Religion on the Line
|
A chance meeting and a radio program elicited the following correspondence from Mr. Stephen Dailey of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, Kansas City, Missouri, to Bishop Raymond Boland, Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph.
|
FIRST LETTER TO BISHOP BOLAND
|
MR. & MRS. STEPHEN P. DAILEY July 9, 2002 Most Reverend Raymond J. Boland
Your Excellency, Thank you very much for granting my father and myself an audience with you in the near future. We look forward very much to meeting with you in a spirit of true charity to discuss a few points which concern the salvation of souls under your spiritual care. Please let me know what is the best day and time for you. I may be reached by contacting my office (---------------this is the same number on my business card that I gave to you last week) or my home phone number listed above. Sincerely yours in the Mystical Body of Christ,
|
SECOND LETTER TO BISHOP BOLAND
|
MR. & MRS. STEPHEN P. DAILEY
December 13, 2002 Most Reverend Raymond J. Boland
Your Excellency, Thank you for granting my father and myself a brief visit a few weeks ago (October 25, 2002). We know you are a busy man and have many important issues to deal with on a daily basis. We believe the matter presented to you (i.e. Mr. Noonan's compromising of the Catholic Faith on the "Religion on the Line" radio program [710AM KCMO, Sundays 6-8 a.m. CST–Ed.] is also very important because it concerns truth, fairness and ultimately the salvation of souls. We impressed upon you that we felt it was our duty as faithful Catholics to exercise the sacramental grace of Confirmation by bringing these matters to your attention hoping you would take immediate action by replacing Mr. Noonan. It was unfortunate but, in our attempt to bring matters of concern from the radio program to your attention, our conversation ended up focusing on our own differences. I have written this letter to you out of grave concern over four (4) statements you made contrary to the Catholic Faith and to basic logic that both my father and myself heard you say at the chancery office on October 25, 2002, and in the back of Our Lady of Sorrows on July 8, 2002. I have restated your words below and sincerely request that, if I am misquoting any of your statements, you please correct me in writing or I will have no other choice than to assume you stand by your statements.
Statement No. 1 In our initial conversation in the back of Our Lady of Sorrows, you will recall, I pointed out to you that George Noonan, on the radio program, had denied the necessity of sanctifying grace for the salvation of one's soul. You immediately defended Mr. Noonan by stating that it is not necessary for sanctifying grace to save one's soul and cited the example of a native who lives an upright life in an uncivilized country and who never heard of the Gospel, Christ or the Church and this individual would, consequently, not be held accountable for never being exposed to the Truth and hence would not lose his/her soul. You will further recall my response to you: that such a person who lives an upright life could save his/her soul but would still have to receive sanctifying grace in an extraordinary fashion directly from God (vs. the ordinary fashion through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church) because sanctifying grace is actually God's life within the soul and it is only this grace which makes us pleasing to Him and hence heirs (adopted sons) to His Kingdom. This has been the constant teaching of the Church (see Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2000 and Catholic Encyclopedia for a complete dissertation on the Nature of Sanctifying Grace). It is also a constant teaching of the Church that such a person would be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ (the Catholic Church), though implicitly. Mr. Noonan does not represent Catholic Teaching on the radio program when he misleads the other co-hosts and callers concerning the doctrine of sanctifying grace as he has not and cannot refer to any official Church Teaching that claims the falsehood: that it is not necessary for sanctifying grace to save one's soul. When such a false claim is made, listeners will draw the false conclusion that the Church says sanctifying grace is not necessary for salvation and further conclude that the Church is not necessary for salvation and lastly conclude that the Church has been in error in the past for making such claims. Your Excellency, you must know the Church's infallible pronouncements regarding the necessity of the Catholic Church for Salvation (specifically, Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam in 1302 and; Pope Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino in 1441). I do not know if Mr. Noonan is familiar with these pronouncements. I do know this–that when my father and myself have tried to mention these infallible Catholic teachings on the radio program, we are treated as outcasts and not "up-to-date" with the present day Church. Our position is simply this: we may not be "up-to-date" with today's "Churchmen" but we profess with all our being that we are Catholic, upholding the traditional teachings of the Church as best we know how and are not required to embrace any novelty, though it be popular with today's "Churchmen." We are, however, (just as Mr. Noonan and yourself) required to embrace the Catholic Faith whole and entire as handed down from Christ and the apostles and passed down through the ages by the Church's infallible magisterium if we are to remain in the True Church and to save our souls.
Statement No. 2 On October 25, 2002 you quite rightly stated when we first began our conversation that the fullness of Truth can only be found in the Catholic Church and that all other religions may have some elements of Truth. When I informed you that George Noonan (on the radio program) was silent as to whether or not he believed in the principle in logic of non-contradiction, you stated that the law of non-contradiction–where two (2) contradictory statements could not both be true–was in fact, false. You gave the example: Culture "A" wears white as a sign for mourning and; Culture "B" wears black as a sign for mourning. This, of course, is not a contradiction because the statements are not opposed to each other. The contradiction would be: Culture "A" wears white as a sign for mourning and; Culture "A" does not wear white as a sign for mourning. When you asked me to give an example of the principle of non-contradiction as pertains to faith, I gave the example: The Blessed Mother was Assumed into heaven, and The Blessed Mother was not Assumed into heaven. You then stated that both statements could be true objectively. You gave an example that a Catholic believes in the Assumption and such a belief is objectively true to him and; A non-Catholic does not believe in the Assumption and such a belief is objectively true to him. Your Excellency, you know as well as I do that you are employing a diversionary tactic from the stated principle of non-contradiction: that two (2) contradictory statements cannot be both true. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will here explain why the statements in your example are not contradictory at all and that your attempt to equate my example with your example is unfounded. You indicated in our meeting that you believe in an objective truth, which, as Webster defines as: "of or pertaining to a material object as distinguished from a mental concept; having actual existence or reality." I would say most people have this definition in mind when they say that something is objectively true. Now my example refers to the objective reality of the Assumption (that is why the statements were worded the way they were) and your example refers to the objective reality of two (2) contrary subjective beliefs: the objective reality of the subjective belief in the Assumption by a Catholic and the objective reality of the subjective non-belief in the Assumption by the non-Catholic–not in whether or not the objective reality of the Assumption ever occurred. This is proven by the way you worded your example–when you bring in two (2) opposing subjective beliefs. It is the subjective beliefs that are contrary to each other, not the objective truth of the Assumption. In other words, the principle of non-contradiction does not say that two (2) contradictory opinions cannot both be objectively true opinions; it states that two (2) contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and under the same circumstances. Your statement is not a fair re-statement of mine at all and does not disprove the law of non-contradiction. You can see why this issue (principle of non-contradiction) is important especially as regards discussions involving religion because error must be exposed and the Truth explained if the fullness of Truth is to be presented to non-Catholics. Delving into differences and explaining the truth is what true charity is all about. How can any true ecumenical discussions (i.e. discussions searching for objective Truth) take place when differences are never discussed or subjective beliefs never challenged and compared to objective truth? Isn't Truth the foundation for true unity? How can Catholics (whose doctrine vehemently opposes abortion) ever be united to the non-Catholics (whose doctrine accepts abortion)? It can never be–any more than God who is all good can ever be united to Satan who has turned his back on the good God.
Statement No. 3 During our conversation, we also got off on a tangent as regards the lack of respect shown by Rabbi Michael Zedik concerning the Blessed Mother and how George Noonan, as the Catholic co-host, did not defend Our Lady's dignity as being a perpetual virgin. You indicated that it has yet to be proven that Our Lady did not have any children other than Our Lord, implying that the Church's infallible teaching on the perpetual virginity of Our Lady was open for discussion (refer to Canon 3 from the First Lateran Council, No. 649, that solemnly condemns those who deny this doctrine. It should also be pointed out that I looked at my Missal after our meeting and counted 6 explicit references in the Old Mass of the Blessed Mother referred to as "ever virgin"–this is not to mention the numerous other references to Our Lady as "the Virgin Mother" in the Liturgical Prayers & devotions and the Litany of the Blessed Mother referring to her as "Virgin of Virgins." Your Excellency, who would dare to express Mary in the most august title of "Virgin of Virgins" and at the same time question the fact of her perpetual virginity? Would the Church have the fullness of Truth if Mary lost her virginity after the birth of Our Lord by having other children and in the centuries that followed falsely proclaim in Its Tradition, Liturgy and Infallible pronouncements Her perpetual virginity?
Statement No. 4 This quickly led into our last discussion in which you stated that the Church's doctrine can change and has changed. My father and I wholeheartedly disagreed with you on this point and asked you for an example of how the Church's doctrine has changed in the past. You referred to the Roman Rite's disciplinary practice of celibacy for priests as being an example, as it has changed over the centuries. We stated that this example was not a matter of doctrine which is formal teaching on faith or morals (such as the Assumption and Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady), but purely of discipline. Your Excellency, we should not have to tell you that a doctrine is fixed and unchangeable–not open for debate. We sincerely hope you were referring to Church discipline that can change and not the Church's doctrine. But you left us wondering. Earlier in this letter I mentioned that you correctly stated the position that the Church possesses the fullness of Truth. If this is the case, then how in the same conversation can you state that the Church may possess error because her doctrine may not be true and therefore need to be changed? I was taught as I'm confident you were taught that the Church is infallible in her magisterial (ordinary and extra-ordinary) pronouncements and consequently is protected from error. Therefore, any doctrine which has been handed down and every dogma which has been proclaimed cannot be changed (further explained and developed, yes, but in its essence, never changed). Doctrine is untouchable in terms of change in its fundamental meaning. Church discipline, although sometimes supportive of doctrine, can be prudently altered or significantly changed. For instance, the practice of receiving communion in the hand by the faithful is a change in liturgical discipline which is good if it supports and nurtures the faith in the True Presence but it is bad if it weakens the faith. It does not explicitly deny the faith but if the practice weakens the faith, it would be imprudent and dangerous to permit. The change in discipline to allow first Holy Communion for 7 year olds was prudently implemented by Pope St. Pius X in an effort to increase grace among the Mystical Body of Christ and to fight against Jansenism. Neither change of discipline in these two (2) examples involve changing Traditional Church Doctrine but both touch on the support of Church Doctrine. Your Excellency, it sincerely grieves us that the Church is not fairly represented on the radio program. It further grieves us that callers, such as my father and myself who wish to defend the One True Church are singled out and severely limited (if not prohibited altogether) from standing up for the True Church. To rectify this, we once again, ask your intervention to remove George Noonan from his participation on the radio program and replace him with someone who will share the fullness of truth with those who are otherwise scandalized by the indifference currently being demonstrated. Most of all, Your Excellency, we are most saddened by statements you have made in our presence which are noted above. Speaking for myself, as a lay person, I will be the first to admit my numerous deficiencies as regards knowledge of the Catholic Faith as I should. This is why I frequently refer to Traditional Church teaching found in the catechisms, encyclicals, and councils of the Catholic Church to state and explain Catholic doctrine and dogmas. Any points my father and I have discussed with Mr. Noonan or yourself are not our teachings or our opinions, they are the Church's Traditional Teachings–the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and we fully embrace these teachings and, with the help of God's grace, will die embracing these truths. It is unthinkable that a successor of the apostles would make such statements that you have made, who should have a much better grasp of traditional Church teaching than we do. How is it possible that your beliefs seem to be at variance with traditional Church teachings? Before our visit, I was actually hoping to send a letter commending you for your orthodoxy and winning your sympathy (as regards our mistreatment on the radio program). However, based on your own statements, I cannot forward such a letter. Your Excellency, please know that we are not judging your heart, but if words have meaning and are a reflection of your heart, we pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ will move your heart to be aligned with His Most Sacred Heart and His Mystical Bride, the Holy Catholic Church, for which it was pierced. Please accept this letter purely in the spirit of duty and Catholic charity which I felt compelled to draft in the aftermath of our recent visit. Be advised that my father and myself (separately or together) would avail ourselves at any time mutually agreeable in the future to discuss these matters in more detail if clarification is needed and to address other matters which we were not able to discuss in our recent meeting. I am also taking the liberty to extend an invitation for you to meet with Fr. John Fullerton, the new District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X. I think you would certainly be impressed by the remarkable work the Society of St. Plus X is rendering to the Church by restoring Catholic Tradition here in Kansas City and throughout the United States. I will communicate to Fr. Fullerton that I have extended this request. May God bless you in your work as Bishop of our diocese so that the Traditional Catholic Faith is nourished and spreads such that your crown in heaven is ornamented by the many souls entrusted to your spiritual care. I may be reached by contacting my office (------------) or my home phone number listed above. Sincerely yours in the Mystical Body of Christ,
|
|
THIRD LETTER TO BISHOP BOLAND |
 |
|
MR. & MRS. STEPHEN P. DAILEY
VIA Certified Mail March 7, 2003 Most Reverend Raymond J. Boland Your Excellency, It has been nearly three (3) months since I mailed the attached letter to you. Since I have not received any correspondence from you, I can't be certain that you ever received it. This is why am re-sending the letter to you–this time via certified mail. If you so desire, I may be reached by contacting my office (------------) or my home phone number listed above. Sincerely yours in the Mystical Body of Christ,
Stephen P. Dailey
|
FOURTH LETTER TO BISHOP BOLAND
|
MR. & MRS. STEPHEN P. DAILEY
June 16, 2003 Most Reverend Raymond J. Boland
Your Excellency, It has been nearly three (3) months since you called me at my office (you will recall, this was after you had just received my 2nd certified letter in March, 2003) and told me that you would respond to my December 13, 2002 letter. During that phone conversation, you told me you were a busy man and had many things occupying your schedule but, at the same time, you told me you would respond to my letter. I told you that I appreciated the fact that you are a busy man and further told you that I would wait patiently for a couple of months more to hear from you. After patiently waiting over three (3) months now and after having placed three (3) unreturned phone calls to you over the last two (2) weeks, I can only conclude that you have no intention of responding. After you were kind enough to grant my father and myself a brief audience on October 25, 2002,1 was at least hopeful that you were a sincere man and a man of your word. But, after being neglected and not even given the courtesy of a returned phone call or at least having your secretary pass along any type of message, I came to the sad conclusion that I really should not be surprised. After all, this is the same type of treatment that my father and myself (and others who have tried to defend the True Faith) have received from your representatives over the last several years when we have attempted to defend the Catholic Faith that is so misrepresented on the "Religion on the Line" Sunday radio program. We have been verbally put down and even cut off (and myself, now, excluded altogether) any time we have called in to the program and tried to uphold the Traditional Teachings of the Church when, for example: 1. Father Tom Savage (Former President of Rockhurst College) would not condemn the homosexual lifestyle as objectively sinful. 2. Father Tom Savage left open the idea of women priests in the Catholic Church. 3. Father Pat Rush (Vicar General) left open the idea that the "Church" encompasses Protestant sects and that their ministers may validly have the transference of Orders. 4. Father Pat Rush denied the existence of Hell on one show (he later recanted on the following week's show when I accused him of his heresy). 5. George Noonan (Chancellor) denies the infallibly defined dogma of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. 6. George Noonan refuses to defend the dignity of Our Lady when it is being attacked by the other co-hosts. 7. We point out that heretics, fallen away Catholics and Jews are allowed to be guests or co-hosts and are given unlimited time to scandalize Catholics and misrepresent the Faith to non-Catholics. My father and myself have never been disrespectful to the radio co-hosts or to you (in contrast to the unquestionable disrespect shown to us). We have only tried to uphold and defend the Truth based on sound Church Teaching. The words we use are not ours but the infallibly defined words of past popes & councils. We ask any objective person, how is it that a former Jesuit University President, Diocesan Vicar General, Diocesan Chancellor and Diocesan Bishop all refuse to defend Traditional Church Teaching, embrace those who deny Church Teaching and then mistreat those who try to defend it. The objective person would conclude simply that the Diocese despises Traditional Church Teaching which conflicts with its own modernist "Church" Teaching and such conversation should be avoided at all cost, even at the risk of being uncharitable to Faithful Catholics. Whether or not you choose to admit it, your conscience cannot deny the objective truth that you are serving the modernist agenda and that you are not serving the Church–the Church of all time–the Church of your ordination! The Catholic Faith is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow! If you take the time to compare aspects of today's Teaching that are not consistent with past Church Teaching, then the current Teaching must be in error, otherwise the "Oneness" of the Church (one of the 4 marks by which the Church is recognizable) is absent. It is not only absent but it is indefensible as your representatives and yourself, by your actions, are admitting. Your Excellency, I will continue to pray for your conversion to Tradition. In the meantime, I believe it is my Catholic duty to make my December 13, 2002 letter public so that other souls are made aware of the indifferentism to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church manifested by the hierarchy of this diocese with its ongoing betrayal of the True Catholic Faith. God knows that the Mystical Body of Christ has suffered much and continues to suffer by its leaders when they betray its Teachings and are involved in scandalous behavior. One can only ask would not the Church rid itself of these outrageous scandals if its leaders would return to its Traditional Teachings starting with the restoration of its liturgy–to the Mass of all time, which is the best expression of our Faith? I think you know the answer. Sincerely yours in the Mystical Body of Christ,
Stephen P. Dailey As of publication, no response has been received. |
Current Issue
