BishopAccountability.org
	Readers Sound off on Maciel Scandal, Deadbeat Moms, the Devil, and Questionably-Worded Wedding Vows The following is a selection of (slightly edited) e-mails I've received in response to recent columns. By Matt C. Abbott Renew America June 27, 2010 http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100627 James O. Dorchak: Regarding 'Noted priest: John Paul II was fooled by Maciel' (June 25): I'm very saddened to say that I do not agree with Father Trigilio. Unfortunately, I do think John Paul II knew about everything Maciel had done. I don't think he covered it up as such; I think John Paul II just chose not to take any action. I guess, in essence, this is covering up, but I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, in the last paragraph: 'I would never attack the families Maciel deceived, either. They were innocently fooled. So was Pope John Paul II and so were many of us who were duped by a master impersonator.' I have to point out that many of us were not fooled, yet we were attacked by our friends (sometimes family) and church for being 'uncharitable.' And I heard no apology from the LC/RC or the Church for pushing Maciel's agenda. This is a sad situation, and it just seems to me that Father Trigilio is saying we are in charge and we are stupid. This is unacceptable because I am a Catholic and I was not duped. Apollo F. Salle: I do not know if you have heard of the case of Magdalena of Cordoba. In case you haven't, Magdalena of Cordoba lived from the late 15th century to the mid-16th century. She joined the Poor Clares convent in Cordoba, Spain, and immediately became known for having mystical gifts: levitation, ecstasies, gift of healing and prophecy, and so on. It did not take long for Magdalena's popularity to spread all throughout Spain. For 40 long years, Spaniards from all walks of life visited her convent to see her and hear her counsel (even the reigning king of Spain visited her to seek spiritual advice). The Poor Clares, for their part, elected Magdalena as their mother superior a number of times. After 40 years or so, Magdalena fell gravely ill and, thinking she was about to die, revealed the terrifying truth to the horrified priest assigned to give her the Last Rites. And the truth was this: All her mystical experiences, while genuine and real as far as being genuine and real go, were actually demonic simulations. As it turned out, Magdalena, as a youth, sold her soul to the devil in exchange for a lifetime of reputation of piety and holiness. The Inquisition immediately set out to condemn her experiences and revelations. Magdalena, for her part, recovered from her illness. She was dismissed from the Poor Clares and was sentenced by the Inquisition to life imprisonment in her former room at the convent and received nourishment solely from food passed on to her through a specially-made hole in the door of the room. It was solely because of Magdalena of Cordoba that alarm bells started ringing in the heads of the members of the Inquisition in the late 16th century when a young Discalced Carmelite nun reported possessing mystical gifts, and these Inquisition people really made life miserable at first for this young nun because they feared that she was a Magdalena-in-the-making. This young nun was actually the young Teresa of Avila. As much as the thought horrifies me, could Maciel be a 20th century equivalent of this Magdalena of Cordoba? And I'm not talking metaphorically here — especially since, for instance, I had read accounts that two unknown wild, snarling dogs were allegedly seen walking around his bedroom during his last weeks. Phillip Hendrix: I write to you to voice an opposing perspective on an article you wrote recently, dated June 17, 2010, posted on the RenewAmerica website, titled "No-fault' divorce: moms vs. dads.' I largely — almost exclusively — agree with you and the contention that 'no-fault' divorces have done demonstrable harm to American society, culture, if not to our moral standards as a nation. The fact is that I don't really disagree here at all — with you. Please allow me to explain. As a devout Christian, American patriot, devoted husband and father, and unequivocal pro-lifer, I am otherwise more-or-less a fan of Nora Doherty, but her contribution to your commentary was anything but positive. In fact, I contend she has most if not all the story absolutely wrong! Her presumption that many fathers are 'deadbeat dads' is not only incredibly offensive, but she is undeniably inaccurate. In evidence of this I inform you that, statistically, women/mothers are in arrears at a higher rate than are men/fathers. More to this point, when forced to pay as the non-custodial parent, moms default (or outright refuse to pay) at a rate three times that of dads. So, who here are the deadbeats? Ms. Doherty's repeated notions and derogatory words describing men's alleged non-commitment to marriage, fathers' supposed lack of interest in parenting as well as a perceived general lack of responsibility toward their own children are all just verbal rubbish. They are factually untrue. Clearly, she must have a bias where this is concerned, considering her own 'single mother' status. The reality she attempts to detail with specificity is very different than what most who actually endure would attest to as their experiences (with marriage, divorce, etc.). The dozens of loving fathers — and mothers, as well — I counsel every week are in evidence of a pervasive problem that exists and which runs across all spectrums, political, economic, racial, and other. The only commonality it seems is that most (around 90 percent) of those victimized by a cruel divorce/child custody/child support system are male. So, one must ask, do Nora's words hold water? Emphatically, I say no! Her biased perspective only serves to further a radical feminist agenda and provide false support to the machinery that in fact has served to ruin countless families and destroy the lives of innumerable, otherwise loving and devoted husbands and fathers. Also, please note that my reply to the article is not intended in any way to be critical of the vast majority of women, loving mothers or females in general. It does highlight a major problem existing with our so-called family courts and the apparatus supporting it as a multi-billion dollar industry. The concern I have is on the systemic bias, incompetence and, yes, corruption that exists within this system. Instead of her misandrist attack on my gender, perhaps she should be addressing the source of the ruination: the courts and divorce industry itself. She, and you, Matt, should know better. Shame on both of you! Rosemary McNeill: I'm writing in reference to your article on Father Euteneuer's new book on exorcism. Having read the article when it first came out, I was uncertain whether to follow it up with an incident that happened nearly 30 years ago that confirmed the existence of Satan and the power of the Rosary in my life, but I felt that it was appropriate to express in this venue. (For background information, I'm a mother of six children — my youngest daughter having graduated from law school at Notre Dame in May — and a grandmother of two). It was a time of my life when I first came back to the Catholic Church after dropping out in college. The Lord drew me to Himself in a magnificent way with signs and wonders. I'm still in awe when I meditate upon how He has worked in my life involved in every detail. I remember the particular incident with the Rosary as if it happened not that long ago. My little boy was jumping on the bed while I was talking on the phone. I turned to see him twirling my pink, crystal Rosary as I hung up the receiver. I attempted to grab the Rosary and scold him when it suddenly flew out from his hand scattering in pieces all around the room and beyond. I was finding pieces of all sizes, including single beads, down the long hallway for the next couple of days. I was shocked and horrified. Even at his age, my son knew something was wrong as he looked at the small piece dangling from his hand. Now the Rosary itself was well-made with the chain soldered so that there was no way it could break in such a manner. I had been praying a daily Rosary with my children nightly for some time (not sure how long, but weeks, most likely), and I sincerely believe — although most people would try to explain it away — that the devil broke it. I wish I could say that we continued to pray the family (my husband wouldn't participate) Rosary each day, but as the children grew older and got involved in many other things, we rarely prayed it together. I felt I couldn't keep it going by myself. I was heartbroken about it then, and even more so in the years to come as various problems, some of a serious nature, beset us. However, God is still working in my family, and I pray that each member may come to know and love Him more and more. Thank you for your interesting, relevant columns. May God bless you and yours. Mary Ann Parks: 'I, N., take you, N., to be my husband (or wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.' So goes the wedding vow in the Book of Rites for the U.S. It is absurd. 'True to you' sounds like Hollywood and is essentially meaningless. 'Good times and in bad' is such low English as to border on vulgar. But the worst of this formulation is that it renders the vow literally invalid, because the person makes the vow to be married for 'all the days of my life.' I knew one young woman who feared to marry because she thought the vow meant that she could not re-marry even after the death of her spouse. This absurd wording appears to be the most common one used, and I have seen priests default to it even when the couple has chosen a different one. I recently assured one upset couple that their intention and Church teaching prevail over the wording, and that they have not truly vowed to stay married 'all the days of my life' but rather 'until death do us part.' How bad is it when something like this gets past the 'experts' at ICEL and the USCCB? Contact: mattcabbott@gmail.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.