2003 LETTERS
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January

Little Notes

Confessions
Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 2003
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
October 2003

---

I've been reading the article "Will Bishop Brom Stand Up to Vargas? Juan Told Us He Was Pro-Life" (April, 2003 issue) By Maria Elena Kennedy and the follow-up letters, and I have some insight to add.

I was part of the San Diego diocesan delegation to Catholic Lobby Day in Sacramento this year. While we were there, we attended the Mass presided over by Bishop William Wiegand of Sacramento. As the article notes, the bishop has made clear the Church's teaching on abortion to Governor Gray Davis. Our San Diego delegation was lucky enough to get a group picture with the bishop and talk to him a little. He mentioned to us that he had breakfast with some Catholic state legislators the morning of Catholic Lobby Day. One of them was San Diego legislator, Juan Vargas.

The bishop told us that at breakfast that morning Mr. Vargas unabashedly told the bishop, "I am pro-choice." The bishop was as troubled by this as much as we were. The bishop asked us to pray for Mr. Vargas. We were also queried whether Mr. Vargas' mother knows of his position. When told that she might not know or might not know the full extent, the bishop encouraged us to plead with Mrs. Vargas to speak to her son about his obligations as a Catholic politician to uphold the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

Also, I would like to respond to the vague criticism by Ricardo Gomez-Roji where he quotes Belgian Jesuit missionary Michael Windley as saying "Religions have to become the vehicles of peace and human dignity and stop being battlefields of spiritual dominance or arrogance."

As a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC-San Diego ('03), I can assure Mr. Gomez-Roji that human life begins as a single cell at conception. The Catholic Church's teachings flow from this fact (not religious arrogance) to condemn abortion as an assault on human dignity and to instruct Catholic politicians to uphold human dignity by working to halt the expansion of abortion, reduce the prevalence of abortion, and ultimately eliminate abortion. Therefore it would seem to me that the Catholic teachings against abortion perfectly answer Michael Windley's call to be a vehicle "of peace and human dignity."

As a member of the Democrats For Life of America email list, I can assure Mr. Gomez-Roji that Mr. Vargas as the representative of the predominantly Democratic, pro-life Hispanic community, has had many opportunities to negotiate, compromise, and help forge better real-life choices for pregnant women and their families. He has not. Mr. Vargas has failed his pro-life, pro-family constituency.

As senatorial candidate Norm Coleman of Minnesota said to his opponent Walter Mondale, "You raised the question about abortion," he said. "On that issue, Mr. Vice President, you think there's common ground to be found?" Mr. Coleman asked specifically about partial-birth abortion and whether parents should be involved in abortion decisions made by their minor daughters. Mr. Mondale answered all the questions in the negative by refusing any of Coleman's "common ground." Mr. Mondale lost the election. We must now welcome Juan Vargas to the Mondale club of extreme supporters of abortion-on-demand and hopefully a local San Diego Norm Coleman will appear to help Mr. Vargas along to his retirement.

David Six
San Diego


DON'T BACK DOWN

The latest article, "Kneeling, Standing Tear Parish Apart," brought back memories of St. Patrick's in Carlsbad, 1999. In the spring of that year, Father Bernard Rapp was assistant pastor at St. Patrick's. The good Father's repertoire at Mass included wearing a baseball cap (to show solidarity with the San Diego Padres), homilies that had nothing to do with that day's scripture readings, and of course, the insistence that all stand during the Eucharistic Prayer prior to the concluding Doxology.

One morning, having attended the 8:00 a.m. Mass prior to work, I asked to speak to Father Rapp privately. I proceeded to ask him, in a polite manner, to tell me by what authority he was able to ask us to stand when those in the United States were to kneel from the end of the Sanctus through the Great Amen. Needless to say, Father Rapp was visibly shaken that a lowly layman such as myself had the audacity to question "his" Mass. Father Rapp proceeded to call me a "Pharisee." He stated that he could do anything he liked when it came to the celebration of the Mass. I asked him to quote me any directive from the GIRM, Vatican II, or Rome that allowed him to "personalize" the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. By now, Father Rapp was agitated and was looking for a way out of the church. When pressed further, he stated that he even had the right to NOT say the Creed on Sundays. I responded again by asking for his authority for such a novelty. This proved too much for Father, and he made a rush for the doors.

Over the next several days I put together a respectful and detailed letter to Father Rapp, quoting the GIRM documents and statements from our Holy Father, John Paul II. Thinking that Father Rapp was simply ignorant of the rubrics, I sent the letter off expecting an answer in the next several days. One month later with no response, I sent Father Rapp a second letter (enclosing a copy of the first) stating that I understood how busy he was, but that I would appreciate an answer to my questions regarding his authority to change the rubrics. This time I sent the letter by registered mail. I have his signature, but I still have no answer.

Having moved my family from Carlsbad, I had put Father Rapp out of my mind until the recent article. I would first state that attitudes such as Fathers Rapp and Kaicher's are symbolic of our post-Vatican II church. I am not the least bit surprised that Father Rapp continues down the path of self-righteous anger towards all who dare disagree with him. In fact, Father Rapp's ability to "spin" the truth makes Bill Clinton's "truth" pale in comparison. The second thing I would say is that the good parishioners of St. Peter's in Fallbrook should stand tall and hold Father Rapp's and Father Kaicher's feet to the fire. Don't back down. It is your right to demand that your priests are loyal sons of the Church. Such loyalty means following the rubrics of the Mass, for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is greater then any one man, any one priest!

Pete Swicker
Yuma, Arizona


NOT A DIME

The article ["Kneeling, Standing Tear Parish Apart"] about the standing/kneeling at the Consecration was very disturbing. I can't believe these priests today. If Jesus Christ stood in front of these priests, you mean they wouldn't fall on their knees? Isn't that exactly what happens at the Consecration?

Then again, maybe these priests wouldn't kneel.

But the good people at Saint Peter's aren't going to change anything with their meetings, faxes, etc. I would have walked out on that priest as he was talking about living in the past etc.

Write the bishop and tell him any more such heresy will be met, not with meetings but with a concerted boycott of donations, in every church in his diocese.

I wouldn't give this priest a dime on Sunday, and neither would my friends -- that should be your message.

God Bless,

David Morley
NYC


GOD MUST BE LAUGHING

I just read Robert Kumpel's article ["Kneeling, Standing Tear Parish Apart"] on the "terrible" problem that is "tearing up our parish" here at St. Peter's in Fallbrook (September, 2003 issue).

First I would like to say that it is amazing that something this terrible as to be tearing up the parish is virtually unknown among the majority of parishioners and I mean more than 99% of the parish has no idea that there are people who are not absolutely thrilled about what Frs. Bud and Bernie have done here.

If you bothered to talk to any parishioners other than the "scandalized" few, you would know that.

Secondly, I find it very disturbing that an article of this magnitude was written as fact based on the word of a very few people without so much as a phone call to the "alleged" perpetrators of the crime for comment. Even tabloid rags at least try to call the people involved for comment.

Thirdly, I happen to know that many of the statements made in that article are not even close to the theology of our pastor and were either taken out of context by accident, on purpose or possibly just shabby reporting on Mr. Kumpel's part. Whatever the case, it is sad that paper is being wasted to print such garbage and poor, unsuspecting people will be given an account as fact that is about some of the best fiction I have ever read (not to mention kindergarten writing).

Now to address the real issue.... I find it dishearteningly sad that in a parish where masses are overflowing (as never before) and people are being filled with the Spirit on a daily basis there is a group of people that live for one thing only, and that is to bring down the pastor and his associate. It is no secret to me that many of the members of this group have not liked Fr. Bud or Fr. Bernie from the very beginning and have been studying and looking for ways to discredit them for years. Let's forget the fact that they totally miss the spirit in which everything that was done in. Let's even ignore that we have become a truly united community of brothers and sisters and let's put aside the other fact that we are being fed by our liturgies more than ever before. There is almost no person in this parish that cannot say that Fr. Bud and Fr. Bernie have accomplished wonders here and we are blessed to have them and will be truly sad when they move on. Let's just put all that aside and focus on this "scandalized" group. Is it not sad that there is nothing good that they can find in this parish? Is it not sad that few of them choose to participate in any of the many ministries here? And is it not equally sad that amidst the thriving community and Spirit that abounds in this parish the only thing they can do is band together to make sure we stand and kneel at the "proper" times during mass?

Boy, I wish I had that kind of time to waste. Do we do perfect liturgy? Of course not! Does anyone? Are we working to make our liturgies better? Of course we are! Who wouldn't? So should we focus on the few things that are not done according to the book or concentrate on what feeds us and brings us together? I guess that answer depends on who you ask! If you ask me ... in the grand scheme of things, WHO CARES? God must be laughing his head off at this nonsense and wondering when we are going to grow up! I know I am. I just hope he doesn't read you paper, I think that would make him stop laughing.

Equally scandalized but for different reasons,

Valerie Kahle
Happy and blessed parishioner of St. Peter's Catholic Community


CORRECTION

Editor: According to parishioners from St. Peter's in Fallbrook, Father Mel asked them not to kneel when coming up for communion because standing is the norm, as approved by the United States Conference of Bishops. According to parishioners, Father Mel said that although kneeling is a commendable and holy thing to do, it is always better to be obedient.


SILLY, INANE TRIVIA

I have to tell you that Kumpel's article on the "evil" that is within St. Peter's Fallbrook church is comical. I'm still trying to decide what your newspaper stands for and if it focuses on providing guys like Kumpel to write such silly, inane trivia you've got a long way to go in providing respectable and serious journalism.

Paul X. Bouzan
via email


SPIRITUAL AGGRESSION

Regarding "Kneeling, Standing Tear Parish Apart" (September issue), my heart and prayers to out to the beleaguered defenders of the Faith at St. Peter's parish in Fallbrook.

The devotions and responses practiced by the laity during Mass and other community religious events are and have always been due to the Holy Spirit working within the laity. The priest has no control over them; his function is to act in the place of Christ and to carry out his own part in the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Christ did not dictate traditions. He controlled Himself, not others. He was the Example, never a warden or police presence. The customs of genuflecting, kneeling, blessing oneself, and all such unwritten traditions within the Church have been historically acts of the Holy Spirit working through the good will and inspired initiatives of the laity.

And the laity is invested by God with its own authority. The parents of Christ were lay persons. The laity pays for the upbringing, education, and sustenance of those whom God calls to run His Church. We do not merit human respect, any more than a priest does. However, for the God-given authority we wield, any priest who tries to prevent the fulfilling of our lay obligation to correct error risks God's wrath.

The priesthood is dependent in a materiel sense upon the good will of the laity and for good reason. If priests refuse to obey the will of God, which is hopefully manifested through direction of superiors, the laity provides checks and balances for the clergy and vice versa. The generosity of the laity must be a manifestation of truth, as the Holy Spirit empowers us to give or we would not be able to do so. But our job does not stop there, and we must monitor what we are funding.

After decades of destabilizing clerical experimentation in God's true church and often complete disrespect for those laity who struggle to keep their lamps lit as the await the return of the Master, lay contributions are finally being withheld. This is a manifestation of true justice. And it is about time.

How do we expect God to bless us, our children, our grandchildren when we stand by in a cloud of helplessness or worse, indifferent as fellow Catholics are persecuted by those in the most sensitive positions of power? It isn't only children who are at risk from clergy run amok. We are all children before God, and we all have souls vulnerable to spiritual aggression.

When confronted by an evil misinterpretation of Holy Orders, such as witnessed by the few who cared and dared to object at St. Peter's, doesn't it make sense that we offer immediate and effective support: if donations at St. Peters and around the diocese dry up until we have an assurance from the bishop that his tolerance of priestly misconduct of ANY KIND can never again be the crutch a priest uses as he engages in abuse of his discretionary power, would we not see a radical drop in such incidents?

We are empowered to fund the teaching of the true faith and God's Ten Commandments, and also the administrations of sacraments and have a right to expect this be carried out by clergy obedient to God. If we fund anything which tears away at this primary divine purpose of the Church, may God help us, for according to Scripture, we have neglected a sacred duty and may expect to suffer consequences as if we ourselves had done the wrong deeds.

May God be with you.

Sharon V. Bunas
Carlsbad


ASK FOR PROOF

The article, "Kneeling, Standing Tear Parish Apart," reminded me of what I recently read about attempted changes to the liturgy of the Mass in the diocese of Cleveland.

For years, Cleveland church members have kneeled in prayer after communion. Now the diocese has said that everyone must stand until the last person has received communion. Catholics will also have to raise their hands at "The Lord's Prayer," and there will not be a handshake or embrace as a sign of peace. Catholics will also be asked to bow before receiving communion.

The Vatican has clarified that kneeling upon returning to one's pew after receiving is not to be forbidden. Some gesture is to be made at the sign of peace. Also, the congregation is not to use the same hands position as the priest during the Our Father. Bowing before Communion is now the Catholic rubric.

Father J. Glenn Murray of Cleveland said there's no need to make the changes a holy issue. I think that we should remember, "lex orandi, lex credendi," as we worship so shall we believe. Being faithful Catholics obedient to the Magisterium is a holy issue.

Parishioners should challenge their dioceses to prove changes are in conformity with the new General Instructions of the Roman Missal and the Vatican's interpretation of it. Until they do, Catholics should continue worshiping as they have been doing.

Joel Fago
Sedona, AZ

TOP