|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 17, Number 3
 March 2006 
|
|
|
Arriving Late at Mass
Q: One morning last week I arrived at Mass during the Consecration and I wasn’t sure whether I could go to Communion. What is the rule on this during a weekday Mass?
A: You could have gone to Communion. The Church does not require participation in the Mass for reception of the Eucharist, so if you show up late it is perfectly fine to go to Communion. The only exception is for those who have already received the Eucharist that day—canon law does require participation in the Mass for a second reception.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Can a penitent give the priest permission to discuss what was said in the confessional? Specifically, could I allow him to use a situation I confessed as an example in a homily or in everyday conversation if he does not reveal my name? Also, does the seal of confession hold even after the death of the penitent?
A: No, one may not give the priest permission to break the seal. But you can discuss the matter with him outside of confession, and then he could talk about that conversation.
The seal holds even after the death of the penitent.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: If a Christian denies his faith while being tortured, has he committed apostasy?
A: Objectively speaking, anyone who totally repudiates the Christian faith has committed apostasy (CCC 2089), which is a grave matter. In this situation, though, the torture could mitigate his ability to choose purposefully. For grave matter to be a mortal sin, it must also include "full knowledge and deliberate consent" to the action (CCC 1857). So, while the person would not have demonstrated the heroic virtue of a Christian martyr, it is possible that he would not be culpable for apostasy.
It is also possible for a person who is facing martyrdom to first deny his faith but later repent and go to his martyrdom, as was the case of St. Joan of Arc, who first tried to save herself from the flames but then repented. Perhaps she might be considered the patron saint of reluctant martyrs.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: I have friends who equate denying homosexuals the right to marry with denying freedom to blacks and not allowing women to vote. What should I say?
A: The situations are quite different, and it is natural law that reveals the difference to us. Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person. It tells us which acts are good and rational and which are evil and irrational. Natural law tells us that not every kind of behavior is a right. The act of murder is not a right, nor is incest. These go against human nature. We inherently know that these are wrong.
If, for example, many people began telling us that incest is a right and that to deny such a right is similar to discrimination because of race or sex, our first reaction would be moral outrage. For a parent and child to have sexual relations with one another violates the very nature of who they are in relation to one another. Something is out of sync.
But eventually we might be swayed by such argumentation because of the sheer volume and intensity of the propaganda, not because of the rationality of the argument. This is what has happened with the so-called right to homosexual "marriage."
For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync.
The problem is that in our culture we tend to put feelings before right reason. Reason would tell us that in such a situation, one ought to put feelings second. For rational creatures to make reason subject to feelings is to court disaster.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: In a discussion with a non-Catholic, I pointed out that his beliefs were incorrect or unfounded according to Catholic Church teaching. He accused me of being judgmental. But failure or refusal to accept the truth could have eternal consequences. What constitutes being judgmental?
A: First, pointing out the truth is not judgmental. Here are a few more examples of what does not constitute being judgmental: - It is not judgmental to make a moral appraisal of whether a person’s actions are sinful or whether the person is likely culpable for them.
- It is not judgmental to have a negative emotional reaction to what is objectively evil.
- It is not judgmental to bear in mind that a person you have forgiven has committed harmful actions in the past and may commit them again in the future.
One way to avoid being judgmental is to avoid making rash judgments.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved" (CCC 2478, cf. St. Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises 22). —Peggy Frye
Q: Why was Zechariah punished for his lack of belief in the archangel Gabriel’s message (Luke 1:18–20), but Mary was not punished for hers (Luke 1:26–38)?
A: Zechariah’s objection was that "I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." But as a religiously educated Jew and a priest of the temple, he knew that Abraham and Sarah, the founding patriarch and matriarch of the Jewish people, had been granted a son late in life. By asking for another sign, he demonstrated a lack of faith that God could and would provide.
Mary’s question was entirely different. It implies that she was not expecting to have marital relations with Joseph, because otherwise she would have assumed that the pregnancy would take place within her upcoming marriage, and so she needs information about how it is possible for a woman to have a baby without having had relations with a man. After Gabriel explains that the Holy Spirit would accomplish the task, she accepts without further question.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity . . . that can mark the victim for life" (CCC 2356). And I have found at least nine women who were canonized because they chose death over rape. They are considered patronesses of purity. They are also considered patronesses of rape victims, which I find strange given they were not victims of rape. I can conclude only that our Church teaches that rape victims have lost their purity, that their respect and moral integrity are no longer the same because of the rape, and that death is preferable to rape.
A: The Catechism defines rape as "the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person." It does state that rape can wound the "moral integrity" of the victim. But integrity here means wholeness. Rape wounds a person’s wholeness. That does not mean that it makes the victim sinful; rather, it means that it can shatter the victim’s innocence. The Catechism then goes on to mention how evil such an act is. It then refers to the horror such a violation is to children. It does not suggest that such children—or any victims—are responsible in any way for what has happened to them or that they are morally corrupted by having been abused.
Some saints who have fended off attempted rapists, such as Maria Goretti, have been honored for their purity. This in no way implies that others who were unable to fend off their attackers were sinful. In either case, it is the perpetrator, not the victim, who has sinned. Morality lies in the act of the will.
The violation that rape victims experience often causes them to question themselves and even to feel guilty for this evil act that they did not initiate. Many, because of the violation, lose their sense of freedom because they live in fear that such an evil may befall them again.
Anyone who treats victims of rape with anything other than profound compassion and understanding is acting against the teachings of the Church and needs to be corrected.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: My Catholic friend is engaged to a divorced man, and they are awaiting his annulment. They were told that it was okay to get married by a justice of the peace and then, when his annulment comes through, have their marriage blessed in the Church. Is this really okay?
A: No, this is definitely not okay. A Catholic cannot validly marry outside the Church without permission (cf. Code of Canon Law 1108), so a civil ceremony and subsequent Church blessing is not a moral option. The Church presumes the first marriage to be valid unless and until proven otherwise through the annulment process, so your friend should not even be dating him.
Consider this scenario: The couple marries civilly and then the Church’s marriage tribunal finds his first marriage to be valid—he doesn’t get the annulment. Your friend will be civilly married to a man whom the Church recognizes is already married to someone else. She’ll actually be living and sleeping with another woman’s husband. She won’t be able to have her marriage blessed in the Church. And, as long as she continues to live as though she’s married to this man, she’ll be barred from receiving the Eucharist and won’t be able to receive absolution through the sacrament of penance. What a mess!
Your friend needs to take a step back and wait for the results of the annulment process. Only then will she know whether this relationship is something she can morally pursue.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Why isn’t Noah a saint?
A: Formal canonization is a process that developed hundreds of years after the founding of the Church. Before that, righteous people were "recognized" or "acclaimed" by the Christian communities to be saints. That is why Old and New Testament saints (including the Blessed Virgin Mary) were never formally canonized. Noah is one of the righteous people of the Old Testament who are generally considered to be in heaven. Indeed, in the "hall of fame" chapter of Hebrews, which records the righteous deeds of Old Testament saints, Noah is included in the roster: By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith (Heb. 11:7). —Michelle Arnold
Q: My wife’s Baptist parents believe that we worship a "dead" Christ and that we "re-sacrifice" him every day. She wonders why we say, "We proclaim your death until you come again in glory." If Christ is risen, why are we proclaiming his death?
A: It may help your wife to know that this statement from the Mass is a rephrasing of what Paul says about the Eucharist: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26).
We proclaim his death because it was by his death that we are redeemed. We had better jolly-well proclaim it—and from the rooftops until he comes in his glory!
Christ is not dead; he is risen (1 Cor. 15:12–20)! Jesus is presently alive in heaven along with all who have died in him. The sacrifice we offer at Mass is not a new sacrifice. It is the same sacrifice of Calvary that transcends all time, liberating those who lived before it and those who came after it.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa
Q: How could Satan re-enter heaven to talk to God about Job in Job 1:6–12?
A: Since we know that nothing unclean enters heaven (Rev. 21:27), and since we also know that Satan cannot re-enter heaven (CCC 391–393), those are clues that this passage should not be read as literal history. The passage is more likely to be a story created by the sacred author based upon the theological truth that God allows the devil to tempt human beings. The sacred author could have said, "God allowed Satan to tempt Job to the limits of his endurance," but the passage becomes more interesting and compelling when cast as a debate between God and Satan over the fate of God’s faithful servant, Job.
The Bible is a collection of books that use a variety of literary forms to convey theological truth. The Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation states: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts that are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture (Dei Verbum 12). —Michelle Arnold
Q: Why in the Novus Ordo Mass were the words of the mystery of faith taken out of their original context within the Consecration? Doesn’t this omission weaken or deny belief in transubstantiation?
A: Pope Paul VI approved the removal of the words of the mystery of faith from the consecratory formula of the wine not to diminish belief in transubstantiation but to "express more clearly" the actual words spoken by Jesus Christ during the Consecration: The words ‘mystery of faith’ . . . are not those of our Lord at the institution of the Eucharist. . . . None of the scriptural accounts of the institution records these words; they are not to be found in other formulas of Consecration recognized as valid by the Church; and hence they are not required for a valid Consecration. It is because these words are not among those spoken by our Lord that they have been rearranged in the revised Roman Missal containing the New Order of the Mass. ‘The words "Mystery of Faith" . . . taken out of the context of the words of our Lord and pronounced by the priest,’ Pope Paul VI explained in his 1969 Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, ‘serve as it were as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful (James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, 113–114). The Second Vatican Council had this to say about legitimate changes to the liturgy:The liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it. In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things that they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community (Sacrosanctum Concilium 21).—Peggy Frye
Q: My friend accepts that there may be a God, but she sees him as a being who creates us but doesn’t pay any more attention to us. She thinks that he is so far away from us and infinitely great that we shouldn’t spend time trying to talk to him. What do you say to someone like this?
A: Your friend suffers from the illusion of deism. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: Deism not only distinguishes the world and God as effect and cause; it emphasizes the transcendence of the deity at the sacrifice of his indwelling and his Providence. He is apart from the creation that he brought into being and unconcerned as to the details of its working. Having made nature, he allows it to run its own course without interference on his part. In this point the doctrine of deism differs clearly from that of theism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes deism this way:Some admit that the world was made by God but as by a watchmaker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (CCC 285). To deists, prayer is futile because they think God is not involved with the world he created. But since your friend concedes that God may exist, you have a common belief from which to start. Explain that Christians believe God revealed himself to mankind so we can know him and interact with him. Eventually, he came to live with us for a time as the man Jesus who taught us how to pray. A couple of resources that may be helpful in getting started are Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, S.J., and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Is it correct to say that the traditions and beliefs we as Catholics hold are not manmade but originated from Jesus, who gave the "guidelines" of the Church to the apostles?
A: Catholics believe that those doctrinal and moral teachings taught by the Church since the beginning of Christian history were given by Jesus to the apostles and handed on by them to their successors through the centuries (2 Tim. 2:1–2). These teachings are known as Sacred Tradition.
Other Catholic traditions, more aptly called disciplines (e.g., priestly celibacy) and customs (e.g., Advent wreaths), are "manmade" in the sense that they were developed over the centuries by Christians who created them as means to better live out their Christian faith.
—Michelle Arnold
Q: My first wife and I were married by the justice of the peace. I was baptized in a Baptist church, but she was not baptized at all. Do I have to go through an annulment process?
A: Since neither you nor your wife was Catholic when you got married, there were no special permissions or dispensations required of either of you. The Church, therefore, presumes your marriage to be valid. If you wish to attempt marriage again, you will first need to have your marriage investigated for nullity (i.e., get an annulment) to be certain that it was invalid. If it was, then you should be free to attempt marriage again.
—Jim Blackburn
Q: Why is rose used during Advent in the Advent wreath and vestments?
A: Advent is a time of penance, and so the ordinary liturgical color for Advent is violet. On the third Sunday of Advent, which is also called Gaudete (Latin: "Rejoice") Sunday, we recognize the joyful anticipation of the season that will culminate in the birth of Christ on Christmas by changing the liturgical color to rose. Rose is a "brightening" of the ordinary violet and thus symbolizes joy.
—Michelle Arnold
|
