Dominic Answers Corral

By Dominic
Letter to the Editor
San Francisco Faith
February 2005

http://www.sffaith.com/ed/letters/2005letters/0502lett.htm

Having just read Father Corral's editorial response to "Soft Men" [see "Letters," January Faith], I felt compelled to respond.

I would like to start off by saying that while space considerations and other editorial issues dramatically reduced the size of Mr. Kumpel's article, "Soft Men," not one word of the article is untrue.

The only part of "Soft Men" where I was concerned that readers might misconstrue my words was the part where the article quoted me as saying that the Dominicans do not give primacy to Church teaching. I said that of seminaries in general, when asked about my speculations on the future of orthodox seminarians in formation within this country and not of the Dominicans in particular. That quote had unfortunately been edited out of its earlier context and was juxtaposed at a turn of phrase that could be perceived in a way different from my intention when I said it. I don't think the editing was deliberately malicious, and it could be argued that there is truth to the idea that the Dominicans give equal time to opposing points of view. Isn't that the intention of the Graduate Theological Union? Don't seminarians take theology (and other) classes from non-Catholics? Do these non-Catholic teachers promote the primacy of the Church's teaching?

I loved your editor's response to Father Corral's letter. Throughout my reading of Father Corral's reply, I was thinking the same thing your editor noted: Father Corral wasted time and print space restating things the article already quoted him saying. He had all this space dedicated to letting him get "the truth" to your readers and wasted it blathering on about accreditation and pretending that the issuance of new policies or the hope of some future stamp of approval from a committee they are inviting to observe and approve them was the issue, and not that the leadership of the Western Province has been ferreting men guilty of sexual misconduct into a residential neighborhood without the knowledge of their neighbors.

Father Corral's response said there was only one former seminarian "with an axe to grind." The article clearly stated that two men were interviewed.

When he says they don't use inclusive language at St. Albert's or throughout the various houses in the province, Father Corral is not being forthright. The Dominicans don't use breviaries for the liturgy of the hours in their various houses (or St. Albert's) for any of their communal recitation of the divine office in common (for the most part; there may be a few exceptions). They use unapproved texts for these times of communal prayer that have been doctored in the interest of inclusivity (and not necessarily in the interest of the English language, fidelity to the approved version's meaning, or even theological accuracy in a few instances). The best of these unapproved inclusive language versions is the one used at St. Albert's in two binders, one black and one gray. Father Corral's attempt to compare this to the use of different missals available in different churches within a diocese (or whatever) simply doesn't wash with reality.

As for what Father Syverstad said at the meeting mentioned in the article — in charity, all I can say is, I was there, and Father Corral wasn't. Father Syverstad did tell the bishop about moving in the abusers, and he told us as much (and I don't recall having said otherwise), but Father Syverstad also told us they wouldn't be telling other dioceses about the sexual abuse histories of their priests and that if bishops began to require that, the province would withdraw from those dioceses. He said that they would freely admit to drug and alcohol abuse issues, but not sexual abuse. That's as near as I can remember to a word-for-word quote. Father Syverstad said nearly exactly that. Father Corral didn't hear it because he wasn't there.

For the record, I never said the Dominicans hadn't told the bishop of Oakland about these men. I don't believe the article quotes me as saying that either.

As far as liturgical dance, all the article said was that it is practiced within the province (or in the province, or whatever). It is. I've seen it, so has the other seminarian interviewed (so have honest student seminarians still studying at St. Albert's). The article never said it happens everywhere, or at all times, and Father Corral even admitted that it was done at St. Albert's student Masses in the 1980s. In the article, he also said he likes liturgical dance and supports the use of inclusive language. So what is he grousing about? Why is it wrong to portray the Western Dominican Province as doing things their provincial is quoted as enjoying and supporting? What is there to be so ashamed of if these things are so wonderful?

The School of Applied Theology bit of the article was more of an editorial focus, but I support all that was written in the article and in the editor's reply.

As for Fathers Renz and Monshau — well, let's just say the provincial and a number of people (not just one lone man no longer connected with the province) disagree about the alleged qualities of Fathers Monshau and Renz. I don't recall the article implying that these priests engage in human sacrifice, just that they are "progressive" and perhaps imprudent. It also seemed to indicate some unorthodox leanings with regard to Church teaching on homosexuality. I would love for Father Renz to clarify his views on that subject for your readers and encourage you to give him the opportunity! I also don't recall the article saying that Fathers Renz, Monshau, or both could sway entire voting bodies; but then, Father Corral's letter is loaded with straw man arguments (not to mention the occasional ad hominem).

It is disingenuous of Father Corral to downplay the significance of Fathers Monshau and Renz and their input, especially when he admits that he as prior provincial is the only man who can override a voting body and tells readers in the same breath that he thinks Fathers Monshau and Renz are super groovy guys. Maybe that might mean they could persuade provincials? Perhaps other friars might respect the opinions of men who control most of the day-to-day life of the men in formation as opposed to those who only get to know the brothers by chatting with them over the occasional meal?

Father Monshau is the prior at St. Albert's and the master of student brothers, and Father Renz is the master of clerical students and primary director of formation. They have a great deal to say about what goes on in that house (as well as a vote in both the house and the smaller eight-man council that decides the future fate of seminarians. They also vote in a small council that decides which applicants are to be admitted to the novitiate). Ask any seminarian you like whether or not it is prudent to view Fathers Monshau or Renz as having little impact on their future with the province.

I did note that Father Renz was particularly evasive when questioned about the admission of homosexual candidates to the Western Dominican Province. I notice that Father Corral didn't attempt to clarify those ambiguities even when given numerous opportunities.

As for my axe...

Well, Father Corral, I'm more than willing to bury the hatchet. Will you show me the same compassion and understanding you have shown the abusers?

Dominic,
Oakland, CA