Letters: Judge on merits

The
Catholic Weekly
Online

Sydney
14 March 2004

Waverley’s water babes

Pill move ‘mistake’: Cardinal

Pope honours asylum seeker advocate

Media ‘distorted sex abuse crisis’

Photos show kids in poverty, isolation

Catholic women’s forum

Pregnant pause: Sneak preview of a baby with the face of an angel

Push for more Latin studies

Bishop Doody’s pyx restored to diocese

Bishops on Rome ad limina visit

Bridal expo preview to aid research unit

Judging a Daniel

Editorial: Shamrock shore

Letters: Judge on merits

Conversation: Stacie Orrico, faith-filled alternative to ‘sex-and-songs’ package - Teenage pop sensation is proud to say she’s a Christian

Getting on the right track

Now I think I hear voices in the biscuit barrel ...

Project Compassion: Mending Mendi

Search for deeper meaning

Lay apologetics group explains elements of faith with Christ the Teacher

St Patrick’s Day: Where the shamrock meets the wattle ...

Different times remembered

Roll call of the Irish connection

Hurley and burly on the playing field

Where the girls are

Review: Passion downside - ‘cruelty, inaccuracy, anti-semitism’

My tears didn’t stop

Review: Passion to the point of the absurd

Maronites celebrate

Rector named to succeed Bishop Belo

‘Footslogger’ gives voice to Bible ...

Ready to save a life

Letters: Judge on merits

In a recent edition of an Italian newspaper, a reviewer of The Passion of the Christ gave me some good advice.

He said the equivalent of this: “Forget about Mel Gibson’s father. Ignore Mel Gibson. See the film and judge it on its merits.”

Frank Mobbs
Gosford, NSW

TOO GRAPHIC

Having just seen Mel Gibson’s movie I must say I was very disappointed.

Though I had read that it was very violent and that Mel wanted to shock, still I wasn’t prepared for the graphic portrayal of The Passion.

I question whether or not it was necessary to show the torture and crucifixion of Jesus in such graphic detail and for so long.

It is not a true portrayal of Scripture, which does not go into such horrific detail, and if we believe that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God, then there must be a good reason why God in his wisdom ordained that such gruesome details be left to our imagination.

Do we need to see this portrayed in film?

For 2000 years, since the death of Jesus, millions of people have become Catholics or Christians and we have had thousands of saints raised to the altar because of their faith.

Their conversion and growth in sanctity did not rest on being shown the brutality of the Passion of Jesus but rather on the fact that he was who he said he was – the Son of God.

Perhaps I am more faint-hearted than most because I spent a good deal of the film covering my face with my hands.

Ann Odello
Baulkham Hills, NSW

SIGNPOSTS OF TRUTH

In reply to Fr Crothers (‘Feminine genius’, Letters CW 29/2), Pope John Paul II’s job is to stay true to the teachings of Jesus. It is not to move with the winds of change of popular opinion.

Too many people want to dilute the truth of God. It seems to me that because it is difficult to live up to God’s truth they find it easier to water it down to accommodate their weaknesses.

What they should realise is that we are all sinners and no one is perfect. However, diluting God’s truth to accommodate our failings will not help.

It will only hinder those who are trying with all their sins and baggage to live up to God’s path. So if we remove the signposts of truth, then how will those seekers reach the path that God has set for them?

It is the Pope’s role to keep those signposts, the signposts of truth that God left, to guide us on our path in this life.

Michael Storer
Riverwood, NSW

TRANSLATION

In the draft of the translation of the new Order of the Mass, the proposed translation of the response to the priest’s greeting is an indication of the dangers involved in strictly observing “fidelity to the Latin”, as recommended by Liturgiam Authenticam.

The logical Latin response to the priest’s greeting “Dominus vobiscum” would be “Et tecum”. Obviously this would not work. So it becomes “Et cum spiritu tuo”, which sounds and flows much better.

In English, however, “And also with you (et tecum)” is the obvious response to “The Lord be with you”. So why change it to “And with your spirit”, merely to be faithful to the Latin structure.

The structure and style of the Latin are not important. What is important is the meaning. And it needs to be expressed in words, phraseology and style which we can relate to and which retain the reverence the liturgy requires.

I have no doubt that there are other places where a rigid application of the principle would lead to unsatisfactory results, as apparently we already have in “Let our hearts be lifted high”: “We hold them before the Lord”.

For heaven’s sake.

Mons John Walsh
Rose Bay, NSW

UPLIFTING

The distinguished Australian actor Donald MacDonald delivered a most uplifting dramatisation of the Gospel of St John on a recent Friday evening at St Bernadette’s, Castle Hill.

We were ‘blown away’ by this well researched adaptation of an integral part of our faith – the life, death and resurrection of Our Lord.

Everyone who attended, from the very young to the more mature of our parish, went away with a revitalised insight into this cornerstone of our Catholic beliefs.

I was surprised to learn later from Mr MacDonald that he has not promoted this dramatisation, because, in his own words, “I’m not very good at that”.

It seems that an excellent format for extending the understanding of our beliefs to all ages in our schools and parishes is there waiting to be utilised.

John Trainor
Castle Hill, NSW

INTIMIDATORY

I ask your readers to imagine an article on the back page of The Catholic Weekly titled: Chivalrous young bowler a Catholic role model.

Such an article would report and applaud a cricketer for refusing to aim the ball deliberately at the rib cage or the head instead of bowling so skilfully that intimidatory tactics would be unnecessary.

This would be something worth reporting for Catholics to celebrate if we must insist on highlighting the secular deeds of Catholics.

But, instead, we have your quite different piece (Riverview’s ‘Big Bird’, CW 22/2).

The young cricketer you celebrate says: “I love getting up batsmen and shaking them up by bowling a few short ones into their rib-cages … I have hit a few batsmen on the helmet.”

Apart from the conventional indecency of his expression, this young fellow claims that he doesn’t go out to “deliberately hurt anyone” but batsmen do suffer injuries, mostly from bowlers who aim to penetrate whatever “defence” they adopt.

There is a vital distinction between the risk and sustaining of injuries in the normal course of a tough game, and the using of violence whose success depends on the threat of possibly fatal injury.

In the one case we have natural side effects; the other a perversion of the nature and rules of the-game.

Let us remember McCabe, Fingleton and O’Reilly and refuse to ape the speedster antics of a Brett Lee or a Glenn McGrath.

(Dr) Peter Hunt
Franklin, Tas