Father Groeschel

In relation to “Father Groeschel: A Heart for the Poor” (Oct. 5, NCRegister.com; “Father Groeschel: (1933-2014),” Oct. 19 issue):

Father Groeshel used to come to Modesto, Calif., every year for a day of recollection. He was such a wonderful priest and speaker. We have all of his books. I am grateful his suffering has ended, and God chose to bring him home on the eve of the memorial of St. Francis of Assisi. How timely.

I am praying for the repose of his soul, and may he rest in peace. He followed the message of the Gospel to the very end. He will be missed.

         Judy Knutsen

         Elk Grove, California

 

No Ambiguity, Please

Regarding your synod coverage:

As the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family takes a breather until the concluding session in October 2015, we might consider whether the hanging issues can be cleared up in another way. The first question in the wings is not a likely contradiction between doctrine and practice, but an underlying and ambiguous image of the Church.

As a “field hospital,” the Church surely must simply continue to open its arms to all as a compassionate move toward a world of unprecedented primal and global turbulence — at the brink, we are told, of World War III. An ominous message, this “sign of the times” recalls World War I: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime” (Edward Grey, British politician).

But can the center post of the Church as a hospital stand in the winds that blow if at the periphery we pull up the tent stakes? How do we avoid endorsing sacrilegious access to Communion — the Real Presence at the center of a Eucharistic Church? How do we be respectful of persons without playing into the agenda of popular culture? How can the New Evangelization remain fully “inclusive” of all of us, that is, fully inclusive of sacramental, moral and societal integrity and consistency?

G.K. Chesterton reminds us that the Church liberates us from “the degrading slavery of being a child of our age.” During the first days of the Second Vatican Council, the scripted working drafts were abruptly rejected; the drafting commissions were reconstituted; and the “real Council” began. Now, we see an abrupt departure in the recent synod from Cardinal Kasper’s “introduction” of last February. Surely this surprise, too, is equally the work of the Holy Spirit!

The lasting benefit of the current synod must include freedom from the media-sustained “virtual Council” and instead be a catching up with the authentic “gradualism” of recent decades, e.g., the whole of Humanae Vitae, plus Veritatis Splendor and Familiaris Consortio featured in the Register on Oct. 19.

Where is the light on a lampstand? Which is the real field hospital?

Or, instead, in 2015, will the transcribers presume to “complete” the synod report by re-inserting lines of doctrinal/practical ambiguity where — as a protection against novelty — the full assembly withholds its two-thirds vote and remains (too unguardedly) silent?

Upon his election, the Holy Father asked for prayers that he “not make mistakes.” Likewise for the synod fathers.

         Peter D. Beaulieu

         Shoreline, Washington

 

Missing Ingredients

I find two things gravely missing from the secular media’s commentary on the controversy surrounding the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family:

First is the complete ignorance of Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching on the theology of the body, which should be the central force driving all discussion, since it prophetically addresses the beauty and goodness of human love and so is a treasure sorely needed to resolve the problems regarding marriage and the family wrought in society as well as the Church.

Second is the complete ignorance of a principle source of the problem regarding divorced-and-remarried Catholics, i.e. the rubber-stamping of Catholic marriages.

A priest friend was speaking to me some time ago about a couple he had married who were going through a divorce. He said he knew they would divorce when he married them (or officiated at their wedding). I asked him why he married them if that was the case, and he responded, “Because they wanted to get married,” as if the choice was entirely theirs.

It doesn’t matter if the guy is lost and the girl is just looking for a nice building — we marry them. That’s the way it is.

And so, how many marriages in the past 30 or 40 years are not null? If 80% or 90% of Catholics have no problem with artificial contraception (and half or so with abortion), are they really able to vow that they are open to life?

If more than 50% of Catholic men are addicted to pornography, do they have a good sense of what it is to make a lifelong commitment of fidelity? And so it is quite possible that more than half, perhaps even 80% or 90%, of Catholic marriages of the past several decades are not Catholic marriages at all. Yet there is no word about this rubber-stamping. There are occasional mentions of improving the marriage-prep process, but how far are we from where we should be to accomplish the ideal that has been put forth of marriage as a vocation akin to a religious vocation when it takes approximately five years of training before one can profess final vows in a religious community and one currently receives a few evenings or perhaps a weekend of preparation before marriage?

Where is the “domestic church” in all this? How is it supported and prepared? And if one is not even close to comprehending what it means to be married in the Catholic Church (if, for instance, the partners have not even been attending Mass regularly), does marrying them not make a joke of Catholic marriage — and hasn’t this served to cause the absolute mess we find ourselves in today?

         James Kurt

         Sarasota, Florida

 

Healing of Heart

Regarding “The Synod on the Family and Procedures of Charity” (NCRegister.com, Oct. 24): J.D. Flynn was correct in his article, stating he believes that modification of the annulment process is not going to solve the problem. I suggest better and more faithful teaching of Catholic morality will go a long way toward that end.

We went through the annulment process years ago. It was a most healing and beneficial, albeit painful, process. What took the most time (several years) was not the tribunal process, but our healing and re-conversion. It is not like filling out an application and applying for a loan, like the way so many people approach it. We had to prayerfully, thoughtfully reminisce about things we didn’t care to recall and then humbly submit ourselves to the authority that God gives the Church.

At the time we married, each for the second time, we approached a priest and, in our ignorance and arrogance, told him we didn’t believe in annulments. In his misguided compassion, he went along with us. It was some years later that a faithful priest dared to tell us the truth. Thanks be to God for good priests.

Making the process easier is not going to yield a true healing of heart that is required for this to work. If anything, better counseling by faithful clergy for this purpose will make the best improvement prior to the commencement of the annulment process.

         Aggie Langscheid

        Greenville, Mississippi