LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 1999
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
MARCH 1999

---

Editor's note: the following letters represent a sample response to a Faith fundraising drive.


THE ORTHODOX LAITY MUST LEAD

At this point, I think we can say that San Francisco Faith has filled a significant need. At first, I winced. Here was a local scandal-sheet, naming names--a Catholic tabloid. On second and third thoughts, it was necessary input, revealing that even as scandals proliferate, perspectives don't change and the dysfunctional institution seems to congratulate itself that all is well, despite weak leadership and declining morale.

The paper's literary quality turns out to be quite high. A recent article on Darwinism was superb. The coverage of Father Buckley's departure from the Jesuit University of San Francisco hit all the right notes, including a cheerful defiance.

For a few decades, the collective American bishops have been shepherds intent on following the sheep wherever they lead. Their priorities are whatever they perceive as resonating with a laity that itself is largely adrift.

Apparently it is the role of the orthodox laity to lead. When I hear individualism maligned, I think how often in history the complexion of the Church has been altered and improved by lone visionaries, out of step with the reigning establishment: Benedict, Francis, Philip Neri, John of the Cross, Gueranger, Chesterton, Christopher Dawson, Ronald Knox, Cardinal Newman. The reception most of them received was less than friendly, though now their legacy is a proud heritage.

To judge from the renaissance of Catholic publishing, the Church's liturgical and doctrinal heritage has an eager constituency. What is missing from the scene is a geographical presence. In London, the Oratory is a haven from adverse "inculturation" in the parishes. A population center like San Francisco also needs a place like this, where Sunday worship is uncompromised by clergy whose mission in life is to keep re-inventing the Roman liturgy.

About the newspaper, a small complaint. As a matter of style, it would be nice to see some capital letters. The liturgical celebration is a Mass, a Eucharist, a Divine Liturgy. A "mass" is only a piece of music.

Clarence Zaar
San Francisco


DON'T BE DIVISIVE

I have been receiving your Los Angeles Mission and San Francisco Faith without having subscribed to either. I have been very busy and have not had the time to write and ask that these publications no longer be sent to me.

You mentioned in your letter that "We have been called controversial(and worse)." I can understand why. But I would go beyond saying that many of the things I have read in both of these publications are controversial. I find that many of the things written give an unbalanced and skewed picture of things going on in the Church. At any rate, I would go one step further than "controversial" and say that I find your papers to be divisive. There are enough problems outside the Church which are divisive without having Catholics adding to the problem. I don't doubt the sincerity of you and others associated with your publications, just as I don't doubt the sincerity of a Mother Angelica with her problems of interpretation of the Eucharist and Cardinal Mahony. Yet one can be sincerely out of line.

Father John Rielly
Cupertino


AN OBJECTIVE TONE WORKS

We receive San Francisco Faith. I compliment you on its continued improvement in content, tone, and layout. The change in tone--less strident, a bit more objective--is especially welcome.

Anne Starr
Novato


AN AIMLESS VENTURE

I am responding to your form letter requesting financial support for San Francisco Faith which I have been receiving unsolicited for many issues.

I am a retired journalist and public relations executive with forty years experience and one of the founding members of the defunct Association of Catholic Newsmen of the San Francisco Archdiocese.

I am a paid subscriber of the Valley Catholic, the official monthly publication of the San Jose Diocese, and the National Catholic Register. And I am eagerly awaiting the appearance of the new weekly publication planned by Archbishop Levada of the San Francisco Archdiocese.

I have no intention of supporting any of the five publications you are producing with an alleged circulation of 90,000, if they all contain the hit-and-miss, aimless contents of the San Francisco Faith. I wonder what prompts you to wish to become the Rupert Murdoch of the Catholic press.

I readily stipulate that there is a great need for the spread of information about today's church but this information void can hardly be effectively filled by your brainchilds.

Perhaps the frailty of your venture can best be summed up with your offer to just anyone to serve on your boards.

Lawrence R. McDonnell
Palo Alto


STOP TEARING DOWN BRIDGES

I strongly object to the negative tone of your publications. While I work hard at building bridges, you work hard to tear them down. I particularly object to the scandalous way you treated Fr. Sullivan at St. Lucy's. He is no radical and works hard to bring Christ to people through the Eucharist.

Fr. John Foley
Sonora


HARMFUL AT TIMES

I have found San Francisco Faith to be disturbing. It is a biased publication which is harmful at times. The view of our faith is not represented fairly or represents the love Jesus our Lord has for all.

Barbara Pasine
Daly City


GUINEA PIG LITERATURE

Do you know how frustrating it has been to get taken off of your mailing list? I am not the only one! I guarantee if I have to write again, the language will start to degrade because my frustration has peaked. If you don't want to expose your staff to some horrendous fits of language, and I guarantee I know almost the whole vocabulary used in the gutter, then take me off your list.

I don't read your paper. It either lines my guinea pig's cage or goes straight to the recycle bin with the other junk mail. More often it is the recycle bin that wins.

Mary Clough
Brentwood


YOU PHARISEES

I am a conservative. I believe in sustaining and supporting my church. The San Francisco Faith is not helping my church. It prints an ad for New Oxford Review that insults my fellow Catholics. I am so baffled by some of the condemnations of priests in the paper. You should be careful about what you are doing. We have priests who are ministering to Aids patients and gay and lesbian people and your publications are crucifying them. It is all too familiar. The Pharisees seem to be doing it again. Jesus will be crucified for reaching out to sinners and lepers. Please stop causing division in the Body of Christ.

Terry Snider
Oakland


WHY QUESTION MEDJUGORJE?

I've been a real champion of your publication and thought you rendered a valuable service to orthodox Catholics in these days of confusion. However, I was very disappointed in your article on Medjugorje which appeared in the November issue [see "Is Medjugorje Fact or Fraud?"].

This article is biased beyond belief and I'm disappointed that you would include this in your otherwise excellent paper. To malign Father Jozo in such a destructive manner can only be satanic. Father Jozo is a very holy priest. In 1990 I went to Medjugorje, not knowing much about it, but was so impressed with the spirituality there, that since that time I say the 15-decade rosary daily and go to daily Mass. Members of our group began a weekly prayer group of usually 25-30 people who spend an hour and a half praying the 15-decade rosary, consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the Sacred Heart, along with other prayers. These people are the backbone of our parish, the ones who attend daily Mass, and are devoted to the Holy Eucharist. The son of one family was involved in the Jehovah Witnesses. After his return from Medjugorje, he went back to his faith and now is seriously looking into the priesthood. There are over 100 prayer groups in Bay Area at the present time.

The Vatican disbanded the local bishop's investigation of Medjugorje because of its inobjectivity and set up a commission of its own, a very unprecedented step on the part of Rome. Father René Laurentin, a world-renowned Mariologist who reports directly to the Holy Father, has written at least ten books favorably on Medjugorje. Bishop Franic (not to be confused with Zanic) of Split, Yugoslavia, visited the site and his words publicly were "Medjugorje has accomplished more in two years than our pastoral action has done in 40 years." All of the priests, whom I have known who believe in Medjugorje, are solid Roman Catholic priests which gives credence to the apparitions in itself. All of the above can't be dismissed or bypassed.

The visions at Fatima were not approved until 13-14 years after the Blessed Mother appeared. In the meantime, just as at Medjugorje, the pilgrims came and went away spiritually nourished and with a much greater love for the Mass, the Eucharist, etc. These are not fruits of satan. Also, wisely, the Church refrains from making judgments on apparitions until after they cease. It is interesting to note that the Blessed Mother kept telling the seers about the upcoming war. The war in Yugoslavia began on the 10th anniversary of her first apparition.

I'm telling you all of this to let you know that there is another side to the story. I don't know the agenda of the writers of the Medjugorje fraud story, other than Mr. Kronzer was involved in an unpleasant divorce-- his wife believed in Medjugorje. But even in the manner of their rhetoric, they belie their obvious prejudice. Our Blessed Mother deserves a better and fairer evaluation than what was given in this article.

Marilyn McLauchlin
Livermore

TOP