LETTERS

REAL PRESENCE

Apparently some pastors and at least one bishop believe it so important to change the “posture” of the laity during Mass they will break the law of the Church to accomplish it.

As I understand it, the general norm is to kneel for the consecration. In the United States, it has been our custom to kneel at the “Holy, Holy, Holy” and remain kneeling thereafter, except for the Our Father. The Church has allowed the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (not individual bishops, priests, or parish liturgical councils) to modify these postures but only in accord with the purpose and meaning of each part of the Mass and the sensibilities of the people.

At the latest bishops' conference, a motion to change the posture was defeated. It is not clear to me whether the motion entailed standing during the consecration. In any case, I have attended more than a few Masses recently where the congregation, under instructions from the priest, stood during the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist, including the consecration. At one parish, they stood at the consecration but knelt during part of an R.C.I.A. ceremony!

This appears to be in open defiance of the Church's rule. But even more important, to my mind, is the apparent change in the belief of those who so desire this “reform.” They apparently no longer believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which has been defined de fide and for all time by the Church at the Council of Trent and alluded to as “remaining intact” by Vatican II.

In a culture that prides itself on kneeling to no man or thing, but only to God, standing, where once we knelt, indicates that we no longer believe that Christ becomes present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, when, and only when, the words of consecration are spoken.

Some liturgical experts will say (and I have heard them say it) that Christ is present as much in the Liturgy of the Word and in the assembly of the faithful as in the consecrated host. And that I submit is the new doctrine they are trying to have the people learn through the posture change. Others seem to say that it is not the words of consecration that effect the substantial change but the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist, of which the “Institution Narrative” is only a part.

Both of these ideas are contrary to the teaching of the Church. Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism, quoting the Council of Trent, reads: “… by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ our Lord.…” Also paragraph 1377: “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration.…” Also, paragraph 1374, quoting Pope Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei: “This presence is called ‘real’—by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.

How could anyone brought up in our culture remain standing when this occurs? Would we remain standing if Christ were to appear in our midst in such a way that we could see and hear and touch Him?

John Prendiville

Oak Park, Illinois

MODERN GOALS

The petition that a coalition of dissenting Catholic organizations is circulating (“Catholic Reformers Launch Petition Drive,” the Register, June 9) is sad in its narrowness. All of the demands are for power in the Church or for changing doctrines and disciplines related to sex. In earlier centuries, Christian disputes were about the Incarnation, the Trinity, Grace, and other issues involving God. Now the main concerns of dissenters are organizational power and their sex lives. They want the Church to permit contraception, divorce and remarriage, premarital sex, homosexual intercourse, etc. One might wonder why laymen, most of whom have no desire to become priests, are concerned with abolishing the requirement of celibacy. I suspect that in many cases it is because celibacy is, among other things, a witness that people can control their sexual appetites. People can choose to refrain from satisfying their sexual desires. People who don't want to refrain from satisfying their sexual desires would prefer that that witness be less noticeable. Similarly, I suspect that the reason many heterosexuals support the legitimization of homosexual intercourse is that if homosexual intercourse is legitimized, anything goes, including whatever they might want to do.

Martin Helgesen

Malverne, New York

via e-mail

REED's SHIFT

The reason Ralph Reed's “subtle shift” on the abortion “issue” (“Ralph Reed's Gambit,” the Register, May 19) caused such a brouhaha among pro-life people was not because the pro-life movement is opposed to using legal efforts as well as moral persuasion to ban all abortion. Rather, it is the implication, implicit in Mr. Reed's omission of a human life amendment from his proposed platform language, that the pro-life movement no longer has abolishing abortion as its ultimate goal.

The pro-life movement does not exist to legislate and regulate the wholesale murder of innocent children. It exists to eliminate it. A human life amendment, if drafted to uphold the personhood of the preborn child, would preclude a “states rights” approach and direct the states to give total protection to every innocent baby from fertilization on.

Although a human life amendment may not currently have the support needed to pass in Congress, it is precisely because the pro-life movement, Ralph Reed case in point, has stopped asking for it. Out of sight, out of mind. Just like 1.5 million babies a year.

Rebecca Lindstedt,

Alexandria, Virginia

MORE REED

The Register's May 19 editorial defending Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed's promotion of a revised pro-life plank for the Republican party (“Ralph Reed's Gambit”) missed the point. Some leaders of the pro-life movement are simply off track. Instead of focusing on eliminating all abortion—through a principled, persuasive strategy—some of these leaders have all but given up efforts to push a human life amendment or human life statute through Congress. One need not look any further than the past session of Congress. Although a bill which would have banned abortion, HR 1625, was introduced by Rep. Bob Dornan and a few others, only a handful of national pro-life groups even bothered to mobilize support for it (namely American Life League and March for Life). Instead, most national groups focused on a bill which would have restricted the use of a rarely-used abortion technique … and even this bill had an exception in it. If this is the best we can do with the supposed “most pro-life Congress since Roe v. Wade,” then it's a sad commentary on the pro-life movement.

Yes, the battle over the Republican plank is exposing division in the pro-life movement. We need to decide—we either stop the political compromise with babies'lives or continue trying to win kudos from political elites while 4,500 babies die every day.

Greg Chesmore

Janesville, Wisconsin

ABORTION TOLL

Last April, New York Gov. George Pataki announced he would lead the charge to strip the pro-life plank from the Republican Party platform at the National Convention in August. Ray Kerrison, premier columnist of the New York Post, (April 21) suggested Pataki check out the fate of presidential hopefuls Sen. Arlen Specter and Gov. Pete Wilson, as well as the overwhelming majority in both Senate and House outlawing partial-birth abortions. “Only a presidential veto keeps this crime on the books.”

Kerrison's column added a statistic I found devastating: “Every year, 1.5 million unborn babies are destroyed in the womb. Since legalizing abortion in 1973, more than 30 million American babies have been snuffed out before birth.” The overwhelming vote in Congress (which included both pro-choice Democrats and Republicans) banning full-term abortions indicates “this mass slaughter is beginning to trouble the national conscience.”

There is another aspect that deserves consideration. Jesuit Father Robert Brungs, a St. Louis physicist and theologian, made a stunning observation that is relevant here: “The loss of 25 million potential Social Security contributors through abortion, although it is protected as a private act, will have an enormous public effect down the road in a few years” (St. Louis Mo., You See Lights Breaking Upon Us, p. 37, ITEST Press, 1989).

Is this why Social Security and Medicare are facing bankruptcy?

Sister Thomas More Bertels, O.S.F.

Manitowoc, Wisconsin

DISSENTERS

I am not typically an outspoken person, but “We Are Church Comes Stateside” (the Register, June 16) sure upset me.

The fact that it was printed is commendable (it should wake people up), but the fact that this type of movement is occurring is not acceptable!

It is incredible how liberals use statistics to paint an illusion so that the “average American” will feel obliged to support their agenda. I wish people would wake up and realize that statistics can be manipulated to say anything.

I am affiliated with a religious order and have been involved with many others on different occasions. Any rule or constitution I have ever read included a vow of obedience. This would apply not only to one's superior, but to the Church and the Magesterium as well. According to Canon Law, the laity is also bound to obey the teachings of the Magesterium.

To have a Catholic sister carrying the banner for this movement brings shame to everybody who is “truly Catholic.” Somebody in the hierarchy should officially warn her, and if no response is observed, place the sister and/or her religious house under interdict.

We need somebody to follow the lead of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and stop this movement in its tracks. If that means excommunicating everyone that signs that petition, so be it! The “weeds” must be removed if the “flowers” are to survive. Church Doctrine is not a product of popular opinion!

Where is all this going to stop? If this was not such a serious subject, I would never be able to keep myself from laughing! But in reality I am on the verge of crying. Remember Our Lord's warning about “wolves in sheeps'clothing”?

Matthew Callihan

Butler, Pennsylvania