Dear Mr Fitzpatrick:
I enjoyed your article on the “Chesterbelloc” which I caught up with on the web. A fine job of writing. By the way, the term “Chesterbelloc” was coined by George Bernard Shaw.
I must point out, however, that both you and Mr Clark are completely misreading the intentions of these two Catholic titans, and are forgetting one fundamental point: both men taught this system with the understanding that one day (impossible as it may sound to you) men would once again be living under a Catholic monarchy—the only type of government that, while not perfect, is the closest ever devised to what God wants for men.
Secondly, both Belloc and Chesterton saw the evils of capitalism (a mirror-image of communism if ever there was one) and developed their ideas accordingly. State power—including the power to tax—under a budding despot like Clinton or Bush is one thing; state power under a Catholic monarchy is another thing altogether. And it is that point that both of you miss.
You will get a far better picture of these men and their ideas if you were to read more of their writings and not tackle only their distributism views.
Kindest regards,
Dan Guenzel
Dear Mr. Guenzel:
You make an important point. But my belief is that even a monarchy that called itself Catholic would abuse the taxing power Belloc and Chesterton would give to it.
Sincerely,
James Fitzpatrick
Charity for Feminists
While I agreed with the content of the column by Jeff Jacoby, I have to take issue with the caricature of the feminist used to illustrate the column. I'm sure it is meant to be humorous, but it places us at the same level of those who portray pro-life activists as crazed right-wing extremists. There is too little civil discourse in public discussion in this country. Let's set a good example of respect and charity for others, especially those we find most exasperating.
In Christ,
Jennifer
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Christ's Harsh Words
Dear Catholic Exchange,
I read the homily for Saturday and Sunday on the site, and the explanation that Jesus had not actually said the 'harsh' words. For some reason, I am compelled to argue against the view that was expressed there. I was thinking that, before uttering those words, Jesus knew that the woman could reply to being called a dog either in faith or according to the dictates of the devil. In essence, it was a test. The woman answered in complete faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, and her daughter was healed. Moreover, due to her answer in faith, she received, as a gift from God, eternal remembrance in the minds of all Christians as 'a woman of great faith'. The remaining part of the homily was beautiful. Just this little detail was confusing to me.
Sincerely,
Kevin
Dear Editor:
I found the August 17 homily by Monsignor Dennis Clark very disturbing. Part of the premise was that “when Matthew, who was one of these Jewish converts, wrote down his gospel, he was still partly stuck in his prejudice against non-Jews, and he put his prejudices on Jesus' lips.” Monsignor Clark then reiterated this point in the summary of his homily with the comment: “…Matthew's blind spot, which allowed him to insert his own prejudices into the gospel story.”
If I understand this correctly, when Matthew made up a story and attributed it to Jesus out of prejudice, he was lying, and thus slandered our Lord. This would then lead me to ask what else Matthew made up in his account of the Gospel, and what else in Scripture is not to be believed. Where else in the Bible are words attributed to Jesus that were actually made up to suit the writer's prejudice? Does this include the Sermon on the Mount? Do I only believe what's written in Matthew if another writer backs him up?
Not only does this line of reasoning lead me to doubt the truth of the Bible, but it could lead me to doubt the teachings of the Catholic Church as well. The Catechism beautifully states that “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 81). So if Matthew, while inspired to write the Gospel, lied while giving his account, does that then make the Spirit who inspired him a liar? That doesn't sound like the Holy Spirit to me – it sounds like another spirit altogether.
From the Council of Trent, the Church teaches us:
“For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.”
It would seem that if we're to follow the Catholic Church's teachings on Sacred Scripture, we must believe that the Bible is the word of God and completely true. Jesus told us that He is “The Way, The Truth And The Life”. Whatever is not true is not of God.
Amy
Dear Kevin and Amy,
Thank you for your feedback. Msgr. Clark has informed me that the first edition of the Jerome Commentary says that the interchange in this particular gospel reading was just a typical example of Palestinian “joshing” and in reality contains no harshness by our Lord. The second, revised edition of the JC, he explained, says that these are not “ipsissima verba Christi” (authenticated words of Christ), but interjections reflecting the tensions between the early Jewish Christian community and Gentiles. So based on these conflicting interpretations by this authoritative source, Father concluded that we cannot be sure.
We will do some further research and address this challenging matter more substantially in an upcoming feature.
Yours in Christ,
Tom Allen
Editor, CE
Dear Editor:
I am often struck by the consistency of scripture. References in the Old and New Testaments, for example, are consistent in their treatment of Tyre and Sidon as places of wickedness. I do not believe that it is necessary to consider only Christ's merciful side. Often he is direct in his assessment of the “human condition” in providing very clear warnings that many of us take the wide road (to Hell) rather than the straight and narrow path (to Heaven). Christ is often stern in his lessons for us, because we need clear teaching. If I am a “dog” because of my sin, then so be it – I have been warned and it is my responsibility to cooperate with God's grace and take advantage of the Sacraments He has provided for us.
The Jews had always been God's chosen people and were certainly blessed to be the first recipients of Christ; and were the rightful people of the Messiah as prophesied and foreshadowed through their myriad covenants with God. The rest of humanity, at the time of Christ was mired in polytheism and other forms of paganism. To portray Christ as a celestial “milquetost” – who joshes and does not warn – does not do full justice to the Gospels or to scripture. We know that there is Heaven and Hell and that Christ preached both. The bishops, priests and deacons should be encouraged to once again actively preach Hell. We need their clear guidance as the keepers of God's word to steer us clear of the pit. It's OK to tell us that we may very well be on the road to damnation. After all, it's better that I hear it now than 10 minutes after I'm dead!
Sincerely,
Stephen
