|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 8, Number 4
 April 1997 
|
|
|
DO-IT-YOURSELF RELIGIOUS ORDERS?
Q: A few years ago a friend of mine came into the Church. He now informs me that he has taken "private vows" and has founded a religious order with a few members. He has also announced as one of his "ministries" being an apologist on the Internet where, among other things, he called for the abolition of Halloween. As one might imagine, this provoked a lot of Catholic-bashing. I urged him to put a disclaimer on his materials to the effect that he is not an official spokesman for the Church, but so far he has refused, citing Catholic Answers as an example. I don’t know whether I should approach him on this again, but, if I do, I would appreciate some hard data before going ahead.
A: Let’s try to take your points in the order you presented them.
1. Congratulations on helping to bring someone into the Church. Having done so, though, you probably do have something more than an ordinary duty to correct a misguided soul, particularly if you accepted the role of sponsor at your friend’s baptism or confirmation (see canons 872 and 892).
2. Church law recognizes something called "private vows," but these are not private religious vows (see canons 1191–1198 on private vows, as distinguished from Canons 575 and 654 on religious vows). Almost certainly, the most your friend could have would be termed canonically private, simple vows (canon 1192), which, even though they might bind an individual in conscience to perform some specific good, confer on such individuals no ecclesiastical status, authority, power, or prerogatives.
3. The right of members of the faithful to come together in groups for certain ecclesiastical purposes is recognized in several canons, notably 215, 299, and 321. But only competent ecclesiastical authority, not individual persons, can establish "institutes of consecrated life," known popularly as religious orders (canons 576 and 589). By the way, the works in which religious engage as religious are generally referred to in canon law as "apostolates," not "ministries" (see canons 673–683). Your friend’s terminology here suggests confusion on the point.
4. While it is true that every member of the faithful is bound "to work . . . so that the divine message of salvation becomes known and accepted throughout the world" and that every lay person is bound "by a special duty to imbue and perfect the order of temporal affairs with the spirit of the Gospel" (canon 225), it is also true that "they are to avoid proposing their own opinion as the teaching of the Church in questions which are open to various opinions" (canon 227). Query, therefore, whether your friend crossed the line between personally calling for the abolition (whatever that means) of Halloween and claiming that the Church is calling for the abolition of Halloween. Catholic Answers, I might add, certainly accepts the value behind canon 227 and strives to live by it.
—Edward Peters
Q: Two of my friends are taking instructions to come into the Church. They are getting conflicting opinions as to whether they will need to "convalidate" their marriage after they become Catholic. Both of them are baptized Protestants, and both were previously married to other Protestants before getting divorces and marrying each other. They have applied for annulments of their earlier marriages. Assuming both annulment petitions are granted, will they still need to have their marriage to each other blessed in the Church?
A: I’m not surprised your friends are getting conflicting opinions on this question, because even many pastors, let alone other parish staffers, don’t understand Church law on this point. The confusion arises because the rules in these cases seem to differ for parties who are Catholic from those which apply to parties who are not.
In brief, if the facts are as you describe them, your friends will not need to have their marriage to each other convalidated by Church authorities upon becoming Catholic. As soon as both annulment petitions are formally granted (assuming this is done and assuming there were no other unusual factors present—your letter suggests none), your friends’ marriage to each other will automatically be recognized by the Church and will be presumed to be both valid and sacramental.
Here’s why: At the time your friends married each other, the only canonical obstacle to their wedding was ligamen, the fact of their prior marriage bonds (canon 1085). But if annulments are declared for both prior marriages, that means that, at the time of their marriage to each other, your friends were canonically free to contract marriage, and the manner in which they chose to marry would have been lawful for them at the time. Thus, their second marriage could be recognized without any further qualifications.
How would this question differ for Catholics, thus giving rise to the confusion? Well, if two Catholics, previously married to others and subsequently divorced, sought to marry in the Church, virtually any priest would have told them "No way, not without an annulment" (canon 1085 again). Unfortunately, such Catholics not infrequently then turn to civil magistrates for their wedding. That kind of wedding ceremony would be a violation of the requirement of canonical form which binds most Catholics (canons 1108 and 1117), meaning that, without an annulment followed by "convalidation" (canon 1160), such a second marriage would not be recognized in the Church.
—Edward Peters
Q: Why do the U.S. bishops allow Dignity, a gay organization, to propagate its teachings within numerous Catholic parishes? I thought that Catholic bishops were supposed to follow the directives of the Pope regarding teachings related to sexual morality?
A: I have no idea (nor does anyone else I know who is in a position to state the case with any authority) why many bishops permit such activities in their dioceses, activities in direct conflict with and contrary to Catholic teachings on morals, as expressed in directives from the Pope and the Sacred Congregations at the Vatican. Nor will I attempt to guess at the motives.
It might be instructive to write the specific bishops involved and ask them the reasons these things are permitted in their dioceses and under their aegis. Of course bishops are supposed to follow the directives of the Holy Father, but we all know this isn’t always the case in real life. Perhaps we need to do more deliberate praying and intentional sacrifice that our bishops once again find the courage and faith to lead their flocks and become faithful shepherds once again.
—Fr. Hal Stockert
[Editor’s note: Homosexual Catholics who wish to live in obedience to the Church’s moral teaching will find support in Courage, which has many local chapters. Write to Fr. John Harvey, O.S.F.S., St. Michael’s Rectory, 424 W. 34th Street, New York, New York 10001.]
Q: Seventh-Day Adventists insist that the Catholic Church has no scriptural warrant for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Is this true?
A: Not by a long shot. This question has been addressed by This Rock before, but perhaps I, as a convert to the Catholic Church from Seventh-Day Adventism, can offer a fresh perspective on the matter.
While it is true that there is no New Testament record of a voice from the heavens instructing the infant Church, "Thou shalt change the day of thy worship and rest from Saturday to Sunday," Adventists are mistaken in their belief that there is no New Testament evidence that supports such a change by the Catholic Church. Quite apart from the biblical proof of the apostolic Church’s authority to teach in God’s name (Matt. 16:18–19, 18:17–18, Luke 10:16) and of God’s guarantee that this teaching would never fall into error (Matt. 28:19–20, Luke 22:32, John 16:13), there is an impressive amount of evidence from Scripture that Christ and the apostles changed their day of corporate worship from Saturday to Sunday.
The Old Testament Sabbath commandment contains two elements. The primary element, and the one that binds Christians as it does Jews, is the moral obligation to set aside adequate time for the purpose of divine worship. This could never be abrogated, as it is rooted in the natural law.
The secondary element was ceremonial and therefore could be abolished—and was abolished by Jesus’ death on the cross (Col. 2:12–17). This secondary, ceremonial element was that the particular day chosen to meet the moral obligation of the law was Saturday, so that the Jews would remember and memorialize the creation of the earth.
Jesus, during his earthly ministry, began to prepare the way for changing Sabbath worship from "the letter of the law" to "the spirit of the law." Remember that one of his greatest arguments with the Pharisees concerned Sabbath worship. He constantly rebuked them for placing the rigid observance of mere details above the spirit of setting aside a day to rest from unnecessary servile work and to worship God. By this Jesus made it clear that the Sabbath may be changed to meet the needs of man. By effecting these changes as "the Son of Man," Jesus used his human authority to show us that he is "Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28).
As Frs. Rumble and Carty point out in Radio Replies, special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament. Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, and he first appeared to his disciples that Easter Sunday evening (John 20:19). One week later—and from the context we can see that this meant the following Sunday—Jesus appeared to them again when Thomas was present (John 20:26). Luke records that Sunday was observed by the Christian community from the very beginning: "On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread" (Acts 20:7). To "break bread" refers to the celebration of the Eucharist (Matt. 26:26, Mark 14:22). Paul ordered the Corinthians to gather their offertory collections on Sunday (1 Cor. 16:2); that set the scriptural precedent we follow today of gathering our offerings on Sunday during Mass. John records in Rev. 1:10 that he was granted a vision of heaven’s own worship while he was at worship ("caught up in spirit") on "the Lord’s day." John’s disciple Ignatius of Antioch tells us in his Letter to the Magnesians that "the Lord’s day" is not the ancient Sabbath; therefore, "the Lord’s day" must refer to Sunday. (See This Rock, September 1994, "The Fathers Know Best.")
Put this question to your Seventh-Day Adventist friends: Jesus, being God, knew whether or not his Church would apostatize by changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. If Adventists are correct that Christians are still obliged to keep Saturday as their day of corporate worship, isn’t it strange that Jesus underscored exactly the opposite by appearing to his disciples after his Resurrection nearly exclusively on Sunday?
—Michelle L. Arnold
Q: I can understand the Church’s condemnation of fortune-telling and astrology, but isn’t the I Ching all right? I mean, it’s a Taoist holy book.
A: While study of Taoism or other religions can be worthwhile, one must draw the line at practicing them, especially when such practice directly violates Church teaching. And divination, such as using the I Ching as an oracle, is always forbidden.
Section 2116 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead, or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums ["channelers"] all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone."
If you examine your motives for consulting the I Ching, you will notice that you employ it during times of anxiety or uncertainty. It is at just those times that we need to call upon the Lord, as the Catechism says, "putting ourselves confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it" (2115).
—Terrye Newkirk
Q: What’s your take on the matter—are things getting better or worse in seminaries?
A: I don’t have first-hand knowledge of enough seminaries to make a blanket statement, but the anecdotal evidence I have or that I have heard about leads me to think that the silly season is over. In April, for example, I spoke at a major seminary on the West Coast. I was impressed by the caliber of the students and by their attentiveness. My lecture included pointed opinions regarding things such as the dating of the books of the New Testament (I think they all were written prior to A.D. 70), Markan priority (unlikely to be true), and the existence of Q (purely legendary). The seminarians—and even some of the faculty—seemed to welcome the alternative viewpoint. Such a response, when coupled with the reverently celebrated (and well sung!) seminary Mass, confirms my sense that things are looking up.
—Karl Keating
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
