|
From Magic City Morning Star Letters
I can't believe I am doing this. I have proudly and gratefully written for the Magic City Morning Star for roughly five years now. I will once again give well-deserved kudos to Editor Ken Anderson, who has always been the epitome of fairness and open-mindedness in allowing a wide array of opinion to be printed in this truly fine publication. Readers to the Morning Star can find almost any subject here, and from ideologies ranging from the very far left to the very far right, and just about everything in between. Some of the subjects are sometimes a bit passionate, even fiery in tone. That has unabashedly been my writing style with many subjects. I write out of passion, and when I take the time to write about something, it's because I'm hot about it, and I want to convey to you, the reader, why I am hot about it, and maybe even why you should be hot about it, too. While giving offense is never my intention, I offer no apologies to plainly speaking in a world that is rapidly eroding before our very eyes because many others forgot how to speak plainly and the rest are just too scared to do so. I'm not just a writer of the Morning Star; I'm a reader of it as well. As far as endorsements go, I guess they can't be any more sincere than that. I have my favorite writers, who I often read. I won't embarrass anybody here, but from time to time, I have privately corresponded with some of them regarding pieces they wrote that I particularly enjoyed. There are other writers, however, who seeing their very name on the home page makes the little hairs stand on the back of my neck because I know what is to follow as I read on, if I read on. I have no illusions as to how some of them probably react to my articles, either. Yet, while we disagree on issues, I certainly hold no personal malice toward anyone, and I hope they hold none toward me. Out of respect for the writers I have disagreed with on issues, I have always respectfully remained silent. I presume others have also respectfully remained silent about some of my fiery polemics, and for that, I have noticed their silent courtesy, and I am grateful. Such submitted commentary of published articles, be that commentary positive or negative in nature, is more appropriate, I believe, in coming from the readers, and not the writers of this publication. Decent people can earnestly, and even passionately disagree on issues while still being respectful of each other. I have always seen, shared in, and enjoyed this mutual respect of my fellow writers on this wonderful endeavor of which I am honored to be a part. I also recognize that each differing opinion and each different topic, like the various shapes and colors of a mosaic, are what each contribute to the beauty and success of the total picture, or in this case, web site. But I cannot and will not be silent on a particular ongoing topic from a particular author any longer. I have held back, for better, or for worse, for quite some time. That ends now. It is with a heavy heart that I am doing this, and I hope that this one time that I am violating my own personal rule will be the only time, but in this instance, principle dictates my response. Rev. J. Grant Swank and I need to get a few items aired out, and as he has decided to incessantly make these items public, I will challenge him on them in the same forum. As a proud and practicing Catholic, I will not sit back and let "Reverend" Swank's continual and vitriolic bashing of my faith go unanswered any longer. In his most recent article, Rev. Swank cites several parts of Catholic Canon Law. In several previous articles, I often cited one of my favorite quotes, from Edmund Burke, who once said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. As long as we are quoting Catholic dogma here, I call to Rev. Swank's attention, # 1868 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which pretty much says, in more detail, what Edmund Burke also observed. More specifically, that tenet of my faith's catechism calls me to not be passively in approval of evil, lest I will also be in sin. My personal anger, disgust and exasperation with Rev. Swank's apparently newly cherished obsession with so wantonly and ferociously bashing my Church, and my Church's Pope with impunity aside, my faith calls me to respond, and thus I shall, and with equal vigor, but hopefully, more appropriately moderate tone. For the sake of full disclosure, I have never met Rev. Swank, although he and I had some brief but cordial correspondence some time back when he then complained in an article about the so-called rift between Catholics and Evangelicals. I told Rev. Swank that I was unaware of any such rift and that as a Catholic, I certainly felt no rancor or division with Evangelicals, and that on religious, cultural and political maters, I felt that Catholics and Evangelicals have more in common than apart. For that matter, I still feel that way. Rev. Swank stopped writing for this site for a period of time. I don't know why and I don't care. It's none of my business, but on at least a couple occasions, I privately corresponded with Editor Ken Anderson, expressing how I missed Rev. Swank's writing. Some time later, Rev. Swank returned to our web site, and again, I don't know why, and I don't care why. Those matters are between Rev. Swank and Ken Anderson. But I was glad to see Rev. Swank return. My glee, however, was short-lived, much to my shock and chagrin. Rev. Swank, your writing has changed. Instead of writing thoughtful, focused essays, now you submit (on a tediously annoying twice daily basis) short, numerous ramblings, numerically grouped together, in which you seldom elaborate sufficiently, let alone coherently, on any given point and seemingly espouse what ever random musing pops into your head at any given moment. Your subjects have also changed, and I can't help but believe that these two changes are directly related. Rather than expounding analytically and articulately on an array of well selected various religious, cultural and political views, now you spew conspicuously angry tirades specifically against Muslims, Catholics, Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI. Your writing has changed, and not for the better. You now seem to be on a vengeful, personal crusade over these same four subjects, and that ongoing quest seems agonizingly unquenchable for you, no matter how much you obsessively write about it. I also can't help but think that if I have noticed it, others probably have, too. All Churches are made up of flawed mortals. Thus, those institutions themselves will be flawed. Scandal has rocked several denominations, including both of the Catholic and Evangelical faiths from time to time. On some topics in which you have bashed my Church, I was initially angry, but after reading and re-reading the same article a few times, I had to honestly concede that you were right. On some of these same topics, I have also written against my Church. My pride ends where my integrity begins. I can call a spade a spade, as the saying goes, and my archives on this web site will bear that fact out in regard to my occasional warranted criticism of my own Church. On those topics, you and I have no disagreement. As for Barack Obama, I am hardly a fan of his, and I have written about him also, but not with the frequency and obsession that you have. I have also criticized, on occasion, the radical elements of Islam, while acknowledging that most Muslims are peaceful. My only complaint against peaceful Muslims is that they have not, in my opinion, been anywhere near as outspoken as they should be against the violence a fanatical minority faction of their fellow Muslims carry out. Yet, in your writings, neither Muslims nor Catholics ever seem capable of doing any right. You recently supported John Hagee, an angry, anti-Catholic bigot, who espoused popular, ugly, anti-Catholic rubbish of Pope Pius XII collaborating with the Nazis and with the Holocaust that has already been disputed, and who has bashed the Catholic Church on numerous occasions, such as referring to it as a "whore," a "beast," as well as other ugly descriptions. He even referred to the Pope as the "anti-Christ," and blames the Catholic Church for bringing the world Hitler, as he came to be. Nice fellow, your pal, Mr. Hagee. What a travesty that he supposedly prays with that same filthy cesspool that he calls a mouth. Notice that I didn't call him "Reverend." Hagee deserves a title of "Mister" at best, and that's a stretch for this phony, Bible-thumping hatemonger. The Pharisees and Sadducees would be quite proud of your pal, Mr. Hagee. I encourage both you and your readers to reflect upon weighing Mr. Hagee on one plate of the scale, and the Catholic hierarchy on the other. While the Catholic Church is a wealthy institution, none of its clergy, who took vows of poverty, are personally wealthy, unlike Mr. Hagee, who is quite wealthy and is currently trying to sell a book that peddles his depraved Tomfoolery. When I close my eyes and listen to guys like your blowhard hero, Hagee, I see visions of those fanatical whackos from the Westboro Baptist so-called Church, protesting and impeding the funerals of our veterans and harassing their mourners because the Westboros oppose homosexuality (an odd connection I have yet to make), or I see some other mutated cretin displaying a portrait of the Blessed Mother in elephant dung, or a crucifix in a jar of urine in a publicly funded museum, while calling it "art" as he snidely laughs all the way to the bank with the public dime. John Hagee is no different than Mister Jeremiah Wright in his twisted beliefs and hateful teachings that only bastardized, and not illustrated, Christ's teachings, and to a somewhat diluted extent, you now seem to be following a somewhat similar path. Who has more to gain from their teachings, John Hagee, or the Catholic Church? Who do you suppose speaks from the heart, and not from the wallet? Who, then, do you suppose speaks with greater sincerity? In that same article, you acknowledged that now, some Evangelicals on TV and radio are bashing Catholics. Sadly, since our correspondence several years ago, I have witnessed the same, including now from you. My eyes are much more open now. Yet, I have not heard any Catholics bashing Evangelicals. Why do you suppose that is, Reverend? Your seething vitriol for this Pope is evident when astute readers such as I read between the lines of your rants. In a recent article about the Pope meeting with Muslim leaders, you arrogantly inferred what he would say and do before he even met with them. In your most recent article, you employed the same low rent tactic again, inferring that the Pope will give Holy Communion to pro-abortion (predominantly Democrat) politicians before the mass even took place. If the Pope does something wrong, I will support your criticism of him. I call them like I see them, but your pattern of suggesting wrongdoing on the Pope's part before he even has the opportunity to do it speaks volumes of the newly-invaded rancor and blind bias that is already drowning what used to be your Christian, and frankly, once far more savvy heart. Unlike you, I hold no degrees in Divinity, but while James may have been "a" leader of the early Church, he was not "the" leader, as you claimed, and you should know better. I refer you, Reverend, to Matthew, 16: 18-19: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." I further remind you, Reverend Swank, that that Church was the Roman Catholic Church, and Peter, formerly Simon, was our (once yours as well as mine, like it or not) first Pope. All other Christian (both other Catholic, as well as Protestant) Churches broke off from the original Roman Catholic Church at one time or another. That is why our faith, as cited by this Pope, has called it the true and original Church, and it is, as founded by Jesus, Himself, and passed on to Peter. Of the differences you cite, I also call to your mind that one chief difference in our faiths is that while yours relies solely on the Bible, mine relies on both the Bible, and on tradition, which you seem to have little recognition or regard for. This Pope speaks from love, not hatred. Unlike your pal, Hagee, is he personally insulting anyone by calling him or her a "whore," "beast," or "anti-Christ"? Consider the source, and carefully listen to the chosen verbiage, and you tell me. Where you claim that the Pope called other Churches "defective," I would like to know where you saw that. I have not heard or read that statement. Furthermore, I would like to see you reprint it, in its full context. This Pope speaks out of love, even if tough love, which any good and loving parent knows is necessary. He isn't insulting you, or anyone else, Rev. Swank. He is trying to bring you home, whether you accept or reject his message. He is lovingly and peacefully calling you to covert, but the decision is yours to make, and without any coercion from the Pope, or anyone other member of the Catholic Church's clergy or laity. As I am sure you well know, our loving God has given each of us the gift of free choice. You accuse this Pope of excluding Protestants. On the contrary, you left us, and he is earnestly inviting you back, but you are too obstinate to acknowledge it. Despite your constant criticism of this Pope, from where I am sitting, it is you and a fringe handful of your fellow hateful, divisive, bigoted, bitter and misguided Evangelical cronies who have strayed of the reservation, such as John Hagee, well known by the Catholic League, who are pointing the fingers and casting aspersions of others, specifically, Catholics. In at least one previous article, you criticized this Pope for being too weak when he was speaking to Muslims. Now you criticize him for being too strong toward Protestants. I'm confused. Which is it? I have news for you; contrary to what you think or would like to make others believe, this Pope is no bully, but he's no shrinking violet either. We adults aren't all that different from children sometimes. We need as many spankings as we do hugs. Those throngs of clogged streets and smiling crowds this week in New York and Washington are a testament to the abundance of love that this Pope both exudes and receives. Tell me, Rev. Swank, could you fill Yankee Stadium? Even the secular press and media have surprisingly made more of an effort to be nicer to him this week, unlike you, an alleged man of the cloth. I find that utterly appalling. The ones creating the true division, Rev. Swank, are the predatory and hypocritical wolves, camouflaged in sheep's clothing, and not at all representative of the majority true and practicing Evangelical Christians. If you're still confused, take a look in the mirror some time soon to see an example of the problem. I do not think you are inherently a bad man, but your recent actions, via your writings, are deplorable. I have seen better from you. But you have drastically and conspicuously changed recently, and I don't know why. Or perhaps, you had me duped before, but I don't get that sense from my gut, and I hope I am right. As I find fault with you, Rev. Swank, I have no illusions as to the plank protruding from my eye, which I need to look around so that I may see that spec in your eye. If you and I are ever to meet in person, rest assured, you will most likely not see a halo above my head any time soon. Our planet has only known one perfect man, who graciously and selflessly came here to mercifully save us from our pathetic selves. To show our thanks, we mercilessly tortured Him, and then crucified Him to death, and then watched it with bloodthirsty zeal, as if it was a modern day contact sporting event. As I view the world, little has changed from those days. Maybe that is why I am so cynical. Believe it or not, somewhere buried under this crusty exterior of mine, a soft heart really does exist. Those who know me well and read my writings laugh and shake their heads in amazement. More than once I have been told that I write just like I speak. I do, in fact, have a good sense of humor, often spiced with a natural twinge of sarcasm, and little to no tolerance for "B.S." Life's too short for that nonsense. I suppose sometimes the laughing keeps me from crying, and the hardened crust protects, for better, or for worse, that sometimes vulnerable heart. It is what it is. As a fellow mortal man, you are cut from the same flawed fabric of cloth as I, yet you were called to, and accepted a heavier burden. While we are all called to be holy and while we are all responsible for the souls of each other, as we are of our own, as a man of the cloth, that same duty for you is the same in task, but vastly greater in magnitude. I would hope that you reflect on the words of the Pope with an open mind and a pure heart. "Maturity," as you put it, has nothing to do with faith, Reverend, as Jesus called us all to be as humble as children in order to someday be united with Him. There is much more to our salvation than just believing. Even Lucifer believes in the Holy Trinity, so what else is new? Believing is only the first step of a long journey. In fact, St. Bernard referred to humility as "the mother of salvation," so enough already with the sanctimonious pontification about this drivel of maturity. Shame on you, Sir, for ridiculing faith and obedience. If you cannot find yourself in agreement with the Pope, who speaks from the same Gospels that you and I both read, then I would at least hope that in the future, you treat him with at least a modicum more of civility than you recently have. If nothing else, your vocation calls you to such love. As Christian writers, you and I are both called to a more responsible form of stewardship of the gift of writing that God has benevolently bestowed upon us. Look to St. Paul, formerly "Saul," in that regard. Likewise, I can assure you that Paul had far more respect and extended far more common decency to Peter than you have to Benedict. You climb your high horse and disseminate arrogance packaged as Christianity, so don't you dare be so audacious as to preach to me or any other Catholic about "maturity." That dog just won't hunt, at least not from your leash, and I frankly don't give a damn how many degrees, honors, letters, or any other version of alphabet soup follows your name. Anti-Catholic bigotry, while currently trendy, is still wrong, regardless if it comes from someone who is an irreverent Reverend, or from someone who is just irreverent. And while your at it, try exercising a tad more of that same love for Catholics overall, Muslims overall, and dare I even say, maybe even Barack Obama to a degree. Between the Pope, Obama, Catholics, and Muslims, you have become a vitriolic literary four-note Charlie, and it is now quite obvious. By the way, from this reader's point of view, it's also now pretty tired and boring, too. Your restrictive and repetitious rantings on these same four subjects have breathed new, refreshing, and vibrant life into 3AM "I Love Lucy" reruns on TV. Barack Obama, decided to step into the political arena. He is fair game, at least to a point. But the Pope, agree or disagree with him, is a peaceful and loving man, and a man representing Christ, as do you, supposedly. As for Catholics and Muslims, you paint both with a brush as contemptuous as it is broad. It's just not what you say, but how you say it, and how often. Criticism is sometimes warranted, but so is discretion. Trust me, I know. As you are most likely aware, from time to time, I have also been known to somewhat trip over that distinction myself. But let neither of us ever so cavalierly diminish its significance, nor willfully abandon its necessity. Our denominations are, after all, separate branches, but still emanating from the same tree trunk, and reaching upward toward the same Heaven. Once again, I don't know what the problem is, or what, if anything has suddenly and recently changed you, if even anything at all, but I hope that you find peace soon. Whatever mirage we have recently seen of you, I believe you are truly better than that. I hope to some day regain the respect that I have sadly recently lost in you. The J. Grant Swank I now read (the few times I still do) is not the same J. Grant Swank I once read just a couple or so years back. Moreover, I hope you deeply and openly reflect upon what I have just expressed to you. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know what I have observed, and sometimes, an outsider can best see internal changes in others. Meanwhile, our differences, as well as my recent displeasure and gross disappointment with you on this issue aside, you will be in my prayers. I, too, am often angry about what I see in the world and of what I write in my columns, Rev. Swank, and sometimes my anger might well be either justified or unjustified. But there is a difference between anger and hate, and there is a difference between you and I. I write from anger. You write from hate. Sadly for now, as you continue to blindly and zealously pursue this one-man crusade of hate, poorly veiled with your own erroneous, if not manipulated version, or dare I say, "spin," of "Christianity," you and I part company. I sincerely hope that some day soon, you and I can once again join to share more agreement than disagreement. Sincerely, Doug Wrenn, © Copyright 2002-2008 by Magic City Morning Star |