2003 LETTERS
December
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
December 2003

---

About seven years ago, my family and I stopped attending Mass at our local parish, St. Peter's in Fallbrook and began to attend the Mission San Antonio de Pala on the Pala Indian Reservation. We made this decision because we were made to feel very, very uncomfortable at St. Peter's by Father Bud Kaicher. I had considered challenging Father Kaicher through normal diocesan channels, but chose to simply slip away quietly to the peaceful parish at Pala. The first thing we found at Pala was that there was a large number of former St. Peter's parishioners there. None were attending Mass at Pala out of convenience because Pala is at least 20 minutes farther away. Rather, virtually all of the people had a story to tell about the decline of the faith at St. Peter's or a personal conflict with Father Kaicher.

I was never proud that we chose to leave rather than fight [but] I felt that if I took up the fight, I would end up going too far. Now, however, I see that there are others who are bearing the standard and are standing up against the bullying tactics and new-age Christianity that Father Kaicher has been foisting on St. Peter's for ten years. Thus, in an effort to support those who are bearing the standard and to ease my own conscience about having run, I will tell our story.

Eight years ago, as our children reached school-going age, we considered St. Peter's school. After an initial investigation, we found that St. Peter's was not only teaching sex education programs in the parish school but had chosen to use a particularly flagrant program. Having had a decent relationship with Father Kaicher up to that point, we decided to meet with him to discuss the program. In what has become a standard response from Father Kaicher, he claimed that this was the "program approved by Bishop Brom" and simply stopped the discussion. We attempted to explain the link between sex-ed and abortion (which Father has claimed to fight in the past), but he would not listen. He made it clear that his word on the issue was final.

A few weeks later, we were provided with the latest Vatican documents (from the late Colonel Lawton) with which to persuade Father Kaicher. Father Kaicher berated the documents and grew very angry at the mention of any orthodox publication or organization that we mentioned. In his opinion, they were all "dissenters" and lacked the basic principle of Christian love.

We met with Father Kaicher one more time on this issue. He stated that he clearly understood that we differed on these issues and that the Church and his parish was big enough for the both of us. However, he said that because we did not agree with his policies, my wife would not be allowed to teach pre-catechesis to four-year-olds.

Concurrent with these efforts to reason with Father Kaicher, we had been involved in a parish small-group fellowship. At first, this seemed to be a good chance to meet with others and discuss our faith. Soon, however, it became evident that these groups were not interested in discussing true Catholicism. The facilitators were more interested in generating support for Father Kaicher's programs and in getting people to agree and "love one another." After one particularly painful session wherein I challenged the facilitators on a basic point of heresy, I was told I did not "love enough."

At this point, Sunday Mass became difficult. If the sermon was not heresy, it was normally a plea for money for the building campaign. The Mass itself was a mixed bag of new-age changes, impromptu speeches, and borderline invalidity. The altar received a grand piano, and Mass became more of a performance than a sacrifice.

Eventually the pledges for the building campaign were sent. I chose to respond to the letter with my objections to the plans for the church and the direction of the parish in general. I received a scathing reply from Father Kaicher. He accused me of being a "traditionalist." He indicated that my friends were the "problems" in the parish. He was rude and arrogant and hardly a pastor. I held that letter for a few weeks and was sorely tempted to forward it to Bishop Brom. It would have clearly led to disciplinary action. Instead, I gave the letter to a dear friend and left the parish.

Father Kaicher is under pressure now because Dave Swanson, Fran Morgan, and many other loyal, dedicated Catholics in Fallbrook have chosen to stand up for the faith. They have tolerated years of watered-down faith, weekly heresies, brutal liturgies, as well as insults. Some have implied that this is just a straw in the great field of faith. No, for those of us in Fallbrook, it is the last straw.

Jim Witschger
Fallbrook


HILLCREST WILL BE IMPRESSED

I am writing regarding the article "Ex Gay Takes on his Past" by Robert Kumpel in the October News Notes. The subject of that article says, "I went to state prison five times ... I've spent a total of 19 years incarcerated ... I was also exposed to drugs, which brought about years of methamphetamine abuse." He is presently living on disability.

Now it appears that this individual, who has contributed so much to society, has cleverly found a way to supplement his disability income by finding people who will pay him good money to try to "clean up" Hillcrest by trying to close down gay porn parlors and bath houses.

All I can say is, "Bravo!" It eases me to know that someone who is paid money from the taxpayers because he is disabled and can't work is still somehow able to do effective work that is worth a lot of money. The residents of Hillcrest, who pay from half a million to three million dollars to buy homes should be mightily impressed by this self-appointed community leader who has done so much to contribute to society while being careful not to burden society with any of his self-inflicted problems or to cost the taxpayers any money. I can tell you that I am certainly impressed! Keep up the good work! And I will try to help you by sending copies of this letter to Toni Atkins, the local disability office (perhaps a special recognition award could be given?), and the local gay newspapers (this should be a wake-up call for them!).

Andrew Towne
Via email


IS KREEFT EVEN CATHOLIC?

First, if one wants to know why there is so much confusion in the Church today (that's the Catholic Church), just read this article ("He Doesn't Have Ingrown Eyeballs," November 2003) and see what nonsense this so-called C.S. Lewis "scholar" (Peter Kreeft) is saying. If Mr. Kreeft is such a "scholar" on Lewis, then why does he accept it as "fact" that if Lewis were alive these days, "[Though] he did not live to see Vatican II... he would have been immensely pleased by it, because its genius was to return to the sources, to interpret the Catholic Church's rich 2000 year history in light of Scripture and the early Church Fathers."

How many more times are we going to hear these ridiculous claims of the new-agers that Vatican II attempted to "return to the sources?" Is Mr. Kreeft even Catholic? If so, he knows little of what true Catholicism is. It is also apparent that Mr. Kreeft cannot distinguish between the so-called "personal relationship" phenomenon and defined dogma -- i.e. a truth that must be believed by all Catholics -- when he says: "Whether Jesus really rose from the dead and is literally alive and active now has got to be more important than sola scriptura or the Immaculate Conception. Whether there is one savior or 260 million is more important than whether there are two sacraments or seven."

How many weak-kneed, and basically ignorant "Catholics" will accept the Lewis article as "Gospel"? This Lewis "scholar" is not thinking or looking at things logically here; he seems to think that there is no connection between Christ being "...literally alive and active now..." and the importance of the Immaculate Conception. Because of the former article of faith, the latter is also part of the mandatory articles of faith that must be believed.

Further, Mr. Kreeft uses yet another ridiculous analogy saying: "Whether there is one savior or 260 million is more important than whether there are two sacraments or seven." Is Mr. Kreeft quoting Lewis or is this his own errant view of the savior and the sacraments instituted by Him? It is not one or the other -- one savior vs. 260 million, or, two or seven sacraments. There is one savior and seven sacraments instituted by Him. These two elements (Christ and the sacraments) cannot be separated. They are part of the Catholic "system," which, it seems, Lewis did not want to accept and therefore did not become what he had to become in order to be saved -- a Catholic!

Eugene De Lalla Troy,
New Hampshire


GET TO THE SOURCE

I do not understand your puzzlement over the school ("Gay Friendly: What's with USD's Theology Department?" November, 2003). Since the '60s and '70s, Catholic schools have taken state, federal, and corporate grants. If anyone ever took the time to read the grant guidelines, it would be quite obvious what the rules and laws are. Has anyone from your paper ever gotten an annual report of schools or groups that you are investigating?

For years Catholics have run around in circles complaining about situations instead of getting to the source of the disease. Obviously, they feel more comfortable fighting the aftermath than the real problem.

Anonymous
Via Email


SEE BONDAGE YOURSELF

I hope we're not going to let "anonymous" (November Letters, "We Have No Trouble Leaving") get off the hook with this drivel: "In my opinion the reason the Catholic Church has not split is because the Catholic Church is worshipped and most would not dream of leaving because of bondage to it and its legalistic ritual. Whereas most Protestants are not as caught up in their denomination and try to keep their focus on God. If they see serious error in leadership or corruption at the core, they don't have as much difficulty leaving since it is not the denomination that they are tied to."

Perhaps that is why "anonymous" didn't want to sign this mess. I would advise anyone who is of good will and seeking the truth and who claims to love God, to read their Bibles -- preferably the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible (the closest to the original Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome) -- and see for yourself the "bondage" and "its legalistic ritual" set in stone by Christ Himself. Remember, "Anonymous," if you reject His Church, you reject Him!

Not anonymous,

Gene De Lalla Troy,
New Hampshire

TOP