Letters - Catholic World Report

__________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

The title of the Special Report in your August-September issue comes in the form of a question: “Is the Vatican Being Ignored?” When I saw that title, I assumed that it was a rhetorical question. How could any orthodox, faithful Catholic living in the US possibly have any doubts on that score?

The article itself, frankly, was disappointing. Your writer, Brian O’Neel, is much too nice; he begins with his own series of rhetorical questions—more or less repeating the one contained in the title—and then replies that the answer is “a qualified Yes.”
The answer is Yes, all right; but I don’t think it’s qualified. When was the last time you saw a nun wearing her religious habit—except on old television movies? How many parishes are really trying to cut down on the use of “extraordinary” ministers? And how many years will it take before American Catholic colleges make the slightest gesture or indication that they might do something—anything at all—to assure that our children are learning the real Catholic faith?

Yes, the Vatican is being ignored. But now here is the part that I don’t understand: The people who ignore the Vatican are, more often than not, working for the bishops. And the bishops are appointed by the Vatican. So the problem really goes right up the chain of command. Ask any Wall Street executive, and he’ll tell you right away that when subordinates’ subordinates ignore his orders, he knows how to fix the problem.

Your report on the secret negotiations between the Holy See and the Communist gerontocracy on mainland China (“Opening Toward Beijing,” July 1999) was informative, but depressing. Reading between the lines I conclude that there are at least some people in Rome who would be happy to make a deal with the Communists, even if that means disappointing the thousands of faithful Catholics who have suffered so much, for so many years, just because they would not make a deal.

The head of the Fides news agency rightly condemns the Chinese government for persecuting Catholics. Is that controversial? It should not be. But for some reason the head of the Vatican press office falls all over himself telling reporters that the Fides editorial was just a personal statement, not reflecting any official Vatican policy. What does that mean? Is there some doubt about where the Vatican stands on persecution of Catholics? If not, why is the public-relations department worrying about hurting the persecutors’ feelings? Why are two different agencies within the Vatican walls saying different things, and sending different political messages? Do they remember those words about a house divided against itself?

A lot of loyal Chinese Catholics suffered and even died because they would not join the “Patriotic” Church, which is nothing more than a government front group. But now it looks as if the Vatican —or maybe I should say some people in the Vatican—are ready to strike a deal, and say that all those “patriotic” Catholics are now in good standing. If that happens, what will they tell the people who suffered persecution? Why did they have to suffer at all?

This is not just one isolated problem. Catholic World Report has carried several good stories about the constant conflicts between the Eastern-rite Catholics and the Orthodox Christians of different countries like Romania and Ukraine. Those Catholics have also suffered, because they are a minority and because they insist on being loyal to Rome. Now the Pope wants to welcome the Orthodox back into the fold, and that is a good thing. But if it happens, what will he say to the Eastern Catholics? Why did they have to suffer, if all our differences were going to be forgotten anyway?

Let me congratulate you on your cover story (“The New Rise of Islam,” August-September 1999). Christians have to come to terms with the fact that Islam is a rising world power, especially now in Europe and America. It is a terrible mistake to remain ignorant about a faith that so many people cling to with such passion—especially when those people are moving into the neighborhood!

On the other hand, it is also a terrible mistake to look at all Muslims as a threat, and nothing more than that—in the same way that so many Americans look at all Arabs as potential terrorists, and nothing more. Christianity and Islam have some things in common, even if they are far apart on others. In the Europe and America of the 1990s, I would argue that Christians and Muslims have more in common, as believers, than either group has in common with the secular humanists around them.

And if in the long run Christians decide that Islam really is a threat, they should understand the nature of the threat. In other words, one way or another, it is important to understand Muslims as they understand themselves. If you know your enemy you are ready to fight him—or else find out that he’s not an enemy at all.

The article by Christine Vollmer (“Parents Facing the Supreme Challenge,” August-September 1999) on dealing with a handicapped child was very informative and helpful. I sent the information to some dear friends who have a child with Down’s Syndrome and health problems; I think the article will give them great encouragement.

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.