Dei Verbum 11, the official explanation of the text given to the Council fathers, the authorities cited in the footnote, the exact meaning of the Latin text, and Pope Paul’s personal intervention in order to prevent the Council from that “limited inerrancy” theory which so many, nevertheless, have tried to read into Dei Verbum.

—Father Brian W. Harrison, OS of Ponce, Puerto Rico

Father Fessio replies

I believe that William Clark’s letter substantially responds to the criticisms in the letters from David Palm, Phillip Robinson, John Doyle, and Father Harrison. I also agree with Mr. Clark that Archbishop Pell’s statement could be “misused . . . to dismiss the possibility that in some cases God could use historical or scientific information in the Bible to reveal religious truth.” However, that would be indeed a misuse. God can use both historical events and non-historical events (e.g. explicit or implicit parables) to reveal religious truth. The question at hand, however, is whether Archbishop Pell’s statement is true. It is no attack on inspiration or inerrancy if scholars are able to determine that what some consider history (say, Jonah and the whale) may be in fact in part a parable.

Contra David Palm, Dei Verbum does not contradict Providentissimus Deus and Divini Afflante Spiritu, but in fact makes explicit what was implicit in the context in which those documents were written. This is a good example of the refinement that takes place in successive magisterial statements. The fact that references are made to previous documents in Dei Verbum does not mean that Dei Verbum is to be interpreted in their (apparently restrictive) sense, but precisely that they are to be interpreted in the sense of Dei Verbum. And the paradoxical precision here is that it is the Bible itself which is ambiguous in some aspects, and this ambiguity is reflected in the careful statement of Dei Verbum. All of this, and this whole discussion, confirms the necessity for a living magisterium so that the Bible, which, as a document, will always be subject to plausible but competing interpretations, can serve as a sure guide to revealed Truth.

What Father Harrison gratuitously asserts (a “biased translation;” that the first clause of the disputed sentence in Dei Verbum “clinches [his] case”) is gratuitously denied.

Should the Church in the future decide in favor of Father Harrison’s interpretation and against Archbishop Pell’s, I will follow the Church (as I am sure Archbishop Pell will). In the meantime, I’m on the side of Archbishop Pell for the simple reason that, even if he is an archbishop—I think he’s right.

—Father Joseph Fessio, SJ of San Francisco, California

Disrespect for Byzantine Catholics?

The August/September issue of Catholic World Report, with its magnificent photo of our Holy Father kneeling before an icon of the Mother of God, was very deceiving. In no way was the icon identified as a copy of the famous and miraculous icon of Our Lady of Zarvanystsya (crowned in 1867 by Blessed Pope Pius IX), and that the photo was taken in St. Nicholas Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in Kiev. Furthermore the photo was defaced by a typical media-styled eye-catcher: “Next Stop Moscow?”

When I saw the beautiful and prayerful cover of the magazine I expected that I was going to find a really spectacular coverage of the papal visit to Ukraine. Instead I found an ordinary secular reporting of the event. More attention was given to the “hostility of the Moscow Patriarchate” or to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church “afflicted by severe divisions.” The Pope’s apostolic visit to the Byzantine-rite Catholics of Ukraine was played down just as it was in most Roman-rite Catholic publications. The reporting of the beatifications—a Polish archbishop and a Polish priest on June 26, and that of 26 Ukrainians, 1 Carpatho-Rusin, and 1 Russian, all Catholics of the Byzantine rite, on June 27—received barely ten lines of recognition. Is this how the Catholic West, in this century, honors those who shed their blood for Christ and his Church?

I was present for all the papal functions in both Kiev and in Lviv and I had a completely different picture and experience. I even had the honor of concelebrating at the hierarchical Divine Liturgy in Lviv for the beatification ceremony. During my ten days in Ukraine I was received kindly and hospitably in churches and communities of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Kiev, and in Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic circles.

Instead of focusing so much attention on the ecclesiastical difficulties in Ukraine, it would have been much better if more attention was given to the positive side of the Pope’s visits, to educate the Catholics of the West so that they might learn something, correctly, about the Christian East, Catholic and Orthodox. Then, maybe, the next stop could be Moscow.

—Archimandrite John J. Mowatt of Cambridge, Massachusetts

This is, frankly, a very confusing and self-contradictory letter. Was our coverage excessively secular, or was it too much attuned to ecclesiastical difficulties? Did we not educate our readers about the Christian East by explaining the complicated dynamics within the Orthodox Church? Since the Pope is the head of all Christendom, and since he explicitly stated that his visit was aimed to promote Christian unity in Ukraine, was it unreasonable to explore the impact on the country’s Orthodox majority? And when we pointed out that the visit might have helped prepare the way for new steps toward union with the Russian Orthodox—the largest non-Catholic body in the Christian world—were we not providing “the positive side” of the Pope’s visit? 

We do plead guilty to the charge of putting a headline on our cover. And if it is “very deceiving” to omit the specific details that would identify a particular icon, we are guilty of that charge as well. But we challenge our critics to find any other popular publication which offered an equally detailed treatment of the Pope’s visit—or, for that matter, any other publication that has, over the years, provided so much respectful treatment of the Eastern Catholic churches.

—The Editor

Ruthenian Bishop beatified

I have a small, but not insignificant, quibble with your reporting on the Holy Father’s trip to Ukraine. One of the martyrs beatified on June 27 was not a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, but rather of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Blessed Theodore Romzha, who was martyred on the night of October 31/November 1, 1947, was the Bishop of Uzhgorod-Mukachevo, the mother Church of the Ruthenians. This is not an insignificant quibble because Blessed Theodore was the first person belonging to the Ruthenian Church ever to be named “Blessed.”

The Ruthenian Church was founded directly by Ss. Cyril and Methodius during their mission to the Slavs in Eastern Central Europe, a people known as the Carpatho-Rus. Interestingly, the Ruthenian Church is now led by the Archbishop of the Arch-Eparchy of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Thus the Ruthenian Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church in the world with its “headquarters” in the United States, making the archbishop the highest-ranking Catholic prelate in this country. The eparchy currently has no archbishop, our much-missed Archbishop Judson Procyk having died recently.

—Robert M. Wiesner of Front Royal, Virginia 

One unwelcome tradition?

During his successful visit to Ukraine, the Pope—the head bishop of Christendom—presiding over the Byzantine-rite Divine Liturgy at Lviv, called attention to the “plurality of traditions, rites, and canonical disciplines” within the Catholic Church, a diversity which, “far from harming the unity of the Body of Christ, actually enriches the Church, through the gifts that each one brings.”

But there may be an exception: the Tridentine Mass—the Mass of Pius V and Gregory the Great. While it may have spiritually enriched innumerable confessors and martyrs over a millennium, its “gifts” are not to be regulated, to be dispensed, only on indult, at the good pleasure of the local bishop, if he judges that dispensing those gifts will not be “harming the unity of the Body of Christ.”

—José Pereira of Bronx, New York 

Liturgical experiments make for “outsiders”

Maybe—as Father Jerry Pokorsky states in “Liturgical Reform: The Terms of the Debate” (Essay, July)—”the consumer mentality and American individualism” are given as the reasons for unauthorized changes in the Mass. But if liturgists were really concerned about these things they would leave the Mass alone.

Part of the appeal of the Tridentine missal is that the priest has to say the Mass as written. This actually brings him closer to the folks in the pews, because he is acting as a fellow servant of Christ and his Church. When you show up for Mass not knowing what to expect, you can’t help but notice that you are not part of the inner circle—not part of the elite group of people who decide what sort of Mass you are going to have to sit (and stand and, maybe, kneel) through.

Maybe the folks who are given something to do up in front feel more personally involved in the liturgy, but the folks in the pews are given the idea that they are supposed to “pray, pay, and obey” more now than ever. In the days when active participation in the liturgy meant that you used the missal to prepare yourself for Mass, a stranger in town could feel personally involved. When mid-level bureaucrats, ranging from ICEL to parish liturgy committees, feel free to change the Mass that the rest of us have to attend, we are reminded that we are outsiders.

As for “the consumer mentality,” remember the Roper poll you published in the March 1997 issue of CWR? It showed that 69 percent of American Catholics oppose “inclusive language” (47 percent “strongly”), while only 21 percent support it (9 percent “strongly”). So why does that 9 percent get the chance to annoy the rest of us?

—Don Schenk of Allentown, Pennsylvania

Yes, certainly the minority should not impose its preferences upon the majority—much less cause the majority of Catholics to think of themselves as “outsiders.” And it is a grave problem that a lay Catholic, when visiting a parish other than his own, frequently does feel like an “outsider.” But the solution to this problem does not require a return to the Tridentine rite; faithful adherence to the Novus Ordo would do the trick. The problem lies not so much in the wording of the missal, as in the fact that many priest-celebrants feel themselves authorized (with the connivance of their liturgical committees) to disregard the missal altogether. 

— The Editor

The bishops’ monuments

It is encouraging to learn that the Congregation for Divine Worship is acting to stop the destruction of local church treasures (“Rome Hits the Brakes,” July). They may succeed. But they won’t stop iconoclasts from replacing their cathedrals.

Here is how it works: The bishop finds the present glorious cathedral too small, or finds that it has inadequate parking, or a parish hall too small for those rare grand social events that may occur, or needs painting. So he finds it necessary to spend millions of dollars—of donations squeezed out of poor but pious and humble laboring folks who live in cramped, run-down housing. The eyesore this money will buy will be less conducive to reverence than the local Unitarian meeting house. But the bishop will have his monument. Of course this same bishop cannot find the funds for schools or hospitals for the poor children of his diocese.

—Richard J. Kulda of Orange, California

Right-wing extremism

I am writing to [sic] your article “Murder of the Cathedral,” by Philip Lawler (August/September), which I would prefer to call “Murder of an Archbishop.”

I was extremely disappointed at the way you portrayed the Archbishop of Milwaukee. You made him look like some radical disobedient liberal. Not once in your article did you quote the canon or liturgical law the archbishop was in violation [sic]. Further you never mention that you had seen the plans for the renovation and how they are in keeping with the norms in canon law and with the norms of GIRM. You never quoted one person who supports the archbishop. You never quoted the liturgical office of the Conference of American Bishops [sic]. You could have at least talked to the canon lawyers of the Milwaukee archdiocese whom [sic] I am sure advise the archbishop on all matters of Church law.

You, like the curial Vatican office [sic], accept and believe the letters of disgruntled right-wing members of the Church —among them obviously the editors and writers of your magazine—who are out to destroy good and holy men and women in the Church.

I was taught in canon law class that the legislative officers in the Church are the Pope and the bishop ordinaries, not the Curia. The Curia is at the service of the Pope and bishops, not the other way around.

I am not a member of the Diocese of Milwaukee [sic] but I studied there for three years and found Archbishop Weakland to be a very conscientious and holy bishop and always loyal to the Church and to the Holy Father. Let him minister to his people as he sees fit. Why don’t you talk to him? Why don’t you look at his plans? Why don’t you talk to priests and laity other than a few outspoken disgruntled extreme right-wing Catholics?

—William Hebekeuser of Richardson, Texas

If we were guilty of hyperbole in suggesting that the venerable cathedral in Milwaukee has been “murdered” by renovation, surely it would be at least an equal exaggeration to suggest that our story “murdered” Archbishop Weakland—who remains, to the best of our knowledge, in excellent health. The canonical issues in this case are more complex. The Congregation for Divine Worship called for a halt to the renovation, until those canonical issues could be resolved. Archbishop Weakland chose to ignore that call. The question of how Milwaukee’s cathedral shall be renovated has now been settled—unilaterally, in spite of Vatican intervention—by Archbishop Weakland. So one canonical issue—the proper configuration of a cathedral—has been supplanted by another—the authority of an archbishop vis-à-vis the Roman Curia. Meanwhile the canonical rights of “outspoken disgruntled extreme right-wing Catholics” (and can anyone think of a few other pejorative adjectives to toss into that box-car construction?) have been ignored. 

—The Editor

The “right-wing” stigma

Your analysis and conclusion in “A Church without Borders” (Editorial, July) is outstanding. I have been a traditional conservative Catholic convert for over half a century and a more than casual observer of the ongoing scandals of the Dallas diocese for over 33 years. Thank you for such a factual account, in “Raid or Rescue” (Inquiry, July) concerning the chancery raid on the University of Dallas, which came about because the school insisted on being a truly doctrinal Catholic university. It was more a tragedy than a defeat, because conservatives are assured of the final victory.

The “right-wing” misnomer has become a readily recognizable stigma. By their use of language, we can readily identify those players who serve the universal Church and those who would make the Church subservient to the local “American Catholic” church. We must weep for the University of Dallas, for it may soon forget its hour of doctrinal visitation.

—Bob Rowland of Irving, Texas

The bishops’ conference in the Bible

Thank you for your clear and concise information on the pulse of Catholicism today, it helps me keep a universal understanding of our Church and the world we live in. I am writing in regard to the editorial in the July 2001 issue, “A Church without Borders.” I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of Philip Lawler. However he made a comment that needs some correction. Midway through the article he states that the primacy of Peter and his successors is well established in scripture, but then states: “Bishops’ conferences are not mentioned in the Bible.”

Actually the first “bishops’ conference” was held in Jerusalem to settle the question of circumcision for the Gentiles. It is described in Acts 15. It is especially noteworthy that the debate is settled not by a vote, but by Peter (the Pope) standing and pronouncing the truth of God. It is also noteworthy to point out that the Apostles (read bishops) fell silent after he had spoken—the end of the debate!

—Eric Keim of Poulsbo, Washington

The meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem does indeed set the pattern for collegial government of the Church. The contemporary equivalent of that meeting would be an ecumenical council, or perhaps a worldwide meeting of the bishops’ synod. But it would certainly not be a conference held only by the bishops of one country. In other words, Acts 15 describes an event: conference held by the world’s bishops. That is a far cry from an institution: national episcopal conference. 

—The Editor

Preserving the species

Your editorial, “Expendable People” (August/September 2001) reminded me of just how bizarre are the times in which we live. Consider:

Following the lead of radical but influential environmental and animal-rights groups, Hollywood has taken to endowing animals with human characteristics in order to teach us the immorality of “speciesism”—that is, treating animals as if they are less valuable than human beings. At the same time, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions see nothing immoral in de-braining viable children during delivery because—as they tell us without fear of censure from Hollywood—”fetuses” are not fully human. Laboratory experiments on rats are denounced as “speciesist,” but fatal stem-cell experiments involving human embryos—the youngest of our species—are defended as providing the greatest good for the greatest number. 

While science invents more and more ways to abuse, with impunity, the least of our brethren, more and more communities are enacting laws that designate pet owners as “guardians” of their cats, dogs, and gerbils, in order to prevent the abuse of those “wards.” Let’s see: Mommy is going to jail for kicking the dog, but the kindly judge put off execution of the sentence until after Mommy has her abortion.

—Robert M. Byrn of New York, New York

A system needing change

I am one of the individuals working to reform the divorce/custody industry as accurately described in Stephen Baskerville’s article “What God Has Joined Together” (Essay, August/September). Recently I was speaking with a father and he told me he had been obstructed from seeing his child for two years, and now had “gone cold.”

I was disappointed with this dad, and sad for his child. But the fact is that he exhibited normal psychological behavior for most persons under the circumstances. When faced with a terrible loss we grieve, heal, and then move on. And those in this dad’s shoes who don’t accept their plight find themselves being called rigid and uncooperative, facing court-ordered psychiatric examinations, and ultimately ostracization from family and friends.

This happens due to the design of the custody system, which is set up to transfer the functions of one parent—usually the male—to the other parent and the state. Lacking a meaningful role to play, the excluded parent gradually fades from the picture. If that isn’t enough of a hurdle for a parent to overcome, the primary caregiver becomes a gatekeeper controlling access to the child, and in most jurisdictions can slam that gate shut at any time. The result is huge numbers of children raised by one parent, with all of the associated trauma.

This process is reversible for most parents and children, even those who have not seen one another for a decade, and joyful for all upon their reuniting. Current practices openly violate constitutional law and could easily be overturned, state by state, by credible law firms. There will be great resistance from legal practitioners, but their position is untenable and can be overcome. The stakes are high and ramifications wide, and credit is due to Catholic World Report for addressing this subject

—Daniel Lee of Collierville, Tennessee

Injustice begetting violence

I read your Essay by Stephen Baskerville and would like to respond briefly. I am a practicing family-law attorney but I choose to represent men that are involved in divorce and custody proceedings. Your article was right on the money. 

I have noticed that not only are suicides on the rise, but there is an ever-increasing flow of fathers committing acts of domestic violence, including killing the wife and sometimes even the children. I really feel that there is a direct correlation between family court and these acts of violence.

In most cases—and most men know this—if the fathers own a home and make a decent amount of money, and the wife is not earning more money than the husband, the husband will be lucky if he gets to visit with the children, and most of the money he earns will go to her. If he fights for custody, he is probably going to pay not only his attorney fees, but hers also. He will also probably have to deal with false allegations of domestic violence which will have him thrown out of the house just as a strategy.

It is almost a no-win situation. So although I do not condone domestic violence, I can understand why men feel so trapped, with nowhere to turn but to violence—against the wife, children, or themselves. The courts don’t care.

For example, if a mother says she is not getting child support, she will have a hearing within two weeks. If a father says Mom is denying visitation, Dad will be lucky if he gets a hearing in two months. What is more important: money, or a parent’s relationship with his child? What is our court teaching our children—that money is more important than Daddy?

I myself cannot imagine how some of my clients hold it together. If I put myself in my clients’ shoes—if I were denied an opportunity to see my child—I would go crazy. I wouldn’t stop until I had my child. We have to give the fathers a lot of credit, because as a female attorney and a mother, honestly, I couldn’t do it.

The majority of my cases are custody-litigation cases, so I am in court every single day. The men I represent are very reasonable and are willing to work out the details. The men want only to have a fair amount of time to spend with their children, a fair child support amount, and an equal division of the assets. I don’t have one client who is asking for anything unreasonable. The Courts need to stop what they are doing to fathers. 

—Melody Ridgley Fortunato of Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Divorce law in practice

I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I am also a divorced Dad, although I attempted to reconcile with my ex-wife repeatedly. She was “too busy” to meet with the pastor of my church. She hits, yells, screams, denies the visitation of my son, has abducted my son, has broken my personal belongings, and has made false accusations about child-support payments, and personal attacks against me. These claims have been well documented in numerous police reports. But still the judges simply ignore the facts. The more outrageous my ex-wife’s behavior gets, the less visitation I get. I can’t even look as if I am angry, or the excuse for decreasing my visitation will be that I have the “potential for violence.” A friend of mine suggested I bring the Bible to read while I wait for a mediator. The mediator recommended my visitation be decreased because I read the Bible!

Mediators will allude to the story of wise King Solomon’s handling of the case of two women bickering over a baby. But the posture of today’s family courts is more like the case of King Herod, in which the first-born son was removed from every household so that none would be a threat.

—Pete Tiernan  of Carlsbad, California

Don’t blame the courts

I share many of Stephen Baskerville’s concerns with respect to the disintegration of the family. But his Essay (“What God Has Joined Together,” August/ September) fails to identify why families are breaking up. Several points deserve mention.

Not every state has “no-fault” divorce available, and yet there is no shortage of divorces in those jurisdictions. For example, Mississippi divorce law requires that fault (one of 12 grounds including adultery and physical abuse) be strictly proven. Alternatively, both parties may agree to divorce on grounds of “irreconcilable differences” and agree on all child custody, support, and property issues; or both parties must agree to such a divorce and separately agree in writing to let a chancery judge decide all unagreed issues. Without such an agreement, there is no divorce. In cases where the judge acts ultra vires to grant a divorce, the appellate courts reverse promptly.

The suggestion that judges and lawyers have an interest in laws allowing unilateral divorce is laughable. One state with very liberal divorce laws, Florida, allows in certain cases for parties to obtain divorces without even consulting a lawyer. Such a provision is hardly in the interest of the family-law bar; it is hard to get a fee if parties do not need your services! The suggestion that judges “want to increase their volume of business” prompted a chuckle from me and from other lawyers with whom I shared the piece. Judges don’t get paid for piecework; they are salaried and draw the same pay whether they hear cases or play golf. As for “windfall settlements,” divorce litigation is not plaintiff’s work wherein a lawyer earns a fee contingent on the amount his client is awarded. Indeed, traditionally there have been ethical prohibitions against such fee agreements in divorce cases.

In Mississippi and Florida (both jurisdictions where I am admitted to practice), contested issues of child custody are decided according to statute and extremely well developed bodies of case law. It is certainly possible for travesties to occur, and wrong decisions are made, but there is appellate review to remedy such decisions. I do not know why families are breaking up, but it seems ridiculous to this reader that the family-law bar and bench are held responsible.

—Thomas C. Levidiotis of Oxford, Mississippi 

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

Back to Catholic.net Magazine Rack