LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
FEBRUARY 2001

---

MARRIED PRIESTHOOD NOT THE WAY FOR WEST

I was very glad to see your article on Father Hernandez and his Byzantine church in Los Gatos ["Church Multi-ritual", December Faith]. I have been studying the Eastern rites and feel that they are little understood by Roman rite Catholics. However, I was a little dismayed to see an argument against clerical celibacy in the western Church made in this article. While I agree that eastern Catholics should retain their married clergy, I do not think that this should be done in the Roman rite because tradition from the earliest centuries in the Church in the west has always been consistent against this practice. True, there have been married priests in the west, but this is due more to abuse than to accepted practice. It would be just as counter-productive for the Roman rite to begin ordaining married men as it would be to suppress married clergy within the Eastern rites. Tradition must stand.

In the end, in order to solve the vocational crisis, one must ask deeper questions than whether or not men can remain celibate and be priests at the same time. Is the modern Roman Church conducive to making good priests? Or is the function of priest, a man who goes up to God to offer sacrifice, dying in the Roman rite in order to have its place taken by that of the "presider", the CEO of a congregation "offering up its Eucharist." Are we of such little faith that we no longer believe that it is possible for a man to love God as much as he can love a woman? Does the Mass celebrated in most churches in the Catholic world inspire the awe that can make young boys look to their priest as someone they want to imitate and grow up to be like?

I would argue that with the liturgical "reform" of Paul VI, much of this is no longer the case. The vocations crisis has been engineered by the liberals who want to destroy the priesthood altogether. What is the point of sacrificing yourself in the celibate life if the meaning of your priesthood has been warped? If you are only a "presider", a man who is a priest will probably ask himself what is the point to all the sacrifices that the priesthood entails. In the end, this can only be countered by a return to the ancient Roman Mass, one where the aspect of the sacrifice of Calvary is clearly presented, where the priest is indeed the "alter Christus" who goes up and offers a Holy Oblation for his people. Only then will the priestly life be "fulfilling" enough to satisfy the masculine need for intimacy that many only think can be achieved in a carnal relationship.

The vocations crisis cannot be solved by the lifting of the obligation of celibacy in the Roman rite, other religions that have married clergy, like the Anglicans, are having their own vocations crunch. This is not a matter of the libido, but a matter of faith. If the faith were stronger and clearer, the vocations would be there. Speaking as a 21 year-old man who is about to enter a Society of St. Pius X seminary, I say that it is possible to fall in love with God, but not in the post-Vatican II confusion that is the lot of most Catholic parishes.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Arturo Vasquez
St. Aloysius Retreat Center,
Los Gatos


CORRECT EVALUATION
ON MEDJUGORJE?

May the grace and peace of our Lord be with you. Thank you for publishing my letter to you in your November issue of San Francisco Faith. I appreciate that you published the entire letter. However, I was slightly disappointed that you revised my paragraphing. For Mr. O'Shea's information I am familiar with some of the references that he alluded to in his response to my letter.

In his original article Mr. O'Shea correctly referred to the official declaration of Bishop Pavao Zanich (now deceased). The then bishop of Mostar had submitted a negative judgment to Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the reported apparitions of the Queen of Peace in Medjugorje. This was in 1986. What Mr. O'Shea did not inform us is that Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the negative conclusion of Bishop Zanich; that the cardinal relieved the bishop and his commission of any further authority in the matter of Medjugorje; and that he submitted the matter of Medjugorje to the Yugoslavian Bishops' Conference. What Mr. O'Shea did not inform us is that in April 1991 the Yugoslavian bishops held a conference in Zadar, Croatia and issued a declaration on Medjugorje, known as the Zadar declaration, which did not state that there is nothing supernatural but that "so far, it cannot be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations." What Mr. O'Shea did not inform us is that in the summer of 1993, the cardinal primate of Croatia and president of the bishop's conference, further clarified the Zadar declaration as follows: "After three years of study conducted by the appropriate commission, we bishops have accepted Medjugorje as a place of prayer, a place of sanctuary. With regard to the supernatural factors of the apparitions, we have said that for now we cannot affirm that it exists. We therefore leave this aspect for further investigation by the Church. The Church is in no hurry."

In the summer of 1996, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the spokesman for the Vatican, issued a statement on Medjugorje which was carried by Catholic News Service on August 21, 1996: "You cannot say people cannot go to Medjugorje until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want." In addition, when Catholic faithful go anywhere, they are entitled to spiritual care, so the Church does not forbid priests to accompany lay-organized trips to Medjugorje in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Navarro-Valls insisted "nothing has changed" regarding the Vatican's position on Medjugorje.... Has the Church or the Vatican said 'no' to Catholics visiting Medjugorje? No!

Mr. O'Shea could have included in his original article or in his response to my letter [November Faith] the comments by the local ordinary of the Archdiocese of San Francisco which were published in his own archdiocesan newspaper, Sunday to Sunday, in September 1996: "[The] ban on official Medjugorje tours does not apply to individuals." "While the Vatican has never said that Catholics may not go to Medjugorje, it has told bishops that their parishes and diocese may not organize 'official' pilgrimages to the site." Quoting from a recent interview by Catholic News Service with Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the Vatican spokesman said, "The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the Church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the fact of Medjugorje, which the Church is still in the process of studying. This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession." The restriction on official pilgrimages, however, makes it clear to people that the Vatican is still studying the apparitions.

If Mr. Cameron O'Shea had chosen to present these declarations, San Francisco Faith would have presented a correct evaluation on Medjugorje, and you would have helped to build up the faith of our people in San Francisco -- which is the responsibility of those who love the Church, and who have taken on the task of communicating our Catholic faith, and who are committed to the glorious truths of our faith. May God enable you to publish this letter of mine in a future issue of San Francisco Faith, just as you did my first letter last November.

Your brother in Christ,

Father Ted Shipp
San Francisco

[Editing of letters for spacing is normal practice -- ER]


VIEW OF A FORMER MEDGJUGORJE BELIEVER

Reading the outraged responses to Cameron O'Shea's Medjugorje exposé gave this former Medjugorje cult member déja vu. Five years and four Medjugorje trips later, I am still struggling with the painful withdrawal congruent with Medjugorje brainwashing along with amazement at my past naiveté in failing to discern the skewed theology of some "messages" from the "Gospa" and other peculiar aspects of this on-going phenomena. Before I was advised by the English speaking Franciscan priest, Father Philip Pavich, to consider that the claims of the seers were very questionable, my fidelity to the cult was such that I decided no matter what the Vatican pronounced, I would always believe in Medjugorje. Why? Because I knew what I "saw"; and knew what I "felt" during my pilgrimages there. Gradually, I came to realize that subjective "feelings" in no way authenticate alleged apparitions, nor do spinning suns and gold colored rosaries and other unusual signs commonplace to the village ambiance. As St. John of the Cross warned us, "people should assume that extraordinary experiences come from the forces of evil until the opposite can be proved."

Another argument made by Medjugorje aficionados for the reality of the Medjugorje apparitions is the number of conversions and increase in holiness experienced by many pilgrims who have visited the "shrine." Although some do come away deeply moved and spiritually inspired, this in itself does not authenticate the alleged apparitions. In his publicized letter, to a French bishop, the Congregation's [for the Doctrine of the Faith] secretary, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, quoted the 1991 statement of the former Yugoslavia's bishops' conference which said that "it cannot be confirmed that supernatural apparitions or revelations are taking place there." The Most Rev. Ratko Peric, bishop of Mostar, further states that some friars in Herzegovina, especially those at the pilgrimage site of Medjugorje, have violated their vows of poverty and amassed wealth, presumably from religious tourism. Thus, Medjugorje is not approved by the Church, which is the only judge of the authenticity of any supernatural messages, and alone has the authority to censure or endorse. The Church has given us the rich fruits of Lourdes, Fatima and LaSalette, to name a few, as sites for those who make discerning judgments about supernatural phenomena.

Meanwhile, in an era of signs and wonders, we should remember that, as Catholics, we are privy to the most incredible miracle of all -- the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. (Thrill-seekers might consider the insight of a theologian who suggested that the most incredible vision is that of the body and blood continuing to look like bread and wine!) Receiving the Eucharist into the essence of our being transcends every other encounter, whether real or imaginary, with the true living God. If we heard this more often, and with greater certitude, from the pulpits, perhaps the spiritual voyeurs spawned by this new wave of Disneyland spirituality would no longer want, or need, to chase a counterfeit God and Mary.

Jane L.Sears
Burlingame


SUPREME IRONY

What a supreme irony! Al Gore repeatedly assured American voters during his campaign that he was fully committed to picking supreme court justices who would ensure that the court would continue to defend "choice" and "Roe". That same supreme court then by one vote -- a five four split decision -- essentially blocked the appointment of any supreme court judges by Al Gore (unless he wins some future presidential election).

Pro-abortion advocates who rejoiced in the supreme court's pro-abortion interventions must find the court's decisive role in Gore's defeat particularly galling. Those who decried the supreme court's use of "raw judicial power" in imposing abortion on the United States may see poetic justice or even the hand of Providence in the supreme court's termination of all those pregnant chads Al Gore needed to gestate in order to be able to appoint "pro-choice" justices!

Sincerely,

Laurette Elsberry
Sacramento

TOP