As Received - Our Readers

Readers share their opinions.

Help!
I need help finding an article that I'm sure I read in Envoy. This article discussed the Greek word or phrase that we translate as "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. It begins with the letter "k," I think. The gist of the article was that there is no way we can properly translate that Greek word into English (ie. "full of grace" does not do it justice). Am I nuts, or was there not an article about this? I've flipped through each back issue and can't find anything. I've been trying and trying to find it but can't. Any help you can give will be appreciated.
Rick Dennis, Charlotte, NC

The word you have in mind is kecharitomene, but Envoy hasn't yet run an article on that subject. You may be thinking of Fr. Ron Tacelli's article on the "heos hou" argument against Mary's perpetual virginity ("He's an Only Child," May/June 1997). In the meantime, an excellent, popular explanation of the meaning and implications of kecharitomene is found in the book by Stefano Manelli, F.F.I., All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 1995), 130-133. — Editor

Your site is wonderful! I just placed a phone order for a subscription today! After becoming frustrated and acting in a decidedly unchristian manner on Sunday when I encountered some Baptists who wanted to debate true faith, I figured it was time to find some good apologetics materials. I have read (and will continue to read until my subscription arrives) some of your online articles. They are just what Catholics today need. I realized how much I don't know about my Faith, and also that I have a hard time explaining what I think I know. God bless you for writing this illuminating magazine!
Kathleen Turner, via e-mail

Maybe his birthday's coming up

I'm a subscriber. The Envoy Web site is great. I really like the magazine, but I can't be the first person to complain that $35 for six issues is just too much. Maybe someone will give me a gift subscription. Thanks for the year. Randy England, via e-mail

It makes him want to shout

Tonight, while teaching the 12th grade Religious Education Program study on discipleship and the sacraments, one of my students objected to the idea of confessing sins to a priest. Another chimed in with, "Why can't I confess my sins directly to God?" Lucky for me, I had just finished reading the Nuts & Bolts article by Tim Staples in the Nov. 1997/Feb. 1998 Anniversary issue several days ago. With the direction of the Holy Spirit, I was able to easily defend the biblical teaching on confession using Tim's six-step approach. When I see the light go on in the heads of these beautiful young adults, I just want to shout the praises of Our Lord. Thank you for your ministry and keep up the wonderful work.
Larry Boggeln, M. D., Temecula, CA

I enjoyed Tim Staples' article on sacramental confession (Nuts & Bolts, Nov. 1997/Feb. 1998 Anniversary issue) very much, but noticed one point that might be used against his line of reasoning.

He points to the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods (Ex. 28, Num. 3:1-12) as existing within the universal priesthood of the whole people of Israel (Ex. 19:6). This is to show the analogous way in which the ordained priesthood of Jesus Christ exists within the Church's new dispensation along with the universal priesthood of all believers, according to 1 Peter 2:5, 9. Certainly, I agree with his conclusion: The universal priesthood of all believers in no way precludes the ordained priesthood that has the charism of reconciliation and the authority of Christ to forgive and retain sins.

However, one might use some of Scott Hahn's work to raise a problem with Tim's premise. In a presentation on covenant theology, Scott posits the theory that after the sin of idolatry with the golden calf, the people of Israel were "laicized" and the Levites were "dedicated" to the Lord for their faithfulness in exacting God's justice and righteousness (Ex. 32:25-29). Would Tim's use of Numbers 3:1-12 be anachronistic, then, in relation to the "pre-golden calf" priestly people of Exodus 19?

Let me again say that I agree with the conclusions, and also with the substance of the premises. I'm just looking at what might be used as a counter-argument to weaken the Old Testament precedent of a simultaneous universal and ordained priesthood.

Fr. Mark Reilly (one of Tim's former seminary classmates), via e-mail

One little thing left out

I found David Palm's review of the three Catholic Web sites in the July/August 1997 issue to be particularly valuable. There are so many questionable Web sites out there that it is comforting to have someone review them for quality, accuracy and consistency with the teachings of the Church and the Magisterium.

However, I do wish to comment on the review of the Vatican Web site (www.vatican.va). Yes, there is a lot more work that needs to be done, and it seems to be progressing fairly slowly. One feature of the Vatican Web site that wasn't mentioned, though, and which I find to be extremely interesting and informative, is the Vatican Information Service. This contains press releases from the Vatican, details of the pope's activities, synopses of the pope's Wednesday general audience address, and digestible summaries of various documents and decrees made by the Vatican. I can be sure that all of the information presented here is accurate and not skewed, as often occurs in the secular press.
Wayne Vedeckis, Ph.D., LSU Medical Center, New Orleans, LA

Should there be kidding at Mass?

I am now a grandfather and reflect lovingly on how my wife and I raised our four children. We had a daughter and three sons who are spaced one year apart. My wife was a stay-at-home mother. This was no big deal since this is the way that children were raised during the early '60s in small-town Pennsylvania. I was amused at Dr. Lowery's concentration upon setting rules of conduct and enforcement of discipline of children in church ("Op-Ed," September/October 1997). I feel he neglected one important phase in this process, namely preconditioning.

When my kids were preschoolers, my wife and I never used babysitters, and we took turns watching the kids while the other attended Mass. Neither of us slunk out the back door while the other parent went to church. We explained where we were going and the children waved bye-bye. During meals we discussed what Father said at church in simple, child-level conversation. It wasn't surprising that they all wanted to go to church with us. We made it a practice to have them accompany us to baptisms, funerals (including viewings), and on special feast days, but we discouraged them from attending regular Sunday Masses and explained that they had a lot to learn before they would be allowed to attend.

When we felt that our child was ready, we started explaining Adam and Eve and progressed on to Baby Jesus and Mary. We explained in simple language how the two stories were related. We ended the session by explaining why Jesus died on the Cross for us, and that we must praise Him and pray to Him. We didn't go into the Our Father or other formal prayer, but eased into it.

When we felt the child was ready, I would take the child to the church where I would explain all of the statues, the altar, holy water, baptismal font, stained glass windows, stations of the Cross, etc. When we returned from our first visit, we discussed our visit to church with the other kids and they all looked forward to going to church. Attendance at their first Mass was not really a solemn event. It consisted of a play-by-play of what the servers, the choir and the participant were doing. We tried to sit in the corner of the choir loft so that we could lean over the rail to get a good view. Not many people sat there, so we were not disturbing the congregation. If the child got a little squirmy, I allowed him or her to move around a bit. Believe it or not, each child was enthralled and they were seldom disinterested.

This continued until my children, who are all now in their mid-30s, were in their teen years. We encountered an entirely different set of problems when that time arrived.

Recently I had an opportunity to accompany my 3-year-old grandson, Billy, to Mass. He was uncharacteristically angry and somewhat unruly. After Mass I asked why he was so angry. He told me that when he last went to Mass, "the man" gave everybody something to eat, but he wasn't allowed to have any. I didn't immediately react to this objection, but have been quietly explaining the Church and how he fits into the Mystical Body of Christ. It's going to take some time to get this done, but I know that both of us shall benefit from the process.

I differ with Dr. Lowery's approach, since I feel children have a need to understand the unique settings which will often be thrust upon them. If an adequate job of explanation, or shall we say preconditioning, is completed, there may not be a need for setting rules and performance standards. I prefer to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit as I converse with my child, so that rules and performance standards will be unnecessary. I feel that much of the bond which I presently have with my sons and daughter originated with this kind of interaction.
Chuck Skorija, Camp Hill, PA

With all due respect to Mr. Skorija's long experience as a father and obvious patience and dedication to his children, I disagree with his philosophy of discouraging his children from "attending regular Sunday Masses." My disagreement gives way to astonishment when he adds that, on one hand, he prevented his younger children from attending Sunday Mass because they "had a lot to learn before they would be allowed to attend," while on the other hand, he made sure they attended baptisms, funerals, and even wakes (where he allowed them to view the dead bodies!). How is it a young child can be "ready" to view a dead body, but not "ready" to attend Sunday Mass with his family? I'm glad Mr. Skorija's children grew into good Catholic adults, but my guess is that it was in spite of their being deprived of attending Mass as a family in their early years, and not because of it. — Editor

Grateful is something we hardly ever aren't

Speechless is something I'm hardly ever. I am having trouble writing this short note of praise at your new apologetics rag. I'll be telling my Secular Franciscan brothers and sisters. I've copied and pasted several of your articles and funnies and sent them e-mail to all my family and friends. I suggested to them all that they get your publication. Never imagined I'd find something equally entertaining and enlightening about my Faith. Bravo!
Andy Weirs, Alamogordo, NM

Envoy too snappy, flippant, ugly and loud

We regret that we will have to let our subscription to Envoy lapse. I am struggling with how to convey our increasingly negative reaction to each issue. We find the graphics ugly and disquieting to the spirit. The writing is often too snappy and flippant . . . sometimes too boastful and just plain loud. The contents and aim are so worthy, but perhaps we are just not into this tongue-in-cheek, super-information mode. It's difficult to deal with sarcasm and wacko humor on a daily basis. We look for encouragement, simplicity and quiet, as well as "information." Perhaps we shall hook up with you at a later time. We are busy homeschooling, teaching NFP, and trying to live our lives in Christ's call to holiness through our daily duties. Thank you for the articles that have ministered to us and helped us to evangelize to our separated brothers and sisters. That first issue was the best. The rest are so gung-ho, I'm afraid it is tiring to even try to understand the essence of what is being conveyed. We wish you well.
Steven and Debra Johnston, Ellington, CT

We're very sorry we've lost you and hope you'll come back someday. Thanks for your candor. — Editor

Good for the heart, good for the circulation

"Honey, where's the Envoy?" is a cry often heard around our house, especially after our little guy's in bed and my wife and I are relaxing at the end of the day. My wife is an Evangelical whose personal love for Christ and knowledge of Scripture has bolstered my own faith. I am a cradle Catholic who is trying to learn more about, and benefit from, the rich teachings of the Church. My wife is prayerfully exploring becoming a Catholic. For these reasons we both enjoy your magazine and get a lot out of it. We hope you are receiving many such messages of support and that circulation is increasing. The quality of your work deserves both.
Paul Guppy, via e-mail

Modo itera quae mihi nunc nuper narravisti, sed nunc Latine?

I have just discovered your magazine online and I am so happy and excited. A Catholic magazine such as this is long overdue. Most of my friends at work are Evangelical Christians and are involved in the highly intellectual movement of apologetics that seems to be sweeping religion today. They share Evangelical magazines with me at work all the time, and although I do find some of their articles to be interesting and informative, especially the ones that deal directly or indirectly with Catholicism, I always read them with some resentment because I haven't been able to share Catholic magazines with them that are of the same intellectual caliber.

I have only recently started to take an interest in my Catholic Faith again, the Faith of my early childhood, and I'm having trouble with all the Latin terms that are used in many Catholic writings. Is there some book or other reference that I can obtain that would help me with this? The last thing I want to do is share your fine magazine with my Protestant coworkers and not be able to answer questions regarding terminology.
Paul C. Juarez, via e-mail

Okay, okay. I couldn't help myself. The Latin subtitle means: "Could you repeat what you just said, but this time in Latin?" To answer your question, a good book to help you understand Latin phrases is A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin by John F. Collins (Washington, D.C.; Catholic University Press, 1985). — Editor

It was in the cards that we'd get dumped

I subscribed to your magazine because I enjoy reading and studying about Catholic apologetics and evangelization. Moreover, you have had some good articles. However, I have a major complaint.

The cover of your September/ October 1997 issue graphically displays Tarot cards. Moreover, I felt that this cover was totally inappropriate to leave on my coffee table in my home. As I would not place Tarot cards on my coffee table for my children to look at or play with, I would not put your magazine out for my children's perusal either. Frankly, I am afraid that if my children saw the pictures of Tarot cards on the magazine on my coffee table, they might be more likely to be attracted to the actual cards if they encounter them. I figured that if my children saw pictures of these Tarot cards in their own home, they would think they were not objectionable if they ran across them. Moreover, I would be embarrassed for any of my friends to see this cover also. The cover looks like you are promoting Tarot cards instead of opposing them. Obviously, I find this cover extremely objectionable.

Moreover, inside this September/ October 1997 issue, pages 12-14, and 17, the graphic presentation of the devil I also found extremely offensive! I definitely feel that these pictures have been sensationalized. I strongly feel that these graphic pictures give the diametrically opposite presentation from what your articles are about. I believe these pictures will indeed attract people to your magazine, but for the wrong intentions. What message are you trying to put across by these pictures? Additionally, I believe the only thing for which this issue is fit is to be torn up and discretely thrown in the trash.

Therefore, I have decided not to renew my subscription to Envoy.
Pamela S. Reumuth, Corpus Christi, TX

We're sorry to lose you. We felt the large headline "Psychic Pscams" across the photo of the Tarot cards made our feelings toward Tarot cards crystal-clear (so to speak). As far as our intended message with the "graphic" renderings of the devil, the message is that he's one scary dude and someone you should stay away from. We hope you reconsider leaving. — Editor