Letters to the Editor

I am writing in response to a Jan. 20 news article on AngelusNews.com from Catholic News Agency titled “Benedict XVI, Cardinal Marx faulted in Munich abuse report.” It is no secret that the pope emeritus continues to be begrudged by some in the Church, but tarnishing the Ratzinger name does not serve the truth or justice well. The report accuses then Cardinal-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger of covering up the abhorrent sexual abuse of four priests. There would be no problem in charging Cardinal Ratzinger with cover-up if this happened over the past two decades or so.  However, the fact is that at the time these events happened, it was the praxis across the ecclesiastical and civil boards to transfer such perpetrators because their heinous acts were deemed as a serious deficiency in their moral character. Today, and not then, we know that this is much more complicated, and inflicts grave and lifelong damage on innocent victims. I have known Pope Ratzinger since he was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, long before he was elected pope. We worked together on several sensitive cases involving Church law and theology. I found him to be a humble and very approachable man, a great and gracious listener with an extraordinary way of grasping an issue.  Despite his timid personality, he could be very determined and persistent. He insisted that the cases of priests charged with sexual abuse of minors be turned over to his congregation for study, evaluation, and adjudication. He did everything possible to bring to justice errant priests, no matter who the accused priest might be. It seems to me that this Munich abuse does three things wrong: 1) It fails to evaluate action in its historical context; 2) It rushes to fault then-Cardinal Ratzinger with such haste that it fails radically to be just to Pope Benedict; 3) It diminishes, if not completely ignores, his valiant efforts to confront and address the sexual abuse of minors by priests. My understanding is that truth and justice go hand-in-hand. This would involve not only reporting events in a professional and accurate way but also evaluating them within their historical context, otherwise the report’s author is reinterpreting history and doing a great injustice to the object of the report.

In response to John L. Allen’s article “Tradition and transition” in the Dec. 3 issue: My theological schooling is at the baccalaureate level, with courses in the novitiate and self-study, but “liturgy wars” would not be a term I’d choose about the worship of God. But it surely gets attention! The issue is about believers wanting to deepen their relationship with God by restoring the Tridentine Latin Mass. Pope Francis’ refusal to restore it has provoked clergy and laity alike. The pope saw its return in opposition to the Second Vatican Council’s intent to let nothing interfere with the Church’s community life, like the confusing use of another language here — Latin being one of them.  I know of a good number of Roman Catholics in the Bay Area, where I live, who have deepened their relationship with God by celebrating the Byzantine liturgy. It teaches how well the early Church understood the mystery of the Incarnation — its liturgy expresses it in every detail. The vernacular, English, is used there. The Scriptures take on much more meaning with the knowledge that the apostles St. Andrew and St. Paul, among others, composed the structures of these liturgies we pray from.  There is much to be said for the graces that come from making an effort to encounter an ancient liturgical experience — and the Tridentine Mass isn’t the only one.  — Sister Joyce Turnbull, RSM, Burlingame, California

Regarding the national news brief “The diocese that won’t host vaccination clinics” in the Dec. 3  issue: Why is the Diocese of Madison being slandered as “anti-life” for simply letting parishioners make their own decision on whether to get vaccinated or not? It is not a sin of omission not to endorse something we now know is not as “safe and effective” as originally led to believe. — David Walter, Downey

I found the analogy used by John L. Allen Jr. in the Dec. 3 issue article “Tradition and transition” to be flippant and insulting.  My concern is not with his point of view, which can be argued by theologians. But to compare those who assist at the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to a “cantankerous old uncle” that nobody wants around is beneath the standard of your magazine. I give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he is trying to do what he feels is best for the Church. I hope Allen prays, as do I, for the good of the Church and not that of his own ideology. He is welcome to his opinion, but should imbibe a bit of charity and humility. After all, he may be completely wrong. That happens when you’re human. — Andre Coulombe, Sylmar 

Thank you for the interview about the Eucharist with Father Neil Xavier O’Donoghue, “A place to receive life,” in the Nov. 19 issue.  Something he said in the last two paragraphs had a profound effect on me. Although I’m a convert, attend Daily Mass, and adore Jesus truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, sometimes I get grumpy and find myself complaining in my head about almost everything: the music, the sound system, irreverent parishioners, etc. Today, the Solemnity of Christ the King, was one of those days. But I remembered what the article said about the difference my attitude can make — a “hungover” attitude versus a Mother Teresa faith-filled attitude. So I quickly prayed to be more like Mother Teresa at this Mass. I’m happy to report that it worked — by the end of Mass,  I was uplifted and joyful to the point of tears. — Marilyn Boussaid, St. James Church, Redondo Beach

John Allen’s latest article “Tradition and transition” claims that the vast majority of Masses that were celebrated in the side chapels of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome “were conducted in the older rite.” This is an outrageously misleading statement. As a priest who has celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass at St. Peter’s every day for the last two decades, I guarantee that the majority of Masses have never been in the older Ordo. His statement is not only incorrect and misleading, but incendiary. — Msgr. Larry Spiteri, Rome, Italy