LETTERS

Little Notes

Confessions
Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 1999
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

November 1999 LETTERS

---

Thank you, Elizabeth Schumacher, for your fine article and research on La Providencia retreat house in Alpine (September News Notes, The Labyrinth) . I am appalled that it is still listed in the diocesan directory. One should be able to trust that list to provide one with the names of Catholic establishments, not ones with more regard for mandalas than the Blessed Mother and who encourage people to find the Divine by walking a maze on the lawn instead of in the Sacraments.

A nice peaceful, quiet place in a lovely spot is always refreshing to the frayed spirit, but there is more to a truly Catholic retreat than that. Instead of turning one's back on the rich tradition of the Church in prayer, spiritual healing, and union with Christ in the Eucharist to substitute such New Age devices as described in the article by Ms. Schumacher, let us return to our roots as Catholic and praise Jesus for the gifts he gives through the Church.

Sincerely,
Donna Malley
Parishoner, Mission San Diego de Alcala

CLARIFICATION

Last month News Notes reported that, according to a parishioner, ten years ago Father Jim Poulsen, pastor of St. Gregory the Great Church, instituted the practice of families assisting the priest at Mass instead of individual altar servers. What the parishioner actually said was that ten years ago, Father Poulsen initiated a policy of not using altar servers, in protest against the Church's exclusion of female altar servers, and that the parish planned to use families as altar servers when St. Gregory's new church building opened "this fall."

THE ENIGMATIC MORMON FAITH

I read with great interest the cover article in the October 1999 issue titled "Are Mormons Pro-Life?" by Robert Kumpel. Although I'm not a Mormon, I've spent the last ten years studying Mormonism, visiting Salt Lake City at least twice a year and reading extensively in Mormon doctrine and literature. As a student of Mormonism, I have, naturally, spent many hours at the local Deseret Book outlet, establishing a good relationship with the staff.

My comments will deal only with the early portion of the article, the material with which I am most familiar.

First, the book Gospel Principles is described as "a type of catechism." I think this misses the point and may mislead some of your readers. Among the many Sunday meetings in a typical Mormon ward, there can be found "Sacrament Meeting," comparable in intent to the Sunday Mass, and various "priesthood" meetings. We must not confuse the Catholic idea of priesthood with Mormonism's view.

Mormonism segments its population according to their "priesthood rank" -- males within the system are ordained into a level of priesthood depending on age and worthiness. (Women are not granted priesthood within Mormonism and generally belong to the "Relief Society," a highly successful outlet for the talents of the women in the church.) There are two levels -- the "Aaronic Priesthood" and the higher "Melchizedek Priesthood."

Education of the various priesthood classes is supported through "Priesthood Manuals," curricula developed and approved by the church's educational system. "Gospel Principles" is such a manual. It is less a catechism than a work issued for a given time and a given purpose -- the training of priesthood in the principles of the gospel. But do these manuals constitute official statements of the church?

It is the policy of the Mormon church that official statements of doctrine are found in only two sources: the Scriptures, and statements from the First Presidency (a President and his two counselors). Materials in priesthood manuals do not constitute official doctrine.

The News Notes article continues with a conversation Mr. Kumpel had with "employee Sandy Nelson." This really raised my eyebrows. I've been shopping there for ten years, and I've never met a "Sandy Nelson" at that store. A quick phone call confirmed that no one by that name ever worked there. While there is a "Nelson," there is no one named Sandy. I was unclear who exactly Mr. Kumpel spoke with!

Further, Kumpel states that "Sandy Nelson" told him that older manuals are "used by missionaries while the new edition is for churches and families." This is pure nonsense, on two levels. First, any time a new manual is issued, the old one is immediately taken out of circulation. Second, missionaries do not use any of the manuals in their work, much less an older edition of a revised manual.

Granting that manuals don't necessarily reflect official doctrine, and that Mr. Kumpel's impression of how old manuals are used is off-base, there remains the question of why there should be any change at all.

That changes occur within Mormonism should come as no surprise to any alert observer. Mormons honor four books as scripture: The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The third work, The Doctrine and Covenants, is a "open" book in that it is a collection of "revelations" received by Mormon founder Joseph Smith, Jr., and his successors in the Presidency of the church. As such, the current prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, may at any time receive a revelation that will be added to the corpus.

Such change is made possible by their belief in "continuing revelation," that the President of the church is the living channel of revelation from God. Maintaining the status quo hardly requires a living prophet.

Throughout its history, Mormonism has made adjustments to its belief system, some of which represent more radical changes that the perceived softening of the church's stance on abortion. Current members often find earlier tracts surprising, but since they generally don't represent "official statements," they are under no obligation to accept the ideas.

However one sorts out the enigmatic Mormon faith, one can hardly consider this rapidly growing faith monolithic in its views. Unity among Mormons is as desired, and yet as elusive, as it is within Catholicism.

It can be seen that learning the "Mormon position" on an issue requires more than a visit to San Diego's "official Mormon bookstore" -- for the record, another blunder by Mr. Kumpel. There are no "official Mormon bookstores" in San Diego, only independent book stores and chain outlets. One might as well visit O'Connor's Books on El Cajon Boulevard, or the USD Bookstore, to learn the official Catholic position on an issue. As you might guess, you would receive very different answers from each.

If one really wants an authoritative answer to any question concerning Mormonism, the only reliable source is a statement from the First Presidency of the church. Nothing else carries the imprimatur of the church. And, so far as I know, there has been no official statement on the matter of abortion.

I hope this is of some help. Thanks for the News Notes . It is an ongoing source of information for me, and other readers, concerning the San Diego Catholic population.

Jeffrey Needle
Chula Vista

Robert Kumpel's response: After checking my notes I found that the clerk's name at Deseret Books was Linda Nelson. I regret the error.

MORE ON BISHOP CUMMINS

In reading "Clips" in the October issue, I was struck by Bishop John Cummins' admission that the California bishops had "worked behind the scenes" to pass the pro-homosexual "consenting adults" bill, AB 489 in 1975.

As you will see from this copy of a November 3, 1978 full-page ad in the Tidings , the Los Angeles archdiocesan paper, Bishop Cummins continued his pro-homosexual advocacy in a more publicized way after 1975 by supporting homosexual teachers (along with Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco and Bishop Juan Arzube of Los Angeles).

Enclosed is a flier from the Committee to Maintain Holy Innocence dated 1966, with a copy of the Tidings ad on the reverse side. You will note the name of Sister Anna Roberta Benson, CSJ; will include articles about her, as we have dedicated our CMHI work in her memory.

Many thanks for your wonderful publications.

Adria Laubacher
Oxnard, California

WE COULDN'T KILL A DOG

Increasingly in church handouts, I notice the "Pro Life" movement associated with the abolition of the death penalty movement. I am anti-abortion and, in concert with the Catechism of the Catholic Church , consider it the immoral destruction of nascent human life. It is, however, very wise to draw a distinction between abortion and the act of murder which is the deliberate, extremely evil act of homicide of a fully developed human being. While abortion is evil, it is not murder. The Roman Catholic Church does not apply the term "murder" to abortion in the Catechism or anywhere else. The use of the term murder applied to the destruction of the developing human being is an invention of a passionate few activists engaging in rhetorical excess, with downstream disastrous consequences. With the number of true murderers now walking freely on American streets estimated at 500,000 individuals, members of the "Pro Life" movement who insist on forgiving murderers may actually be contributing to more murder. However immoral abortion is, the two acts must stop being confused by those Catholic intellectuals attempting to co-opt the "Pro Life Movement."

The death penalty for certain murderers is very moral because it is repeatedly prescribed by God in the Bible since murder is a crime not only against a man, but the entire community of humans and against God, the creator of life. It is a statement by the community that murder is an act so evil that it will not be tolerated under any circumstance. While Jesus came to forgive the sinner, including the robber on the cross near him, prostitutes and adulterers; he never once suggested that murder is forgivable by human beings or that we humans, to repeat the mantra of the progressives, "not judge" the murderer. In applying the death penalty to murderers, as David Gelernter, a victim of the Unibomber points out, "the community reaffirms this moral understanding [of the absolutely intolerable evil of murder] by restating the truth that absolute evil exists and must be punished."

Our priest at Mass today suggested that pro-death penalty advocates are "ready and willing to push the button to end life." Nothing could be further from the truth. As Gelernter notes, most of us don't have the nerve to kill a dog, let alone a human being. If we favor executing murderers it is not because we want to, but because, however much we do not want to, we consider ourselves obliged to. Opposition to the death penalty, which resides primarily with intellectuals and cultural elites, "is not because they abhor killing more than other people do, but because the death penalty represents absolute speech from a position of moral certainty, and doubt is the black-lung disease of the intelligentsia-- an occupational hazard now inflicted on the culture as a whole."

Let an intellectual priest deny Matthew Cecchi's dad's single wish upon losing his son; that the monster-in-human-form who laid in wait to decapitate a little 9-year-old boy at the urinal needs to live to demonstrate the love of Jesus Christ. Nonsense!

J. Harper
Vista

TOP