|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 10
 December 2003 
|
|
|
Is the Term ‘Hail Mary Pass’ Sacrilegious?
Q: In our diocese there is a sports bar that the owners want to name "Hail Mary’s Last Chance Sports and Spirits." The name has drawn protests from Catholics who say it is sacrilegious. The owners say the name refers to the so-called "Hail Mary pass" in football and is not a religious reference at all. Is this an act of sacrilege or is the whole issue being blown out of proportion?
A: First, let’s define sacrilege. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it this way: "Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God" (CCC 2120).
We can definitely agree that the Catholic clergy and laity should defend our Blessed Mother from sacrilege whenever the occasion arises. But does naming a sports bar after a Marian prayer qualify? Well, let’s take a look at the origin of the football allusion "Hail Mary pass."
Most observers agree that the term was coined in 1975—either by Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach or by a commentator—referring to Staubach’s desperation, game-winning touchdown pass in the 1975 NFC championship game. In any case, such desperate lobs in football have been called Hail Mary passes for a generation. While one might wish that another term had been coined, it is recognized football jargon.
Because it is not the invention of those building the sports bar, there doesn’t seem to be sacrilege on their part. Sacrilege must be an intentional attempt to profane the Blessed Mother. Adopting a recognized sports allusion as a name for one’s sports establishment doesn’t qualify.
It would be meritorious for the owners to choose another name, especially because the chosen name has caused a lot of concern for the Catholic community, but it is not incumbent upon them to do so.
Q: Why did Bill Clinton, his wife, and his staff receive Holy Communion in Africa in 1998? I have been asked this question, and I have wondered myself why the priest did this and the lack of response from Rome. Why hasn’t the Vatican spoken out against it?
A: Clinton and his wife were not supposed to receive Communion. The priest who gave it to them was wrong. The Vatican did publicly reprimand the action.
Q: Someone recently asked me if it is possible to receive Holy Communion on someone else’s behalf. I have been a practicing Catholic all of my life and have never heard of this. Is it possible?
A: While it is not possible for someone to receive Holy Communion by proxy, as it were, there is a pious practice among Catholics of giving and receiving "spiritual bouquets." Such a "bouquet" consists of some kind of card or account listing a number of prayers or devotional acts that one or more people have promised to undertake with the intention of spiritually benefiting the recipient or advocating his intentions. Such cards list the forms of prayer, such as the number of rosaries, the number of Masses attended, and the number of Holy Communions offered.
Certainly one can will or intend the merits of one’s devotional acts for the benefit of others, by the same spiritual principles that underlie indulgences and even intercessory prayer itself. However, what benefits if any actually accrue to the recipient or how the merits of our acts are actually dispensed is a matter we must leave to the wisdom of God.
Q: Why do the Pope and the Church not like capitalism?
A: As compared to what? Certainly the Pope prefers capitalism to, say, Communism, at least in the Marxist sense. In any case, the Church does not endorse any particular economic system, nor does it condemn capitalism per se, which is a useful economic model with many strengths.
Like all economic systems, capitalism can be misused by fallible human beings. For example, in the nineteenth-century United States, we saw the rise of laissez-faire (French, "hands off") capitalism, and many abuses, such as child labor and inhumane working conditions for laborers, resulted from the unchecked pursuit of business opportunities over the dignity and welfare of human beings.
It was to address such abuses and to reaffirm the goodness of human work that the popes, notably Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum in 1891 and Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus in 1991, have spoken out on behalf of the dignity of the worker.
Q: I have been in a debate with a Protestant who insists that Jesus had a fallen human nature, though he did not sin or have original sin. Is this correct or incorrect? If incorrect, how may I refute it?
A: Your friend is confused. To say that Jesus had no original sin but that he had a fallen human nature is a contradiction in terms. To be fallen is synonymous with having been conceived with original sin, for original sin refers precisely to the fallen condition in which we are all conceived and from which our concupiscence and proneness to sin is derived.
Furthermore, because Jesus is God, it is impossible for him to have a fallen nature. God is infinite goodness; there can be no trace of sin in him whatsoever.
Perhaps in saying that Jesus had a "fallen" human nature, your friend means only that in becoming a man Jesus became subject to the effects of Adam’s fall: working by the sweat of his brow and enduring death. That is quite true, though it is incorrect to say that Jesus had a "fallen" nature.
Q: I’m the coach of my school’s debate club. As debaters, my students have to attack or defend a number of motions (e.g. voluntary voting, legalizing euthanasia, etc.) that they may or may not agree with. Is it moral to defend, in a debate competition, immoral positions such as legalizing abortion or adoption by gay couples?
A: So long as it is understood as an exercise in learning how to debate, and it is clear to the class that the debaters are merely defending assigned positions (i.e., you have assigned one student to defend abortion and another to oppose it in a debate format) and that it is not necessarily reflective of their personal beliefs, there’s nothing wrong with it.
There are, however, potential dangers. For example, if the debaters are too unevenly matched, the skewed results could create harmful impressions in the minds of listeners. Furthermore, depending on how the debates are staged and interpreted, it could be possible for such a debating environment to contribute to an aura of moral relativism in which it is felt that neither side is truly right or wrong.
On the other hand, there are also potential benefits in learning how a position one disagrees with might be defended. This may enable students to become better, more informed debaters for their own views in the future as they gain a better understanding of how the issues appear to those who actually hold that view.
In debate competition, if competitors have no choice about the positions they must defend, it would be wise to inform the audience and judges that these are assigned positions and do not reflect the personal beliefs of the participants.
Q: What are the levels of the Catholic priesthood, and how does one move up to bishop or cardinal?
A: There are three degrees of holy orders: deacon, priest, and bishop. A deacon or priest "moves up" to the next level by ordination, which is performed by a bishop. In the case of the ordination of bishops, a bishop may ordain another bishop only with the permission of the pope.
A cardinal, while usually a bishop or archbishop of a prominent diocese, can also be a priest. When given to a priest, the title is a mark of honor for the priest’s service to the Church. For example, this title has been given to the English convert Fr. John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century, and, recently, to Fr. Avery Dulles, S.J. Theoretically, the title can be given to a layman, but today that would be very unusual.
Q: I saw a quote from Pope Benedict XIV condemning women serving at the altar as an "evil practice" and citing Pope Gelasius and Pope Innocent IV in support of this (cf. Benedict’s encyclical Allatae Sunt). Should the modern Church really be allowing women to serve as altar servers and other liturgical roles when these past popes have condemned it?
A: There are two kinds of evil acts: those that are intrinsically evil, meaning they are evil always and everywhere, and those that are extrinsically evil, meaning that they are evil under particular circumstances, due to evil effects that would result under those circumstances, but would not be evil under other circumstances.
For women serving at the altar to be to be intrinsically evil, it would effectively have to be a matter of divine institution, a point of faith handed down from the apostles. However, there is no reason to think that the gender of altar servers—or even the existence of altar servers—has been passed down from the apostles as a matter of faith. Therefore, it falls under the Church’s legislative power, meaning that the pope can establish or reconfigure the rules on it according to what he thinks is best suited to the present.
Based on the citation in the encyclical you mention, it is quite possible to understand Pope Benedict to be describing the practice of women altar servers as "evil" in the extrinsic sense. At the time that Benedict wrote, the practice was regarded as evil either because of social considerations, or else simply because it was contrary to Church law, or a combination of the two. But none of the popes suggests that this is a matter of divinely instituted practice. In fact, Benedict says that he "forbids" the practice, apparently implying that it falls within the Church’s legislative power.
In the judgment of the present pontiff, this practice is not only not intrinsically evil, but in our day is no longer necessarily extrinsically evil either. Because he has lifted the Church’s ban on the practice, it is no longer extrinsically evil for juridical reasons, and in his judgment whatever social factors would have made it extrinsically evil in previous centuries no longer apply today.
Catholics are not bound in conscience to agree with the wisdom of the legislative changes a pope makes (though they are required to obey them), so one is free to think that perhaps it would be better if today we did not have female altar servers. That doesn’t affect the pope’s authority to extend permission for this practice.
Q: I understand that Christ has come and will come again only one time, not more than once in the way that the Left Behind series has taught. What about all the appearances Christ has made to the saints through history?
A: Apparitions of Christ to various saints throughout history are private revelations. They are meant to spiritually strengthen the individual or confirm the gospel message. At the end of time, Christ will come and manifest himself to the whole world. At that time there will be the resurrection of the dead and the general judgment.
Q: When Jesus comes again, what happens to purgatory and earth? Also, I thought that we will all die, but won’t someone be alive when Jesus comes again?
A: Purgatory will be emptied. (God can clean people up in an instant if he wants.) The earth will be renewed, either through annihilation and recreation or by being somehow transformed. And yes, there will be some still alive at the Second Coming. In 1 Corinthians 15:51–53, Paul tells us, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality."
Q: I know that Catholics aren’t allowed to join the Masons. What is the standing of the order of Odd Fellows vis-à-vis the Church?
A: Under canon 1374 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Catholics are forbidden to join societies that plot against the Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith applied this to Masons, indicating that Catholics who join Masonic organizations are engaged in serious sin and are to be banned from the Eucharist.
The Church has also judged that the Odd Fellows, the Knights of Pythias, the Orangemen, the Sons of Temperance, and the Communist Party are forbidden societies. Most Americans are familiar with the Masons and the Communist Party but less familiar with the others.
The Odd Fellows was formed in England in 1812 and was brought to America in 1819. Like the Masons, it is a quasi-religious society, which is one of the Church’s chief objections against it. The group has chaplains, altars, high priests, ritual worship, and funeral ceremonies. Also like the Masons, its members are indifferentists who teach the equality of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
The Knights of Pythias was founded in 1864 by a group of Masons and suffers from many of the same problems as the Masons and the Odd Fellows. This organization places emphasis on the pagans Pythagoras, Damon, Pythias, and Dionysius as teachers and models for moral life.
The Orangemen are militaristic Irish Protestants who are intensely anti-Catholic and are responsible for much of the anti-Catholic violence in Northern Ireland.
The Sons of Temperance was founded in New York in 1842 and is far more than just a temperance society (which the Catholic Church has nothing against; there were many Catholic temperance societies in nineteenth-century America). Like the Masons, the Sons is a quasi-religious society with it own religious rituals, but it admits both men and women to its lodges instead of having as parallel organization for women as do the Masons and most similar groups.
Q: Who or what is the "Black Pope"?
A: This term refers to the leader or Father General of the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuits. Traditionally this priest has worn a black cassock as opposed to the white one worn by the pope. The pejorative term was first used by critics of the Society of Jesus. They believed the order had become too powerful in Rome and that the pope had become reliant on the Jesuits for every decision.
Q: Can a non-Catholic be a godparent at a Catholic baptism? My uncle is the best example of a Christian that I know, and I would like to have him by godfather to my child, but he is a Protestant.
A: Canon 874 of the Code of Canon Law states that the office of sponsor—or godparent as it is traditionally known—must be filled by a Catholic who has been confirmed and has received the Eucharist. He must be at least sixteen years old and live a life of faith that befits the role of godparent.
Your uncle may serve as what is known as a "Christian witness" at the baptism in order to be involved in the ceremony, but he may not be the godfather.
|
