Human Behavior Is Complex

Dear Editor: It is dismaying to read commentary in this forum from those who act as though the Catholic religion does not exist. It is bad enough when young Catholics lack the fortitude to recognize deficiencies in their knowledge of the faith from what passes for Catholic education these days, but quite another when they deliberately ignore the trillions of words from saints and scholars and the metaphysical truths discernible in God’s creation.

The first reflex of many Catholics involves seeking advice about what we should think from those who hate the Catholic Church, after which they presume to lecture the rest of us on how we should think. It’s only a matter of time before someone insists we will become “more real” when we replace the pews and kneelers with bean bags.

I will not comment on columnist Therese Borchard, who consistently demonstrates the need for a remedial course in Catholicism, but on the incoherence of James N. Masciale’s attempt (June 9) to correct her. Whether he is a scientist or not, he doesn’t have to advance materialism. A scientist can reject materialism. From a Catholic perspective, materialism is evil. And this is not an angry neuron making me say this. Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which implicitly denies the existence of God and the soul.

In discussing mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho, Mr. Masciale submits that all human behavior and thought is the result of the mechanism of neurological activity, thereby ignoring the very first principle of scientific research: correlative events never establish causality. Shortly thereafter, he denies there can be any mechanistic explanation for behavior, but then proceeds to support the mechanistic explanations to be found by insufficient social programming. A double reversal. The concept of evil as a possible explanation for anything, the very reality that nailed Our Savior to the cross, he dismisses as nonsense.

Most scientists are believers; some are atheists and many others abuse science to promote ideological objectives, like the anti-population subtext of global warming propaganda. But any honest scientist would acknowledge that there is no basis for an empirical presumption in the chicken or the egg dilemma we find with neural activity. One can just as easily say that all higher neurological activity is the result of thought and behavior, not the other way around, as most neuro-biologists now do. If one wants to doubt Catholic metaphysics, one can at least exercise sufficient common sense to acknowledge that love and courage, where a soul often acts contrary to self-interest, even to the point of death, cannot possibly exist as the act of a biological machine.

The wisdom of our faith is that we need to deal with events of evil. For many centuries, while Protestant churches resisted, the Catholic faith articulated the moral imperatives of the Sermon on the Mount regarding the complexities of judging human behavior. Jesus said to us, “Only God knows all the intentions of the heart.”

Sin is a pervasive reality, but the degree of culpability is for God alone to judge as well as the sinner who seeks honest repentence and understanding with help from a confessor. Human behavior is complicated. Recognizing this does not preclude prosecuting crime. The civilized and legal principle of mitigating circumstances in judging criminal behavior came exclusively from the Catholic Church. Had the young murderer been encouraged to cultivate a moral conscience, he may have been less prone to cynical despair, a cynicism no doubt fortified by the psychobabble of modern academic life.

John J. Patrick
Bath Beach

Playing Into Communist Plan

Dear Editor: I was so surprised to see the cover of your April 21 issue about the Church in China. Was this a wise choice?

After all, this is precisely what the Chinese Communists want – recognition of the “other” Catholic Church in China. The Catholic Church was approved by the Chinese Communist government, so we know something is amiss.

I am not putting down the Chinese people who didn’t know there was more than one Church. But what are we to say about those who were persecuted, tortured and died in Communist prisons. They wanted the Roman Catholic Church to be recognized by the government but it never was and still isn’t.

You can’t be a Catholic outside of Rome and the pope. I am waiting for the pope’s directive on this issue, but I will be very disappointed if there is any approval of this travesty.

Maureen Zawislak
Jackson Heights

Applause Means Appreciation

Dear Editor: I’m writing in regard to the letter “No Clapping for Homily.”

I disagree with writer Patty Jones about not clapping after the priest gives his homily. We, in our parish, want to show our priests how much we all appreciate it.

His homily could bring much inspiration and warm feeling for the person who is listening.

To me, this is “no sign of pride.” To give a homily every week is not that easy and when it is said with much feeling and emotion, there is nothing wrong by showing how much you enjoyed it.

I feel it should be done in every church.

Josephine Priola
Brooklyn

More Coverage Needed

Dear Editor: I am writing to you regarding your small article about the kidnapping of Chaldean priest Father Nawzat Hanna (May 26). As your article states, he was “visiting a sick parishioner when he was seized” and now is being held for a large ransom.

This article should have been on Page 1 to catch everyone’s eye. Where is CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. not a word as usual. Not a word in the daily newspapers.
Please let all the readers of The Tablet including myself see a follow-up on this. It needs more attention.

The bishops in the United States should also be speaking up about this.
Our pastors should be talking about this at Sunday Mass.

This is not the first incident and it won’t be the last.

President Bush, what about this?

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to write to you.

Yolanda Cozzi
Bellerose

Father Pettei’s Leadership

Dear Editor: I feel we are blessed with many wonderful priests in the Diocese of Brooklyn and we are also blessed with some exceptional priests.

Our pastor, Father Thomas Pettei, is one of those exceptional priests. He has served as our spiritual leader and friend with love and concern for the last 10 years. He has led the way for us at St. Raphael’s to be a thriving parish shining as a beacon of God’s love in Long Island City. Under his leadership we have been able to develop programs that enrich us spiritually, appreciate and celebrate each other and actively provide for the needs of our neighbors.

Father Tom has ministered to us unselfishly for the last 10 years and has now been asked by the bishop to serve in another parish. He will be leaving us at the end of June. We will miss his warmth, friendship, humor, loving care and most of all his Christ-like presence.

Thank you Father Tom!

Joseph Becker
Long Island City

The Beauty of English

Dear Editor: I was recently taken to task in these pages for not having a sufficient appreciation of the Latin language, especially as the unique vehicle for the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church. I can understand it’s extremely irritating when you like something and nobody else does. For instance, I hold an extremely negative opinion about people who refuse to make marinara sauce with San Marzano tomatoes. I feel that this is an indication of a serious mental instability, a condition which will bring them to an unfortunate end.

I must admit that I find Latin an extremely irritating, crotchety and cantankerous language. It’s like reading something written by Henry James when he was drunk.

However, I want to assure your correspondent that I’m completely in sympathy with her desire to worship in that language. Indeed, I understand that there is legislation in the works now which will enable her to do precisely that; and I rejoice for her. Alas that legislation was far too long in coming and will ever remain to the discredit of the great liberals who dished out the reformation that we have to live with now that they were incapable of making allowances for the continued use of the language and rituals of the old rite for those who would wish to retain them. Do we ever learn?

But sorry, I believe that the train has left the station. I don’t think it’s possible to go back. Besides, I don’t think the majority of the laity would stand for it. The future of the Latin Rite is to serve as a sort of gold standard, one among several alternatives, along with the Mozarablic and Carthusian Rites, whenever we might venture too far from the wellsprings of orthodoxy. Our only hope now is to create contemporary rituals as dignified and awesome as the old ones. That is where I must respectfully part company with your reader. Does she honestly believe that the English of Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Milton, Burke, and Chesterton is incapable of such an effort?

RONALD CIAVOLINO
Brooklyn